**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

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

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: August 3, 2006 Released: August 7, 2006**

By the Commission: Chairman Martin; and Commissioners Copps, Tate and
McDowell issuing separate

statements.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**Paragraph**

I. Introduction 1

II\. BACKGROUND 2

III\. DISCUSSION 7

A. Notification to the Access BPL database 8

B. Transition Period 16

C. BPL Technical Parameters 23

D. Further Study of Access BPL Characteristics 43

E. Other Requests 57

Federal Government radio astronomy facility 57

Aeronautical service 60

Broadcast television service 66

Critical infrastructure industry (CII) 70

Miscellaneous requests for additional operational restrictions on BPL 75

IV\. Procedural Matters 80

V. ordering clauses 84

APPENDIX A: Filing Parties

APPENDIX B: Final Rule Changes

# Introduction

1.  In response to various petitions for reconsideration of the *Report
    and Order* in this proceeding, we are further amending Part 15 of
    our rules regarding the unlicensed operation of Access broadband
    over power line (BPL) systems.[^1] Specifically, we are amending the
    rules to eliminate the exclusion zone requirement for the ten listed
    radio astronomy facilities and to add a new exclusion zone for one
    Very Large Array (VLA) radio astronomy observatory site at 73.0‑74.6
    MHz. In addition, we are amending the rules to add prospective
    protection for relocated aeronautical facilities and to correct the
    coordinates and email contact for the aeronautical facilities
    subject to BPL consultation. We believe these changes will further
    the development and growth of BPL devices. We are denying the
    petitions for reconsideration in all other respects.

# BACKGROUND

2.  The Commission's Part 15 rules for radio frequency (RF) devices have
    long provided for operation of carrier current systems, which are
    devices that couple RF energy onto the electric power lines for
    communication purposes.[^2] For example, amplitude modulated (AM)
    radio systems on some school campuses employ carrier current
    technology;[^3] many devices intended for the home, such as intercom
    systems and remote controls for electrical appliances and lamps
    utilize carrier current technology;[^4] and for many years electric
    utilities have been using carrier current technology to monitor and
    control the electrical power grid. Generally, these systems have
    provided communications at relatively slow transmission speeds on
    carrier frequencies below 2 MHz. More recently, the availability of
    faster digital processing capabilities and the development of
    sophisticated modulation schemes have allowed the development of a
    new type of carrier current systems that use spread spectrum or
    multiple carrier techniques capable of delivering high-speed
    communications. These systems carry broadband digital signals and
    have come to be called BPL systems.

3.  The new BPL systems couple RF energy onto either the low-voltage
    power lines inside a building ("In-House BPL") or onto the
    medium-voltage power delivery lines ("Access BPL").[^5] 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, and hence facilitating the implementation of home
    networks.[^6] Access BPL systems deliver high speed Internet and
    other broadband services over the utilities' medium voltage delivery
    power lines to homes and businesses. In addition, electric utility
    companies can use Access BPL devices to monitor and manage various
    elements of their electric power distribution operations.

4.  Because Access BPL equipment injects RF onto unshielded, unpaired
    medium voltage lines, there is potential for these systems to leak
    radio frequency energy that can cause interference to radio users.
    In its October 14, 2004 *Report and Order* in this proceeding, the
    Commission recognized the significant benefits that BPL technology
    offers to the American public in extending broadband access to homes
    and businesses and introducing additional competition to existing
    broadband services, such as cable modem and Digital Subscriber Line
    (DSL) services. However, it also recognized that those substantial
    benefits might not be realized if BPL devices were to cause
    interference to licensed services and other important radio
    operations. Accordingly, the Commission established technical
    standards, operating restrictions and measurement procedures for
    Access BPL to minimize instances of interference and to facilitate
    resolution of such interference where it might occur.

5.  The rules adopted in 2004 require Access BPL systems to continue to
    comply with the Part 15 radiated emission limits for carrier current
    systems operating as unintentional radiators.[^7] In addition, the
    rules require that Access BPL systems incorporate capabilities to
    remotely modify their operations to avoid using any specific
    frequency (*e.g.,* to "notch" a frequency band), and to shut down
    any unit that is causing harmful interference.[^8] The rules also
    require these systems to avoid operating in certain "excluded"
    frequency bands used by aeronautical land stations and aircraft
    receivers and to avoid operating in specific frequencies in certain
    "exclusion zones", which are geographic locations in close proximity
    to sensitive and critical operations such as U.S. Coast Guard and
    maritime public coast stations and radio astronomy receive
    stations.[^9] The rules further establish a number of "consultation
    areas" whereby operators of Access BPL systems located in those
    areas are required to notify and consult with a Federal government,
    public safety, or aeronautical facility's point of contact regarding
    the need to protect critical radio operations prior to commencement
    of service.[^10] The rules require the BPL industry to establish a
    publicly available Access BPL database containing certain
    information needed for interference identification and
    resolution.[^11] In addition, the rules provide improved measurement
    procedures for all equipment using radio frequency to communicate
    over power lines.[^12] Finally, the Commission changed the equipment
    authorization for Access BPL systems from verification to
    certification to allow it to maintain oversight of these systems
    until additional experience is obtained from their wide
    deployment.[^13]

6.  Subsequent to release of the *Report and Order*, fifteen parties
    filed for reconsideration regarding various aspects of these Part 15
    BPL regulations. A list of the petitioners and the parties that
    filed oppositions and replies to the petitions is attached as
    Appendix A.

# DISCUSSION

7.  The petitions for reconsideration request changes to a variety of
    rules adopted for Access BPL in this proceeding. Amperion, Inc.
    (Amperion), Current Technologies LLC (Current) and the United Power
    Line Council (UPLC) seek changes to the deadlines for Access BPL
    database notification and for deployment of grandfathered equipment.
    Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC), the American Petroleum Institute
    (API)*,* the Association for Maximum Services Television, Inc.
    (MSTV), and Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C. (CDE) seek additional
    restrictions of BPL emissions in the frequency bands used by
    specific licensed radio services. The American Radio Relay League
    (ARRL), G. Scott Davis (Davis)*,* Steven E. Matda (Matda), W. Lee
    McVey (McVey), Cortland E. Richmond, Edwin Whedbee, and the National
    Antenna Consortium and the Amherst Alliance (NAC/Amherst) generally
    request the Commission to rescind the adopted rules for Access BPL
    pending further study of BPL interference characteristics. At the
    same time, these parties also seek additional technical and
    operational restrictions on BPL. The National Telecommunications
    Information Administration (NTIA) also asks for changes to the
    facilities for which it requests particular protection. We discuss
    the requests in these petitions below.

## Notification to the Access BPL database

8.  In the *Report and Order* in this proceeding, the Commission adopted
    a requirement that the Access BPL industry establish a publicly
    accessible database for system information.[^14] Under this
    requirement, entities operating Access BPL systems must provide the
    BPL industry designated database manager with the following
    information 30 days prior to the initiation of any operation or
    service: 1) the name of the Access BPL provider; 2) the frequencies
    of the Access BPL operation; 3) the postal zip codes served by the
    specific Access BPL operation; 4) the manufacturer and type of
    Access BPL equipment being deployed (i.e., FCC ID); 5) point of
    contact information (both telephone and e-mail address) for
    interference inquiries and resolution; and 6) the proposed/or actual
    date of Access BPL operation. [^15] The database manager is required
    to enter this information into the publicly accessible database
    within 3 business days of receipt.[^16] The intent of the
    notification and database requirements is to ensure that licensed
    users of the spectrum have a publicly accessible and centralized
    source of information to identify the location and operating
    characteristics of BPL systems to facilitate the resolution of
    harmful interference should it occur.[^17]

9.  [Petitions and Responses]{.underline}. Amperion, Current, and the
    UPLC request that the 30-day advance notification requirement be
    eliminated. Amperion states that the 30-day advance notification
    requirement is not practical and will not serve the Commission's
    intended purpose of facilitating interference mitigation and
    avoidance measures because a BPL operator will often have to
    dynamically shift frequencies in order not only to optimize the
    efficiency of BPL operations, but also to mitigate potential
    interference as quickly and accurately as possible. Amperion states
    that for these reasons, the precise frequencies in a given
    deployment area are rarely known 30 days in advance. It further
    states that the 30-day advance notice requirement could be
    interpreted as a requirement to discontinue service for 30 days
    after a change, and would thus discourage operators from shifting
    frequencies if necessary to optimize the system or prevent
    interference, and that this is contrary to the Commission's
    intention in adopting the database rule. Amperion and UPLC state
    that the 30-day advance notification requirement is redundant of
    other requirements because BPL operators are required in other rule
    sections to provide 30-day advance notice to Public Safety entities
    and Federal Government operations.[^18] Current argues that the
    30-day advance notification to the public database will not help
    radio licensees, as BPL would not be a cause of interference prior
    to its deployment. Current further states that this requirement
    could provide a competitive advantage to incumbent broadband
    providers who could use the notice of impending service to target
    the BPL installation area with unfair competitive tactics, such as
    predatory pricing or special offers in the particular areas served
    by BPL, or petitioning the local authorities to prohibit BPL
    deployments.[^19] ACcess Broadband, Ambient and Ameren filed
    comments supporting the petitions to eliminate the 30-day advance
    notice requirement.

10. The AMA, ARRL, and Matda oppose elimination of the 30-day advance
    notification requirement. The AMA, whose members operate
    radio‑controlled model aircrafts, argues that the Commission adopted
    the advance notice requirement not only to identify and resolve
    interference after it occurs, but to also avoid harmful interference
    before it occurs. AMA argues that without advance notice, BPL
    operations adjacent to a flying field could be set to operate on the
    same frequencies as those used by radio-controlled model aircraft
    operators and therefore may pose a risk to their flight
    operations.[^20] The ARRL argues that elimination of the 30-day
    rules would contravene the intent of Sections 301 and 302 of the
    Communications Act to avoid interference beforehand. ARRL and Matda
    argue that absent the 30-day advance notice period, the ability to
    develop baseline measurements, and thus to determine the extent that
    the RF environment is degraded in a given area, would be gone. ARRL
    also considers Amperion's assertion that a change in frequencies
    might trigger a requirement to cease operation for 30 days to be
    frivolous. ARRL states that it may be necessary to change frequency
    bands several times, rapidly, in order to address individual
    problems, and, if so, the database will simply have to be changed.
    [^21] It further states that Current and UPLC's arguments that the
    advance notification requirement would result in unwanted
    competition from other broadband providers is contrary to the entire
    basis for allowing BPL, which is to promote competition in broadband
    delivery.[^22] AMA and Matda state that BPL operators will be
    marketing their services prior to operation and that in order to
    deploy, a BPL provider has had to sign contracts and negotiate with
    either power companies or local municipalities months in advance,
    and that equipment must be installed and tested to comply with the
    new regulations. They argue that these actions take time and are in
    full view of the general public, and thus competitors will clearly
    be able to see the intentions of the BPL provider in advance.[^23]

11. Current states it has no reason to believe that the public safety
    licensees and utilities will not keep its information
    confidential.[^24] It further argues that under the rules as
    adopted, the publicly accessible data base would provide a single
    information site where broadband competitors could routinely obtain
    advance notice of specific BPL deployments, which would be a
    significant advantage for those competitors, who otherwise would
    have to glean the information the hard way, by tracking BPL
    marketing campaigns. Current further states that since BPL operators
    have no comparable opportunities to ascertain the existing
    deployments of other broadband providers, let alone their proposed
    deployments, and since advance notice cannot help licensees to
    determine whether BPL is a potential source of interference, the
    30-day advance notice requirement would competitively harm BPL
    operators without furthering any public interest.[^25] Current also
    disputes the opposition's arguments that the Commission intended the
    30-day advance notification requirement to be a vehicle for Amateur
    Radio Operators to perform before-and-after measurements or to
    contact the BPL provider in advance to the make their presence
    known. Current states that even if before-and-after testing were to
    show a small increase in the noise floor at a particular location
    after BPL is deployed, that finding itself would not require
    corrective action; a licensee has a valid complaint only if harmful
    interference occurs.[^26]

12. ARINC, a provider of aviation communications and an aeronautical
    ground station licensee, asks that the Commission clarify that the
    advance notice requirements for public safety do not apply to
    changes in BPL systems needed to resolve harmful interference.
    Instead, it believes that BPL providers should be required to notify
    public safety licensees, including ARINC, within forty-eight hours
    of making the changes.[^27]

13. [Decision]{.underline}. The purpose of the database notification
    requirement is to ensure that licensed users of the spectrum have a
    publicly accessible and centralized source of information on BPL
    operations to determine whether there may be Access BPL operations
    on particular frequencies within their local area so that any
    incident of harmful interference can be resolved should it occur. We
    disagree with the UPLC and Amperion that the notification
    requirement is redundant of other requirements. In this respect, we
    note that in other rule sections, the BPL operator is required to
    consult and provide advance notice only to specific entities such as
    public safety and federal government operations. The BPL public
    database thus serves a unique function to identify the location and
    operating characteristics of BPL systems. We agree with Amperion
    that it may sometimes be difficult to disclose specific frequencies
    on which BPL operations are occurring 30 days in advance, because
    the BPL operator will have to shift frequencies based on the results
    of his consultations with affected licensed users and to maximize
    the efficiency of his operations.[^28] Such changes could still be
    reported to the database within the 30-day time frame. We agree with
    AMA that it would be sufficient for the database notice to state the
    contemplated frequency range and later be amended when actual
    operating channels are identified.[^29] We do not however intend for
    this 30-day time frame to be restarted if it is necessary for the
    reported frequencies to be changed as a result of negotiations with
    entities entitled to advance consultation. We therefore clarify that
    the Access BPL operator may change the reported frequencies in the
    database at any time during the 30‑day advance notification period.
    We also clarify that this 30-day notification requirement only
    applies to initial Access BPL deployments. Thereafter, a BPL
    operator only needs to keep the information in the database current
    with respect to each of its deployment areas. We further clarify
    that systems operating prior to the effective date of the BPL rules
    need only provide and keep current the required information in the
    database; they are not required to cease operation for a 30-day
    period after that information is posted to the database.[^30] In
    addition, we clarify that systems which operate under an
    experimental license are subject to the Commission's Part 5 rules,
    not the Part 15 BPL rules, and therefore are not required to be
    included in the Access BPL database.[^31] In addition, interested
    parties are advised that in the case that non-compliance is
    identified, there is no implied requirement for the BPL system to
    "reset" the clock for an additional 30-day period, unless so ordered
    by the Commission. In the case where a BPL system transitions from
    an experimental license to commercial deployment under Part 15 of
    the rules, the system operator will only be required to notify the
    BPL database on the transition date; it will not be required to
    cease operation under the experimental license and wait an
    additional 30-day period to commence operation under Part 15.

14. Although we concur with Current that BPL would not be a cause of
    harmful interference prior to its deployment, we do not agree with
    Current's assertion that the 30‑day advance notification requirement
    would provide a competitive advantage to other broadband providers.
    In this respect, we concur with the AMA that in order to deploy, the
    BPL operator has had to sign contracts and negotiate with power
    companies and other local and state authorities, and announce its
    deployment in marketing campaigns. We observe that a BPL service
    deployment will typically be planned far in advance and the
    installation and testing of BPL equipment placed on the power lines
    will occur publicly in that process, therefore, competitors will be
    aware of the introduction of the service. Further, the very general
    nature of the notification requirement in the database will not
    reveal any information that would benefit competitors to the
    detriment of the BPL operator.[^32] Accordingly, we decline to
    eliminate the 30‑day notification requirement to the public Access
    BPL database, as requested by the BPL industry.

15. Finally, ARINC is incorrect in its understanding that the rules
    require BPL providers to notify public safety licensees and other
    entities, including ARINC, every time changes in BPL systems are
    needed to resolve interference. We clarify that a BPL provider must
    notify and consult with the entities that are entitled to advance
    notification, as provided for in our rules, only before initial
    commencement of BPL operations. This will ensure that the subject
    entities have the opportunity to provide the BPL operator with
    information to adjust the operation of its systems. Subsequent
    changes will, presumably, be made with this information in mind.
    Accordingly, changes in existing BPL systems made for the purpose of
    interference resolution will only be required to be updated in the
    Access BPL database, which will provide adequate on-going
    information for all interested parties.

## Transition Period

16. The rules adopted in the *Report and Order* require that all Access
    BPL devices that are manufactured, imported, marketed or installed
    18 months or later after the Federal Register publication of the
    *Report and Order*, *i.e.*, after July 7, 2006, must comply with the
    newly adopted requirements of Subpart G of Part 15 for BPL devices,
    including certification of the equipment.[^33] The Commission stated
    that the 18-month transition period would minimize economic
    hardships on BPL manufacturers by allowing them, during this
    transition period, to continue producing and selling existing
    equipment while modifying their future production to meet the new
    requirements. The Commission also noted that this transition period
    was typical of previous Commission transition periods for other Part
    15 devices.[^34]

17. [Petitions and Responses]{.underline}. Current and the UPLC request
    that the transition deadline for the marketing and installation of
    Access BPL devices be extended until January 7, 2008.[^35] They
    argue that the 18-month transition deadline is unnecessarily
    difficult for manufacturers and system builders. Current states that
    it is confident that it can meet the July 7, 2006, for manufacture
    and importation, but it foresees a problem with marketing and
    installing only newly certified equipment after the July 7, 2006
    deadline. Specifically, Current states that under the July 2006
    deadline, after allowing time for manufacture, shipping and stocking
    of new devices, BPL manufacturers would actually have only nine
    months of time to redesign, test, and complete the certification
    process for all of the devices needed in a BPL system.[^36] Current
    further argues that in order to ship and install only compliant
    devices after July 7, 2006, BPL providers would have to empty the
    distribution pipeline of old products by that date and refill it
    with newly manufactured certified product, which could cause
    hardships of product scarcity during a period when deployments will
    be growing very fast.[^37] Access and Ambient filed comments
    generally supporting the request to extend the transition period for
    non-compliant BPL equipment.

18. ARRL, ARINC and Ameren oppose these requests. ARRL states that the
    Commission erred in the *Report and Order* by permitting BPL devices
    that do not meet the newly adopted additional requirements to
    continue to be installed and operated for any period of time after
    the effective date of the new rules. ARINC and Ameren argue that
    because the BPL industry is still in a relatively nascent state, it
    is unlikely that the industry faces a surplus of unapproved
    equipment and that the BPL industry should not have to wait for BPL
    manufacturers to clear their inventories of old equipment before
    they can deploy the newly engineering BPL equipment.[^38]

19. Current and UPLC reply that an extension of the deadline would
    instead fulfill the Commission's stated intent of minimizing
    economic hardships on manufacturers by allowing them to continue
    producing and selling existing equipment while preparing their
    products to meet the new requirements.[^39] More recently,[^40]
    Current has requested more narrowly that operators be able to
    install previously purchased equipment after the transition deadline
    in order to supplement existing installations. In this regard, it
    asserts that new equipment achieving certification under the rules
    will not be interchangeable with older systems, so that existing
    systems will be stagnated and will not even be able to replace
    faulty equipment without a complete system overhaul. It notes that
    the underlying non-interference requirement will continue to pertain
    and will adequately protect users of licensed service from harmful
    interference.

20. [Decision]{.underline}. We disagree with ARRL's assertion that that
    the 18-month transition period will encourage the installation of
    non-compliant BPL equipment that causes harmful interference. In the
    *Report and Order*, the Commission concluded that the already
    existing emission limits will restrict Access BPL systems to very
    low power levels in comparison to the signals of licensed radio
    operations.[^41] It stated that the effect of these limits will be
    to constrain the harmful interference potential to these systems to
    relatively short distances from the power lines that they
    occupy.[^42] The Commission further recognized that some radio
    operations in the bands beings used by Access BPL, such as those of
    Amateur radio licensees, may occur at distances sufficiently close
    to power lines as to make harmful interference a possibility.[^43]
    It therefore adopted additional interference avoidance techniques
    for new BPL deployments such as the requirement for BPL systems to
    have remotely controlled power reduction capabilities and the
    ability to dynamically adjust operating frequencies. However, it is
    important to recognize that the fundamental emission limits are not
    changed by the *Report and Order*, nor is the fundamental
    requirement to mitigate any harmful interference caused by BPL,
    including shutting down the BPL system if necessary.[^44] We
    therefore disagree with ARRL's assertion that equipment deployed
    during the transition period will result in harmful interference
    that cannot be eliminated. We reaffirm the Commission's finding that
    equipment deployed during the transition period that meets the
    former rules has a low likelihood of causing harmful interference in
    general, and that BPL operators are required to alleviate any
    harmful interference if it does occur. If interference requiring
    mitigation is more widespread in some areas than anticipated, we
    expect that prudent operators will employ the more capable equipment
    as a matter of sound business practice.

21. We are not persuaded by Current and UPLC that the July 7, 2006
    cut-off date for the marketing and installation of BPL devices that
    comply with the new BPL rules should be changed. We are concerned
    about the possible installation of large inventories of Access BPL
    equipment that do not comply with the new rules if we lengthen the
    transition period as requested by Current. We continue to believe
    that an 18‑month time frame should be adequate for the typical
    high‑tech equipment and that the rules as adopted would ensure
    timely compliance of new Access BPL equipment and installations. We
    are not convinced that this deadline will place an undue hardship on
    BPL manufacturers as Current and UPLC have generally stated, as the
    18-month time frame is adequate to ensure continuity in the supply
    of products. Further, we are committing to providing certification
    of BPL systems in a timely manner by the Commission, with no
    extraneous time added as a result of the equipment authorization
    process, as Current fears, and we hereby direct the Commission's
    Equipment Approval Unit to process such certification within a
    reasonable time. Accordingly, we are denying the petitions for
    reconsideration from Current and UPLC on the issue of a general
    extension of the equipment compliance deadline.

22. However, we note that BPL equipment manufacturers are only now
    submitting equipment for certification pursuant to the new rules,
    and we believe that some measure of relief is appropriate to permit
    the continued operation of existing systems. Accordingly, we will
    permit for one year from the effective date of this Order the
    installation of uncertified equipment that otherwise meets our Part
    15 rules to replace or supplement equipment on existing systems
    within the areas already built out by those systems. We believe that
    this is a reasonable accommodation that will not appreciably affect
    our commitment to minimize the proliferation of noncompliant
    equipment. Our retention of the deadline for equipment certification
    for new system build-outs will continue to serve our goal of
    providing for interference mitigation capability.[^45] There are a
    limited number of BPL operations at this time, and they are of
    modest scale. In those areas where BPL is functioning without
    interference concerns, it should not cause any harm to extend the
    period of attrition of that equipment and those systems for a
    limited period of time. In those locations where older equipment is
    the source interference concerns, those concerns must be adequately
    addressed, irrespective of the date of the equipment or its
    installation, and this provision will not exacerbate those
    situations.

## BPL Technical Parameters

23. *Extrapolation factor.* In the *Report and* Order, the Commission
    specified measurement guidelines that require that BPL systems be
    tested *in situ* on three typical installations with overhead
    lines.[^46] The measurement guidelines specify that measurements
    should normally be performed at a horizontal separation distance of
    10 meters from the overhead line, or if necessary, due to ambient
    emissions, measurements may be performed at a distance of 3
    meters.[^47] In the *Report and Order,* the Commission recognized
    that at many *in situ* test locations, it may not be possible or
    practicable to measure at the proposed fixed distances of 10 and 3
    meters.[^48] For example, if a 10‑meter distance places the
    measurement antenna on a roadway, safety may dictate increasing the
    distance to 14 meters in order to position the testers out of harm's
    way. Therefore, the Commission determined that distance
    extrapolation would be necessary for *in situ* testing. Some
    commenters in the proceeding recommended the use of an extrapolation
    factor of 20 dB per decade, while others recommended an
    extrapolation factor of 40 dB per decade.[^49] The Commission stated
    in the *Report and Order* that "\[g\]iven the lack of conclusive
    experimental data pending large scale Access BPL deployments," it
    would "continue the use of the existing Part 15 distance
    extrapolation factors" specified in the rules, *i.e*., 40 dB per
    decade, "but with the slant range rather than horizontal distance."
    [^50] It further stated that "\[i\]f new information becomes
    available that alternative emission limit/distance standards or
    extrapolation factors would be more appropriate," the Commission,
    "will revisit this issue at another time."[^51]

24. [Petitions and Responses]{.underline}. In its petition, ARINC
    requests that we modify Section 15.31(f)(2) of the rules to require
    use of an extrapolation factor of 20 dB per decade, absent a clear
    showing that a higher factor should apply.[^52] In support of its
    petition for reconsideration asking to rescind the new BPL rules
    pending further study, which is discussed later in this Order, ARRL
    states that the 40 dB per decade extrapolation factor for BPL
    systems operating below 30 MHz is unreasonable and incorrect, and
    should have been only 20 dB per decade.[^53]

25. Current, Ameren, the HomePlug Powerline Alliance (HomePlug), Phonex
    Broadband Corporation (Phonex), SPiDCOM Technologies S.A. (SPiDCOM),
    the UPLC and Intellon Corporation (Intellon) object to changing the
    existing extrapolation factor from 40 dB per decade to 20 dB per
    decade as they contend that the record demonstrates the
    reasonableness of the 40 dB per decade factor. These parties argue
    that the petitioners did not demonstrate a need for the change
    except to repeat their previous arguments, and that the petitioners'
    request would unnecessarily hinder the deployment and use of BPL
    equipment across the nation.[^54]

26. [Decision]{.underline}. The extrapolation factor used for
    measurements of BPL emissions is an important consideration in
    determining compliance with the emission limits in the rules.[^55]
    In the *Report and Order,* the Commission noted that NTIA's latest
    computer modeling shows that the variation of field strength with
    distance is consistent with the existing Part 15 distance
    extrapolation when used with the slant range distance to the power
    line as was proposed in Appendix C of the *Notice*.[^56] The
    Commission also noted that although the ARRL and ARINC recommended
    the use of a 20 dB per decade extrapolation factor, rather than the
    existing 40 dB per decade in Part 15 for frequencies below 30 MHz,
    based on theoretical modeling, many parties, including AEC and
    Current, presented experimental data showing support for a 40 dB per
    decade decay rate of the field away from the line.[^57] Finally, the
    Commission decided to use the existing Part 15 distance
    extrapolation factors in the rules for BPL due to the lack of
    conclusive experimental data pending large scale Access BPL
    deployments. The Commission also stated that, if new information
    becomes available that alternative emission limit/distance standards
    or extrapolation factors would be more appropriate, it would revisit
    this issue at another time.[^58] No new information has been
    submitted that would provide a convincing argument for modifying
    this requirement at this time. Accordingly, we are retaining the
    existing extrapolation factor in the rules for the reasons set forth
    in the *Report and Order*.

27. *Required Notch Depth*. In the *Report and Order*, we determined
    that the most appropriate approach for ensuring that Access BPL
    systems are able to mitigate any instances of interference is to
    require that they incorporate the capability to avoid using specific
    frequency bands. In the rules, we therefore required that Access BPL
    systems have the capability to remotely reduce power and adjust
    operating frequencies to avoid site-specific, local use of the same
    spectrum used by licensed services. We further provided that these
    techniques may include adaptive, or "notch," filtering capability or
    complete avoidance of frequencies, or bands of frequencies, in
    specific local areas. Notch filters are required to be capable of
    attenuating emissions to a level at least 20 dB below the applicable
    Part 15 limits in the case of frequencies below 30 MHz and to a
    level at least 10 dB below the applicable Part 15 limits in the case
    of frequencies above 30 MHz. We also stated that we will generally
    assume that a 20 dB notch is sufficient to resolve any harmful
    interference that might occur to mobile operations, given both the
    low signal levels allowed under the Part 15 emission limits and the
    fact that a mobile transceiver is generally only in one place for a
    limited period and can readily be re-positioned to provide some
    separation from the Access BPL operation.[^59]

28. [Petitions]{.underline}. ARINC requests clarification that, if the
    use of the 20 dB notch depth does not solve a harmful interference
    issue, the BPL operator is obligated to take further action to avoid
    causing harmful interference.[^60] To support its request for
    rescission of the BPL rules in its petition for reconsideration,
    which is discussed later in this Order, ARRL argues that the adopted
    rules are deficient because there is no technical analysis presented
    in the Report and Order to support the 20 dB notch depth.[^61]

29. [Decision]{.underline}. ARINC is correct that an Access BPL operator
    is required to ensure that its operations do not cause harmful
    interference to licensed operators and that, if a 20 dB notch is not
    sufficient to eliminate such interference in specific cases, the
    operator must take further actions to eliminate that interference to
    fixed licensed operations. With respect to ARRL's request for an
    explanation of how we selected 20 dB as the level of attenuation
    that must be provided, we note that several factors were taken into
    consideration in reaching this decision. First, the Commission has
    long experience that unlicensed devices operating at the Part 15
    limits generally do not cause harmful interference. In examining the
    performance of various Access BPL systems, our staff observed that
    if Access BPL emissions on frequencies below 30 MHz were reduced to
    20 dB below the Part 15 limits, the potential for harmful
    interference to mobile HF reception in the vehicle used in their
    examinations would generally be limited to areas in close proximity
    of a BPL device or a power line carrying BPL signals except when
    signal margins are low.[^62] Given the more stringent Part 15
    emission limits that apply to Access BPL operations above 30 MHz, we
    stated that a notching capability of 10 dB is sufficient to provide
    the same level of protection above 30 MHz as a 20 dB notch below 30
    MHz.

30. Upon review, we continue to find that the Commission's decision to
    assume that BPL emissions at or below the specified notching
    capabilities are sufficient to protect mobile operations is
    appropriate. The Part 15 radiated emission limit for Access BPL and
    other carrier current systems is 30 dBµV/m quasi-peak in a 9 kHz
    bandwidth at 30 meters for frequencies at or below 30 MHz .[^63]
    When operating with a 20 dB notch below 30 MHz, the maximum allowed
    emissions from an Access BPL system is 10 dBµV/m at the Part 15
    distance, which is at or only modestly above the noise floor in the
    HF bands.[^64] In another words, Access BPL emissions would not be
    significantly greater than the background noise at the distances
    normally used for protection against harmful interference from Part
    15 unlicensed devices.

31. We have also evaluated the potential for interference at closer
    distances that can occur when conducting mobile communications while
    traveling adjacent to roadside power lines. When extrapolated to
    values for the typical distance of a mobile antenna from roadside
    power lines (approximately 6 meters horizontal distance and 8.5
    meters vertical distance, for a slant range of 10.4 meters) and
    adjusted for the typical quasi-peak to average ratio of 4 dB for BPL
    devices operating at high duty factor, the Part 15 limit corresponds
    to a root-mean squared (RMS) field strength of 44 dBµV/m for
    frequencies below at or below 30 MHz. A 20 dB reduction would limit
    emissions to 24 dBµV/m. While 24 dBµV/m is somewhat above the
    background noise level, however, we nonetheless conclude this is an
    appropriate value for several reasons.

32. The record and our observations indicate that the noise floor at HF
    in all areas is highly variable on the basis of both time and
    location. [^65] Increases of 20 dB or more are quite common.[^66] In
    addition to background noise, noise is also likely to be present
    from other sources, such as corona effects from power lines, nearby
    electric devices, and even the ignition system and electronics of
    the user's vehicle and other nearby vehicles. Propagation conditions
    also make the levels of the received signals vary considerably with
    time and location. Therefore, while mobile reception of relatively
    weak signals that would be affected by the presence of background
    noise levels under 24 dBµV/m is sometimes possible, such reception
    is generally intermittent and not reliable because both the received
    signal and the ambient noise levels vary up and down (the received
    signal and noise energy levels generally do not rise and fall
    together) as the vehicle moves.[^67] Thus, because mobile HF service
    with relatively weak desired signals that would be affected by noise
    levels under 24 dBµV/m is generally not reliable, we do not consider
    increases in background noise resulting from BPL operations that are
    at or under this level to be harmful interference.[^68] As stated in
    the Report and Order, we further point out that a mobile user can
    generally avoid a source of interference, whether it be from Access
    BPL, noisy power lines, or some other external, localized source, by
    simply relocating. We also observe that, in most instances, mobile
    users in motion do not remain in a location where they might be
    receiving interference.

33. Accordingly, we continue to find that it is appropriate to consider
    that Access BPL signals at levels below 24 dBµV/m will not
    constitute harmful interference to mobile, and in particular,
    amateur mobile communications. On balance, we conclude that the
    benefits of Access BPL for bringing broadband services to the public
    are sufficiently important and significant so as to outweigh the
    potential for a small increase in instances of disruptions that may
    arise to such mobile communications from low level Access BPL
    emissions. We therefore clarify that, except for mobile operations,
    Access BPL operators are responsible for resolving harmful
    interference that may occur even where their systems employ a 20/10
    dB notch. Where an Access BPL operator implements such notching, we
    will not provide further protection to mobile operations, nor will
    we require the operator to resolve complaints of harmful
    interference to mobile operations by taking steps over and above
    implementing the "notch." We reiterate our intent, however, that
    cases involving actual interference from BPL operations be resolved
    without delay. When interference has been demonstrated, and has not
    been resolved through cooperative efforts by the BPL operator and
    the party receiving the interference, the Commission, through its
    Enforcement Bureau with assistance from the Office of Engineering
    and Technology, will review the complaint and take appropriate
    action in an expeditious manner.

34. *Protection of the amateur radio service.* On October 18, 2005, the
    ARRL filed a Petition for Issuance of Further Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making, in which it requests consideration of the same
    substantive points it submitted in its previous pleadings in this
    proceeding, *e.g.*, avoid use of amateur radio frequencies by Access
    BPL systems, avoid use of the HF frequencies by Access BPL systems
    on overhead medium voltage lines, and require use of a 20 dB
    extrapolation factor in place of the existing 40 dB extrapolation
    factor.[^69] Although styled as a Petition for Further Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making," ARRL's pleading effectively constitutes a
    petition for reconsideration, as it seeks the same results
    previously sought by ARRL in this proceeding. We will therefore
    treat the Petition for FNPRM as a petition for reconsideration.

35. We deny ARRL's Petition for FNPRM. ARRL's asserts that its proposals
    would "remove regulatory uncertainty and allow Access BPL to move
    forward unhindered by the interference problem that were \[sic\]
    inadequately addressed by the Report and Order."[^70] As discussed
    herein, the rules adopted in the *Report and Order*, as modified by
    this *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, adequately address interference
    concerns and measurement procedures raised by Access BPL. ARRL also
    refers to "numerous cases of harmful interference to stations in the
    Amateur radio service"[^71] and "extremely difficult-to-resolve
    incidents of interference to fixed and mobile Amateur radio
    facilities."[^72] With respect to mobile stations, interference from
    Access BPL can often be avoided or reduced to an acceptable level by
    moving the mobile station only a short distance away from the power
    lines. We also have observed numerous instances where Access BPL
    systems have modified their operations to avoid use of amateur
    frequencies in the vicinity of amateur fixed stations. One
    "solution" proposed by ARRL in its Petition for FNPRM -- the use of
    wireless links for connection to the home -- is not Access BPL, and
    thus, while a permissible service, is not pertinent to this
    proceeding.[^73] The other proposed "solution" -- complete avoidance
    of all HF frequencies -- would needlessly restrict BPL system design
    and reduce system capacity, without regard to whether there are
    amateurs that need protection from a particular BPL installation.
    This would result in a grossly inefficient utilization of Access BPL
    capacity, reducing the potential benefits of BPL and increasing its
    cost to the public, without a corresponding benefit or need. As
    indicated above, however, in cases where licensed radio service
    operators present meritorious claims of interference from a BPL
    system, we will expect the system operator take the necessary
    actions to resolve that interference in an expeditious manner*.* In
    cases where the system operator does not take expeditious action to
    resolve harmful interference, the Commission will review the
    complaint and take appropriate action. In light of the historic and
    ongoing importance of the amateur radio service -- including and
    especially in emergency situations -- the Commission will not allow
    harmful interference to such users to persist.

36. *Alternative method of emission measurements*. The BPL rules allow
    use of the measurement method recommended by NTIA as an alternative
    to the Commission's measurement guidelines.[^74] The Commission's
    rules have historically allowed the use of alternative methods for
    compliance measurements, based on good engineering practices.[^75]
    In the *Report and Order*, the Commission stated that NTIA's method
    of keeping the antenna height constant and applying a height
    correction factor is aimed at simplifying the measurement procedure;
    hence, this might be an alternative testing procedure that BPL
    providers may actually prefer.[^76] However, the Commission also
    advised that the FCC and NTIA methods are mutually exclusive,
    *i.e.*, the BPL tester must choose either the NTIA alternative
    method or the FCC method, and cannot mix and match elements of the
    two.[^77]

37. [Petition]{.underline}. To support its request for rescission of the
    BPL rules, which is discussed later in this Order,[^78] the ARRL
    contends that there should be only one measurement standard;
    otherwise, there will be substantial differences in maximum radiated
    emission levels calculated, depending on the method used, and no
    objective means of evaluating a system for compliance. It further
    states that permitting use of multiple standards allows BPL
    operators to choose the method that more readily qualifies their
    equipment for authorization.[^79]

38. [Decision]{.underline}. We note that the adopted methods of
    measurement were thoroughly discussed in the *Report and
    Order*.[^80] The Commission specifically allowed each method to be
    used individually, and stated that the methods are mutually
    exclusive*.*[^81] A BPL provider choosing to use the first method
    must test its system with slant range distances and height variation
    of the measuring antenna from 1 to 4 meters for frequencies above 30
    MHz. In the alternative, a BPL provider may choose to measure at an
    antenna height of 1 meter, but would have to add a correction factor
    of 5 dB. One method must be selected, and elements of the two may
    not combined. We expect the methods to provide similar results, and
    find that either will adequately assure compliance with our rules.
    We note that the Commission has traditionally allowed the use of any
    alternative method for determining compliance, as long as it is
    based on good engineering practices. Accordingly, we deny ARRL's
    petition on this issue.

39. *Other technical requests.* A number of parties petition for the
    inclusion of new technical restrictions in the Access BPL rules.
    McVey requests that BPL systems be required to employ continuous
    monitoring and feedback schemes to ensure that signal levels are not
    exceeded within geographic zones because distribution lines are
    affected by different loads and voltage stepping.[^82] CDE states
    that "the effect of weather on power line noise is well
    documented...\[t\]he Commission in its effort to establish a new
    service has not indicated how measurements of system performance in
    areas where weather is a factor are to be treated."[^83] Davis
    requests that we clarify the definition of harmful interference as
    it relates to the amateur radio service and that we provide clear
    assurance that all types of routine communications, including weak
    signal communications, be protected from harmful interference.[^84]
    NAC/Amherst requests that new proposed rules not be issued until all
    on‑going studies of BPL by NTIA have been fully completed and
    publicly disclosed, including a comprehensive study of ionospheric
    propagation of BPL signals.[^85]

40. In opposition, Current, Ameren, and UPLC urge the Commission not to
    take any action on reconsideration which might delay the rapid
    development of the full potential of BPL or reduce the opportunities
    for BPL to develop as a realistic competitive alternative to cable
    and DSL.[^86] Current also states that the Commission based its
    rules on adequate data, and that its decision was reasonable in view
    of the safeguards adopted in the required mitigation procedures and
    the significant benefits of BPL deployments.[^87] Current further
    argues that the reflection phenomena in ionospheric propagation can
    increase the useful range of a short‑wave station operating at
    hundreds or thousands of watts, but would not have any effect on BPL
    signals operating at the required Part 15 low emission levels.[^88]

41. [Decision]{.underline}. With regard to additional monitoring and
    feedback requirements, we note that BPL systems are already required
    to comply with the rules under all line impedances and loads and
    weather conditions, and the rules provide no exception for these
    conditions. We have no basis to presume that continuous monitoring
    and feedback is necessary to maintain this compliance, and thus see
    no need to impose this burden on BPL system operators. Accordingly,
    we deny the requests of McVey and CDE for such further rules. In
    addition, as discussed in the *Report and Order,* we continue to
    believe that only communications of dedicated public safety agencies
    and similar organizations warrant the additional special protections
    beyond the general Part 15 provisions that apply to amateur and
    other radio operations. The general Part 15 provisions are
    sufficient to protect amateur operations; hence, no specific
    clarification for weak signals or other types of communications is
    necessary with regard to the definition of "harmful interference" in
    our rules.[^89] Accordingly, we also deny the request of Davis on
    this issue.

42. Further, with respect to ionospheric propagation, we note that
    NAC/Amherst simply reiterates the same arguments that it previously
    submitted in the record. The Commission's decision in the *Report
    and Order* was in part based on NTIA's recommendation that, on the
    basis of worst‑case oriented analyses of ionospheric propagation and
    aggregation of radiated emissions from Access BPL systems,
    ionospheric propagation is not a potential near‑term issue that
    should delay adoption of BPL rules.[^90] NAC/Amherst provides no new
    information; accordingly, we are dismissing its petition on this
    issue.

## Further Study of Access BPL characteristics

43. As indicated, *supra,* the ARRL, a number of radio amateurs, Davis,
    Matda, McVey, Richmond, Whedbee and NAC/Amherst, request that we
    rescind the rules governing Access BPL systems and prohibit BPL
    deployments pending further re-study of Access BPL interference
    characteristics.[^91]

44. [Petitions and Responses]{.underline}. In its petition, ARRL first
    alleges that the Commission prejudged the proceeding and failed to
    conduct impartial and reasoned rulemaking, which violates the
    Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) reasoned decision making
    requirements.[^92] It contends that examples of such prejudice
    include FCC Chairman Powell's alleged *ex parte* violation leading
    to prejudgment of the outcome of the proceeding, alleged Commission
    mishandling of the ARRL's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request
    by responding belatedly and redacting internal discussion sections
    from the released information, and alleged Commission failure to
    analyze the complete record fairly and to thoroughly evaluate Access
    BPL's interference potential.[^93] The ARRL contends that the
    Commission had no record basis for certain of its assertions which
    underlie its conclusions. It specifically points to three statements
    in the Report and Order: "'The record and our investigations
    indicate that BPL network systems can generally be configured and
    managed to minimize and/or eliminate this harmful interference
    potential"'[^94]; "'\[b\]ased on extensive research, analysis and
    practical experience, we also continue to believe that the
    interference concerns of licensed radio users can be adequately
    addressed' \[and\] from the information provided by our 'field
    tests'... we observe that the potential for any harmful interference
    is limited ..."[^95]; and "Moreover, the NTIA Phase I field study
    'and our own field measurements' of Access BPL installations
    indicate that these systems are not efficient radiators, nor are
    their emissions cumulative such that they permeate areas in which
    they are located."[^96] Next, ARRL asserts that the Commission
    failed to devise rules that adequately protect licensed services. To
    this end, it argues that the adopted mitigation rules are
    ineffective and applied inequitably, which is leading to
    discriminatory treatment of the amateur service; that the Commission
    failed to respond to complaints of interference; and that the
    adopted measurement standards are erroneous, while the allowed
    alternative measurement procedure using NTIA's method leads to
    substantial differences in results, with no objective means for
    determining compliance.[^97] It further argues that the required
    content of the public database does not address instances of mobile
    radio interference and that public safety communications are not
    protected by this requirement.[^98] Finally, ARRL alleges that the
    Commission's balancing of BPL benefits against increased
    interference risks is unlawful under Section 301 of the
    Communications Act.[^99] The requests of individual amateurs are
    similar to the ARRL's concerns.

45. In its opposition filing, Current argues that the amateur petitions
    generally seek near‑absolute interference protection, whereas Part
    15 requires only that equipment such as BPL eliminate a significant
    risk of "harmful interference.[^100] Current further states that the
    Commission based its rules on adequate data, and that the
    Commission's decision was reasonable in view of the safeguards
    embodied in the required mitigation procedures and the significant
    benefits of BPL deployments. In general, the BPL industry urges the
    Commission to avoid any action on reconsideration which might delay
    the rapid development of the full potential of BPL or reduce the
    opportunities for BPL to develop as a realistic competitive
    alternative to cable and DSL.[^101]

46. [Decision]{.underline}. *a) Reasoned Decision Making.* We note first
    of all that the Commission's Office of General Counsel (OGC) has
    determined that Chairman Powell's visit to the Manassas BPL
    demonstration was not prohibited by the Commission's *ex parte*
    rules.[^102] Furthermore, the Manassas demonstration during Chairman
    Powell's visit did not provide any new information that would have
    had a substantive bearing on the Commission's decision regarding
    BPL. Hence, no prejudicial contact occurred as a result of this
    visit.

47. Next, we note that the Commission's FOIA response to ARRL clearly
    stated that the redacted portions of the FOIA's content referred to
    internal communications that were not relied upon in the decision
    making process.[^103] We clarify that in this proceeding, the
    Commission relied, in the aggregate, on NTIA's BPL Phase 1 Report,
    on the various interference studies filed in the record, including
    ARRL's studies, and on its own internally conducted studies as
    described in the materials provided in the FOIA response to ARRL, in
    deciding on additional requirements for BPL systems over and above
    the Part 15 requirements for low-power unlicensed devices in these
    bands.[^104] Because these studies and comments raised concerns of
    interference at some distances down the power lines from the BPL
    equipment injection point on the power line, the Commission adopted
    a rigorous radiated emissions measurement method to ensure that BPL
    emissions are accurately evaluated so that interference mitigation
    solutions are applied where needed.

48. ARRL contends that the NTIA study points to possible interference
    from Access BPL systems to land vehicle, boat and fixed stations in
    areas up to 75 meters, 100 meters, and 460 meters from the power
    lines, and argues that the Commission ignored such data.[^105]
    Contrary to ARRL's assertion, the Commission did consider those
    findings. We believe that the issue is adequately addressed by the
    various additional requirements that we placed on Access BPL
    systems. Those additional requirements include notching and
    frequency agility, consultation with licensed users, avoidance of
    operation in exclusion zones on certain excluded frequencies, Access
    BPL location identification in a public database, and an extensive
    method of measurement to determine compliance with our rules.[^106]

49. We also clarify that the Commission's statements in paragraphs 2, 23
    and 39 of the *Report and Order* point to its extensive experience
    with carrier current systems over the past decades, its review and
    investigation of the field testing of NTIA in the BPL Phase 1 study,
    and its own field investigations of BPL experimental sites.[^107] We
    note that although in adopting the *Report and Order,* the
    Commission did not agree with ARRL's arguments to prohibit BPL
    operations, the Commission recognized the concerns raised by ARRL
    and other licensed radio users and provided a reasoned basis for its
    BPL decisions affecting other radio licensees.[^108] Accordingly,
    the Commission's decision was in full compliance with the APA.

50. *b) Adequate protection of licensed services.* We disagree with the
    ARRL's assertion that the Access BPL rules adopted by the Commission
    do not adequately protect licensed radio services. First, the BPL
    rules require Access BPL systems to incorporate adaptive
    interference mitigation techniques for the protection of licensed
    radio services. These requirements are not imposed on any other Part
    15 devices and are specific to Access BPL systems, because the
    Commission decided that the record, including ARRL's interference
    studies, pointed to a potentially greater harmful interference risk
    from these systems.[^109] Further, Access BPL systems are also the
    only carrier current systems required to be authorized under the
    Commission's equipment *Certification* procedure.[^110] In addition,
    the BPL operators must provide information on their systems in a
    publicly accessible database; and for those licensed users whose
    operations are critical in nature or safety-of-life related, such as
    public safety, the rules also require advance consultation and
    notification.[^111] Thus, contrary to allegations of ARRL and
    individual radio amateurs, the Commission carefully considered the
    possible effects of BPL operations on licensed services and provided
    for their protection.[^112] The reasons that the Commission decided
    not to prohibit BPL operations on amateur frequencies were also
    fully explained in the *Report and Order*.[^113] As Current
    observes, the Commission based its rules on adequate data, and its
    decision was reasonable in view of the safeguards provided by the
    required mitigation procedures.[^114] Amateur services, and all
    other radio services, except public safety and certain sensitive
    government operations which are afforded additional protection for
    reasons enumerated in the *Report and Order*, are protected equally
    by the mitigation techniques and other operational restrictions
    adopted in the BPL rules.[^115] Accordingly, we conclude that the
    amateur service is treated on an equal footing with other similarly
    situated radio services (*e.g.*, Citizens Band (CB) radio, HF
    broadcast radio, and television channels 2, 3 and 4) and ARRL's
    allegation of discrimination against the amateur service is without
    merit.

51. We also disagree with ARRL's assertion that allegations of
    interference at some experimental BPL sites demonstrate that the
    adopted mitigation rules are ineffective. The BPL rules adopted in
    the *Report and Order* must be given time to be implemented. Access
    BPL equipment currently deployed is typically not designed to fully
    incorporate the interference mitigation capabilities set forth in
    the rules that we have put in place. Therefore, until Access BPL
    operators implement all of the required mitigation techniques, we
    find that it is premature to conclude that these rules are
    ineffective. We note, importantly, that BPL systems are required to
    mitigate interference irrespective of the generation of equipment in
    use. We also believe based on the record and our observations that
    the interference potential of Access BPL systems to licensed users
    can be adequately mitigated by the unique additional requirements
    that we placed on Access BPL devices, but if, as the service
    develops, interference becomes a problem, we will revisit the
    issue.[^116]

52. We further disagree with ARRL and amateur commenters that the BPL
    rules should be rescinded because the Commission has failed to
    respond to complaints of interference.[^117] Under Section 15.5(c)
    of the rules and as described in the *Report and Order*, parties who
    believe they are experiencing interference from an unlicensed device
    are first expected to bring the matter to the attention of the
    operator of the unlicensed device.[^118] If that action does not
    resolve the interference, the party may then seek intervention by
    the Commission. Where BPL interference complaints have been filed by
    a licensee with the Commission, the Commission has followed the
    procedure outlined in the *Report and Order* and contacted both the
    complainant and the BPL provider to determine if the parties have
    first attempted to resolve the interference complaint among
    themselves.[^119] In cases where they have not made such an attempt,
    the complainant has been asked to work with the BPL provider to
    determine if the interference being experienced is from the BPL
    system and, if so, to have the BPL provider take appropriate action
    to eliminate the interference.[^120] We will continue to require
    BPL providers to comply with this process where licensed radio
    operators make meritorious claims of interference from BPL
    operations.

53. We also note that ARRL's contention regarding the insufficiency of
    the public database with respect to protection for mobile users was
    discussed and analyzed in the *Report and Order*.[^121] The
    Commission decided that the database's primary function is to
    provide a centralized repository of information with a single point
    of contact for resolving interference complaints. It can do this as
    well for mobile stations that receive interference as for fixed
    stations. The Commission also determined that unlike fixed stations,
    a mobile transceiver can be re-positioned to provide some separation
    from the Access BPL operation that will eliminate any harmful
    interference that may occur.[^122] As for ARRL's argument that
    public safety communications are not protected by the database rule,
    we note that the rules already provide special protection for public
    safety services by requiring the BPL operator to consult in advance
    with local public safety users and to ensure response to public
    safety interference complaints within 24 hours of receipt of the
    complaint. Accordingly ARRL's allegation that mobile users and
    public safety communications are not protected by the BPL database
    rule is without merit, and we deny ARRL's request in this regard.

54. *c) Commission's statutory responsibility under the Communications
    Act.* To support its request that BPL rules be rescinded, ARRL
    argues that a balancing test of interference risks is prohibited
    under current spectrum allocation paradigms and the licensing
    requirements of Section 301 of the Communications Act, and that
    there is no statutory underpinning for the application of a
    "balancing test" involving interference from unlicensed facilities
    to licensed radio services.[^123] We observe at the outset that
    Access BPL systems are not radio communications systems but rather
    are systems which in their operation are capable of emitting RF
    energy that can cause harmful interference to radio communications.
    As such, BPL systems fall under the Commission's jurisdiction as
    conferred by Section 302 of the Communications Act, rather than
    Section 301.[^124] Consistent with Section 302, the Commission may
    adopt reasonable regulations governing the interference potential of
    BPL systems, which, as unintentional radiators, communicate by
    sending RF energy by conduction down the power line, not over the
    air.[^125] The Commission is also within its statutory authority to
    determine whether such regulations are consistent with the public
    interest, convenience and necessity.

55. In the instant proceeding, the Commission has determined that any
    potential for harmful interference from Access BPL systems operating
    in compliance with the existing Part 15 emission limits for carrier
    current systems could be controlled by the additional Part 15 Access
    BPL rules that were adopted. It also determined that the public
    interest would be served by encouraging BPL deployment and growth,
    which would bring broadband access to new areas of the country and
    promote competition in the broadband market, leading to lower prices
    and higher productivity for the American public.[^126] Therefore,
    when the Commission stated, in the *Report and Order*, that on
    balance, the benefits of Access BPL for bringing broadband services
    to the public are sufficiently important and significant so as to
    outweigh the limited potential for increased harmful interference
    that may arise, it weighed the public interest, convenience and
    necessity in adopting reasonable regulations to effectively control
    the harmful interference potential of Access BPL, consistent with
    Section 302.[^127] Accordingly, we find that ARRL's arguments that
    the Commission's balancing of the benefits of BPL against the risk
    of interference to licensed radio services was unlawful are without
    merit.

56. Finally, we note that BPL systems are already allowed to be deployed
    under the existing Part 15 carrier current systems requirements, and
    the Commission has taken a pro-active and protective approach in the
    *Report and Order* by placing additional technical and operational
    restrictions on these systems, in order to provide a higher level of
    pre-emptive protection to licensed radio services, including the
    amateur service. We therefore find that the requests of the amateurs
    and others to rescind the adopted Access BPL rules would in effect
    leave licensed radio users with less protection against potential
    interference, as BPL systems may continue to be deployed under the
    carrier current rules of Part 15 prior to the adoption of the new
    BPL rules. ARRL, Davis, Matda, McVey, Richmond, Whedbee and
    NAC/Amherst have not provided any new information that would
    persuade us to change our decision. Accordingly, we deny the
    petitions from these parties.

## Other Requests

57. *Federal Government radio astronomy facility.* The Part 15 rules
    require Access BPL systems to avoid operating on the 73.0 -- 74.6
    MHz band used by the ten Very Long Baseline Array facilities of
    radio astronomy observatories within specific distances.[^128] This
    requirement is intended to protect these sensitive federal
    government operations from potential interference.

58. [Petition]{.underline}. NTIA, on behalf of the National Foundation
    of Science (NSF), requests that we add an exclusion area, in the
    73.0 to 74.6 MHz band, for a Very Large Array (VLA) radio astronomy
    observatory in New Mexico, and that we modify the protection for the
    ten Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) sites that are currently listed
    in the rules.[^129] NTIA\'s request states that the NSF has now
    determined that the exclusion zones at the ten VLBA sites are not
    needed and that an exclusion area for the VLA site in New Mexico is
    required. NTIA requests that Access BPL systems operating in the
    73.0 to 74.6 MHz band on overhead medium voltage power lines be
    excluded within 65 km of the coordinates of the VLA facility, and
    that Access BPL systems using low voltage or underground power lines
    operating in the 73.0 to 74.6 MHz band be excluded within 47 km from
    the coordinates of the VLA facility. The coordinate at the center of
    the VLA is 34° 04\' 43.50\"N, 107° 37\' 03.82\"W.[^130] NTIA
    observes that that deleting the exclusion areas for the 73.0-74.6
    MHz radioastronomy observatories as it now requests would result in
    no special protection of those facilities and therefore asks that we
    extend the frequency range of the consultation areas for
    radioastronomy observatories from the current range of 1.7-38.25 MHz
    to the range of 1.7-80 MHz.

59. [Decision]{.underline}. No party has contested these changes, and we
    will modify our rules as requested by NTIA. Accordingly, we will not
    maintain exclusion zones around the sites where NTIA no longer
    considers BPL to be an interference threat and will extend the
    frequency range of the consultation areas for radioastronomy
    observatories from the current range of 1.7-38.25 MHz to the range
    of 1.7-80 MHz. We will also provide an exclusion zone around the VLA
    radioastronomy observatory in New Mexico, at the specific
    coordinates of 34^o^ 04' 43.50" N, 107^o^ 37' 03.82" W.

60. *Aeronautical service.* In order to protect aeronautical operations,
    Access BPL systems on medium voltage lines are required to avoid
    operating in the frequency bands reserved for Aeronautical (R)
    frequencies and in the 74.8‑75.2 MHz band.[^131] This requirement is
    intended to protect international aeronautical safety operations and
    aircraft receivers from potential interference.

61. [Petition and Responses]{.underline}. ARINC urges that the exclusion
    of BPL operations in the 74.8-75.2 MHz band on overhead
    medium-voltage lines be extended to encompass Access BPL systems and
    In-House BPL systems operating on overhead low‑voltage power
    lines.[^132] To support this request, ARINC states that carrier
    current devices employed to provide the transmission of telephone
    communications within a houses over their wiring appear to have been
    responsible for interference to ARINC's HF ground station.[^133]
    Thus, it argues that the new rules did not adequately consider the
    potential threat that BPL operating on low voltage lines pose to
    high-frequency (HF) aeronautical communications.[^134]

62. ARINC further petitions that we require BPL operators to cooperate
    in adjusting their system parameters if such adjustments are
    necessary to protect new or relocated aeronautical facilities.[^135]
    ARINC states that, similar to U.S. Coast Guard stations, which the
    rules specifically protect, its stations may also be relocated in
    the future.[^136] ARINC requests that we modify the rules to clearly
    address this situation. Finally, ARINC advises us that the
    coordinates for some of its sites are incorrect and provides the
    correct information. It also provides new email contacts for the
    ARINC sites subject to BPL consultation under Section 15.615.[^137]

63. Intellon, HomePlug, Phonex, Ameren et al., Ambient, UPLC and Current
    all oppose ARINC's petition.[^138] These parties argue that there is
    no evidence justifying the imposition of new requirements on
    In-House BPL systems. They note that ARINC continues to reiterate a
    complaint of interference from a narrow‑band carrier current system
    at a single site where it even admits the interference has been
    mitigated.[^139] They contend that there are several hundred
    thousands of In‑House BPL devices being used in the U.S. market that
    have not been shown to cause interference.[^140]

64. [Decision]{.underline}. We note that in the *Report and Order,* the
    Commission carefully analyzed the emission characteristics of the
    low‑voltage feed lines and determined that the interference
    potential from these lines is generally lower than that of overhead
    medium voltage lines. It observed that such lines are typically used
    only for short feeder links from a transformer to a customer service
    location, are more closely spaced with an accompanying neutral line,
    and in fact are often twisted together with the neutral line. The
    Commission determined that the close spacing of these wires,
    together with their shorter length, reduce radiated RF emissions
    relative to those from overhead medium voltage lines.[^141] As the
    BPL industry representatives point out, there has not been any
    verified complaint regarding interference caused by In‑House BPL
    devices, despite their widespread availability since 2002. The
    Commission's Enforcement Bureau investigated the case of
    interference allegedly caused by a carrier current system alluded to
    in ARINC's petition and did not find that interference was caused by
    a Part 15 device.[^142] Based on the lack of interference complaints
    from widely deployed BPL systems operating on low-voltage lines, we
    determine that they do not pose a high risk of harmful interference.
    Accordingly, we deny ARINC's request to require In‑House BPL systems
    and Access BPL systems operating over low‑voltage lines to exclude
    the Aeronautical (R) frequencies and the 74.8‑75.2 MHz band.

65. We agree with ARINC, however, that continued cooperation from BPL
    operators at new or relocated aeronautical facilities is desirable,
    and are amending the rules to require that system operators work
    with aeronautical facilities operators as necessary to adjust BPL
    operating parameters to protect new or relocated aeronautical
    facilities. We also are amending the Part 15 rules to incorporate
    the editorial changes requested by ARINC regarding the coordinates
    and email contact for the ARINC sites subject to BPL consultation in
    Section 15.615. Accordingly, we grant in part and deny in part
    ARINC's petition to the extent indicated herein*.*

66. *Broadcast television service.* The Part 15 rules allow Access BPL
    systems to operate between 1.7 and 80 MHz, over medium or low
    voltage lines.[^143] Television channels 2 to 5 are located within
    the bands from 54 MHz to 82 MHz. To date, no Access BPL systems have
    been designed to operate on frequencies above 50 MHz.

67. [Petition and Responses]{.underline}. MSTV requests that we confine
    BPL operations to frequencies below 50 MHz to avoid significant
    disruptions to the digital television (DTV) transition.[^144] MSTV
    submits a new study, the *BPL‑Television Study*, which was completed
    in February 2005, after the BPL rules were adopted, to support its
    claim that even Part 15‑compliant Access BPL signals can cause
    material interference to television channels 2 to 5 and allege that
    the effect would be to render these channels unusable in many
    realistic cases.[^145]

68. In the Technical Appendix to its opposition comments, Current
    analyzes MSTV's *BPL‑Television Study* and states that an error in
    the study results in its overstating the interference potential by
    50 dB because the study uses a continuous wave (CW) unmodulated
    signal at the center of each TV channel allocation, whereas BPL
    signals are multi‑frequency signals spread across a wide bandwidth
    at much lower power levels.[^146] The UPLC concurs with Current's
    assessment and argues that MSTV's claims of interference are
    speculative, as MSTV itself admitted in its study that "\[t\]here
    was lack of specificity for certain critical parameters which
    necessitated educated guesses."[^147] In its reply, supported by the
    National Broadcast Association (NAB), MSTV argues that its request
    is to limit BPL operations to below 50 MHz on a temporary basis
    until the end of the DTV transition only.[^148]

69. [Decision]{.underline}. In the *Report and Order*, the Commission
    noted that in many instances all low band Very High Frequency (VHF)
    television channels are not used within a particular area and those
    channels that are not in use for television service could be used
    for Access BPL operations without causing harmful interference to
    television reception.[^149] The Commission further noted that the
    effective Part 15 emission limit for Access BPL systems is more
    stringent for frequencies above 30 MHz than it is for frequencies
    below 30 MHz and that propagation losses are also more significant
    at higher frequencies. The Commission therefore concluded that
    special protections for broadcast television service are not
    warranted. We find that MSTV's *BPL‑Television Study* does not take
    into account the instances where the VHF TV channels might not all
    be used within a particular area and only focuses on the worst case
    scenarios. While Current Technologies correctly points out some
    flaws in the initial analysis by MSTV, we recognize that there is a
    potential for BPL interference to DTV reception if a BPL system
    operates adjacent to or within the spectrum of a locally-used VHF TV
    station. BPL providers should therefore be cautious in selection of
    frequency bands in order to avoid such interference. We continue to
    believe however that the adopted Access BPL rules will protect all
    licensed services, including television services. We therefore
    decline to change the BPL rules to require that Access BPL systems
    use only frequencies below 50 MHz, even temporarily. Accordingly, we
    deny MSTV's request for this change to the rules.

70. *Critical infrastructure industry (CII).* The rules require Access
    BPL operators to notify and consult with the public safety agencies
    in their local areas, *i.e.*, state and local police, fire,
    emergency medical, etc., and other entities that are eligible for
    public safety licenses under Section 90.20 of the rules, at least 30
    days in advance of initiation of service.[^150] The rules also
    require Access BPL operators to respond to complaints of harmful
    interference from public safety users within 24 hours.[^151] The
    Commission adopted these requirements to specifically protect public
    safety systems because of the critical and safety-of-life nature of
    their services. The rules do not, however, make any such distinction
    for protection of CII entities.

71. [Petition and Responses]{.underline}. The American Petroleum
    Institute (API) requests that we modify the BPL rules to treat CII
    entities (including petroleum and natural gas companies) as public
    safety entities so that they would be entitled to the 30‑day advance
    consultation and the 24‑hour interference complaint response time
    requirements.[^152] API argues that the Commission's definition of
    CII adopted in the *800 MHz* *Order* includes these private radio
    systems because they are employed in protecting lives, health and
    property, as well as during response to oil spills and other
    emergency incidents.[^153] It requests that parties designated as
    CII entities for purposes of the *800 MHz* *Order* should also be
    treated the same as public safety entities for purposes of the BPL
    rules.

72. Current and Ameren oppose the API's request, arguing that advance
    notice of deployment would add no meaningful protection to CII
    licensees identified in the *800 MHz* *Order* but would impose
    additional and unwarranted administrative burdens on the nascent BPL
    industry.[^154] These parties state that electric utilities fully
    recognize the importance of protecting CII operations as they are in
    effect CII facilities themselves, and BPL transmissions, which carry
    both emergency communications by consumers and utility company
    management of critical infrastructure, are communications important
    to the public welfare. They contend, however, that consultation with
    the large numbers of CII entities and the lack of a realistic threat
    of harmful interference from compliant BPL equipment would cause
    undue burden to the nascent BPL industry and threaten BPL
    deployments.[^155] API replies that it would be unlikely for more
    than a handful of CII entities to request advance notification
    within the operating area of any particular BPL provider and that
    the advance notification could consist of a single email message to
    all, so that the process would not be unduly burdensome.[^156]

73. [Decision]{.underline}. We note that in the *800 MHz Order*, the
    Commission adopted the definition in 47 U.S.C. § 337(f) for CII as
    those entities, outside of the "public safety service", which
    operate "public safety" radio services within the scope of Section
    309(j)(2) of the Act.[^157] However, the Commission specifically
    stated that the adopted definition of CII was confined to matters
    addressed in the 800 MHz proceeding and did not represent a
    Commission decision that all CII entities are public safety
    entities.[^158] Furthermore, in the *Supplemental Order and Order on
    Reconsideration (Supplemental Order)* in the same proceeding, the
    Commission afforded additional protection to public safety radio
    services, but specifically excluded CII licensees from that
    additional protection.[^159] Therefore, the Commission did not give
    absolute public safety status to CII licensees in the 800 MHz
    proceeding, as argued by API.

74. In addition, in the instant proceeding, we have decided to restrict
    the list of entities whose functions would be afforded additional
    protection against possible interference from Access BPL operations
    to those who provide national defense, maritime distress and safety,
    aeronautical navigation and communications, emergency response,
    radio astronomy, and others that provide important safety and
    research services.[^160] We determined that for all other radio
    communication operations not addressed in those special provisions
    --- which would include petroleum and natural gas entity members of
    API --- radio operators always have the opportunity to inform local
    BPL operators of the pertinent details of their operations and BPL
    operators have the opportunity to apply that information as
    appropriate to prevent interference.[^161] These measures will
    sufficiently protect these radio services. We note that most of
    petroleum and gas facilities are in fixed locations, thus potential
    interference can be readily anticipated and avoided, and readily
    resolved where it does occur. API has not demonstrated that there is
    likelihood of an initial occurrence of harmful interference
    concurring with an emergency communication of some kind from that
    site. We therefore are not persuaded by API's arguments that
    entities operating petroleum and natural gas industries are public
    safety entities that should be afforded special protection against
    potential interference from Access BPL. Accordingly, we deny API's
    petition in this regard.

75. *Miscellaneous requests for additional operational restrictions on
    BPL.* McVey requests that we require BPL operators to install
    deactivation switches in all public safety dispatch offices so that
    dispatchers can stop Access BPL system operation in an
    emergency.[^162] He further requests that we require Access BPL
    operators be able to be reached on a 24‑hour, 7‑day basis, not just
    a 24‑hour response time.[^163] McVey also requests that Access BPL
    operators be required to compensate public safety licensees for any
    costs associated with BPL interference control and mitigation,
    because many public safety entities are volunteer organizations that
    lack the funding and expertise to determine interference
    incidents.[^164] Whedbee asks that we impose annual regulatory fees
    on BPL systems in order to offset the costs caused by these systems
    to the government and to licensed radio services.[^165] Similarly,
    Richmond repeats his previous requests that BPL operators be
    required to compensate spectrum users who receive harmful
    interference.[^166] NAC/Amherst and Matda request that the BPL rules
    be held in abeyance and argue that there is already a rapid
    expansion of broadband services without this technology, so that the
    Commission's action in adopting BPL rules is unnecessary.[^167]
    Matda further argues that the adopted rules are deficient, as the
    Commission ignores the threat of interference from BPL into cable
    and phone lines.[^168] CDE requests that we include the public as a
    partner in the rules for interference mitigation adopted in the
    *Report and Order.*[^169]

76. Current argues that these requests lack justification and seem
    calculated primarily to impede the deployment of BPL.[^170] It
    states that contrary to the beliefs of McVey, NAC/Amherst and Matda,
    wireless prices remain high and service options remain low when only
    two providers are present in a market. It argues that such an
    environment does not generate adequate competition.[^171] Current
    also states that because BPL operations were already permitted under
    the pre‑existing Part 15 rules, its appearance in the market was
    inevitable and that the Commission did not authorize BPL in this
    rulemaking, but only adopted rules to minimize adverse effects on
    licensed users.[^172]

77. [Decision]{.underline}. We believe that the complex arrangement of
    having deactivation switches for BPL systems within each public
    safety dispatch center would prove unduly disruptive to BPL
    operations, especially given the numerous potential sources that one
    could mistake for BPL interference. In addition, if the BPL operator
    has complied with the consultation requirements regarding locally
    used public safety frequencies, the risk of interference to local
    public safety communications is already minimized.[^173]
    Furthermore, the costs and burden of consultation and interference
    avoidance measures are entirely borne by the BPL operator who must
    re‑configure his system to comply with the rules, and not by the
    public safety entity, which does not need to have special expertise
    to provide a list of its locally used frequencies. We also find that
    McVey simply repeated his argument for requiring a 24‑hour response
    time, which we have discussed and fully disposed of in the *Report
    and Order*.[^174] Accordingly, we find no merit in McVey's proposals
    and we deny McVey's petition.

78. We also observe that Section 9 of the Communications Act, which sets
    out the schedule of communications regulatory fees, does not include
    any provision for fees on unlicensed Part 15 devices, such as BPL,
    and we dismiss the petitions from Whedbee and Richmond.[^175]

79. In addition, we agree with Current that BPL will introduce
    additional competition into the broadband market and that even
    markets that now offer both DSL and cable modem services will
    benefit from the competition provided by BPL.[^176] We note that
    NAC/Amherst did not present any new information that would persuade
    us to reconsider our decision and that it merely repeats the same
    arguments previously submitted in the record, that have been fully
    considered.[^177] Accordingly, we also dismiss the petition of
    NAC/Amherst. We note that the Commission did consider the issue of
    interference to cable and phone lines in the *Report and Order* and
    Matda did not provide any new information.[^178] Accordingly, we
    dismiss the petition of Matda. Finally, we observe that the public
    is already an intrinsic party to any BPL interference issue as the
    new Access BPL database is a publicly‑accessible database, which
    would contain information on BPL installations searchable by any
    member of the public. Accordingly, we deny CDE's petition.

# Procedural Matters

80. *Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification*. The Regulatory
    Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),[^179] requires that a
    regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking
    proceedings, unless the agency certifies that "the rule will not
    have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
    entities."[^180] The RFA generally defines the term "small entity"
    as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small
    organization," and "small governmental jurisdiction."[^181] In
    addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as the term
    "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.[^182] A
    "small business concern" is one which: (1) is independently owned
    and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3)
    satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
    Administration (SBA).[^183]

81. The *Report and Order* modified the Part 15 rules to allow for
    Access Broadband over Power Line (Access BPL) systems, a new type of
    carrier current system that operates on an unlicensed basis under
    Part 15. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was incorporated in
    the *Report and Order*.[^184] Following publication of the *Report
    and Order*, fifteen parties filed for reconsideration regarding
    various aspects of the Part 15 BPL regulations. A list of the
    petitioners, along with the abbreviations used to identify them and
    the parties that filed comments in response to the petitions, is
    attached as Appendix A. In this *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* we
    are amending the rules to replace the exclusion zone requirement for
    the ten listed radio astronomy facilities with an exclusion zone for
    one Very Large Array (VLA) radio astronomy observatory site at
    73.0‑74.6 MHz, which would significantly reduce potential deployment
    constraints on Access BPL installations. In addition, we are
    amending the rules to add prospective protection for relocated
    aeronautical facilities, which merely continues to provide
    protection to these stations. Finally, we correct the coordinates
    and email contacts for the aeronautical facilities subject to BPL
    consultation.

82. We find that these changes will not result in a "significant
    economic burden" on manufacturers. Therefore, we certify that the
    amendments included in this *Memorandum Opinion and Order* will not
    have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
    entities.

83. The Commission will send a copy of the *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, including a copy of this final certification, in a report to
    Congress pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
    Fairness Act of 1996.[^185] In addition, the *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order* and this certification will be sent to the Chief Counsel for
    Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and will be published
    in the Federal Register.[^186]

# ordering clauses

84. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained
    in Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i),
    301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), this Memorandum Opinion and
    Order IS ADOPTED and Part 15 of the Commission's Rules Are amended
    as set forth in the attached appendix effective 30 days after
    publication in the Federal Register.

85. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in
    Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i),
    301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the request for partial
    reconsideration filed by the National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration on February 14, 2005 IS GRANTED to the
    extent indicated herein. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the
    authority contained in Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and
    303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
    Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the motion for
    partial reconsideration filed by Current Technologies, LLC,
    Amperion, Inc., the United Power Line Council, and Aeronautical
    Radio, Inc. on February 7, 2005 IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
    PART to the extent indicated herein.

86. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in
    Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i),
    301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the motion for reconsideration
    filed by the American Petroleum Institute*,* the Amateur Radio Relay
    League, the Association for Maximum Services Television, Inc.*,* and
    Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C. filed on February 7, 2005, W. Lee
    McVey filed on January 18, 2005, the National Antenna Consortium and
    the Amherst Alliance filed on January 18, 2005, Steven E. Matda
    filed on January 19, 2005, G. Scott Davis filed on January 21, 2005,
    Cortland E. Richmond filed on December 14, 2004, and James Edwin
    Whedbee filed on October 18, 2004, IS DENIED to the extent indicated
    herein.

87. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, including the
    Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for
    Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary

# Appendix A {#appendix-a .unnumbered}

**Parties Filing Petitions for Reconsideration**

**of the Report and Order**

1.  Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC)

2.  American Petroleum Institute (API)

3.  American Radio Relay League, the National Association for Amateur
    Radio (ARRL)

4.  Amperion, Inc. (Amperion)

5.  Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV)

6.  Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C. (CDE)

7.  Current Technologies, LLC (Current)

8.  Davis, G. Scott (Davis)

9.  Matda, Steven E. (Matda)

10. McVey, W. Lee (McVey)

11. National Antenna Consortium and the Amherst Alliance (NAC/Amherst)

12. National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA)
    (letter)

13. Richmond, Cortland E.

14. United Power Line Council (UPLC)

15. Whedbee, James E.

**Comments and Reply Comments Filed in Response or Opposition to the**

**Petitions for Reconsideration**

1.  Academy of Model Aeronautics (AMA)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
16. ACcess Broadband, LLC (ACcess)

17. Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC)

18. Ambient Corporation (Ambient)

19. Ameren Energy Communications, Inc., Virginia Electric and Power
    Company, and Tucson Electric Power Company (collectively, Ameren)

20. American Petroleum Institute (API)

21. American Radio Relay League, the National Association for Amateur
    Radio (ARRL)

22. Current Technologies, LLC (Current)

23. Davis, G. Scott (Davis)

24. HomePlug Powerline Alliance (HomePlug)

25. Intellon Corporation (Intellon)

26. Matda, Steven E. (Matda)

27. McVey, W. Lee (McVey)

28. National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)

29. Phonex Broadband Corporation (Phonex)

30. SPiDCOM Technologies S.A. (SPiDCOM)

31. United Power Line Council (UPLC)

32. Whedbee, James E. (Whedbee)

# Appendix B:  {#appendix-b .unnumbered}

# FINAL Rule Changes {#final-rule-changes .unnumbered}

Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 15, is amended as
follows:

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 15.611 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(1)(iii) to read as
    follows:

> Section 15.611 [General technical requirements]{.underline}.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) \* \* \*

\(1\) \* \* \*

\(i\) \* \* \*

\(ii\) \* \* \*

\(iii\) At locations where an Access BPL operator attenuates radiated
emissions from its operations in accordance with the above required
capabilities, we will not require that operator to take further actions
to resolve complaints of harmful interference to mobile operations.

> \* \* \* \* \*

3.  Section 15.615 is amended by revising paragraphs (f)(2),(f)(3) and
    Table 3b and deleting paragraph (f)(2)(iii) to read as follows:

> Section 15.615 [General administrative requirements]{.underline}.

\(f\) \* \* \*

\(1\) \* \* \*

\(2\) *Exclusion zones.* Exclusion zones encompass the operation of any
Access BPL system within 1km of the boundary of coast station facilities
at the coordinates listed in Tables 2 and 2.1. Exclusion zones also
encompass the operation of Access BPL systems using overhead medium
voltage power lines within 65 km of the Very Large Array observatory
located at the coordinate 34^o^ 04' 43.50" N, 107^o^ 37' 03.82" W.
Exclusion zones further encompass the operation of Access BPL systems
using overhead low voltage power lines or underground power lines within
47 km of the Very Large Array observatory located at the coordinate
34^o^ 04' 43.50" N, 107^o^ 37' 03.82" W. Within the exclusion zones for
coast stations, Access BPL systems shall not use carrier frequencies
within the band of 2173.5-2190.5 kHz. Within the exclusion zone for the
Very Large Array radio astronomy observatory, Access BPL systems shall
not use carrier frequencies within the 73.0-74.6 MHz band.

\(i\) \* \* \*

\(ii\) \* \* \*

\(3\) *Consultation areas.* Access BPL operators shall provide
notification to the appropriate point of contact specified below
regarding Access BPL operations at any frequencies of potential concern
in the following consultation areas, at least 30 days prior to
initiation of any operation or service. The notification shall include,
at a minimum, the information in paragraph (a) of this section. We
expect parties to consult in good faith to ensure that no harmful
interference is caused to licensed operations and that any constraints
on BPL deployments are minimized to those necessary to avoid harmful
interference. In the unlikely event that a new or relocated aeronautical
receive station is established for the 1.7‑30 MHz band at a coordinate
not specified in Table 3b, Access BPL operators are also required to
coordinate with the appropriate point of contact regarding Access BPL
operations at any frequencies of potential concern in the new or
relocated consultation areas, and to adjust their system operating
parameters to protect the new or relocated aeronautical receive station.

\* \* \* \* \*

(*ii*) For frequencies in the 1.7--80.0 MHz frequency range, the areas
within 4 km of facilities located at the coordinates specified for radio
astronomy facilities in 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, Note US 311.

[Point of Contact]{.underline}

Electromagnetic Spectrum Manager

National Science Foundation

Division of Astronomical Sciences

4201 Wilson Blvd. Suite 1045

Arlington, VA 22230

\(703\) 292-4896

esm@nsf.gov

\* \* \* \* \*

Table 3b. Consultation Area Coordinates for Aeronautical Receive
Stations (1.7 -- 30 MHz)

[Point of contact]{.underline}

ARINC

2551 Riva Road

Annapolis, MD 21401

Tel: 1‑800‑633‑6882

Fax: 410‑266‑2329

Email: bplnotifications@arinc.com

www.arinc.com

  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
  **Locale**              **Latitude**            **Longitude**

  Southampton, NY         40º 55' 15"N            72º 23' 41" W

  Molokai, HI             21º 12' 23" N           157º 12' 30" W

  Oahu, HI                21º 22' 27" N           158º 05' 56" W

  Half Moon Bay, CA       37° 39\' 64\" N         122° 24\' 44\" W

  Pt. Reyes, CA           38º 06' 00" N           122º 56' 00" W

  Barrow, AK              71º 17' 24" N           156° 40\' 12\" W

  Guam                    13° 28\' 12\" N         144° 48\' 0.0\" E
                                                  (note: Eastern
                                                  Hemisphere)

  NY Comm Center, NY      40º 46' 48" N           73º 05' 46" W

  Cedar Rapids, IA        42º 02' 05.0" N         91º 38' 37.6" W

  Beaumont, CA            33º 54' 27.1" N         116º 59' 49.1" W

  Fairfield, TX           31º 47' 02.6" N         96º 47' 03.0" W

  Houston, TX             29º 36' 35.8" N         95º 16' 54.8" W

  Miami, FL               25º 49' 05" N           80º 18' 28" W
  ----------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------

Note: Systems of coordinates conform to NAD 83

\* \* \* \* \*

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN**

Re: Amendment of Part 15 regarding new requirements and measurement
guidelines for Access Broadband over Power Line Systems; Carrier Current
Systems, including Broadband over Power Line Systems, *Memorandum
Opinion and Order*

In this item, we build upon our previous efforts to facilitate
deployment of broadband over power line (BPL) systems while protecting
existing spectrum users from harmful interference. It is my hope that
our rules will allow BPL systems to flourish. This technology holds
great promise as a ubiquitous broadband solution that would offer a
viable alternative to cable, digital subscriber line, fiber, and
wireless broadband solutions. Moreover, BPL has unique advantages for
home networking because consumers can simply plug a device into their
existing electrical outlets to achieve broadband connectivity. Promoting
the deployment of broadband continues to be one of our top priorities
and today's action is another step towards reaching that goal.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

Re: Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New Requirements and Measurement
Guidelines for Access Broadband over Power Line; Carrier Current Systems
Including Broadband over Power Line Systems, *Memorandum Opinion and
Order*

We all have high hopes for Broadband over Power Line and I think we
would all like to see some non-duopoly pipes bringing broadband access
to, particularly, hard-to-reach Americans. We are behind the game in
putting high-speed, high value bandwidth to work for all our citizens.
You know something is wrong when the best case scenario is that a
consumer has a choice between two broadband connections, both of which
are more expensive and considerably slower than what consumers in other
industrialized nations enjoy. And that's how it works in our wealthy
metropolitan areas. Over much of the rest of America, it just gets
worse. Customers in rural, and even some urban, areas often cannot get a
broadband connection at all. Or their only option is so expensive as to
be unattainable as a practical matter.

If you want a quantitative sense of how bad things have gotten, consider
this: Last year, the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) listed
us at 16^th^ in the world in broadband penetration. Using the ITU's
newer and more sophisticated Digital Opportunity Index, your country and
mine is now ranked 21^st^ in the world.

The reason we're so far behind, of course, is that -- in the words of
the Congressional Research Service -- our residential broadband market
is a flat out "cable and telephone duopoly." Indeed, this market has an
HHI index of roughly 5,500 to 5,800 -- well over *three times* what the
Department of Justice considers "highly concentrated." And this is not
just some run of the mill product like a toaster or a lawnmower -- it is
the data pipe over which all future communications will run.

I recount these alarming statistics just to emphasize how important it
is for this Commission to take every step within our power to encourage
new broadband competitors. And that brings us to this item. Along with
wireless technologies, Broadband over Power Line is a credible candidate
for a "third pipe" that could bring meaningful competition to this
market. Accordingly, I am pleased that we take steps today to resolve
certain questions about BPL and radio interference. The BPL industry
needs regulatory certainty from us, and I believe today's item helps
provide some certainty---although important policy questions remain to
be tackled and need to be tackled.

Even as we seek to encourage BPL -- as I stated when we issued our
initial order two years ago -- we must also ensure that its providers
protect existing spectrum users from interference. This applies with
special force to amateur radio operators whose skills and dedication
once again proved so valuable in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Amateur radio serves the public interest in so many ways that we must be
always mindful of its needs. I believe today's Order strikes an
acceptable balance between protecting existing users and providing BPL
an environment conducive to innovation and to getting on with the job of
deployment. But we should be ever alive to the reality that the
unexpected often happens and unforeseen consequences are as often the
rule as they are the exception. That's why the Commission must be
available and positioned to respond to interference complaints with
alacrity. Amateur operators shouldn't have to wait for months to get
complaints resolved---they deserve better.

So I want to thank the Chairman and my fellow Commissioners for
including language in today's item reaffirming the Commission's
commitment to providing amateur radio users with assurances of
expeditious relief when they are subject to impermissible interference.
When we ask multiple users to share the same spectrum, that old line
about justice delayed being justice denied is especially apt. For that
reason, this Commission must monitor, investigate, and act quickly to
make sure that the rules we reaffirm today are being observed out in the
field. If for any reason these procedures prove inadequate, I, for one,
will be back asking for more.

Thanks to the Bureau for working through these difficult issues and for
bringing this item to us today. I am pleased to support it.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE**

Re: Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New Requirements and Measurement
Guidelines for Access Broadband over Power Line Systems, Carrier Current
Systems including Broadband over Power Line Systems, *Memorandum Opinion
and Order*

About three years ago, I first had the opportunity to hear about the
potential for a new technology -- called Broadband-over-Power-Lines
(BPL) -- being tested in a small rural area in Tennessee. Over the past
few months, I have witnessed BPL in action in Texas and Maryland. Each
time, I am struck by the impact this technology could have on reaching
our goal of ubiquitous broadband deployment in the United States. It's
an exciting prospect, and I am pleased to support this *Memorandum
Opinion and Order* today in support of this technology.

In 2005, 24% of rural Americans had broadband access at home, more than
double the 9% reported in 2003, according to the Pew Internet and
American Life Project. BPL technology could increase that number in no
time at all if and when it is able to be deployed on a nationwide basis.
When you consider the effect this could have on Americans in terms of
everything from entertainment to education to health to job productivity
and just about every other aspect of American life, you truly begin to
realize how important BPL might be. I hope that the FCC can continue to
be a part of the effort to make this technology available to more and
more Americans.

BPL is another regulatory question requiring us to balance regulatory
humility with our oversight responsibilities. The FCC has and will
continue to struggle with finding an appropriate balance between
regulation to mitigate potential negative "side effects" that accompany
BPL and a hands off approach that gives BPL the room it needs to develop
in a free market. I believe that today's *Opinion and Order* strikes the
right balance with minimal regulatory burdens. I also hope we will
continue to be cognizant of the impact our regulations have on the
industry, and I welcome a continuing dialogue regarding some of the
potential concerns noted in the record.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL**

RE: Amendment of Part 15 Regarding New Requirements and Measurement
Guidelines for Access Broadband Power Line Systems, Carrier Current
Systems, Including Broadband over Power Line Systems, *Memorandum
Opinion and Order*

I am delighted that today the Commission is taking additional steps to
help bring new competition to the broadband marketplace. I am hopeful
that, as an additional delivery platform, BPL will help drive down
consumer prices and foster innovative technologies. I am also optimistic
that BPL will improve the ability of power companies to manage electric
power grids, which is especially important given recent strains on our
nation's power system.

I am pleased to support today's item, and I thank the Chairman and the
OET staff for tackling this challenging balancing act. Although the
Commission's rules provide a minimal regulatory framework, which is
appropriate for a nascent service like BPL, we have been mindful of our
obligation to protect existing licensees from harmful interference from
BPL systems as well. We acknowledge amateur radio operators' concerns in
this regard, and I am confident that the Commission will remain
responsive to this community as we move forward.

[^1]: *See Report and Order* in ET Docket No. 04-37, 19 FCC Rcd 21265
    (2004).

[^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) and (t), 15.5, 15.31(d), (f), (g)
    and (h), 15.33(b)(2), 15.107(a)‑(c), 15.109(a), (b), (e) and (g),
    15.113, 15.201(a), 15.207(c), 15.209(a) and 15.221.

[^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. Initially, the receiver and
    signal source were attached to the same electric power line. With
    the advent of the transistor radio, receivers are able to pick up
    enough signal for adequate reception when placed next to the
    electric power line in a dormitory or other locations on the
    electric power lines. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.221.

[^4]: *See* *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).

[^5]: In-House BPL uses the 110 volt power wiring inside a residence or
    business to carry information within a structure. Access BPL
    typically uses the medium voltage exterior power distribution
    network 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
    from where they are delivered to users.

[^6]: 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.

[^7]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.611(b). Although carrier current systems are
    typically unintentional radiators, they are required to comply with
    the radiated emission limits of Section 15.209 below 30 MHz, which
    apply generally to intentional radiators.

[^8]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.611(c).

[^9]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.615(e) and (f).

[^10]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.615 (f)(3).

[^11]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.615(a).

[^12]: *See Measurement Guidelines (Guidelines) for Broadband over Power
    line (BPL) Devices or Carrier Current Systems (CCS) and
    Certification Requirements for Access BPL Devices* in Appendix C of
    *Report and Order*.

[^13]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.101(a).

[^14]: See *Report and Order* at ¶¶ 74-87; *see also*, Public Notice DA
    05-2701, released on October 13, 2005, in which the FCC announced
    that the United Telecom Council (UTC) will serve as database manager
    for Access BPL systems.

[^15]: Once the 30-day advance notification timeframe is over, the
    Access BPL operator can begin operations. However, the Access BPL
    operator must notify the database manager of the date of
    commencement of actual operations for inclusion in the database.

[^16]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.615(a)‑(b).

[^17]: *See* *Report and Order* at ¶83.

[^18]: *See* Petitions of Amperion at 2-4 and UPLC at 5.

[^19]: *See* Petition of Current at 2-5.

[^20]: Opposition of AMA at 2‑3.

[^21]: Consolidated opposition of ARRL at 7.

[^22]: *Id.,* at 3-8.

[^23]: *See* Oppositions of ACcess Broadband, Ambient and Ameren; *see
    also,* Oppositions of AMA at 3 and Matda (pages unnumbered.), and
    Consolidated Opposition of ARRL at 4‑5.

[^24]: *See* Reply of Current at 3.

[^25]: *Id.*

[^26]: *See* Reply of Current at 4‑5.

[^27]: Comments of ARINC at 1‑2.

[^28]: Petition of Amperion at 2.

[^29]: Opposition of AMA at 3.

[^30]: In its February 14, 2006 letter of complaint, ARRL argues that
    certain BPL systems placed in operation prior to their listing in
    the database should be required to be shut down and not recommence
    operation until 30 days after the date on which correct information
    appears in the database. *See* ARRL letter, February 14, 2006, at 4.

[^31]: In its March 25, 2006 letter of complaint, ARRL argues that the
    rules require BPL systems operating under an experimental license to
    comply with the BPL database requirements. *See* ARRL letter, March
    25, 2006, at 3.

[^32]: The database notification only requires the name of the Access
    BPL provider, the frequencies of the Access BPL operation, the
    postal zip codes proposed to be served, the FCC ID of the BPL
    equipment being deployed, a point of contact and the proposed or
    actual date of deployment. *See* 47 C.F.R § 15.615(a).

[^33]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.37(l). The *Report and Order* was published in
    the Federal Register on January 7, 2005, thus the transition period
    would end on July 7, 2006.

[^34]: See *Report and Order* at ¶130.

[^35]: See Petitions of Current at 7‑10 and UPLC at 6‑7.

[^36]: Petition of Current at 8.

[^37]: *Id.,* at 2-3.

[^38]: Comments of ARINC at 3, Opposition of Ameren at 8, and
    Consolidated oppositionOpposition of ARRL at ¶14.

[^39]: *See* Reply of Current at 6‑8 and UPLC at 3‑5.

[^40]: See, *e.g.*, *Ex Parte* Communications of Current Technologies,
    June 5, 2006.

[^41]: *See Report and Order* at ¶38.

[^42]: *Id*.

[^43]: *Id*.

[^44]: *See* 47 C.F.R. 15.5

[^45]: *Report and Order, supra*, at 21291.

[^46]: *See* *Guidelines* in Appendix C of *Report and Order*.

[^47]: *Id.,* at 2(b)(1).

[^48]: *See* *Report and Order* at ¶109.

[^49]: *Id*.

[^50]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.31(f)(1) and (2). "Decade", a 10:1 range,
    refers to the ratio of the specified measurement distance to the
    actual measurement distance.

[^51]: *See id*.

[^52]: Petition of ARINC at 6 & Appendix A, *BPL Interference Analysis.*

[^53]: Petition of ARRL at ¶44 & Exhibit E, *Analysis of Distance
    Extrapolation of Field Strength Calculated from the Antenna Models
    Provided to the FCC In the BPL Notice of Rulemaking Comments and
    Reply Comment; see also,* discussion in ¶¶43-53, *infra*.

[^54]: Opposition of Current at 19, Ameren at 1, HomePlug at 2, Phonex
    (pages unnumbered), SPiDCOM at 1, UPLC at 7, and Intellon at 2.

[^55]: If the extrapolation factor is 20 dB per decade instead of 40 dB
    per decade, the correction factor would be smaller, thus resulting
    in higher value for the transmitted emission levels. *See*
    47 C.F.R. § 15.31(f)(1) and (2).

[^56]: *See Report and Order* at ¶94; *see also*, NTIA Comments at 16‑17
    and letter of September 24, 2004 from Frederick R. Wentland,
    Associate Chief, NTIA Office of Spectrum Management, to Ed Thomas,
    Chief of the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology.

[^57]: *See Report and Order* at ¶109.

[^58]: *Id.*

[^59]: *See Report and Order* at ¶65.

[^60]: Petition of ARINC at 5.

[^61]: Petition of ARRL at ¶38.

[^62]: The test vehicle used was equipped with a sensitive amateur
    receiver and a roof-mounted whip-antenna.

[^63]: See 47 C.F.R. § 15.611(a). 9 kHz is a typical bandwidth for
    radiotelephone operations in the HF and MF bands.

[^64]: The nominal noise floor in the HF band, as recognized by the
    International Telecommunications Union, varies with frequency and
    population/commercial density (values are provided for business,
    residential, rural, and rural quiet areas). More specifically, the
    ITU median noise levels are 10 dBµV/m, 5 dBµV/m, 0 dBµV/m, and
    ‑7dBµV/m in business, residential, rural, and rural quiet areas,
    respectively, in a 9-kHz bandwidth at 30 MHz.

[^65]: At frequencies above 30 MHz, the Part 15 limit for class A
    devices (e.g., Access BPL operating on medium voltage lines) is 39
    dBµV/m quasi-peak in a 120-kHz bandwidth at 10 meters distance.
    Adjusting for the 10.4-meter distance, 9-kHz bandwidth (based on an
    assumption of flat spectrum across 120 kHz bandwidth), and typical
    quasi-peak to average ratio discussed above, the limit corresponds
    to an RMS field strength of 23.5 dBµV/m at typical mobile radio
    distances from the power lines (20 dB lower than the effective limit
    below 30 MHz).

[^66]: *See e.g.,* comments of NTIA in response to the BPL Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making (filed Sep 8, 2004), in which it states that
    "\[p\]ower line noise resulting from ingress of ambient radio noise
    can vary by upwards of 20 dB throughout the day and seasonally,
    especially at frequencies below 12 MHz." NTIA Comments at 9.

[^67]: To provide service, a desired signal generally must be received
    that exceeds background noise by a required signal-to-noise ratio
    (SNR). In the instant case, a signal at the 24 dBµV/m level in the
    presence of 24 dBµV/m of noise likely would not be receivable. The
    required SNR will be a function of the modulation method and the
    performance capabilities of the receiver. If the required SNR to
    provide service from a signal of a given type of modulation were 10
    dB, for example, the minimum signal strength that could be received
    successfully would be 34 dBµV/m.

[^68]: We also note that fixed operations, in contrast to mobile
    operations, can be located at greater distances from power lines to
    avoid both power line noise and BPL emissions and are somewhat less
    susceptible to variability in the levels of both received and
    background noise.

[^69]: *See* Petition of ARRL for Issuance of Further Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making and for Amendments of Regulations (Petition of ARRL for
    FNPRM), filed on October 18, 2005. While late-filed as a petition
    for reconsideration, we will consider its substantive merits, as
    they are closely related to issues otherwise raised.

[^70]: October 18 Petition for FNPRM of ARRL at 5.

[^71]: *Id.*, at 4.

[^72]: *Id.*

[^73]: *I**d.*, at 3. ARRL points out the characteristics of the
    Motorola Low-Voltage BPL system. However, that system is not Access
    BPL, as it only uses the low-voltage power lines from the
    distribution transformer to the house -- much like In-House BPL
    systems -- and distributes signals within and across the system by
    wireless RF.

[^74]: *See* NTIA Report 04-413, *Potential Interference From Broadband
    Over Power Line (BPL) Systems To Federal Government
    Radiocommunications at 1.7‑80 MHz, Phase 1 Study,* *Volume I*,
    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, filed
    April 27, 2004; *see also, Report and Order* at ¶110.

[^75]: *See* 47 C.F.R § 15.31(b).

[^76]: *See Report and Order* at ¶110.

[^77]: *Id*.

[^78]: *See* discussion in ¶¶43, *infra*.

[^79]: Petition of ARRL at ¶45.

[^80]: *Report and Order* at ¶¶107‑110. In the case of Access BPL
    emission measurements, NTIA confirmed that "at frequencies above 30
    MHz, NTIA's computer modeling results show that increases of field
    strength with height are properly captured either by varying the
    measurement antenna height between one and four meters as proposed
    by the Commission or by using a one meter antenna height with a 5 dB
    height correction factor as proposed by NTIA." *See* letter of
    September 24, 2004 from Frederick R. Wentland, Associate Chief, NTIA
    Office of Spectrum Management, to Ed Thomas, Chief of the
    Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology, at 2.

[^81]: *Id.*

[^82]: Petition of McVey at 4.

[^83]: Petition of CDE at 3.

[^84]: Petition of Davis (pages unnumbered).

[^85]: Petition of NAC/Amherst at 23.

[^86]: Opposition of Current at 15, Ameren at 10, Ambient at 4, and UPLC
    at 1.

[^87]: Opposition of Current at 7.

[^88]: *Id*, at 8.

[^89]: *See Report and Order* at ¶53; *see also,* 47 C.F.R. §2.1.
    Section 2.1 defines harmful interference as "\[I\]nterference which
    endangers the functioning of a radionavigation service or of other
    safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly
    interrupts a radiocommunication service operating in accordance with
    these \[international\] Radio Regulations. (RR)."

[^90]: *Report and Order* at ¶11; *see also,* comments of NTIA filed
    June 4, 2004, at 10.

[^91]: Petitions of ARRL, Matda, NAC/Amherst and Richmond.

[^92]: *See* Administrative Procedure Act, codified as amended by Pub.
    L. No. 89-554, 80 Stat. 381, at 5 U.S.C. §§ 551-559. 701-706, 1305,
    3105, 3344, 5372 and 7521.

[^93]: Petition of ARRL at ¶¶11-12, and ¶¶16-18; *see also,* Matda
    petition (pages unnumbered).

[^94]: *Report and Order* at ¶2.

[^95]: *Id.,* at ¶23.

[^96]: *Id.,* at ¶39.

[^97]: *Id.,* at ¶¶30-38, ¶41, and ¶¶42-45. This issue is addressed in
    ¶¶38, *supra.*

[^98]: *Id.*, at ¶40.

[^99]: *Id.,* at ¶¶22-29.

[^100]: Current cites Section 15.5 and 15.611(c) of the rules. *See* 47
    C.F.R. §§ 15.5 and 15.611(c).

[^101]: *See, e.g.*, Opposition of Current at 15, Ameren at 10, and
    Ambient at 4.

[^102]: *Report and Order* at ¶137; *see also,* Letter from the FCC to
    ARRL, dated October 14, 2004, and 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200-1.1216.

[^103]: *See* Letter from the Office of Engineering and Technology,
    filed December 22, 2004, at 2.

[^104]: *See, e.g.,* NTIA Report 04-413, *Potential Interference From
    Broadband Over Power Line (BPL) Systems To Federal Government
    Radiocommunications at 1.7‑80 MHz, Phase 1 Study,* *Volume I*,
    National Telecommunications and Information Administration, (NTIA
    BPL Phase 1 Report), filed April 27, 2004. ARRL's technical studies
    appended to its comments filed on June 3, 2004, Exhibit A ‑ "BPL
    Trial Systems Electromagnetic Emission Tests," by Metavox, Inc., of
    Dulles, Virginia; Exhibit B ‑ "Interference Assessment of PLC
    Compatibility with Allocated HF Systems," by Dr. David Cohen of the
    University of Maryland; and Exhibit C ‑ "Proposed Radiated Emission
    Limits and Extrapolation," by ARRL Chief Technology Officer Paul
    Rinaldo; *see also*, *Report and Order* at ¶39.

[^105]: ARRL petition at ¶18, citing NTIA BPL Phase 1 Report, Executive
    Summary, at p. vi.

[^106]: *Report and Order* at ¶107-109. Note also that the BPL
    measurement method adopted by the Commission requires testing at
    several points to capture the interference contour of a BPL system.
    Under these provisions, measurements must be taken in certain cases
    at more than 100 meters down the power line from the BPL injection
    point, to ensure that locations of maximum emissions are found and
    evaluated for compliance.

[^107]: *See* Petition of ARRL at ¶15, stating that the FOIA's released
    data did not support the Commission's reference to "investigations",
    "extensive research, analyses and practical experience" and
    "Commission's own field measurements."

[^108]: *Report and Order* at ¶¶23-25, and ¶¶49-53.

[^109]: *See, e.g., Report and Order* at ¶49.

[^110]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.101(a). The *Certification* procedure
    requires that a formal application with supporting test data and
    documentation be submitted to the Commission for review and
    approval. All other carrier current systems, including In-House BPL,
    are subject to the *Verification* procedure, in which the BPL
    manufacturer attests to compliance and no test results are submitted
    to the Commission for review.

[^111]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.615.

[^112]: *See* petition of Matda (pages unnumbered) and McVey at 7.

[^113]: *Report and Order* at ¶53.

[^114]: Opposition of Current at 7.

[^115]: *Report and Order* at ¶¶49-52.

[^116]: The rules we put in place further subject Access BPL systems to
    additional limitations not required of any other unlicensed
    equipment: notching and frequency agility, consultation with
    licensed users, avoidance of operation in exclusion zones on certain
    excluded frequencies, Access BPL location identification in a public
    database, and an extensive method of measurement to determine
    compliance with our rules. Taken together, these provisions will
    minimize instances of harmful interference from Access BPL to
    authorized radio services. *See* 47 C.F.R. §15.615.

[^117]: Petitions of ARRL at ¶41 and McVey at 7.

[^118]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.5(c). *See also, Report and Order* at ¶¶59 & 60.

[^119]: *Id.*

[^120]: Generally, the Commission does not intervene while the parties
    are cooperating to solve the issue in good faith. We further observe
    that a number of initial BPL deployments operated under experimental
    licenses which gave operators the option to experiment with
    different levels of power, including levels higher than allowed
    under Part 15. Furthermore, some of these early systems did not have
    the capability to retain their programmed mitigation settings after
    a power failure or shut-off condition, which might have accounted
    for some complaints from the amateur community. However, the adopted
    rules require BPL systems to be designed with a non‑volatile memory
    so that previous settings with programmed notches and excluded bands
    are immediately restored upon start‑up, after a shut‑off procedure
    of any cause. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.611(c)(2).

[^121]: *See Report and Order* at ¶¶81-83 for the database discussion
    and ¶66 for discussion on mobile users.

[^122]: *Id.*, at ¶66.

[^123]: *See* Petition of ARRL at ¶¶15 & 25, citing ¶23 of *Report and
    Order; see also,* 47 U.S.C §§ 301 and 302.

[^124]: 47 U.S.C. § 302 (a)(1).

[^125]: "The Commission may, consistent with the public interest,
    convenience, and necessity, make reasonable regulations (1)
    governing the interference potential of devices which in their
    operation are capable of emitting radio frequency energy by
    radiation, conduction, or other means in sufficient degree to cause
    harmful interference to radio communications;..." 47 U.S.C. §
    302(a).

[^126]: *Report and Order* at ¶23.

[^127]: *Id.* at ¶24.

[^128]: 47 C.F.R. §16.515(2)(ii). The rules require Access BPL systems
    using overhead medium voltage lines to avoid operating in the
    73.0‑74.6 MHz within 29 km of the coordinates of the ten VLBA
    facilities listed in 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, note US311, and within 11 km
    of those coordinates if the system uses overhead low voltage lines
    or underground power lines.

[^129]: *See* Letter of February 14, 2005 from Frederick R. Wentland,
    Associate Administrator, NTIA Office of Spectrum Management, to Ed
    Thomas, Chief of the Commission's Office of Engineering and
    Technology; *see also* letter of July 12, 2006 from Fred Wentland,
    Associate Administrator, NTIA Office of Spectrum Management, to
    Julius P. Knapp, Deputy Chief, Federal Communications Commission
    Office of Engineering and Technology.

[^130]: *Id.*, at 1.

[^131]: 47 C.F.R. §15.615(f)(1), Table 1.

[^132]: ARINC petition at 1.

[^133]: *Id.,* at 4.

[^134]: *Id.* The High Frequency (HF) band covers frequencies from 3 to
    30 MHz.

[^135]: *Id.* at 9.

[^136]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.615(f)(1)(ii).

[^137]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.615(f)(3), Table 3b.

[^138]: Opposition of Intellon at 7, HomePlug at 7, Phonex (pages
    unnumbered), UPLC at 6, and Current at 14-15.

[^139]: *See* Opposition of Intellon at 4 and HomePlug at 4.

[^140]: *See* Response of Phonex (pages unnumbered) and Opposition of
    Intellon at 8.

[^141]: *Report and Order* at ¶49.

[^142]: *See Memorandum* from Joseph Casey, Enforcement Bureau, to Bruce
    Franca, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications
    Commission, filed in ET Docket Nos. 03-104 & 04-37, on January 27,
    2004.

[^143]: 47 C.F.R. §15.601.

[^144]: Petition of MSTV at 5‑6 and 10.

[^145]: *Id.* at 8 and 10‑11; *see also, Interference Effects into Low
    VHF Television arising from Broadband over Power Line
    (BPL‑Television Study)* filed as an Appendix to MSTV's petition.

[^146]: Opposition of Current, in Technical Appendix.

[^147]: Opposition of UPLC at 4 and petition of MSTV at 26.

[^148]: Reply of MSTV at 6, and NAB at 1.

[^149]: *Report and Order* at ¶24. The Very High Frequency (VHF) band
    covers frequencies from 30 to 300 MHz.

[^150]: *See* 47.C.F.R. § 90.20; s*ee also,* 47 C.F.R. §15.615(d).

[^151]: 47 C.F.R. §15.615(e).

[^152]: *See* Petition of API at 4. API's members consist of a number of
    petroleum and natural gas companies that use private land mobile
    radio services operating in the 25‑50 MHz band for oil spill
    containment and cleanup and related drills and training.

[^153]: *Id.,* at 2‑3; *see also, In the matter of Improving Public
    Safety Communications in the 800 MHz band, Report and Order, Fifth
    Report and Order, Fourth Memorandum of Opinion and Order (800 MHz*
    *Order),* WT Docket No. 02-55, 19 FCC Rcd 14969 (2004) at ¶4 and
    footnote 11.

[^154]: Opposition of Current at 17 and Ameren at 2.

[^155]: *See* Opposition of Current at 17-18 and Ameren at 5.

[^156]: Reply of API at 3.

[^157]: 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2) defines CII as "public safety radio
    services" including private internal radio services used by State
    and local governments and non-government entities, and including
    emergency road services provided by not-for profit organizations,
    that: (i) are used to protect the safety of life, health, or
    property; and (ii) are not made commercially available to the
    public.

[^158]: *800 MHz Order,* at footnote 11.

[^159]: *See In the matter of Improving Public Safety Communications in
    the 800 MHz band, Supplemental Order and Order on Reconsideration,*
    WT Docket No. 02-55, 19 FCC Rcd 25120 (2004).

[^160]: *See Report and Order* at ¶49.

[^161]: *Id*.

[^162]: Petition of McVey at 6.

[^163]: *Id.*, at 7.

[^164]: *Id.* at 7‑8.

[^165]: *See* petition of Whedbee (page unnumbered).

[^166]: Richmond at Sec. II.

[^167]: NAC/Amherst at 5-6 and Matda (pages unnumbered).

[^168]: Matda (pages unnumbered).

[^169]: Petition of CDE at 4.

[^170]: Opposition of Current at 20.

[^171]: *Id.* at 22.

[^172]: *Id.* at 23.

[^173]: 47 C.F.R. §15.615(e).

[^174]: *Report and Order* at ¶86. The Commission decided that, except
    for public safety, telephone contact staffing during normal business
    hours is sufficient for the purposes of addressing interference
    inquiries and noted that email would generally allow interference
    reports to be filed at any time.

[^175]: *See* 47 U.S.C §159(b)(3) & (g).

[^176]: Opposition of Current at 22.

[^177]: *See Report and Order* at ¶¶58 & 83.

[^178]: *Report and Order* at ¶17.

[^179]: The *RFA*, *see* 5 U.S.C §§ 601 *et seq.*-612*,* has been
    amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, Pub.
    L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1966) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA
    is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
    (SBREFA).

[^180]: 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^181]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^182]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small-business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. §
    632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a
    small business applies "unless an agency, after consultation with
    the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
    after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
    definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
    the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
    Register."

[^183]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^184]: *See Report and Order* in ET Docket No. 04-37, 19 FCC Rcd 21265,
    21322 (2004).

[^185]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^186]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).