Broadband Over Power Line Systems, 42631-42639 [E9-20336]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
After considering the economic
impacts of this rule on small entities, I
certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
We continue to be interested in the
potential impacts of the proposed rule
on small entities and welcome
comments on issues related to such
impacts.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or the private sector in
any one year. This proposed rule is
estimated to result in one-time
compliance costs of $13,877.00 to the
private sector. In addition, this rule does
not create any additional federally
enforceable duty for State, local and
tribal governments. Thus, this proposed
rule is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999), requires EPA to develop an
accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State
and local officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism
implications. ‘‘Policies that have
federalism implications’’ is defined in
the Executive Order to include
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government.’’ This
proposed rule does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132.
F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR
67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA
to develop an accountable process to
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
tribal officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have tribal
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal
implications’’ is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:38 Aug 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal
Government and the Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes.’’ This
proposed rule does not have tribal
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on tribal governments, on
the relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only
to those regulatory actions that concern
health or safety risks, such that the
analysis required under section 5–501 of
the EO has the potential to influence the
regulation. This action is not subject to
EO 13045 because it does not establish
an environmental standard intended to
mitigate health or safety risks.
42631
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR
7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this
proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
because it does not affect the level of
protection provided to human health or
the environment.
This proposed rule does not relax the
control measures on sources regulated
by the rule and therefore will not cause
emissions increases from these sources.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372
Environmental protection,
Community right-to-know, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Toxic
chemicals, Articles Exemption.
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22,
2001)), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
Dated: August 17, 2009.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. E9–20293 Filed 8–21–09; 8:45 am]
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law
104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures, and
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs
EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards. This
proposed rule does not establish
technical standards. Therefore, EPA did
not consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 15
[ET Docket Nos. 04–37 and 03–104; FCC
09–60]
Broadband Over Power Line Systems
AGENCY: Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: This document addresses
certain issues from the Commission’s
Report and Order on rules for
broadband over power line systems and
devices (BPL Order) that was remanded
by the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia. In the BPL
Order, the Commission established
technical standards, operating
restrictions and measurement guidelines
for Access Broadband over Power Line
(Access BPL) systems to promote the
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
42632
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
development of such systems while
ensuring that licensed radio services are
protected from harmful interference. In
ARRL v. FCC, the court remanded the
BPL Order to the Commission for further
consideration and explanation of certain
aspects of its decision. Specifically, the
court directed the Commission to
provide a reasonable opportunity for
public comment on unredacted staff
technical studies on which it relied to
promulgate the rules, to make the
studies part of the rulemaking record,
and to provide a reasoned explanation
of the choice of an extrapolation factor
for use in measurement of emissions
from Access BPL systems.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or
before September 23, 2009, and reply
comments must be filed on or before
October 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by ET Docket No. 04–37 by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• E-mail: [Optional: Include the Email address only if you plan to accept
comments from the general public].
Include the docket number(s) in the
subject line of the message.
• Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing
address for paper, disk or CD–ROM
submissions needed/requested by your
Bureau or Office. Do not include the
Office of the Secretary’s mailing address
here.]
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anh
Wride, Office of Engineering and
Technology, (202) 418–0577, e-mail:
Anh.Wride@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 418–
2989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
summary of the Commission’s Further
Request for Comment and Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET
Docket No. 04–37 and 03–104, FCC 09–
60, adopted July 16, 2009, and released
July 17, 2009. The full text of this
document is available for inspection
and copying during normal business
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:00 Aug 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
hours in the Commission’s Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th
Street, SW., (Room CY–A257),
Washington, DC 20554. The complete
text of this document also may be
purchased from the Commission’s copy
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room,
CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone (202) 488–5300, facsimile
(202) 488–5563 or via e-mail
FCC@BCPIWEB.com. The full text may
also be downloaded at: https://
www.fcc.gov.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using: (1) The Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s
eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing
paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/
cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking
Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Filers should follow the instructions
provided on the Web site for submitting
comments.
• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket
or rulemaking numbers appear in the
caption of this proceeding, filers must
transmit one electronic copy of the
comments for each docket or
rulemaking number referenced in the
caption. In completing the transmittal
screen, filers should include their full
name, U.S. Postal Service mailing
address, and the applicable docket or
rulemaking number. Parties may also
submit an electronic comment by
Internet e-mail. To get filing
instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the
following words in the body of the
message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing. If more than
one docket or rulemaking number
appears in the caption of this
proceeding, filers must submit two
additional copies for each additional
docket or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail
(although we continue to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service
mail). All filings must be addressed to
the Commission’s Secretary, Office of
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• The Commission’s contractor will
receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110,
Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours
at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All
hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes must be disposed of before
entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail should be
addressed to 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
Filings and comments are also
available for public inspection and
copying during regular business hours
at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW.,
room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
They may also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (202)
488–5300, fax: (202) 488–5563, or via
e-mail https://www.bcpiweb.com.
Summary of Request for Further
Comment and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking
1. This Request for Further Comment
and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FNPRM), addresses certain
issues from the Commission’s Report
and Order on rules for broadband over
power line systems and devices (BPL
Order), 70 FR 1360, January 7, 2005,
that was remanded by the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. In the BPL Order, the
Commission established technical
standards, operating restrictions and
measurement guidelines for Access
Broadband over Power Line (Access
BPL) systems to promote the
development of such systems while
ensuring that licensed radio services are
protected from harmful interference. In
ARRL v. FCC, the court remanded the
BPL Order to the Commission for further
consideration and explanation of certain
aspects of its decision. Specifically, the
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
court directed the Commission to
provide a reasonable opportunity for
public comment on unredacted staff
technical studies on which it relied to
promulgate the rules, to make the
studies part of the rulemaking record,
and to provide a reasoned explanation
of the choice of an extrapolation factor
for use in measurement of emissions
from Access BPL systems.
2. The unredacted staff technical
studies have been placed into the record
of the proceeding and the Commission
is requesting comment on the
information in those studies as it
pertains to our BPL decisions. The
Commission is also placing into the
record certain additional materials that
contain preliminary staff research and
educational information and were not
previously available therein. In response
to its remand of a portion of the BPL
measurement procedure, the
Commission is also providing an
explanation of our reasons for selecting
40 dB per decade as the extrapolation
factor for frequencies below 30 MHz.
The Commission further explains why it
believes that the studies and technical
proposal submitted earlier by the ARRL
do not provide convincing information
that we should use an extrapolation
factor that is different from that which
was adopted. The Commission also
notes the existence of more recent
studies that verify the correctness of our
determination, although we do not rely
on those studies as post facto rationale
or justification for our decision.
3. Consistent with the opportunity
provided by the court’s remand and the
Commission’s stated intention in the
BPL Order to review the decision on the
extrapolation factor if new information
becomes available, we are also reexamining the current extrapolation
factor in light of the recently issued
technical studies addressing the
attenuation of BPL emissions with
distance and efforts by the IEEE to
develop BPL measurement standards.
As the several studies now available
show and as the Commission has
observed previously, there can be
considerable variability in the
attenuation of emissions from BPL
systems across individual measurement
sites that is not captured in the fixed 40
dB per decade standard. To address this
variability, the Commission is
requesting comment on whether it
should amend the BPL rules to (1)
adjust the extrapolation factor
downward to 30 dB or some other fixed
value and, (2) as an alternative, also
allow use of a special procedure for
determining site-specific BPL
extrapolation values using in situ
measurements. The special in situ
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:00 Aug 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
procedure the Commission is proposing
is based on a concept under
consideration by the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers
(IEEE) working group on power line
communications technology
electromagnetic compatibility (EMC). In
addition, the Commission clarifies that
parties testing BPL equipment and
systems for compliance with emissions
limits in our the rules may measure at
the standard 30 meter distance rather
than only the shorter distances
recommended in the BPL measurement
guidelines. The Commission request
comments on the unredacted staff
studies, our decision for selecting an
extrapolation factor for BPL systems
based on slant range method and the
explanation provided herein, and our
proposal to allow use of site-specific
extrapolation factors as an alternative to
the standard extrapolation factor. In the
interim, as justified herein, the
Commission will continue to apply the
standard as adopted in the BPL Order.
Issues for Comment
A. Staff Technical Studies
4. In the BPL Order, the Commission
adopted operational and technical
requirements and restrictions on Access
BPL devices over and above those
applied to other Part 15 devices. These
included requirements for consultation
with specific entities, mandatory listing
of BPL installations in a public
database, exclusion of certain
frequencies from operation, exclusion
zones, frequency notching, and a remote
shut-down mechanism, and were based
on the aggregate information from
comments and technical studies
submitted into the rulemaking record,
including ARRL’s and FCC staff’s
studies.
5. Subsequent to the release of the
BPL Order, the Commission on
December 22, 2004 submitted five staff
technical studies, in redacted form, into
the record of the above-mentioned
docket in response to a Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request from
ARRL. The staff studies measured
emissions from various Access BPL
systems at various locations in
Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, and
North Carolina. The studies were used
in the decision-making process along
with studies submitted by commenters
such as ARRL and the National
Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA). The
Commission redacted certain portions of
those studies on the basis that they
represented preliminary or partial
results or staff opinions that were part
of the internal deliberative process. On
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42633
reconsideration of the BPL Order, ARRL
alleged that the Commission violated
the APA reasoned decision making
requirements because it responded to
ARRL’s FOIA request belatedly and
because it redacted certain information
from the released information. The
Commission disagreed with ARRL’s
arguments, and ARRL sought judicial
review of the Commission’s decisions in
the BPL Order and the Reconsideration
Order.
6. In ARRL v. FCC, the court
determined that the APA requires the
Commission to disclose the studies
upon which it relies in promulgating
rules, and it directed the Commission to
make available for notice and comment
the unredacted ‘‘technical studies and
data that it has employed in reaching
[its] decision.’’ In accordance with the
court’s mandate, and in response to a
FOIA request from ARRL filed March
31, 2009, the Commission has placed in
the record complete copies of the five
staff studies identified by the court,
including the previously redacted pages.
The first two studies, included in a
single file entitled BPL Measurements in
Allentown, PA, contain data collected
on the Amperion BPL system and on the
Main.Net BPL system, both in
Allentown, PA. The third study,
Emissions Measurements on Current
Technologies Medium Voltage BPL
System, contains data collected on the
Current Technologies BPL system in
Potomac, MD. The fourth study, BPL
Summary After Briarcliff Manor, NY
Test, contains data collected on the
Ambient BPL system in Briarcliff, NY,
and some staff reactions. The fifth
study, BPL Emission Test Near Raleigh,
NC, contains data collected on the
Amperion/Progress Energy BPL system
in Raleigh, NC. The Commission
observes that the redacted pages mostly
contain information regarding specific
test notes and test set-up
recommendations with respect to the
BPL systems at the various test sites,
certain requests from third parties, and
preliminary and partial data with
respect to the noise floor and with
respect to the attenuation rate of the
signal strength at the test sites as well
as the opinion of one staff member as to
whether BPL systems are point-source
systems and that staff member’s
proposed options on how to treat these
systems. The Commission seeks
comment on the information contained
in these staff studies as it pertains to the
issues in this proceeding.
7. The Commission has several staff
working papers and video files that
contain data and information on
research from BPL field tests that were
used in preparing the staff studies and
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
42634
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
for staff education. These are materials
that the Commission would not
routinely, and in this case did not, place
in the record. However, in order to fully
and most efficaciously continue to
examine this issue, the Commission
believes it is important that it make
available all potentially relevant
research and information materials. The
Commission is therefore placing these
additional materials in the record of this
proceeding and invites comment. A list
of these additional materials is provided
in Appendix E of this ‘‘Request for
Further Comment and FNPRM.’’
B. Distance Extrapolation Factor
8. ARRL filed a petition for
reconsideration of the Commission’s
decision to use 40 dB per decade as the
extrapolation factor for frequencies
below 30 MHz. In support of its
argument that an extrapolation factor of
20 dB per decade should be used, ARRL
also submitted, through ex parte
comments, the results of three studies
conducted by the United Kingdom’s
Office of Communications (OFCOM)
and one by the Special International
Committee on Radio Interference
(CISPR) regarding emission
measurements for BPL systems. On
reconsideration, the Commission
affirmed its decision to use the existing
Part 15 distance extrapolation factor of
40 dB per decade decay rate for
measuring BPL emissions on
frequencies below 30 MHz, stating: ‘‘No
new information has been submitted
that would provide a convincing
argument for modifying this
requirement at this time.’’
9. In ARRL v. FCC, the court found
that the Commission did not offer a
reasoned explanation for its dismissal of
empirical data that was submitted ex
parte by ARRL, i.e., the three studies
conducted by OFCOM and additional
ARRL analysis intended to suggest that
an extrapolation factor of 20 dB per
decade may be more appropriate for
Access BPL. The court faulted the
Commission for summarily dismissing
the data submitted by ARRL because
such a conclusory statement ‘‘provides
neither assurance that the Commission
considered the relevant factors nor a
discernable path to which the court may
defer.’’ The court ordered the
Commission either to ‘‘provide a
reasoned justification for retaining an
extrapolation factor of 40 dB per decade
for Access BPL systems sufficient to
indicate that it has grappled with the
2005 studies, or adopt another factor
and provide a reasoned explanation for
it.’’
10. ARRL’s proposal for a sliding
scale extrapolation factor referenced a
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:00 Aug 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
1996 CISPR Standard. This standard,
which was published in 1996 well
before Access BPL was developed,
evaluates radio noise generated by highvoltage converter power stations and
similar high-voltage installations and
discusses methods on how to reduce
radio noise from inherent power line
components, such as mercury arc and
thyristor valves. ARRL pointed to a
graph in the standard, Figure 17, which
shows calculated values of the field
strength attenuation of emissions from a
vertical electrical dipole antenna as a
function of the distance on a horizontal
plane for different frequencies. Based on
this graph, ARRL then proposed a
formula which effectively constitutes a
sliding-scale calculation for an
extrapolation factor that varies with
frequencies.
11. In the period of time since the
Commission’s adoption of the
Reconsideration Order, reports have
become available on two new technical
studies addressing attenuation of BPL
emissions with distance, one by NTIA
in October 2007 that describes a second
phase of its simulation study on the
potential for interference from Access
BPL systems (NTIA Phase 2 Study) and
the other by the Federal Republic of
Brazil (Brazil Study) in June 2008 that
presents the results of a measurement
study of BPL emissions. In addition, the
Commission is aware that the IEEE
working group on power line
communications technology
electromagnetic compatibility is
working on a standard for EMC testing
and measurements methodology for BPL
equipment and installations (IEEE
P1775/D2) that includes a provision for
determining extrapolation (distance
correction) factors on a site-by-site basis
using in situ measurements as part of its
work on that standard.
12. Consistent with the Commission’s
stated intention in the BPL Order, to
review the decision on the extrapolation
factor if new information becomes
available and the opportunity provided
by the Court’s remand of the
extrapolation factor for explanation, the
Commission is reviewing its decision on
that factor in light of the NTIA Phase 2
and Brazil studies and the site-specific
option suggested by the IEEE P1775/D2
work. The Commission’s goal is to
provide BPL measurement procedures
that will adequately ensure compliance
with the § 15.209 emissions standard for
emissions at or below 30 MHz without
placing unfair or undue compliance
burdens on equipment manufacturers
and users. In conducting this review,
the Commission advised interested
parties that at this point it continues to
believe that the decision to apply the
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
existing 40 dB per decade distance
attenuation extrapolation factor in the
rules for Access BPL operations, in
conjunction with slant distance, on
frequencies in this range was reasonable
and appropriate.
13. The Commission is also mindful
that the Court has ordered that it
provide a reasoned justification for
retaining the 40 dB per decade
extrapolation for Access BPL systems or
adopt another factor and provide
reasoning, and specifically remarked
that the Commission did not offer an
explanation for dismissing the technical
studies and technical proposal for an
alternative extrapolation submitted ex
parte in 2005 by ARRL. The
Commission is therefore providing an
explanation of its reasons for selecting
40 dB per decade as the extrapolation
factor for frequencies below 30 MHz and
why it do not believe that the studies
and technical proposal submitted earlier
by the ARRL provide convincing
information that the Commission should
use an extrapolation factor that is
different from (and, specifically, less
than) 40 dB. The Commission believes
that the NTIA Phase 2 and Brazil
Studies further validate the use of 40 dB
as the extrapolation factor. In addition,
the sufficiency of the rules for ensuring
compliance is further validated by the
fact that the Commission has not had
any new complaints of interference for
more than two years.
14. The Commission also recognizes,
however, that there can be considerable
variability in the attenuation of
emissions from BPL systems at
individual measurement sites, although
NTIA’s modeling results do not
generally indicate that differences are
expected to be typically as high as the
15 to 20 dB for an underground system
such as was observed in the Winchester
Study. To address this variability, the
Commission is requesting comment on
whether it should adjust the
extrapolation factor downward to 30 dB
or some other fixed value and also
specify and allow use of a special
procedure for determining site-specific
BPL extrapolation values using in situ
measurements. The procedure for
determining these site-specific
extrapolation values would follow the
general model under consideration in
the IEEE P1775/D2 work.
15. The Commission is requesting that
interested parties submit additional
comment and information on the BPL
extrapolation factor and on our proposal
to modify the value specified for that
factor and to alternatively allow use of
special procedure for determining sitespecific BPL extrapolation values. Such
comment and information should
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
address (1) the three studies and
proposal for a sliding scale
extrapolation factor submitted
previously by the ARRL as part of its ex
parte filing on July 8, 2005 in
conjunction with its petition for
reconsideration of the BPL Order
identified by the court, (2) the NTIA
Phase 2 and Brazil studies with respect
to findings on the extrapolation factor
for BPL systems, and (3) our existing
slant range method as it pertains to the
effective field attenuation rate in a
horizontal distance context. The
Commission further request submission
of any other new empirical studies or
information that may inform us
regarding the BPL distance attenuation
extrapolation factor. Our goal is to
ensure that the extrapolation factor used
when tests cannot be made at the
standard measurement distance
provides effective protection to
authorized services from harmful
interference without unnecessarily
burdening Access BPL technology.
a. The 40 dB per Decade BPL
Extrapolation Factor
16. In explaining our reasoning for
adopting 40 dB per decade as the
extrapolation factor value for BPL
emissions, it is important to understand
that this is a measurement protocol (or
‘‘tool’’), not an adjustment to the
emissions standard. The Commission
first observed that a concern in the BPL
proceeding was that BPL systems are
not traditional point-source emitters.
Rather, they could act to some extent in
a manner similar to line source emitters
that would radiate along the power
lines, and, therefore the emissions from
these systems would not attenuate in
the same manner as a typical pointsource emitter. In addressing this
concern in the BPL Order, the
Commission agreed with the ARRL that
Access BPL systems on overhead lines
are not traditional point-source emitters.
17. The Commission also observed
that NTIA’s earlier BPL computer
simulation modeling as reported in the
Technical Appendix to its June 2004
comments showed results indicating
that the attenuation in field strength of
emissions from BPL systems with
distance from the power line is
consistent with the existing distance
extrapolation factors for unlicensed
devices in § 15.31(f)(1) and (2) of the
Commission’s rules when used with the
slant range to the power line. No party
offered analysis or argument to dispute
NTIA’s results. These simulation results
were conducted using the widely
recognized and employed National
Electromagnetic Code (NEC) software
for analyzing radio propagation.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:00 Aug 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
Although, the Commission does not rely
on NTIA’s more recent Phase 2
simulation results to justify its earlier
decision, the Commission noted here
that those results indicate that the
attenuation at individual locations can
be expected to vary around the standard
40 dB value with frequency,
configurations of line arrangements on
poles, and other site-specific
characteristics. The Commission is
aware that measurements of the
emissions from BPL systems at different
distances will vary, but cluster around
the 40 dB per decade factor. As the
NTIA simulation results show, this
variation is to be expected when
measuring emissions below 30 MHz
from points near the ground at distances
close to a source of emissions.
18. While the Commission recognizes
the potential value and importance of
empirical data with respect to this issue,
there were no significant studies that
examined the very large number of
measurements that would be needed to
address the different site characteristics
that affect the attenuation of emissions
below 30 MHz. In this regard the studies
submitted by the ARRL in its 2005 ex
parte provided only anecdotal
information on two different types of
installations (overhead and
underground) from two single sites, and
also had certain methodological
shortcomings. These studies did not
provide sufficient information to
support a statistically valid and
comprehensive description of how BPL
emissions attenuate over the short
distances at which measurements are
made.
19. The Commission specifically
observed that only two of the studies
(the Winchester Study and the Crieff
Amperion Study) collected data relevant
to the extrapolation factor. In addition,
those two studies each report only a few
measurements on a small number of
operating frequencies along a single
perpendicular path each at two small
and very dissimilar BPL installations
(one underground and one overhead) on
power line configurations which may
not be representative of power line
configurations in the United States. In
order for a study to provide statistically
significant information on the
attenuation of BPL emissions in the
close vicinity of power lines and to
adequately include signal conditions
under different configurations of power
lines on a pole or underground
installations, a much larger body of
empirical data at sites with varying
configurations of power line
attachments to poles and differing site
characteristics would be needed.
Moreover, such samples would need to
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42635
demonstrate that they are conducted on
power distribution systems
representative of those found in the U.S.
20. Second, the RF propagation
environments in which BPL emissions
are measured can affect the results such
that results from a given site may not be
characteristic of the general rate at
which BPL emissions attenuate. The
measurements in these two studies were
taken near the ground (as are
measurements BPL emissions under our
measurement procedure), where the
field strength of radio signals, and
particularly those below 30 MHz, is
typically affected to a significant degree
by reflections and absorption by the
ground, nearby vegetation, vehicles,
structures, measuring equipment,
equipment stands, and even the
positions of the persons making the
measurements. Of particular importance
in this context are the presence and
configuration of other power lines in
addition to the power line to which the
BPL device is attached and of metallic
structures and vehicles. Because of the
effects of these factors, the field
strengths of radio signals emitted at the
same power level will often vary
significantly when measured near the
ground at different locations that are the
same distance from a source. Thus, in
order to obtain empirical data from
which general conclusions about the
attenuation characteristics of Access
BPL emissions may be drawn, it is
necessary to have a very large number
of observations from different BPL
installations and from different
locations at those installations. The
small number of observations provided
by the measurements in the Winchester
and Crieff Amperion studies is not
sufficient to form a basis for establishing
a value for the extrapolation factor.
21. The Commission notes that even
at the two installations examined in the
OFCOM studies, the data describe that
the electromagnetic field attenuates at
different rates. In addition, the data does
not even appear sufficient to determine
whether the type of BPL technology and
architecture made a difference in the
field attenuation rate. Moreover,
OFCOM itself recommends that
‘‘[d]uring the course of future PLT
leakage emission measurements, further
work is undertaken to confirm this
finding elsewhere. The Commission saw
nothing in the studies submitted by the
ARRL that would warrant selection of a
different (lower value) extrapolation
factor.
22. With respect to its proposal for a
sliding scale extrapolation factor, the
Commission observed that the ARRL
did not provide an explanation as to
how its formula was derived or how to
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
42636
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
use it to determine the extrapolation
factor, nor did it provide a rationale for
selecting such a formula. Further, even
the CISPR graph has no explanation for
the data showed thereon. In addition,
the Commission has no information as
to the relationship between the
performance of emissions from BPL
technology and the specifications for
reduction of power line noise adopted
in the standard. Therefore, the
Commission was unable to determine
whether or how the sliding scale factor
proposed by the ARRL could be used to
represent the attenuation of emissions
from a BPL system.
23. Accordingly, the extrapolation
factor adopted in the BPL Order, and
affirmed in the BPL Reconsideration
Order, was based on the best
information available at the time each of
those decisions were made, while
acknowledging that it might be desirable
to revisit this issue if more information
would become available, as we are now
undertaking.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
b. Review of the Extrapolation Factor
24. In reviewing the BPL
extrapolation factor, the Commission
intends to seek new information and
studies, including those with empirical
research, and to consider new
approaches for the extrapolation that
could use a lower value for the
attenuation rate of emissions. Looking at
new information, shortly after the
release of the Commission’s BPL
Reconsideration Order, NTIA published
its ‘‘Phase 2 Study.’’ This study
illustrates the application of the
Commission’s BPL rules and
measurement guidelines in a case study.
Using the well-known and validated
simulation software it employed in its
Phase 1 Study, NTIA created an
elaborate power line model that
approximates existing overhead Access
BPL power line structures in the U.S.
After applying the emissions limits and
methodology from the BPL
measurement guidelines, NTIA
analyzed the noise floor increase
expected in nearby receivers as a result
of BPL operations. NTIA states that its
simulations confirm that ‘‘at or above 10
MHz, the simulation results show good
agreement between the rate that field
strength decays and the part 15 distance
extrapolation rate using the slant range
distance to the Access BPL device and
power lines.’’ NTIA does, however,
further state that ‘‘the simulations in the
4 to 8 MHz frequency range exhibited
somewhat slower rates of field strength
decay with distance than would be
expected by the distance extrapolation
rate in the part 15 rules for Access BPL
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:00 Aug 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
systems. This difference was up to 6 dB
less than the distance extrapolation rate.
25. The Commission also observes
that, like OFCOM in the United
Kingdom, the regulatory agencies of
other countries are testing BPL systems
as part of the international forum’s
discussions on BPL technology. The
recently released study from the Federal
Republic of Brazil reports results that
show attenuation of emissions from BPL
that is greater than the 40 dB per decade
extrapolation factor, which indicates
variation on the other side of the results
found in the OFCOM studies. Here
again, the amount of data collected is
relatively small. The Commission
believes that the information in the
NTIA Phase 2 and Brazil studies, when
viewed in light of the NTIA’s Technical
Appendix and the OFCOM studies
taken together not only provide
validation for our previous conclusions
selecting 40 dB per decade as the
extrapolation factor, recognizing that
there will be variation around that value
at individual locations, but also inform
our further consideration of this matter.
26. There may be other new studies of
the attenuation of BPL emissions with
distance. The Commission requests that
interested parties provide additional
empirical information and studies
regarding the distance extrapolation
factor for use in measurements of
emissions from Access BPL operating
below 30 MHz. Such information and
studies will be most useful if they are
compiled using the FCC measurement
guidelines and cover various BPL
technologies that operate below 30
MHz. The data should also cover the
different operating frequencies of BPL
emitters in their typical deployment
configurations and the field strength
attenuation at these frequencies. Access
BPL systems from which data is
collected also should be representative
of power line configurations
(underground and overhead) and
current BPL network architectures in
the United States.
27. The Commission also observes
that the slant range distance in the
measurement procedure works with the
40 dB per decade factor to yield
extrapolated measurement values that
have the effect of imposing a more
conservative emissions standard than
would be derived if using the horizontal
distance from a power pole. In this
regard, at relatively short distances, i.e.,
distances 30 meters or less, the slant
range measurement method effectively
reduces the emission limit for BPL
systems with respect to the horizontal
distance from the pole because at any
given horizontal distance from the pole,
the slant range distance is longer than
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the horizontal distance. This is simple
geometry resulting from the height of
the power line on which the BPL
emitter is installed. (The hypotenuse of
a right triangle is longer than either of
the sides.) When extrapolated values at
40 dB per decade of slant range distance
are plotted against the horizontal
distance, the effective slant range
emission limit curve more closely
follows the emission limit curve based
on a 20 dB per decade extrapolation
factor than the emission limit curve
based on a 40 dB per decade
extrapolation factor. NTIA’s modeling
results effectively support this
observation. The Commission also notes
that given that its BPL measurement
procedure requires that compliance
measurements be taken at 30 meters or
less, the effect of the slant range
distance provision is significant at all
distances where the extrapolation factor
can be used. The Commission seeks
comment on our slant range method as
it pertains to the effective field
attenuation rate in a horizontal distance
context and on NTIA’s findings with
respect to the extrapolation factor in its
Phase 2 Study.
28. The Commission observes that
while 40 dB per decade continues to
best describe the attenuation rate of
emissions from BPL systems, there is
also considerable variability around that
value at different sites. The result of this
variability is that the actual attenuation
at some sites could be less than 40 dB
per decade and using the current
extrapolation factor at such sites could
produce an adjusted measurement that
would be less than the signal that would
be measured at the standard 30 meter
measurement distance specified in
§ 15.209. The Commission requests
comment on whether it would be
desirable to modify the value of the BPL
extrapolation factor to be 30 dB per
decade or some other value. This lower
value would apply a more conservative
approach that would compensate for
those cases where the actual attenuation
is less than 40 dB. While the
Commission does not have statistics that
indicate the distribution of cases where
the attenuation rate is less than 40 dB
per decade, it believes that the
additional margin provided by a 30 dB
standard would encompass a large
number of such cases. A 30 dB standard
would also substantially reduce the
remaining differences in underadjustment of measurements at
locations where the attenuation rate
might be less than 30 dB per decade.
The Commission further notes that
extrapolated emission limits based on
our proposed 30 dB extrapolation factor
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
when applied to slant distance are
comparable to the extrapolated emission
limits based on a 20 dB extrapolation
factor applied to horizontal distance.
29. The Commission recognizes that
reliance on a 30 dB per decade
extrapolation factor could increase the
compliance burden for BPL equipment
and systems that are tested at locations
where the attenuation rate is in fact
greater than 40 dB per decade. The
Commission, therefore clarifies that in
all cases measurements of BPL
equipment and systems may be made at
the 30 meters distance specified in
§ 15.209 and that where possible, the
Commission’s staff will make
measurements at this distance when
testing for compliance. Further, to
provide manufacturers and system
operators the opportunity to use a
higher extrapolation rate at locations
where they believe the attenuation rate
is higher than 30 dB per decade, the
Commission is also considering
allowing parties testing BPL systems for
compliance with the radiated emissions
limits to determine distance correction
factors on a site-by-site basis using an in
situ measurements procedure. The sitespecific extrapolation factor would be
an alternative to the proposed 30 dB per
decade standard and would replace the
existing alternative method currently in
the rules but that is not included in the
BPL measurement procedures. This
alternative method would only be
applicable to Access BPL devices
operating on overhead power lines on
frequencies below 30 MHz.
30. The Commission requests
comment on the suitability of an
extrapolation factor lower than 40 dB
per decade and the in situ procedure for
determining the field strength of BPL
emissions in locations where
measurements cannot be made at the
lateral distance of 10 meters from the
overhead line. Interested parties are
invited to suggest alternative values for
the extrapolation factor that would
account for the variability of attenuation
rates without unfairly burdening
manufacturers of users of BPL
equipment and systems. Parties
submitting such suggestions should also
provide information to support their
proposal. Interested parties are
specifically requested to address (1)
whether use of the proposed procedure
would provide an appropriate and
reliable means of accounting for any
variation in the attenuation rate at
individual sites; (2) the effect that an
extrapolation factor lower than 40 dB
per decade would have on the effective
emission limits for Access BPL devices
operating on overhead power lines
when used in conjunction with our
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:00 Aug 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
slant range method; and (3) any special
provisions that may be necessary to
ensure that site-specific attenuation
rates derived through this procedure
reliably and fairly represent the
attenuation rate at individual sites.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
31. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 as amended,1 the
Commission has prepared this present
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in this
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(‘‘FNPRM’’). Written public comments
are requested on this IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines
for comments provided on the first page
of the FNPRM. The Commission will
send a copy of this FNPRM, including
the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration (SBA).2
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
32. Consistent with the opportunity
provided by the court’s remand and the
Commission’s stated intention in the
BPL Order to review the decision on the
extrapolation factor if new information
becomes available, the Commission is
re-examining the current extrapolation
factor in light of the recently issued
technical studies addressing the
attenuation of BPL emissions with
distance and efforts by the IEEE to
develop BPL measurement standards.
As the several studies now available
show and as the Commission has
observed previously, there can be
considerable variability in the
attenuation of emissions from BPL
systems across individual measurement
sites that is not captured in the existing
fixed 40 dB per decade standard.
33. The Commission proposes to
amend part 15 of our rules to adjust the
extrapolation factor downward to 30 dB
for Access Broadband over Power Line
(BPL) systems and, as an alternative,
also allow use of a special procedure for
determining site-specific BPL
extrapolation values using in situ
measurements. Specifically, as a means
to address the concerns that the rate of
attenuation of BPL emissions at a
specific site can differ from the existing
40 dB per decade standard, the
1 See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601–
612, has been amended by the Contract With
America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law
104–112, 110 Stat. 847 (1996)(‘‘CWAAA’’). Title II
of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (‘‘SBREFA’’).
2 See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42637
Commission proposes to modify its
rules and measurement procedures for
Access BPL to specify the use of a 30 dB
extrapolation factor and to allow parties
testing BPL systems for compliance with
the radiated emissions limits to
determine distance correction factors on
a site-by-site basis using an in situ
measurements procedure when
measurements cannot be made at the
measurement distance of 30 meters as
specified in the rules. In addition, the
Commission is clarifying that parties
testing BPL equipment and systems for
compliance with emissions limits in the
Commission rules may measure at the
standard 30 meter distance rather than
only the shorter distances recommended
in the BPL measurement guidelines. The
Commission’s actions will ensure that
the BPL measurement rules would not
unnecessarily burden this technology
while providing appropriate protection
from harmful interference for authorized
services.
B. Legal Basis
34. This action is taken pursuant to
Sections 1, 4, 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f)
and 303(r) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 4, 301,
302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r).
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
35. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of, and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the proposed rules, if adopted.3 The
RFA defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as
having the same meaning as the terms
‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’
and ‘‘small business concern’’ under
Section 3 of the Small Business Act.4
Under the Small Business Act, a ‘‘small
business concern’’ is one that: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of
operations; and (3) meets many
additional criteria established by the
Small Business Administration (SBA).5
36. Nationwide, there are a total of
approximately 27.2 million small
businesses, according to the SBA.6 A
‘‘small organization’’ is generally ‘‘any
not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field.’’ 7
Nationwide, as of 2002, there were
approximately 1.6 million small
3 See
U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
601(3).
5 Id. 632.
6 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, ‘‘Frequently
Asked Questions,’’ https://web.sba.gov/faqs
(accessed Jan. 2009).
7 5 U.S.C. 601(4).
4 Id.
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
42638
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
organizations.8 The term ‘‘small
governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined
generally as ‘‘governments of cities,
towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts, with a
population of less than fifty
thousand.’’ 9 Census Bureau data for
2002 indicate that there were 87,525
local governmental jurisdictions in the
United States.10 We estimate that, of this
total, 84,377 entities were ‘‘small
governmental jurisdictions.’’ 11 Thus,
we estimate that most governmental
jurisdictions are small.
37. The proposed rules pertain to
manufacturers of unlicensed
communications devices. The
appropriate small business size standard
is that which the SBA has established
for radio and television broadcasting
and wireless communications
equipment manufacturing. The Census
Bureau defines this category as follows:
‘‘This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing radio and television
broadcast and wireless communications
equipment. Examples of products made
by these establishments are:
Transmitting and receiving antennas,
cable television equipment, GPS
equipment, pagers, cellular phones,
mobile communications equipment, and
radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.’’12 The SBA
has developed a small business size
standard for firms in this category,
which is: all such firms having 750 or
fewer employees.13 According to Census
Bureau data for 2002, there were a total
of 1,041 establishments in this category
that operated for the entire year.14 Of
8 Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit
Almanac & Desk Reference (2002).
9 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
10 U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the
United States: 2006, Section 8, page 272, Table 415.
11 We assume that the villages, school districts,
and special districts are small, and total 48,558. See
U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the
United States: 2006, section 8, page 273, Table 417.
For 2002, Census Bureau data indicate that the total
number of county, municipal, and township
governments nationwide was 38,967, of which
35,819 were small. Id.
12 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions,
‘‘334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and
Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing’’; https://www.census.gov/naics/
2007/def/ND334220.HTM#N334220.
13 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334220.
14 U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder,
2002 Economic Census, Industry Series, Industry
Statistics by Employment Size, NAICS code 334220
(released May 26, 2005); https://
factfinder.census.gov. The number of
‘‘establishments’’ is a less helpful indicator of small
business prevalence in this context than would be
the number of ‘‘firms’’ or ‘‘companies,’’ because the
latter take into account the concept of common
ownership or control. Any single physical location
for an entity is an establishment, even though that
location may be owned by a different establishment.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:00 Aug 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
this total, 1,010 had employment of less
than 500, and an additional 13 had
employment of 500 to 999.15 Thus,
under this size standard, the majority of
firms can be considered small. The
Commission does not believe this action
would have a negative impact on small
entities that manufacture unlicensed
BPL devices. Indeed, it believes the
actions should benefit small entities
because it should make available
increased business opportunities to
small entities. The Commission request
comment on these assessments.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping and Other Compliance
Requirements
38. The FNPRM does not contain
proposed new or modified information
collection requirements.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities and
Significant Alternatives Considered
39. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include
the following four alternatives (among
others): (1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof,
for small entities.16
40. In this FNPRM, the Commission
proposed to modify its rules and
measurement procedures for Access
BPL to specify the use of a 30 dB
extrapolation factor and, as an
alternative, to allow parties testing BPL
systems for compliance with the
radiated emissions limits to determine
distance correction factors on a site-bysite basis using an in situ measurements
procedure when measurements cannot
be made at the measurement distance of
30 meters as specified in the rules. In
addition, the Commission clarifies that
parties testing BPL equipment and
systems for compliance with emissions
limits in the rules may measure at the
standard 30 meter distance rather than
Thus, the numbers given may reflect inflated
numbers of businesses in this category, including
the numbers of small businesses. In this category,
the Census breaks-out data for firms or companies
only to give the total number of such entities for
2002, which was 929.
15 Id. An additional 18 establishments had
employment of 1,000 or more.
16 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
only the shorter distances recommended
in the BPL measurement guidelines. The
Commission seeks comment on the
alternatives and the clarification.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
41. None.
Ordering Clauses
42. Pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 301,
302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 4, 301, 302,
303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the Request for
Comment and Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is hereby
adopted.
43. The Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Request for Comment and Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making,
including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15
Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
Proposed Rules Changes
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
Part 15 to read as follows:
PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY
DEVICES
1. The authority citation for part 15
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304,
307 and 544A.
2. In § 15.31 redesignate paragraphs
(f)(3) through (f)(5) as (f)(4) through
(f)(6), and add a new paragraph (f)(3) to
read as follows:
§ 15.31
Measurement standards.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) * * *
(3) For Access BPL devices operating
at frequencies below 30 MHz, the results
shall be extrapolated to the specified
distance by using an extrapolation factor
of 30 dB/decade. Measurements may be
performed at a distance closer than that
specified with the radiated emissions
limit in § 15.209 of this part; however,
an attempt should be made to avoid
making measurements in the near field.
The distance correction to the emission
limit for measurements on overhead
power line installations shall be based
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules
on the slant range distance, which is the
line-of-sight distance from the
measurement antenna to the overhead
line. Alternatively, a site-specific
extrapolation factor may be used in lieu
of the 30 dB/decade standard. This
extrapolation factor shall be derived
from a best fit straight line fit
determined by a first-order regression
calculation from measurements for at
least four lateral distances from the
overhead line. Compliance
measurements for Access BPL and use
of site-specific extrapolation factors
shall be made in accordance with the
Guidelines for Access BPL systems
specified by the Commission.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E9–20336 Filed 8–21–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
GENERAL SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 2, 17, 22, 36, and 52
[FAR Case 2009–005; Docket 2009–0024;
Sequence 2]
RIN 9000–AL31
Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR
Case 2009–005, Use of Project Labor
Agreements for Federal Construction
Projects
AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD),
General Services Administration (GSA),
and National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of
comment period.
The Civilian Agency
Acquisition Council and the Defense
Acquisition Regulations Council
(Councils) are proposing to amend the
Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to
implement Executive Order (E.O.)
13502, Use of Project Labor Agreements
for Federal Construction Projects. The
comment period is being reopened for
an additional 30 days to provide
additional time for interested parties to
review the proposed FAR changes.
DATES: Interested parties should submit
written comments to the Regulatory
Secretariat on or before September 23,
2009 to be considered in the
formulation of a final rule.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments
identified by FAR case 2009–005 by any
of the following methods:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:38 Aug 21, 2009
Jkt 217001
• Regulations.gov: https://
www.regulations.gov.
Submit comments via the Federal
eRulemaking portal by inputting ‘‘FAR
Case 2009–005’’ into the field
‘‘Keyword’’. Select the link that
corresponds with FAR Case 2009–005.
Follow the instructions provided to
submit your comments. Please include
your name, company name (if any), and
‘‘FAR Case 2009–005’’ on your attached
document.
• Fax: 202–501–4067.
• Mail: General Services
Administration, Regulatory Secretariat
(VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4041,
ATTN: Hada Flowers, Washington, DC
20405.
Instructions: Please submit comments
only and cite FAR case 2009–005 in all
correspondence related to this case. All
comments received will be posted
without change to https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal and/or business confidential
information provided.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
clarification of content, contact Mr.
Ernest Woodson, Procurement Analyst,
at (202) 501–3775. For information
pertaining to status or publication
schedules, contact the Regulatory
Secretariat at (202) 501–4755. Please
cite FAR case 2009–005.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The Councils published a proposed
rule in the Federal Register at 74 FR
33953, July 14, 2009. The comment
period is being reopened for an
additional 30 days to provide additional
time for interested parties to review the
proposed FAR changes.
Dated: August 18, 2009
Edward Loeb,
Deputy Director, Acquisition Policy Division.
[FR Doc. E9–20305 Filed 8–21–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration
49 CFR Part 571
[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0150]
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
No. 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices
and Associated Equipment
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT.
ACTION: Denial of petition for
rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
42639
SUMMARY: This document responds to a
petition for rulemaking regarding the
Federal motor vehicle safety standard
for lighting. The Groupe de Travail
‘‘Bruxelles 1952’’ (GTB) and the Society
of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Lighting
Committee requested that new
specifications be added for optional
lower beam and upper beam headlamp
patterns on the basis they would
increase harmonization with European
requirements. After completing a
technical review of the petition, NHTSA
is denying this petition. The agency
notes the petitioners did not provide
data to demonstrate that the requested
new optional specifications would
provide safety benefits comparable to
those of the existing standard or that
cost savings would be realized without
compromising safety. Additionally,
NHTSA is pursuing a more
comprehensive review of the lighting
standard and is currently studying the
feasibility of many issues and potential
regulatory changes, some of which
would address issues raised in this
petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
non-legal issues, you may call Mr. David
Hines, Office of Crash Avoidance
Standards (Phone: 202–493–0245; FAX:
202–366–7002).
For legal issues, you may call Mr. Ari
Scott, Office of the Chief Counsel
(Phone: 202–366–2992; FAX: 202–366–
3820).
You may send mail to these officials
at: National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey
Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. The Petition
II. Agency Technical Evaluation
III. Agency Conclusions
I. The Petition
On July 21, 2004, the SAE Lighting
Committee and GTB petitioned the
agency to add new specifications to
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard
(FMVSS) No. 108; Lamps, reflective
devices, and associated equipment, for
optional upper and lower beam patterns
based on specifications pending
approval by the United Nations’
Economic Commission for Europe (ECE)
under ECE R112. If these requested
amendments were adopted,
manufacturers of vehicles sold in the
U.S. would be able to choose to certify
products to either the existing
requirements of FMVSS No. 108 or the
requested alternative new requirements.
Modifications to the agency’s test
procedures were also requested. The
petitioners stated that Japan had
E:\FR\FM\24AUP1.SGM
24AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 162 (Monday, August 24, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42631-42639]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-20336]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 15
[ET Docket Nos. 04-37 and 03-104; FCC 09-60]
Broadband Over Power Line Systems
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document addresses certain issues from the Commission's
Report and Order on rules for broadband over power line systems and
devices (BPL Order) that was remanded by the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia. In the BPL Order, the Commission
established technical standards, operating restrictions and measurement
guidelines for Access Broadband over Power Line (Access BPL) systems to
promote the
[[Page 42632]]
development of such systems while ensuring that licensed radio services
are protected from harmful interference. In ARRL v. FCC, the court
remanded the BPL Order to the Commission for further consideration and
explanation of certain aspects of its decision. Specifically, the court
directed the Commission to provide a reasonable opportunity for public
comment on unredacted staff technical studies on which it relied to
promulgate the rules, to make the studies part of the rulemaking
record, and to provide a reasoned explanation of the choice of an
extrapolation factor for use in measurement of emissions from Access
BPL systems.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before September 23, 2009, and
reply comments must be filed on or before October 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by ET Docket No. 04-37
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: [Optional: Include the E-mail address only if you
plan to accept comments from the general public]. Include the docket
number(s) in the subject line of the message.
Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing address for paper,
disk or CD-ROM submissions needed/requested by your Bureau or Office.
Do not include the Office of the Secretary's mailing address here.]
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anh Wride, Office of Engineering and
Technology, (202) 418-0577, e-mail: Anh.Wride@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 418-
2989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Request for Comment and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making,
ET Docket No. 04-37 and 03-104, FCC 09-60, adopted July 16, 2009, and
released July 17, 2009. The full text of this document is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the Commission's
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., (Room
CY-A257), Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document also
may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room, CY-B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-
5563 or via e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com. The full text may also be
downloaded at: https://www.fcc.gov.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking
Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Filers
should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting
comments.
For ECFS filers, if multiple docket or rulemaking numbers
appear in the caption of this proceeding, filers must transmit one
electronic copy of the comments for each docket or rulemaking number
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen, filers
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address,
and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions,
filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following
words in the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and
directions will be sent in response.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S.
Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or
messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236
Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing
hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be
held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
Filings and comments are also available for public inspection and
copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., room CY-A257, Washington, DC
20554. They may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street,
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (202) 488-5300,
fax: (202) 488-5563, or via e-mail https://www.bcpiweb.com.
Summary of Request for Further Comment and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking
1. This Request for Further Comment and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FNPRM), addresses certain issues from the Commission's
Report and Order on rules for broadband over power line systems and
devices (BPL Order), 70 FR 1360, January 7, 2005, that was remanded by
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In the
BPL Order, the Commission established technical standards, operating
restrictions and measurement guidelines for Access Broadband over Power
Line (Access BPL) systems to promote the development of such systems
while ensuring that licensed radio services are protected from harmful
interference. In ARRL v. FCC, the court remanded the BPL Order to the
Commission for further consideration and explanation of certain aspects
of its decision. Specifically, the
[[Page 42633]]
court directed the Commission to provide a reasonable opportunity for
public comment on unredacted staff technical studies on which it relied
to promulgate the rules, to make the studies part of the rulemaking
record, and to provide a reasoned explanation of the choice of an
extrapolation factor for use in measurement of emissions from Access
BPL systems.
2. The unredacted staff technical studies have been placed into the
record of the proceeding and the Commission is requesting comment on
the information in those studies as it pertains to our BPL decisions.
The Commission is also placing into the record certain additional
materials that contain preliminary staff research and educational
information and were not previously available therein. In response to
its remand of a portion of the BPL measurement procedure, the
Commission is also providing an explanation of our reasons for
selecting 40 dB per decade as the extrapolation factor for frequencies
below 30 MHz. The Commission further explains why it believes that the
studies and technical proposal submitted earlier by the ARRL do not
provide convincing information that we should use an extrapolation
factor that is different from that which was adopted. The Commission
also notes the existence of more recent studies that verify the
correctness of our determination, although we do not rely on those
studies as post facto rationale or justification for our decision.
3. Consistent with the opportunity provided by the court's remand
and the Commission's stated intention in the BPL Order to review the
decision on the extrapolation factor if new information becomes
available, we are also re-examining the current extrapolation factor in
light of the recently issued technical studies addressing the
attenuation of BPL emissions with distance and efforts by the IEEE to
develop BPL measurement standards. As the several studies now available
show and as the Commission has observed previously, there can be
considerable variability in the attenuation of emissions from BPL
systems across individual measurement sites that is not captured in the
fixed 40 dB per decade standard. To address this variability, the
Commission is requesting comment on whether it should amend the BPL
rules to (1) adjust the extrapolation factor downward to 30 dB or some
other fixed value and, (2) as an alternative, also allow use of a
special procedure for determining site-specific BPL extrapolation
values using in situ measurements. The special in situ procedure the
Commission is proposing is based on a concept under consideration by
the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) working
group on power line communications technology electromagnetic
compatibility (EMC). In addition, the Commission clarifies that parties
testing BPL equipment and systems for compliance with emissions limits
in our the rules may measure at the standard 30 meter distance rather
than only the shorter distances recommended in the BPL measurement
guidelines. The Commission request comments on the unredacted staff
studies, our decision for selecting an extrapolation factor for BPL
systems based on slant range method and the explanation provided
herein, and our proposal to allow use of site-specific extrapolation
factors as an alternative to the standard extrapolation factor. In the
interim, as justified herein, the Commission will continue to apply the
standard as adopted in the BPL Order.
Issues for Comment
A. Staff Technical Studies
4. In the BPL Order, the Commission adopted operational and
technical requirements and restrictions on Access BPL devices over and
above those applied to other Part 15 devices. These included
requirements for consultation with specific entities, mandatory listing
of BPL installations in a public database, exclusion of certain
frequencies from operation, exclusion zones, frequency notching, and a
remote shut-down mechanism, and were based on the aggregate information
from comments and technical studies submitted into the rulemaking
record, including ARRL's and FCC staff's studies.
5. Subsequent to the release of the BPL Order, the Commission on
December 22, 2004 submitted five staff technical studies, in redacted
form, into the record of the above-mentioned docket in response to a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from ARRL. The staff studies
measured emissions from various Access BPL systems at various locations
in Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, and North Carolina. The studies
were used in the decision-making process along with studies submitted
by commenters such as ARRL and the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA). The Commission redacted certain
portions of those studies on the basis that they represented
preliminary or partial results or staff opinions that were part of the
internal deliberative process. On reconsideration of the BPL Order,
ARRL alleged that the Commission violated the APA reasoned decision
making requirements because it responded to ARRL's FOIA request
belatedly and because it redacted certain information from the released
information. The Commission disagreed with ARRL's arguments, and ARRL
sought judicial review of the Commission's decisions in the BPL Order
and the Reconsideration Order.
6. In ARRL v. FCC, the court determined that the APA requires the
Commission to disclose the studies upon which it relies in promulgating
rules, and it directed the Commission to make available for notice and
comment the unredacted ``technical studies and data that it has
employed in reaching [its] decision.'' In accordance with the court's
mandate, and in response to a FOIA request from ARRL filed March 31,
2009, the Commission has placed in the record complete copies of the
five staff studies identified by the court, including the previously
redacted pages. The first two studies, included in a single file
entitled BPL Measurements in Allentown, PA, contain data collected on
the Amperion BPL system and on the Main.Net BPL system, both in
Allentown, PA. The third study, Emissions Measurements on Current
Technologies Medium Voltage BPL System, contains data collected on the
Current Technologies BPL system in Potomac, MD. The fourth study, BPL
Summary After Briarcliff Manor, NY Test, contains data collected on the
Ambient BPL system in Briarcliff, NY, and some staff reactions. The
fifth study, BPL Emission Test Near Raleigh, NC, contains data
collected on the Amperion/Progress Energy BPL system in Raleigh, NC.
The Commission observes that the redacted pages mostly contain
information regarding specific test notes and test set-up
recommendations with respect to the BPL systems at the various test
sites, certain requests from third parties, and preliminary and partial
data with respect to the noise floor and with respect to the
attenuation rate of the signal strength at the test sites as well as
the opinion of one staff member as to whether BPL systems are point-
source systems and that staff member's proposed options on how to treat
these systems. The Commission seeks comment on the information
contained in these staff studies as it pertains to the issues in this
proceeding.
7. The Commission has several staff working papers and video files
that contain data and information on research from BPL field tests that
were used in preparing the staff studies and
[[Page 42634]]
for staff education. These are materials that the Commission would not
routinely, and in this case did not, place in the record. However, in
order to fully and most efficaciously continue to examine this issue,
the Commission believes it is important that it make available all
potentially relevant research and information materials. The Commission
is therefore placing these additional materials in the record of this
proceeding and invites comment. A list of these additional materials is
provided in Appendix E of this ``Request for Further Comment and
FNPRM.''
B. Distance Extrapolation Factor
8. ARRL filed a petition for reconsideration of the Commission's
decision to use 40 dB per decade as the extrapolation factor for
frequencies below 30 MHz. In support of its argument that an
extrapolation factor of 20 dB per decade should be used, ARRL also
submitted, through ex parte comments, the results of three studies
conducted by the United Kingdom's Office of Communications (OFCOM) and
one by the Special International Committee on Radio Interference
(CISPR) regarding emission measurements for BPL systems. On
reconsideration, the Commission affirmed its decision to use the
existing Part 15 distance extrapolation factor of 40 dB per decade
decay rate for measuring BPL emissions on frequencies below 30 MHz,
stating: ``No new information has been submitted that would provide a
convincing argument for modifying this requirement at this time.''
9. In ARRL v. FCC, the court found that the Commission did not
offer a reasoned explanation for its dismissal of empirical data that
was submitted ex parte by ARRL, i.e., the three studies conducted by
OFCOM and additional ARRL analysis intended to suggest that an
extrapolation factor of 20 dB per decade may be more appropriate for
Access BPL. The court faulted the Commission for summarily dismissing
the data submitted by ARRL because such a conclusory statement
``provides neither assurance that the Commission considered the
relevant factors nor a discernable path to which the court may defer.''
The court ordered the Commission either to ``provide a reasoned
justification for retaining an extrapolation factor of 40 dB per decade
for Access BPL systems sufficient to indicate that it has grappled with
the 2005 studies, or adopt another factor and provide a reasoned
explanation for it.''
10. ARRL's proposal for a sliding scale extrapolation factor
referenced a 1996 CISPR Standard. This standard, which was published in
1996 well before Access BPL was developed, evaluates radio noise
generated by high-voltage converter power stations and similar high-
voltage installations and discusses methods on how to reduce radio
noise from inherent power line components, such as mercury arc and
thyristor valves. ARRL pointed to a graph in the standard, Figure 17,
which shows calculated values of the field strength attenuation of
emissions from a vertical electrical dipole antenna as a function of
the distance on a horizontal plane for different frequencies. Based on
this graph, ARRL then proposed a formula which effectively constitutes
a sliding-scale calculation for an extrapolation factor that varies
with frequencies.
11. In the period of time since the Commission's adoption of the
Reconsideration Order, reports have become available on two new
technical studies addressing attenuation of BPL emissions with
distance, one by NTIA in October 2007 that describes a second phase of
its simulation study on the potential for interference from Access BPL
systems (NTIA Phase 2 Study) and the other by the Federal Republic of
Brazil (Brazil Study) in June 2008 that presents the results of a
measurement study of BPL emissions. In addition, the Commission is
aware that the IEEE working group on power line communications
technology electromagnetic compatibility is working on a standard for
EMC testing and measurements methodology for BPL equipment and
installations (IEEE P1775/D2) that includes a provision for determining
extrapolation (distance correction) factors on a site-by-site basis
using in situ measurements as part of its work on that standard.
12. Consistent with the Commission's stated intention in the BPL
Order, to review the decision on the extrapolation factor if new
information becomes available and the opportunity provided by the
Court's remand of the extrapolation factor for explanation, the
Commission is reviewing its decision on that factor in light of the
NTIA Phase 2 and Brazil studies and the site-specific option suggested
by the IEEE P1775/D2 work. The Commission's goal is to provide BPL
measurement procedures that will adequately ensure compliance with the
Sec. 15.209 emissions standard for emissions at or below 30 MHz
without placing unfair or undue compliance burdens on equipment
manufacturers and users. In conducting this review, the Commission
advised interested parties that at this point it continues to believe
that the decision to apply the existing 40 dB per decade distance
attenuation extrapolation factor in the rules for Access BPL
operations, in conjunction with slant distance, on frequencies in this
range was reasonable and appropriate.
13. The Commission is also mindful that the Court has ordered that
it provide a reasoned justification for retaining the 40 dB per decade
extrapolation for Access BPL systems or adopt another factor and
provide reasoning, and specifically remarked that the Commission did
not offer an explanation for dismissing the technical studies and
technical proposal for an alternative extrapolation submitted ex parte
in 2005 by ARRL. The Commission is therefore providing an explanation
of its reasons for selecting 40 dB per decade as the extrapolation
factor for frequencies below 30 MHz and why it do not believe that the
studies and technical proposal submitted earlier by the ARRL provide
convincing information that the Commission should use an extrapolation
factor that is different from (and, specifically, less than) 40 dB. The
Commission believes that the NTIA Phase 2 and Brazil Studies further
validate the use of 40 dB as the extrapolation factor. In addition, the
sufficiency of the rules for ensuring compliance is further validated
by the fact that the Commission has not had any new complaints of
interference for more than two years.
14. The Commission also recognizes, however, that there can be
considerable variability in the attenuation of emissions from BPL
systems at individual measurement sites, although NTIA's modeling
results do not generally indicate that differences are expected to be
typically as high as the 15 to 20 dB for an underground system such as
was observed in the Winchester Study. To address this variability, the
Commission is requesting comment on whether it should adjust the
extrapolation factor downward to 30 dB or some other fixed value and
also specify and allow use of a special procedure for determining site-
specific BPL extrapolation values using in situ measurements. The
procedure for determining these site-specific extrapolation values
would follow the general model under consideration in the IEEE P1775/D2
work.
15. The Commission is requesting that interested parties submit
additional comment and information on the BPL extrapolation factor and
on our proposal to modify the value specified for that factor and to
alternatively allow use of special procedure for determining site-
specific BPL extrapolation values. Such comment and information should
[[Page 42635]]
address (1) the three studies and proposal for a sliding scale
extrapolation factor submitted previously by the ARRL as part of its ex
parte filing on July 8, 2005 in conjunction with its petition for
reconsideration of the BPL Order identified by the court, (2) the NTIA
Phase 2 and Brazil studies with respect to findings on the
extrapolation factor for BPL systems, and (3) our existing slant range
method as it pertains to the effective field attenuation rate in a
horizontal distance context. The Commission further request submission
of any other new empirical studies or information that may inform us
regarding the BPL distance attenuation extrapolation factor. Our goal
is to ensure that the extrapolation factor used when tests cannot be
made at the standard measurement distance provides effective protection
to authorized services from harmful interference without unnecessarily
burdening Access BPL technology.
a. The 40 dB per Decade BPL Extrapolation Factor
16. In explaining our reasoning for adopting 40 dB per decade as
the extrapolation factor value for BPL emissions, it is important to
understand that this is a measurement protocol (or ``tool''), not an
adjustment to the emissions standard. The Commission first observed
that a concern in the BPL proceeding was that BPL systems are not
traditional point-source emitters. Rather, they could act to some
extent in a manner similar to line source emitters that would radiate
along the power lines, and, therefore the emissions from these systems
would not attenuate in the same manner as a typical point-source
emitter. In addressing this concern in the BPL Order, the Commission
agreed with the ARRL that Access BPL systems on overhead lines are not
traditional point-source emitters.
17. The Commission also observed that NTIA's earlier BPL computer
simulation modeling as reported in the Technical Appendix to its June
2004 comments showed results indicating that the attenuation in field
strength of emissions from BPL systems with distance from the power
line is consistent with the existing distance extrapolation factors for
unlicensed devices in Sec. 15.31(f)(1) and (2) of the Commission's
rules when used with the slant range to the power line. No party
offered analysis or argument to dispute NTIA's results. These
simulation results were conducted using the widely recognized and
employed National Electromagnetic Code (NEC) software for analyzing
radio propagation. Although, the Commission does not rely on NTIA's
more recent Phase 2 simulation results to justify its earlier decision,
the Commission noted here that those results indicate that the
attenuation at individual locations can be expected to vary around the
standard 40 dB value with frequency, configurations of line
arrangements on poles, and other site-specific characteristics. The
Commission is aware that measurements of the emissions from BPL systems
at different distances will vary, but cluster around the 40 dB per
decade factor. As the NTIA simulation results show, this variation is
to be expected when measuring emissions below 30 MHz from points near
the ground at distances close to a source of emissions.
18. While the Commission recognizes the potential value and
importance of empirical data with respect to this issue, there were no
significant studies that examined the very large number of measurements
that would be needed to address the different site characteristics that
affect the attenuation of emissions below 30 MHz. In this regard the
studies submitted by the ARRL in its 2005 ex parte provided only
anecdotal information on two different types of installations (overhead
and underground) from two single sites, and also had certain
methodological shortcomings. These studies did not provide sufficient
information to support a statistically valid and comprehensive
description of how BPL emissions attenuate over the short distances at
which measurements are made.
19. The Commission specifically observed that only two of the
studies (the Winchester Study and the Crieff Amperion Study) collected
data relevant to the extrapolation factor. In addition, those two
studies each report only a few measurements on a small number of
operating frequencies along a single perpendicular path each at two
small and very dissimilar BPL installations (one underground and one
overhead) on power line configurations which may not be representative
of power line configurations in the United States. In order for a study
to provide statistically significant information on the attenuation of
BPL emissions in the close vicinity of power lines and to adequately
include signal conditions under different configurations of power lines
on a pole or underground installations, a much larger body of empirical
data at sites with varying configurations of power line attachments to
poles and differing site characteristics would be needed. Moreover,
such samples would need to demonstrate that they are conducted on power
distribution systems representative of those found in the U.S.
20. Second, the RF propagation environments in which BPL emissions
are measured can affect the results such that results from a given site
may not be characteristic of the general rate at which BPL emissions
attenuate. The measurements in these two studies were taken near the
ground (as are measurements BPL emissions under our measurement
procedure), where the field strength of radio signals, and particularly
those below 30 MHz, is typically affected to a significant degree by
reflections and absorption by the ground, nearby vegetation, vehicles,
structures, measuring equipment, equipment stands, and even the
positions of the persons making the measurements. Of particular
importance in this context are the presence and configuration of other
power lines in addition to the power line to which the BPL device is
attached and of metallic structures and vehicles. Because of the
effects of these factors, the field strengths of radio signals emitted
at the same power level will often vary significantly when measured
near the ground at different locations that are the same distance from
a source. Thus, in order to obtain empirical data from which general
conclusions about the attenuation characteristics of Access BPL
emissions may be drawn, it is necessary to have a very large number of
observations from different BPL installations and from different
locations at those installations. The small number of observations
provided by the measurements in the Winchester and Crieff Amperion
studies is not sufficient to form a basis for establishing a value for
the extrapolation factor.
21. The Commission notes that even at the two installations
examined in the OFCOM studies, the data describe that the
electromagnetic field attenuates at different rates. In addition, the
data does not even appear sufficient to determine whether the type of
BPL technology and architecture made a difference in the field
attenuation rate. Moreover, OFCOM itself recommends that ``[d]uring the
course of future PLT leakage emission measurements, further work is
undertaken to confirm this finding elsewhere. The Commission saw
nothing in the studies submitted by the ARRL that would warrant
selection of a different (lower value) extrapolation factor.
22. With respect to its proposal for a sliding scale extrapolation
factor, the Commission observed that the ARRL did not provide an
explanation as to how its formula was derived or how to
[[Page 42636]]
use it to determine the extrapolation factor, nor did it provide a
rationale for selecting such a formula. Further, even the CISPR graph
has no explanation for the data showed thereon. In addition, the
Commission has no information as to the relationship between the
performance of emissions from BPL technology and the specifications for
reduction of power line noise adopted in the standard. Therefore, the
Commission was unable to determine whether or how the sliding scale
factor proposed by the ARRL could be used to represent the attenuation
of emissions from a BPL system.
23. Accordingly, the extrapolation factor adopted in the BPL Order,
and affirmed in the BPL Reconsideration Order, was based on the best
information available at the time each of those decisions were made,
while acknowledging that it might be desirable to revisit this issue if
more information would become available, as we are now undertaking.
b. Review of the Extrapolation Factor
24. In reviewing the BPL extrapolation factor, the Commission
intends to seek new information and studies, including those with
empirical research, and to consider new approaches for the
extrapolation that could use a lower value for the attenuation rate of
emissions. Looking at new information, shortly after the release of the
Commission's BPL Reconsideration Order, NTIA published its ``Phase 2
Study.'' This study illustrates the application of the Commission's BPL
rules and measurement guidelines in a case study. Using the well-known
and validated simulation software it employed in its Phase 1 Study,
NTIA created an elaborate power line model that approximates existing
overhead Access BPL power line structures in the U.S. After applying
the emissions limits and methodology from the BPL measurement
guidelines, NTIA analyzed the noise floor increase expected in nearby
receivers as a result of BPL operations. NTIA states that its
simulations confirm that ``at or above 10 MHz, the simulation results
show good agreement between the rate that field strength decays and the
part 15 distance extrapolation rate using the slant range distance to
the Access BPL device and power lines.'' NTIA does, however, further
state that ``the simulations in the 4 to 8 MHz frequency range
exhibited somewhat slower rates of field strength decay with distance
than would be expected by the distance extrapolation rate in the part
15 rules for Access BPL systems. This difference was up to 6 dB less
than the distance extrapolation rate.
25. The Commission also observes that, like OFCOM in the United
Kingdom, the regulatory agencies of other countries are testing BPL
systems as part of the international forum's discussions on BPL
technology. The recently released study from the Federal Republic of
Brazil reports results that show attenuation of emissions from BPL that
is greater than the 40 dB per decade extrapolation factor, which
indicates variation on the other side of the results found in the OFCOM
studies. Here again, the amount of data collected is relatively small.
The Commission believes that the information in the NTIA Phase 2 and
Brazil studies, when viewed in light of the NTIA's Technical Appendix
and the OFCOM studies taken together not only provide validation for
our previous conclusions selecting 40 dB per decade as the
extrapolation factor, recognizing that there will be variation around
that value at individual locations, but also inform our further
consideration of this matter.
26. There may be other new studies of the attenuation of BPL
emissions with distance. The Commission requests that interested
parties provide additional empirical information and studies regarding
the distance extrapolation factor for use in measurements of emissions
from Access BPL operating below 30 MHz. Such information and studies
will be most useful if they are compiled using the FCC measurement
guidelines and cover various BPL technologies that operate below 30
MHz. The data should also cover the different operating frequencies of
BPL emitters in their typical deployment configurations and the field
strength attenuation at these frequencies. Access BPL systems from
which data is collected also should be representative of power line
configurations (underground and overhead) and current BPL network
architectures in the United States.
27. The Commission also observes that the slant range distance in
the measurement procedure works with the 40 dB per decade factor to
yield extrapolated measurement values that have the effect of imposing
a more conservative emissions standard than would be derived if using
the horizontal distance from a power pole. In this regard, at
relatively short distances, i.e., distances 30 meters or less, the
slant range measurement method effectively reduces the emission limit
for BPL systems with respect to the horizontal distance from the pole
because at any given horizontal distance from the pole, the slant range
distance is longer than the horizontal distance. This is simple
geometry resulting from the height of the power line on which the BPL
emitter is installed. (The hypotenuse of a right triangle is longer
than either of the sides.) When extrapolated values at 40 dB per decade
of slant range distance are plotted against the horizontal distance,
the effective slant range emission limit curve more closely follows the
emission limit curve based on a 20 dB per decade extrapolation factor
than the emission limit curve based on a 40 dB per decade extrapolation
factor. NTIA's modeling results effectively support this observation.
The Commission also notes that given that its BPL measurement procedure
requires that compliance measurements be taken at 30 meters or less,
the effect of the slant range distance provision is significant at all
distances where the extrapolation factor can be used. The Commission
seeks comment on our slant range method as it pertains to the effective
field attenuation rate in a horizontal distance context and on NTIA's
findings with respect to the extrapolation factor in its Phase 2 Study.
28. The Commission observes that while 40 dB per decade continues
to best describe the attenuation rate of emissions from BPL systems,
there is also considerable variability around that value at different
sites. The result of this variability is that the actual attenuation at
some sites could be less than 40 dB per decade and using the current
extrapolation factor at such sites could produce an adjusted
measurement that would be less than the signal that would be measured
at the standard 30 meter measurement distance specified in Sec.
15.209. The Commission requests comment on whether it would be
desirable to modify the value of the BPL extrapolation factor to be 30
dB per decade or some other value. This lower value would apply a more
conservative approach that would compensate for those cases where the
actual attenuation is less than 40 dB. While the Commission does not
have statistics that indicate the distribution of cases where the
attenuation rate is less than 40 dB per decade, it believes that the
additional margin provided by a 30 dB standard would encompass a large
number of such cases. A 30 dB standard would also substantially reduce
the remaining differences in under-adjustment of measurements at
locations where the attenuation rate might be less than 30 dB per
decade. The Commission further notes that extrapolated emission limits
based on our proposed 30 dB extrapolation factor
[[Page 42637]]
when applied to slant distance are comparable to the extrapolated
emission limits based on a 20 dB extrapolation factor applied to
horizontal distance.
29. The Commission recognizes that reliance on a 30 dB per decade
extrapolation factor could increase the compliance burden for BPL
equipment and systems that are tested at locations where the
attenuation rate is in fact greater than 40 dB per decade. The
Commission, therefore clarifies that in all cases measurements of BPL
equipment and systems may be made at the 30 meters distance specified
in Sec. 15.209 and that where possible, the Commission's staff will
make measurements at this distance when testing for compliance.
Further, to provide manufacturers and system operators the opportunity
to use a higher extrapolation rate at locations where they believe the
attenuation rate is higher than 30 dB per decade, the Commission is
also considering allowing parties testing BPL systems for compliance
with the radiated emissions limits to determine distance correction
factors on a site-by-site basis using an in situ measurements
procedure. The site-specific extrapolation factor would be an
alternative to the proposed 30 dB per decade standard and would replace
the existing alternative method currently in the rules but that is not
included in the BPL measurement procedures. This alternative method
would only be applicable to Access BPL devices operating on overhead
power lines on frequencies below 30 MHz.
30. The Commission requests comment on the suitability of an
extrapolation factor lower than 40 dB per decade and the in situ
procedure for determining the field strength of BPL emissions in
locations where measurements cannot be made at the lateral distance of
10 meters from the overhead line. Interested parties are invited to
suggest alternative values for the extrapolation factor that would
account for the variability of attenuation rates without unfairly
burdening manufacturers of users of BPL equipment and systems. Parties
submitting such suggestions should also provide information to support
their proposal. Interested parties are specifically requested to
address (1) whether use of the proposed procedure would provide an
appropriate and reliable means of accounting for any variation in the
attenuation rate at individual sites; (2) the effect that an
extrapolation factor lower than 40 dB per decade would have on the
effective emission limits for Access BPL devices operating on overhead
power lines when used in conjunction with our slant range method; and
(3) any special provisions that may be necessary to ensure that site-
specific attenuation rates derived through this procedure reliably and
fairly represent the attenuation rate at individual sites.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
31. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 as
amended,\1\ the Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``FNPRM''). Written public comments are
requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the
IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the
first page of the FNPRM. The Commission will send a copy of this FNPRM,
including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been
amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Public
Law 104-112, 110 Stat. 847 (1996)(``CWAAA''). Title II of the CWAAA
is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(``SBREFA'').
\2\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
32. Consistent with the opportunity provided by the court's remand
and the Commission's stated intention in the BPL Order to review the
decision on the extrapolation factor if new information becomes
available, the Commission is re-examining the current extrapolation
factor in light of the recently issued technical studies addressing the
attenuation of BPL emissions with distance and efforts by the IEEE to
develop BPL measurement standards. As the several studies now available
show and as the Commission has observed previously, there can be
considerable variability in the attenuation of emissions from BPL
systems across individual measurement sites that is not captured in the
existing fixed 40 dB per decade standard.
33. The Commission proposes to amend part 15 of our rules to adjust
the extrapolation factor downward to 30 dB for Access Broadband over
Power Line (BPL) systems and, as an alternative, also allow use of a
special procedure for determining site-specific BPL extrapolation
values using in situ measurements. Specifically, as a means to address
the concerns that the rate of attenuation of BPL emissions at a
specific site can differ from the existing 40 dB per decade standard,
the Commission proposes to modify its rules and measurement procedures
for Access BPL to specify the use of a 30 dB extrapolation factor and
to allow parties testing BPL systems for compliance with the radiated
emissions limits to determine distance correction factors on a site-by-
site basis using an in situ measurements procedure when measurements
cannot be made at the measurement distance of 30 meters as specified in
the rules. In addition, the Commission is clarifying that parties
testing BPL equipment and systems for compliance with emissions limits
in the Commission rules may measure at the standard 30 meter distance
rather than only the shorter distances recommended in the BPL
measurement guidelines. The Commission's actions will ensure that the
BPL measurement rules would not unnecessarily burden this technology
while providing appropriate protection from harmful interference for
authorized services.
B. Legal Basis
34. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 301, 302,
303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 4, 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
35. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\3\ The RFA defines the term
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small business concern''
under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.\4\ Under the Small Business
Act, a ``small business concern'' is one that: (1) Is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operations; and
(3) meets many additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
\4\ Id. 601(3).
\5\ Id. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
36. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 27.2 million
small businesses, according to the SBA.\6\ A ``small organization'' is
generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned
and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' \7\ Nationwide, as of
2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small
[[Page 42638]]
organizations.\8\ The term ``small governmental jurisdiction'' is
defined generally as ``governments of cities, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of
less than fifty thousand.'' \9\ Census Bureau data for 2002 indicate
that there were 87,525 local governmental jurisdictions in the United
States.\10\ We estimate that, of this total, 84,377 entities were
``small governmental jurisdictions.'' \11\ Thus, we estimate that most
governmental jurisdictions are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See SBA, Office of Advocacy, ``Frequently Asked Questions,''
https://web.sba.gov/faqs (accessed Jan. 2009).
\7\ 5 U.S.C. 601(4).
\8\ Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk
Reference (2002).
\9\ 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
\10\ U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United
States: 2006, Section 8, page 272, Table 415.
\11\ We assume that the villages, school districts, and special
districts are small, and total 48,558. See U.S. Census Bureau,
Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2006, section 8, page
273, Table 417. For 2002, Census Bureau data indicate that the total
number of county, municipal, and township governments nationwide was
38,967, of which 35,819 were small. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. The proposed rules pertain to manufacturers of unlicensed
communications devices. The appropriate small business size standard is
that which the SBA has established for radio and television
broadcasting and wireless communications equipment manufacturing. The
Census Bureau defines this category as follows: ``This industry
comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and
television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of
products made by these establishments are: Transmitting and receiving
antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular
phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television
studio and broadcasting equipment.''\12\ The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for firms in this category, which is: all such
firms having 750 or fewer employees.\13\ According to Census Bureau
data for 2002, there were a total of 1,041 establishments in this
category that operated for the entire year.\14\ Of this total, 1,010
had employment of less than 500, and an additional 13 had employment of
500 to 999.\15\ Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms
can be considered small. The Commission does not believe this action
would have a negative impact on small entities that manufacture
unlicensed BPL devices. Indeed, it believes the actions should benefit
small entities because it should make available increased business
opportunities to small entities. The Commission request comment on
these assessments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, ``334220 Radio
and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing''; https://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND334220.HTM#N334220.
\13\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334220.
\14\ U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, 2002 Economic
Census, Industry Series, Industry Statistics by Employment Size,
NAICS code 334220 (released May 26, 2005); https://factfinder.census.gov. The number of ``establishments'' is a less
helpful indicator of small business prevalence in this context than
would be the number of ``firms'' or ``companies,'' because the
latter take into account the concept of common ownership or control.
Any single physical location for an entity is an establishment, even
though that location may be owned by a different establishment.
Thus, the numbers given may reflect inflated numbers of businesses
in this category, including the numbers of small businesses. In this
category, the Census breaks-out data for firms or companies only to
give the total number of such entities for 2002, which was 929.
\15\ Id. An additional 18 establishments had employment of 1,000
or more.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements
38. The FNPRM does not contain proposed new or modified information
collection requirements.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
39. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1)
The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. In this FNPRM, the Commission proposed to modify its rules and
measurement procedures for Access BPL to specify the use of a 30 dB
extrapolation factor and, as an alternative, to allow parties testing
BPL systems for compliance with the radiated emissions limits to
determine distance correction factors on a site-by-site basis using an
in situ measurements procedure when measurements cannot be made at the
measurement distance of 30 meters as specified in the rules. In
addition, the Commission clarifies that parties testing BPL equipment
and systems for compliance with emissions limits in the rules may
measure at the standard 30 meter distance rather than only the shorter
distances recommended in the BPL measurement guidelines. The Commission
seeks comment on the alternatives and the clarification.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
41. None.
Ordering Clauses
42. Pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 4, 301,
302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the Request for Comment and Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making is hereby adopted.
43. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Request for
Comment and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15
Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
Proposed Rules Changes
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR Part 15 to read as
follows:
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 544A.
2. In Sec. 15.31 redesignate paragraphs (f)(3) through (f)(5) as
(f)(4) through (f)(6), and add a new paragraph (f)(3) to read as
follows:
Sec. 15.31 Measurement standards.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(3) For Access BPL devices operating at frequencies below 30 MHz,
the results shall be extrapolated to the specified distance by using an
extrapolation factor of 30 dB/decade. Measurements may be performed at
a distance closer than that specified with the radiated emissions limit
in Sec. 15.209 of this part; however, an attempt should be made to
avoid making measurements in the near field. The distance correction to
the emission limit for measurements on overhead power line
installations shall be based
[[Page 42639]]
on the slant range distance, which is the line-of-sight distance from
the measurement antenna to the overhead line. Alternatively, a site-
specific extrapolation factor may be used in lieu of the 30 dB/decade
standard. This extrapolation factor shall be derived from a best fit
straight line fit determined by a first-order regression calculation
from measurements for at least four lateral distances from the overhead
line. Compliance measurements for Access BPL and use of site-specific
extrapolation factors shall be made in accordance with the Guidelines
for Access BPL systems specified by the Commission.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-20336 Filed 8-21-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P