[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 172 (Wednesday, September 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 54511-54517]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21336]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 101
[WT Docket No. 10-153; 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: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks more detailed comments
on specific proposals made by parties to allow use of smaller antennas
and wider channels in other part 101 microwave bands. We also seek
comment on a proposal to revise our rules to change our treatment of
smaller antennas in the 10.7-11.7 GHz band (11 GHz band). We also seek
comment on additional ways to increase the flexibility, capacity, and
cost-effectiveness of the microwave bands, while protecting incumbent
licensees in these bands. In the Second Notice of Inquiry, we seek
comment on making additional changes to our antenna standards to
reflect advances in technology, accommodate non-parabolic antennas, and
harmonize our standards with international standards. By enabling more
flexible and cost-effective microwave services, the Commission can help
foster deployment of broadband infrastructure across America.
DATES: Submit comments on or before October 5, 2012. Submit reply
comments on or before October 22, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. You may submit comments, identified by FCC 12-87,
or by WT Docket No. 10-153, or by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: http://
[[Page 54512]]
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information contact John
Schauble, Deputy Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband
Division, at 202-418-0797 or by email to [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Second Notice of Inquiry, 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 may be purchased
from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing,
Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington,
DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via email at
[email protected]. The complete text 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].
Summary
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we
continue our efforts to improve and modernize our rules and increase
the flexibility of our part 101 rules to promote wireless backhaul. We
seek more detailed comment on specific proposals made by parties to
allow use of smaller antennas and wider channels in other part 101
microwave bands. We also seek comment on a proposal to revise our rules
to change our treatment of smaller antennas in the 10.7-11.7 GHz band
(11 GHz band).
Allow Smaller Antennas in the 13 GHz Band
2. Comsearch asks that the Commission modify its antenna standards
for the 13 GHz band to allow the use of 2 foot antennas under Category
B. Comsearch states that a 2.5 foot antenna can satisfy the Standard A
suppression requirements, but that 2 foot antennas do not meet the
Standard B suppression requirements because the suppression criteria
are too tight from 5 to 15 degrees. Comsearch states that 2 foot
antennas are commonly used in the 11 GHz band under Standard B, and it
anticipates that similar usage would be desirable in the 13 GHz band.
Comsearch believes using 2 foot antennas should not be a significant
interference concern because paths would be limited to rural areas
outside of BAS TV pickup service areas. Comsearch proposes specific
antenna standards.
3. We seek comment on modifying our antenna standards to allow use
of 2 foot antennas in the 13 GHz band under Category B as proposed by
Comsearch. Smaller antennas have a variety of benefits, including
savings in purchasing, installing, and renting space for such antennas.
We recognize that the proposed use of smaller, lower-gain antennas will
result in more radiofrequency energy being transmitted in the side
lobes off the main point-to-point link. We therefore wish to ensure
that any proposed changes to the Commission's rules appropriately
protect other users in the bands from interference due to the operation
of these smaller antennas. We seek comment on whether the use of
smaller antennas pursuant to the proposed modifications will adversely
affect other users in the specific bands by increasing the risk of
interference. If so, do the potential benefits of using smaller
antennas outweigh the potential risks of interference? We also seek
comment on the relative costs and benefits of allowing smaller antennas
in the 13 GHz band. Can the benefits be calculated in the same manner
as we calculated the benefits of smaller antennas in the 6, 18, and 23
GHz bands?
Revising Antenna Rules for 11 GHz Band
4. We seek comment on revising the circumstances under which
licensees in the 11 GHz band can reduce power in order to avoid having
to upgrade their antennas. We also propose to amend our rules to ensure
that applicants do not specify more power than they need.
5. In 2007, the Commission amended its antenna specifications for
the 11 GHz band to allow smaller antennas in that band. In response to
a question raised by Comsearch about interference protection, the
Commission stated:
Under the existing rules, a licensee using a Category B antenna
must install a Category A antenna meeting Category A standards if
necessary to resolve interference. In response to Comsearch's
question as to whether a licensee can resolve interference by
reducing power, we will allow licensees to resolve interference by
reducing EIRP. Specifically, a licensee using a smaller antenna may
demonstrate equivalent protection by reducing its EIRP from the
maximum by an amount equivalent to the difference between the
minimum suppression of a Category A antenna and the suppression of
the actual antenna being used, at the relevant angle to the
objecting party.
This concept was codified in Sec. 101.115(f) of the Commission's
rules.
6. Comsearch argues that allowing a licensee to reduce its EIRP
from the maximum allowed by the rule negates the intent of the rule and
does not provide proper interference protection. According to
Comsearch, most 11 GHz links operate with far less power than the
maximum authorized under the rules. Comsearch argues that if a link
using a Category B antenna is operating significantly below the maximum
power authorized under our rules, it will not have to modify the link
because its power is already below the power radiated using a Category
A antenna with maximum power. Comsearch asks that Sec. 101.115(f) of
the Commission's rules be modified to replace the phrase ``and
operating with the maximum EIRP allowed by the rules'' with ``and
operating with the authorized EIRP.''
7. The Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC) generally
supports Comsearch's request for relief. FWCC is concerned, however,
that Comsearch's proposed rule change would give applicants incentives
to apply for more power they need in case a later applicant raises an
interference concern. FWCC offers two proposals for addressing that
concern. FWCC's first proposal is to add language to Sec. 101.115(f)
limiting the circumstances under which a licensee could reduce EIRP
without changing to a Category A antenna. Alternatively, FWCC proposes
to amend Sec. 101.113 of the Commission's rules to clarify that a
licensee may not hold an authorization for substantially more power
than it actually needs.
8. We seek comment on amending Sec. Sec. 101.103 and 101.115(f) of
the Commission's rules to address the concerns raised by Comsearch and
FWCC. We note that theoretically, the existing rules could allow
licensees using lower EIRP to avoid having to
[[Page 54513]]
change antennas to correct interference problems. At the same time,
Sec. 101.115(f) has been in effect for several years, and we are
unaware of instances where this rule has led to interference disputes
or precluded the placement of links in an area. We ask proponents of
this change to provide examples of instances where the existing rules
have led to interference problems or precluded other users from using
11 GHz spectrum within a given area. We also ask commenters to provide
specific data on the costs and benefits associated with this proposed
rule change.
9. If rule changes are appropriate, we tentatively conclude that
the best method of resolving the issue would be to change the term
``maximum EIRP'' to ``authorized EIRP'' and making the changes to Sec.
101.113 proposed by FWCC. The term ``authorized EIRP'' is subjective
since applicants select the power at which they propose to operate.
Absent some additional limitations in the rule, we agree with FWCC that
merely inserting the term ``authorized EIRP'' into Sec. 101.115(f)
would give applicants incentive to propose excessive power. Of the two
alternatives offered by FWCC, it appears that the proposed changes to
Sec. 101.113 would maximize licensee flexibility to resolve
interference issues while clearly stating that applicants must request
the minimum power necessary. We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion, and any associated benefits or costs of this proposal.
Allowing Intermediate Antenna Upgrades
10. Currently, if a licensee must upgrade its antenna in order to
resolve an interference problem, it must upgrade to an antenna meeting
the higher Category A standards contained in our rules. We propose to
allow licensees to make lesser upgrades (i.e., to an antenna that does
not meet Category A standards) if the lesser upgrade would resolve the
interference.
11. In general, the Commission's rules require a Category B user to
upgrade to a Category A antenna if the antenna causes interference
problems that would be resolved by the use of a Category A antenna.
Wireless Strategies, Inc. (WSI) suggests that in the 6 GHz and 11 GHz
bands, applicants and licensees be allowed to operate any antenna,
including an antenna that does not meet the less demanding Category B
standard. WSI also proposes that if the applicant or licensee could
resolve an interference issue by upgrading to a lesser antenna that
does not meet Category A standards, the applicant or licensee would be
allowed to use that lesser antenna. WSI claims that its proposed change
``would allow designers and users of FS microwave to minimize the cost
and make it easier to comply with local zoning and homeowner
association rules and ensure that the use of antennas not meeting
Category A requirements does not increase the potential for harmful
interference.''
12. We see some merit in the idea of allowing intermediate upgrades
if a licensee can resolve an interference issue by upgrading from one
Category B antenna to another Category B antenna with better
performance characteristics, that still does not meet Category A
standard. There may be instances where an applicant or licensee could
resolve an interference issue or conflict by upgrading to an antenna
that does not meet Category A standards but would resolve the
interference problem. An intermediate upgrade may allow a licensee to
maintain operations from an existing site or reduce costs to the point
where operation remains economically feasible. Furthermore, while
licensees may be reluctant to upgrade antennas, the current rules
impose a duty to upgrade to a Category A antenna. The proposed change
would give licensees additional flexibility by giving them another
option to resolve interference issues. Under our proposal, a licensee
proposing to make an intermediate upgrade would assume the risk that
the intermediate upgrade would not resolve the interference issue and
would be required to make a further upgrade to a Category A antenna if
the intermediate upgrade failed to resolve the issue or if a Category A
antenna was needed to accommodate another link.
13. Accordingly, we seek comment on allowing licensees and
applicants to resolve an interference issue by upgrading from one
Category B antenna to another Category B antenna with better
performance characteristics, but that still does not meet Category A
standard. We ask proponents of this proposal to identify specific
instances where such intermediate upgrades could facilitate wireless
backhaul deployment. Opponents should identify specific harms that they
believe would result from allowing intermediate upgrades, keeping in
mind that an applicant or licensee who sought to make an intermediate
upgrade would be required to make a further upgrade to a Category A
antenna if necessary. While WSI makes its proposal with respect to the
6 and 11 GHz bands, we seek comment on allowing intermediate upgrades
in all part 101 bands. We also seek specific, quantitative information
on the benefits and costs of our proposal.
Notice of Inquiry--Additional Changes to Antenna Standards
14. Several parties argue that the Commission should institute a
comprehensive review of its part 101 antenna standards. Comsearch notes
that it has been many years since the antenna standards have undergone
a comprehensive review. Comsearch asks the Commission ``to revise the
standards to make them reflect the proper current balance of
manufacturing capabilities, spectral efficiency, and cost.'' It points
to standards recently adopted by the European Telecommunications
Standards Institute (ETSI), which require significantly greater
suppression of the far sidelobes and significantly greater front-to-
back ratio. Comsearch argues that manufacturers follow the ETSI
standards and that it would therefore be reasonable to tighten the
Commission's requirements to meet those standards. Comsearch also asks
the Commission to: (1) Change the rules to use breakpoints connected by
straight line segments rather than the ranges at a constant suppression
level that lead to a ``stairstep'' pattern; (2) introduce standards for
suppression of cross-polarized signals; and (3) tighten the Category A
and B antenna standards as much as possible consistent with the
anticipated size and cost of antennas. FWCC concurs with Comsearch's
ideas. Clearwire and FWCC also ask that the Commission adopt standards
for antenna configurations other than the traditional parabolic design.
Clearwire argues that manufacturers are developing next generation
antennas that will introduce a greater array of options for deploying
wireless backhaul in an efficient and cost effective manner. It asks
that the Commission's rules accommodate such non-parabolic antennas.
15. We believe it would be appropriate to seek input on whether a
comprehensive review of our antenna standards is appropriate and what
changes would be appropriate as part of that review. We ask commenters
to offer specific proposals and rule language so that the Commission
and parties can evaluate the proposals and offer meaningful comment. We
ask whether we can tighten our antenna standards while still allowing
the affordable deployment of wireless backhaul facilities. Are the ETSI
standards a useful benchmark for changing our standards? Are there
factors unique to the United States market that justify different
standards? Does the fact that many microwave bands are shared with
other services affect the appropriate standards? Would changing the
[[Page 54514]]
standards allow these bands to be used for new and innovative
standards? We seek comment on these and other related questions,
including any associated costs and benefits.
16. We also seek comment on Comsearch's more specific suggestions.
It appears that we would have to replace the existing table in Sec.
101.115 of the Commission's rules with some other means of indicating
the appropriate suppression levels. What would be the best means of
implementing such a change in our rules? What changes to our rules
would be necessary to take into account cross-polarized signals? What
would be the costs and benefits of any such rule changes?
17. We note that our rules do not mandate the use of parabolic
antennas. Instead, our rules specify certain technical parameters--
maximum beamwidth, minimum antenna gain, and minimum radiation
suppression--that limit the interference potential. We ask Clearwire,
FWCC and others to explain what rule changes would be necessary in
order to accommodate non-parabolic antennas. What effect would such
changes have on other licensees? Is it possible to establish rules that
would include all the possible types of microwave antennas? We seek
comment on these questions and related issues, including potential
costs and benefits of any rule changes.
18. Finally, we note that our definition of a congested area, for
the purpose of requiring antennas to meet Category A standards, is
based in part on a 1976 public notice that was last republished in
1983. We seek comment on how we should update or change our standards
for defining a congested area. Should we attempt to develop an updated
list of congested areas, rely exclusively on location-specific
interference analyses, or should we use some other paradigm for
determining what areas require the use of Category A antennas? What
would be the costs and benefits of other paradigms?
19. By issuing this Second Notice of Inquiry, we intend to start a
broad discussion of our microwave antenna standards. We invite
commenters to raise additional questions and ideas. We also encourage a
broad range of affected parties to comment, including current
licensees, equipment manufacturers, operators who are interested in
using microwave facilities, licensees who share spectrum with microwave
operators, frequency coordinators, and other interested parties.
Procedural Matters
Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose
20. The proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed
by rule Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte
rules.
Comment Period and Procedures
21. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and
reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of
this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
[ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
[ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file
an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are
8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber
bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
[ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington D.C. 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Availability of Documents: The public may view the documents filed
in this proceeding during regular business hours in the FCC Reference
Information Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street
SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554, and on the Commission's
Internet Home Page: http://www.fcc.gov. Copies of comments and reply
comments are also available through the Commission's duplicating
contractor: Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
B402, Washington, DC 20554, 1-800-378-3160.
Paperwork Reduction Analysis
22. This document does not contain proposed information
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain
[[Page 54515]]
any new or modified ``information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4).
23. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this present 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 this Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (2nd FNPRM). Written public comments are requested on this
IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be
filed by the deadlines specified in the 2nd FNPRM for comments. The
Commission will send a copy of this 2nd NPRM, including this IRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA).
Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
24. In this Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we
propose five additional changes to our rules involving microwave
stations. These changes are described in further detail below. First,
we propose to allow the use of smaller antennas in the 12700-13150 MHz
band (13 GHz band) fixed service (FS) band. Second, we seek comment on
amending our rules for the 11 GHz band to clarify the rules concerning
antenna upgrades. Finally, we propose to provide additional flexibility
to licensees who must upgrade their antennas to resolve interference
issues.
25. With respect to the first proposal, Sec. 101.115(b) of the
Commission's rules establishes directional antenna standards designed
to maximize the use of microwave spectrum while avoiding interference
between operators. The rule on its face does not mandate a specific
size of antenna. Rather, it specifies certain technical parameters--
maximum beamwidth, minimum antenna gain, and minimum radiation
suppression--that, depending on the state of technology at any point in
time, directly affect the size of a compliant antenna. Smaller antennas
have several advantages. They cost less to manufacture and distribute,
are less expensive to install because they weigh less and need less
structural support, and cost less to maintain because they are less
subject to wind load and other destructive forces. In addition, the
modest weight of small antennas makes them practical for installation
at sites incapable of supporting large dishes, including many rooftops,
electrical transmission towers, water towers, monopoles and other radio
towers. Smaller antennas raise fewer aesthetic objections, thereby
permitting easier compliance with local zoning and homeowner
association rules and generating fewer objections. On the other hand,
smaller antennas have increased potential to cause interference because
smaller antennas result in more radiofrequency energy being transmitted
in directions away from the actual point-to-point link. We seek comment
on whether we can allow smaller antennas in the 13 GHz band without
producing harmful interference.
26. Second, we seek comment on amending our rules for the 11 GHz
band to clarify the circumstances under which a licensee can reduce
power to avoid having to upgrade its antenna and to make clear that
that a licensee may not hold an authorization for substantially more
power than it actually needs. Parties have expressed concern that our
existing rules allow licensees using powers below the maximum specified
in the rules to avoid upgrading antennas and that the existing rules do
not provide proper interference protection.
27. Finally, we propose to allow licensees to make intermediate
antenna upgrades to resolve interference issues. Currently, a licensee
using an antenna meeting Category B standards must upgrade to an
antenna meeting Category A standards if an antenna upgrade is necessary
to resolve an interference issue. Currently, under Sec. 101.115(c) of
the Commission's rules, if an existing antenna is insufficient to
resolve interference, the operator must upgrade to an antenna meeting
performance standard A. There may be instances where an applicant or
licensee could resolve an interference issue or conflict by upgrading
to an antenna that does not meet Category A standards but would resolve
the interference problem. An intermediate upgrade may allow a licensee
to maintain operations from an existing site or reduce costs to the
point where operation remains economic.
Legal Basis
28. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2,
4(i), 7, 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, and 333
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152,
154(i), 157, 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, and
333 and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 1302.
Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
29. 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.
30. 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.
31. 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
[[Page 54516]]
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.
32. 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.
33. Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications.
Two economic census categories address the satellite industry. The
first category has a small business size standard of $15 million or
less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. The second has a size
standard of $25 million or less in annual receipts.
34. The category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications
services to other establishments in the telecommunications and
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications
signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite
telecommunications.'' Census Bureau data for 2007 show that 512
Satellite Telecommunications firms operated for that entire year. Of
this total, 464 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 18
firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications
firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.
35. The second category, i.e. ``All Other Telecommunications''
comprises ``establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.
Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications
connections are also included in this industry.'' For this category,
Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,347 firms had
annual receipts of under $25 million and 12 firms had annual receipts
of $25 million to $49,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates
that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are small
entities that might be affected by our action.
Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and other Compliance
Requirements
36. This 2nd FNPRM proposes no new reporting or recordkeeping
requirements.
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered
37. 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.
38. The actions proposed in the FNPRM would provide additional
options to all licensees, including small entity licensees. Such
actions will serve the public interest by providing additional
flexibility for broadcasters to use microwave spectrum. The rules will
therefore open up beneficial economic opportunities to a variety of
spectrum users, including small businesses. Because the actions
proposed in the FNPRM will improve beneficial economic opportunities
for all businesses, including small businesses, a detailed discussion
of alternatives is not required.
39. Generally, the alternative approach would be to maintain the
existing rules.
Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
40. None.
41. It is ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
42. 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 Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is
hereby adopted and that comment is sought on these proposals.
43. 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 Second Notice of Inquiry is hereby adopted.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 101
Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
[[Page 54517]]
Federal Communications Commission.
Sheryl Todd,
Deputy Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 101 as follows:
PART 101--FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
2. Amend Sec. 101.113 by revising the first sentence of paragraph
(a) introductory text and by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 101.113 Transmitter power limitations.
(a) On any authorized frequency, the average power requested in an
application for authorization and delivered to an antenna in this
service must be the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the
communications desired, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this
section. * * *
* * * * *
(b) The maximum power of transmitters that use Automatic
Transmitter Power Control (ATPC) and the power of non-ATPC transmitters
shall not exceed, the power input or output specified in the instrument
of station authorization. The power of non-ATPC transmitters shall be
maintained as near as practicable to, the power input or output
specified in the instrument of station authorization. A licensee that
reduces power in order to resolve interference pursuant to Sec.
101.115(f) must update its license to reflect the reduced power level.
* * * * *
3. Amend Sec. 101.115 by revising the entry ``12,200 to 13,250''
in the table in paragraph (b)(2) and paragraphs (c) and (f) to read as
follows:
Sec. 101.115 Directional antennas.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
12,200 to 13,250 \9\.................. A................... 1.0 n/a 23 28 35 39 41 42 50
B1.................. 2.0 n/a 20 25 28 30 32 37 47
B2.................. 2.0 n/a 17 24 28 32 35 60 60
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\* * * * *\
\9\ Except for Temporary-fixed operations in the band 13200-13250 MHz with output powers less than 250 mW and as provided in Sec. 101.147(q), and
except for antennas in the MVDDS service in the band 12.2-12.7 GHz.
* * * * *
(c) The Commission shall require the replacement of any antenna or
periscope antenna system of a permanent fixed station operating at
932.5 MHz or higher that does not meet performance Standard A specified
in this paragraph (c), at the expense of the licensee operating such
antenna, upon a showing that said antenna causes or is likely to cause
interference to (or receive interference from) any other authorized or
applied for station whereas a higher performance antenna is not likely
to involve such interference. Antenna performance is expected to meet
the standards of this paragraph (c) for parallel polarization. A
licensee may upgrade to an antenna not meeting performance standard A
if such upgrade will resolve the interference. A licensee who chooses
to upgrade to an antenna not meeting performance standard A will be
required to upgrade to an antenna meeting performance standard A in the
future if necessary to resolve a subsequent interference issue. For
cases of potential interference, an antenna will not be considered to
meet Standard A unless the parallel polarization performance for the
discrimination angle involved meets the requirements, even if the
cross-polarization performance controls the interference.
* * * * *
(f) In the 10,700-11,700 MHz band, a fixed station may employ
transmitting and receiving antennas meeting performance standard B in
any area. If a Fixed Service or Fixed Satellite Service licensee or
applicant makes a showing that it is likely to receive interference
from such fixed station and that such interference would not exist if
the fixed station used an antenna meeting performance standard A, the
fixed station licensee must modify its use. Specifically, the fixed
station licensee must either substitute an antenna meeting performance
standard A or operate its system with an EIRP reduced so as not to
radiate, in the direction of the other licensee, an EIRP in excess of
that which would be radiated by a station using a Category A antenna
and operating with the authorized EIRP. A licensee or prior applicant
using an antenna that does not meet performance Standard A may object
to a prior coordination notice based on interference only if such
interference would be predicted to exist if the licensee or prior
applicant used an antenna meeting performance standard A.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-21336 Filed 9-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P