36134 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 101 

[WT Docket No. 09–114; RM 11417; FCC 

09–58] 

Amendment of Part 101 of the 

Commission’s Rules To Accommodate 

30 Megahertz Channels in the 6525– 

6875 MHz Band; Amendment of Part 

101 of the Commission’s Rules to 

Provide for Conditional Authorization 

on Additional Channels in the 21.8– 

22.0 GHz and 23.0–23.2 GHz Band; 

Fixed Wireless Communications 

Coalition Request for Waiver 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, we seek 

comment on modifying the 

Commission’s rules to authorize 

channels with bandwidths of as much 

as 30 MHz in the 6525–6875 MHz band. 

We also propose, on our own motion, to 

allow conditional authority on 

additional channels in the 21.8–22.0 

GHz and 23.0–23.2 GHz band (23 GHz 

band). 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before August 21, 2009, and reply 

comments must be filed on or before 

September 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications 

Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, 

Washington, DC 20554. You may submit 

comments, identified by WT Docket No. 

09–114, 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:// 

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 e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

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: 

Charles Oliver, Attorney, Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau at 202– 

418–1325 or via the Internet to 

Charles.Oliver@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), FCC 09– 

58, released June 29, 2009. The 

complete text of this document, 

including attachments and related 

Commission documents, is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center (Room CY–A257), 445 12th 

Street SW. Washington, DC 20554. The 

complete text of the NPRM and related 

Commission documents may be 

purchased from the Commission’s copy 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202– 

488–5300, facsimile 202–488–5563, or 

you may 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 09–58. The 

NPRM is available on the Commission’s 

Web site at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/ 

edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-09- 

58A1.doc. 

Pursuant to §§ 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: (1) The Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s 

eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing 

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Filers should follow the instructions 

provided on the Web site for submitting 

comments. 

• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket 

or rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies 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 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). All filings must be addressed to 

the Commission’s Secretary, Office of 

the Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• 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. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail should be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

I. Summary of Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking 

A. The 6 GHz Band 

1. Most of the part 101 Fixed Service 

6 GHz Band is made up of two subbands, 5925–6425 MHz (Lower 6 GHz 

Band) and 6525–6875 MHz (Upper 6 

GHz Band). The Commission licenses 

terrestrial Fixed Services (FS) in both 

sub-bands, but there are several 

differences between them. The 

Commission issues licenses for satellite 

earth stations on a co-primary basis with 

FS in the Lower 6 GHz band but does 

not issue earth station licenses in the 

Upper 6 GHz Band. Lower 6 GHz 

channels are also available for television 

studio-to-transmitter links (STL) in the 

local television transmission service 

(LTTS); Upper 6 GHz channels are not. 

In addition, the maximum authorized 

bandwidth differs by sub-band: 30 

megahertz is the maximum bandwidth 

allowed in the Lower 6 GHz Band, and 

10 megahertz is the maximum allowed 

in the Upper 6 GHz Band. The Lower 6 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36135 

GHz Band was historically assigned for 

wideband common carrier fixed use 

with 29.65 megahertz channels, while 

the Upper 6 GHz Band was historically 

assigned for private use with narrower 

channels. FWCC explains that fixed 

service bands such as the Lower 6 GHz 

Band and Upper 6 GHz Band carry 

critical services such as public safety 

communications (including police and 

fire vehicle dispatch), coordinating the 

movement of railroad trains, controlling 

natural gas and oil pipelines, regulating 

the electric grid, and backhaul for 

wireless traffic. 

2. The Lower 6 GHz Band is 

increasingly congested. As of early May, 

2009, there were 15,264 active FS 

licenses in the Lower 6 GHz Band. 

Furthermore, the Lower 6 GHz Band 

also has 1,602 licensed satellite earth 

stations. Each earth station is routinely 

coordinated for the entire 5925–6425 

MHz band and for the entire 

geosynchronous arc, even if the earth 

station actually communicates with 

only one transponder on one satellite. 

Thus, a satellite earth station will place 

far greater limits on the ability to 

coordinate stations in adjacent areas 

than a terrestrial FS station, which is 

typically coordinated for a single 

channel, or a limited set of channels, 

with a narrow beamwidth. As noted 

above, existing rules also allow Lower 6 

GHz FS stations to operate at up to 

triple the bandwidth authorized under 

existing Upper 6 GHz Band rules. 

3. The congestion in the Lower 6 GHz 

Band has led a number of applicants to 

seek licenses to operate in the Upper 6 

GHz Band pursuant to waivers that 

permit them to operate FS stations with 

bandwidths that are greater than the 

authorized 10 megahertz. As of May 11, 

2009, the Commission had issued 

waivers authorizing 880 FS frequency 

paths with bandwidths greater than 10 

megahertz in the Upper 6 GHz Band, of 

which 548 were authorized with 30 

megahertz bandwidths. These waivers 

were granted upon showing that there 

were no channels available in the Lower 

6 GHz Band, that other higher frequency 

bands were not suitable for the 

proposed path, and that there were no 

other alternatives. While the waiver 

process has provided an alternative for 

applicants seeking wider bandwidths in 

the Upper 6 GHz, some licensees have 

argued that the waiver process has the 

disadvantages of delay and additional 

preparation costs. 

4. If certain conditions are met, the 

Commission’s rules provide that 

applicants for FS licenses under part 

101 may operate their proposed stations 

more quickly pursuant to conditional 

authority, although they do so at their 

own risk during the pendency of their 

applications. One of those conditions is 

that the applicant has successfully 

completed the frequency coordination 

procedures specified in § 101.103 of the 

Commission’s rules. Conditional 

authority is not available, however, to 

applicants that must request waivers of 

existing rules. 

5. On February 4, 2008, FWCC filed 

a petition proposing that the 

Commission change its rules to allow 

channels with 30 megahertz bandwidths 

in the Upper 6 GHz Band. Specifically, 

FWCC proposes that the Commission (1) 

amend § 101.109(c) of its rules to permit 

coordination and licensing of 30 

megahertz channels in the Upper 6 GHz 

Band, (2) amend § 101.147(a) of the 

Commission’s rules to state that 

coordination of a 30 megahertz link in 

the Upper 6 GHz Band should be 

attempted only if the link cannot be 

accommodated in the Lower 6 GHz 

Band, and (3) amend § 101.147(l) to 

specify frequency pairs for 30 megahertz 

channels, while retaining the present 

option of using narrowband channels 

and preserving frequencies that are 

presently allocated for emergency 

restoration. 

6. FWCC states that the 10 megahertz 

maximum on authorized bandwidths in 

the Upper 6 GHz Band prevents links in 

that sub-band from handling data rates 

of more than about 50 megabits per 

second (Mbits/s). It asserts that larger 

bandwidths of up to 30 megahertz will 

allow the deployment of higher capacity 

broadband links and will enhance the 

delivery of critical infrastructure and 

business services when high-speed links 

are required over long distances. FWCC 

acknowledges that the Commission has 

granted waivers for bandwidths greater 

than 10 megahertz in the Upper 6 GHz 

Band, but argues that the unavailability 

of conditional authorizations represents 

a serious disadvantage. FWCC argues 

that FS facilities must often be installed 

on short notice to meet urgent public 

safety, infrastructure, and commercial 

needs, which makes conditional 

licensing important to industries and 

their customers. FWCC contends that 

applicants seeking to install high-speed 

links often have no alternative to the 

Upper 6 GHz Band. 

7. To ensure that assignments for 30 

megahertz links in the Upper 6 GHz will 

only be granted in cases of necessity, 

FWCC proposes that a new note be 

added to § 101.147(a) stating that 

location of a new 30 megahertz link in 

the Upper 6 GHz Band should be 

permitted only if it cannot be 

accommodated in the Lower 6 GHz 

Band. FWCC notes that existing rules 

already set minimum bits-per-second 

and loading requirements for the entire 

6 GHz Band, and thereby discourage 

applicants from seeking widebandwidth assignments when narrower 

bandwidths would meet their needs. 

8. Finally, FWCC proposes that 

§ 101.147(l) be amended by adding a 

new paragraph to designate 30 

megahertz bandwidth paired channels 

(for 60 megahertz total) at 6555 and 

6725 MHz, 6595 and 6755 MHz, 6625 

and 6785 MHz, 6655 MHz and 6815 

MHz, and 6685 MHz and 6845 MHz. 

FWCC’s proposed placement of those 

channels would avoid any overlap with 

the channels centered at 6535 and 6575 

MHz, which are reserved for emergency 

restoration, maintenance bypass, and 

other temporary fixed uses. 

9. AT&T, Comsearch, Harris, Radio 

Dynamics Corp., and UTC support 

FWCC’s proposal. Those parties agree 

that the necessity of seeking waivers, 

and consequent inability to obtain 

conditional authorizations before the 

Commission approves applications, 

cause delays that have a significant 

impact on deployment of new services. 

They agree that there is rapidly 

increasing demand among wireless 

service providers for long-distance highcapacity links, and that there is limited 

space available in bands below the 

Upper 6 GHz Band, especially in major 

metropolitan areas. Commenters 

support FWCC’s proposal that 

applicants for wide channels in the 

upper 6 GHz be required to demonstrate 

that the spectrum required is 

unavailable in the lower 6 GHz. 

Comsearch approves of FWCC’s 

proposed channelization scheme and 

notes that the 30 megahertz channel 

pairs that FWCC proposes are formed by 

an appropriate aggregation of 

underlying 10 megahertz channels and 

eliminate any overlap with the channels 

at 6535 MHz and 6575 MHz that are 

reserved for emergency restoration and 

maintenance purposes. 

10. API, however, argues that the 

Upper 6 GHz Band should be preserved 

for use by private operational fixed 

microwave licensees, including narrow 

bandwidth licensees that the 

Commission has required to vacate both 

the 1.9 GHz band and, more recently, 

the 2.1 GHz band. API contends that 

allowing 30 megahertz licenses in the 

Upper 6 GHz Band could cause 

congestion and encourage speculative 

licensing. API states that channel 

assignments for incumbent licensees in 

the 2.1 GHz band are generally limited 

to a maximum of 800 kHz, and that, as 

a consequence, those incumbents will 

not require 30 megahertz bandwidths 

when they are relocated. API contends 

that the availability of 30 megahertz 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36136 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

bandwidth channels in the lower 6 GHz 

is one of the reasons why the Lower 6 

GHz Band has become congested, and 

that making such wide channels 

available in the upper 6 GHz would lead 

to similar congestion in the upper 6 

GHz. That, in turn, it argues, could 

frustrate efforts to relocate displaced 

licensees from the 2.1 GHz band, 

potentially requiring them to resort to 

bands that cannot support the long 

signal paths that are feasible at 6 GHz. 

11. FWCC and AT&T argue that API’s 

concerns are misplaced. FWCC 

contends that the main source of 

congestion in the lower 6 GHz is 

satellite earth stations. FWCC contends 

that the Upper 6 GHz Band will 

probably not become seriously 

congested, whether or not 30 megahertz 

bandwidths are authorized, because 

satellite earth stations are not 

authorized in the Upper 6 GHz Band. 

FWCC also believes that the 

Commission’s existing buildout and 

loading rules are sufficient to prevent 

speculative licensing. AT&T argues that 

the proposed rule changes would not 

frustrate the relocation plans of 

licensees that are forced to relocate from 

the 1.9 GHz and 2.1 GHz bands because, 

under existing rules, new licensees will 

be required to compensate displaced 

incumbents for the cost of relocations, 

regardless of whether the incumbent is 

relocated to a single link in the 6 GHz 

band or to multiple links in a higher 

band that requires shorter spacing 

between transmitters and receivers. 

12. We propose to modify the 

Commission’s rules to authorize 30 

megahertz channels in the Upper 6 GHz 

Band. We find such action could serve 

the public interest by making more 

readily available an additional source of 

spectrum for high-speed microwave 

links. As FWCC states, such links 

support a variety of important 

commercial, public safety, and 

consumer uses, including backhaul for 

broadband systems. Furthermore, the 

high number of waiver requests we have 

received to allow licensing of channels 

greater than 10 megahertz in the Upper 

6 GHz Band is evidence of a notable 

demand for wider channels in this band. 

We have already approved waivers for 

many applicants based on their 

showings that the applicants had no 

available alternative to operating in the 

Upper 6 GHz Band. We seek comment 

on this proposal. 

13. We also seek comment on API’s 

concerns that allowing 30 megahertz 

channels in the Upper 6 MHz Band 

could lead to congestion and 

speculative licensing. In particular, we 

ask commenters to indicate whether 

waiver requests the Bureau has granted 

for 30 megahertz channels in the Upper 

6 MHz Band have caused problems to 

relocating licensees. Further, we ask 

commenters to indicate whether the 

Upper 6 GHz Band has any special 

characteristics that would cause it to be 

particularly susceptible to speculative 

licensing. We note that thirty megahertz 

channels in the 6 GHz band are already 

required to have a minimum payload 

capacity of 134.1 Mbits/s, and they must 

load at least 50 percent of that capacity 

within 30 months after they are 

licensed. In addition, our rules require 

FS links in the 6 GHz band to have a 

minimum path length of 17 kilometers 

(km). We seek comment on whether 

these requirements provide assurance 

that spectrum in the Upper 6 GHz Band 

will be used efficiently. 

14. We also seek comment on whether 

additional requirements are necessary to 

ensure efficient usage, in the event that 

we allow 30 megahertz channels in the 

Upper 6 MHz Band. In particular, we 

seek comment on FWCC’s proposal that 

we require applicants for 30 megahertz 

channels in the Upper 6 GHz Band to 

demonstrate that the requisite paths are 

not available in the Lower 6 GHz Band, 

as well as Comsearch’s suggestion that 

we require a showing that channels in 

the 10.7–11.7 GHz band would not be 

available or sufficiently reliable. 

15. In addition, we seek comment on 

whether authorizing 30 megahertz 

channels in the Upper 6 GHz Band 

would adversely impact the relocation 

of narrow-bandwidth links from other 

bands. We note API’s concerns that 

sufficient spectrum be preserved to 

accommodate relocation of narrowbandwidth links from other bands. We 

also note AT&T’s assertion that most of 

the cost of relocating such licensees to 

higher bands, if that proves necessary, 

will fall upon the providers of emerging 

technologies that are newly licensed to 

the reallocated bands, not upon the 

displaced incumbents. 

16. Further, we seek comment on the 

specific channel plan proposed by 

FWCC, which envisions 30 megahertz 

bandwidth paired channels (for 60 

megahertz total for each authorized 

path) at 6555 and 6725 MHz, 6595 and 

6755 MHz, 6625 and 6785 MHz, 6655 

MHz and 6815 MHz, and 6685 MHz and 

6845 MHz. We note that Comsearch and 

Harris support this proposal. We also 

seek comment on alternative band 

plans, in particular whether additional 

channel bandwidths besides 30 

megahertz are needed. 

B. 23 GHz Band 

17. The Commission’s rules provide 

for conditional authorization of fixed 

microwave links, allowing the license 

applicant to begin operating a link as 

soon as the application is filed, if the 

link has been frequency coordinated 

and certain other conditions are met. 

The frequencies in the 23 GHz band are 

shared by federal and non-federal users. 

For this reason, conditional authority in 

the band is limited to frequencies for 

which the Commission has an 

agreement with the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) to permit 

conditional authorization. Thus, in the 

23 GHz band, conditional authority is 

currently limited to four channel pairs— 

21.825/23.025 GHz, 21.875/23.075 GHz, 

21.925/23.125 GHz, and 21.975/23.175 

GHz—for non-federal applicants 

proposing to limit their equivalent 

isotropically radiated power (EIRP) to 

55 dBm. 

18. On November 7, 2007, FWCC 

submitted a petition for rulemaking 

requesting that the Commission allow 

conditional licensing for non-federal 

use, with NTIA’s consent, in two 

additional channel pairs in the 23 GHz 

band—the 22.025/23.225 GHz and 

22.075/23.275 GHz channel pairs—for 

applicants proposing to limit their EIRP 

to 55 dBm. 

19. In response to FWCC’s petition, 

we seek comment on whether to allow 

conditional authority on the 22.025/ 

23.225 GHz and 22.075/23.275 GHz 

channel pairs for applicants proposing 

to limit their EIRP to 55 dBm, as set 

forth in the proposed rules in Appendix 

A. Our decision to seek comment on 

this proposal is predicated on NTIA’s 

lack of opposition, following our 

coordination with that agency, to our 

granting conditional authority with 

respect to these additional channel 

pairs. The Commission has previously 

recognized that permitting conditional 

operation pending the approval of an 

application provides greater flexibility 

to Part 101 licensees and enables them 

to operate more efficiently. 

II. Initial Paperwork Reduction 

Analysis 

20. 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 

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. 

III. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

21. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), the Commission has prepared 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36137 

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 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making 

(NPRM). 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 NPRM for comments. 

The Commission will send a copy of 

this NPRM, including this IRFA, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA). In 

addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 

summaries thereof) will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

22. In this NPRM, we seek comment 

on a petition for rulemaking filed by the 

Fixed Wireless Communications 

Coalition (FWCC) on February 4, 2008, 

and on a rule change that we propose on 

our own motion. 

23. The FWCC 6 GHz Petition 

requests that the Commission initiate a 

rulemaking to change its rules to allow 

channels with bandwidths of as much 

as 30 megahertz in the 6525–6875 MHz 

band (Upper 6 GHz Band). Specifically, 

FWCC proposes to amend § 101.109(c) 

of the Commission’s rules to permit 

coordination and licensing of 30 

megahertz channels in the Upper 6 GHz 

Band, amend § 101.147(a) of the 

Commission’s rules to clarify that 

coordination of a 30 megahertz link in 

the Upper 6 GHz Band should be 

attempted only if the link cannot be 

accommodated in the 5925–6425 MHz 

band, and amend § 101.147(l) of the 

Commission’s rules to specify frequency 

pairs for 30 megahertz channels, while 

retaining the present option of using 

narrowband channels and preserving 

frequencies that are presently allocated 

for emergency restoration. 

24. The Lower 6 GHz Band, where 30 

megahertz channels are allowed, is 

increasingly congested. As of early May, 

2009, there were 15,264 active FS 

licenses in the Lower 6 GHz Band. 

Furthermore, the Lower 6 GHz Band 

also has 1,602 licensed satellite earth 

stations. Each earth station is routinely 

coordinated for the entire 5925–6425 

MHz band, and for the entire 

geosynchronous arc, even if the earth 

station actually communicates with 

only one transponder on one satellite. 

Thus, a satellite earth station will place 

far greater limits on the ability to 

coordinate stations in adjacent areas 

than a terrestrial FS station, which is 

typically coordinated for a single 

channel, or a limited set of channels, 

with a narrow beamwidth. 

25. The congestion in the Lower 6 

GHz Band has led a number of 

applicants to seek licenses to operate in 

the Upper 6 GHz Band pursuant to 

waivers that permit them to operate FS 

stations with bandwidths that are 

greater than the authorized 10 

megahertz. As of May 11, 2009, the 

Commission had issued waivers 

authorizing 880 FS frequency paths 

with bandwidths greater than 10 

megahertz in the Upper 6 GHz Band, of 

which 548 were authorized with 30 

megahertz bandwidths. These waivers 

were granted upon showing that there 

were no channels available in the Lower 

6 GHz Band, that other higher frequency 

bands were not suitable for the 

proposed path, and that there were no 

other alternatives. 

26. Allowing channels with 

bandwidths of as much as 30 megahertz 

in the Upper 6 GHz Band by rule could 

meet a variety of needs. Such action 

could serve the public interest by 

making more readily available an 

additional source of spectrum for highspeed microwave links, which are used 

for a variety of important commercial, 

public safety, and consumer uses, 

including backhaul for broadband 

systems. Furthermore, the high number 

of waiver requests we have received to 

allow licensing of channels greater than 

10 megahertz in the Upper 6 GHz Band 

is evidence of a notable demand for 

wider channels in this band. On the 

other hand, the American Petroleum 

Institute (API) has expressed concern 

that allowing 30 megahertz licenses in 

the Upper 6 GHz Band could cause 

congestion, encourage speculative 

licensing, and make it more difficult for 

licensees to relocate out of the 2 GHz 

Band that has been reallocated for 

advanced technologies. The objective of 

the proposed rule is to provide the 

benefits of wider channels while 

avoiding the potential problems noted 

by API. We believe that increasing 

congestion in the Lower 6 GHz Band 

could justify expanding the maximum 

allowable bandwidth in the Upper 6 

GHz Band to 30 megahertz. We also seek 

comment on concerns raised by the 

American Petroleum Institute 

Telecommunications Subcommittee that 

adopting these rules might lead to 

additional congestion in the upper 6 

GHz band, cause speculative 

applications to be filed, and make it 

more difficult for applicants proposing 

narrower bandwidth links to coordinate 

their proposals with licensees in the 

Upper 6 GHz Band. 

27. We also propose, on our own 

motion, to allow conditional licensing 

on two additional channel pairs for nonfederal use in the 23 GHz band, if the 

National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA) 

approves, for applicants proposing to 

limit their effective isotropically 

radiated power (E.I.R.P.) to 55 dBm. 

28. If certain conditions are met, the 

Commission’s rules provide that 

applicants for FS licenses under part 

101 may operate their proposed stations 

more quickly pursuant to conditional 

authority, although they do so at their 

own risk during the pendency of their 

applications. Before exercising 

conditional authority, the applicant 

must successfully complete frequency 

coordination to ensure that the 

proposed facilities will not cause 

interference to other authorized 

facilities. Conditional authority ceases 

immediately if an application is 

returned as unacceptable for filing. The 

Commission’s rules also provide that 

‘‘conditional authority may be modified 

or cancelled by the Commission at any 

time without hearing if, in the 

Commission’s discretion, the need for 

such action arises.’’ 

29. Fixed service bands carry critical 

services such as public safety 

communications (including police and 

fire vehicle dispatch), coordinating the 

movement of railroad trains, controlling 

natural gas and oil pipelines, regulating 

the electric grid, and backhaul for 

wireless traffic. Conditional authority 

allows an applicant to provide those 

types of services expeditiously before 

the Commission acts on its application. 

Because the 23 GHz Band is shared 

between federal and non-federal use, 

conditional authority in that band is 

limited to frequencies for which the 

Commission has an agreement with 

NTIA to permit conditional 

authorization. NTIA has not stated any 

objection to allowing conditional 

licensing on the additional two channel 

pairs. We therefore propose to add the 

22.025/23.225 GHz and 22.075/23.275 

GHz channel pairs to the list of 

frequencies on which we allow 

conditional authority. Such action 

would allow all licensees to provide 

service more rapidly (subject to the 

normal limitations on conditional 

authority noted above) while protecting 

existing licensees. We seek comment on 

allowing conditional authority on a 

permanent basis. 

B. Legal Basis 

30. The proposed action is authorized 

pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 10, 

201, 214, 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), 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
36138 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

157, 160, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 

308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, and 333. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

31. 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. 

32. Nationwide, there are a total of 

approximately 22.4 million small 

businesses, according to SBA data. 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 2002, there were 

approximately 1.6 million small 

organizations. 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 2002 indicate 

that there were 87,525 local 

governmental jurisdictions in the 

United States. We estimate that, of this 

total, 84,377 entities were ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ Thus, we 

estimate that most governmental 

jurisdictions are small. Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

satellite). 

33. Microwave services include 

common carrier, private-operational 

fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio 

services. At present, there are 

approximately 36,708 common carrier 

fixed licensees and 59,291 private 

operational-fixed licensees and 

broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in 

the microwave services. The 

Commission has not yet defined a small 

business with respect to microwave 

services. For purposes of the IRFA, we 

will use the SBA’s definition applicable 

to Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except satellite)—i.e., an entity 

with no more than 1,500 persons. The 

Commission’s most recent data were 

acquired when ‘‘Cellular and Other 

Wireless Telecommunications 

Companies’’ was the applicable industry 

category. Census Bureau data for 2002 

show that there were 1,397 firms in this 

category that operated for the entire 

year. Of this total, 1,378 firms had 

employment of 999 or fewer employees, 

and 19 firms had employment of 1,000 

employees or more. Thus, under this 

size standard, the majority of firms can 

be considered small. We note that the 

number of firms does not necessarily 

track the number of licensees. We 

estimate that 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 

34. This NPRM proposes no new 

reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

35. 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. 

36. As noted above, this NPRM 

proposes rules to provide applicants 

with improved access to spectrum that 

is presently restricted with respect to 

bandwidth or that requires completion 

of frequency coordination with NTIA 

before the applicant can begin 

operations on a conditional basis. As 

noted above, virtually all microwave 

licensees under part 101 of the 

Commission’s rules are considered 

small businesses. Under our rules, the 

opportunities to apply for 30 megahertz 

channels in the Upper 6 GHz Band and 

to take advantage of conditional 

authority 22.025/23.225 GHz and 

22.075/23.275 GHz channel pairs would 

be equally available to all applicants, 

including small businesses. Thus, this 

proposed action would provide 

additional options to all licensees, 

including small entity licensees. In this 

NPRM, we seek comment on these 

proposed actions. Such action could 

serve the public interest by facilitating 

the efficient use of the 6 GHz and 23 

GHz bands. The proposed rules could 

therefore open up economic 

opportunities to a variety of spectrum 

users, including small businesses. 

37. The alternative approach would 

be to maintain the existing rules. If the 

rules were not changed to provide for 30 

megahertz channels in the Upper 6 GHz 

Band, applicants who wished to obtain 

such channels would have to take 

additional time and money to prepare a 

request for waiver of the Commission’s 

rules. Such additional time and expense 

may be particularly disadvantageous to 

small businesses. Furthermore, because 

a waiver request would be required, 

applicants cannot commence operation 

until the Commission grants their 

waiver request and application. The 

resulting delay can make it more 

difficult for applicants to meet their 

communications needs or the needs of 

their customers. With respect to the 23 

GHz Band, the alternative approach 

would be to deny conditional authority 

on the two additional channel pairs and 

require applicants to wait until the 

Commission grants their application 

before they can commence service. 

Again, the resulting delay can make it 

more difficult for applicants to meet 

their communications needs or the 

needs of their customers. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

None. 

Ordering Clauses 

38. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 

10, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 

309, 310, 319, 324, 332 and 333 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 

151, 152, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 301, 

302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 

332, 333, that this NPRM is hereby 

ADOPTED. 

39. Notice is given of the proposed 

regulatory changes described in this 

NPRM, and that comment is sought on 

these proposals. 

40. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this NPRM, including the Initial 

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. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Proposed Rules 36139 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

part 101 to read as follows: 

PART 101—FIXED MICROWAVE 

SERVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 101 

continues to read as follows: 

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

2. Amend § 101.31 by revising 

paragraph (b)(1)(vii) to read as follows: 

§ 101.31 Temporary and conditional 

authorizations. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(vii) With respect to the 21.8–22.0 

GHz and 23.0–23.2 GHz band, the filed 

application(s) does not propose to 

operate on a frequency pair centered on 

other than 21.825/23.025 GHz, 21.875/ 

23.075 GHz, 21.925/23.125 GHz, 21.975/ 

23.175 GHz, 22.025/23.225 GHz or 

22.075/23.275 GHz and does not 

propose to operate with an E.I.R.P. 

greater than 55 dBm. The center 

frequencies are shifted from the center 

frequencies listed above for certain 

bandwidths as follows: Add 0.005 GHz 

for 20 MHz bandwidth channels, add 

0.010 GHz for 30 megahertz bandwidth 

channels, and subtract 0.005 GHz for 40 

MHz bandwidth channels. See specific 

channel listings in § 101.147(s). 

* * * * * 

3. Amend § 101.109(c) table by 

revising the entry for the 6,525 to 6,875 

Frequency band (MHz) to read as 

follows: 

§ 101.109 Bandwidth. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

Frequency band (MHz) 

Maximun 

authorized 

bandwidth 

* * * * * 

6,525 to 6,875 ......................... 30 MHz 1

* * * * * 

4. Amend § 101.147 by revising entry 

6,525–6,875 MHz (14) to entry 6,525– 

6,875 MHz (14)(33) in paragraph (a), by 

adding note (33) to paragraph (a) and by 

adding a new paragraph (l)(8) to read as 

follows: 

§ 101.147 Frequency assignments. 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * 

6,525–6,875 MHz (14)(33) 

* * * * * 

(33) The coordination of a new 30 

MHz link in the 6,525–6,825 MHz band 

should be attempted only if it cannot be 

accommodated in the 5,925–6,425 MHz 

band. 

* * * * * 

(l) * * * 

(8) 30 MHz bandwidth channels: 

Transmit (receive) (MHz) 

Receive 

(transmit) 

(MHz) 

6555 .......................................... 6725 

6595 .......................................... 6755 

6525 .......................................... 6785 

6655 .......................................... 6815 

6685 .......................................... 6845 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–17412 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration 

49 CFR Parts 192, 193, and 195 

[Docket No. PHMSA–2008–0301) 

RIN 2137–AE41 

Pipeline Safety: Periodic Updates of 

Regulatory References to Technical 

Standards and Miscellaneous Edits 

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA), Department of Transportation 

(DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: PHMSA is proposing to 

incorporate by reference (IBR) into the 

pipeline safety regulations all or parts of 

new editions of voluntary consensus 

standards to allow pipeline operators to 

use current technology, new materials, 

and other industry and management 

practices. In this document, PHMSA 

also proposes to make nonsubstantive 

edits and clarify regulatory language in 

certain provisions. These proposed 

amendments to the pipeline safety 

regulations would not require pipeline 

operators to undertake any significant 

new pipeline safety initiatives. 

DATES: Submit comments on the subject 

of this proposed rule on or before 

September 21, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. PHMSA–2008– 

0301, by any of the following methods: 

• E-Gov Web: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. This site allows 

the public to enter comments on any 

Federal Register notice issued by any 

agency. Follow the online instructions 

for submitting comments. 

• Mail: Docket Management System: 

U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: DOT 

Docket Management System: West 

Building Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

Instructions: Identify the docket ID, 

PHMSA 2008–0301, at the beginning of 

your comments. If you submit your 

comments by mail, submit two copies. 

If you wish to receive confirmation that 

PHMSA received your comments, 

include a self-addressed stamped 

postcard. Internet users may submit 

comments at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Note: All comments received will be 

posted without edits to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any personal 

information provided. Please see the Privacy 

Act heading below. 

Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search 

the electronic comments received into 

any of our dockets by the name of the 

individual submitting the comment (or 

signing the comment, if submitted on 

behalf of an association, business, labor 

union). You may review DOT’s 

complete Privacy Act Statement in the 

Federal Register published on April 11, 

2000 (65 FR 19477–78) or you may visit 

http://docketsinfo.dot.gov/. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go to http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for accessing the dockets. 

Alternatively, you may review the 

documents in person at the street 

address listed above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Technical Information: Mike Israni, 

(202) 366–4571, or by e-mail at 

mike.israni@dot.gov. 

Regulatory Information: Cheryl 

Whetsel by phone at (202) 366–4431 or 

by e-mail at cheryl.whetsel@dot.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 

104–113; signed into law March 7, 1996) 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1