Broadband Over Power Lines, 32165-32169 [2013-12746]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
EPA, when it reviews a State
authorization application to require the
use of any particular voluntary
consensus standard in place of another
standard that otherwise satisfies the
requirements of RCRA. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) do not apply. As required by
section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61
FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing
this rule, the EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear
legal standard for affected conduct. The
EPA has complied with Executive Order
12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by
examining the takings implications of
the rule in accordance with the
‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental
Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk
and Avoidance of Unanticipated
Takings’’ issued under the Executive
Order. This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
et seq., as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of
1996, generally provides that before a
rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report, which includes a copy of
the rule, to each House of the Congress
and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a
report containing this document and
other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication in the Federal Register. A
major rule cannot take effect until 60
days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This
action will be effective July 29, 2013.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Confidential business information,
Hazardous waste, Hazardous waste
transportation, Indian lands,
Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: This action is issued under the
authority of sections 2002(a), 3006, and
7004(b) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act as
amended 42 U.S.C. 6912(a), 6926, 6974(b).
17:39 May 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
[FR Doc. 2013–12712 Filed 5–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 0
[WT Docket No. 10–177; FCC 13–4]
Commercial Radio Operators;
Correction
Federal Communication
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; correcting
amendment.
AGENCY:
The Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) is correcting a final
rule that appeared in the Federal
Register of April 18, 2013. The
document amended the FCC rules
concerning radio operator licenses for
maritime and aviation in order to reduce
administrative burden in the public’s
interest.
Commission’s program for registration,
construction, marking and lighting of
antenna structures (part 17 of this
chapter), and the Commission’s
privatized ship radio inspection
program (part 80 of this chapter).
*
*
*
*
*
(s)(1) Extends the Communications
Act Safety Radiotelephony Certificate
for a period of up to 90 days beyond the
specified expiration date.
(2) Grants emergency exemption
requests, extensions or waivers of
inspection to ships in accordance with
applicable provisions of the
Communications Act, the Safety
Convention, the Great Lakes Agreement
or the Commission’s rules.
[FR Doc. 2013–12723 Filed 5–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
SUMMARY:
DATES:
Effective May 29, 2013,
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stana Kimball, Mobility Division,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
202–418–1306, TTY 202–418–7233.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc.
2013–02372 appearing on page 23151 in
the Federal Register of Thursday, April
18, 2013 (78 FR 23150), the following
corrections are made.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 0
Organization and functions
(Government agencies).
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Accordingly, 47 CFR part 0 is
corrected by making the following
correcting amendments:
PART 0—COMMISSION
ORGANIZATION
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 271
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Dated: May 2, 2013.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.
32165
1. The authority citation for part 0
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: Secs. 5,48 Stat. 1068, as
amended; 47 U.S.C. 155.
2. Section 0.131 is amended by
revising paragraph (j) and adding
paragraph (s) to read as follows:
■
§ 0.131
Functions of the Bureau.
*
*
*
*
*
(j) Administers the Commission’s
commercial radio operator program
(part 13 of this chapter); the
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 15
[ET Docket No. 04–37 and 03–104; FCC 13–
53]
Broadband Over Power Lines
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This document addressed a
petition for reconsideration filed by the
national association for Amateur Radio,
formally known as the American Radio
Relay League (ARRL). ARRL seeks
reconsideration of the Commission’s
Second Report and Order in this
proceeding relating to Access
Broadband over Power Line (Access
BPL) systems. The Commission
concludes that its previous decisions in
this proceeding strike an appropriate
balance between the dual objectives of
providing for Access BPL technology—
which has potential applications for
broadband and Smart Grid uses—while
protecting incumbent radio services
against harmful interference.
DATES: Effective June 28, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anh
Wride, Office of Engineering and
Technology, 202–418–0577,
Anh.Wride@fcc.gov.
SUMMARY:
This is a
summary of the Commission’s Second
Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET
Docket No. 04–37 and 03–104, FCC 13–
53, adopted April 16, 2013 and released
April 17, 2013. The full text of this
document is available for inspection
and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Center
(Room CY–A257), 445 12th Street SW.,
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
32166
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Washington, DC 20554. The complete
text of this document also may be
purchased from the Commission’s copy
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
445 12th Street SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554. The full text
may also be downloaded at:
www.fcc.gov. People with Disabilities:
To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities
(braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), send an email to
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202–
418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (tty).
Summary of Report and Order
1. In the Second Memorandum
Opinion and Order (BPL Second
MO&O), the Commission addressed a
petition for reconsideration filed by the
national association for Amateur Radio,
formally known as the American Radio
Relay League (ARRL). ARRL seeks
reconsideration of the Commission’s
Second Report and Order (BPL Second
Order) in this proceeding relating to
Access Broadband over Power Line
(Access BPL) systems. The Commission
concludes that its previous decisions in
this proceeding strike an appropriate
balance between the dual objectives of
providing for Access BPL technology—
which has potential applications for
broadband and Smart Grid uses—while
protecting incumbent radio services
against harmful interference. The
Commission denies the ARRL petition
for reconsideration; it does not raise
new arguments based on new
information in the record or on the
Commission’s new analysis of limited
points as directed by the Court, nor does
it demonstrate any errors or omissions
in the Commission’s previous decisions.
2. In its Petition, ARRL again
requested that the Commission modify
the Access BPL rules to adopt
mandatory, full-time notching of all
amateur radio allocations (amateur
bands), this time requesting notch
depths of at least 25 dB. It bases this
request on its contention that the
Commission should acknowledge: (1)
The unique and substantial interference
potential of Access BPL systems relative
to amateur radio HF communications;
(2) the inapplicability and/or
inadequacy of the BPL rules with
respect to amateur radio interaction; (3)
the clear necessity of mandatory, fulltime notching by Access BPL systems of
amateur radio allocations to notch
depths of at least 25 dB; and (4) the
absence of any negative effect on BPL
systems of the obligation to maintain
full-time notching of amateur bands. As
discussed and as supported by the
record, ARRL makes these arguments
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 May 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
based on the same reasoning and facts
that the Commission considered and
disposed of previously in the BPL First
Order, the BPL First MO&O, and the BPL
Second Order. The Commission, again,
is unpersuaded by ARRL’s arguments
and denies its Petition.
3. Throughout this proceeding and in
its judicial appeal, the ARRL has argued
that more restrictive technical standards
are needed to protect the amateur radio
service from interference caused by
radiofrequency (RF) emissions from
Access BPL systems. The Commission
has specifically rejected as unnecessary
these repeated requests by ARRL for
tighter emissions controls on Access
BPL operations, more stringent
interference mitigation measures, and
requirements for avoidance of BPL
operations in the amateur bands.
4. The only changes adopted in the
BPL Second Order were minor
adjustments to the rules as proposed in
the BPL RFC/FNPRM. Specifically, the
Commission: (1) Modified the rules to
increase the required notch filtering
capability for systems operating below
30 MHz from 20 dB to 25 dB; (2)
established a new alternative procedure
for determining site-specific
extrapolation factors, and (3) adopted a
definition for the ‘‘slant-range distance’’
used in the BPL measurement
guidelines to further clarify its
application. As indicated, the
Commission also explained its rationale
for and affirmed its use of a 40-dB-perdecade extrapolation factor for
frequencies below 30 MHz.
5. ARRL is not specifically requesting
reconsideration of these minor
modifications to the rules that were
adopted in the BPL Second Order.
Rather, ARRL is reiterating its previous
request for mandatory full-time
permanent notching of all amateur radio
allocations, which the Commission
considered and rejected in the BPL
Second Order. In support of this
request, ARRL makes several arguments,
which the Commission considered
sequentially.
6. First, ARRL disagrees with the
Commission’s analyses and conclusions
on the staff studies and their bearing on
the adequacy of the Access BPL rules.
ARRL argues that in the BPL Second
Order the Commission discounts its
own study conducted by its Technical
Research Branch (TRB) by
mischaracterizing the results and by
attempting to distance itself from TRB’s
studies and recommendations. The
Commission notes that in the BPL
Second Order, the Commission
discussed this issue at length, and
explained its rationale with respect to
each point of this same argument that
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ARRL first raised in its comments to the
BPL RFC/FNPRM. ARRL makes no new
argument here. ARRL here contends that
TRB’s studies (i.e., all of the 2003 and
2004 field studies and the July 2009
released documents) used scientifically
valid methodologies and the
Commission did not rebut them as a
technical matter. ARRL specifically did
not agree with the Commission’s
assessment in the BPL Second Order
regarding the video files of the nowdefunct BriarCliff Manor experimental
BPL system (BriarCliff Manor video#5)
recorded on August 17, 2004 that were
part of the released July 2009 staff
materials. In this regard, the
Commission notes that it explained in
detail the particulars of that
experimental BPL system and the
reasons why it did not rely on TRB’s
technical findings, stating that ‘‘. . . it
does not appear that any of the
mitigating features that are required in
the rules had been applied to this
experimental BPL system’’ [at the time
the video clip was made.] In particular,
the Commission noted that ‘‘our staff
did contact the licensee about
interference from that system several
times over the course of its operation
and the operator took steps first to cease
operation on the amateur frequencies
and then to install new equipment that
had notching capability. Subsequent
examination of that system by field
agents of our Enforcement Bureau (EB)
found no interference, which
substantiates the effectiveness of our
rules when properly observed.’’ The
Commission further observed that it
pointed out with in-depth analyses in
the BPL Second Order that it simply did
not draw the same conclusions from the
released studies and materials as ARRL
did, and that ‘‘in some cases, ARRL
simply (and incorrectly) draws different
conclusions from the . . . [staff studies
and] presentations than we do.’’ ARRL
has made no new argument with respect
to this contention that was not already
considered and disposed of in our
earlier decisions.
7. ARRL also repeats its
disagreements with the Commission’s
assessment of the nature of Access BPL
technology. It questions the
Commission’s reasons for not imposing
conducted emission limits on Access
BPL and instead atypically imposing
only radiated emission limits. It
contends that according to several BPL
standards, the actual conducted
emission level for BPL is approximately
30 dB higher than the conducted
emission levels for other part 15 devices
that are not carrier current systems.
Note that the Commission discussed
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
this issue in the BPL First Order in
which it explained that because Access
BPL signals are transported on medium
voltage power lines of up to 40,000
volts, there would be extreme safety
issues for test personnel involved in
connecting test equipment that would
have to be able to measure conducted
emissions in such high voltage lines.
This determination is now long-since
established and ARRL did not submit
any new information in its
reconsideration petition here.
8. ARRL also argues that the BPL
Second Order did not address why the
emission limits for BPL are set at levels
as much as 25 dB greater than the
generally-accepted median levels of
ambient noise in typical environments
and more than 45 dB greater than the
quiet rural environment that represent
the more quiet times and frequencies
within an amateur band. The
Commission notes that the emission
limits for Access BPL are the same as
the general emission limits in § 15.209
of the rules for other part 15 intentional
radiators, which have been in existence
in various forms for over 50 years;
furthermore, as was discussed in the
BPL Second Order, ‘‘to minimize the
potential for harmful interference,
facilitate its resolution where it may
occur, and address cases where it’s
possible occurrence could impact
critical services, the Commission
adopted additional regulatory measures
beyond the emissions limits in the part
15 rules.’’ With regard to the ambient
noise levels (noise floor), the
Commission discussed these issues at
length in the BPL Second Order and
provided additional protection for all
licensed services, including amateur
service, by requiring an increase of 5 dB
in the notching capability of Access BPL
systems.
9. ARRL disagrees with the
Commission’s conclusion in the BPL
Second Order that BPL systems increase
the noise floor only within a relatively
short distance (15–400 meters) from the
power lines; it complains that this
‘‘unquantifiable increase in noise floor’’
is apparently not acceptable to the
Commission when the victim operates
in a U.S. Government frequency band
(e.g., aeronautical service) but is
acceptable when the victim is an
amateur radio station. ARRL argues that
this treatment of different licensed radio
services is arbitrary and capricious on
its face. The Commission notes here that
in both the BPL First Order and the BPL
Second Order, the Commission
discussed at length the reasons for its
decision to designate only certain
frequencies used by ‘‘critical’’ Federal
Government services as recommended
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 May 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
by NTIA, as being excluded from Access
BPL usage (only 2% of the spectrum
within the 1.7–80 MHz band qualify as
excluded frequencies.) Although ARRL
has repeatedly requested to have all
amateur HF and VHF allocations be
included with critical Federal
Government services, the Commission
found, and still finds, that amateur radio
frequencies do not warrant the special
protection afforded to frequencies
reserved for international aeronautical
and maritime safety operation. In this
regard, the Commission notes that
amateur frequencies are generally used
for routine communications and hobby
activities, notwithstanding the fact that
amateurs may on occasion assist in
providing emergency communications.
The Commission finds that the recently
released information in the staff
unredacted studies did not provide any
new information not already known to
the Commission and ARRL did not
bring any new information on this issue
on reconsideration.
10. ARRL next points to issues
regarding the interference potential from
Access BPL systems to amateur radio
operations. It argues that in the BPL
First Order at paragraph 39, the
Commission was wrong in stating that
BPL is not an efficient radiator, and that
BPL interference actually permeates
large areas because overhead unshielded
power lines exist throughout residential
areas, not just along one line of one
roadway. The Commission addressed
this issue in the BPL First Order, making
reference to the NTIA Phase 1 Study in
which NTIA agrees with the
Commission that these systems are not
efficient radiators, nor are their
emissions cumulative such that they
permeate areas in which they are
located. The Commission also addressed
ARRL’s repeated argument that BPL
causes preclusive interference over large
areas in the BPL Second Order. ARRL
did not bring any new information or
argument to this issue on
reconsideration.
11. In requesting reconsideration of
the Commission’s decision to decline its
request for full-time permanent
notching of amateur bands in the BPL
Second Order, ARRL claims that the
Commission ignores the ubiquitous
nature of amateur radio and such a
decision completely fails to prevent
interference to mobile stations. It argues
that a mobile amateur station should not
have to drive outside an entire city or
community in order to be able to
communicate. The Commission
discussed the issue of mobile
communications in detail along with the
variability of levels in HF
communications, stating in part that
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32167
‘‘. . . the significant variability in
background noise levels limits the
reliability of HF signals below 30 MHz
such that BPL emissions at . . . [the
limit required in the rules] . . . should
not generally be considered harmful
interference;’’ however, ‘‘to take a more
conservative approach [the
Commission] decided to provide
additional protection to mobile stations
by increasing the required notch depth
from 20 dB to 25 dB.’’ ARRL did not
bring any new information to this issue
on reconsideration.
12. ARRL also states that on December
29, 2010, it submitted a BPL
interference complaint jointly to the
Commission’s Enforcement Bureau (EB)
and Office of Engineering and
Technology (OET) regarding some BPL
systems operated by International
Broadband Electric Communications
(IBEC), and on February 10, 2011, it
submitted a request to OET to set aside
the certification grants for the
equipment used by these IBEC BPL
systems. ARRL argues that because no
action has been taken on these
complaints, the rules should require
permanent notching of amateur
frequencies since post hoc enforcement
of interference issues is not adequate.
Over the years, the Commission has
investigated and taken action on BPL
complaints where it appeared that it
was warranted. In the early period of
BPL development, before the rules were
in place and compliant equipment was
in use, some of our investigations took
time to complete. After the rules were
established in 2004, there were fewer
incidences of interference complaints
and we have had cooperation from the
BPL system operators to resolve them.
Before the Commission could take
action on ARRL’s December 2010
interference complaint and February
2011 request regarding IBEC, IBEC had
started the shut-down of all its BPL
operations, making investigation of its
operations as they related to the
complaints moot. This anomalous case
cannot be extrapolated to conclude that
the Commission does not have the
capability and/or readiness to enforce
its BPL rules. To the contrary, the
Commission has diligently investigated
previous complaints about interference
from BPL systems.
13. ARRL further disagrees with the
Commission’s assumption in the BPL
Second Order that the BPL operator has
a strong incentive to voluntarily utilize
full notching of the amateur bands in
the vicinity of amateur radio operators
for interference mitigation unless fulltime permanent notching of amateur
bands throughout a BPL system is
required by the rules. The Commission
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
32168
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
reiterates here, to the contrary, that
‘‘[g]iven that identification and
resolution of harmful interference can
involve expenditures of staff time and
resources for Access BPL providers and
possibly the temporary disruption of
service to their subscribers, these
providers have a strong incentive to take
a priori steps to ensure that they avoid
causing interference to the local radio
services, including amateurs’’. ARRL
has not provided a basis for
reconsideration of this position. As for
ARRL’s complaint that IBEC BPL
systems in operation in North Carolina,
Virginia and Pennsylvania at one time
did voluntarily notch amateur bands but
stopped doing so, IBEC and other
operators were not obligated to notch, or
continue to notch, the amateur bands on
a full-time, system-wide basis. The
Commission does not see a reason to
consider the IBEC experience involving
a single interference complaint for a
system that was ultimately shut down to
be a basis for imposing a mandatory
notching requirement. In any event,
ARRL fails to relate that in the decision
which it challenges here we merely
noted the likely incentive for BPL
operators to notch where that provides
the most efficacious approach for
dealing with potential interference
issues. We clearly did not rely on
voluntary, full-time, system-wide
notching as a basis for our rules at that
time nor do we now.
14. ARRL next contends that the
Commission ignored several sources
that point to a high probability of
interference from Access BPL to existing
HF and VHF spectrum users. In
accordance with the Court’s mandate,
the Commission analyzed all relevant
information and explained in great
detail in the BPL Second Order that it
is not persuaded by ARRL’s technical
submissions, including the reports and
technical standards referenced in its
numerous filings, that our assessment of
the interference potential from BPL
operations was incorrect or
inappropriate, or that modifications to
the BPL emissions limits and other
technical rules to provide additional
protection for the amateur service are
warranted. In its instant Petition, ARRL
specifically argues that the Commission
did not discuss an OFCOM study on InHouse BPL in our consideration of
Access BPL interference potential.
However, that report was not given
significant weight in our deliberations
because it specifically covers In-House
BPL, the operating characteristics of
which are significantly different from
those of Access BPL and therefore
render that report not substantively
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 May 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
relevant to the issues under
consideration in the present proceeding.
15. ARRL repeats its argument that
the BPL database contains many errors
that undermine the usefulness of the
database as a tool for interference
mitigation. In the BPL Second Order the
Commission encouraged the database
administrator, the Utilities Telecom
Council (UTC) to be diligent in its
management of the database and other
interested parties to work with UTC in
providing information to ensure that the
records in the database are accurate and
up-to-date, and UTC affirmed that the
database has been and is being reviewed
periodically to ensure that the
information is currently accurate. The
Commission also notes that there could
be some period of time between the date
a BPL operator enters information into
the BPL database regarding a near-future
deployment and the actual deployment
date, which might depend on business
conditions, financial obligations, change
in business plans, etc. The Commission
expressed its expectation that UTC
periodically contact its BPL database
members to ensure that obsolete
information is removed or updated and
we have counseled UTC on its
obligations. While the Commission
expects the BPL database to be
maintained to accurately indicate the
status of BPL operations, it nonetheless
note that an Access BPL system that
ceases to operate without updating its
database information does not pose an
increased potential for unanticipated
interference. If any specific cases of BPL
operators failing to provide information
to the database in a timely fashion as
required by § 15.615(a) of the
Commission’s rules are brought to our
attention, the Commission will consider
taking enforcement action as
appropriate.
16. ARRL next takes issue with the
alternative procedure for determining
site-specific extrapolation factors for
BPL systems adopted in the BPL Second
Order. ARRL again complains that
measurements at four points are
inadequate to establish a reliable
extrapolation factor. ARRL again repeats
its original argument that measurements
should be made along the power line for
each measurement distance from that
line, and that the maximum value at
each distance from that line for each
frequency be used for the calculation.
The Commission reiterates that while it
did not adopt ARRL’s suggested
procedure involving the number of
measurement points along the power
line, our new method for determining
site-specific extrapolation factors
follows the IEEE Standard P1775–2010
that requires measurements to be made
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
at a minimum of four points; however,
depending on the specific installation
site, this method could require
measuring many more data points in
order to establish a straight line with a
minimum 0.9 regression coefficient of
multiple correlation. This multiplepoint requirement and the resultant
potentially numerous measurements
counter ARRL’s repeated concern that
having measurements at ‘‘only four
points’’ is ‘‘woefully inadequate.’’ The
Commission has analyzed and rejected
ARRL’s proposal in the BPL Second
Order in favor of the procedure
published in the IEEE Standard P1775–
2010, which the Commission also noted
was an improvement over current
practices, and ARRL makes no new
arguments here.
17. ARRL further argues that since the
Commission acknowledged in the BPL
Second Order that there is variability in
the attenuation of emissions from BPL
systems across individual sites that are
not captured by a uniform extrapolation
factor, full-time notching of amateur
bands is called for. However, this is one
of the stated reasons for which the
Commission adopted the alternative
procedure for determining site-specific
extrapolation factors. The Commission
noted that the option to use site-specific
values can substantially alleviate the
measurement concerns associated with
the standard extrapolation factor and
the variability in attenuation rates that
may be observed in the field, and
particularly where measurements at a
site may plainly not appear to conform
to the 40–dB-per-decade standard. The
Commission again observes that it has
addressed ARRL’s concerns with the
alternative method for determining sitespecific extrapolation factors at length
in the BPL Second Order, and ARRL
makes no new arguments here.
18. ARRL also continues to dispute
the Commission’s decision to retain the
existing 40-dB-per-decade value for the
standard distance extrapolation factor
for BPL systems. The Commission
discussed this issue at length in the BPL
Second Order and concluded that there
is no single ‘‘correct’’ value for an
extrapolation for RF emissions from
power lines due to a multitude of
reasons and that there is no basis for
changing from the longstanding 40-dBper-decade standard. However, the
Commission notes that by explicitly
providing that ‘‘slant-range’’ distance is
to be used in conjunction with the
extrapolation factor when calculating
the emission levels, the existing 40-dBper-decade extrapolation factor
produces values that are closer to what
ARRL calculates using what it believes
to be the correct extrapolation factor (20
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 103 / Wednesday, May 29, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
dB per decade). Here, ARRL agrees with
the Commission that the slant-range
method may be a slight improvement
over using horizontal distance, but again
repeats its previous argument that
radiated emission levels above the
power lines are stronger than they are at
near-ground levels and contends that
BPL emission measurements should be
made at the level of the power lines, not
close to the ground as specified in the
BPL Measurement Guidelines because
such measurement would not capture
the worst-case emissions. It also reargues that NTIA recommended a 5 dB
correction factor to address this
deficiency but the Commission chose
not to adopt it. The Commission
disposed of the issue regarding receive
antenna height and correction factor in
both the BPL First Order and BPL
Second Order. ARRL did not bring any
new information on reconsideration
here.
19. Finally, ARRL contends that there
would not be any negative effect on BPL
systems if the Commission were to
implement full-time notching of
amateur radio allocations to notch
depths of at least 25 dB and therefore
argues that its request would not be
burdensome to the BPL industry. The
Commission does not believe that it
should require all BPL systems to
permanently notch specific frequencies
at a certain notch depth just because the
technology is capable of doing so. As
stated in the BPL Second Order, to
require that BPL systems permanently
avoid all the amateur radio frequencies
would unnecessarily restrict BPL
operations and leave unused valuable
Access BPL capacity in areas/locations
where no amateur operations are
present that could receive interference.
ARRL did not bring any new
information on reconsideration here.
20. In its opposition to the Petition,
Current Group LLC (Current) contends
that the ARRL Petition is largely a
rehash of previous filings, and that the
Commission should find that the
Petition has failed to make a prima facie
case for reconsideration and summarily
deny it. Similarly, the Edison Electric
Institute and the Utilities Telecom
Council (EEI/UTC) argue that as a
procedural matter, the ARRL’s request
for full-time notching of the entire
amateur band has been rejected before
and may not be raised again in
reconsideration of the BPL Second
Order. The HomePlug Powerline
Alliance (HomePlug) also states that
ARRL’s arguments have already been
fully considered by the Commission no
less than three times in this proceeding
and its Petition should be denied or
dismissed pursuant to § 1.106(p)(3) of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:39 May 28, 2013
Jkt 229001
the Commission rules. As discussed, the
Commission largely agrees with these
oppositions and denies the petition for
reconsideration for the reasons stated.
Ordering Clauses
21. Pursuant to authority contained in
contained in sections 4(i), 301, 302,
303(e), 303(f), 303(r), and 405 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302a,
303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 405, and 1.429 of
the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR Section
1.429, that the Petition for
Reconsideration filed by ARRL is
denied.
22. The Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Second Memorandum Opinion and
Order, including the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Certification, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
Report to Congress
23. The Commission will not send a
copy of this Second Memorandum
Opinion and Order pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A), because the Commission
did not adopt any new rules here.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013–12746 Filed 5–28–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[PS Docket No. 10–255 and PS Docket No.
11–153; FCC 13–64]
RIN 3060–AJ60
Facilitating the Deployment of Text-to911 and Other Next Generation 911
Applications
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission requires all commercial
mobile radio service (CMRS) providers
and providers of interconnected text
messaging services (i.e., all providers of
software applications that enable a
consumer to send text messages to all or
substantially all text-capable U.S.
telephone numbers and receive text
messages from the same) to provide an
automatic ‘‘bounce-back’’ text message
where a consumer attempts to send a
text message to 911 in a location where
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32169
text-to-911 is not available. The rules
are adopted with the goal of reducing
the risk of individuals sending text
messages to 911 during an emergency
and mistakenly believing that 911
authorities had received it, particularly
during the transition to Next Generation
911 (NG911), when text-to-911 will be
available in some areas sooner than
others and may be supported by certain
service providers but not by others.
DATES: This rule is effective June 28,
2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Timothy May, Federal Communications
Commission, Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau, 445 12th
Street SW., Room 7–A727, Washington,
DC 20554. Telephone: (202) 418–1463,
email: timothy.may@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In this
Report & Order (R&O), FCC 13–64,
adopted May 8, 2013, and released May
17, 2013, the Commission requires all
CMRS providers and providers of
interconnected text messaging services
(i.e., all providers of software
applications that enable a consumer to
send text messages to all or substantially
all text-capable U.S. telephone numbers
and receive text messages from the
same) (collectively, ‘‘covered text
providers’’) to provide an automatic
‘‘bounce-back’’ text message in
situations where a consumer attempts to
send a text message to 911 in a location
where text-to-911 is not available. The
rules the Commission adopts will
substantially reduce the risk of a person
sending a text message to 911 in an
emergency and mistakenly believing
that 911 authorities have received it.
Instead, the text sender will receive an
immediate response that text-to-911 is
not supported along with direction to
use another means to contact emergency
services, e.g., place a voice call to 911.
Requiring all covered text providers to
implement a bounce-back mechanism is
particularly important because while
deployment of text-to-911 has begun,
the transition is still in the very early
stages and will not be uniform. During
the transition, text-to-911 will be
available in certain geographic areas
sooner than it is available in others and
may be supported by certain service
providers but not by others. At the same
time, as text-to-911 becomes more
widely available, it is likely to generate
increased consumer expectations as to
its availability, which makes it
increasingly important for consumers to
be made aware when it is not available
in an emergency.
The Commission finds that it is
technically feasible for all covered text
providers to provide automatic bounce-
E:\FR\FM\29MYR1.SGM
29MYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 103 (Wednesday, May 29, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32165-32169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12746]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 15
[ET Docket No. 04-37 and 03-104; FCC 13-53]
Broadband Over Power Lines
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document addressed a petition for reconsideration filed
by the national association for Amateur Radio, formally known as the
American Radio Relay League (ARRL). ARRL seeks reconsideration of the
Commission's Second Report and Order in this proceeding relating to
Access Broadband over Power Line (Access BPL) systems. The Commission
concludes that its previous decisions in this proceeding strike an
appropriate balance between the dual objectives of providing for Access
BPL technology--which has potential applications for broadband and
Smart Grid uses--while protecting incumbent radio services against
harmful interference.
DATES: Effective June 28, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anh Wride, Office of Engineering and
Technology, 202-418-0577, Anh.Wride@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket No. 04-37 and 03-104, FCC 13-
53, adopted April 16, 2013 and released April 17, 2013. The full text
of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal
business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th
Street SW.,
[[Page 32166]]
Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of this document also may be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554. The full text may also be downloaded at: www.fcc.gov. People
with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432
(tty).
Summary of Report and Order
1. In the Second Memorandum Opinion and Order (BPL Second MO&O),
the Commission addressed a petition for reconsideration filed by the
national association for Amateur Radio, formally known as the American
Radio Relay League (ARRL). ARRL seeks reconsideration of the
Commission's Second Report and Order (BPL Second Order) in this
proceeding relating to Access Broadband over Power Line (Access BPL)
systems. The Commission concludes that its previous decisions in this
proceeding strike an appropriate balance between the dual objectives of
providing for Access BPL technology--which has potential applications
for broadband and Smart Grid uses--while protecting incumbent radio
services against harmful interference. The Commission denies the ARRL
petition for reconsideration; it does not raise new arguments based on
new information in the record or on the Commission's new analysis of
limited points as directed by the Court, nor does it demonstrate any
errors or omissions in the Commission's previous decisions.
2. In its Petition, ARRL again requested that the Commission modify
the Access BPL rules to adopt mandatory, full-time notching of all
amateur radio allocations (amateur bands), this time requesting notch
depths of at least 25 dB. It bases this request on its contention that
the Commission should acknowledge: (1) The unique and substantial
interference potential of Access BPL systems relative to amateur radio
HF communications; (2) the inapplicability and/or inadequacy of the BPL
rules with respect to amateur radio interaction; (3) the clear
necessity of mandatory, full-time notching by Access BPL systems of
amateur radio allocations to notch depths of at least 25 dB; and (4)
the absence of any negative effect on BPL systems of the obligation to
maintain full-time notching of amateur bands. As discussed and as
supported by the record, ARRL makes these arguments based on the same
reasoning and facts that the Commission considered and disposed of
previously in the BPL First Order, the BPL First MO&O, and the BPL
Second Order. The Commission, again, is unpersuaded by ARRL's arguments
and denies its Petition.
3. Throughout this proceeding and in its judicial appeal, the ARRL
has argued that more restrictive technical standards are needed to
protect the amateur radio service from interference caused by
radiofrequency (RF) emissions from Access BPL systems. The Commission
has specifically rejected as unnecessary these repeated requests by
ARRL for tighter emissions controls on Access BPL operations, more
stringent interference mitigation measures, and requirements for
avoidance of BPL operations in the amateur bands.
4. The only changes adopted in the BPL Second Order were minor
adjustments to the rules as proposed in the BPL RFC/FNPRM.
Specifically, the Commission: (1) Modified the rules to increase the
required notch filtering capability for systems operating below 30 MHz
from 20 dB to 25 dB; (2) established a new alternative procedure for
determining site-specific extrapolation factors, and (3) adopted a
definition for the ``slant-range distance'' used in the BPL measurement
guidelines to further clarify its application. As indicated, the
Commission also explained its rationale for and affirmed its use of a
40-dB-per-decade extrapolation factor for frequencies below 30 MHz.
5. ARRL is not specifically requesting reconsideration of these
minor modifications to the rules that were adopted in the BPL Second
Order. Rather, ARRL is reiterating its previous request for mandatory
full-time permanent notching of all amateur radio allocations, which
the Commission considered and rejected in the BPL Second Order. In
support of this request, ARRL makes several arguments, which the
Commission considered sequentially.
6. First, ARRL disagrees with the Commission's analyses and
conclusions on the staff studies and their bearing on the adequacy of
the Access BPL rules. ARRL argues that in the BPL Second Order the
Commission discounts its own study conducted by its Technical Research
Branch (TRB) by mischaracterizing the results and by attempting to
distance itself from TRB's studies and recommendations. The Commission
notes that in the BPL Second Order, the Commission discussed this issue
at length, and explained its rationale with respect to each point of
this same argument that ARRL first raised in its comments to the BPL
RFC/FNPRM. ARRL makes no new argument here. ARRL here contends that
TRB's studies (i.e., all of the 2003 and 2004 field studies and the
July 2009 released documents) used scientifically valid methodologies
and the Commission did not rebut them as a technical matter. ARRL
specifically did not agree with the Commission's assessment in the BPL
Second Order regarding the video files of the now-defunct BriarCliff
Manor experimental BPL system (BriarCliff Manor video5)
recorded on August 17, 2004 that were part of the released July 2009
staff materials. In this regard, the Commission notes that it explained
in detail the particulars of that experimental BPL system and the
reasons why it did not rely on TRB's technical findings, stating that
``. . . it does not appear that any of the mitigating features that are
required in the rules had been applied to this experimental BPL
system'' [at the time the video clip was made.] In particular, the
Commission noted that ``our staff did contact the licensee about
interference from that system several times over the course of its
operation and the operator took steps first to cease operation on the
amateur frequencies and then to install new equipment that had notching
capability. Subsequent examination of that system by field agents of
our Enforcement Bureau (EB) found no interference, which substantiates
the effectiveness of our rules when properly observed.'' The Commission
further observed that it pointed out with in-depth analyses in the BPL
Second Order that it simply did not draw the same conclusions from the
released studies and materials as ARRL did, and that ``in some cases,
ARRL simply (and incorrectly) draws different conclusions from the . .
. [staff studies and] presentations than we do.'' ARRL has made no new
argument with respect to this contention that was not already
considered and disposed of in our earlier decisions.
7. ARRL also repeats its disagreements with the Commission's
assessment of the nature of Access BPL technology. It questions the
Commission's reasons for not imposing conducted emission limits on
Access BPL and instead atypically imposing only radiated emission
limits. It contends that according to several BPL standards, the actual
conducted emission level for BPL is approximately 30 dB higher than the
conducted emission levels for other part 15 devices that are not
carrier current systems. Note that the Commission discussed
[[Page 32167]]
this issue in the BPL First Order in which it explained that because
Access BPL signals are transported on medium voltage power lines of up
to 40,000 volts, there would be extreme safety issues for test
personnel involved in connecting test equipment that would have to be
able to measure conducted emissions in such high voltage lines. This
determination is now long-since established and ARRL did not submit any
new information in its reconsideration petition here.
8. ARRL also argues that the BPL Second Order did not address why
the emission limits for BPL are set at levels as much as 25 dB greater
than the generally-accepted median levels of ambient noise in typical
environments and more than 45 dB greater than the quiet rural
environment that represent the more quiet times and frequencies within
an amateur band. The Commission notes that the emission limits for
Access BPL are the same as the general emission limits in Sec. 15.209
of the rules for other part 15 intentional radiators, which have been
in existence in various forms for over 50 years; furthermore, as was
discussed in the BPL Second Order, ``to minimize the potential for
harmful interference, facilitate its resolution where it may occur, and
address cases where it's possible occurrence could impact critical
services, the Commission adopted additional regulatory measures beyond
the emissions limits in the part 15 rules.'' With regard to the ambient
noise levels (noise floor), the Commission discussed these issues at
length in the BPL Second Order and provided additional protection for
all licensed services, including amateur service, by requiring an
increase of 5 dB in the notching capability of Access BPL systems.
9. ARRL disagrees with the Commission's conclusion in the BPL
Second Order that BPL systems increase the noise floor only within a
relatively short distance (15-400 meters) from the power lines; it
complains that this ``unquantifiable increase in noise floor'' is
apparently not acceptable to the Commission when the victim operates in
a U.S. Government frequency band (e.g., aeronautical service) but is
acceptable when the victim is an amateur radio station. ARRL argues
that this treatment of different licensed radio services is arbitrary
and capricious on its face. The Commission notes here that in both the
BPL First Order and the BPL Second Order, the Commission discussed at
length the reasons for its decision to designate only certain
frequencies used by ``critical'' Federal Government services as
recommended by NTIA, as being excluded from Access BPL usage (only 2%
of the spectrum within the 1.7-80 MHz band qualify as excluded
frequencies.) Although ARRL has repeatedly requested to have all
amateur HF and VHF allocations be included with critical Federal
Government services, the Commission found, and still finds, that
amateur radio frequencies do not warrant the special protection
afforded to frequencies reserved for international aeronautical and
maritime safety operation. In this regard, the Commission notes that
amateur frequencies are generally used for routine communications and
hobby activities, notwithstanding the fact that amateurs may on
occasion assist in providing emergency communications. The Commission
finds that the recently released information in the staff unredacted
studies did not provide any new information not already known to the
Commission and ARRL did not bring any new information on this issue on
reconsideration.
10. ARRL next points to issues regarding the interference potential
from Access BPL systems to amateur radio operations. It argues that in
the BPL First Order at paragraph 39, the Commission was wrong in
stating that BPL is not an efficient radiator, and that BPL
interference actually permeates large areas because overhead unshielded
power lines exist throughout residential areas, not just along one line
of one roadway. The Commission addressed this issue in the BPL First
Order, making reference to the NTIA Phase 1 Study in which NTIA agrees
with the Commission that these systems are not efficient radiators, nor
are their emissions cumulative such that they permeate areas in which
they are located. The Commission also addressed ARRL's repeated
argument that BPL causes preclusive interference over large areas in
the BPL Second Order. ARRL did not bring any new information or
argument to this issue on reconsideration.
11. In requesting reconsideration of the Commission's decision to
decline its request for full-time permanent notching of amateur bands
in the BPL Second Order, ARRL claims that the Commission ignores the
ubiquitous nature of amateur radio and such a decision completely fails
to prevent interference to mobile stations. It argues that a mobile
amateur station should not have to drive outside an entire city or
community in order to be able to communicate. The Commission discussed
the issue of mobile communications in detail along with the variability
of levels in HF communications, stating in part that ``. . . the
significant variability in background noise levels limits the
reliability of HF signals below 30 MHz such that BPL emissions at . . .
[the limit required in the rules] . . . should not generally be
considered harmful interference;'' however, ``to take a more
conservative approach [the Commission] decided to provide additional
protection to mobile stations by increasing the required notch depth
from 20 dB to 25 dB.'' ARRL did not bring any new information to this
issue on reconsideration.
12. ARRL also states that on December 29, 2010, it submitted a BPL
interference complaint jointly to the Commission's Enforcement Bureau
(EB) and Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) regarding some BPL
systems operated by International Broadband Electric Communications
(IBEC), and on February 10, 2011, it submitted a request to OET to set
aside the certification grants for the equipment used by these IBEC BPL
systems. ARRL argues that because no action has been taken on these
complaints, the rules should require permanent notching of amateur
frequencies since post hoc enforcement of interference issues is not
adequate. Over the years, the Commission has investigated and taken
action on BPL complaints where it appeared that it was warranted. In
the early period of BPL development, before the rules were in place and
compliant equipment was in use, some of our investigations took time to
complete. After the rules were established in 2004, there were fewer
incidences of interference complaints and we have had cooperation from
the BPL system operators to resolve them. Before the Commission could
take action on ARRL's December 2010 interference complaint and February
2011 request regarding IBEC, IBEC had started the shut-down of all its
BPL operations, making investigation of its operations as they related
to the complaints moot. This anomalous case cannot be extrapolated to
conclude that the Commission does not have the capability and/or
readiness to enforce its BPL rules. To the contrary, the Commission has
diligently investigated previous complaints about interference from BPL
systems.
13. ARRL further disagrees with the Commission's assumption in the
BPL Second Order that the BPL operator has a strong incentive to
voluntarily utilize full notching of the amateur bands in the vicinity
of amateur radio operators for interference mitigation unless full-time
permanent notching of amateur bands throughout a BPL system is required
by the rules. The Commission
[[Page 32168]]
reiterates here, to the contrary, that ``[g]iven that identification
and resolution of harmful interference can involve expenditures of
staff time and resources for Access BPL providers and possibly the
temporary disruption of service to their subscribers, these providers
have a strong incentive to take a priori steps to ensure that they
avoid causing interference to the local radio services, including
amateurs''. ARRL has not provided a basis for reconsideration of this
position. As for ARRL's complaint that IBEC BPL systems in operation in
North Carolina, Virginia and Pennsylvania at one time did voluntarily
notch amateur bands but stopped doing so, IBEC and other operators were
not obligated to notch, or continue to notch, the amateur bands on a
full-time, system-wide basis. The Commission does not see a reason to
consider the IBEC experience involving a single interference complaint
for a system that was ultimately shut down to be a basis for imposing a
mandatory notching requirement. In any event, ARRL fails to relate that
in the decision which it challenges here we merely noted the likely
incentive for BPL operators to notch where that provides the most
efficacious approach for dealing with potential interference issues. We
clearly did not rely on voluntary, full-time, system-wide notching as a
basis for our rules at that time nor do we now.
14. ARRL next contends that the Commission ignored several sources
that point to a high probability of interference from Access BPL to
existing HF and VHF spectrum users. In accordance with the Court's
mandate, the Commission analyzed all relevant information and explained
in great detail in the BPL Second Order that it is not persuaded by
ARRL's technical submissions, including the reports and technical
standards referenced in its numerous filings, that our assessment of
the interference potential from BPL operations was incorrect or
inappropriate, or that modifications to the BPL emissions limits and
other technical rules to provide additional protection for the amateur
service are warranted. In its instant Petition, ARRL specifically
argues that the Commission did not discuss an OFCOM study on In-House
BPL in our consideration of Access BPL interference potential. However,
that report was not given significant weight in our deliberations
because it specifically covers In-House BPL, the operating
characteristics of which are significantly different from those of
Access BPL and therefore render that report not substantively relevant
to the issues under consideration in the present proceeding.
15. ARRL repeats its argument that the BPL database contains many
errors that undermine the usefulness of the database as a tool for
interference mitigation. In the BPL Second Order the Commission
encouraged the database administrator, the Utilities Telecom Council
(UTC) to be diligent in its management of the database and other
interested parties to work with UTC in providing information to ensure
that the records in the database are accurate and up-to-date, and UTC
affirmed that the database has been and is being reviewed periodically
to ensure that the information is currently accurate. The Commission
also notes that there could be some period of time between the date a
BPL operator enters information into the BPL database regarding a near-
future deployment and the actual deployment date, which might depend on
business conditions, financial obligations, change in business plans,
etc. The Commission expressed its expectation that UTC periodically
contact its BPL database members to ensure that obsolete information is
removed or updated and we have counseled UTC on its obligations. While
the Commission expects the BPL database to be maintained to accurately
indicate the status of BPL operations, it nonetheless note that an
Access BPL system that ceases to operate without updating its database
information does not pose an increased potential for unanticipated
interference. If any specific cases of BPL operators failing to provide
information to the database in a timely fashion as required by Sec.
15.615(a) of the Commission's rules are brought to our attention, the
Commission will consider taking enforcement action as appropriate.
16. ARRL next takes issue with the alternative procedure for
determining site-specific extrapolation factors for BPL systems adopted
in the BPL Second Order. ARRL again complains that measurements at four
points are inadequate to establish a reliable extrapolation factor.
ARRL again repeats its original argument that measurements should be
made along the power line for each measurement distance from that line,
and that the maximum value at each distance from that line for each
frequency be used for the calculation. The Commission reiterates that
while it did not adopt ARRL's suggested procedure involving the number
of measurement points along the power line, our new method for
determining site-specific extrapolation factors follows the IEEE
Standard P1775-2010 that requires measurements to be made at a minimum
of four points; however, depending on the specific installation site,
this method could require measuring many more data points in order to
establish a straight line with a minimum 0.9 regression coefficient of
multiple correlation. This multiple-point requirement and the resultant
potentially numerous measurements counter ARRL's repeated concern that
having measurements at ``only four points'' is ``woefully inadequate.''
The Commission has analyzed and rejected ARRL's proposal in the BPL
Second Order in favor of the procedure published in the IEEE Standard
P1775-2010, which the Commission also noted was an improvement over
current practices, and ARRL makes no new arguments here.
17. ARRL further argues that since the Commission acknowledged in
the BPL Second Order that there is variability in the attenuation of
emissions from BPL systems across individual sites that are not
captured by a uniform extrapolation factor, full-time notching of
amateur bands is called for. However, this is one of the stated reasons
for which the Commission adopted the alternative procedure for
determining site-specific extrapolation factors. The Commission noted
that the option to use site-specific values can substantially alleviate
the measurement concerns associated with the standard extrapolation
factor and the variability in attenuation rates that may be observed in
the field, and particularly where measurements at a site may plainly
not appear to conform to the 40-dB-per-decade standard. The Commission
again observes that it has addressed ARRL's concerns with the
alternative method for determining site-specific extrapolation factors
at length in the BPL Second Order, and ARRL makes no new arguments
here.
18. ARRL also continues to dispute the Commission's decision to
retain the existing 40-dB-per-decade value for the standard distance
extrapolation factor for BPL systems. The Commission discussed this
issue at length in the BPL Second Order and concluded that there is no
single ``correct'' value for an extrapolation for RF emissions from
power lines due to a multitude of reasons and that there is no basis
for changing from the longstanding 40-dB-per-decade standard. However,
the Commission notes that by explicitly providing that ``slant-range''
distance is to be used in conjunction with the extrapolation factor
when calculating the emission levels, the existing 40-dB-per-decade
extrapolation factor produces values that are closer to what ARRL
calculates using what it believes to be the correct extrapolation
factor (20
[[Page 32169]]
dB per decade). Here, ARRL agrees with the Commission that the slant-
range method may be a slight improvement over using horizontal
distance, but again repeats its previous argument that radiated
emission levels above the power lines are stronger than they are at
near-ground levels and contends that BPL emission measurements should
be made at the level of the power lines, not close to the ground as
specified in the BPL Measurement Guidelines because such measurement
would not capture the worst-case emissions. It also re-argues that NTIA
recommended a 5 dB correction factor to address this deficiency but the
Commission chose not to adopt it. The Commission disposed of the issue
regarding receive antenna height and correction factor in both the BPL
First Order and BPL Second Order. ARRL did not bring any new
information on reconsideration here.
19. Finally, ARRL contends that there would not be any negative
effect on BPL systems if the Commission were to implement full-time
notching of amateur radio allocations to notch depths of at least 25 dB
and therefore argues that its request would not be burdensome to the
BPL industry. The Commission does not believe that it should require
all BPL systems to permanently notch specific frequencies at a certain
notch depth just because the technology is capable of doing so. As
stated in the BPL Second Order, to require that BPL systems permanently
avoid all the amateur radio frequencies would unnecessarily restrict
BPL operations and leave unused valuable Access BPL capacity in areas/
locations where no amateur operations are present that could receive
interference. ARRL did not bring any new information on reconsideration
here.
20. In its opposition to the Petition, Current Group LLC (Current)
contends that the ARRL Petition is largely a rehash of previous
filings, and that the Commission should find that the Petition has
failed to make a prima facie case for reconsideration and summarily
deny it. Similarly, the Edison Electric Institute and the Utilities
Telecom Council (EEI/UTC) argue that as a procedural matter, the ARRL's
request for full-time notching of the entire amateur band has been
rejected before and may not be raised again in reconsideration of the
BPL Second Order. The HomePlug Powerline Alliance (HomePlug) also
states that ARRL's arguments have already been fully considered by the
Commission no less than three times in this proceeding and its Petition
should be denied or dismissed pursuant to Sec. 1.106(p)(3) of the
Commission rules. As discussed, the Commission largely agrees with
these oppositions and denies the petition for reconsideration for the
reasons stated.
Ordering Clauses
21. Pursuant to authority contained in contained in sections 4(i),
301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), and 405 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302a, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r),
405, and 1.429 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Section 1.429, that
the Petition for Reconsideration filed by ARRL is denied.
22. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Second
Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration.
Report to Congress
23. The Commission will not send a copy of this Second Memorandum
Opinion and Order pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5
U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), because the Commission did not adopt any new rules
here.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-12746 Filed 5-28-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P