*Pages 1--75 from Microsoft Word - 20208.doc* Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of Part 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Streamline Processing of Microwave Applications in the Wireless Telecommunications Services Telecommunications Industry Association Petition for Rulemaking ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) WT Docket No. 00- 19 RM- 9418 REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: July 18, 2002 Released: July 31, 2002 By the Commission: TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………….………………… 1 II. BACKGROUND…………………………………………………………………………………. 4 III. DISCUSSION…………..………………………………………………………………………… 8 A. Streamlining Part 101……………………………………………………………………. 8 1. POFS licensees’ carriage of common carrier traffic……………………………. 8 2. Use of 10.7 - 11.7 GHz frequencies for final link…………………………........ 15 3 Technical Changes……………………………………………………………... 18 a. Station authorization…………………………………………………... 18 b. Temporary and conditional authorization………………………...…… 20 c. Transmitter frequency tolerance and power limitations…………...….. 26 d. Directional antennas below 932.5 MHz……………………………...... 30 e. Antenna polarization…………………………………………………... 31 f. Frequencies…………………………………………………………….. 35 g. Frequency tolerance………………………………………………….... 36 h. Stations at temporary fixed locations……………………………….…. 37 i. LMDS technical rules…………….………………………..………….. 38 j. Deletion of DEMS 18- 19 GHz Frequencies…………………………… 51 B. TIA Petition for Rulemaking………………………………………………………….… 52 1. Conditional authorization………………………………………………………. 53 2. Technical standards…………………………………………………………….. 56 a. Channel plan…………………………………………………………… 57 b. Frequency tolerance…………………………………………………… 61 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 2 c. Spectrum efficiency……………………………………………………. 66 d. Low power systems……………………………………………………. 70 3. Antenna standards for the 23 GHz and 10 GHz bands……………………….... 74 C. Balanced Budget Act of 1997…………………………………………………………... 78 D. Forbearance and Regulatory Flexibility………………………………………………… 81 1. Forbearance…………………………………………………………………….. 81 2. Regulatory flexibility…………………………………………………………... 85 IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS…………………………………………………… ……………… 88 A. Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis…………………………………………………...... 88 B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis…….…………………………………….... 89 C. Further Information……………………………………………………………………... 91 V. ORDERING CLAUSES…………………………………………………………………………. 93 Page # Appendix A - Comments and Reply Comments Filed in WT Docket No. 00- 19, RM- 9418, and RM- 9830………………………………………………………………………………………….... 44 Appendix B - Final Rules……………………………………………………………………………….. 46 Appendix C - Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis……………..…………………………………….. 73 Appendix D - Licensed Stations Operating Above 40 dBW in the 10.6 - 10.68 GHz Band…………… 75 I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. In the Report and Order in WT Docket No. 94- 148 and CC Docket No. 93- 2, the Commission consolidated the rules for the common carrier and private operational fixed (POFS) microwave services contained in Parts 21 and 94, respectively, of the Commission’s Rules to create a new Part 101. 1 The new consolidated Part 101 reduces or eliminates the differences in processing applications between common carriers and POF microwave service licensees, and furthers regulatory parity between these microwave services. 2 On February 14, 2000, the Commission released the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding. 3 In the NPRM, the Commission proposed eliminating duplicative, outmoded, or otherwise unnecessary regulations 4 in order to further the work begun by the consolidation of Parts 21 and 94 into a single Part 101 in the Part 101 R& O and the implementation of the Universal Licensing System (ULS) for wireless applications. 5 Applicants, 1 Reorganization and Revision of Parts 1, 2, 21, and 94 of the Rules to Establish a New Part 101 Governing Terrestrial Microwave Fixed Radio Services, Report and Order, WT Docket No. 94- 148, 11 FCC Rcd 13449 (1996) (Part 101 R& O). 2 See id. at 13451- 53 ¶¶ 2- 6. 3 Reorganization and Revision of Parts 1, 2, 21, and 94 of the Rules to Establish a New Part 101 Governing Terrestrial Microwave Fixed Radio Services, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 94- 148, 15 FCC Rcd 3129 (2000) (Part 101 MO& O and NPRM). 4 Id. at 3131 ¶ 2. 5 Id. The ULS was developed to eliminate the need for wireless carriers to file duplicative applications, and increase the accuracy and reliability of licensing information. See Biennial Regulatory Review -- Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Development and Use of the Universal Licensing System in the Wireless Telecommunications Services, Report and Order, WT (continued….) 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 3 licensees and related industries were invited to examine these rules and procedures and offer their views and explanations of ways to streamline them and to make sure that the regulations conform with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act). 6 2. In this Report and Order, we take further actions to streamline, clarify, and update our Part 101 Rules. These actions will provide increased flexibility to licensees, ensure greater and more efficient use of the bands regulated under Part 101, and ensure that our Rules are consistent with international agreements. The significant rule changes and clarifications that we adopt in this Report and Order to streamline Part 101 are: € We permit POFS licensees to lease reserve capacity to common carriers for their common carrier traffic. Further, we grandfather certain POFS licensees who formerly carried private traffic now classified as common carrier traffic. € We clarify that conditional authorization in the 23 GHz Band is permitted only on the frequency pairs identified in Section 101.147( s), and only if the maximum Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) utilized does not exceed 55 dBm. € We allow conditional operation in the 952.95- 956.15 and 956.55- 959.75 MHz bands. € We clarify and correct the frequency tolerance table in Section 101.107( a) in accordance with the proposal contained in the Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3153 ¶ 45. € We amend the EIRP table in Section 101.113( a) to divide the 10.55- 10.68 GHz band into two separate bands: 10.55- 10.6 GHz with the maximum power of 55 dBW and 10.6- 10.68 GHz with a maximum power of 40 dBW. € We permit any Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) antenna polarization away from service boundaries. € We amend Section 101.507 to provide the frequency tolerance of ±0. 0001% for Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS) Nodal Stations and ±0.0003% for DEMS User Stations in the 10,550- 10,680 MHz band. € We modify the Part 101 emission mask to make it less severe for LMDS by adopting for LMDS the same mask requirements that we did for the 24 GHz service, as outlined in Section 101.111( a)( 2)( iv). € We modify the reference bandwidth in Section 101.111( a)( 2)( iii) from 4 kHz to 1 MHz for consistency with Section 101.111( a)( 2)( ii) and Appendix S3 of the International Radio Regulations. (Continued from previous page) Docket No. 98- 20, 13 FCC Rcd 21027, 21031 ¶ 9 (1998) (ULS Proceeding); see also Biennial Regulatory Review -- Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Development and Use of the Universal Licensing System in the Wireless Telecommunications Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 98- 20, 13 FCC Rcd 9672 (1998). 6 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3150- 71 ¶¶ 36, 38- 41, 44- 45, 47- 51, 53- 57, 61, 65- 67, 69, 73- 74, 77, 79, 81- 84. 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 4 3. Additionally, in response to the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) Petition for Rulemaking 7 relating to the 10 GHz and 23 GHz bands, we adopt the following rule changes: € We specify a channel plan for the 23 GHz band in our Rules. € We adopt frequency tolerance standards for both digital and analog radios operating in the 23 GHz band. € We extend a 1 bps/ Hz spectrum efficiency rate requirement to the 23 GHz band for digital transmitters. € We allow the use of smaller antennas in the 10 GHz and 23 GHz bands. II. BACKGROUND 4. Communications services that use the microwave spectrum 8 for fixed services include common carriers (formerly regulated by Part 21); common carrier MAS (Part 22); 9 international point- to-point operators (Part 23); space station and satellite earth station operators such as Digital Audio Radio Service (DARS) (Part 25); AM, FM, and TV broadcasters for studio- to- transmitter links (STL) or inter-city relays (ICR) (Part 74); CATV operators (Part 78); multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) operators (Part 21); and POFS users (formerly Part 94). 10 Fixed microwave spectrum is primarily used to deliver video (such as Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS)), audio, data, and control functions for other specific communications services, such as LMDS and DEMS (DEMS), from one point and/ or hub to other points and/ or subscribers for distribution. A convergence of common carrier and POFS technical standards has occurred over the last decade as a result of several rulemaking proceedings. 11 In addition, 7 TIA Petition for Rulemaking, RM- 9418 (filed Mar. 5, 1998) (“ TIA Petition”). 8 Part 101 defines microwave frequencies as those frequencies located at 890 MHz or above. See 47 C. F. R. § 101.3; see also Reorganization and Revision of Parts 1, 2, 21, and 94 of the Rules to Establish a New Part 101 Governing Terrestrial Microwave Fixed Radio Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 94- 148, 10 FCC Rcd 2508, 2509 n. 2 (1994). 9 Common carrier MAS are point- to- multipoint systems governed by Part 22 of the Rules. See 47 C. F. R. § 22.621; see also Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 97- 81, 14 FCC Rcd 10744, 10744 n. 2 (1999); Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 97- 81, 12 FCC Rcd 7973, 7974 n. 1 (1997). 10 Part 101 R& O, 11 FCC Rcd at 13451 ¶ 2. 11 See, e. g., Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 22, 74 and 94 of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Service and Technical Rules for Government and Non- government Fixed Service Usage of the Frequency Bands 932- 935 MHz and 941- 944 MHZ, First Report and Order, Gen. Docket No. 82- 243, 6 FCC Rcd 4320 (1991); Establishment of a Spectrum Utilization Policy for the Fixed and Mobile Services’ Use of Certain Bands Between 947 MHz and 40 GHz, Third Report and Order, Gen. Docket No. 82- 334, 2 FCC Rcd 1050 (1987); Authorizing Private Carrier Systems in the Private Operational- Fixed Microwave Radio Service, First Report and Order, PR Docket No. 83- 426, 57 Rad. Reg. 2d (P& F) 1486 (1985); Use of Radio in Digital Termination Systems and in Point- to- Point Microwave Radio Systems for Provision of Digital Electronic Message and Other Specific Services, Second Report and Order, Gen. Docket No. 79- 188, 54 Rad. Reg. 2d (P& F) 1091 (1983); Amendment (continued….) 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 5 the reallocation of five bands above 3 GHz, on a co- primary basis, to common carrier and POFS microwave licensees relocating from the 1850- 1990, 2110- 2150, and 2160- 2200 MHz bands (2 GHz bands) has significantly impacted fixed microwave services. 12 As a result of the reallocation of spectrum for emerging technologies and the associated increase in frequency band- sharing, common carrier and private microwave industry members united to develop joint interference standards and coordination procedures. 13 5. Consequently, on February 8, 1996, the Commission adopted the Part 101 R& O and thereby created one comprehensive rule part setting forth application processing rules, technical standards, and operational requirements for microwave spectrum, including DEMS (a two- way end- to- end fixed radio service utilizing digital termination systems for the exchange of digital information), the POF Point- to-Point Microwave Service (a private radio service rendered on microwave frequencies on fixed and temporary fixed stations between points within the United States or between points in the United States and points in Canada or Mexico), the Common Carrier Fixed Point- to- Point Microwave Service (a common carrier public radio service rendered on microwave frequencies on fixed and temporary fixed stations between such points), and LTTS (a public radio communication service for the transmission of television material and related communications). 14 Soon thereafter, the Commission adopted Part 101 rules for LMDS (a fixed one- way or two- way point- to- point or point- to- multipoint radio service that may be interconnected with the public switched telephone network). 15 In 1999, the Commission adopted rules to maximize the use of spectrum designated for MAS (point- to- multipoint, multipoint- to- point radio communications service). 16 On February 14, 2000, the Commission released the Part 101 MO& O and NPRM to clarify the rules adopted in the Part 101 R& O and to propose additional rule changes. 17 6. The Part 101 MO& O and NPRM therefore modified certain Part 101 provisions in response to a number of petitions for reconsideration and clarification of the Part 101 R& O and adopted other changes to improve the clarity and completeness of Part 101. The Part 101 MO& O and NPRM modified (Continued from previous page) of Part 94 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations to Facilitate Operation of Low Power, Limited Coverage Systems in the 22.0- 23.6 GHz Band, First Report and Order, PR Docket No. 79- 337, 81 FCC 2d 140 (1980). 12 See Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New Telecommunications Technologies, Second Report and Order, ET Docket No. 92- 9, 8 FCC Rcd 6495 (1993). 13 For a more comprehensive description of the microwave services and the history of this proceeding, see Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3134- 36 ¶¶ 7- 9. 14 See Part 101 R& O, 11 FCC Rcd at 13451 ¶ 1, 13497- 505; see also 47 C. F. R. § 101.3. 15 See Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Redesignate the 27.5- 29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5- 30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 92- 297, 12 FCC Rcd 12545 (1997); Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Redesignate the 27.5- 29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5- 30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, First Report and Order and Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 92- 297, 11 FCC Rcd 19005 (1996). 16 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, Report and Order, WT Docket No. 97- 81, 15 FCC Rcd 11956 (2000). 17 See Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3131- 34 ¶¶ 1- 6. 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 6 Parts 24, 25, 74, and 78 to reflect the consolidation of former Parts 21 and 94 into Part 101. In the Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, the Commission declined to change its rule prohibiting POFS licensees from using the 11 GHz microwave band as the “final link” in the delivery of video programming. 18 The Commission also opted in the Part 101 MO& O to retain the rule that prohibits POFS from carrying common carrier traffic. 19 In addition, the Commission decided not to reinstate the requirement that POFS applications be placed on public notice thirty days prior to the date that the application is granted. 20 7. As part of the NPRM, the Commission generally invited applicants, licensees, and related industries to examine the recently consolidated Part 101 and offer their comments about ways to streamline the rules and ensure that the rules conform with the Communications Act of 1934, as amended. Specifically, the NPRM sought comment on whether to grandfather POFS licensees that formerly carried private traffic now classified as common carrier traffic or eliminate the prohibition on POFS licensees offering common carrier services; to revise Parts 74, 78, 90, and 101 for shared use of certain frequency bands; to delete several unnecessary or redundant sections of the rules concerning forms, notifications, and technical standards; to clarify conditional operations in the four low power frequency pairs in the 23 GHz band in Section 101.31( b)( vii); to update the transmitter frequency tolerance table in Section 101.107; and to allow conditional operation in the 952.95- 956.15 and 956.55- 959.75 MHz bands. 21 In the NPRM, the Commission also asked commenters to address a Petition for Rulemaking concerning the 10 GHz and 23 GHz bands that was filed on March 5, 1998 by the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA). 22 TIA filed the Petition because it believes that the industry operating in the 23 GHz band has sufficiently developed to permit the Commission to adopt more complete technical standards without stifling further growth. 23 TIA also contends that the Commission should amend its Rules to authorize conditional licensing in the 23 GHz band 24 and to permit the use of smaller antennas in the 10 GHz and 23 GHz bands. 25 TIA argues that such revisions would make the bands more attractive to fixed microwave users and thereby alleviate overcrowding in other bands. 26 Because of the nexus to issues already being considered by the Commission in this proceeding, the NPRM asked to parties to comment on the TIA Petition. 18 See id. at 3138 at 13. 19 See id. at 3141 ¶ 19. 20 See id. at 3138- 39 ¶ 14. 21 See id. at 3132- 33 ¶ 3. 22 See id. at 3158- 65 ¶¶ 58- 73. 23 See id. at 3160- 63 ¶¶ 62- 69. 24 See id. at 3158- 60 ¶¶ 59- 61. 25 See id. at 3163- 65 ¶¶ 70- 73. 26 See id. at 3158 ¶ 58. 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 7 III. DISCUSSION A. Streamlining Part 101 1. POFS licensees’ carriage of common carrier traffic 8. Background. In the Part 101 R& O, the Commission eliminated the restriction on the use of common carrier transmitters for non- common carrier purposes. 27 Licensees operating common carrier stations now may provide private services at the same location without constructing duplicative facilities. 28 However, the Commission retained its rule prohibiting stations licensed as private systems from offering common carrier communications services or leasing reserve capacity to common carriers for their common carrier traffic. 29 The Commission pointed to the increased flexibility that it had given common carriers, and suggested that private licensees desiring to carry common carrier traffic as well as internal communications become common carrier licensees. 30 The Commission also declined to eliminate this restriction in the MO& O, on the grounds that it lacked a sufficient record, 31 but sought comment in the NPRM on whether to eliminate the rule. 32 In this regard, the Commission noted that many private microwave systems are owned by petroleum companies, utility companies, or government entities that do not want to become, or, in some cases, may be prohibited by law from becoming, common carriers. 33 9. In addition, the Commission noted that many land mobile radio licensees with wide area communication systems use operational fixed microwave systems to transmit communications between base stations in their systems. 34 In some cases, the land mobile radio licensee is also the licensee of the microwave facilities. 35 In other cases, land mobile radio licensees lease excess capacity from existing microwave systems. 36 If, however, the communications (including any land mobile communications) being carried on the microwave system is common carrier traffic, our Rules require that the microwave system be licensed as a common carrier. 37 When the Commission reclassified many land mobile radio licensees as Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS), i. e., common carriers, there was an 27 Part 101 R& O, 11 FCC Rcd at 13466 ¶ 39. 28 Id. 29 Id. at 13467 ¶ 42. See also 47 C. F. R. § 101.603( b)( 1). 30 Part 101 R& O, 11 FCC Rcd at 13468 ¶ 43. 31 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3141 ¶ 19. 32 Id. at 3150 ¶ 36. 33 Id. at 3150 ¶ 37. 34 Id. 35 Id. 36 Id. 37 See 47 C. F. R. § 101.603( b)( 1). See also Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3150 ¶ 37. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 8 unanticipated effect on some private microwave licensees. 38 For example, the reclassification of some Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) licensees made them no longer eligible to use a POFS facility under the plain language of our Rules. 39 Many of these private microwave systems supporting SMR and other private operations are owned by petroleum companies, utility companies, or government entities that do not want to become, or, in some cases, may be prohibited by law from becoming, common carriers. 40 Consequently, the Commission sought comment on whether, in the event the general prohibition against POFS carriage of common carrier traffic is retained, to provide an exception to the rule to permit grandfathering of POF microwave systems allowing common carrier traffic over their connecting facilities, or CMRS providers that were formerly classified as private land mobile radio service providers. 41 10. Discussion. Most of the commenters addressing the issue support eliminating the rule prohibiting stations licensed as private systems from offering common carrier communications services or leasing reserve capacity to common carriers for their common carrier traffic. 42 They argue that it is unreasonable, unduly burdensome, and unnecessary to require SMR and other former private operators to either construct and operate duplicate microwave facilities or seek service from a microwave or landline common carrier -- often in areas where such service is not readily available. 43 11. On the other hand, SBC Communications Inc. (SBC) supports retaining the prohibition. 44 It argues that the limitation reflects the appropriate regulatory scheme because providers of similar services should be subject to the same regulatory requirements, and permitting POFS licensees to offer common carrier services without being licensed as common carriers would give then an unfair advantage. 45 SBC also asserts that allowing POFS licensees to offer common carrier services or lease reserve capacity to common carriers for their common carrier traffic would not necessarily promote more efficient use of spectrum, because this incorrectly assumes that there is no other use to which excess capacity can be put. 46 38 See Implementation of Sections 3( n) and 332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, Second Report and Order, GN Docket No. 93- 252, 9 FCC Rcd 1411 (1994). See also Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3150 ¶ 37. 39 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3150 ¶ 37. 40 Id. 41 Id. at 3150- 51 ¶ 38. As noted in the Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, when the Commission reclassified many land mobile radio licensees as CMRS, it rendered some licensees that used microwave frequencies to transmit communications between base stations in their systems no longer eligible to use a POFS facility. Id. at 3150 ¶ 37. 42 Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel) Comments at 4- 6; United Telecom Council (UTC) Comments at 9- 10; Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (Fixed Wireless) Comments at 24- 26; Stratos Offshore Services Company (Stratos) Comments at 17- 18; American Petroleum Institute (API) Comments at 5; Arizona Public Service Company (APS) Comments at 2- 3; South Carolina Electric & Gas (SCE& G) Reply Comments at 2- 3. 43 Nextel Comments at 4; see also Fixed Wireless Comments at 25. 44 SBC Reply Comments at 3- 4. 45 Id. 46 Id. at 3. 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 9 12. We agree with the majority of commenters that permitting POFS licensees to lease reserve capacity to common carriers for their common carrier traffic will promote flexibility and may permit the development of common standards for common carrier and POFS microwave equipment. 47 We therefore will modify the restriction in Section 101.603( b)( 1) of our Rules to permit POFS licensees to lease excess capacity to common carriers for their common carrier traffic. 48 This increased regulatory flexibility is also consistent with our efforts to facilitate secondary markets for radio spectrum that will allow and encourage licensees to make all or portions of their assigned frequencies available for other entities and uses. 49 Consistent with our policies, as may be amended in our Secondary Markets docket, Part 101 licensees leasing spectrum are expected to maintain de facto control in a manner consistent with Commission policy. 50 In light of the important concerns raised by SBC, however, we will retain the prohibition against POFS licensees offering their own common carrier services, without first becoming licensed as common carriers. 13. With regard to POFS licensees that choose to become licensed as common carriers, the Commission stated in the 1996 Part 101 R& O that it would waive the filing fee associated with the wireless application to change the regulatory status, but did not include this clarification in the final rules. The Commission proposed in the NPRM in this proceeding to codify this clarification in the Commission’s rules. We received no comments or oppositions to this proposal. Therefore, we modify Section 101.133 of the Commission’s rules to codify this clarification. 51 Private licensees who wish to become common carrier wireless licensees must ensure that they are in compliance with the provisions of the Act and Commission rules, which includes making all appropriate applications and filings with the Commission and receiving necessary Commission approval. 52 For example, as the Commission stated in the Part 101 R& O, applicants must file necessary tariffs and license applications. 53 47 Fixed Wireless Comments at 24- 26; Nextel Comments at 4- 6. 48 We note that the leasing capacity from POFS licensees will not affect regulatory obligations of common carriers. 49 See Principles for Promoting the Efficient Use of Spectrum by Encouraging the Development of Secondary Markets, Policy Statement, 15 FCC Rcd 24178 (2000); Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary Markets, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 00- 230, 15 FCC Rcd 24203 (2000) (Secondary Markets NPRM). 50 See Secondary Markets NPRM, 14 FCC Rcd at 24205 ¶ 3 (citing Intermountain Microwave, 12 FCC 2d 559 (1963)). 51 We note, however, that all regulatory fees, such as those associated with Section 214 authorizations are still required. 52 For example, we note that applicants seeking to become common carrier wireless licensees must comply with the foreign ownership restrictions in Section 310( b). In addition, carriers seeking to provide common carrier international services must have the appropriate authorization pursuant to Section 214 of the Act. 53 We note that the Commission has completely detariffed the domestic the domestic interexchange services of CMRS providers and the international services of CMRS providers. See Implementation of Sections 3( n) and 332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1411 (1994) (CMRS Second Report and Order). See Personal Communications Industry Association’s Broadband Personal Communications Services Alliance’s Petition for Forebearance for Broadband Personal Communications Services, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Rcd 16857 (1998) (CMRS Forebearance Order). See In the Matter of 2000 Biennial Regulatory Review; Policy and (continued….) 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 10 14. Finally, notwithstanding our retention of the general prohibition against POFS licensees offering their own common carrier services, we find it appropriate to grandfather those POFS licensees currently providing common carrier service for their connecting facilities, or CMRS providers that were formerly classified as private land mobile radio service providers. We agree with the commenter that it is inequitable to require SMR and other former private operators – whose microwave operations were constructed and licensed in full accordance with the Commission’s rules prior to rule changes affecting their own non- microwave operations – either to construct and operate duplicate microwave facilities or seek service from a microwave or landline common carrier, often in areas where such service is not readily available. 2. Use of 10.7 - 11.7 GHz frequencies for final link 15. Background. Section 101.603( b)( 3) of our Rules incorporates the prohibition, formerly found in Section 94.9( b)( 3), against using POFS stations (except in the frequency bands 6,425- 6,525 MHz and 18,142- 18,580 MHz, or above 21,200 MHz) for the final radio frequency link in the chain of transmission of program material to CATV, MDS, or MATV (Master Antenna Television) systems. 54 The original purpose of the prohibition was to reserve space in the bands below 21.2 GHz to accommodate the anticipated migration to these bands of numerous operational- fixed microwave service licensees displaced from the 12.2- 12.7 GHz band by the reallocation of this spectrum to the Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service. 55 In the Part 101 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on CAI’s request that we eliminate this restriction. 56 CAI posits that we have created an “unnecessary burden” on wireless cable operators by prohibiting them from “using the 11 GHz band to connect programming headends or satellite receive facilities with their main transmitters.” 57 Commenters were asked to address whether granting CAI’s request would adversely affect the Commission’s efforts to ensure that spectrum is made available for the essential services offered by 2 GHz licensees that must relocate to accommodate emerging technologies. 16. Discussion. Commenters reject CAI’s proposal because the 11 GHz band is one of the bands identified for 2 GHz relocations. 58 According to API, over the next several years, numerous POFS (Continued from previous page) Rules Concerning the International, Interexchange Marketplace, IB Docket No. 00- 202, Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 10647 (2001) (noting that CMRS carriers that do not provide services solely through the resale of the international switched services of an unaffiliated U. S. facilities- based carrier must maintain price and service information for those routes on which they are affiliated with foreign carriers that possess market power and collect settlement payments from U. S. carriers). 54 47 C. F. R. § 101.603( b)( 3). 55 Amendment of Part 94 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Private Video Distribution Systems of Video Entertainment Access to the 18 GHz Band, Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 1270, 1271 ¶ 11 (1991). 56 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3155 ¶ 53. 57 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3155 ¶ 52 (citing CAI Petition at 2- 4). 58 API Comments at 9- 10; SBC Reply Comments at 5. The Emerging Technologies proceeding identified 11 GHz as a prospective home for relocated microwave licensees required to vacate the 2 GHz band to accommodate other new licensees. Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New Telecommunications Technologies, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 92- 9, 7 FCC Rcd 6886 (1992). 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 11 licensees (perhaps thousands) will be required to vacate the 2 GHz band to make way for Mobile Satellite Service providers and other new licensees. 59 API expects that the 11 GHz band will be one of the principal bands to which displaced 2 GHz POFS licensees will seek to relocate their important and often safety- related microwave systems. 60 SBC states that once the final rules for the 2 GHz band have been decided, it will be important to have suitable frequencies available for all relocations from the 2 GHz band. 61 API adds that the demand for relocation spectrum in the 11 GHz band likely will be heightened in light of the fact that the Commission has reduced the amount of spectrum in the 18 GHz band that is available for terrestrial Fixed Services. 62 While API understands the Commission’s desire to find spectrum for new and emerging technologies, it also implores the Commission not to lose sight of the importance of existing POFS systems -- particularly those that support the nation’s critical infrastructure -- and, accordingly, to ensure that there will be adequate spectrum available for these systems. 63 17. We conclude that, at this time, we should maintain the prohibition on using the 10.7- 11.7 GHz band for the final radio frequency link in the chain of transmission of program material to CATV, MDS, or MATV systems. We reach that conclusion because allowing unrestricted video use in that band could impede the relocation of microwave systems in the 2 GHz band. Depending on the quality and modulation techniques, video channels typically use anywhere from 6 MHz to 50 MHz 64 for each channel. Private cable operators use 6 MHz channels in the frequency band from 18,142 MHz to 18,580 MHz for video delivery, and this contiguous band includes seventy- three channels for a total of 438 MHz. MVDDS has been allocated 500 MHz for, inter alia, delivery of video and data. 65 MMDS has access to thirteen channels of 6 MHz each, 66 and it has been noted that MMDS systems have not had sufficient channel capacity to compete with most cable systems. 67 In contrast, a 0.4 MHz bandwidth digital 1DS- 1 59 API Comments at 10 (citing Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrums at 2 GHz for Use by the Mobile- Satellite Service, Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket No. 95- 18, 15 FCC Rcd 12315 (2000)). 60 API Comments at 10. 61 SBC Reply Comments at 5. 62 API Comments at 10 (citing Redesignation of the 17. 7- 19. 7 GHz Frequency Band, Blanket Licensing of Satellite Earth Stations in the 17.7- 20.2 GHz and 27.5- 30.0 GHz Frequency Bands, and the Allocation of Additional Spectrum in the 17. 3- 17. 8 GHz and 24. 75- 25. 25 GHz Frequency Bands for Broadcast Satellite- Service Use, Report and Order, IB Docket No. 98- 172, 15 FCC Rcd 13430 (2000)). 63 API Comments at 10. 64 Telenetics/ SMI Comments at 4. 65 Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku- Band Frequency Range; Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the 12. 2- 12. 7 GHz Band By Direct Broadcast Satellite Licensees and Their Affiliates; and, Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC Broadband Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, Ltd. To Provide a Fixed Service in the 12.2- 12.7 GHz Band, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 98- 206, RM- 9147, RM- 9245, 16 FCC Rcd 4096, 4099 ¶ 2 (2000). 66 A significant number of MMDS operators also have access to a total of 33 6 MHz channels via leasing arrangements with Instructional Television Fixed Service licensees. See 47 C. F. R. § 74.931. 67 See Report to Congress Pursuant to the Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act, Report, 16 FCC Rcd 578, 591 ¶ 28 (2001). Since the 33- channel analog capacity of MMDS systems is generally not competitive with that of most (continued….) 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 12 channel can typically handle 1.54 megabits per second and carry twenty- four voice circuits, and a 10 MHz channel can handle 44.7 megabits per second and carry 672 voice circuits. These examples demonstrate that typical video use needs significantly more spectrum than typical voice or data use for each channel. When the Commission opens spectrum for video use, we anticipate that spectrum to require much more bandwidth than voice or data. Given the large number of microwave incumbents in the 2 GHz band that are still subject to relocation, we conclude that at this time, we should maintain the restriction as it now stands because of the possibility that video use could deplete whatever spectrum may be still available for relocation. Maintenance of the restriction will facilitate the relocation of those licensees currently utilizing the 2 GHz band that must, in the future, relocate to accommodate emerging technologies. We reserve the right to revisit this issue in the future once the relocation of 2 GHz incumbents progresses. 3. Technical Changes a. Station authorization 18. Section 101.5( b) of our Rules requires a separate application for each DEMS Nodal Station, but not for a DEMS User Station. 68 Similarly, we require a separate authorization for each MAS master station, but not for an MAS remote station. 69 Because our Rules do not clearly state our application requirements for MAS, however, the Commission proposed to amend Section 101.5( b) to state that MAS remote stations also do not require a separate authorization. 70 We concur with APS that clarification of this Rule reduces the regulatory burden on licensees, 71 and will amend Section 101.5( b) of our Rules accordingly. 19. On our motion, we will take this opportunity to make a ministerial amendment to the MAS definition contained in Section 101.3 of our Rules to conform it with the current uses of the MAS (Continued from previous page) cable systems, MMDS subscribership has declined. Id. In recent years, MMDS spectrum has been acquired with the intent of providing a “last mile” connection to homes for the provision of high- speed Internet access. Id. It remains unclear whether these licensees will continue to provide analog video service, upgrade to digital video service, or discontinue multichannel video service. Id. 68 47 C. F. R. § 101.5( b). Nodal station is defined as the central or controlling station in a radio system operating on point- to- multipoint frequencies in the 2.5, 10.6, or 18 GHz bands. 47 C. F. R. § 101.3. DEMS User Station is defined as any one of the fixed microwave radio stations located at users’ premises, lying within the coverage area of a Digital Electronic Message Nodal Station, and providing two- way digital communications with the Digital Electronic Message Nodal Station. Id. 69 See, e. g., Amendment of §§ 22.501( g)( 2) and 94.65( a)( 1) of the Rules and Regulations to Re- Channel the 900 MHz Multiple Address Frequencies, Report and Order, PR Docket No. 87- 5, 3 FCC Rcd 1564, 1565 (1988). A remote station is defined as a fixed station in a multiple address radio system that transmits one- way to one or more central receive sites, controls a master station, or is controlled, activated or interrogated by, and may respond to, a master station. 47 C. F. R. § 101.3. A master station is defined as a station in a multiple address radio system that controls, activates or interrogates four or more remote stations. Master stations performing such functions may also receive transmissions from remote stations. Id. 70 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3152 ¶ 41. 71 APS Comments at 3. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 13 service. 72 In addition, we will make ministerial amendments to Sections 101.1325 and 101.1333 of our Rules. First, we insert the word “and” between the words “Incumbent” and “site- based” in Section 101.1325( a). The word “and” was inadvertently omitted in previous publications of this rule section. Next, we will make a ministerial amendment to Section 101.1333( c) to correct the rule citation from Section 101.1329( b) to Section 101.1331( c). We find that notice and public comment are unnecessary because these revisions are non- substantive in nature and in the public interest, as they will foster consistency among our Part 101 service rules. 73 b. Temporary and conditional authorization 20. Background. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed various amendments and clarifications to Section 101.31 of our Rules, which governs temporary and conditional fixed microwave operations. It proposed to eliminate the requirement in Section 101.31( a)( 3)-( 5) 74 that licensees provide certain technical information regarding their temporary operations. 75 It also proposed to insert language in paragraph (a)( 2) of this section to specify that an application for authority to operate a fixed station at temporary locations must specify the precise geographic area within which the operation will be confined, because this language was formerly in Section 101.13 of the Rules and should have been moved to another section when Section 101.13 was removed. 76 21. Regarding conditional authorization, the Commission proposed to amend Section 101.31( b)( 1)( vii) to clarify that only the four frequency pairs listed in Section 101.147( s) are allocated for conditional operation, rather than the entire 21.2– 23.6 GHz band. 77 Applications to use the remaining frequencies in the band would follow normal processing and await the Commission obtaining clearance from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“ NTIA”) before operations. 78 Finally, the Commission proposed to make frequency bands 952.95- 956.15 MHz and 956.55- 959.75 MHz, which are designated for point- to- point use in Tables 9 through 11 of Section 101.147( b)( 6), 79 72 See 47 C. F. R. § 101.3. See also Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, Report and Order, WT Docket No. 97- 81, 15 FCC Rcd 11956, 11999 ¶¶ 101- 105 (2000) (MAS Report and Order). Previously, the multiple address system definition required a minimum of four unique remote stations. The MAS proceeding eliminated the minimum four remote requirement. Id. Current permissible MAS uses include point- to- point and point- to- multipoint operations. 73 See 5 U. S. C. § 553( b)( A), (B). 74 See 47 C. F. R. § 101.31( a)( 3)-( 5). 75 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3152 ¶ 42. 76 Id. 77 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3152 ¶ 43 (citing Amendment of Part 94 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations to Facilitate Operation of Low Power, Limited Coverage Systems in the 22. 0- 23. 6 GHz, First Report and Order, PR Docket No. 79- 337, 81 FCC 2d 140 (1980); Amendment of Part 94 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations to Facilitate Operation of Low Power, Limited Coverage Systems in the 22. 0- 23. 6 GHz, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Gen. Docket No. 79- 337, 87 FCC 2d 1090 (1981); Amendment of Part 94 of the Commission’s Rules and Regulations to Facilitate Operation of Low Power, Limited Coverage Systems in the 22. 0-23.6 GHz, Second Report and Order, Gen. Docket No. 79- 337, 94 FCC 2d 32 (1983)). 78 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3152 ¶ 43. 79 47 C. F. R. § 101.147( b)( 6). 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 14 available for conditional authorization under Section 101.31( b). 80 It did not propose any other frequencies listed in these tables because the other Part 101 bands either are already available for conditional authority, have been auctioned or proposed for auction, are currently unavailable for licensing, or require Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) coordination with NTIA. 81 22. Discussion. Commenters were split on the proposal to eliminate the requirements for licensees to provide certain technical information to the Commission regarding their temporary operations. Some commenters support the Commission’s proposal because they assert that the technical information submission requirements of Section 101.31( a)( 3)-( 5) no longer serve any regulatory purpose. 82 However, APS argues that we should retain the requirements because 1) a temporarily or conditionally licensed transmitter is just as capable of causing interference as a permanently licensed transmitter, and 2) the prior coordination requirements protects licensees by giving them an opportunity to ascertain the potential for interference with their licensed systems by using the technical data contained in the prior coordination notice. 83 We disagree. We note that this information does not appear in ULS, and we rarely if ever receive requests from licensees to review it. Licensees experiencing interference can and do seek information from their frequency coordinators, who should already have this information. Consequently, we believe these requirements no longer serve any regulatory purpose. We therefore eliminate Section 101.31( a)( 3)-( 5). 23. Commenters were also divided on elimination of the agreement to provide specific information on the location of temporary fixed stations. One commenter supports the proposal to amend Section 101.31 to specify that an application for authority to operate a fixed station at temporary locations must specify the precise geographic area within which the operation will be confined, 84 while APS argues that the proposed rule does not require enough information. 85 APS contends that knowing the geographic area is not enough and that precise coordinates, which temporary licensees can determine with an inexpensive Global Positioning System receiver, are needed so that other licensees will have a reasonable chance of predicting and tracking down interference. Again, we are not persuaded by the concerns of APS. A temporary fixed authorization is intended to permit operation at multiple temporary locations in a service area without requiring new coordination every time the facility is moved. 86 The requirement that the Commission proposed to add to Section 101.31 formerly was in our rules but erroneously was removed in the ULS Proceeding. 87 The record does not indicate that the old rule was insufficient to permit licensees to predict and track interference. Therefore, we will adopt the proposal, with slight modifications to conform to the capabilities of ULS. Specifically, we will require temporary fixed 80 47 C. F. R. § 101.31( b) (formerly 47 C. F. R. § 101.31( e)). 81 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3153 ¶ 44. 82 SCE& G Reply Comments at 3- 4; Commonwealth Edison Company (Commonwealth Edison) Reply Comments at 2. 83 See APS Comments at 3. 84 SCE& G Reply Comments at 4. 85 APS Comments at 4- 5. 86 See 47 C. F. R. § 101.31( a). 87 See Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3152 ¶ 42. 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 15 applicants to specify its service area as a radius of operation about a specific coordinate (latitude/ longitude), or as a county, or as a State. 88 24. Regarding the Commission’s proposal to clarify that the only frequencies in the 21.2- 23.6 GHz band on which conditional authorization is available are the four pairs listed in Section 101.147( s), several commenters state that this interpretation is incorrect. They argue that it is inconsistent with the specific text of Section 101.31( b), and that limiting the use of conditional licensing to four frequency pairs intended for low- power channel use unnecessarily restricts access by fixed point- to- point terrestrial microwave radio services users. 89 We disagree. Section 101.31( b) is most appropriately read to allow conditional operation only in accordance within the power limit pursuant to the cross- referenced section. Because the cross- referenced section -- Section 101.147( s) -- is limited to four frequency pairs, only those applications that specify one of the four frequency pairs listed in Section 101.147( s) 90 can operate within the power limitations “pursuant” to Section 101.147( s) and, thus, can qualify for conditional operation under Section 101.31( b). We also note that the Commission does not currently have an agreement with NTIA to permit conditional authorization on any other frequencies in this band. We conclude that commenters’ confusion demonstrates the need to amend and clarify Section 101.31( b) as proposed. Amendment of Section 101.31( b) would make plain the requirement, set forth in Sections 101.31( b) and 101.147( s), that only the frequency pairs identified in Section 101.147( s) are authorized for conditional operation if the maximum effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) 91 utilized does not exceed 55 dBm. 25. Finally, commenters support the Commission’s proposal to make the point- to- point channels in the 952.95- 956.15 MHz and 956.55- 959.75 MHz available for conditional authorization under Section 101.31( b) because 1) utilities, pipeline companies and other critical infrastructure industries make significant use of these frequency bands for lower density communications; and 2) it would be extremely helpful if applicants for point- to- point channels in these bands were able to deploy and operate under conditional authority, just as they may in higher microwave bands. 92 Accordingly, we will adopt the proposal. 93 c. Transmitter frequency tolerance and power limitations 26. Background. The Commission proposed to clarify and correct the frequency tolerance table in Section 101.107( a) by 1) consolidating the separate columns for all fixed and base stations, mobile stations over three watts, and mobile stations three watts or less, because the frequency tolerances for these three categories are the same; 2) deleting footnote 2 because it applies to equipment which is over forty years old; 3) deleting footnote 5 because the same information is contained in footnote 7; and 4) 88 We will not apply this requirement to applications filed before the effective date of this rule. 89 See National Spectrum Managers Association (NSMA) Comments at 16; Fixed Wireless Comments at 18; Alcatel USA, Inc. (Alcatel) Comments at 24. 90 The frequency pairs are 21.825/ 23.025 GHz, 21.875/ 23.075 GHz, 21.925/ 23.125 GHz, and 21.975/ 23.175 GHz. 91 We are also modifying the power reference to reference EIRP instead of effective radiated power (ERP). See infra ¶ 71. 92 UTC Comments at 10. See also API Comments at 6. 93 We also take this opportunity to delete from Section 101.31( b) references to the “Certification Form,” FCC Form 415T, because the form no longer exists. 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 16 correcting certain errors in the listing of bands and tolerances. 94 The Commission also proposed to amend the EIRP table in Section 101.113( a) 95 to divide the 10.55- 10.68 GHz band into two separate bands: 10.55- 10.6 GHz with a maximum power of 55 dBW and 10.6- 10.68 GHz with a maximum power of 40 dBW, to be consistent with US footnote 265 of the Table of Frequency Allocations in Section 2.106, 96 which limits fixed microwave stations in the 10.6- 10.68 GHz band to an EIRP of 40 dBW. 97 The Commission sought this change to be consistent with NTIA and the Second Report and Order in Gen. Docket No. 80- 739. 98 The Commission sought comment on the accuracy of these proposed changes, their compliance with the Act, and their effect on licensees. 99 27. Discussion. We did not receive any comments regarding the revisions to Section 101.107( a). Thus, we adopt the proposal to revise the frequency tolerance table as detailed above. 28. Regarding Section 101.113( a), some commenters assert that this modification would make the band difficult to use for long paths relocated from the 2 GHz band. 100 Specifically, they maintain that because most systems in this segment of the 10 GHz band are bi- directional, the proposed change effectively would reduce the EIRP limit for the entire 10.55- 10.68 GHz band to 40 dBW, which would restrict the maximum antenna size. They argue that limiting the EIRP can be obtained by either changing the maximum EIRP for the 10 GHz band in Section 101.113( a) from 55 dBW to 45 dBW, or maintaining the current 55 dBW EIRP limit and requiring systems to reduce their power to the 40 dBW level using Automatic Transmit Power Control (ATPC). 101 29. We disagree with these commenters. First, permitting a maximum EIRP above 40 dBw in the 10.6- 10.68 GHz portion of the band would be inconsistent with US footnote 265 and our agreement with 94 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3153 ¶ 45. 95 47 C. F. R. § 101.113( a). 96 See Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Implementation of the Final Acts of the World Administrative Radio Conference, Geneva, 1979, Second Report and Order, Gen. Docket No. 80- 739, FCC 83- 511 (rel. Dec. 8, 1983). 97 47 C. F. R. § 2.106. 98 See Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Implementation of the Final Acts of the World Administrative Radio Conference, Geneva, 1979, Second Report and Order, Gen. Docket No. 80- 739, FCC 83- 511 (rel. Dec. 8, 1983). 99 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3153 ¶ 45. 100 NSMA Comments at 21- 22; Alcatel Comments at 32; Fixed Wireless Comments at 27. 101 NSMA Comments at 22; Alcatel Comments at 33; Fixed Wireless Comments at 27- 28. Under this proposal, transmitters only would exceed the 40 dBW level during short periods of multipath or rain fading. ATPC is a feature of a digital microwave radio system that adjusts the transmitter output power. ATPC allows the transmitter to operate at less than maximum power for most of the time. In a radio employing ATPC, the transmit power is reduced during normal operation conditions. When the receiver detects a reduction in signal level, a control signal is sent to the far end transmitter, instructing it to increase the power output to compensate for the signal reduction. The power output is limited to the licensed (maximum) transmit power. Guidelines for use of ATPC are set forth in the TIA Telecommunications Systems Bulletin TSB 10. “Interference Criteria for Microwave Systems (TSB 10). 47 C. F. R. § 101.3. 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 17 NTIA. Moreover, the comments did not provide sufficient justification for changing the power limit for the 10.55 to 10.6 GHz segment of the band. We see no reason to reduce the EIRP on the 10.55- 10.60 GHz side of the band because US footnote 265 does not refer to this side of the band. In addition, licensees will have more flexibility if we leave the maximum power unchanged for the 10.55 to 10.6 GHz portion and allow system designs to use whatever power is necessary within that limit (with or without ATPC) instead of lowering the power solely to match the other portion that has the smaller power limit. We therefore revise the EIRP for the 10.6- 10.68 GHz portion of the band at 40 dBW in Section 101.113 to be consistent with US footnote 265 of the Table of Frequency Allocations in Section 2.106. This revision ensures that our Part 101 service rules conform with the Second Report and Order in General Docket No. 80- 739, which amended the Table of Frequency Allocations to comply with our agreement with NTIA. We note that a review of our licensing database shows that eleven stations in this band 102 have an authorized EIRP over 40 dBW, with no station exceeding 44.5 dBW. We will grandfather these eleven stations, provided that neither end point of the relevant link is relocated. 103 d. Directional antennas below 932.5 MHz 30. Section 101.115( b) sets forth the technical requirements for stations operating below 932.5 MHz that are required to use directional antennas. 104 However, the only Part 101 frequencies below 932.5 MHz are MAS frequencies, 105 and these stations are not required to use directional antennas. 106 Because it appears that Section 101.115( b) no longer applies to identifiable frequencies, the Commission concluded that this provision no longer serves a regulatory purpose and proposed to delete it on that basis. 107 We did not receive any response to this request for comment. As Section 101.115( b) no longer serves any regulatory purpose because it no longer applies to identifiable frequencies, we delete it from the Commission’s Rules. e. Antenna polarization 31. Background. The last sentence of Section 101.117 states, “Unless otherwise allowed, only linear polarization (horizontal or vertical) shall be used.” 108 The Commission proposed to limit this restriction to only LMDS operators within twenty kilometers of their service area boundary. 109 It also 102 The eleven stations are listed in Appendix F. Our records reveal that there are 3354 active stations in the 10.55- 10.68 GHz band. 103 Any applications pending when the rule takes effect that seek authorization to operate in the 10.6- 10.68 GHz band with an EIRP over 40 dBW will be granted, but with an authorized EIRP of 40 dBW. 104 47 C. F. R. § 101.115( b). The substance of 47 C. F. R. § 101.115( b) was carried over from Part 21. See 47 C. F. R. § 21.108( b) (1995). 105 47 C. F. R. § 101.101. 106 47 C. F. R. § 101.115( c) n. 2. 107 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3153- 54 ¶ 46. 108 47 C. F. R. § 101.117. 109 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3154 ¶ 47 (citing Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Redesignate the 27.5- 29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5- 30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC (continued….) 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 18 proposed to delete the words “horizontal or vertical” from the rule, because strict horizontal or vertical polarization is improbable for most of the billboard passive reflectors that we authorize. 110 Due to reflections in the non- vertical/ horizontal planes of incidence, the Commission proposed to clarify the rules to allow systems with rotated linear polarization. 111 32. Discussion. Motorola argues that we should eliminate polarity restrictions for all LMDS stations, including stations within twenty kilometers of a service area boundary. 112 It contends that the restriction does not provide any additional assurances of interference protection because current LMDS deployments of point- to- multipoint stations use both vertical and horizontal polarization simultaneously to enable frequency re- use within a service area. Therefore, distant receivers -- such as across a service area boundary -- will receive interference from both polarities. The polarity of the dominant interference source will depend on the specific location and antenna orientation of the station receiving interference. 113 To operate in adjacent areas, Motorola states, operators will need to exchange information and work out equitable interference mitigation plans. 114 Additionally, Motorola notes that licensees in no other geographically licensed service, such as Personal Communications Services, cellular, or Wireless Communications Services, have similar limitations on polarization. 115 Motorola also states that the current restrictions that permit only vertical or horizontal polarization prohibit use of slant linear or circular polarity. 116 According to Motorola, slant or linear and circular polarity have path loss advantages in situations involving heavy rainfall. Motorola suggests that restricting LMDS polarity inhibits technology advancements or future deployments. 117 33. Other commenters argue that the restriction should be retained, and oppose our proposal to delete the words “horizontal or vertical” because 1) cross- polarization of signals is a key method used by frequency coordinators to allow a greater density of microwave frequency assignments in a given area, and allowing the use of circular or elliptical polarization in the site- licensed bands that are shared among many users would destroy the cross- polarization advantage and must not be allowed; 118 and 2) authorization of other polarization types in these bands, such as circular or elliptical, unnecessarily would increase the potential for interference. 119 These commenters, however, support an exception to (Continued from previous page) Docket No. 92- 297, 12 FCC Rcd 12545, 12666 (1997). 110 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3154 ¶ 47. 111 Id. 112 Motorola, Inc. (Motorola) Comments at 2- 3. 113 Id. at 3. 114 Id. 115 Id. at 3. 116 Id. at 4. 117 Id. at 4. 118 Comsearch Comments at 3. 119 NSMA Reply Comments at 12 (citing API Comments at 8 (permitting rotated linear polarization on a widespread basis will create unnecessary coordination difficulties and threaten harmful interference to other licensed operations)); see also Alcatel Reply Comments at 17. 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 19 accommodate billboard passive reflectors, as a strict vertical or horizontal polarization requirement cannot be imposed upon systems that employ billboard passive reflectors, because the reflection of the signal naturally results in a polarization rotation. 120 They state that, while allowing transmitters to use rotated linear polarizations would only serve to increase the likelihood of interference, as the number of links utilizing passive reflectors is small relative to the total number of links, and the signal reflected off a passive reflector is generally rotated from horizontal or vertical, allowing passive reflectors to emit rotated linear polarizations is reasonable. 121 34. Upon consideration of the record, we will retain the rule as is, except to remove the restriction with respect to LMDS stations more than twenty kilometers from a service area boundary. We make the exception for LMDS, in light of the arguments which have already been explored in the LMDS proceeding. 122 Elsewhere, we do not believe that it is in the public interest to remove the advantage that cross- polarization provides, and unnecessarily increase the risk of interference. Therefore, we believe that we should maintain our current requirement that microwave systems use vertical or horizontal polarization, but allow limited exceptions for billboard systems utilizing passive reflectors, the number of which should remain small relative to the total number of point- to- point links. The record also establishes that some commenters do not want to encourage billboard reflector systems. Therefore, we find that allowing passive reflectors to emit slightly rotated linear polarizations is reasonable on a case- by- case basis by waiver, but that we should not permit the transmitters themselves to be able to use anything other than strict horizontal or vertical linear polarization. We accordingly will retain the words “vertical and horizontal” in the existing rule in Section 101.117 and continue to authorize billboards reflector systems using slightly rotated linear polarization by waiver. Moreover, we do not agree with Motorola that restricting LMDS polarity to horizontal and vertical within twenty kilometers of the area boundaries inhibits technology advancements or future deployments. Licensees are free to explore other polarizations within the major portion of their areas. f. Frequencies 35. The Commission proposed minor clarifications to and streamlining of Section 101.147, which sets out the frequencies available for fixed microwave services. 123 It proposed to amend the introductory paragraph of Section 101.147( b) to clarify that it covers both MAS and point- to- point operations, and to clarify which subsections and tables pertain to each category. It also proposed to update the references throughout Section 101.147( b) from “Public Land Mobile Service” to “Public Mobile Services.” 124 These 120 Comsearch Comments at 4; API Comments at 8. 121 APS Comments at 5. 122 See Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Redesignate the 27.5- 29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5- 30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 92- 297, 12 FCC Rcd 12545, 12665- 66 ¶¶ 282- 84 (1997). 123 Id. at 3154 ¶ 49. 124 See Revision and Update of Part 22 of the Public Mobile Radio Service Rules, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 80- 57, 95 FCC 2d 769 (1983). 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 20 changes were incorporated by the Commission in the Multiple Access Systems proceeding. 125 In addition, the Commission proposed to delete a grandfathering provision from Sections 101.147( k) and 101.803( e) 126 regarding the 6525- 6575 MHz frequency band which expired in 1968. We did not receive any comments. Thus, as we did not receive any objections, we adopt the proposal and change the above-referenced rules. g. Frequency tolerance 36. The Commission proposed to amend Section 101.507 127 to provide the frequency tolerance of ±0. 0001% for DEMS Nodal Stations and ±0. 0003% for DEMS User Stations in the 10,550- 10,680 MHz band. 128 It appears that this was inadvertently omitted in prior rule changes. We did not receive any comments. As no one has registered any objection, we adopt the proposal and change Section 101.507 of the rules accordingly. h. Stations at temporary fixed locations 37. Section 101.815( a)( 1) permits temporary operation of LTTS stations for six months, but prohibits temporary operation of stations for services that are initially known to be of longer than six months’ duration. 129 The rule allows for short- term needs or for testing purposes, but prevents applicants from using the temporary provisions to avoid having to wait for regular processing of their application for permanent authority. The Commission proposed to eliminate the prohibition of temporary operation of stations for services known to be of longer than six months’ duration, and thus allow applicants to use the temporary fixed locations without restrictions, provided they still file for permanent authority in accordance with Section 101.815( a)( 2) 130 for stations that remain longer than six months. 131 Moreover, the Commission stated its belief that processing time is sufficiently expeditious that applicants will not seek any benefit from using a temporary location to avoid regular processing delays, and that broadening the scope of use of temporary fixed locations could reduce the number of requests for special temporary authority which might otherwise be filed. 132 We did not receive any response to this request for comment. As no objections were registered, we adopt the proposal and change Section 101.815( a)( 1). 125 See MAS Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11956; Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, Erratum, WT Docket No. 97- 81, 15 FCC Rcd 16415 (2000). 126 47 C. F. R. §§ 101.147( k), 101.803( e). 127 47 C. F. R. § 101.507. 128 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3155 ¶ 50. 129 47 C. F. R. § 101.815( a)( 1). 130 47 C. F. R. § 101.815( a)( 2). We note that Section 101.815( a)( 2) states that applications for permanent authorization for stations at temporary locations must be filed at least 30 days prior to the end of the six- month period. We nonetheless encourage applicants to submit their applications for permanent authorization as early as possible in the six- month period, to ensure timely processing. 131 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3155 ¶ 51. 132 Id. 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 21 i. LMDS technical rules 38. Background. With the advent of commencement of LMDS operations, the Commission was concerned that some Part 101 technical rules may not be fully consistent with the equipment being manufactured to provide the types of services permitted and envisioned by our LMDS rules, so it sought comment on whether the Part 101 emission mask requirement in certain circumstances may be too severe for LMDS. Section 101.111( a)( 2)( ii)-( iii) sets forth the required attenuation: (ii) For operating frequencies above 15 GHz, in any 1 MHz band, the center frequency of which is removed from the assigned frequency by more than 50 percent up to and including 250 percent of the authorized bandwidth: As specified by the following equation but in no event less than 11 decibels: A = 11 + 0.4( P - 50) + 10 Log10 B. (Attenuation greater than 56 decibels is not required.) (iii) In any 4 kHz band, the center frequency of which is removed from the assigned frequency by more than 250 percent of the authorized bandwidth: At least 43 + 10 Log10 (mean output power in watts) decibels, or 80 decibels, whichever is the lesser attenuation. 133 39. Given its understanding that LMDS transmitters may be manufactured for a spectrum block up to 850 MHz wide, or for discrete channels such as 10 MHz, and that LMDS transmitters are filtered as wide as the spectrum block, the Commission sought comment as to whether attempting to mask each discrete frequency in accordance with Part 101 presents insurmountable logistical problems for LMDS licensees. 134 It also noted that the Commission’s technical standards allow the use of a bandwidth up to 850 MHz in the 27.50- 28.35 GHz band, 135 but if a manufacturer designs a transmitter to operate with a bandwidth of 10 MHz, and the value for the maximum bandwidth (850 MHz) from the table in Section 101.109 of the Commission’s Rules is used in the emission mask equation above, this interpretation may create an unreasonable or difficult to achieve emission mask. 136 It sought comment on whether the table in Section 101.109 or the approach in Section 101.111 of the Commission’s Rules should be changed to indicate that LMDS equipment manufacturers can specify and use the actual bandwidth of the designed transmitter. 137 The Commission also sought comment on adopting a minimum limit for out- of- band emissions of -13 dBm because the method of calculating an emission mask in Section 101.111 as a function of power works well for high- powered transmitters but can result in out- of- band emissions that may be unnecessarily low for low powered transmitters. 138 133 47 C. F. R. § 101.111( a)( 2)( ii)-( iii). P = percent removed from the carrier frequency, and B = authorized bandwidth in MHz. 134 See Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3157 ¶ 54. 135 See 47 C. F. R. § 101.109( c). 136 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3157 ¶ 55. 137 Id. 138 Id. at 3157 ¶ 56 (citing Letter from David E. Hilliard and Thomas S. Dombrowsky, Jr., Wiley, Rein & Fielding, (continued….) 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 22 40. In addition, the Commission sought comment on whether other technical rules applicable to LMDS should be changed. Finally, it noted that Section 101.139 indicates that LMDS, 24 GHz, and 39 GHz transmitters must be of a type that has been certificated by the Commission, 139 and proposed 140 to subject them instead to the less burdensome verification procedure applicable to most other fixed point-to- point microwave transmitters. 141 41. Discussion. Commenters agree that the Part 101 emission mask requirement in certain circumstances is too severe to provide LMDS operators maximum flexibility, and they offer several solutions. 142 Winstar would have the Commission 1) clarify that the Section 101.3 definition of “assigned frequency” includes the center frequency of an individual transmitter/ modulator, for block- assigned bands, such as the LMDS band; and 2) clarify that the definition of “authorized bandwidth” includes the nominal radio frequency bandwidth of an individual transmitter/ modulator in block- assigned bands. 143 Winstar states that clarifications of these definitions would ensure that the current emission mask requirement will be reasonable for LMDS and other block- assigned services in the future. Alternatively, Winstar supports a modification to Section 101.109 and/ or Section 101.111 to indicate the LMDS equipment manufacturers and operators can specify and use the actual bandwidth of the designed transmitter. 144 42. Alcatel proposes that Section 101.111( a)( 2) should be interpreted to exclude frequencies inside the authorized bandwidth when measuring out- of- band emissions. According to Alcatel, this solution would 1) meet LMDS radio equipment manufacturer requirements, 2) not necessitate a rule change, and 3) provide adequate safeguards against harmful interference. 145 43. Regarding the attenuation requirement in Section 101.111, Motorola suggests that we modify the reference bandwidth in Section 101.111( a)( 2)( iii) from 4 kHz to 1 MHz to be consistent with Section 101.111( a)( 2)( ii) and Appendix S3 of the International Radio Regulations, which stipulates that fixed service systems deployed after 2003 will use a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz for measurement of spurious emissions. 146 Motorola states that by applying a consistent standard, the Commission will enable (Continued from previous page) counsel for Bosch, to Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at 3- 5 (Jan. 27, 1999)). 139 See 47 C. F. R. § 101.139( a). 140 See Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3157- 58 ¶ 57. 141 Compare 47 C. F. R. § 2.952 with 47 C. F. R. § 2.1053. 142 See, e. g., Motorola Comments at 4- 6; Winstar Communications Inc. (Winstar) Comments at 6- 7; Alcatel Comments at 26- 29. 143 Winstar Comments at 6- 7. 144 Id. at 7. 145 Alcatel Comments at 26- 27; see also NSMA Comments at 18; Fixed Wireless Comments at 20; NSMA Reply Comments at 18; Alcatel Reply Comments at 23. 146 Motorola Comments at 5. 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 23 the manufacture of equipment that can be easily deployed domestically and internationally, with a minimum of modification. 147 44. Motorola also urges the Commission to reaffirm its practice of utilizing the maximum bandwidth for LMDS as listed in Section 101.109( c) of the Commission’s Rules. It argues that if the Commission adopts the suggestions by other commenters to use a bandwidth narrower than the maximum bandwidth limitations found in Section 101.109( c), the Commission should provide clear and descriptive definitions for terms such as single- carrier, multi- carrier, assigned bandwidth of the station, block band edge, affect on aggregation and disaggregation of channels/ blocks, occupied bandwidth, and emission designator bandwidth for the requirement to be clearly understood and implemented. 148 Motorola asserts that, at a minimum, it is critical for the Commission to clarify the specific requirements for out- of- band emissions, as it is apparent from the commenters there is a disparity in how these rules are being interpreted. 149 45. However, Motorola agrees with these commenters that out- of- band emission limitations apply outside and not inside the assigned band of the station no matter how the out- of- band bandwidth is calculated. Such a result is exactly what occurs when using the maximum authorized bandwidth for the out- of- band bandwidth and is consistent with the Commission’s past interpretations and implementation of the emission mask rules for LMDS. Therefore, Motorola encourages the Commission to clarify that out- of- band emission limits continue to apply only outside the assigned band of operation. 150 46. Motorola agrees with the observation in the NPRM that application of the current emission mask overly restricts low- powered stations and with the proposal to provide for a lower limit of -13 dBm (- 43 dBw or 50 microwatts) below which attenuation is not required. 151 It states that this would be in accordance with the international limits established for other similar services. 152 Adopting -13 dBm as a goal for attenuation enables lower output power transmitters to comply with the current emission mask without extensive filtering. Any attenuation below -13 dBm fails to provide further interference protection to adjacent systems because this value is recognized as the permissible spurious emission level. Requiring additional filtering for low power systems does not make possible additional use of the spectrum, nor does it supply additional interference protection to neighboring operations. Therefore, we amend Section 101.111( a)( 2)( ii) such that the parenthetic sentence reads as follows: (Attenuation greater than 56 decibels or to an absolute power of less than -13 dBm is not required.) 47. Based upon our evaluation of the record, we believe that we should modify the Part 101 emission mask requirements to make it less severe for LMDS. Specifically, we will adopt the same mask 147 See id. at 4. 148 See Motorola Reply Comments at 2 (citing NSMA Comments at 18; Fixed Wireless Comments at 20- 21; Alcatel Comments at 26- 29; Winstar Comments at 6- 7). 149 See Motorola Reply Comments at 2- 3. 150 See id. at 3. 151 Motorola Comments at 5. 152 See id. at 5 (citing 47 C. F. R. §§ 24.238, 27.53, 90.669, 90.691). 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 24 requirements for LMDS that we did for the 24 GHz service, as outlined in Section 101.111( a)( 2)( iv). 153 These requirements are based on a maximum bandwidth of 40 MHz. At the same power output, use of a larger bandwidth results in less power being radiated on any particular reference frequency, because the same amount of energy is spread over a wider bandwidth. Using the value of 850 for B (based on the maximum bandwidth of 850 MHz) in the emission limitations formula for all cases can result in a power reduction requirement that may be impossible or extremely difficult to meet, and can in some instance be below the permissible spurious emission level. Therefore, assuming a maximum bandwidth of 40 MHz, rather than 850 MHz, results in a more reasonable emission mask requirement. This means that the reduction outside of the band edges should closely follow that which is specified for 24 GHz transmitters and be sufficient to protect adjacent band operations. 48. We also agree with Motorola’s suggestion to modify the reference bandwidth in Section 101.111( a)( 2)( iii) from 4 kHz to 1 MHz to be consistent with Section 101.111( a)( 2)( ii) and Appendix S3 of the International Radio Regulations. 154 We note that the change in reference bandwidth results in a more restrictive emission mask requirement. Therefore, we will implement this new requirement by prohibiting the manufacture or import of equipment not meeting the new standard twenty- four months after these rules become effective. 49. In addition, we clarify some of the terms used to ensure that the current emission mask requirement are reasonable for LMDS and other block- assigned services in the future through the following actions: 1) We define “assigned frequency” when determining the emission mask in Section 101.111 to include the center frequency of an individual transmitter/ modulator, for block- assigned bands, such as the LMDS band; 2) We define “authorized bandwidth” when determining the emission mask in Section 101.111 to include the nominal radio frequency bandwidth of an individual transmitter/ modulator in block-assigned bands; 3) We clarify that out- of- band emission limits apply only outside the assigned band of operation and not within the band; 4) We change the maximum reduction to specify a value of 56 dB or to an absolute power of not less than -13 dBm or –43 dBw; and 5) We change the value of B (bandwidth) used in the formulas to allow for actual bandwidth of the transmitter designed instead of the maximum specified in Section 101.109. 50. Finally, all the commenters addressing the issue supported the Commission’s proposal to replace the certification requirement for LMDS, 24 GHz, and 39 GHz (multipoint) equipment with a verification procedure. 155 They argue that LMDS, 24 GHz, and 39 GHz transmitters meet the three 153 47 C. F. R. § 101.111( a)( 2)( iv). 154 Motorola Comments at 5. 155 See Triton Network Systems (TNS) Comments at 2- 3; Giganet Wireless Systems, Inc. (Giganet) Comments at 5; Winstar Comments at 7; NSMA Comments at 19; Fixed Wireless Comments at 21; Alcatel Comments at 29; NSMA Rely Comments at 17; Alcatel Reply Comments at 22; Teligent, Inc. (Teligent) Reply Comments at 2- 3. 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 25 factors the Commission identified in the ET Docket No. 97- 34 proceeding, in which it initially specified the verification self- approval procedure for most Part 101 microwave devices, as important in determining to move the Part 101 devices to a self- approval procedure: 1) the device is used in a licensed radio service where the license can be easily located to resolve interference problems, 2) the manufacturers are capable of performing the necessary measurements to ensure compliance, and 3) an excellent record exists of compliance for the devices. 156 They also state that faster deployment of new technology will result from verification procedures, as compared to certification procedures, which will yield significant public interest benefits with little risk. 157 We agree that permitting the application of the less burdensome verification process, rather than the current certification process, to LMDS, 24 GHz, and 39 GHz transmitters, is more efficient. Accordingly, we adopt the proposal and change Section 101.139 of the Rules. j. Deletion of DEMS 18- 19 GHz Frequencies 51. DEMS licensees were required to cease operating on frequencies in the bands 18.820- 18.920 GHz and 19.160- 19.260 GHz (Channels 25- 34) as of January 2, 2001. 158 As an administrative matter, we will revise our rules to reflect that such operations are no longer permitted by deleting the DEMS reference to these specific frequency bands from the relevant technical rules. 159 B. TIA Petition for Rulemaking 52. The NPRM also sought comment on a Petition for Rulemaking filed by TIA relating to the 10 GHz and 23 GHz bands. 160 The TIA Petition proposes that we authorize conditional licensing in the 23 GHz band. 161 In addition, the Petition recommends the adoption of more complete technical standards to govern optimal channelization of the band, 162 frequency tolerance, 163 spectrum efficiency, 164 and the operation of low- power stations. 165 The Petition also seeks to modify the Commission’s antenna standards for the 10 GHz and 23 GHz bands to permit the use of smaller antennas than otherwise 156 See TNS Comments at 2- 3. 157 See Teligent Reply Comments at 2- 3. 158 47 C. F. R. § 101.147( r)( 9). DEMS operations are still permitted in the 10.55- 10.68 GHz band. 159 See, e. g., 47 C. F. R. §§ 101.107, 101.109, 101.113. 160 TIA also proposed rule changes to Part 74, Television Broadcast Auxiliary Service, to permit transport of digital transmissions over point- to- point microwave frequencies in that service, but these proposals are beyond the scope of this proceeding and will be handled in a separate proceeding. See Part 74 Rewrite, 16 FCC Rcd 10556. 161 See TIA Petition at 2- 3. 162 See id. at 16- 18. 163 See id. at 18- 19. 164 See id. at 19- 20. 165 See id. at 20- 22. 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 26 currently allowed in those bands. 166 TIA argues that its proposed revisions would make the bands more attractive to fixed microwave users, which in turn will help alleviate overcrowding in other bands. 167 1. Conditional authorization 53. Background. Currently, we permit applicants for all licenses awarded by competitive bidding to begin construction of facilities prior to the grant of their applications. 168 Furthermore, for all services subject to competitive bidding we permit pre- grant construction by applicants that are subject to petitions to deny. 169 Such pre- grant construction is subject to any service- related restrictions, including, but not limited to, antenna restrictions, environmental requirements, and international coordination. 170 Any applicant that engages in pre- grant construction activity does so entirely at its own risk, and the Commission does not take such activity into account in ruling on any petition to deny. 171 TIA proposes that we permit conditional licensing in the 23 GHz band. 172 Previously, however, the Commission concluded that conditional licensing should not be permitted in the 23 GHz band because use of these frequencies must be coordinated by the Commission with NTIA, and the two agencies did not have an agreement concerning conditional licensing on those frequencies for the whole band. 173 In the Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, the Commission declined to propose any rule changes for conditional licensing in the 23 GHz band until such an agreement is reached. 174 TIA recognizes that its plan can be adopted only if the Commission and NTIA reach an agreement consistent with the proposals. 175 We note that NTIA has 166 See id. at 22- 24. 167 See id. at 2- 3. 168 47 C. F. R. § 1.2113. See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services, Narrowband; Implementation of Section 309( j) of the Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, Narrowband PCS, Gen. Docket No. 90- 314, ET Docket No. 92- 100, PP Docket No. 93- 253, Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 10456, 10489- 90 ¶ 79 (2000) (PCS Second R& O and SFNPRM). See also Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission’s Rules - Competitive Bidding Procedures, Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 97- 82, 13 FCC Rcd 374, 469- 70 ¶ 168 (1997) (Part 1 R& O and SFNPRM). 169 Part 1 R& O and SFNPRM, 13 FCC Rcd at 470 ¶ 169. 170 PCS Second R& O and SFNPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 10489- 90 ¶ 79; Part 1 R& O and SFNPRM, 13 FCC Rcd at 470 ¶ 169. 171 Id. 172 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3158 ¶ 59. 173 Part 101 R& O, 11 FCC Rcd at 13462- 63 ¶ 28. The agencies have reached agreements concerning conditional licensing in other bands, but not regarding the 23 GHz band. See Reorganization and Revision of Parts 1, 2, 21 and 94 of the Rules to Establish a New Part 101 Governing Terrestrial Microwave Fixed Radio Services, Order, WT Docket No. 94- 148, 13 FCC Rcd 4394 (WTB/ OET 1998); Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Relocate the Digital Electronic Message Service From the 18 GHz Band to the 24 GHz Band and to Allocate the 24 GHz Band for Fixed Service, Order, ET Docket No. 97- 99, 13 FCC Rcd 3581 (1997). 174 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3159- 60 ¶ 61. 175 See TIA Petition at 15. 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 27 recommended a procedure to permit more rapid delivery of services and encourage greater use of the 23 GHz band. 176 Specifically, NTIA proposes that the Government Master File (GMF) database of government licensees in the 23 GHz band, which is confidential, could be released to a commercial frequency coordinator with a security clearance. 177 54. Discussion. Most commenters addressing this issue support TIA’s proposal and argue that allowing conditional licensing would permit rapid delivery of services and encourage greater use of the 23 GHz band. 178 They do not, however, address the basic problem identified in the Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, which is that such licensing would require an agreement with NTIA that we have not yet reached. Accordingly, we shall maintain our current policy prohibiting conditional licensing in the 23 GHz band until we conclude an appropriate agreement with NTIA. 55. With respect to NTIA’s suggestion that the relevant portions of the GMF be made available to a frequency coordinator with a security clearance, the Commission is further exploring this process with NTIA. We delegate to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology authority to negotiate and implement such an arrangement. While this arrangement still would not permit conditional operation on any additional frequencies, we believe it would greatly reduce the chance of conflicts between non- Government applications and Government assignments and increase the speed of licensing of systems in the 23 GHz band, thereby increasing the band’s usefulness to the fixed microwave community. In addition, such an agreement could serve as the foundation for future proposals to expand conditional authorization in the 23 GHz band. 2. Technical standards 56. When 23 GHz rules were adopted, the Commission did not incorporate complete technical standards in order to afford the industry an opportunity to develop. TIA proposes several changes to the 23 GHz technical rules that it contends will facilitate greater exploitation of the band. 179 We believe that 176 Letter from William T. Hatch, Chairman, Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, United States Department of Commerce to Fred Thomas, Liaison Representative, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, dated February 19, 1999 (Hatch Letter). 177 NTIA indicates that given the nature of Federal operations in the 23 GHz band, maintaining the confidentiality of this portion of the database is necessary. We note that, unlike in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services, the Commission does not certify or otherwise qualify entities to act as microwave frequency coordinators. See Amendment of the Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Systems, Including Third Generation Wireless Systems, Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order, ET Docket No. 00- 258, 16 FCC Rcd 596, 619 ¶ 56 (2001). 178 See, e. g., Consolidated Spectrum Services (Consolidated) Comments at 1; Giganet Comments at 2; Winstar Comments at 9; NSMA Comments at 14; Fixed Wireless Comments at 15- 16; Alcatel Comments at 20- 21. 179 TIA Petition at 15. In order to minimize any adverse impact that these new rules would have on licensees of existing systems and on equipment manufacturers, TIA proposes that the Commission establish an 18- month transition period before manufacturers would be required to meet the new standards, and a 24- month transition period before new installations would have to meet the new standards. Id. at 16 n. 23. Under TIA’s proposal, fixed microwave service stations applied for or licensed by the end of the transition period would be grandfathered indefinitely under the current rules, provided that they do not cause harmful interference to other licensees. Id. 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 28 the industry is now mature enough to promulgate more complete standards, such as those TIA has proposed. a. Channel plan 57. Background. Our rules do not specify a channel plan for the 23 GHz band. 180 TIA argues that a channel plan will make the band more efficient, and thus more attractive for short- haul fixed microwave service users. 181 TIA’s proposed plan, as a general matter, is based upon the current industry standard 50 MHz channel plan, but, given the availability of more spectrally efficient digital fixed microwave service radios, it also includes narrow and wideband channels to provide flexibility and to increase the number of potential users. 182 Specifically, the plan consists of twenty- four pairs of 50 MHz channels, each subdivided into wideband channels (i. e., one 40 MHz channel, one 30 MHz channel, two 20 MHz channels and five 10 MHz channels) and narrowband channels (i. e., ten 5 MHz channels and twenty 2.5 MHz channels). 183 The center 10 MHz channel in each 50 MHz block would have the same frequency as the associated 50 MHz channel, which would permit upgrades in channel capacity without a frequency change. 184 TIA states that no overlap would be created between the existing 50 MHz channels and the new channels, allowing for an orderly transition to the new plan without causing interference to existing systems; and that the plan would enhance flexibility and spectrum efficiency by avoiding the need to use 50 MHz channels for all needs above 20 MHz. 185 TIA also recommends reserving several portions of the 23 GHz band for narrowband channels, which could be used for wideband traffic only if all other wideband channels are blocked. 186 Finally, TIA proposes making the entire band available to common carrier and POFS users, instead of the current system of reserving half of the band for each. 187 The Commission sought comment on TIA’s proposals, their compliance with the Act, and their effect on licensees. 188 58. The Commission also noted that we routinely license duplex point- to- point private systems which use one channel for video and one channel for control where the control frequency is separated from the video frequency by 50 MHz. 189 These systems are typically used for surveillance or security 180 TIA Petition at 16. 181 See id. 182 See id. at 17. 183 See id. 184 See id. 185 See id. at 17- 18. 186 See id. at 18. The frequencies selected for narrowband channels are the highest numbered channels in the common carrier and POFS segments of the 23 GHz band, which TIA states are the least congested frequencies in the band since frequency planners tend to select the lowest numbered frequencies first. Id. at 18 n. 28. 187 Id. at 18 n. 27. 188 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3161 ¶ 65. 189 See 47 C. F. R. § 101.147( s). 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 29 systems. It sought comment on whether to continue to license these systems, and how TIA’s proposed channel plan would affect these users. 190 59. Discussion. Commenters generally support TIA’s proposal. 191 We concur. TIA’s proposal will make the 23 GHz band more attractive for the short- haul, high capacity fixed point- to- point terrestrial microwave radio services systems that comprise the backbone of a national wireless infrastructure. Commenters state that this feature is critical for continued growth of wireless Internet access and expansion of private microwave networks for voice and data transmission. 192 In addition, TIA’s proposal will also allow more efficient use of the band as operators will be able to license narrower channels for lower capacity links, and will also encourage the development of more spectrally efficient radios to use the narrower channel widths. 193 60. We also conclude that we should continue to license duplex point- to- point private systems which use one channel for video and one channel for control where the control frequency is separated from the video frequency by 50 MHz. Continuance of this regulatory regime does not conflict with TIA’s proposal, as TIA’s proposal will not create any overlap between the existing 50 MHz channels and the new channels, allowing for an orderly transition to the new plan without causing interference to existing systems. b. Frequency tolerance 61. Background. Our current rules specify the frequency tolerance for the 23 GHz band at 0.03%. 194 TIA contends that, when this standard was adopted, most 23 GHz band radios used analog modulation techniques and were coordinated for the full 50 MHz channel bandwidth, but today most licensed radios are digital and occupy 75% or more of the channel bandwidth. 195 TIA states that, for these digital radios, the 0.03% frequency tolerance specification would allow excessive frequency drift into adjacent channels if the band is divided into 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 5, and 2.5 MHz channels, and that this would cause spectrum inefficiency. 196 TIA recommends applying to the 23 GHz band the same 0.001% frequency tolerance standard that is used for the 18 GHz band (which is divided into narrowband 190 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3161 ¶ 65. 191 Telenetics Corporation and Southwest Microwave, Inc. (Telenetics/ SMI) Comments at 7; Consolidated Comments at 2; Giganet Comments at 4- 5; Winstar Comments at 8; Comsearch Comments at 4- 5; NSMA Comments at 7; Fixed Wireless Comments at 7- 8; Alcatel Comments at 9; NSMA Reply Comments at 4- 5; Alcatel Reply Comments at 4- 5. 192 NSMA Comments at 7; Fixed Wireless Comments at 7. 193 Comsearch Comments at 4. 194 47 C. F. R. § 101.107( a). 195 TIA Petition at 18- 19. 196 Id. at 19. 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 30 channels comparable to those adopted above for the 23 GHz band). 197 The Commission sought comment on TIA’s proposal, its compliance with the Act, and its effect on licensees. 198 62. Discussion. Commenters were divided regarding this proposal. Commenters supporting TIA’s proposal to require a 0.001% frequency stability 199 argue that the current requirement for 0.03% stability, which is equivalent to a drift of + 7 MHz, wastes channel capacity. 200 They note that most manufacturers are making only digital radios in this band, which occupy at least 75% of the channel bandwidth, and which only require 0.001% frequency tolerance standard. 201 They state that tightening the frequency tolerance standard to 0.001% is also important because it would reduce consumer costs and increase manufacturer flexibility. Economies of scale could be realized because the 0.001% frequency tolerance also is used for other narrowband radio applications, particularly in the 18 GHz band. 202 Finally, they argue that the existing standard is incompatible with the channel plan adopted above, because it will allow excessive frequency drift into adjacent channels. 203 63. Other commenters are opposed to TIA’s proposal. 204 They state that the proposed standard is not realistic for analog video applications using 50 MHz channels, 205 or radios used for security/ monitoring with a return data signal. 206 They note that data radios are more expensive solutions because they require tighter standards, timing, bit error rate, phase noise, etc., while the typical FM analog video radio is a low- cost design with much greater frequency tolerance, typically + 0.03%. 207 They also argue that any adjacent- channel problem should be addressed directly, by restricting out- of-band emissions, rather than by the indirect frequency tolerance approach that will raise costs significantly. 208 Telenetics/ SMI urge that the permitted frequency tolerance remain at 0.05% for 50 MHz channels in 197 Id. 198 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3161 ¶ 66. 199 Giganet Comments at 4; Comsearch Comments at 5; NSMA Comments at 8- 9; Fixed Wireless Comments at 8- 9; Alcatel Comments at 12- 13 200 Giganet Comments at 4; Comsearch Comments at 5. Providing an example, Giganet states that only an occupied bandwidth of up to 36 MHz would be feasible in the 50 MHz channels, and channels less than 15 MHz could not be used at all by radios with such low stability. 201 NSMA Comments at 8; Fixed Wireless Comments at 8- 9; Alcatel Comments at 12; Comsearch Comments at 5. 202 Fixed Wireless Comments at 9. 203 NSMA Comments at 8; Fixed Wireless Comments at 9; Alcatel Comments at 12- 13; Comsearch Comments at 5. 204 Telenetics/ SMI Comments at 4; API Reply Comments at 7- 8. 205 Telenetics/ SMI Comments at 4. 206 Consolidated Comments at 2. 207 Id. 208 Telenetics/ SMI Comments at 4. 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 31 the 21.8- 22.2 GHz and 23.0- 23.2 GHz bands and be tightened to not less than 0.003% for channels of 30 MHz or less that are created in the remainder of the 23 GHz band. 209 64. A review of the comments indicates a consensus concerning the standard for digital radios at a frequency tolerance of 0.001%. The main contention concerned existing analog standards and the present need for inexpensive analog radios compared to more expensive digital radios. The Commission’s intent was that the 23 GHz band technology had sufficiently developed to take a step toward more rigorous standards without trying to eliminate any existing industries. We believe that TIA’s petition has greatly achieved that goal, and that we can take another step towards more efficient standards in the future. Thus, we are adopting two frequency tolerance standards, one for analog radios and one for digital radios. For digital radios, we adopt a frequency tolerance standard of 0.001%. With respect to analog radios, commenters did not strongly object to the arguments presented by Telenetics/ SMI, and we believe that adequate coordination efforts and the emission mask standards can allow users to satisfy their service requirements with the frequency tolerance standards we adopt herein. We therefore adopt the following frequency tolerance standard for analog radios in line with Telenetics/ SMI’s request: 1) if the channel bandwidth is greater than 30 MHz up to 50 MHz, the frequency tolerance standard will be 0.03%; 2) if the channel bandwidth is 30 MHz or less, then the frequency tolerance standard will be 0.003%. We will allow this analog standard provided harmful interference is not caused to stations operating within the new tolerance standards. If harmful interference is caused to stations operating with the more stringent standards, the onus shall be on the operators with the less stringent parameters to develop an engineering solution to the problem. 65. We will require new licensees to meet these standards within twenty- four months of the effective date of the rules adopted herein. Equipment authorized under existing licenses will be grandfathered. New equipment purchases (those purchased after the effective date of the appropriate rule) shall meet the new standard. We will revisit the analog standards when the industry has further matured. However, we do put the industry on notice that the Commission does intend to tighten the analog standard and encourages the industry to consider manufacturing equipment to higher standards than those adopted herein. Our goal is to revisit this area within five years of the effective date of this order to determine if the industry is sufficiently advanced to refine the standards further. c. Spectrum efficiency 66. Background. TIA argues that the current lack of a spectrum efficiency requirement for the 23 GHz band impedes efficient utilization. 210 Our rules require a 1 bps/ Hz (bit per second per Hertz) spectrum efficiency rate for digital modulations for all frequency bands below 19.7 GHz and for the 24.25- 25.25 GHz band. 211 TIA contends that this standard also is appropriate for the 23 GHz band (and for all bands below 25.25 GHz), because it would ensure that all proposed bandwidths could be fully utilized, and because the digital 18 GHz band radios that are likely to be retrofitted for 23 GHz band 209 Id. 210 See TIA Petition at 19. 211 See 47 C. F. R. § 101.141( a). 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 32 operation are already designed to this standard. 212 The Commission sought comment on TIA’s proposal. 213 67. Discussion. Most commenters support TIA’s proposal. They argue that with increasing congestion in all the microwave frequencies including the 23 GHz band, it is inequitable to allow continued inefficient bandwidth utilization by some users while other users are employing newer, bandwidth efficient radios. 214 They also state that the proposed standard would ensure that all frequencies are fully utilized. 215 Finally, they agree that the digital 18 GHz band radio models, that likely would be retrofitted for 23 GHz band operation, are already designed to this standard. 216 68. Telenetics/ SMI opposes TIA’s proposal because, although a requirement for spectrum efficiency of 1 bps per Hz may promote more efficient data applications, it does not take into account real- time video applications. 217 It states that this kind of measurement cannot be applied to analog video links and that sales figures indicate that analog video systems outnumber data transmission systems in the 23 GHz band. It argues that adoption of the proposals will require manufacturers to discontinue their analog lines and to design and market only digital systems, which can cost customers three times as much. Telenetics/ SMI argues that such a price level would drive many existing users out of the market, leaving them without adequate security and surveillance capability and unable to interconnect their buildings. 69. We agree with the majority of commenters that the public interest favors more efficient use of this spectrum. We therefore adopt TIA’s proposal to extend to the 23 GHz band the Commission’s present requirement that there be a 1 bps/ Hz spectrum efficiency rate for all transmitters using digital modulation in the frequency bands below 25.25 GHz. With the advent of the new channeling plan, we will expect applicants for analog equipment to select smaller channels with only the bandwidth necessary to provide the analog service envisioned. We will grandfather existing licensed equipment for the 23 GHz band without an efficiency rate, but require all new digital equipment to meet the new efficiency standard. Section 101.141 will now state that all 21.2- 23.6 GHz band equipment, utilizing digital modulation, applied for or authorized more than twenty- four months after the rule’s effective date shall be required to meet the new efficiency standards, but before that date equipment may be installed with no minimum bit rate. d. Low power systems 70. Background. TIA claims that the 23 GHz frequencies set aside for low power, limited coverage systems, such as perimeter surveillance applications and remote monitoring, are severely congested. 218 TIA proposes designating an additional 200 MHz in the band for low power operations, 212 See TIA Petition at 20. 213 See Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3162 ¶ 67. 214 See NSMA Comments at 9- 10. 215 See id. at 10; Fixed Wireless Comments at 10- 11. 216 See NSMA Comments at 9- 11; Fixed Wireless Comments at 10- 11. 217 See Telenetics/ SMI Comments at 2, 4- 5. 218 Part 101 MO& O and NPRM, 15 FCC Rcd at 3162 ¶ 68 (citing TIA Petition at 20). 32 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 33 adjacent to the current low power band in the 21.8- 22.0 GHz and 23.0- 23.2 GHz band segments, in order to relieve congestion in the current low power band. 219 In addition, TIA states that the Part 101 requirements for these low power, limited coverage systems are not congruent with their operations and should be revised as follows: 220 a) Maximum Power Definition -- Change the maximum power from 55 dBm ERP 221 to 55 dBm EIRP, because the maximum power for fixed microwave service systems is expressed as EIRP, and ERP is appropriate for mobile, not fixed, services. 222 b) Frequency Tolerance -- Apply the proposed 0.001% frequency tolerance standard to all systems, including low power, limited systems, rather than the current 0.05% standard for such systems. 223 c) Special Showings -- Delete as no longer necessary the requirement that an applicant make a showing of need in order to be authorized to operate with a 50 MHz bandwidth or to have more than five hops in tandem. 224 d) Interference Criteria -- Use a uniform frequency coordination procedure for all services in the 23 GHz band, and thus delete the specific additional interference criteria for low power, limited coverage systems, which, according to TIA, typical radios already meet, anyway. 225 71. Discussion. Some commenters support the allocation of an additional 200 MHz for low power operations because those 23 GHz band frequencies that are set aside for low power, limited coverage systems are severely congested. 226 Another commenter states that the entire band should be designated for Low Power Limited Coverage Systems with transmitter powers of less than 0.1 watts. 227 We agree with Comsearch, however, that designating additional 23 GHz channels for low power limited coverage systems would serve little purpose. 228 The Commission’s Rules specify only maximum power 219 See TIA Petition at 20- 21. TIA would reserve these additional 200 GHz frequencies primarily for narrowband systems, but permit wideband systems also if no other appropriate frequencies are available. See id. at 21 n. 31. 220 See id. at 21- 22. 221 47 C. F. R. § 101.147( s)( 1). 222 ERP is a term of reference to dipole, yagi, or other base and mobile antennas, while EIRP refers to isotropic radiators such as parabolic microwave antennas. The difference between 55 dBW ERP and 55 dBW EIRP is 2.15 dB. 223 47 C. F. R. § 101.147( s)( 3). 224 47 C. F. R. § 101.147( s)( 5)-( 6). 225 47 C. F. R. § 101.147( s)( 7). 226 See, e. g., Telenetics/ SMI Comments at 6; Alcatel Comments at 15. 227 See Consolidated Comments at 3. 228 See Comsearch Comments at 5- 6. 33 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 218 34 levels, so low power systems already are permitted throughout the band. If congestion is encountered on the four specific low power channel frequency pairs, operators can use any other 23 GHz channel without the necessity of designating additional low power channels. Furthermore, according to Comsearch, designating additional low power channels would aggravate congestion in the rest of the 23 GHz band, which has increased significantly in some areas since TIA filed its petition. 229 72. Regarding the change of maximum output power definition from 55 dBm ERP to 55 dBm EIRP, we agree with the commenters that changing the definition will better fit microwave terminology and perhaps facilitate better use of the 23 GHz band by Fixed Service users, 230 and we modify this rule. NTIA has agreed to this change. However, we do not adopt TIA’s proposal to delete the other requirements in Section 101.147( s) that an applicant make a showing of need in order to be authorized to operate with a 50 MHz bandwidth or to have more than five hops in tandem. We reiterate that this is a shared Government/ non- Government band. These requirements reduce the burden on NTIA of coordinating use of the band. 73. Commenters also support TIA’s proposal to adopt a uniform frequency coordination procedure for the entire 23 GHz band, which they say would allow Fixed Service users greater opportunity to utilize the band. 231 We reject this proposal. As noted above, conditional licensing in the 23 GHz band is available only on the four channels specified in Section 101.147( s), 232 and these channels are utilized on a non- coordinated basis. A “uniform frequency coordination procedure” would amount to either conditional licensing throughout the band or the removal of the uncoordinated low power channels. We believe that this would remove some of the flexibility that licensees now have. As noted above in our discussion of temporary and conditional authorization, we do not have an agreement with NTIA to allow conditional authorization on any 23 GHz band frequencies other than the four identified in Section 101.147( s). 3. Antenna standards for the 23 GHz and 10 GHz bands 74. Background. TIA states that many fixed microwave users need or prefer to employ small antennas because most potential antenna sites, such as rooftops, monopoles, and electrical transmission towers, cannot support large microwave dishes, due to either space limitations or aesthetic objections of homeowner associations or zoning boards. 233 Our rules, h