Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | ET Docket No. 03-104            |
|                                  | * |                                 |
| Carrier Current Systems,         | ) | ET Docket No. 04-37             |
| including Broadband over Power   | * |                                 |
| Line Systems                     | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
| Amendment of Part 15 regarding   | * |                                 |
| new requirements and measurement | * |                                 |
| guidelines for Access Broadband  | ) |                                 |
| over Power Line Systems          | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  |   |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | ) |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
|                                  | * |                                 |
+----------------------------------+---+---------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING**

**Adopted:** February 12, 2004 **Released:** February 23, 2004

**COMMENT DATE:** **\[45 days from publication in Federal Register\]**

**REPLY COMMENT DATE:** **\[75 days from publication in Federal
Register\]**

**By the Commission:** Chairman Powell, Commissioners Abernathy, Martin,
and Adelstein issuing

separate statements; Commissioner Copps approving in part and dissenting

in part and issuing a separate statement.

**Table of Contents**

**[Para. No]{.underline}.**

I.
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................\..........1

II\.
BACKGROUND.........................................................................................\....2

III\.
DISCUSSION..............................................................................................30

IV\.
CONCLUSION..........................................................................................\...48

V. PROCEDURAL
MATTERS............................................................................\....49

VI\. ORDERING
CLAUSES....................................................................................59

APPENDIX A: INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS

APPENDIX B: PROPOSED RULES

APPENDIX C: PROPOSED MEASUREMENT GUIDELINES

# I. Introduction {#i.-introduction .Style-Heading-1-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\" .unnumbered}

1.  By this action, we are proposing to amend Part 15 of our rules to
    adopt new requirements and measurement guidelines for a new type of
    carrier current system that provides access to broadband services
    using electric utility companies' power lines.[^1] Because power
    lines reach virtually every home and community in the country, we
    believe that these new systems, known as Access broadband over power
    line or Access BPL, could play an important role in providing
    additional competition in the offering of broadband services to the
    American home and consumers, and in bringing Internet and high-speed
    broadband access to rural and underserved areas. At the same time,
    we are cognizant that the possibility of widespread operation of
    Access BPL raises interference concerns and that we must protect
    licensed radio services from any harmful interference that might
    occur. In this regard, we are proposing to require that BPL systems
    and devices incorporate capabilities to mitigate harmful
    interference should it occur. We are also proposing to adopt
    administrative requirements to aid in the identification and
    resolution of harmful interference from Access BPL systems. Finally,
    we are proposing to clarify certain measurement guidelines for all
    types of carrier current systems that use electric wiring and
    electrical outlets within homes and buildings to transfer
    information between computers and other electronic devices. With
    these proposals, we take an important step towards promoting the
    deployment of new broadband networks that are expected to enhance
    the economic, educational and social well-being of all Americans.
    Specifically, we believe that the proposed changes will remove
    regulatory uncertainties and facilitate the introduction and use of
    this promising new technology.

# II. BACKGROUND {#ii.-background .Style-Heading-1-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\" .unnumbered}

#### Description of BPL

2.  Traditionally, various low-power, unlicensed devices or systems have
    used the alternating current (AC) power lines to carry information
    by coupling radio frequency (RF) energy to the AC electrical
    wiring.[^2] These unlicensed devices include AM radio systems on
    school campuses and devices intended for the home, such as intercom
    systems and remote controls for electrical appliances and lamps.[^3]
    Until recently, carrier current devices have operated generally on
    frequencies below 2 MHz with relatively limited communications
    capabilities. Because of the inherent impedance and attenuation
    variations of power lines and noise from devices such as dimmer
    switches, motorized electrical appliances, and computers switching
    on and off, reliable high-speed communications over power lines have
    been difficult to achieve. However, the availability of faster
    digital processing capabilities and the development of sophisticated
    modulation schemes have produced new designs that can overcome these
    technical obstacles. These new designs have led to the development
    of new BPL systems that use spread spectrum or multiple carrier
    techniques and that incorporate adaptive algorithms to counter the
    noise in the line.

3.  The new low-power, unlicensed BPL systems couple RF energy onto the
    existing electric power lines to provide high-speed communications
    capabilities. BPL systems may operate either inside a building
    ("In-House BPL") or over utility poles and medium voltage electric
    power lines ("Access BPL"). In-House BPL systems use the electrical
    outlets available within a building to transfer information between
    computers and between other home electronic devices, eliminating the
    need to install new wires between devices. Using this technology,
    consumers can readily implement home networks.[^4] Access BPL
    systems can be used to provide high speed Internet and other
    broadband services to homes and businesses. In addition, electric
    utility companies can use Access BPL systems to monitor, and thereby
    more effectively manage, their electric power distribution
    operations. Given that Access BPL capability can be made available
    in conjunction with the delivery of electric power, it may provide
    an effective means for "last-mile" delivery of broadband services
    and may offer a competitive alternative to digital subscriber line
    (DSL), cable modem services and other high-speed Internet
    technologies.

4.  As mentioned above, these new low-power Access BPL systems carry
    high-speed data and voice signals outdoors over the medium voltage
    line from a point where there is a connection to a
    telecommunications network. This point of connection may be at a
    power substation or at an intermediate point between substations,
    depending on the network topology. Within a residential
    neighborhood, most Access implementations employ a coupler or bridge
    circuit module at the low-voltage transformer to enable the transfer
    of high-frequency digital signals across the distribution
    transformer.[^5] The high-speed communication signals are then
    brought into the home over the exterior service power cable from the
    coupler/bridge, either directly, or via an Access BPL adaptor
    module. Some Access BPL implementations use the medium voltage lines
    to bring the BPL signals to neighborhoods and employ a wireless link
    between a transceiver mounted on the power pole and a companion
    transceiver located inside the end user's premises to complete the
    connection.[^6] Typically, the medium voltage lines are carried
    overhead on transmission poles or tower mountings; however, in some
    locations they are enclosed in underground conduits and only the
    distribution transformers are mounted above ground on a pad, inside
    a metal housing.

5.  Most Access BPL systems today operate on frequencies up to 50 MHz
    with very low power signals spread over a broad range of
    frequencies. These frequencies are also used by licensed radio
    services that must be protected from harmful interference as BPL
    systems operate on an unlicensed basis under Part 15 of the
    Commission's rules. In the radio spectrum below 50 MHz, incumbent
    authorized operations include fixed, land mobile, aeronautical
    mobile, maritime mobile, radiolocation, broadcast radio, amateur
    radio terrestrial and satellite, and radio‑astronomy. Users of this
    spectrum also include, for example, public safety and Federal
    government agencies.

#### Existing Part 15 Rules for BPL

6.  Carrier current devices, including BPL equipment, are subject to the
    Commission's existing Part 15 rules for low-power, unlicensed
    equipment that operates on a non-interference basis.[^7] At the
    present time, the Part 15 rules provide specific radiated and
    conducted emission limits for carrier current systems operating
    below 30 MHz.[^8] The radiated emission limits apply from 9 kHz and
    vary with frequency.[^9] There is no limit on conducted emissions
    for carrier current systems that contain their fundamental emission
    within the standard AM broadcast band of 535 to 1705 kHz and are
    intended to be received using standard AM broadcast receivers.[^10]
    All other carrier current systems operating below 30 MHz are subject
    to a conducted emission limit only within the AM broadcast band.
    Carrier current devices that do not operate at frequencies below 30
    MHz are subject to the general conducted limits below 30 MHz.[^11]

    **Notice of Inquiry**

7.  In April 2003, the Commission issued a *Notice of Inquiry*
    *(Inquiry)* on BPL technologies and systems.[^12] The *Inquiry* was
    issued to solicit comments to assist the Commission in reviewing its
    Part 15 rules to facilitate the deployment of Access BPL while
    ensuring that licensed services continue to be protected. In the
    *Inquiry*, the Commission encouraged continued deployment of Access
    BPL systems that comply with the existing rules.[^13]

8.  In the *Inquiry*, the Commission asked for comments on the
    characteristics of BPL technology, the status of deployment of BPL
    and any standards work related to BPL.[^14] The Commission also
    asked for comments on the probable interference environment and
    propagation patterns of BPL and the mitigation techniques used by
    BPL to avoid interference.[^15] The Commission further asked whether
    it would be possible to develop a standardized measurement method
    for testing BPL, and if so, how to develop it. It requested input on
    whether there are any international standards that should be
    investigated for possible adoption in order to facilitate the
    development of BPL products for a global marketplace.[^16] In
    addition, the Commission sought comments on issues related to the
    authorization of BPL and the types of components of Access BPL that
    would be subject to equipment authorization.[^17] Finally, the
    Commission sought input on whether power line carrier systems
    currently deployed by the utility companies to control and monitor
    the electrical system would be replaced in the future with the new
    high speed BPL equipment and on any associated issues with the
    coexistence of the older control systems with the new BPL
    systems.[^18]

9.  Over five thousand comments and replies were received in response to
    the *Inquiry*. In general, the commenting parties addressed: 1) the
    potential benefits of Access BPL systems; 2) the potential for
    harmful interference from Access BPL to licensed services; and, 3)
    measurement procedures for evaluating emissions from Access BPL
    systems.[^19]

10. *Benefits of Access BPL.* A number of parties express interest in
    BPL and suggest that BPL could offer a number of significant
    benefits in the delivery of broadband services to homes and
    businesses. A number of BPL proponents submit that this technology
    could increase the availability of broadband and improve the
    competitiveness of the broadband services market. For example,
    Cinergy Corp. (Cinergy) states that Access BPL could facilitate the
    "ubiquitous availability of broadband services" and "bring valuable
    new services to consumers, stimulate economic activity, improve
    national productivity, and advance economic opportunity for the
    American public."[^20] Southern LINC., Southern Telecom Inc., and
    Southern Company Services, Inc. (Southern) states that the
    ubiquitous nature of BPL creates the opportunity for providing new
    and innovative services "to virtually any location served with
    electric outlets."[^21] Southern further states that while broadband
    access appears to be increasing nationally, significant areas of the
    country today still lack any type of broadband access or any
    competition among broadband service providers.[^22] The National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) states that
    BPL holds great promise as a new source of innovation and
    competition in the broadband marketplace. It submits that Access BPL
    has the potential to open new avenues of Internet access, to enable
    new and expanded services for utility companies, and to create a new
    platform for further advances in communications technology.[^23]

11. BPL proponents also argue that Access BPL will improve the
    competitiveness of the market for broadband services. Current
    Technologies, LLC (Current Technologies) states that BPL offers the
    "long-sought third wire" (along with telephone and cable) for
    last-mile delivery of broadband communications services to
    residences and small businesses.[^24] The United Power Line Council
    (UPLC) similarly states that BPL offers a unique opportunity in the
    broadband marketplace and that there is widespread interest in BPL
    among utilities.[^25] It further submits that in areas already
    served by other broadband providers, BPL will increase competition,
    which in turn will bring better service and lower prices.

12. A number of parties also state that the ubiquitous nature of the
    electric power grid will make it possible for Access BPL systems to
    bring broadband services to rural and other underserved locations.
    The American Public Power Association (APPA), for example, states
    that seventy five percent of its members serve communities with
    populations less than 10,000, many of which do not have access to
    broadband.[^26] Current Technologies states that technical and
    economic considerations limit the deployment of cable and DSL. It
    submits that Access BPL is not constrained by these considerations
    and can deliver "broadband to many of those unserved by other
    broadband technologies" and "bring the advantages of the Internet to
    the people who need them most."[^27] These parties also submit the
    availability of Access BPL will make it possible for those persons
    who currently do not have access to broadband to better participate
    and compete in the Information Age.[^28] The Office of the People's
    Counsel, District of Columbia (OPC DC) supports our efforts to
    facilitate deployment of BPL because it has the potential to improve
    the District of Columbia's telecommunications landscape for
    consumers by providing a solution to the "digital divide" that
    currently exists in the District of Columbia and to increase the
    number of broadband service providers in the District.[^29] The
    Alliance for Public Technology (APT) states that BPL may help
    accelerate the deployment of advanced services and bring the new and
    enhanced applications to all Americans. APT urges that the FCC use
    its full authority under Section 706 to remove barriers and create
    incentives for industry's rapid deployment of advanced services,
    such as BPL.[^30]

13. BPL proponents also state that Access BPL technology will offer
    benefits to improve the provision of electric power service and
    advance homeland security. Several commenting utility companies
    point out that BPL will improve safety and efficiency of power
    distribution in the United States.[^31] They indicate that Access
    BPL technology could be used to assist the utility companies by
    adding intelligent networking capabilities to the electric grid,
    thereby improving efficiency in activities such as energy
    management, power outage notification and automated meter reading.
    For example, Southern, Progress Energy, Inc. (Progress Energy), and
    UPLC state that Access BPL would allow electric utilities to better
    monitor and control electric system operations and thereby improve
    the reliability of their service and reduce costs to its
    customers.[^32] PowerWAN, Inc. (PowerWAN) states that under the
    Mission Essential Voluntary Assets (MEVA) guidelines, utilities are
    responsible for ensuring secure infrastructure power for federal
    facilities, including military bases, and state, city and local
    government. It believes that Access BPL would enhance security and
    enable other security applications such as video surveillance
    consistent with the MEVA guidelines.[^33]

14. *Interference Concerns*. There is significant disagreement among the
    commenting parties regarding the interference potential of Access
    BPL. A number of parties contend that Access BPL poses the potential
    for new interference to a variety of radio services.[^34] Amateur
    operators and amateur organizations in general are opposed to Access
    BPL and advocate emission limits that are lower than the existing
    Part 15 limits.[^35] For example, the National Association for
    Amateur Radio, also known as the American Radio Relay League,
    Incorporated (ARRL), expresses concern that Access BPL, if not
    appropriately restricted, will cause interference to amateur
    operations. ARRL states that amateurs use very sensitive receivers
    and high gain outdoor antennas that could be located in close
    proximity to electric power lines. ARRL submits that 53% of amateur
    respondents to a survey it conducted indicated that they deploy
    outdoor antennas located less than 30 meters from overhead power
    lines and that the current Part 15 limits are not sufficient to
    protect against interference in this situation.[^36] In this regard,
    ARRL submits analyses that it argues show serious degradation of
    amateur communications when, for example, an amateur antenna is
    located 30 m from an overhead power line containing a single BPL
    device operating at the Part 15 limits.[^37]

15. ARRL also contends that entire communities will be affected by
    radiated BPL emissions.[^38] ARRL contends that in an Access BPL
    system, the power lines would act as an efficient antenna covering
    an entire city, causing widespread interference to amateur
    operations.[^39] ARRL also conducted tests of radio reception using
    a mobile radio in residential test areas for Access BPL and
    submitted audio recordings of radio interference that it attributed
    to BPL. Based on these analytical and experimental results, ARRL
    contends that the potential interference from Access BPL would be so
    severe as to warrant its exclusion from all bands allocated for
    amateur use.[^40] ARRL also states that today power line noise is
    the single most frequently identified source of High Frequency (HF)
    interference to licensed amateur operations.[^41] ARRL further
    raises concerns that high‑powered amateur operations could interfere
    with Access BPL.[^42] A large number of individual amateur operators
    filed comments raising similar concerns. For example, Mickey D. Cox,
    an amateur operator, "strongly urge\[s\] the Commission to very
    carefully assess the electromagnetic interference (EMI) potential of
    BPL before large-scale deployment of the technology. This
    assessment, which should involve all stakeholders, must determine
    whether viable technical solutions can be found that reduce EMI to
    acceptable levels and at what cost."[^43] Other amateur operators,
    such as Lee McVey, suggest "that the Commission deny the proposed
    adoption of Access BPL in favor of a more practical, reliable and
    universally deployable fiber optic alternative..."[^44]

16. While NTIA recognizes the potential benefits of Access BPL, it also
    states that the Commission must ensure that other communications
    services, especially Federal Government operations, are adequately
    protected from unacceptable interference. It states that the Federal
    Government has extensive operations that potentially could be
    affected by BPL systems. It notes that there are over 18,000 Federal
    Government frequency assignments in the 1.7-80 MHz spectrum range.
    NTIA also indicates that it has initiated modeling, analysis and
    measurement efforts in order to develop means for accommodating BPL
    technologies while precluding unacceptable interference to Federal
    Government systems.[^45] Similarly, the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency (FEMA) is supportive of our national goals of extensively
    deployed broadband facilities and of a more robust electrical
    utility infrastructure and states that it appreciates that BPL could
    be a major factor in achieving these objectives. FEMA indicates,
    however, that it has become aware that certain distinct approaches
    to BPL may have the potential to cause interference to its high
    frequency radio emergency communications system although it has not
    concluded at this time that there is a material interference problem
    or that all of the distinct technological approaches to BPL pose a
    risk of interference. FEMA states that it expects that there may be
    ways to provide the public with the benefits of BPL without
    compromising emergency communications.[^46] The National Academy of
    Sciences, through the National Research Council\'s Committee on
    Radio Frequencies (CORF), indicates its concern regarding BPL
    emissions into the bands allocated to the Radio Astronomy Service
    (RAS). It urges that, at the very least, the level of protection
    currently provided under Part 15 in RAS bands should be
    maintained.[^47]

17. Commenting parties representing other services also raise potential
    interference concerns. The North American Shortwave Association
    (NASWA) recommends that "all BPL signals be confined to the 30 to 47
    MHz region of the spectrum to minimize interference to international
    broadcast services."[^48] Verizon Telephone Companies (Verizon),
    Qwest Communications International, Inc. (Qwest) and Sprint
    Corporation (Sprint) express concern that BPL operations could
    interfere with voice and data services (*i.e.* VDSL and ADSL2+) on
    twisted pair telephone cables located on the same utility poles as
    the BPL systems.[^49] The Aeronautical Radio Inc. (ARINC) states
    that Access BPL could "exacerbate interference" to its HF
    communications and that "the FCC should not take actions that would
    result in any increase in the noise floor in the HF radio spectrum,
    because any noise increase would inevitably diminish the ability of
    aviation to maintain communications with aircraft operating over
    oceans and in remote areas of the world."[^50]

18. The Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) agrees that BPL
    providers could potentially provide the public with a ubiquitous
    third broadband pipe to compete with cable modem, DSL and other
    technologies, but believes that it is important to ensure that there
    is no interference to already well‑established services.[^51]
    Similarly, the Public Safety Wireless Network (PSWN) is optimistic
    that the development of broadband service using existing electrical
    lines holds promise for providing additional resources to members of
    the public that are currently underserved or may be unable to secure
    access to that technology because of geographic or other
    limitations. However, it urges the Commission to "...balance the
    potential benefits of this service, and increased competition among
    incumbent access providers, with the need to thoroughly test this
    service offering to ensure that no interference or other damage will
    result to existing incumbent services, particularly wireless public
    safety communications."[^52] In addition, the Region 21 Frequency
    Advisory Committee of the Association of Public Safety
    Communications Officials International, Inc. (APCO Region 21)
    expresses concern about BPL interference to public safety
    communications. [^53]

19. The Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc. (TDI) supports the
    development of BPL technology and states that BPL has the potential
    to increase broadband access and competition. However, it states
    that BPL systems must not interfere with hearing aids,
    telecommunications equipment, and visual signaling technology
    commonly used by the deaf and hearing-impaired.[^54]

20. On the other hand, BPL equipment manufacturers and service providers
    state that Access BPL does not pose an unacceptable risk of
    increased interference to licensed radio services. They note that
    there have been no complaints of interference from BPL and that the
    existing Part 15 rules adequately protect incumbent spectrum
    users.[^55] The BPL industry in general believes that Part 15 rules
    are not only adequate to protect other users of the spectrum,[^56]
    but that higher emission limits are warranted in the 30‑50 MHz
    band.[^57] Some parties propose higher emission limits especially at
    frequencies above 200 MHz.[^58] Parties advocating higher power
    argue that operation of Access BPL under power levels higher than
    currently allowed in Part 15 would enable utility companies to serve
    more homes, thereby bringing broadband access to a greater number of
    people.[^59]

21. Southern indicates that it is unaware of any reported cases of
    harmful interference from use of its Access BPL technology.[^60] The
    HomePlug Powerline Alliance (HomePlug) states that its member
    companies have widely deployed In-Home BPL equipment in the consumer
    market over the last 2 years and there have not been complaints of
    interference. HomePlug contends that joint testing by the ARRL and
    HomePlug has demonstrated a very low probability of interference
    between its devices and amateur radio use.[^61] The In-House BPL
    industry advocates no change to Part 15.[^62]

22. A number of BPL proponents argue that the technical assumptions used
    by opponents of Access BPL to predict interference are incorrect.
    They dispute claims that the electric power lines will act like an
    efficient antenna and that signals from Access BPL devices will
    aggregate to raise the noise floor. Southern states that there is a
    high degree of variability in the ability of power lines to radiate
    BPL signals and that signals on power lines will tend to cancel each
    other out.[^63] It argues that its research to date would suggest
    that a BPL signal injection point can appear like a point-source
    radiator, with the power line having characteristics somewhere
    between a waveguide and an antenna.[^64] Thus, Southern contends
    that ARRL erred in depicting the power line as an efficient antenna
    for a single, discrete frequency.[^65]

23. Current Technologies submits that its data indicate that BPL
    emissions drop off very rapidly away from the BPL source and that
    emissions fall off in point-source fashion.[^66] Ameren Energy
    Communications Inc. (AEC) states that the notion that the power
    lines will act as efficient antennas and pollute their surroundings
    with harmful interference is not supported by scientific
    measurements.[^67] AEC asserts that because of impedance mismatch in
    real-world power lines, a single power line is expected to be a
    rather inefficient radiator.[^68]

24. Current Technologies states that aggregation of BPL signals is
    unlikely since in its system only two BPL devices in the same area
    can operate simultaneously, and even those two devices would operate
    on different frequencies, so they cannot affect the same
    receiver.[^69] Main.Net Communications Ltd. (Main.Net) similarly
    indicates that in its technology only one unit is transmitting on
    any given frequency at any given time in any given area.[^70] AEC
    also states that its BPL implementation does not lead to noise
    aggregation because its systems are broken into several cells and
    within a single cell, modems cannot transmit signals simultaneously.
    It argues that therefore only a single RF source will exist within
    the cell and no combined radiated emissions from multiple sources
    can occur.[^71] Main.Net further indicates that it has successfully
    implemented its technology in trials and commercial operations in
    over 60 locations in 25 countries throughout the world.[^72]

25. In response to CORF's concerns with BPL emissions, BPL proponents
    submit that their systems would comply with the current Part 15
    requirements. Southern states that emissions from its system are
    compliant with Part 15 requirements and, in fact, tend to be in the
    noise floor.[^73] Southern also points out that its Access BPL
    devices do not even operate in three out of the seven frequency
    bands allocated for RAS as Access BPL operate only on frequencies
    below 50 MHz.[^74]

26. Finally, Ambient Corporation (Ambient) states that it is possible to
    avoid interference to nearby transceivers using the inherent
    frequency agile characteristics of advanced Orthogonal Frequency
    Division Multiplexing (OFDM) technology.[^75] Ambient states that if
    a sub-band is being used by a nearby transceiver, the BPL modem
    transmitter can be programmed to avoid transmitting on that
    sub-band, or "notch" it out.[^76]

27. *BPL Equipment Authorization and Measurement Procedures*. In the
    *Inquiry*, we requested comment on authorization and compliance
    measurements for BPL equipment. Under section 302 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, the Commission carries out
    its responsibilities by establishing technical regulations for
    transmitters and other equipment to minimize their potential for
    causing harmful interference to radio services, and by administering
    an equipment authorization program to ensure that devices reaching
    the market comply with the technical requirements.[^77] The
    equipment authorization program specifies several procedures for
    demonstrating equipment compliance.[^78] Currently, equipment
    operating as carrier current systems, such as power line intercom
    systems, lamp remote controls, low speed power line telephone
    adaptors, as well as Access BPL, are subject to the verification
    procedure under our equipment authorization program.

28. There is a general consensus that all components of an Access BPL
    system should be part of the equipment authorization process.[^79]
    With the exception of parties representing amateur interests, most
    commenting parties recommend retaining the verification procedure
    for Access BPL equipment authorization as it is currently applied to
    both BPL and traditional narrow-band carrier current systems.[^80]
    These parties contend that Access BPL is sold only to utilities and
    service providers and only qualified utility line personnel will
    install the units on the power lines.[^81] Amateurs argue that
    Access BPL equipment should be subject to the more stringent
    certification process.

29. A number of parties advocate deleting conducted emissions
    measurements,[^82] and retaining the existing radiated measurements
    for Access BPL.[^83] Most parties also recommend that emission
    measurement of Access BPL be conducted on location, *i.e., in‑situ.*
    Several parties advocate development of a standardized measurement
    procedure by an industry technical committee.[^84] HomePlug and
    other In-House BPL proponents recommend retaining the existing
    radiated emissions measurement and favor *in‑situ* testing, and are
    not against a laboratory test method but do not want it to be the
    only method.[^85]

# III. discussion {#iii.-discussion .Style-Heading-1-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\" .unnumbered}

#  {#section .Style-Heading-1-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\" .unnumbered}

30. As indicated in the *Notice of Inquiry* and supported by the
    responsive comments*,* we believe that Access BPL offers the promise
    of a new method for delivery of broadband services to residential,
    institutional, and commercial users. Because power lines reach
    virtually every home, school, and business in the United States,
    Access BPL technology could play an important role in providing
    high-speed Internet and broadband services to rural and remote areas
    of the country.[^86] Thus, significant areas of the country still
    lack broadband access and many others lack competition for such
    services, and we believe that Access BPL could serve as a means to
    reach those areas. Since Access BPL uses the same power lines that
    carry electricity virtually everywhere, much of the infrastructure
    needed to operate this technology is already in place, so that major
    savings in deployment costs and capital may be realized in its
    deployment. Access BPL could also serve to provide new competition
    to existing broadband services, such as cable and DSL. In addition,
    Access BPL may allow electric utilities to improve the safety and
    efficiency of the electric power distribution system and also
    further our national homeland security by protecting this vital
    element of the U.S. critical infrastructure. Moreover, Access BPL is
    being developed worldwide, and encouraging the deployment of the
    technology in the United States will support globalization of
    products and services, promote continued U.S. leadership in
    broadband technology, and bring important benefits to the American
    public.[^87]

31. We recognize the significant concerns of existing radio users
    regarding the potential for harmful interference from Access BPL
    operations. After careful consideration, however, we believe that
    these interference concerns can be adequately addressed. We believe
    that Access BPL systems can operate successfully under the
    non-interference requirements of the Part 15 rules. Under these
    rules, operators of Access BPL systems will be responsible for
    eliminating any harmful interference that may occur.[^88]
    Furthermore, we believe that the current Part 15 emission limits for
    carrier current systems in conjunction with certain additional
    requirements specific to Access BPL operations will be adequate to
    ensure that existing radio operations are protected against harmful
    interference from such operations. We therefore are proposing
    changes to our Part 15 rules that we believe will facilitate the
    deployment of Access BPL technology while protecting licensed users
    of the spectrum. Specifically, we are proposing to: 1) define Access
    BPL for purposes of our rules; 2) maintain the existing Part 15
    emission limits for Access BPL; 3) require that Access BPL devices
    employ adaptive interference mitigation techniques; 4) require that
    Access BPL providers maintain a database of installation locations
    and technical information; and 5) adopt specific measurement
    guidelines for both Access BPL and other carrier current systems to
    ensure that measurements are made in a consistent manner and provide
    for repeatable results in determining compliance with our rules.
    These proposals are discussed more fully below.

#### Definition of Access BPL

32. We propose to define Access BPL as a carrier current system
    operating on any electric power transmission lines owned, operated
    or controlled by an electrical power provider, as follows:

    [Access Broadband over power line (Access BPL)]{.underline}: A
    carrier current system that transmits radio frequency energy by
    conduction over electric power lines owned, operated, or controlled
    by an electric service provider. The electric power lines may be
    aerial (overhead) or underground.

    We believe that this definition is consistent with the concept of
    Access BPL and the current and planned deployment of this
    technology. We request comment on this definition of Access BPL.
    Interested parties are invited to submit suggestions for alternative
    definitions. Such submissions should include a complete description
    of what would be included in the definition of Access BPL and why.
    We also request comment on whether there are entities that plan to
    own/operate Access BPL over the electric power lines but would not
    be electrical power providers or a subsidiary of the incumbent
    electric power provider.

#### Access BPL Emission Limits 

33. As indicated above, the commenting parties strongly disagree on the
    interference potential of Access BPL.[^89] Existing spectrum users
    are concerned that emissions from Access BPL systems and devices
    could adversely affect their operations. BPL proponents, on the
    other hand, suggest that any impact from Access BPL would be minimal
    and some argue that emission levels higher than the current Part 15
    limits would be acceptable and allow more cost-effective system
    implementations. At this time, we believe that we should proceed
    cautiously. We recognize that unlicensed operations in the HF band
    presents a number of unique challenges given the propagation
    characteristics of this range of frequencies and the diversity of
    licensed users. Accordingly, in order to better ensure protection of
    existing radio services, we are proposing to continue to apply the
    existing Part 15 emission limits for carrier current systems to
    Access BPL systems. While we agree that there is some potential for
    Access BPL to cause harmful interference to radio services, we also
    tentatively conclude that the likelihood of such harmful
    interference is low under the current limits and that where such
    interference does occur, there are remedies that the Access BPL
    operator can employ to eliminate such interference. On balance, we
    believe that the benefits of Access BPL for bringing broadband
    services to the public are sufficiently important and significant as
    to outweigh the potential for increased harmful interference that
    may arise. Furthermore, as indicated above, we are proposing to
    subject Access BPL operations to the existing Part 15 radiated
    emission limits for carrier current systems.[^90] In addition, as
    discussed in the next section herein, we are proposing that Access
    BPL devices include technical capabilities and administrative
    procedures to ensure that the potential for harmful interference is
    minimized and that any instances of harmful interference are quickly
    resolved.

34. While we appreciate the interference concerns raised by existing
    radio users, we note that Access BPL will operate in compliance with
    the current Part 15 rules that limit emissions from unlicensed
    carrier current systems to very low power levels in comparison to
    licensed radio operations. We believe that the current Part 15
    levels will limit the harmful interference potential of Access BPL
    devices to relatively short distances around these devices. In this
    regard, we note that hundreds of kinds of unlicensed devices are
    successfully operating under the current Part 15 limits without
    causing harmful interference to licensed operations. Furthermore,
    all unlicensed devices operating under Part 15 are subject to the
    condition that they not cause harmful interference and that they
    cease operation if they do cause such interference.[^91]

35. We recognize that amateur operations are likely to present a
    difficult challenge in the deployment of Access BPL in cases where
    amateurs use high gain outdoor antennas that are located near power
    lines. In considering this interference potential, we note that ARRL
    acknowledges that noise from power lines, absent any Access BPL
    signals, already presents a significant problem for amateur
    communications.[^92] We therefore would expect that, in practice,
    many amateurs already orient their antennas to minimize the
    reception of emissions from nearby electric power lines. Further, we
    note that many Access BPL technologies have the capability to avoid
    using specific frequencies, if necessary, to avoid interference.
    This would permit Access BPL devices to avoid the use of amateur
    frequencies when in close proximity to amateur outdoor antennas.

36. We also disagree with ARRL and others that suggest that interference
    caused to amateur and other radio operations by Access BPL systems
    complying with our Part 15 limits will be widespread. Although we
    agree with ARRL that Access BPL on overhead lines is not a
    traditional point-source emitter, we do not believe that Access BPL
    devices will cause the power lines to act as countless miles of
    transmission lines all radiating RF energy along their full length.
    Rather, the primary source of emissions will be the individual
    couplers, repeaters and other devices and, to a lesser extent, the
    power line immediately adjacent thereto. Regarding the cumulative
    interference effect of Access BPL across wide geographic areas, data
    submitted by Access BPL proponents, such as AEC and Current
    Technologies, show that radiation would be the highest in the
    vicinity of an Access BPL emissions source.[^93] In addition, as
    indicated above, Current Technologies, Main.Net and other Access BPL
    equipment manufacturers state that in their implementations only a
    limited number of devices transmit simultaneously on the same
    frequency in the same geographic area and that there is no
    cumulative effect from multiple Access BPL devices transmitting at
    the same time in the same area.[^94] Nevertheless, to ensure that
    any effect of the power line is taken into consideration when
    testing for compliance with our Part 15 rules, we are proposing to
    modify the measurement procedures for Access BPL systems, as set
    forth in Appendix C, to specify that emission measurements be made
    at several specific distances from the Access BPL equipment source,
    and that measurements be taken parallel to the power line to find
    the maximum emissions from the BPL system. We seek comment on our
    proposed measurement guidelines.

37. With regard to potential interference to the non-amateur radio
    services, such as public safety, maritime and other operations, we
    believe that the risk of harmful interference from Access BPL
    operations is low. In general, we believe that a properly designed
    and operated BPL system will pose little interference hazard to
    non-amateur services such as aeronautical, maritime and public
    safety. However, we recognize in our analysis that public safety
    systems merit particular attention because of the often critical
    nature of their communications. In analyzing the potential for
    harmful interference to public safety systems we took into account
    the fact that low-level Part 15 signals from Access BPL devices
    attenuate rapidly as the distance from the device increases; and
    that most public safety systems are designed so that mobile and
    portable units receive a signal level significantly above the noise
    floor. From an interference analysis standpoint, this latter
    characteristic distinguishes public safety systems from amateur
    radio stations using high-sensitivity receivers to receive signals
    from transmitters often thousands of miles away. However, it is
    foreseeable that under certain rare circumstances a public safety
    unit could: (a) operate in close proximity to an Access BPL
    device; (b) be tuned to a frequency radiated by the Access BPL
    device; and (c) be receiving a weak signal from a distant, or
    obstructed, public safety base station. In general, potential
    harmful interference under these conditions would be limited to
    public safety units operating on systems using low-band VHF channels
    (25-50 MHz).[^95] Therefore, it appears that the interference
    protections we propose herein \-- and the strict "no interference"
    restriction inherent in the Part 15 rules \-- will be adequate to
    foreclose such rare instances of harmful interference to public
    safety systems. While we tentatively conclude that the measures
    proposed herein are adequate, we request comment on whether any
    additional measures are needed to protect particular operations,
    such as public safety. For example, should we require Access BPL
    system to coordinate with public safety agencies that use the HF
    band for state-wide public safety communications?

38. Accordingly, we are proposing to maintain the existing Part 15
    radiated emission limits for Access BPL systems and devices. In
    addition, we are proposing to exempt Access BPL systems from the
    existing conducted emission limits of Section 15.107(c).[^96]
    Because Access BPL systems are installed on power lines that can
    carry 1,000 volts to 40,000 volts, conducted emission measurements
    are very difficult to measure, and present safety hazards in
    connecting test equipment to these lines.[^97] We do not believe
    that this exemption would have any impact on interference potential
    since Access BPL would still be required to comply with our radiated
    emissions rules. We seek comment on these proposals. We further seek
    comment on whether Access BPL would in some instances operate in the
    AM broadcast band (from 535 to 1705 kHz), and whether specific
    conducted requirements are needed in such situations.

#### Access BPL Operational Requirements

39. Notwithstanding compliance with the Part 15 emission limits, we wish
    to emphasize that Access BPL would also operate under our Part 15
    non‑interference conditions. Thus, operations must cease if harmful
    interference to licensed services is caused. Given that there is
    significant investment in the deployment of the service, we agree
    with several commenters that Access BPL providers would have a
    strong incentive to exercise the utmost caution in installing their
    systems to avoid harmful interference and ensure uninterrupted
    service to their customers.[^98] In addition, given the typical
    attachment of BPL products to medium voltage lines and the possible
    use of BPL systems to control and monitor the electrical system, we
    believe that Access BPL systems likely will be managed on a more
    controlled basis as compared to other typical Part 15 operations.

40. To further address the interference concerns raised in the
    *Inquiry*, we are proposing certain additional technical and
    administrative requirements for Access BPL. First, we are proposing
    to require that Access BPL systems and devices incorporate
    capabilities that would allow the operator to modify system
    performance to mitigate or avoid harmful interference to radio
    services. Such adaptive interference mitigation techniques would
    include, for example, the capability to reduce power levels on a
    dynamic or remote controlled basis, and the ability to include or
    exclude specific operating frequencies or bands. This capability
    would allow operators to avoid localized and site-specific harmful
    interference.

41. We believe that this requirement is reasonable and practicable for
    Access BPL operators and equipment manufacturers to implement. We
    observe that a number of Access BPL devices currently employ OFDM
    modulation techniques, which facilitate the ability to dynamically
    select the specific frequencies used to provide service and to avoid
    use of specific frequencies where operation might result in harmful
    interference. In this regard, we note that PowerWAN states that
    "notching" of specific frequency is technically feasible.[^99]
    Ambient indicates that its equipment will be able to notch out
    individual frequencies "on the fly," in response to short term
    changes in the RF environment.[^100] Main.Net states that it already
    has the capability to remotely control the operating frequencies and
    power of their installations.[^101]

42. Second, we propose to require that Access BPL devices incorporate a
    shut-down feature that would deactivate units found to cause harmful
    interference, and thereby allow speedy implementation of
    interference mitigation measures. It is our understanding that most
    Access BPL devices already possess this capability. We seek comment
    on these proposals and invite suggestions for alternative
    approaches. In particular, we request comment on whether we should
    have specific requirements regarding the above mitigation
    approaches. For example, should we require that each Access BPL
    device be capable of operating across a minimum range frequencies
    and have the capability to remotely exclude a specific percentage of
    frequencies within this range. We also seek comment on the cost and
    effectiveness of these or alternative approaches. To the extent
    possible, we encourage potential BPL providers and BPL equipment
    manufacturers to work with amateurs and other existing licensed
    services to develop such appropriate mitigation requirements. We
    seek comment on the appropriate period of time that we should
    allow for BPL systems to come into compliance with any new
    requirements that we may adopt pursuant to this rule making
    proceeding.  We further seek comment on whether Access BPL systems
    currently deployed should be required to be brought into compliance
    with the new rules, and if so, what period of time should
    be afforded for them to come into compliance.

43. Finally, we propose to subject Access BPL systems to a notification
    requirement similar to the notification requirements in our rules
    for power line carrier (PLC) systems.[^102] Under this requirement,
    an Access BPL system operator would submit information on its system
    to an industry‑operated entity. The objective of the proposed
    notification would be to establish a publicly accessible database
    for Access BPL information to ensure that the location of Access BPL
    systems and their operating characteristics are identified if
    harmful interference occurs and to facilitate interference
    mitigation and avoidance measures. We propose that this notification
    includes information on the location of the installation, the type
    of modulation used and the frequency bands of operation. We seek
    input on these proposals. We also request comment and suggestions on
    the appropriate industry‑operated entity that we should select to
    receive the notifications and maintain the Access BPL data base. We
    also seek comment on other approaches for making this information
    available. For example, would it more reasonable to allow each
    Access BPL operator to maintain a database of its own rather than
    require a more centralized data base?. Commenting parties are
    requested to submit information on the benefits of such approaches.
    We further seek input on any resulting burdens that the proposed
    notification requirement may place on entities operating Access BPL
    systems, and any impact of a notification system on the availability
    of customer data as well as how any concerns regarding the
    proprietary nature of that data can be addressed.

#### Equipment Authorization and Measurement Guidelines

44. *Equipment Authorization*. We propose to retain the Verification
    procedure for Access BPL. Consistent with the objective that our
    regulatory requirements keep pace with technology development, we
    recognize that we must balance administrative burdens and the need
    to ensure compliance with our rules. We agree with commenting
    parties such as Phonex Broadband Corporation (Phonex) and UPLC that
    the authorization procedure for BPL should be the same as for all
    unintentional radiators, including traditional types of carrier
    current systems.[^103] Low-speed carrier current systems, which for
    a number of years have been operating inside buildings, have rarely
    been a source of harmful interference to radio communications, and
    the use of the verification procedure has been adequate to ensure
    that such systems comply with the rules. We seek comment on this
    proposal.

45. *Access BPL Measurement Guidelines*. Because Access BPL is a new
    implementation of carrier current techniques, as discussed, *supra*,
    there are no existing measurement guidelines for this type of
    equipment. We tentatively propose that Access BPL systems, including
    all BPL electronic devices, *e.g.*, couplers, injectors, extractors,
    repeaters, boosters, concentrators installed on the electric utility
    overhead or underground medium voltage lines etc., be measured
    *in‑situ* to demonstrate compliance with our Part 15 rules, at a
    minimum of three overhead and three underground representative
    locations, using the measurement guidelines in Appendix C.
    Consistent with existing FCC measurement procedures, measurements
    below 30 MHz must be performed with a magnetic loop antenna, while
    those above 30 MHz are performed using an electric field sensing
    antenna. For Access BPL in underground installations, the proposed
    guidelines employ the common principle of measuring radiated fields
    along a number of radials at a specified distance from the periphery
    of the pad‑mounted above‑ground transformer where the Access BPL
    equipment is located, to find the maximum emissions. For Access BPL
    installed on overhead lines, in order to take into account the
    effect of the long power line associated with the Access BPL
    equipment, our proposed guidelines specify measurements at fixed
    horizontal distances from the power line where the Access BPL source
    is installed. Thus, rather than finding the maximum emissions across
    a number of radials, ‑ as currently performed for other Part 15
    emitters ‑ the receive antenna is moved down-line, parallel to the
    power line, starting from the Access BPL equipment location, to find
    the maximum emissions. Down-line distances used in this sequence of
    measurements are specified in terms of wavelength of the Access BPL
    mid-band frequency. We seek comment on these guidelines.

46. In addition, we specifically solicit comments on the height of
    receive antennas used for radiated emissions measurements for Access
    BPL systems operating on overhead power lines and on the possible
    use of correction factors to account for antenna height. The
    proposed guidelines in Appendix C recommend a fixed *loop* antenna
    height at 1 meter and scanning the height of electric field sensing
    antennas from 1 to 4 meters. While these recommendations correspond
    to standard practice for other types of devices (especially when
    measured on a test site), these heights may not capture the maximum
    emissions from an overhead power line. In Appendix C, we address
    this issue by specifying that distance extrapolation for emission
    measurements on overhead lines be based on slant-range distance from
    the Access BPL location on the pole to the measuring antenna, rather
    than on horizontal distance.[^104] However, this technique does not
    account for field strength reductions caused by ground effects. We
    seek comment on the following:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(a) Is it necessary to require that emission measurements be conducted
    at antenna heights greater than those proposed in Appendix C?

(b) Is it practical and safe to make *in‑situ* emission measurements at
    antenna heights up to the height of an overhead medium voltage power
    line (typically 11 meters) when operating 10 meters from the power
    line? As an alternative to requiring higher antenna heights, should
    we specify that measurements that are performed at heights
    significantly lower than the power line be subjected to a correction
    factor to estimate the maximum field strength that would have been
    observed at a higher measurement height? How should such a
    correction factor be determined?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
47. *Measurement Guidelines for Other Carrier Current Systems.* In the
    *Inquiry*, the Commission observed that the International
    Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), International Special Committee
    on Radio Interference (CISPR) Subcommittee I on *Interference
    Relating To Multimedia Equipment*, Working Group 3 on *Emission from
    Information Technology Equipment* is developing conducted emission
    limits for new BPL technologies.[^105] We note however that this
    international work on a standardized measurement method for In-House
    BPL is still under way, including work on the definition of a line
    impedance stabilization network (LISN),[^106] associated injection
    methods, and conducted emission limits for systems using the power
    line port as a communication port.[^107] We tentatively propose in
    the interim, pending the completion of such work, to retain the
    three-installation radiated emissions method for In-House BPL and
    traditional CCS, using the measurement guidelines in Appendix C,
    which clarify principles used regarding *in‑situ* test buildings,
    device installation location within a building, measurement
    distances from the building, measurement of emissions from overhead
    power feed lines to the building, and device operation. We seek
    comment on the measurement guidelines of Appendix C for In-House BPL
    and CCS.

# IV. CONCLUSION {#iv.-conclusion .Style-Heading-1-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\" .unnumbered}

48. In conclusion, we believe that Access BPL has the potential to offer
    a number of significant benefits, such as 1) increasing the
    availability of broadband services to homes and businesses; 2)
    improving the competitiveness of the broadband services market; 3)
    improving the quality and reliability of electric power delivery;
    and, 4) advancing homeland security. We believe that our proposals
    contained herein to adopt new Part 15 technical and administrative
    rules for Access BPL will help promote and foster the development of
    this new technology with its concomitant benefits while at the same
    time ensuring that existing licensed operations are protected from
    harmful interference. We further believe that our proposed
    measurement guidelines for Access BPL and CCS will ensure that
    emission measurements for determining the compliance of these
    systems with FCC requirements are made in a consistent manner, and
    with repeatable results. We request comments on these conclusions
    and on all aspects of the proposals contained herein.

# V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS {#v.-procedural-matters .Style-Heading-1-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\" .unnumbered}

#  {#section-1 .Style-Heading-1-+-Left:--0\"-First-line:--0\" .unnumbered}

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

49. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
    U.S.C. § 603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis (\"IRFA\") of the possible significant economic
    impact on small entities of the proposals suggested in this
    document. The IRFA is set forth in Appendix A. Written public
    comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in
    accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in this
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making. Comments must have a separate and
    distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.

## **Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis** {#initial-paperwork-reduction-act-of-1995-analysis .unnumbered}

50. This Notice contains a proposed information collection subject to
    the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). As part of its continuing
    effort to reduce paperwork burdens, we invite the general public and
    the Office of Management and Budget (\"OMB\") to take this
    opportunity to comment on the information collections contained in
    this Notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
    Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the same
    time as other comments on this Notice.

51. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any
    comments on the information collection(s) contained herein should be
    submitted to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission,
    Room 1-C804, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, or via the
    Internet to jboley@fcc.gov and to Kristy L. Lalonde, OMB Desk
    Officer, Room 10236, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503 or
    via the Internet to [Kristy L. Lalonde@omb.eop.gov]{.underline}.

## ***Ex Parte* Rules ‑ Permit‑But‑Disclose Proceeding.**

52. This is a permit‑but‑disclose notice and comment rulemaking
    proceeding. *Ex parte* presentations are permitted, except during
    the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided
    in the Commission\'s rules. *See* generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202,
    1.1203, and 1.2306(a).

## **Comments**

53. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission\'s rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file comments on
    or before \[**45 days from date of publication in the Federal
    Register**\] and reply comments on or before \[**75 days from date
    of publication in the Federal Register**\]. Comments may be filed
    using the Commission\'s Electronic Comment Filing System (\"ECFS\"),
    [http://www.fcc.gov/e‑file/ecfs.html](http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html),
    or by filing paper copies. *See Electronic Filing of Documents in
    Rulemaking Proceedings*, 63 Fed. Reg. 23,121 (1998).

54. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to
    [http://www.fcc.gov/e‑file/ecfs.html]{.underline}. Generally, only
    one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple
    docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this
    proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of
    the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the
    caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters 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
    for e‑mail comments, commenters should send an e‑mail to
    ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of
    the message, "get form \<your e‑mail address." A sample form and
    directions will be sent in reply. 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, commenters must submit two additional copies for each
    additional docket or rulemaking number.

55. 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). The Commission\'s contractor, Vistronix,
    Inc., will receive hand‑delivered or messenger‑delivered paper
    filings for the Commission\'s Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue,
    N.E., Suite 110, Washington, D.C. 20002. The filing hours at this
    location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 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 mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail
    should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554.
    All filings must be addressed to the Commission\'s Secretary, Office
    of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

56. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
    comments on diskette. Such a submission should be on a 3.5‑inch
    diskette formatted in an IBM compatible format using Microsoft Word
    or compatible software. The diskette should be accompanied by a
    cover letter and should be submitted in "read only" mode. The
    diskette should be clearly labeled with the commenter's name,
    proceeding (including the lead docket number, type of pleading
    (comment or reply comment), date of submission, and the name of the
    electronic file on the diskette. The label should also include the
    following phrase \"Disk Copy -- Not an Original.\" Each diskette
    should contain only party's pleading, preferably in a single
    electronic file. In addition, commenters must send diskette copies
    to the Commission's copy contractor, Natek, Inc., Portals II, 445
    12th Street, SW, Room CY‑B402, Washington, DC, 20554.

57. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette
    and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by
    contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418‑7426, TTY (202) 418‑2555, or
    via e‑mail to bmillin@fcc.gov. This Notice can also be downloaded at
    <http://www.fcc.gov/oet>.

## **Contact Person**

58. For further information concerning this rule making proceeding
    contact Anh Wride at (202) 418‑0577, <Anh.Wride@fcc.gov>.

#  VI. ordering clauses {#vi.-ordering-clauses .unnumbered}

59. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 301,
    302(a), 303, 307, 309, 316, and 332 of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154, 301, 302(a), 303,
    307, 309, 316, 332, 334, and 336, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making
    is hereby adopted.

60. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
    Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

# APPENDIX A: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis {#appendix-a-initial-regulatory-flexibility-analysis .APPENDIX}

**Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 as amended,[^108]
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 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking ("NPRM"). Written public comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments provided in paragraph 53 of the NPRM*.*
The Commission will send a copy of this *NPRM,* including the IRFA, to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA).[^109] In addition, the NPRM and IFRA (or summaries thereof) will
be published in the Federal Register.[^110]

## **A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules.** {#a.-need-for-and-objectives-of-the-proposed-rules. .unnumbered}

A number of parties are currently operating Access BPL under our Part 15
rules. Access BPL systems are new types of carrier current system that
operate on an unlicensed basis under Part 15. Access BPL systems use
existing electrical power lines as a transmission medium to provide
high-speed communications capabilities by coupling RF energy onto the
power line. Because power lines reach virtually every community in the
country, we believe that Access BPL could play an important role in
providing additional competition in the offering of broadband
infrastructure to the American home and consumers. In addition, BPL
could bring Internet and high-speed broadband access to rural and
underserved areas, which often are difficult to serve due to the high
costs associated with upgrading existing infrastructure and
interconnecting communication nodes with new technologies. We propose to
amend Part 15 of our rules to adopt new requirements and measurement
guidelines for Access broadband over power line (BPL). Specifically, we
propose new Part 15 requirements for Access BPL to promote its growth
while continuing to protect licensed spectrum users. We further propose
to adopt new measurement guidelines for Access BPL, both in aerial
(overhead) and underground configurations. For In‑House BPL and
traditional CCS, we propose to clarify the measurement guidelines to
ensure that measurements are made in a consistent manner and provide for
repeatable results in determining compliance with our rules. These
actions will remove regulatory uncertainties, promote the deployment of
BPL to bring the necessary competition in the provisioning of broadband
applications to the American public as well as new high speed broadband
access to underserved areas of the country, while ensuring that licensed
users continue to be protected from harmful interference.

## **B. Legal Basis.**  {#b.-legal-basis. .unnumbered}

This action is taken pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 301, 302(a), 303, 307,
309, 316, 332, 334, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154, 301, 302(a), 303, 307, 309, 316,
332, 334, and 336.

## **C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply.** {#c.-description-and-estimate-of-the-number-of-small-entities-to-which-the-proposed-rules-will-apply. .unnumbered}

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.[^111] 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.[^112] 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
may additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration
(SBA).[^113]

A small organization is generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field."[^114] Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801
small organizations.[^115] The term \"small governmental jurisdiction\"
is defined as \"governments of cities, counties, towns, townships,
villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of
less than fifty thousand.\"[^116] As of 1997, there were approximately
87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United States.[^117] This
number includes 39,044 counties, municipal governments, and townships,
of which 27,546 have populations of fewer than 50,000 and 11,498
counties, municipal governments, and townships have populations of
50,000 or more. Thus, we estimate that the number of small governmental
jurisdictions is approximately 75,955 or fewer.

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. This category encompasses
entities that primarily manufacture radio, television, and wireless
communications equipment.[^118] Under this standard, firms are
considered small if they have 750 or fewer employees.[^119] Census
Bureau data for 1997 indicate that, for that year, there were a total of
1,215 establishments[^120] in this category.[^121] Of those, there were
1,150 that had employment under 500, and an additional 37 that had
employment of 500 to 999. The percentage of wireless equipment
manufacturers in this category is approximately 61.35%,[^122] so the
Commission estimates that the number of wireless equipment manufacturers
with employment under 500 was actually closer to 706, with and
additional 23 establishments having employment of between 500 and 999.
Given the above, the Commission estimates that the great majority of
wireless communications equipment manufacturers are small businesses. We
do not believe this action would have a negative impact on small
entities that manufacture unlicensed BPL devices. Indeed, we believe the
actions should benefit small entities because it should make available
increased business opportunities to small entities. We request comment
on these assessments.

## **D. Description of Projected Reporting, Record keeping and Other Compliance Requirements.** {#d.-description-of-projected-reporting-record-keeping-and-other-compliance-requirements. .unnumbered}

Part 15 carrier current devices are already required to be authorized
under the verification procedure as a prerequisite to marketing and
importation. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated
with the equipment authorization procedures would not be changed by the
proposals contained in this Notice.

We propose to adopt new requirements for Access BPL to ensure protection
of licensed spectrum users from harmful interference. These requirements
include the proposed technical requirement for adaptive interference
mitigation capabilities and the proposed notification of Access BPL
systems in a database similar to the one required for existing Power
Line Carrier systems. Although these proposals do somewhat increase the
reporting and record keeping requirements for Access BPL systems, the
benefit of ensuring protection to critical systems operated by law
enforcement groups, government users and emergency operations outweighs
this small cost that will permit the growth of Access BPL in the shared
spectrum.

## **E. Steps taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered.** {#e.-steps-taken-to-minimize-significant-economic-impact-on-small-entities-and-significant-alternatives-considered. .unnumbered}

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.[^123]

In this Notice, we have maintained the existing Part 15 emission limits,
which are applicable to all Part 15 devices, including BPL. We have also
maintained the Verification method for equipment authorization of BPL,
which is the least burdensome equipment authorization procedure, wherein
the manufacturer conducts his own testing and retains the compliant test
data in his file. We have proposed to adopt new measurement guidelines
for BPL and existing carrier current systems, to assist manufacturers
and testing entities to follow clearer and more precise measurement
procedures in the testing of BPL and CCS.

## **F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules**. {#f.-federal-rules-that-may-duplicate-overlap-or-conflict-with-the-proposed-rules. .unnumbered}

None.

# APPENDIX b: proposed rules {#appendix-b-proposed-rules .APPENDIX}

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 C.F.R. part 15 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.  Section 15.3 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraph (ff) to
    read as follows:

§15.3 Definitions.

\*\*\*\*\*\*

(ff) [Access Broadband over power line (Access BPL)]{.underline}: A
carrier current system that transmits radio frequency energy by
conduction over electric power lines owned, operated, or controlled by
an electric service provider. The electric power lines may be aerial
(overhead) or underground.

\*\*\*\*\*

3.  Section 15.107 is proposed to be amended by adding paragraph (e) to
    read as follows:

\*\*\*\*\*

\(e\) The limits shown in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall
not apply to Access BPL systems.

\*\*\*\*\*

4.  Section 15.109 is proposed to be amended by modifying paragraph (e);
    adding paragraphs (f) and (g); and re-designating paragraphs
    (f), (g) and (h) as (h), (i) and (j), to read as follows:

Section 15.109 [Radiated emission limits]{.underline}.

\*\*\*\*\*

\(e\) Carrier current systems, including BPL systems, used as
unintentional radiators or other unintentional radiators that are
designed to conduct their radio frequency emissions via connecting wires
or cables and that operate in the frequency range of 9 kHz to 30 MHz,
including devices that deliver the radio frequency energy to
transducers, such as ultrasonic devices not covered under Part 18 of
this Chapter, shall comply with the radiated emission limits for
intentional radiators provided in Section 15.209 for the frequency range
of 9 kHz to 30 MHz. As an alternative, carrier current systems used as
unintentional radiators and operating in the frequency range of 525 kHz
to 1705 kHz may comply with the radiated emission limits provided in
Section 15.221(a). At frequencies above 30 MHz, the limits in paragraph
(a), (b) or (i) of this Section, as appropriate, continue to apply. For
all BPL systems, the requirements of this paragraph and paragraph (a) of
this section shall also apply to the emissions from all low-voltage
lines from the distribution transformer to all in-building wiring.

\(f\) Access BPL systems shall incorporate adaptive interference
mitigation techniques such as dynamic or remote reduction in power and
adjustment in operating frequencies, in order for Access BPL
installations to avoid site‑specific, localized use of the same spectrum
by licensed services. Access BPL systems shall incorporate a shut‑down
feature to deactivate units found to cause harmful interference.

\(g\) ) Entities operating Access Broadband over Power Line systems
shall supply to a Federal Communications Commission/National
Telecommunications and Information Administration recognized
industry‑operated entity, information on all existing, changes to
existing and proposed Access BPL systems for inclusion in a data base.
Such information shall include the installation locations, frequency
bands of operation, and type of modulation used. No notification to the
FCC is required.

\*\*\*\*\*\*

# APPENDIX C: proposed MEASUREMENT GUIDELINES {#appendix-c-proposed-measurement-guidelines .APPENDIX}

This appendix is intended to provide general guidance for compliance
measurements of Broadband over power line (BPL) devices and carrier
current systems (CCS). For BPL systems, the measurement principles are
based on the Commission's current understanding of BPL technology.
Modifications may be necessary as measurement experience is gained.

1.  **[General Measurement Principles for Access BPL, In-House BPL and
    CCS]{.underline}**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1)  Testing shall be performed with the BPL system power settings set at
    the maximum level used by the EUT.

2)  Testing shall be performed using the maximum RF injection duty
    factor (burst rate). Test modes or test software may be used for
    uplink and downlink transmissions.

3)  Measurements should be made at a test site where the ambient signal
    level is 6 dB below the applicable limit. (See ANSI C63.4-2001,
    section 5.1.2 for alternatives, if this test condition cannot be
    achieved.)

4)  The data communications burst rate shall be at least 20 Hz as
    specified in the note at the end of Section 15.35(a) for Quasi-Peak
    measurements. Otherwise, measurements shall be made using a peak
    detector.

5)  For frequencies above 30 MHz, an electric field sensing antenna,
    such as a biconical antenna is used. The signal shall be maximized
    for antenna heights from 1 to 4 meters, for both horizontal and
    vertical polarizations, in accordance to ANSI C63.4-2001 procedures.

6)  For frequencies below 30 MHz, an active or passive magnetic loop is
    used. The magnetic loop antenna should be at 1 meter height with its
    plane oriented vertically and the emission maximized by rotating the
    antenna 180 degrees about its vertical axis. When using active
    magnetic loops, care should be taken to prevent ambient signals from
    overloading the spectrum analyzer or antenna pre-amplifier.

7)  The six highest radiated emissions relative to the limit and
    independent of antenna polarization shall be reported as stated in
    ANSI C63.4-2001, section 10.1.8.2.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
2.  **[Access BPL Measurement Principles]{.underline}**

    a.  **[Test Environment]{.underline}**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1)  The Equipment Under Test (EUT) includes all BPL electronic devices
    *e.g.,* couplers, injectors, extractors, repeaters, boosters,
    concentrators, and electric utility overhead or underground medium
    voltage lines.

2)  *In‑situ* testing shall be performed on three typical installations
    for overhead line(s) and three typical installations for underground
    line(s).

    a.  **[Radiated Emissions Measurement Principles for Overhead Line
        Installations]{.underline}**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1)  Measurements should normally be performed at a horizontal separation
    distance of 10 meters from the overhead line. If necessary, due to
    ambient emissions, measurements may be performed a distance of 3
    meters.

2)  Testing shall be performed at distances of 0, ¼, ½, ¾, and 1
    wavelength down the line from the BPL injection point on the power
    line. Wavelength spacing is based on the mid-band frequency used by
    the EUT. In addition, if the mid-band frequency exceeds the lowest
    frequency injected onto the power line by more than a factor of two,
    testing shall be extended in steps of ½ wavelength of the
    [mid-band]{.underline} frequency until the distance equals or
    exceeds ½ wavelength of the [lowest]{.underline} frequency injected.
    (For example, if the device injects frequencies from 3 to 27 MHz,
    the wavelength corresponding to the mid-band frequency of 15 MHz is
    20 meters, and wavelength corresponding to the lowest injected
    frequency is 100 meters. Measurements are to be performed at 0, 5,
    10, 15, and 20 meters down line---corresponding to zero to one
    wavelength at the mid-band frequency. Because the mid-band frequency
    exceeds the minimum frequency by more than a factor of two,
    additional measurements are required at 10‑meter intervals until the
    distance down-line from the injection point equals or exceeds ½ of
    100 meters. Thus, additional measurement points are required at 30,
    40, and 50 meters down line from the injection point.)

3)  Testing shall be repeated for each Access BPL component (injector,
    extractor, repeater, booster, concentrator, etc.)

4)  The distance correction for the overhead-line measurements shall be
    based on the slant range distance, which is the line-of-sight
    distance from the measurement antenna to the overhead line. Slant
    range distance corrections are to be made in accordance with Section
    15.31(f) of the Rules.

[Note]{.underline}: In cases where pole mounted low-voltage boosters are
used (*i.e.*, Home-Plug and modem boosters), apply the overhead-line
procedures as stated above along the low-voltage lines.

a.  **[Radiated Emissions Measurement Principles for Underground Line
    Installations]{.underline}**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1)  Measurements should normally be performed at a separation distance
    of 10 meters from the in-ground power transformer that contains the
    BPL device(s). If necessary, due to ambient emissions, measurements
    may be performed a distance of 3 meters. Distance corrections are to
    be made in accordance with Section 15.31(f) of the Rules.

2)  Measurements shall be made at positions around the perimeter of the
    in-ground power transformer where the maximum emissions occur. ANSI
    C63.4-2001, section 8.1, specifies a minimum of 16 radial angles
    surrounding the EUT (In-ground transformer that contains the BPL
    device(s)). If directional radiation patterns are suspected,
    additional azimuth angles shall be examined.

    a.  **[Conducted Emissions Measurement Principles]{.underline}**

1\) Conducted emissions testing is not required for Access BPL.

3.  **[In-House BPL and Carrier Current Systems Measurement
    Principles]{.underline}**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1)  In-House BPL devices are typically composite devices consisting of
    two equipment classes (Carrier current system and personal computer
    peripheral (Class B)). While carrier current systems require
    Verification, personal computer peripherals require Declaration of
    Conformity (DoC) or Certification, as specified in Section 15.101 of
    the Rules. Appropriate tests to determine compliance with these
    requirements shall be performed.

2)  *In‑situ* testing is required for testing of the carrier current
    system functions of the In-House BPL device.

3)  If applicable, the device shall also be tested in a laboratory
    environment, as a computer peripheral, for both radiated and
    conducted emissions tests per the measurement procedures in
    C63.4-2001.

    a.  **[Test Environment and Radiated Emissions Measurement
        Principles for *In-Situ* Testing]{.underline}**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1)  The Equipment under Test (EUT) includes In-House BPL modems used to
    transmit and receive carrier BPL signals on low-voltage lines,
    associated computer interface devices, building wiring, and overhead
    or underground lines that connect to the electric utilities.

2)  *In‑situ* testing shall be performed with the EUT installed in a
    building on an outside wall on the ground floor or first floor.
    Testing shall be performed on three typical installations. The three
    installations shall include a combination of buildings with
    overhead-line(s) and underground line(s). The buildings shall not
    have aluminum or other metal siding, or shielded wiring (e.g.:
    wiring installed through conduit, or BX electric cable).

3)  Measurements shall be made at positions around the building
    perimeter where the maximum emissions occur. ANSI C63.4-2001,
    section 8.1, specifies a minimum of 16 radial angles surrounding the
    EUT (building perimeter). If directional radiation patterns are
    suspected, additional azimuth angles shall be examined.

4)  Measurements should normally be performed at a separation distance
    of 10 meters from the building perimeter. If necessary, due to
    ambient emissions, measurements may be performed a distance of 3
    meters. Distance corrections are to be made in accordance with
    Section 15.31(f) of the Rules.

    a.  **[Additional Measurement Principles for *In-Situ* Testing With
        Overhead Lines]{.underline}**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1)  In addition to testing radials around the building, testing shall be
    performed opposite the overhead line; ¼ wavelength, ½ wavelength, 1
    wavelength, and 1 ¼ wavelength down the line from the building
    connection. Wavelength spacing is based on the mid-band frequency
    used by the EUT.

2)  Measurements should normally be performed at a horizontal separation
    distance of 10 meters from the overhead line. If necessary, due to
    ambient emissions, measurements may be performed a distance of 3
    meters.

3)  The distance correction for the overhead-line measurements shall be
    based on the slant range distance, which is the line-of-sight
    distance from the measurement antenna to the overhead line. Slant
    range distance corrections are to be made in accordance with Section
    15.31(f) of the Rules.

    a.  **[Measurement Principles for Testing as a Computer
        Peripheral]{.underline}**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
1)  The data rate shall be set at the maximum rate used by the EUT. Test
    modes or test software may be used to simulate data traffic.

2)  For In-House BPL devices operating as unintentional radiators below
    30 MHz, the conducted emissions shall be measured in the 535 -- 1705
    kHz band as specified in Section 15.107(c). For In-House BPL devices
    operating as unintentional radiators above 30 MHz, the conducted
    emissions shall be measured as specified in Section 15.107(a).
    Conducted emissions measurements shall be performed in accordance
    with ANSI C63.4-2001 (Section 7 and Annex E).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
4)  For In-House BPL devices operating as unintentional radiators either
    below 30 MHz or above 30 MHz, the radiated emissions limits of
    Section 15.109(a) apply. The radiated emissions from the computer
    peripheral shall be measured at an Open Area Test Site (OATS) in
    accordance with the measurement procedures in C63.4-2001 (Section 8
    and Annex E)

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL**

*Re: Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line
Systems; ET Docket No. 03-104; Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New
Requirements and Measurements for Access Broadband over Power Line; ET
Docket No. 04-37, Notice of Proposed Rule Making*

Another broadband pipe is coming closer to reality. Despite increasing
access to broadband services, significant areas of the country still
lack any type of broadband access or competition among broadband service
providers. The NPRM we adopt today takes an important step towards
promoting the deployment of a promising new technology -- Broadband over
Power Line or BPL. I have witnessed first-hand the potential of BPL to
provide a new platform for the deployment of high-speed access operating
under the Commission's existing Part 15 rules. Even today almost a dozen
companies are conducting field tests around the country. BPL is
currently being studied and deployed in a number of these communities,
including in our own backyard in Manassas, Virginia.

Companies have struggled for years to make BPL a success and I am struck
by the recent advancements and hurdles that have been overcome to
provide enhanced services, more choices, and lower prices for our
Nation's consumers.

BPL technology could also improve the provision and management of
electric power systems, homeland security, and protect vital elements of
our Nation's critical infrastructure. Moreover, BPL is being developed
worldwide, and encouraging the deployment of the technology in the U.S.
will promote continued U.S. leadership in broadband technology, and
bring important benefits to the American public.

I am confident that the proposals we adopt today balance the potential
benefits of BPL services and give careful consideration of the potential
interference from BPL operations by establishing new requirements that
will help minimize harmful interference that may occur and guidelines
for measurement of radio frequency (RF) emissions from carrier current
systems.

I am optimistic and welcome the day when every electrical outlet will
have the potential to offer high-speed broadband and a plethora of
high-tech applications to all Americans.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY**

*Re: Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line
Systems; ET Docket No. 03-104; Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New
Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband over Power
Line Systems; ET Docket No. 04-37, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*

This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on broadband over power line systems
(BPL) is an important step forward in promoting the Commission's goal of
facilitating the deployment of broadband services to all Americans.
Moving toward commercial deployment of BPL systems also will further our
goal of developing robust facilities-based competition. I want consumers
to have a choice of multiple, facilities-based providers, such as cable,
DSL, wireless, satellite, and to the extent possible, power line. We
will not get there overnight, but the continuing development of BPL
technology is a step in the right direction.

One of the key issues in this proceeding is the potential for harmful
interference by BPL systems to licensed spectrum users. Based on the
record, it is appropriate that we are proceeding cautiously. I support
our tentative conclusion to craft technical rules that minimize the
potential for harmful interference to existing licensees and also ensure
that any instances of interference are quickly resolved. I look forward
to reviewing the comments on these technical proposals and am hopeful
that we will be able to develop rules that protect existing licensees
from harmful interference, while enabling a promising new technology to
move forward.

# STATEMENT OF  {#statement-of .unnumbered}

# COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS {#commissioner-michael-j.-copps .unnumbered}

**DISSENTING IN PART AND APPROVING IN PART**

*Re: Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line
Systems; ET Docket No. 03-104; Amendment of Part 15 regarding new
requirements and measurement guidelines for Access Broadband over Power
Line Systems; ET Docket No. 04-37, Notice of Proposed Rule Making*

Last month I was lucky enough to join Commissioner Adelstein at a
demonstration of powerline broadband, and I've been watching the
technology develop over the time I've been at the Commission with much
interest. Today this technology is just being deployed. Tomorrow I hope
it will substantially increase broadband competition. Today companies
plan to deploy it in urban and suburban communities. But I hope power
lines will someday, sooner rather than later, deliver broadband to rural
America as well. So we are at the beginning, and we all have high hopes.

Because of this, I strongly support the technical inquiries and
proposals we make today. We need to set the technological rules of the
game early and transparently, so that the entrepreneurs in this industry
can make investments with confidence. As regards interference, I believe
we make another step in that direction today, so I'm happy to support
the technical side of our item.

Today's item dodges some of the hardest questions, however. For the same
reasons it is important to provide certainty for industry and consumers
as concerns interference, it is important to provide certainty on the
policy implications that we will surely face as powerline broadband
expands. These questions are hard and uncomfortable ones. But we should
never shy away from asking the hard questions. Avoiding questions today
only makes it harder for a future Commission to move ahead once
architectures are in place and investments are being made.

So I would tackle now issues such as CALEA, universal service,
disabilities access, E911, pole attachments, competition protections,
and, critically here, how to handle the potential for
cross-subsidization between regulated power businesses and unregulated
communications businesses. Is it right to allow electricity rate payers
to pay higher bills every month to subsidize an electric company's foray
into broadband?

Some will argue that we don't know enough about what this technology
will look like yet. Or that we shouldn't regulate an infant technology
out of existence. Or that we shouldn't saddle a new technology with
long-standing policy objectives. I disagree. Just because these policy
goals are long standing doesn't mean that they are out of date. Public
safety, rural service, competition, and disabilities access never go out
of date. These are the same things complicating our ability to move
ahead on the VOIP issues that we discussed earlier today.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER KEVIN J. MARTIN**

*Re: Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line
Systems; ET Docket No. 03-104; Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New
Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband Over Power
Line Systems;* *ET Docket No. 04-37, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,*

I am pleased to support this item, which opens a rulemaking on issues
related to Broadband over Power Line (BPL) systems. BPL systems use
existing electric power lines to provide high-speed communications.
Because power lines are ubiquitous -- reaching virtually every community
and every home -- BPL systems have the potential to become a last-mile
solution throughout the United States. As such, they would not only
provide competition to cable broadband and DSL, they could bring
Internet access and high-speed broadband to rural and isolated areas,
which have been difficult to serve because of the high infrastructure
costs of reaching those areas. BPL systems also serve an important
homeland security function, providing a redundant data network.

In this proceeding, we are considering how to facilitate deployment of
BPL while ensuring that existing users are protected against
interference. Most importantly, NTIA and FEMA have raised concerns about
interference to Government operations, including some emergency
communications. In addition, many amateur operators fear that they will
experience unacceptable interference from BPL systems. I take these
concerns very seriously. I am optimistic, however, that we can craft
rules that will fully address these concerns and still allow BPL to
flourish. I thus look forward to receiving comments in this proceeding.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

*Re: Carrier Current Systems, including Broadband over Power Line
Systems; ET Docket No. 03-104; Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New
Requirements and Measurement Guidelines for Access Broadband over Power
Line Systems; ET Docket No. 04-37, Notice of Proposed Rule Making*

I recently had the opportunity to visit the demonstration of a Broadband
over Power Line (BPL) system and was impressed by its potential. I
believe that the Commission must do what it can to extend the benefits
of the latest broadband technologies -- such as broadband over power
line -- to all Americans, no matter where they live. I support our
consideration of proposed changes to certain of our Part 15 rules to
promote future BPL deployments. This is an important look at the
technical issues and challenges posed by BPL. And I am encouraged by
some of the proposals set forth in the NPRM to ensure that BPL systems
do not cause harmful interference to existing services.

I have outlined an approach to spectrum management that promotes
continued industry development and recognizes the unique traits of the
electromagnetic radio spectrum as a national resource. It also reflects
my belief that, in dealing with spectrum, the Commission has a
responsibility to establish ground rules for issues such as interference
and availability. Though power line broadband may not fall within the
traditional scope of spectrum management, BPL systems use existing
electrical power lines as a transmission medium to provide
communications by coupling RF energy onto the power line.

While we must be mindful of harmful interference, we cannot let
unsupported claims stand in the way of such an innovation as BPL
systems. Provided that the engineering bears out, I believe that we need
to push the boundaries to accommodate new technologies. A little noticed
provision of the Communications Act, Section 157, reads that "\[i\]t
shall be the policy of the United States to encourage the provision of
new technologies and services to the public." I am fully committed to
that mission to promote new technologies, and to provide a framework for
innovation so they can succeed. In order to do so, we must first resolve
the technical interference issues addressed in this NPRM.

[^1]: Access BPL typically uses the medium voltage power lines (carrying
    between 1,000 to 40,000 volts) as a transmission medium to bring
    high-speed communications services, *e.g.*, the Internet and other
    broadband services, to neighborhoods. Medium voltage lines may be
    overhead or underground, depending on the power grid network
    topology.

[^2]: A carrier current system is defined as a system, or part of a
    system, that transmits radio frequency energy by conduction over an
    electric power line to a receiver also connected to the same power
    line. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.3(f).

[^3]: Campus radio systems have been operating for over fifty years in
    the United States at many universities as unlicensed broadcast radio
    stations in the AM Broadcast band, *see* 47 C.F.R. § 15.221.
    Initially, the receiver and signal source were attached to the same
    electric power line. After the advent of the transistor radio,
    receivers are sensitive enough to be able to pick up enough radiated
    signal for adequate reception when placed next to the electric power
    line in a dormitory or other locations on the electric power lines.
    *See* *also*, *e.g.*, X-10 products for home automation at
    \<http://www.X10.com\>, and products conforming to
    ANSI/EIA-600.31-97 *Power Line Physical Layer and Medium
    Specification* (CEBus Standard).

[^4]: Home networks allow information to be transferred among computers,
    set-top boxes, information appliances and consumer electronics
    devices. Applications of home networking include, for example,
    shared Internet access, shared printing, file sharing between
    personal computers, and device control.

[^5]: The low voltage transformer is a poor conduit for high-frequency
    digital signals, as it is intended to conduct 60 Hz signals.

[^6]: *See e.g.,* \<http://www.amperion.com/products.asp\>.

[^7]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.3(f), 15.5, 15.31(d), (f), (g) & (h),
    15.33(b)(2), 15.107(a)‑(c), 15.109(a), (b), (e) & (g), 15.201(a),
    15.207(c), 15.209(a) and 15.221.

[^8]: Radiated emissions consist of desired or undesired electromagnetic
    energy, in the form of electric and/or magnetic fields, propagated
    through space. Conducted emissions consist of desired or undesired
    electromagnetic energy propagated along a conductor. *See* the
    *American National Standard Dictionary for Technologies of
    Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC), Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP),
    and Electrostatic Discharge (ESD)*,ANSI C63.14-1998, at §§ 4.62 &
    4.275.

[^9]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.109, 15.209 & 15.33. The applicable radiated
    limits are contained in Section 15.209 for frequencies below 30 MHz
    and Section 15.109 for frequencies above 30 MHz. To determine
    compliance with the radiated emission limits, if the highest
    frequency generated or used in the device, or on which the device
    operates or tunes is 10 MHz, the upper frequency to be examined is
    500 MHz.

[^10]: A conducted limit was not considered practical when the rules
    were formulated for campus radio systems, since these systems
    intentionally couple RF energy onto the power line. *See*
    47 C.F.R. § 15.107(c). Carrier current systems whose fundamental
    emission is intended for reception on AM broadcast receivers avoid
    harmful interference to AM radio service by operating on a frequency
    that is not used by a local AM station.

[^11]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.109(a), (b) & (e).

[^12]: *See Inquiry Regarding Carrier Current Systems, including
    Broadband over Power Line Systems, Notice of Inquiry (Inquiry)*, ET
    Docket No. 03-104, 18 FCC Rcd 8498 (2003).

[^13]: *Id.*, at ¶2.

[^14]: *See Inquiry* at ¶¶15 & 17.

[^15]: *See Inquiry* at ¶20.

[^16]: *See Inquiry* at ¶23.

[^17]: *See Inquiry* at ¶26.

[^18]: *See Inquiry* at ¶28.

[^19]: Only a small number of comments address In-House BPL, and most of
    these comments advocate no change to the existing carrier current
    systems requirements that are applied to In-House BPL. Note that the
    international work on developing emission limits and measurement
    procedures for In-House BPL is still under way. *See* ¶47, *infra.*

[^20]: Comments of Cinergy at 3.

[^21]: Comments of Southern at 5.

[^22]: *Id.*

[^23]: Comments of NTIA at 2.

[^24]: Comments of Current Technologies at 6.

[^25]: *See* reply comments of UPLC at 1.

[^26]: Reply comments of APPA at 2.

[^27]: Comments of Current Technologies at 8.

[^28]: *See*, *e.g.*, reply comments of APPA at 8-9.

[^29]: Comments of OPC DC at 1-2.

[^30]: Comments of APT at 1-2.

[^31]: *See, e.g.,* Southern at 3-4; Cinergy at 3-4; Hawaiian Electric
    Company Inc. (HECO) at 2-3.

[^32]: Comments of Southern at 5; Progress Energy at 9; reply comments
    of UPLC at 3.

[^33]: Comments of PowerWAN at 6-7.

[^34]: *See, e.g.,* comments of the National Association of Shortwave
    Broadcasters (NASB) at 2; REC Networks at 1; the Wireless
    Communications Association International Inc. (WCA) at 2; Sprint
    Corporation (Sprint) at 2; The IEEE Power Systems Relaying Committee
    (IEEE) at 4; Verizon Telephone Companies (Verizon) at 4; Amateur
    Radio Research and Development Corporation (AMRAD) at 2; the
    National Association for Amateur Radio (ARRL) at 7; the National
    Academy of Sciences/National Research Council's Committee (CORF) at
    4; the Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation at 2; reply comments of
    Harris Corporation (Harris) at 3.

[^35]: *See, e.g.,* comments of ARRL at 13; the Radio Amateur Satellite
    Corporation (AMSAT) at 3, the Amateur Radio Research and Development
    Corporation (AMRAD) at 2, reply comments of Potomac Valley Radio
    Club at 3; Roadrunners Microwave Group at 2; Central States VHF
    Society at 1.

[^36]: *See* ARRL survey at
    \<http://www2.arrl.org/survey.php3?pollnr=195\>. *See also,*
    comments of ARRL at 3. The 30‑meter distance refers to the
    measurement distance specified in conjunction with the radiated
    emission limits below 30 MHz in 47 C.F.R. §15.209.

[^37]: *See* comments of ARRL, Exhibit C, *Impact of Man-Made Noise From
    Broadband Over Power Line Systems Operating at the FCC Part-15
    Radiated Emissions Limits on Worldwide HF Communications*.

[^38]: Comments of ARRL at 7.

[^39]: *See* reply comments of ARRL at 22, 26.

[^40]: Comments of ARRL at 10*.*

[^41]: *Id.,* at 3. The HF band covers frequencies from 3 to 30 MHz.

[^42]: *Id.,* at 19.

[^43]: Reply comments of Mickey D. Cox at 1-2.

[^44]: Comments of Lee McVey at 10.

[^45]: *See* comments of NTIA at 2-3.

[^46]: *See* letter, dated January 8, 2004, from Under Secretary Michael
    D. Brown to Honorable Michael K. Powell and reply comments of FEMA.

[^47]: Comments of CORF at 1.

[^48]: Comments of NASWA at 1.

[^49]: *See, e.g.,* comments of Sprint at 3.

[^50]: Reply comments of ARINC at 3.

[^51]: Reply comments of MPSC at 6.

[^52]: Comments of PSWN at 1.

[^53]: *See* comments of the APCO Region 21, at 2.

[^54]: Reply comments of TDI at 2.

[^55]: *See* comments of Progress Energy at 5; PowerWAN at 7-8; Ameren
    Energy Communications, Inc. (AEC) at 9; UPLC at 9; Southern at 19;
    Amperion, Inc. (Amperion) at 5; Ambient Corporation (Ambient) at 5;
    Electric Broadband at 3; Enikia LLC (Enikia) at 3.

[^56]: *See* comments of Enikia at 3; Florida Power and Light Company
    (FPL) at 11; UPLC at 7-8.

[^57]: *See* comments of Current Technologies at 16-17; Electric
    Broadband at 8; and, comments of xG Technology, LLC (xGT) at 7. *See
    also,* reply comments of Southern at 24.

[^58]: *See* comments of Satius, Inc. (Satius) at 3-4.

[^59]: *See* reply comments of Southern at 24; comments of Current
    Technologies at 16-17; Electric Broadband at 8; xGT at 7.

[^60]: Comments of Southern at 19.

[^61]: *See* comments of HomePlug at 5. *See also,* HomePlug & ARRL
    Joint Test Report, January 24, 2001,
    \<http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/HTML/plc/files/HomePlug_ARRL_Dec_2000.pdf\>.

[^62]: *See* comments of Phonex Broadband Corporation (Phonex) at 2;
    HomePlug at 5.

[^63]: Reply comments of Southern at 17.

[^64]: *Id.* *See also,* comments of Current Technologies at 14.

[^65]: Reply comments of Southern at 17.

[^66]: Reply comments of Current Technologies at 10-11.

[^67]: Reply comments of AEC at 2.

[^68]: *Id.,* at 8.

[^69]: Reply comments of Current Technologies at 12.

[^70]: Comments of Main.Net at 6.

[^71]: Reply comments of AEC at 13.

[^72]: Comments of Main.Net at 2.

[^73]: *See* reply comments of Southern at 20.

[^74]: Reply comments of Southern at 19-20. *See also,* comments of CORF
    at 2-3.

[^75]: OFDM is a variation of the frequency-division multiplexing (FDM)
    technique, used in analog telephone line data transmission, where
    the frequency range of the transmission channel is divided into
    narrower bands, each of which can carry a different voice or data
    transmission signal. In OFDM, the available range of frequencies in
    a given frequency band of operation is split into a number of
    separate carriers. OFDM sends packets of data simultaneously along
    several of the carrier frequencies, allowing for increased speed and
    reliability. If noise disrupts one of the frequencies, the control
    circuit senses it and switches that data to another carrier.

[^76]: Comments of Ambient at 7-8.

[^77]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 302(a).

[^78]: *Certification* is an equipment authorization issued by the
    Commission or its designated entities,^?^ based on representations
    and test data submitted by the applicant. A *Declaration of
    Conformity* (DoC) is a manufacturer's self-approval procedure where
    the responsible party, who could be the manufacturer, the grantee or
    the importer of the equipment, as defined in 47 C.F.R. § 2.909,
    makes measurements or takes other necessary steps to ensure that the
    equipment complies with the appropriate technical standards.
    *Verification* is also a manufacturer's self-approval procedure
    where the manufacturer makes measurements or takes the necessary
    steps to ensure that the equipment complies with the appropriate
    technical standards; however, unlike the DoC procedure, it does not
    require the use of an accredited laboratory and does not require a
    declaration of conformity to be supplied with the equipment.

[^79]: *See* comments of Enikia at 4; xGT at 7, Amperion at 8.

[^80]: *See* comments of Phonex at 1; Southern at 5; Amperion at 8;
    Enikia at 4.

[^81]: *See* comments of Amperion at 8; UPLC at 14.

[^82]: *See e.g.,* reply comments of Current Technologies at 17. Because
    Access BPL systems are installed on power lines that can carry
    1,000 volts to 40,000 volts, conducted emission measurements are
    very difficult to measure, and present safety hazards in connecting
    test equipment to these lines. *See also,* discussion in ¶38.

[^83]: *See* comments of Southern at 23-24; comments of AEC at 13-15,
    PowerWAN at 4; Current Technologies at 16; Enikia at 3.

[^84]: *See* comments of Amperion at 7-8; Current Technologies at 18-19;
    Main.Net at 8-10; reply comments of Southern at 29.

[^85]: *See* comments of HomePlug at 4; Intellon at 4; Phonex at 5.

[^86]: In this regard, we observe that, according to the June 30, 2003
    data reported to the Commission, there were no subscribers to
    high-speed connections to the Internet in 9 percent of Zip Codes,
    where about 1 percent of the U.S. population resides. Only one
    service provider reported having any high-speed subscribers in an
    additional 16 percent of Zip Codes, where about 2 percent of the
    U.S. population resides. Further*,* such providers may have offered
    service in only a portion of the Zip Code, or may have supplied a
    type of high-speed service (*e.g.*, T-1/DS1) not typically purchased
    by residential or small business end users. *See High-Speed Services
    for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2003*, Industry Analysis
    and Technology Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, FCC, Table 12
    (Dec 2003). This report summarizes data collected on FCC Form 477,
    which must be filed semiannually by facilities-based providers of at
    least 250 high-speed lines (or wireless channels) that are in
    service connecting end-user premises to the Internet in a state.
    (Facilities-based providers that do not meet the mandatory reporting
    threshold may file on a voluntary basis, and some do so.) High-speed
    lines (or wireless channels) provide services at speeds exceeding
    200 kbps in at least one direction. *See Local Competition and
    Broadband Reporting*, CC Docket No. 99-301, Report and Order, 15 FCC
    Rcd 7717 (2000).

[^87]: On January 8, 2004, the European Commission (EC) issued a mandate
    to the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization
    (CENELEC) and the European Telecommunications Standard Institute
    (ETSI) to define a technical specification providing test methods
    and limits for radiated (and possibly consistent conducted)
    emissions compatible with power line communication infrastructure.
    This technical specification should be made available by March 31,
    2004. *See European Commission's letter to CENELEC, Request to
    develop a technical specification under Mandate M313, Jan. 8, 2004*,
    at \<http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/electr_equipment/
    emc/interep313.htm\>. In addition, on January 21, 2004, the Japanese
    Ministry of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and
    Telecommunications (MPHPT) issued a press release announcing a new
    policy that will permit the establishment of experimental high-speed
    power line communications facilities in Japan. *See* *MPHPT decides
    on policy concerning permits for establishing experimental
    high-speed power line communications facilities, Press Release, Jan.
    21, 2004* at \<<http://www.soumu.go.jp/s-news/2004/040121_1.html>\>
    and
    \<<http://www.soumu.go.jp/joho_tsusin/eng/Releases/>Telecommunications/news040121_2.html\>.
    We further note that in Canada, the City of Sault Ste. Marie,
    Ontario, had initiated a program to deploy BPL service, beginning in
    March of this year, *Communications Daily, Vol. 24, No. 24, February
    5, 2004.*

[^88]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.5.

[^89]: *See* ¶14, *supra*.

[^90]: We are however proposing to exempt Access BPL from the conducted
    emission limits contained in § 15.107(c), as explained below. *See*
    ¶38, *infra.*

[^91]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.5(b).

[^92]: Comments of ARRL at 3. *See also* ¶15.

[^93]: *See* comments of AEC at 12; reply comments of Current
    Technologies at 10-11.

[^94]: *See* reply comments of Current Technologies at 11; Main.Net at
    3; AEC at 13.

[^95]: The Commission's records reflect that there are approximately
    18,237 Public Safety licenses (Radio Service Code - PW) for systems
    operating between 25-50 MHz. The historical trend in public safety
    systems is use of higher frequency bands. Although we are not
    imposing operating frequency limitations on Access BPL devices, we
    note that the equipment available to date operates on frequencies
    below 50 MHz.

[^96]: For the protection of the AM Broadcast service, existing carrier
    current systems operating below 30 MHz are subject to a conducted
    emission limit of 1000 µV in the AM broadcast band (from 535 to 1705
    kHz). *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.107(c)(2) and 15.221. However, carrier
    current systems operating above 30 MHz are subject to the general
    conducted emission limits that apply to frequencies below 30 MHz.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.107(a)-(c).

[^97]: Conducted emissions are measured by connecting the Equipment
    under Test (EUT) to a Line Impedance Stabilization Network (LISN)
    that simulates the impedance of the power network while sourcing
    power to the EUT. Such a LISN would have to be capable of sourcing
    1,000 volts to 40,000 volts to an Access BPL system. Furthermore,
    measuring instruments such as spectrum analyzers, voltmeters, etc.
    would also be connected to this LISN, thus high voltage hazards can
    affect both test equipment and test personnel.

[^98]: *See e.g.,* comments of Ambient at 9 and reply comments of
    Southern at 5.

[^99]: *See* comments of PowerWAN at 3.

[^100]: *See* comments of Ambient at 7-8.

[^101]: *See* comments of Main.Net at 4; Ambient at 8; AEC at 19; reply
    comments of Mitsubishi Electric Power Products, Inc., Mitsubishi
    Electric Europe B.V. and Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (Mitsubishi
    Companies) at 5.

[^102]: 47 C.F.R. §15.113 permits Power Line Carrier systems to operate
    on power transmission lines for communications important to the
    reliability and security of electric service to the public in the
    9-490 kHz band. *See also* 47 C.F.R. §2.106, Note US294. Under the
    existing rules, information on power line carrier systems must be
    entered into a database coordinated by the United Telecom Council,
    formerly Utilities Telecommunications Council, (UTC), the designated
    coordinator and database operator for power line carrier systems.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.113 and 90.35(f). *See also* *Memorandum Of
    Understanding of the Purpose, Requirements, and Procedures for a
    Power Line Carrier Notification Activity between the Federal
    Communications Commission, National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration, and Utilities Telecommunications
    Council*, Reference IRAC DOC. 26177, approved December 13, 1988,
    revised July 13, 2003.

[^103]: *See* comments of Phonex at 3; UPLC at 14.

[^104]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.31(f)(1) & (2). The extrapolation factor is
    used to address the difficulty of making measurements at large
    distances. "Decade", a 10:1 range, refers to the ratio of the
    specified measurement distance to the actual measurement distance.
    For example, in the 1.705-30 MHz band, measurements are specified at
    a distance of 30 meters. If however, actual measurements were made
    at a distance of 3 meters, the ratio of the distances is a decade
    (30/3=10) and the field strength result must be corrected by
    subtracting 40 dB.

[^105]: *See Inquiry* at ¶15.

[^106]: A line impedance stabilization network (LISN) is an artificial
    power line network that provides a specified load impedance in a
    given frequency range. This device is also used to isolate the
    equipment from the AC supply and to facilitate measurements. *See
    also,* footnote Error: Reference source not found.

[^107]: *See* the work of IEC CISPR Subcommittee I on *Interference
    Relating To Multimedia Equipment*, Working Group 3 on *Emission from
    Information Technology Equipment*, at
    \<http://www.iec.ch/cgi-bin/procgi.pl/

    www/iecwww.p?wwwlang=E&wwwprog=dirwg.p&ctnum=2333\>. *See also*
    \<http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/

    ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6515082641\>.

[^108]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et. seq.*
    has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
    1996, Pub. L. No. 104-112, 110 Stat. 847 (1996)("CWAAA"). Title II
    of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 ("SBREFA").

[^109]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^110]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^111]: *See* U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^112]: *Id.* § 601(3).

[^113]: *Id.* § 632.

[^114]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^115]: 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, , Table 6
    (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
    the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^116]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^117]: 1995 Census of Governments, U.S. Census Bureau, United States
    Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United States
    (2000).

[^118]: NAICS code 334220.

[^119]: Id.

[^120]: 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
    locations 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 1997, which was 1,089.

[^121]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Industry Series:
    Manufacturing, "Industry Statistics by Employment Size," Table 4,
    NAICS code 334220 (issued August 1999).

[^122]: Id. Table 5, "Industry Statistics by Industry and Primary
    Product Class Specialization: 1997."

[^123]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).