*Pages 1--86 from  Microsoft Word - 43887.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 1 
 Before  the  Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 


 In  the  Matter  of 
 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 


 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 
 )  ) 


 ET  Docket  No.  04-  37 
 ET  Docket  No.  03-  104 
 REPORT  AND  ORDER 
 Adopted:  October  14,  2004  Released:  October  28,  2004 
 By  the  Commission:  Chairman  Powell,  Commissioner  Abernathy  issuing  a  joint  statement;  Commissioners  Martin  and  Adelstein  issuing  separate  statements; 
 Commissioner  Copps  approving  in  part,  dissenting  in  part  and  issuing  a  statement. 


 TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  Paragraph 
 I.  INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................  1 
 II.  BACKGROUND..................................................................................................................................  3 
 III.  DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................................  12 
 A.  Definition  of  Access  BPL  ..............................................................................................................  26  B.  Emission  Limits  .............................................................................................................................  33 


 C.  Interference  Mitigation  ..................................................................................................................  54  D.  Access  BPL  Notification  and  Database  Requirements  ..................................................................  74 
 E.  Measurement  Guidelines  ...............................................................................................................  88  1.  Access  BPL  Systems  ...............................................................................................................  89 
 2.  In-  House  Carrier  Current  Systems.........................................................................................  117  F.  Equipment  Authorization.............................................................................................................  120 
 G.  Miscellaneous  ..............................................................................................................................  127 
 IV.  PROCEDURAL  MATTERS...........................................................................................................  138 
 APPENDIX  A:  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis 
 APPENDIX  B:  Changes  To  The  Regulations 
 APPENDIX  C:  Measurement  and  Certification  Guidelines 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 2 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  In  this  Report  and  Order,  we  adopt  new  rules  for  Access  Broadband  over  Power  Line  (Access  BPL)  systems,  a  new  type  of  carrier  current  technology  that  provides  access  to  high  speed  broadband 


 services  using  electric  utility  companies  power  lines.  This  new  technology  offers  the  potential  for  the  establishment  of  a  significant  new  medium  for  extending  broadband  access  to  American  homes  and 
 businesses.  Given  that  power  lines  reach  virtually  every  residence  and  business  in  every  community  and  geographic  area  in  this  country,  Access  BPL  service  could  be  made  available  nearly  everywhere.  This 
 new  broadband  delivery  medium  could  also  serve  to  introduce  additional  competition  to  existing  cable,  DSL,  and  other  broadband  services.  In  addition,  the  National  Telecommunications  and  Information 
 Administration  (NTIA)  has  undertaken  a  significant  effort  to  both  study  Access  BPL  technology,  including  its  operating  characteristics  and  interference  potential,  and  to  make  specific  recommendations  to 
 the  Commission  for  policies  to  encourage  its  implementation  and  to  manage  its  interference  potential.  1  Our  staff  has  worked  closely  with  NTIA  on  this  matter  and  the  policy  decisions  and  rules  we  are  adopting 
 herein  reflect  this  cooperation  and  embody  many  of  NTIAs  recommendations. 
 2.  Along  with  NTIA,  we  recognize  the  concerns  of  authorized  radio  service  users  in  both  the  private  and  government  sectors  for  the  need  to  ensure  that  radio  frequency  (RF)  energy  from  BPL  signals  on 


 power  lines  does  not  cause  harmful  interference  to  licensed  radio  services.  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.  Our  goals  in  developing  the  rules  for  Access  BPL  set  forth  herein  are  therefore  to  provide  a  framework  that  will  both  facilitate  the  rapid  introduction  and 
 development  of  BPL  systems  and  protect  licensed  radio  services  from  harmful  interference.  Specifically,  we  are  adopting:  1)  new  operational  requirements  for  Access  BPL  to  promote  avoidance  and  resolution 
 of  harmful  interference;  2)  new  administrative  requirements  to  aid  in  identifying  Access  BPL  installations;  and  3)  specific  measurement  guidelines  and  certification  requirements  to  ensure  accurate 
 and  repeatable  evaluations  of  emissions  from  Access  BPL  and  all  other  carrier  current  systems.  We  believe  these  actions  will  promote  the  development  of  BPL  systems  by  removing  regulatory  uncertainties 
 for  BPL  operators  and  equipment  manufacturers  while  ensuring  that  licensed  radio  services  are  protected  from  harmful  interference. 


 1  See  comments  of  NTIA  at  6.  The  Federal  Communications  Commission,  which  is  an  independent  agency, 
 administers  non-  Federal  Government  spectrum  under  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  see  47  U.  S.  C    151,  et  seq.  NTIA,  which  is  an  operating  unit  of  the  Department  of  Commerce,  administers  Federal  Government 


 spectrum  and  is  responsible  for  administering  the  communications  and  information  functions  of  the  Executive  branch  of  the  Federal  Government,  see  47  C.  F.  R.    2.105(  a)  and  Executive  Order  12046  of  March  26,  1978. 
 NTIA  also  approves  the  spectrum  needs  of  new  systems  for  use  by  Federal  departments  and  agencies  and  maintains  the  Federal  Government  Table  of  Frequency  Allocations  in  its  Manual  of  Regulations  and  Procedures 
 for  Federal  Radio  Frequency  Management  (NTIA  Manual).  In  addition  to  its  comments,  NTIA  has  conducted  an  extensive  technical  study  and  analysis  of  Access  BPL  technology.  This  study  is  in  two  phases.  Phase  1  examined 
 the  interference  risks  to  radio  reception  in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  overhead  power  lines  used  by  Access  BPL  systems  and  suggests  means  for  reducing  these  risks  and  techniques  for  mitigating  local  interference  if  it  should 
 occur.  NTIA  published  the  findings  of  its  Phase  1  study  in  Potential  Interference  From  Broadband  Over  Power  Lind  (BPL)  Systems  to  Federal  Government  Radiocommuncations  at  1.7    80  MHz,  Phase  1  Study,  NTIA 
 Report  04-  413,  April  2004  (NTIA  Phase  1  Study).  In  Phase  2,  which  is  not  yet  complete,  NTIA  is  evaluating  the  effectiveness  of  its  Phase  1  recommendations  and  addressing  potential  interference  via  ionospheric  propagation  of 
 BPL  emissions  from  mature  large-  scale  deployments  of  BPL  networks.  NTIAs  comments  make  reference  to  the  NTIA  Phase  1  Study,  as  supplemented  by  the  preliminary  elements  of  its  Phase  2  report,  which  are  presented  in  a 
 technical  appendix  to  those  comments.  NTIA  also  provided  pertinent  results  of  its  further  studies  of  special  protection  requirements  (NTIA  letter  of  September  13,  2004)  as  well  as  transmission  of  identification  codes  and 
 measurement  details  (NTIA  letter  of  September  24,  2004). 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 3 
 II.  BACKGROUND 
 3.  Carrier  current  systems  use  alternating  current  (AC)  electric  power  lines  to  carry  communications  by  coupling  very  low  power  RF  signals  onto  the  AC  electric  wiring.  2  Traditionally,  these  systems  have 


 included  amplitude  modulated  (AM)  radio  systems  on  school  campuses  and  devices  intended  for  the  home,  such  as  intercom  systems  and  remote  controls  for  electrical  appliances  and  lamps.  3  Carrier  current 
 systems  operate  on  an  unlicensed  basis  under  Part  15  of  the  Commissions  rules.  4  As  a  general  condition  of  operation,  Part  15  devices  may  not  cause  harmful  interference  to  authorized  radio  services  and  must 
 accept  any  interference  that  they  receive.  5 
 4.  Until  recently,  carrier  current  devices  generally  operated  on  frequencies  below  2  MHz  and  with  relatively  limited  communications  capabilities.  In  the  last  few  years,  the  availability  of  faster  digital 


 processing  capabilities  and  the  development  of  sophisticated  modulation  schemes  have  allowed  the  development  of  new  designs  for  carrier  current  devices  that  are  capable  of  overcoming  earlier  technical 
 obstacles  caused  by  the  inherent  noise  and  impedance  mismatch  of  power  lines.  These  new  designs  have  led  to  the  development  of  BPL  systems  that  use  spread  spectrum  or  multiple  carrier  techniques  with 
 highly  adaptive  algorithms  to  effectively  counter  the  noise  in  the  line. 
 5.  The  new  low-  power,  unlicensed  BPL  systems  provide  high  speed  digital  communications  capabilities  by  coupling  RF  energy  onto  either  the  power  lines  inside  a  building  (  In-  House  BPL)  or 


 onto  the  medium  voltage  power  delivery  lines  (  Access  BPL).  6  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.  7  Access  BPL  systems  deliver  high  speed  Internet  and  other  broadband 


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


 3  Campus  radio  systems  have  been  operating  for  over  fifty  years  in  the  United  States  at  many  universities  as 
 unlicensed  broadcast  radio  stations  in  the  AM  Broadcast  band,  see  47  C.  F.  R.    15.221.  Initially,  the  receiver  and  signal  source  were  attached  to  the  same  electric  power  line.  After  the  advent  of  the  transistor  radio,  receivers  are 


 sensitive  enough  to  be  able  to  pick  up  enough  radiated  signal  for  adequate  reception  when  placed  next  to  the  electric  power  line  in  a  dormitory  or  other  locations  on  a  campus  electric  power  lines.  See  also,  e.  g.,  X-  10  products  for 
 home  automation  at  http://  www.  X10.  com,  and  products  conforming  to  ANSI/  EIA-  600.31-  97  Power  Line  Physical  Layer  and  Medium  Specification  (CEBus  Standard). 


 4  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.3(  f),  15.5,  15.31(  d),  (f),  (g)  and  (h),  15.33(  b)(  2),  15.101(  a)  and  (f),  15.107(  a)-(  c),  15.109(  a), 
 (b),  (e)  and  (g),  15.201(  a),  15.207(  c),  15.209(  a)  and  15.221. 
 5  47  C.  F.  R.    15.5.  Under  these  rules,  operators  of  Access  BPL  systems  are  responsible  for  eliminating  any 
 harmful  interference  that  may  occur  or  must  cease  operation  upon  notification  by  a  Commission  representative  that  the  device  is  causing  harmful  interference. 


 6  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. 
 7  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. 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 4 
 services  to  homes  and  businesses.  In  addition,  electric  utility  companies  can  use  Access  BPL  systems  to  monitor,  and  thereby  more  effectively  manage,  their  electric  power  distribution  operations.  Because 
 Access  BPL  capability  can  be  made  available  in  conjunction  with  the  delivery  of  electric  power,  it  may  provide  an  effective  means  for  last-  mile  delivery  of  broadband  services  and  may  offer  a  competitive 
 alternative  to  digital  subscriber  line  (DSL),  cable  modem  services  and  other  high  speed  Internet  access  technologies. 


 6.  Access  BPL  systems  carry  high  speed  data  signals  to  neighborhoods  from  a  point  where  there  is  a  connection  to  a  telecommunications  network.  The  point  of  network  connection  may  be  at  a  power 
 substation  or  at  an  intermediate  point  between  a  substation  and  network  terminations,  depending  on  the  network  topology.  Within  a  residential  neighborhood,  some  system  implementations  complete  the 
 connection  between  the  medium  voltage  lines  and  subscriber  homes  or  businesses  by  using  wireless  links.  8  Other  implementations  employ  a  coupler  or  bridge  circuit  module  at  the  low-  voltage  distribution 
 transformers  to  transfer  the  Access  BPL  signals  across  (thereby  bypassing)  these  devices.  9  In  such  systems,  the  BPL  signals  are  brought  into  homes  or  businesses  over  the  exterior  power  supply  cable  from 
 the  coupler/  bridges,  either  directly,  or  via  Access  BPL  adaptor  modules.  10  Typically,  the  medium  voltage  lines  are  carried  overhead  on  transmission  poles  or  tower  mountings;  however,  in  a  large  number  of 
 locations,  and  in  newer  subdivisions  and  neighborhoods,  these  lines  are  enclosed  in  underground  conduits  and  the  distribution  transformers  are  mounted  above  ground  on  a  pad,  inside  a  metal  housing. 


 7.  The  interference  concern  regarding  BPL  operation  arises  from  the  fact  that  electric  power  lines  are  not  shielded  and  therefore  portions  of  any  RF  energy  they  may  carry  can  be  radiated.  While  the 
 power  distribution  management  devices,  such  as  transformers,  and  sometimes  underground  placement  of  lines  that  are  characteristic  of  many  electric  utility  systems  tend  to  substantially  diminish  the  effectiveness 
 of  these  systems  as  radiators  of  RF  energy,  the  potential  for  significant  radiation  of  RF  energy  from  utility  systems  that  carry  RF  signals  nonetheless  remains.  This  signal  leakage,  which  has  for  years  made 
 possible  the  reception  of  carrier  current  radio  stations  at  colleges,  universities  and  other  institutions  without  a  connection  to  the  power  line,  can  become  harmful  interference  if  not  carefully  managed.  That 
 is,  radio  systems  using  the  same  frequency  bands  as  those  on  which  local  Access  BPL  signals  are  transmitted  could  possibly  receive  harmful  interference  from  such  signal  leakage  if  adequate  safeguards 
 are  not  in  place. 
 8.  Most  Access  BPL  systems  that  are  currently  deployed  operate  in  the  range  from  2  MHz  to  50  MHz,  with  very  low-  power  signals  that  are  spread  over  a  broad  range  of  frequencies.  These  frequencies 


 are  also  used  by  licensed  radio  services  that  must  be  protected  from  harmful  interference  under  the  Commissions  Part  15  rules  for  unlicensed  devices.  In  the  radio  spectrum  below  50  MHz,  incumbent 
 authorized  radio  services  include  fixed,  land  mobile,  aeronautical  mobile,  maritime  mobile,  radiolocation,  broadcast  radio,  amateur  radio  terrestrial  and  satellite,  and  radio-  astronomy.  Users  of  this  spectrum 
 include,  for  example,  public  safety  and  Federal  government  agencies,  aeronautical  navigation  licensees,  amateur  radio  operators,  international  broadcasting  stations,  and  citizens  band  radio  operators. 


 8  See  e.  g.,  http://  www.  amperion.  com/  products.  asp. 
 9  Low  voltage  transformers  are  poor  conduits  for  high-  frequency  digital  signals,  as  they  are  intended  to  conduct 
 60  Hz  electric  power. 
 10  See  e.  g.,  http://  www.  currenttechnologies.  com/  products.  asp;  http://  www.  mainnet-  plc.  com. 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 5 
 9.  The  Part  15  rules  for  carrier  current  systems  currently  specify  radiated  and  conducted  emission  limits  for  devices  operating  below  30  MHz  and  above  30  MHz.  11  Carrier  current  systems  operating  from 
 9  kHz  to  30  MHz  are  subject  to  radiated  emission  limits  on  emissions  from  any  part  of  the  wiring  or  power  network  connected  to  the  RF  power  source.  12  For  carrier  current  systems  that  contain  their 
 fundamental  emission  within  the  standard  AM  broadcast  band  of  535  to  1705  kHz  and  are  intended  to  be  received  using  standard  AM  broadcast  receivers,  there  is  no  limit  on  conducted  emissions.  13  All  other 
 carrier  current  systems  operating  below  30  MHz  are  subject  to  a  conducted  emission  limit  only  within  the  AM  broadcast  band.  14  Carrier  current  devices  operating  above  30  MHz  must  meet  the  radiated  emission 
 limits  of  Section  15.109(  a),  (b)  or  (g)  for  digital  devices,  which  are  further  divided  into  two  types.  15  Class  A  equipment  includes  devices  marketed  for  use  in  a  commercial,  industrial  or  business  environment, 
 excluding  devices  which  are  marketed  for  use  by  the  general  public  or  are  intended  to  be  used  in  the  home.  16  Class  B  equipment  includes  devices  marketed  for  use  in  a  residential  environment, 
 notwithstanding  use  in  commercial,  business  and  industrial  environments.  17  The  rules  require  Access  BPL  systems  to  comply  with  the  limits  for  Class  A  or  B  devices  depending  on  whether  they  are  marketed 
 for  use  in  a  commercial,  industrial  or  business  environment  on  the  one  hand  or  for  use  by  the  general  public  or  in  the  home  on  the  other.  18  Under  this  Class  A/  Class  B  regime,  Access  BPL  systems  that 
 operate  on  medium  voltage  lines  external  to  residential  environments  are  considered  Class  A  devices.  Carrier  current  devices  that  do  not  operate  on  frequencies  below  30  MHz  are  subject  to  the  general 
 conducted  emission  limits  below  30  MHz.  19  The  existing  Part  15  rules  also  address  power  line  carrier  systems,  which  are  low-  speed  carrier  current  systems  operating  between  10  kHz  and  490  kHz,  used  by  an 
 electric  public  utility  entity  for  protective  relaying,  telemetry,  etc.,  for  general  supervision  of  the  power 


 11  Radiated  emissions  consist  of  desired  or  undesired  electromagnetic  energy,  in  the  form  of  electric  and/  or 
 magnetic  fields,  propagated  through  space.  Conducted  emissions  consist  of  desired  or  undesired  electromagnetic  energy  propagated  along  a  conductor.  See  the  American  National  Standard  Dictionary  for  Technologies  of 


 Electromagnetic  Compatibility  (EMC),  Electromagnetic  Pulse  (EMP),  and  Electrostatic  Discharge  (ESD),  ANSI  C63.14-  1998,  at    4.62  and  4.275. 


 12  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.109(  e).  Radiated  emission  limits  vary  with  frequencies;  for  example,  in  the  1705  kHz  to  30 
 MHz  region,  the  radiated  emission  limit  is  30  V/  meter,  at  a  measurement  distance  of  30  meters. 
 13  A  conducted  limit  was  not  considered  practical  when  the  rules  were  formulated  for  campus  radio  systems,  since 
 these  systems  intentionally  couple  RF  energy  onto  the  power  line.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.107(  c).  Carrier  current  systems  whose  fundamental  emission  is  intended  for  reception  on  AM  broadcast  receivers  avoid  interference  to 


 AM  radio  service  by  operating  on  a  frequency  that  is  not  used  by  a  local  AM  station. 
 14  For  the  protection  of  the  AM  Broadcast  service,  the  device  is  subject  to  a  conducted  emission  limit  of  1000  V 
 in  the  AM  broadcast  band  (from  535  to  1705  kHz).  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.107(  c)(  2)  and  15.221.  This  provision  does  not  apply  to  power  line  carrier  systems,  which  are  subject  to  47  C.  F.  R.    15.113. 


 15  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.109(  a),  (b)  and  (e). 
 16  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.3(  h). 
 17  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.3(  i). 
 18  The  radiated  emission  limits  for  Class  A  equipment  are  approximately  10  dB  higher  than  the  radiated  emission 
 limits  for  Class  B  equipment.  See  47  C.  F.  R    15.109(  a),  (b)  and  (g). 
 19  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.107(  a)-(  c).  Conducted  limits  are  generally  specified  from  150  kHz  to  30  MHz  only,  because 
 signals  below  30  MHz  have  wavelengths  greater  than  10  meters  and  lower  propagation  losses,  and  can  take  special  advantage  of  long  stretches  of  electrical  wiring. 
5
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 6 
 system.  20  Because  of  their  specialized  use  and  operating  frequency  range,  power  line  carrier  systems  are  not  subject  to  specific  emission  limits  as  are  general  carrier  current  systems.  21 
 10.  In  April  2003,  the  Commission  issued  a  Notice  of  Inquiry  (Inquiry)  on  BPL  technologies  and  systems.  The  Commission  solicited  comments  to  assist  in  reviewing  its  Part  15  rules  to  encourage  the 
 deployment  of  BPL  systems  while  ensuring  protection  to  the  licensed  services.  22  Based  on  comments  received  in  response  to  the  Inquiry,  in  February  2004,  the  Commission  issued  a  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule 
 Making  (Notice),  in  which  it  proposed  rules  for  Access  BPL  systems  that  were  intended  to  1)  remove  regulatory  uncertainty  for  BPL  operators,  thereby  facilitating  the  introduction  and  use  of  this  promising 
 new  technology,  and  2)  ensure  that  licensed  services  are  protected  from  harmful  interference  by  BPL  operations.  23  In  the  Notice,  the  Commission  recognized  the  potential  that  Access  BPL  holds  in  terms  of  a 
 new  method  of  delivery  of  broadband  services  to  residential,  institutional,  and  commercial  users.  The  Commission  further  noted  that  Access  BPL  is  being  developed  worldwide,  and  stated  that  encouraging 
 the  deployment  of  this  technology  in  the  United  States  will  support  globalization  of  products  and  services,  promote  continued  U.  S.  leadership  in  broadband  technology,  and  bring  important  benefits  to  the 
 American  public.  24  The  Commission  sought  comments  on  proposals  in  five  broad  areas  related  to  Access  BPL  systems  and  protection  of  authorized  services:  1)  a  definition  of  Access  BPL;  2)  the  Part  15 
 emissions  limits  for  Access  BPL;  3)  additional  technical  and  operational  requirements  for  interference  mitigation  and  resolution;  4)  the  notification  of  Access  BPL  locations  and  operational  characteristics  in  a 
 database  to  facilitate  interference  mitigation  and  avoidance  measures;  and  4)  the  appropriate  measurement  procedures  to  accurately  assess  Access  BPL  emissions  and  emissions  from  all  other  carrier  current 
 systems.  25 
 11.  Over  a  thousand  comments  and  replies  were  received  in  response  to  the  Notice.  The  NTIA  has  been  particularly  helpful  in  suggesting  ways  to  have  an  orderly  and  timely  deployment  of  BPL  devices  in 


 a  manner  that  mitigates  harmful  interference  to  licensed  radio  services.  The  NTIA  submitted  an  extensive  study  on  the  interference  potential  of  Access  BPL  systems  to  federal  government  systems.  26  This  study 
 helped  confirm  the  localized  nature  of  potential  harmful  interference  from  Access  BPL  systems  and  that  aggregation  of  Access  BPL  emissions  at  ground-  based  radio  receiver  antennas  will  not  increase 
 interference  risks.  Subsequently,  NTIA  submitted  comments  accompanied  by  a  Technical  Appendix.  27 


 20  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.  3(  t).  A  carrier  current  system  operated  by  an  electric  utility  to  control  the  utilitys  electrical  grid 
 is  defined  as  a  power  line  carrier  system  in  the  rules. 
 21  Power  line  carrier  systems  are  only  subject  to  47  C.  F.  R.    15.113. 


 22  See  Inquiry  Regarding  Carrier  Current  Systems,  including  Broadband  over  Power  Line  Systems,  Notice  of 
 Inquiry  (Inquiry),  ET  Docket  No.  03-  104,  18  FCC  Rcd  8498  (2003). 
 23  See  In  the  Matter  of  Carrier  Current  Systems,  including  Broadband  over  Power  Line  Systems  and  Amendment  of 
 Part  15  regarding  new  requirements  and  measurement  guidelines  for  Access  Broadband  over  Power  Line  Systems,  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  (Notice),  ET  Docket  Nos.  03-  104  and  04-  37,  19  FCC  Rcd  3335  (2004). 


 24  Id.,  at  30  and  footnote  87. 
 25  Id.,  at  31. 
 26  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. 


 27  See  NTIA  Comments,  filed  June  8,  2004. 
6
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 7 
 NTIA  focuses  on  the  need  for  rules  that  responsibly  address  both  interference  concerns  and  BPL  operational  requirements.  It  urges  the  Commission  to  promptly  adopt  effective  new  technical  rules  that 
 will  enable  BPL  proponents  to  develop  and  implement  the  necessary  new  design  features  and  operating  practices  for  addressing  interference  concerns  and  to  obtain  new  equipment  authorizations  so  as  to 
 contribute  significantly  toward  fulfillment  of  the  Presidents  vision  for  universal  affordable  broadband  Internet  access.  28  These  comments  and  our  decisions  are  discussed  below. 


 III.  DISCUSSION 
 12.  The  deployment  of  broadband  delivery  capabilities  to  provide  all  Americans  with  access  to  affordable  high  speed  Internet  and  data  services  is  one  of  the  most  important  challenges  currently  facing 


 the  Commission  and  the  communications  industry.  This  challenge  is  being  met  by  many  different  service  providers  with  a  wide  variety  of  technologies  and  delivery  media,  including,  for  example,  DSL  service  on 
 conventional  telephone  lines,  cable  modem  services,  dedicated  high  speed  lines,  unlicensed  wireless  internet  access  services,  and  the  fixed  and  mobile  radio  services.  The  different  options  for  obtaining 
 broadband  services  allow  consumers  and  businesses  to  select  the  type(  s)  of  service  that  best  meet  their  individual  needs.  In  addition,  the  open  market  for  such  services  promotes  competition  that  both  makes 
 service  affordable  and  provides  incentives  for  quality  service  and  innovation  in  new  technologies  and  service  features. 


 13.  We  believe  that  the  widespread  introduction  of  Access  BPL  service  would  further  our  goals  for  broadband  service  consistent  with  the  challenges  indicated  above.  This  new  technology  offers  the 
 potential  to  give  rise  to  a  major  new  medium  for  broadband  service  delivery.  Services  provided  on  Access  BPL  could  offer  high  speed  Internet  and  data  communications  that  compete  with,  complement,  or 
 extend  the  broadband  services  provided  on  existing  media.  Given  the  ubiquitous  nature  of  the  electric  power  network,  Access  BPL  could  conceivably  also  offer  these  services  to  virtually  every  element  of  the 
 broadband  market,  including  residential,  institutional,  and  commercial  users.  In  addition,  it  is  possible  that  Access  BPL  could  provide  a  means  to  expedite  the  availability  of  broadband  Internet  service  to 
 consumers  and  business  in  rural  and  other  underserved  areas.  We  also  find  that  encouraging  the  deployment  of  the  technology  in  the  United  States  will  support  globalization  of  products  and  services, 
 promote  continued  U.  S.  leadership  in  broadband  technology,  and  bring  important  benefits  to  the  American  public.  29 


 28  See  comments  of  NTIA  at  iv. 
 29  On  January  8,  2004,  the  European  Commission  (EC)  requested  the  European  Committee  for  Electrotechnical 
 Standardization  (CENELEC)  and  the  European  Telecommunications  Standard  Institute  (ETSI)  to  define  a  technical  specification  providing  test  methods  and  limits  for  radiated  (and  possibly  consistent  conducted) 


 emissions  compatible  with  state  of  the  art  power  line  communication  infrastructure,  in  the  framework  of  Mandate  M313  given  in  August  2001  to  these  organizations  (see 
 http://  europa.  eu.  int/  comm/  enterprise/  electr_  equipment/  emc/  interep313.  htm.)  This  technical  specification  will  be  an  intermediate  step  in  defining  the  technical  conditions  for  compliance  with  EC  regulations.  In  addition,  on 
 January  21,  2004,  the  Japanese  Ministry  of  Public  Management,  Home  Affairs,  Posts  and  Telecommunications  (MPHPT)  issued  a  press  release  announcing  a  new  policy  that  will  permit  the  establishment  of  experimental  high-speed 
 power  line  communications  facilities  in  Japan.  See  MPHPT  decides  on  policy  concerning  permits  for  establishing  experimental  high-  speed  power  line  communications  facilities,  Press  Release,  Jan.  21,  2004  at 
 http://  www.  soumu.  go.  jp/  s-  news/  2004/  040121_  1.  html  and  http://  www.  soumu.  go.  jp/  joho_  tsusin/  eng/  Releases/  Telecommunications/  news040121_  2.  html.  We  further  note  that  in  Canada,  the  City  of  Sault  Ste. 
 Marie,  Ontario,  had  initiated  a  program  to  deploy  BPL  service,  beginning  in  March  2004,  Communications  Daily,  Vol.  24,  No.  24,  February  5,  2004. 
7
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 8 
 14.  The  supporting  comments  of  parties  with  a  wide  range  of  business  interests  relating  to  broadband  service  reflect  the  potential  benefits  of  BPL  in  providing  Internet  and  data  services  to  our  citizens  and 
 economy.  These  parties  represent  communications,  manufacturing,  government  and  other  interests,  including  current  broadband  service  providers,  rural  telecommunications  providers,  public  safety 
 providers,  local  municipalities,  Access  BPL  equipment  manufacturers,  consumer  electronics  manufacturers,  electric  power  utility  companies,  home  security  monitoring  services,  and  radio  service 
 licensees.  30  For  example,  AT&  T  Corp.  (AT&  T)  and  Current  Technologies  (Current)  submit  that  Access  BPL  can  bring  an  end  to  the  broadband  duopoly  of  cable  modem  and  DSL  service.  31  Current  specifically 
 indicates  that  Americans  need  multiple  ways  to  bring  reliable  economical  broadband  access  to  homes  and  businesses-  not  only  to  reach  places  that  are  not  currently  served,  but  also  to  accelerate  competition  in 
 areas  where  broadband  access  is  currently  available.  The  Association  of  Public-  Safety  Communications  Officials-  International,  Inc.  and  the  National  Public  Safety  Telecommunications  Council  (APCO/  NPSTC) 
 and  the  Central  Station  Alarm  Association  (CSAA)  state  that  this  new  medium  has  the  potential  to  bring  Internet  and  high  speed  broadband  access  to  persons  and  locations  that  currently  have  limited  choice  for 
 such  services.  32  The  Consumer  Electronics  Association  (CEA)  submits  that  Access  BPL  will  advance  consumer  use  of  new  technologies  and  products  such  as  home  networks.  33  It  further  states  that  Access 
 BPL  could  facilitate  less  expensive  and  more  convenient  monitoring  and  other  functions  that  may  prove  valuable  to  consumers  and  businesses.  The  National  Rural  Telecommunications  Cooperative  and  the 
 National  Rural  Electric  Cooperative  Association  (NRTC/  NRECA)  in  joint  comments  submit  that  they  support  our  efforts  to  expedite  the  availability  of  rural  broadband  Internet  service  over  multiple  delivery 
 platforms  and  the  goal  of  rapid  BPL  build  out.  34  At  the  same  time,  they  caution  that  BPL  deployment  is  years  from  economic  feasibility  in  rural  areas. 


 15.  Electric  utility  services  and  Access  BPL  system  developers,  including  Cinergy  Corp.  (Cinergy),  Consolidated  Edison  Company  of  New  York,  Inc.  (Con  Edison),  Current,  Oncor  Delivery  Electric 
 Company  (Oncor),  and  Southern.,  Southern  Telecom  Inc.,  and  Southern  Company  Services,  Inc.  (collectively  Southern)  anticipate  that  Access  BPL  will  enable  a  variety  of  more  sophisticated  power 
 distribution  applications,  including  automated  outage  detection  and  restoration  confirmation,  remote  monitoring  and  operation  of  switches  and  transformers,  more  efficient  demand-  side  management 
 programs  and  power  quality  monitoring  to  detect  faulty  components  before  they  fail.  35  Southern  offers  that  Access  BPL  offers  a  unique  communication  tool  for  utilities  that  will  support  functions  such  as 
 remote  reclosure  operations  of  circuit  breakers,  power  quality  monitoring,  automated  meter  reading,  automatic  connect  and  disconnect,  system  monitoring,  and  video  surveillance  of  utility  property.  The 


 30  Parties  supporting  the  introduction  of  BPL  and  providing  statements  relating  to  its  potential  benefits  include 
 Ambient  Corporation  (Ambient),  the  American  Petroleum  Institute  (API),  AT&  T,  APCO/  NPSTC,  the  CEA,  the  CSAA,  Cinergy  Corp.  (Cinergy),  the  City  of  Manassas  Virginia,  Current,  Duke  Energy  Corporation  (Duke 


 Energy),  Main.  Net  Communications,  Ltd.  (Main.  Net),  the  National  Telecommunications  and  Information  Administration,  the  National  Rural  Telecommunications  Cooperative  and  the  National  Rural  Electric  Cooperative 
 Association  (NRTC/  NRECA),  Oncor  Electric  Delivery  Company  (Oncor),  PPL  Telcom  LLC  (PPL  Telcom),  Progress  Energy,  Inc.  (Progress  Energy)  and  Southern.,  Southern  Telecom  Inc.,  and  Southern  Company  Services, 
 Inc.  (collectively  Southern). 
 31  See  comments  of  AT&  T  at  3;  Current  at  9. 


 32  See  comments  of  APCO/  NPSTC  at  2;  CSAA  at  1. 
 33  See  comments  of  CEA  at  4. 
 34  See  comments  of  NRTC/  NRECA  at  4-  5. 
 35  See  comments  of  Cinergy  at  2;  Current  at  1-  2;  Oncor  at  1;  Southern  at  3-  4. 
8
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 9 
 NTIA  similarly  submits  that  widespread  deployment  of  Access  BPL  will  make  it  possible  to  speed  detection  and  diagnosis  of  electrical  system  failures.  It  states  that,  indeed,  the  rules  for  Access  BPL  must 
 anticipate  the  possibility  that  apart  from  providing  commercial  broadband  services,  many  electric  utilities  will  eventually  deploy  BPL  technology  in  order  to  realize  the  associated  infrastructure  benefits.  NTIA 
 further  states  that  deployment  of  Access  BPL  will  also  motivate  electric  power  utilities  to  upgrade  their  power  distribution  plant  so  as  to  reduce  power  line  noise  levels.  36 


 16.  Several  parties  do,  however,  express  concern  that  the  potential  benefits  of  Access  BPL  not  come  at  the  cost  of  new  interference  to  licensed  radio  service.  37  For  example,  APCO/  NPSTC,  APCO  Region 
 21,  and  the  International  Municipal  Signal  Association  (IMSA),  which  operates  radio  call  boxes  used  by  the  public  to  call  for  fire,  police,  ambulance,  road  service  or  other  assistance,  submit  that  there  are  public 
 safety  systems  in  the  HF  (2-  7  MHz),  low  VHF  (30-  50  MHz),  and  VHF  (72-  76  MHz)  bands  that  must  be  protected  from  harmful  interference.  38  Global2Way  Acquisition,  LLC  (Global),  which  operates  a  low 
 power  communications  service  for  intra/  interstate  trucking  companies  on  HF  frequencies  under  secondary  licenses,  asks  that  that  we  proceed  carefully  on  Access  BPL,  balancing  the  laudable  goal  of  providing 
 new  services  against  the  potential  harm  to  existing  services.  The  International  Municipal  Signal  Association  (IMSA),  which  operates  radio  call  boxes  used  by  the  public  to  call  for  fire,  police, 
 ambulance,  road  service  or  other  assistance,  requests  that  we  exclude  the  73-  74  MHz  and  75.4-  76  MHz  bands  used  by  these  facilities  from  Access  BPL  operation  in  order  to  protect  them  from 
 harmful  interference.  39 
 17.  Aeronautical  Radio,  Inc.  (ARINC)  and  the  Boeing  Company  (Boeing)  request  that  Access  BPL  not  be  permitted  to  operate  in  the  frequency  bands  that  are  used  by  the  aeronautical  radio  service.  The 


 North  American  Short  Wave  Association  (NASWA)  requests  that  we  protect  international  broadcasting  services  in  the  5.9-  26.1  MHz  frequency  range.  40  Shipcom  LLC  (Shipcom),  which  operates  several 
 Maritime  Public  Coast  (MPC)  stations  on  frequencies  in  the  2-  25  MHz  range,  submits  that  its  facilities  would  be  especially  susceptible  to  BPL  interference  because  the  receiving  antennas  of  its  stations  are 
 mounted  very  high.  To  avoid  such  interference,  it  requests  that  we  establish  BPL-  free  zones  around  MPC  stations.  Bell  South  Corporation  (Bell  South)  and  Verizon  Communications,  Inc.  (Verizon)  are  concerned 
 that  Access  BPL  could  cause  harmful  interference  with  telephone  network  and  DSL  services  because  power  lines  are  parallel  to  telephone  wires,  which  are  also  unshielded,  and  so  could  receive  harmful 
 interference.  41  Alan  Dixon  is  concerned  the  BPL  could  cause  harmful  interference  to  Citizens  Band  (CB)  radio  service  on  27  MHz  frequencies. 


 18.  The  Association  for  Maximum  Service  Television,  Inc.  (MSTV)  urges  the  Commission  to  limit  Access  BPL  to  frequencies  below  50  MHz,  and  avoid  operations  in  the  low  VHF  TV  band.  42  The  Society 
 36  See  comments  of  NTIA  at  4. 
 37  See  comments  of  APCO/  NPSTC  at  2;  AT&  T  at  2;  Global2Way  Acquisition  LLC  (Global)  at  2;  International 
 Municipal  Signal  Association  (IMSA)  at  5;  Potomac  Valley  Radio  Club  (PVRC)  at  3. 
 38  See  comments  of  APCO/  NPSTC  at  2;  APCO  Region  21  at  4.  The  High  Frequency  (HF)  band  covers 
 frequencies  from  3  to  30  MHz.  The  Very  High  Frequency  (VHF)  band  covers  frequencies  from  30  to  300  MHz. 
 39  See  comments  of  IMSA  at  5. 


 40  See  comments  of  NASWA  at  2. 
 41  See  comments  of  Bell  South  at  6;  Verizon  at  2-  3. 
 42  See  comments  of  MSTV  at  2. 
9
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 10 
 of  Broadcast  Engineers  (SBE)  is  concerned  that  BPL  operations  could  cause  harmful  interference  to  low  VHF  band  DTV  stations  (channels  2-  6)  because  the  service  threshold  for  those  channels  is  just  28  dB,  or 
 25.1  V/  m.  43  It  therefore  submits  that  low  band  VHF  DTV  stations  will  not  be  able  to  serve  viewers  if  Access  BPL  is  allowed  to  operate  on  frequencies  up  to  80  MHz,  and  that  even  limiting  BPL  to  a 
 maximum  of  50  MHz  might  not  be  satisfactory  because  of  the  likely  generation  of  harmonics  in  BPL  equipment.  SBE  further  submits  that  BPL  operations  could  interfere  with  Broadcast  Auxiliary  service 
 (BAS)  remote  pickup  stations  and  low  power  auxiliary  stations  operating  on  frequencies  between  25.85  and  26.48  MHz.  In  addition,  SBE  expresses  concern  that  BPL  operations  could  adversely  affect 
 Emergency  Alert  System  (EAS)  transmissions  by  AM  radio  stations  at  535  to  1705  kHz,  by  EAS  Primary  Entry  Point  (PEP)  stations  on  frequencies  between  2-  20  MHz,  and  by  low  band  VHF  EAS  stations  in  the 
 39.48  MHz  (California)  and  44.43  MHz  (Illinois)  bands.  The  National  Academy  of  Sciences/  National  Research  Councils  Committee  on  Radio  Frequency  (NAS/  CORF)  submits  that  radio  astronomy 
 allocations  in  the  HF  and  low  VHF  regions  need  to  be  protected  from  Access  BPL  operations.  44 
 19.  NTIA  recommends  that  we  adopt  several  new  Access  BPL  rule  elements  that  would  couple  with  our  proposed  rules  to  reduce  risks  of  harmful  interference  from  Access  BPL  systems.  NTIA  states  that 


 relative  to  existing  BPL  rules,  these  recommended  new  rules  would  shift  emphasis  away  from  elimination  of  harmful  interference  from  BPL  systems  to  prevention  of  harmful  interference  through  adaptation  of 
 well-  proven  spectrum  management  practices.  It  further  submits  that  the  benefits  of  Access  BPL  warrant  acceptance  of  a  small  and  manageable  degree  of  interference  risk. 


 20.  Some  parties  representing  licensees  of  services  that  use  frequencies  in  the  2-  80  MHz  region  of  the  spectrum,  particularly  Amateur  radio  operators,  are  opposed  to  allowing  the  operation  of  Access  BPL.  45 
 In  statements  generally  reflecting  the  position  of  these  parties,  the  National  Association  for  Amateur  Radio,  also  known  as  the  American  Radio  Relay  League  (ARRL),  submits  that  while  it  does  not  disagree 
 with  our  efforts  to  permit  additional  competition  in  the  offering  of  broadband  services  and  to  bring  such  services  to  rural  and  other  underserved  areas,  it  believes  that  Access  BPL  in  frequency  bands  between  1.7 
 MHz  and  80  MHz  would  be  a  mistake  and  that  we  should  not  authorize  its  operation  without  substantial  further  research.  46  The  ARRL  argues  that  it  has  shown  in  its  comments  and  reply  comments  submitted  in 
 response  to  the  Inquiry  that  Access  BPL  has  substantial  interference  potential  throughout  communities  due  to  the  distributive  nature  of  power  line  radiation  of  signals  in  the  HF  and  VHF  bands.  ARRL  further 
 states  that  the  technical  study  it  has  filed  establishes  that  there  is  a  significant  interference  potential  from  Access  BPL  systems  to  the  Amateur  HF  allocations.  It  also  states  that  there  have  been  at  least  27 
 interference  complaints  filed  to  date  with  the  Commission  by  radio  amateurs  due  to  the  operation  of  Access  BPL  systems  at  test  locations  and  that  some  of  these  have  persisted  notwithstanding  the  good  faith 
 efforts  of  some  of  the  Access  BPL  providers. 
 21.  The  ARRL  contends  that  the  tentative  conclusions  in  the  Notice  that  any  interference  to  licensed  radio  services  will  be  minimal  are  unsupported.  It  states  that  while  the  proposed  interference  mitigation 


 techniques  could  have  some  after-  the-  fact  benefit  in  interference  reduction  in  some  instances,  they  are 
 43  ,  See  reply  comments  of  SBE  at  5. 
 44  See  comments  of  NAS/  CORF  at  3. 
 45  See  comments  of  the  Academy  of  Model  Aeronautics  (AMA)  at  1-  3);  ARRL  at  1-  5;  Carl  Stevenson  at  1;  CQ 
 Communications,  Inc.  at  3;  the  Disaster  Emergency  Relief  Association  (DERA)  at  1;  the  Radio  Amateur  Satellite  Corp  at  1.  In  addition,  approximately  1500  amateur  radio  licensees  submitted  informal  comments  opposing  the 


 proposed  rules  for  the  reasons  indicated  in  the  ARRLs  comments. 
 46  See  comments  of  ARRL  at  2. 
10
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 11 
 inappropriate  as  a  means  of  authorizing  a  service  that  has  the  potential  to  interfere  with  radio  services.  CQ  Communications,  Inc.  (CQ  Communications)  believes  that  the  benefits  to  the  public  of  BPL  are 
 overstated,  that  the  damage  that  will  be  caused  by  BPL  interference  is  understated,  and  that  the  HF/  low  VHF  region  is  the  wrong  spectrum  for  BPL  to  utilize.  Many  individual  amateur  licensees  state  that  their 
 antennas  cannot  in  most  cases  be  redirected  away  from  power  lines  because  if  they  were  moved,  they  would  not  be  directed  towards  desired  signals.  Many  individual  amateurs  also  ask  that  we  define 
 harmful  interference  for  purposes  of  Section  15.5  of  the  rules.  Summarizing  the  position  of  the  Amateur  radio  community,  the  ARRL  urges  that  we  not  permit  Access  BPL  at  this  time.  It  states  that  if 
 we  do  proceed  with  Access  BPL  rules,  we  should  preclude  any  use  of  Amateur  radio  allocations,  or  adopt  radiated  emission  rules  that  are  sufficient  to  predictably  protect  mobile  radio  stations  from  interference, 
 and  that  we  should  require  Access  BPL  operators  to  implement  specific  interference  mitigation  measures.  The  Academy  of  Model  Aeronautics  (AMA)  submits  that  BPL  operations  could  interfere  with  remote 
 control  radios  in  model  aircraft  that  use  HF  and  low  VHF  frequencies.  ARRL  also  submits  that  there  is  no  reason  to  act  now  on  this  proceeding,  again  arguing  that  we  should  put  this  matter  on  hold  (for  one 
 year)  in  order  to  work  out  appropriate  interference  avoidance  and  resolution  standards. 
 22.  The  Access  BPL  system  proponents  and  several  electric  utility  services  counter  these  claims  regarding  interference  potential  with  arguments  that  the  currently  available  Access  BPL  systems  have 


 been  designed  to  avoid  interference  to  radio  services  and  that  BPL  operators  have  been  willing  to  work  in  tandem  with  public  safety  and  other  radio  service  users  to  prevent  or  eliminate  interference.  47  These 
 parties  also  point  to  experience  in  trials  that  shows  no  record  of  interference.  48  Others,  such  as  PPL  Telcom,  LLC  (PPL  Telcom)  and  Progress  Energy,  Inc.  (Progress  Energy)  state  that  they  have  received 
 some  complaints  of  interference  and  have  resolved  them.  49  PPL  Telcom  further  states  that  in  nearly  30  months  of  Access  BPL  operation  it  has  received  only  four  complaints  of  suspected  interference,  all  from 
 Amateur  radio  operators  who  were  located  in  close  proximity  (a  few  hundred  feet  or  less)  from  BPL  devices.  Progress  Energy  similarly  states  that  in  its  most  recent  Access  BPL  tests  no  BPL  site  had  any 
 signal  levels  above  S-  0  in  any  Amateur  band  with  a  single  exception  in  one  subdivision  at  approximately  25  meters  from  the  extractor  and  that  the  level  of  emissions  at  that  site  would  cause  no  interference  unless 
 an  Amateur  were  located  practically  on  top  of  the  BPL  extractor.  50 
 23.  We  understand  the  significant  concerns  of  licensed  radio  service  users  about  the  potential  for  Access  BPL  services  to  cause  harmful  interference  to  their  operations.  It  is  our  intention  to  ensure  that 


 Access  BPL  operations  do  not  become  a  source  of  harmful  interference  to  licensed  radio  services.  Based  on  extensive  research,  analyses,  and  practical  experience,  we  also  continue  to  believe  that  the  interference 
 concerns  of  licensed  radio  users  can  be  adequately  addressed  and  that  Access  BPL  systems  will  be  able  to  operate  successfully  on  an  unlicensed,  non-  harmful  interference  basis  under  the  Part  15  model.  In  this 
 regard  and  as  discussed  below,  we  find  that  the  harmful  interference  potential  from  Access  BPL  systems  operating  in  compliance  with  the  existing  Part  15  emission  limits  for  carrier  current  systems  is  low  in 
 connection  with  the  additional  rules  we  are  adopting.  From  the  information  provided  by  our  field  tests, 
 47  See  e.  g.,  Duke  Energy  at  6;  Hawaiian  Electric  Company,  Inc.  (HECO)  at  5. 
 48  See  HECO  at  3. 
 49  See  comments  of  PPL  Telcom  at  6;  Progress  Energy  at  2-  3. 
 50  Meters  or  (S)  ignal  meters  have  been  used  by  the  military  on  most  all  of  the  receivers  and  discriminators  and  are 
 being  employed  into  receiver  designs  of  all  types  today.  The  (S)  meter  measures  a  received  voltage  across  a  common  load  within  the  transceiver  and  consists  of  numbers  ranging  from  S-  1  to  S-  9.  Each  S  unit  is  equivalent  to 


 6  dB.  S-  0  is  a  level  that  is  below  the  S-  1  mark  on  the  meter,  thus  indicating  that  the  measured  level  is  quieter  than  what  the  meter  can  read. 
11
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 12 
 the  tests  conducted  by  NTIA,  theoretical  predictions  by  NTIA  and  ARRL,  and  experience  of  the  several  tests  of  Access  BPL  systems,  we  observe  that  the  potential  for  any  harmful  interference  is  limited  to  areas 
 within  a  short  distance  of  the  power  lines  used  by  this  technology.  As  emphasized  by  NTIAs  Phase  1  study  and  comments,  interference  can  be  rapidly  eliminated  through  various  means  should  it  occur.  We 
 point  out  to  the  individual  amateurs  commenting  in  this  proceeding  that  the  definition  of  harmful  interference  as  used  in  Section  15.5  of  the  rules  is  set  forth  in  Section  2.1  of  the  rules.  51  We  disagree 
 with  ARRLs  position  that  there  is  no  reason  to  act  now  in  this  proceeding  and  that  we  should  delay  our  decision  on  rules  for  Access  BPL  to  provide  more  time  to  develop  rules  to  prevent  this  technology  from 
 causing  harmful  interference.  As  indicated  above,  the  broadband  service  capabilities  of  Access  BPL  systems  offer  important  opportunities  for  establishing  a  new  medium  for  broadband  access  and  for 
 introducing  new  competition  in  the  broadband  market.  We  believe  that  it  is  important  to  set  forth  rules  that  will  promote  this  service  now,  rather  than  delay.  In  addition,  the  record  provided  in  response  to  the 
 Inquiry  and  the  Notice,  including  the  extensive  studies  conducted  by  NTIA,  is  more  than  sufficient  assure  us  that  the  rules  we  are  adopting  will  adequately  protect  licensed  services  from  harmful  interference. 
 While  some  cases  of  harmful  interference  may  be  possible  from  Access  BPL  emissions  at  levels  up  to  the  Part  15  limits,  we  agree  with  NTIA  that  the  benefits  of  Access  BPL  service  warrant  acceptance  of  a  small 
 and  manageable  degree  of  interference  risk. 
 24.  As  stated  in  the  Notice,  we  believe  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.  Moreover,  we  continue  to  believe  that  cases  where  interference  may  occur  or  where  its  possible  occurrence  would  impact  critical  services  can  be 
 addressed  through  additional  regulatory  measures.  These  additional  measures  will  generally  require  Access  BPL  operators  to  reduce  emissions  or  avoid  operation  on  certain  frequencies  in  order  to  protect 
 licensed  services,  to  use  equipment  that  can  alter  its  operation  by  changing  operating  frequencies  to  eliminate  interference,  to  make  available  information  that  will  assist  the  public  in  identifying  locations 
 where  Access  BPL  operations  are  present,  and  to  provide  notice  to  radio  users  before  commencing  local  BPL  operations.  In  this  way,  the  new  rules  provide  effective  means  for  preventing  any  interference  and 
 will  ensure  that  any  instances  of  interference  that  may  occur  can  be  quickly  identified  and  resolved.  We  emphasize  that  Access  BPL  systems  will  continue  be  treated  as  unlicensed  Part  15  devices  and  as  such 
 will  be  subject  to  the  conditions  that  they  not  cause  harmful  interference  and  that  they  cease  operation  if  they  do  cause  such  interference,  as  required  by  our  rules.  52  As  discussed  in  paragraph  50,  infra,  except  for 
 a  few  specific  frequencies  that  are  reserved  for  international  aeronautical  safety  operations,  we  do  not  believe  that  excluding  BPL  operations  from  frequencies  used  by  any  specific  service,  such  as  the  low 
 VHF  TV  bands,  is  necessary  or  appropriate.  53  Rather,  we  believe  requiring  BPL  equipment  to  have  the 


 51  See  47  C.  F.  R.    2.1.  Section  2.1  defines  harmful  interference  as  [  I]  nterfrence  which  endangers  the  functioning 
 or  a  radionavigation  service  or  of  other  safety  services  or  seriously  degrades,  obstructs,  or  repeatedly  interrupts  a  radiocommunications  operating  in  accordance  with  these  [international]  Radio  Regulations.  (RR)  We  note  that 


 this  definition  is  consistent  with  Resolution  68  of  the  Radio  Regulations. 
 52  47  C.  F.  R.    15.5(  b). 


 53  We  do  not  believe  that  Access  BPL  presents  a  serious  threat  of  interference  to  broadcast  television  service  on 
 channels  2  to  6.  We  note  that  in  many  instances  all  low  VHF  TV  channels  are  not  used  within  a  particular  area  and  those  not  in  use  for  television  service  could  be  used  for  Access  BPL  operations  without  causing  harmful 


 interference  to  TV  reception.  In  this  regard,  we  also  note  that  the  effective  Part  15  limit  for  Access  BPL  is  more  stringent  for  frequencies  above  30  MHz  than  it  is  for  frequencies  below  30  MHz  and  that  propagation  losses  are 
 also  more  significant  higher  in  the  spectrum.  We  therefore  do  not  find  that  special  protections  for  broadcast  television  service  are  warranted. 
12
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 13 
 capability  to  avoid  any  locally  used  frequency  is  the  most  effective  approach  to  ensuring  that  harmful  interference  to  licensed  operations  is  avoided. 
 25.  Accordingly,  we  are  amending  our  Part  15  rules  with  changes  intended  to  facilitate  the  deployment  of  Access  BPL  technology  while  protecting  licensed  users  of  the  spectrum.  Specifically,  we 
 are:  1)  defining  Access  BPL  for  purposes  of  our  rules;  2)  maintaining  the  existing  Part  15  emission  limits  for  carrier  current  systems  for  Access  BPL;  54  3)  requiring  that  Access  BPL  devices  employ  adaptive 
 interference  mitigation  techniques;  4)  requiring  that  Access  BPL  system  operators  provide  information  on  the  areas  where  their  systems  are  installed  and  other  technical  parameters  in  a  central  data  base  that  would 
 be  accessible  by  the  public;  and  5)  adopting  specific  measurement  guidelines  for  both  Access  BPL  and  other  carrier  current  systems  to  ensure  that  measurements  are  made  in  a  consistent  manner  and  provide  for 
 repeatable  results  in  determining  compliance  with  our  rules.  These  actions  are  discussed  more  fully  below. 


 A.  Definition  of  Access  BPL 
 26.  In  the  Notice,  we  proposed  to  define  Access  BPL  for  purposes  of  the  Part  15  rules  as  a  carrier  current  system  operating  on  any  electric  power  transmission  lines  owned,  operated,  or  controlled  by  an 


 electric  power  provider,  as  follows: 
 Access  broadband  over  power  line  (Access  BPL).  A  carrier  current  system  that  transmits  radio  frequency  energy  by  conduction  over  electric  power  lines  owned,  operated,  or  controlled  by  an 


 electric  service  provider.  The  electric  power  lines  may  be  aerial  (overhead)  or  underground.  55 
 We  also  requested  comment  on  whether  there  are  entities  that  plan  to  own/  operate  Access  BPL  over  electric  power  lines  but  would  not  be  electric  power  providers  or  a  subsidiary  of  the  incumbent  electric 


 power  provider.  56 
 27.  Echelon  Corporation  (Echelon),  the  IEEE  Power  System  Relaying  Committee  (IEEE/  PSRC)  and  several  others  suggest  that  the  proposed  definition  of  Access  BPL  be  modified  to  specifically  apply  to 


 systems  with  operating  frequencies  above  1.705  MHz,  or  at  least  above  1  MHz.  57  These  parties  specifically  request  that  the  older  power  line  carrier  systems  used  by  electric  utilities,  as  defined  in  the 
 existing  rules,  not  be  included  within  the  definition  of  Access  BPL.  58  The  United  Power  Line  Council  (UPLC)  recommends  that  we  clarify  that  power  lines  as  termed  in  the  definition  of  Access  BPL  exclude 
 lines  within  customer  premises  or  in  riser  conduit  within  buildings,  because  these  power  lines  are  not  owned  or  controlled  by  the  electric  utility.  59  Duke  Energy  Corporation  (Duke  Energy)  submits  that  the 
 definition  should  not  incorporate  BPL  equipment  used  by  a  utility  within  its  own  building  for  the  purpose 


 54  We  are,  however,  exempting  Access  BPL  from  the  conducted  emission  limits  contained  in    15.107(  c). 
 55  Notice  at  32. 
 56  Id. 
 57  See  comments  of  Echelon  Corporation  at  4;  IEEE  Power  System  Relaying  Committee  at  2;  PPL  Telcom  at  4; 
 Progress  Energy  at  2;  Southern  at  13;  UPLC  at  4. 
 58  47  C.  F.  R.  15.113  permits  power  line  carrier  systems  to  operate  on  power  transmission  lines  using  frequencies 
 in  the  9-  490  kHz  band  for  communications  important  to  the  reliability  and  security  of  electric  service  to  the  public.  See  also  47  C.  F.  R.  2.106,  note  US294. 


 59  See  comments  of  UPLC  at  5. 
13
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 14 
 of  internal  networking.  60  NTIA  and  Southern  state  that  we  should  also  adopt  a  definition  for  In-  House  BPL  to  properly  frame  the  applicable  rules  and  measurement  procedures  for  BPL  operation.  61  Main.  Net 
 Communications  Ltd.  (Main.  Net)  comments  that  business  models  are  being  developed  where  the  owner/  operator  of  the  Access  BPL  system  will  not  be  the  electric  power  provider  or  its  subsidiary 
 (  landlord  model).  62 
 28.  We  are  adopting  a  modified  version  of  the  proposed  definition  of  Access  BPL  that  includes  changes  as  suggested  by  the  commenting  parties.  In  this  regard,  we  agree  that  the  definition  of  Access 


 BPL  should  not  include  the  low-  speed  power  line  carrier  systems  used  by  electric  utilities  as  defined  in  our  rules.  Transmissions  on  these  systems  have  very  short  duty  cycles  that  pose  very  low  interference 
 potential  as  opposed  to  the  constant  operation  that  characterizes  Access  BPL.  We  also  agree  that  the  definition  for  Access  BPL  should  limit  the  low  frequency  cut-  off  to  above  1.705  MHz,  which  is  the  upper 
 frequency  for  the  AM  broadcast  band.  We  agree  that  the  definition  for  Access  BPL  should  not  include  power  lines  located  within  a  customers  premises  or  within  a  utilitys  own  premises.  These  lines 
 generally  carry  low  voltage  power,  are  not  under  the  ownership  or  integral  control  of  the  power  service  operator,  are  isolated  from  the  medium  voltage  lines  by  a  distribution  transformer  such  that  a  bypass 
 device  must  be  used  to  reach  them  with  BPL  signals,  and  pose  lower  potential  as  sources  of  interference  because  their  emissions  are  attenuated  by  the  structure  in  which  they  are  located.  We  also  see  no  need  to 
 limit  ownership  or  control  of  BPL  operations  to  electric  utility  operators.  We  believe  that  an  independent  BPL  provider  can  take  the  same  steps  and  precautions  as  an  electric  utility  operator  in  working  with  its 
 equipment  vendor,  the  power  system,  and  licensed  radio  users  to  ensure  that  an  Access  BPL  system  does  not  cause  harmful  interference  and  to  resolve  any  interference.  We  also  see  no  need  to  specifically 
 mention  aerial  or  underground  lines  in  the  definition.  Furthermore,  we  note  that  the  record  in  this  proceeding  only  addresses  Access  BPL  systems  operating  over  medium  voltage  and  low  voltage  lines. 
 Because  the  high  voltage  lines  are  located  physically  higher,  can  carry  very  high  voltages,  and  have  different  configurations  as  well  as  characteristics  with  respect  to  potential  harmful  interference,  we  are 
 excluding  them  from  the  definition  for  Access  BPL  at  this  time.  Access  BPL  systems  intended  for  high  voltage  lines  can  however  operate  under  the  requirements  for  experimental  licensing  in  Part  5  of  the 
 Commission  Rules.  63 
 29.  We  therefore  are  amending  Section  15.3  of  the  rules  to  include  the  following  definition  for  Access  BPL: 


 Access  Broadband  Over  Power  Line  (Access  BPL).  A  carrier  current  system  installed  and  operated  on  an  electric  utility  service  as  an  unintentional  radiator  that  sends  radio  frequency 
 energy  on  frequencies  between  1.705  MHz  and  80  MHz  over  medium  voltage  lines  or  low  voltage  lines  to  provide  broadband  communications  and  is  located  on  the  supply  side  of  the  utility 
 services  points  of  interconnection  with  customer  premises.  Access  BPL  does  not  include  power  line  carrier  systems  as  defined  in  Section  15.3(  t)  of  this  part  or  In-  House  BPL  systems  as  defined 
 in  Section  15.3(  gg)  of  this  part. 
 30.  While  we  are  not  generally  addressing  rules  for  In-  House  BPL  systems,  except  for  measurement  procedures,  we  do  find  it  useful  and  appropriate  to  set  forth  a  definition  of  such  systems  in  the  rules 


 60  See  comments  of  Duke  Energy  at  4. 
 61  NTIA  at  3-  4,  Southern  at  14. 
 62  See  comments  of  Main.  Net  at  5. 
 63  See  47  C.  F.  R    5. 
14
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 15 
 herein.  As  NTIA  and  Southern  point  out,  specifying  a  definition  of  In-  House  BPL  systems  will  fully  define  all  forms  of  BPL  and  help  to  clarify  the  differences  between  Access  BPL  and  In-  House  systems. 
 We  find  that  the  definition  of  In-  House  BPL  suggested  by  NTIA  properly  identifies  these  systems.  Accordingly,  we  are  adopting  the  following  definition  for  In-  House  BPL: 


 In-  House  Broadband  Over  Power  line  (In-  House  BPL).  A  carrier  current  system,  operating  as  an  unintentional  radiator,  that  sends  radio  frequency  energy  to  provide  broadband  communications 
 on  frequencies  between  1.705  MHz  and  80  MHz  over  low-  voltage  electric  power  lines  that  are  not  owned,  operated  or  controlled  by  an  electric  service  provider.  The  electric  power  lines  may 
 be  aerial  (overhead),  underground,  or  inside  walls,  floors  or  ceilings  of  user  premises.  In-  House  BPL  devices  may  establish  closed  networks  within  a  users  premises  or  provide  connections  to 
 Access  BPL  (as  defined  in  Section  15.3(  ff)  of  this  part)  networks,  or  both. 
 We  also  encourage  industry  efforts  to  develop  standards  for  In-  House  BPL  systems  and  devices  that  are  complementary  to  and  compatible  with  Access  BPL  operations. 


 31.  Access  BPL  Systems  Above  80  MHz.  Corridor  Systems  (Corridor)  asserts  that  it  has  developed  an  Access  BPL  technology  that  operates  at  5.8  GHz  and  states  that  the  proposed  measurement  guidelines  of 
 the  Notice  are  not  appropriate  for  the  microwave  frequency  region  where  wavelengths  are  measured  in  small  numbers  of  centimeters  rather  than  meters  or  tens  of  meters.  Corridor  contends  that  its  Access  BPL 
 technology  is  categorically  different  from  the  HF  BPL  systems  from  other  vendors  and  that  the  definition  as  well  as  the  test  methods  as  proposed  in  the  Notice  would  impose  an  inappropriate  regulatory  burden  on 
 its  systems.  64  Satius,  Inc.  states  that  its  Access  BPL  technology  operates  in  several  different  bands  from  2  MHz  to  several  GHz. 


 32.  We  agree  with  Corridor  that  Access  BPL  systems  operating  in  higher  regions  of  the  spectrum,  such  as  the  Corridor  Access  BPL  system  at  5.8  GHz,  should  not  be  subject  to  the  rules  adopted  herein  for 
 Access  BPL  systems  operating  in  the  HF  and  low  VHF  spectrum.  We  find  that  the  record  in  this  proceeding  does  not  provide  sufficient  information  regarding  Access  BPL  operating  in  spectrum  above  80 
 MHz,  hence  a  decision  regarding  this  type  of  Access  BPL  technology  cannot  be  effectively  rendered  at  the  present  time;  however,  Access  BPL  systems  not  covered  in  the  above  definition  are  subject  to  existing 
 applicable  Part  15  rules  for  carrier  current  systems.  However,  we  will  monitor  the  development  of  Access  BPL  systems  that  operate  on  frequencies  above  80  MHz  and  may  consider  additional  requirements  for 
 Access  BPL  systems  operating  above  80  MHz  in  a  future  rulemaking  if  appropriate. 
 B.  Emission  Limits 
 33.  General  Emission  Limits.  Consistent  with  our  stated  intention  to  proceed  cautiously  in  authorizing  BPL  systems,  we  proposed  in  the  Notice  to  continue  to  apply  the  existing  radiated  emission 


 limits  for  carrier  current  systems  used  as  unintentional  radiators,  as  set  forth  in  Section  15.109(  e)  of  the  rules,  to  Access  BPL  systems.  65  While  we  recognized  that  there  is  some  potential  for  Access  BPL 
 operations  to  cause  interference,  we  tentatively  concluded  that  the  likelihood  of  harmful  interference  would  be  low  under  the  current  radiated  emission  limits  as  well  as  other  provisions  adopted  herein,  and 
 that  where  such  interference  does  occur,  there  are  remedies  that  the  Access  BPL  operator  can  employ  to  eliminate  it.  We  also  proposed  to  exempt  Access  BPL  systems  from  the  conducted  emissions  limits  in 


 64  Comments  of  Corridor  at  2-  4. 
 65  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.109(  e). 
15
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 16 
 15.107(  c)  of  the  rules.  66  In  this  regard,  we  observed  that  because  Access  BPL  systems  are  generally  installed  on  power  lines  that  carry  1,000  to  40,000  volts,  measuring  the  conducted  emissions  of  these 
 systems  is  very  difficult  and  can  also  present  safety  hazards.  67  We  stated  that  since  Access  BPL  systems  would  still  be  required  to  comply  with  our  radiated  emission  limits,  we  did  not  believe  that  this  exemption 
 would  have  any  impact  on  BPL  interference  potential.  68  Finally,  we  requested  comment  on  whether  any  additional  measures  are  needed  to  protect  particular  operations,  such  as  public  safety  agencies  that  use  the 
 HF  bands  for  state-  wide  public  safety  communications. 
 34.  a)  Emission  Limits.  NTIA  concurs  with  our  proposal  to  continue  to  subject  Access  BPL  systems  to  the  existing  radiated  emission  limits  for  carrier  current  systems  and  submits  that  interference  risks  can 


 and  should  be  suitably  reduced  through  refinement  of  the  compliance  measurement  provisions.  69  NTIA  states  that  the  current  perceived  risks  of  interference  from  BPL  operations  preclude  relaxing  the  limits.  70 


 35.  A  number  of  parties  generally  representing  the  interests  of  entities  favoring  the  introduction  of  BPL  services  support  our  proposals  for  emission  limits  on  BPL  operations.  These  parties,  who  include 
 AT&  T,  Duke  Energy,  Main.  NET,  NTIA,  PPL  Telcom,  Satius,  Southern,  and  UPLC,  generally  agree  that  the  existing  Part  15  radiated  emission  limits  are  sufficient  to  limit  the  potential  for  interference.  71 
 Southern  states  that  the  proposed  limits  are  an  acceptable  compromise  between  the  interests  of  those  who  believe  that  stricter  limits  are  needed  and  the  position  of  BPL  manufacturers  and  providers  who  state  that 
 their  systems  do  not  cause  harmful  interference  under  the  current  limits.  Duke  Energy,  PPL  Telcom,  Southern,  and  UPLC  also  submit  that  the  Commission  should  revisit  the  emission  limits  at  a  later  date 
 after  more  information  is  developed  on  the  interference  potential  of  BPL  operation  to  possibly  relax  the  limits.  72  Main.  Net  requests  that  we  consider  higher  radiated  emission  limits  in  situations  such  as  rural 
 areas,  where  it  argues  an  increase  in  emissions  would  not  cause  interference. 
 36.  Others,  including  the  AMA,  the  ARRL,  Bob  Lombardi,  Carl  Stevenson,  and  the  IEEE  USA,  who  represent  the  interests  of  licensed  spectrum  users,  argue  that  the  current  emission  limits  are  too  high  to 


 protect  nearby  Amateur  radio  stations  against  interference.  73  These  parties  generally  submit  that  the 
 66  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.107(  c).  For  the  protection  of  the  AM  Broadcast  service,  existing  carrier  current  systems 
 operating  below  30  MHz  are  subject  to  a  conducted  emission  limit  of  1000  V  in  the  AM  broadcast  band  (from  535  to  1705  kHz).  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.107(  c)(  2)  and  15.221.  However,  carrier  current  systems  operating  above  30 


 MHz  are  subject  to  the  general  conducted  emission  limits  that  apply  to  frequencies  below  30  MHz.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.107(  a)-(  c). 


 67  Conducted  emissions  are  measured  by  connecting  the  Equipment  under  Test  (EUT)  to  a  Line  Impedance 
 Stabilization  Network  (LISN)  that  simulates  the  impedance  of  the  power  network  while  sourcing  power  to  the  EUT.  Such  a  LISN  would  have  to  be  capable  of  sourcing  1,000  volts  to  40,000  volts  to  an  Access  BPL  system. 


 Furthermore,  measuring  instruments  such  as  spectrum  analyzers,  voltmeters,  etc.  would  also  be  connected  to  this  LISN,  thus  high  voltage  hazards  could  affect  both  test  equipment  and  test  personnel. 


 68  Notice  at  38. 
 69  See  comments  of  NTIA  at  7. 
 70  See  comments  of  NTIA  at  7. 
 71  See  comments  of  AT&  T  at  4;  Duke  Energy  at  13;  Main.  NET  at  5-  6;  NTIA  at  7;  PPL  Telcom  at  4;  Satius  at  4; 
 Southern  at  15;  and  UPLC  at  7. 
 72  See  comments  of  Duke  Energy  at  13;  PPL  Telcom  at  4;  Southern  at  16;  UPLC  at  7. 


 73  See  comments  of  the  AMA  at  4;  the  ARRL  at  9-  10;  Bob  Lombardi  at  7;  Carl  Stevenson  at  8;  and  the  IEEE  USA 
 at  10. 
16
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 17 
 current  limits  were  never  designed  for  distributive  radiating  systems  but  rather  were  designed  to  address  the  interference  potential  of  point  source  radiators.  In  statements  representative  of  these  parties,  the 
 ARRL  contends  that  the  limits  should  be  reexamined  for  the  context  where  the  system  architecture  is  a  line  source  radiator  that  creates  a  situation  in  which  the  unshielded  power  lines  act  as  efficient  radiators 
 throughout  neighborhoods.  It  states  that  based  on  information  from  the  NTIA  Phase  1  Study  and  several  additional  studies,  copies  of  which  it  attached  to  its  comments,  Access  BPL,  operated  at  the  current 
 Section  15.109  and  Section  15.209  field  strengths,  will  create  substantial  interference  to  nearby  Amateur  radio  stations,  whether  fixed  or  mobile.  74  The  ARRL  argues  that  lower  permissible  field  strengths  are 
 necessary  to  protect  mobile  radio  stations.  75  It  suggests  that  an  acceptable  radiated  emission  limit  for  Access  BPL  to  protect  typical  amateur  mobile  stations  is  0  dBV/  m,  measured  at  an  antenna  10  meters 
 from  the  power  line.  76  In  its  reply  comments,  the  ARRL  argues  that  NTIAs  findings  establish  that  fixed  Amateur  stations  can  expect  to  receive  interference  at  distances  of  460  meters  from  a  BPL  device,  even 
 assuming  that  the  device  meets  the  radiated  emission  limits  of  existing  Part  15  regulations  and  that  mobile  stations  would  be  subject  to  interference  at  distances  up  to  75  meters  from  a  BPL  device  on  the  power 
 line.  77  Echelon  further  recommends  requiring  Access  BPL  systems  to  employ  band-  pass  filters  that  offer  at  least  80  dB  attenuation  of  emissions  below  535  kHz  and  that  Access  BPL  band-  pass  filter  wiring  be 
 designed  to  separate  low-  voltage  and  medium-  voltage  mains  wiring  by  at  least  18  inches  to  prevent  cross-mains  inductive  signal  coupling.  78  On  the  other  hand,  PPL  Telcom  states  that  Access  BPL  operations  will 
 not  operate  as  line  source  radiators  because  1)  equipment  within  the  same  network  operates  at  different  frequencies,  thereby  reducing  the  potential  cumulative  effect  at  any  given  frequency;  2)  equipment  is 
 deployed  in  different  orientations  on  power  lines  so  that  the  polarization  of  emissions  will  vary;  and  3)  equipment  operating  on  the  same  frequency  will  have  differing  phase  displacements.  79 


 37.  LecStar  Telecom,  Inc.  and  LecStar  DataNet,  Inc.  (collectively  LecStar)  recommends  that  we  treat  Access  BPL  systems  as  Class  A  devices  in  order  to  allow  these  systems  to  take  advantage  of  the 
 higher  Class  A  emission  limits.  80  LecStar  submits  that  treatment  of  Access  BPL  systems  as  Class  A  equipment  would  allow  equipment  costs  to  be  lower  and  thereby  speed  the  deployment  of  systems  and 
 improve  their  economic  viability.  Satius,  Inc.  submits  that  it  has  developed  Access  BPL  equipment  that 


 74  The  ARRL  argues  that,  based  on  information  in  the  NTIA  Phase  1  Study,  at  the  current  Part  15  limits,  the 
 interference  contour  of  Access  BPL  systems  to  land  vehicle,  boat,  and  fixed  stations  receiving  moderate  to  strong  desired  signals  in  the  frequency  range  1.7-  80  MHz  is  likely  in  areas  extending  to  30  meters,  55  meters,  and  230 


 meters,  respectively.  ARRL  further  contends  that  interference  to  aircraft  reception  of  moderate  to  strong  desired  signals  is  likely  to  occur  at  heights  up  to  6  km  altitude  within  12  km  of  the  center  of  the  BPL  deployment.  The 
 three  additional  technical  studies  ARRL  appends  to  its  comments  are:  1)  Exhibit  A-  BPL  Trial  Systems  Electromagnetic  Emission  Tests,  by  Metavox,  Inc.,  of  Dulles,  Virginia  (  Trial  System  Tests);  2)  Exhibit  B- 
 Interference  Assessment  of  PLC  Compatibility  with  Allocated  HF  Systems,  by  Dr.  David  Cohen  of  the  University  of  Maryland  (  Interference  Assessment);  and  3)  Exhibit  C-  Proposed  Radiated  Emission  Limits  and 
 Extrapolation,  by  ARRL  Chief  Technology  Officer  Paul  Rinaldo  (ARRL  Study). 
 75  See  comments  of  ARRL  at  25-  26  and  Exhibit  E. 


 76  Comments  of  ARRL  at  26. 
 77  See  reply  comments  of  ARRL  at  10. 
 78  See  comments  of  Echelon  at  5. 
 79  See  comments  of  PPL  Telcom  at  5. 
 80  See  comments  of  LecStar  Telecom,  Inc.  and  LecStar  DataNet,  Inc.  (collectively  LecStar)  at  4-  5. 
17
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 18 
 can  reduce  emissions  by  more  than  40  dB  in  certain  bands  where  interference  would  otherwise  occur.  81  It  requests  that  we  provide  an  exception  to  the  emission  limits  that  would  allow  devices  that  are  capable  of 
 reducing  emissions  by  at  least  40  dB  for  interference  control  to  operate  with  emissions  in  other  bands  that  are  10  dB  higher  than  the  Class  A  limits. 


 38.  We  continue  to  believe  that  it  is  appropriate  to  apply  the  existing  Part  15  radiated  emission  limits  to  Access  BPL  systems.  We  are  not  persuaded  by  the  arguments  of  ARRL  and  others  representing 
 licensed  spectrum  users  that  the  current  emission  limits  are  insufficient  to  limit  the  general  interference  potential  of  these  systems.  The  0  dBV/  m  limit  suggested  by  the  ARRL  is  typically  below  the  noise  floor 
 in  the  HF  and  low  VHF  bands  and  would  be  unnecessarily  and  prohibitively  restrictive  for  Access  BPL  operators.  82  Along  with  NTIA,  we  conclude  that  the  current  emission  limits  will  restrict  Access  BPL 
 systems  to  very  low  emitted  power  levels  in  comparison  to  the  signals  of  licensed  radio  operations.  The  effect  of  these  limits  will  be  to  constrain  the  harmful  interference  potential  of  these  systems  to  relatively 
 short  distances  from  the  power  lines  that  they  occupy.  In  fact,  in  most  cases  the  level  of  emissions  from  Access  BPL  systems  will  be  at  or  close  to  the  noise  floor  at  distances  beyond  a  hundred  meters  of  an 
 installed  power  line.  We  recognize  that  some  radio  operations  in  the  bands  being  used  for  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.  We  believe  that  those  situations  can  be  addressed  through  interference  avoidance  techniques  by  the  Access  BPL  provider  such  as  frequency  band  selection, 
 notching,  or  judicious  device  placement;  the  rules  we  are  specifying  herein  facilitate  such  solutions.  We  do  not  see  evidence  that  BPL  operation  will  significantly  contribute  RF  energy  to  generally  raise  the 
 background  noise  level.  83  In  addition,  because  power  lines  inherently  can  radiate  significant  noise  emissions  as  noted  by  NTIA  and  ARRL,  good  engineering  practice  is  to  locate  sensitive  receiver  antennas 
 as  far  as  practicable  from  power  lines.  This  practice  will  also  help  prevent  interference  from  Access  BPL  emissions.  In  fact,  as  stated  by  NTIA,  power  line  noise  emissions  at  frequencies  up  to  800  MHz  may 
 actually  be  reduced  as  Access  BPL  systems  are  deployed.  Furthermore,  we  see  no  need  to  impose  a  strict  band-  pass  filtering  on  Access  BPL,  and  we  deny  Echelons  request  in  this  regard. 


 39.  Although  we  agree  with  ARRL  that  Access  BPL  on  overhead  lines  is  not  a  traditional  point-source  emitter,  we  do  not  believe  that  Access  BPL  devices  will  cause  the  power  lines  to  act  as  countless 
 miles  of  transmission  lines  all  radiating  RF  energy  along  their  full  length.  First,  the  Part  15  emission  limits  for  carrier  current  systems  have  proven  very  effective  at  controlling  interference  from  such  systems. 
 Also,  for  the  reasons  indicated  by  PPL  Telcom,  we  believe  that  the  design  and  configuration  of  Access  BPL  systems  will  be  inconsistent  with  the  development  of  cumulative  emissions  effects  for  nearby 
 receivers.  84  Moreover,  the  NTIA  Phase  1  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.  85  Rather,  we  find  that  emissions  from  Access  BPL 
 81  See  comments  of  Satius,  Inc.  at  4. 


 82  Comments  of  ARRL  at  26. 
 83  We  would  also  advise  ARRL  that  in  cases  where  its  members  experience  reception  of  RF  noise,  such  noise  can 
 often  be  avoided  by  carefully  locating  their  antennas;  in  many  instances  an  antenna  relocation  of  only  a  relatively  short  distance  can  resolve  noise  interference  (see  ARRL  comments  at  13). 


 84  As  we  observed  in  the  Notice,  Current  Technologies,  Main.  Net  and  other  Access  BPL  equipment  manufacturers 
 similarly  state  that  in  their  Access  BPL  equipment  implementations  only  a  limited  number  of  devices  transmit  simultaneously  on  the  same  frequency  in  the  same  geographic  area,  see  Notice  at  16,  recognizing  the  reply 


 comments  of  Current  Technologies  at  11;  Main.  Net  at  3;  Ameren  at  13. 
 85  See  NTIA  Phase  1  Study,  Volume  1,  at  5-  5  to  5-  15. 
18
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 19 
 systems  tend  to  dissipate  after  a  short  distance  from  a  coupler  along  a  line,  and  then  remain  relatively  the  same  for  some  distance.  Along  the  line  there  also  may  be  multiple  points  where  emissions  may  be 
 relatively  higher  but  within  the  Part  15  limits.  86  However,  because  the  signal  level  decreases  significantly  with  distance  perpendicular  from  the  line,  the  potential  for  interference  also  decays  rapidly  with  distance 
 from  the  line.  To  ensure  that  the  effects  of  the  power  line  as  a  radiator  are  taken  into  consideration  when  testing  for  compliance  with  our  Part  15  rules,  the  measurement  procedures  we  are  adopting  for  Access 
 BPL  systems,  as  discussed  infra,  and  set  forth  in  Appendix  C,  specify  that  emission  measurements  are  to  be  made  at  several  specific  distances  from  the  Access  BPL  equipment  source,  and  that  measurements  are 
 to  be  taken  parallel  to  the  power  line  to  find  the  maximum  emissions  from  the  BPL  system. 
 40.  The  technical  studies  submitted  by  ARRL  as  appendices  to  its  comments  do  not  provide  any  information  which  would  lead  us  to  alter  our  assessment  that  the  current  emission  limits  are  appropriate. 


 The  first  ARRL  study,  Trial  System  Tests,  merely  reports  the  results  of  measurements  of  an  Access  BPL  trial  system,  with  findings  that  in  some  instances  that  system  appears  not  to  have  complied  with  the 
 emission  limits.  The  second  ARRL  study,  Interference  Assessment,  argues  that  the  more  stringent  German  RegTP  standard  NB  30  emission  level  is  sufficient  to  protect  radio  services.  We  find  that  this 
 stringent  emission  limit  is  not  necessary  to  protect  against  interference  and  that  it  would  unjustifiably  constrain  the  operation  and  manufacture  of  Access  BPL  systems.  It  is  our  understanding  that  the  German 
 standard  has  enabled  deployment  of  Access  BPL  systems  on  underground  power  lines  but  we  have  no  information  indicating  that  such  a  standard  could  generally  be  met  on  overhead  power  lines  that  constitute 
 much  of  Americas  power  distribution  system.  We  believe  the  approach  that  we  are  adopting  is  a  more  appropriate  policy  for  balancing  the  concerns  at  issue  in  this  matter.  Finally,  the  third  study,  ARRL 
 Study  argues  that  overhead  power  lines  are  efficient  line  radiators  and  offers  suggestions  for  measurement  of  emissions;  it  does  not  address  the  sufficiency  of  our  emissions  limits.  We  are  requiring 
 compliance  with  the  protective  Part  15  field  strength  limits  regardless  of  whether  the  field  strength  is  efficiently  generated.  For  the  reasons  indicated  above,  we  continue  to  believe  that  the  existing  Part  15 
 emission  limits  for  carrier  current  systems,  in  conjunction  with  certain  additional  measures  as  discussed  below,  are  adequate  and  appropriate  to  protect  licensed  radio  operations  from  Access  BPL  operations. 
 We  disagree  with  Main.  Net  that  there  are  situations  where  there  is  generally  less  likelihood  that  Access  BPL  systems  operating  at  emission  levels  above  the  current  limits  would  cause  interference.  Licensed 
 services  operate  in  rural  as  well  as  more  densely  populated  areas.  Accordingly,  we  will  continue  to  apply  the  current  Part  15  radiated  emission  limits  to  Access  BPL  operations.  While  we  do  not  believe  that  there 
 will  be  reason  to  revisit  this  decision  in  the  near  future  to  possibly  consider  allowing  Access  BPL  systems  to  operate  at  higher  emission  levels,  we  would  do  so  if  information  develops  that  raising  the  limits  might 
 be  possible  without  incurring  unacceptable  risk  of  interference. 
 41.  Notwithstanding  our  decision  on  emission  limits,  we  do  recognize  that  Access  BPL  systems  present  concerns  for  licensed  users  in  the  HF  and  low  VHF  bands,  given  the  propagation  characteristics  of 


 RF  signals  in  the  range  of  frequencies  being  used  for  these  systems,  the  diversity  of  users  of  these  frequencies,  and  the  fact  that  Access  BPL  devices  will  be  installed  at  many  locations  in  an  area.  While 
 we  conclude,  as  discussed  above,  that  the  likelihood  that  interference  from  Access  BPL  operations  will  occur  is  low  at  the  signal  levels  allowed  under  the  current  Part  15  emission  limits,  such  interference  could 
 occur  in  limited  situations  despite  the  intentions  of  BPL  operators.  Moreover,  even  if  interference  were  to  occur  to  amateur  operations  at  the  distances  indicated  by  the  ARRL,  as  recommended  by  NTIA,  there  are 
 additional  interference  mitigation  techniques  that  we  are  requiring  of  BPL  providers  to  address  such  interference  potential.  We  believe  that  such  steps  should  be  taken,  particularly  in  those  cases  where  the 
 occurrence  of  interference  would  affect  critical  services  or  where  interference  could  be  anticipated  to 
 86  The  points  of  relatively  higher  emissions  tend  to  occur  at  junctions  and  other  points  on  a  line  where  there  are 
 impedance  mismatches. 
19
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 20 
 occur.  We  will  address  such  additional  measures  to  mitigate  and/  or  eliminate  interference  in  the  next  section. 
 42.  Most  of  the  commenting  parties  that  addressed  the  issue  of  conducted  emission  limits  support  our  proposal  to  exempt  Access  BPL  from  compliance  with  such  limits.  87  The  IEEE/  PSRC  submits  that 
 requiring  conducted  emission  tests  on  medium  voltage  power  lines  is  a  safety  hazard  to  both  test  personnel  and  equipment  and  should  be  avoided.  88  For  the  reasons  of  safety  and  the  fact  that  Access  BPL 
 systems  will  be  required  to  comply  with  our  radiated  emission  limits,  we  will  not  subject  these  systems  to  conducted  emission  limits.  Dale  G.  Svetanoff  and  Cortland  E.  Richmond  nonetheless  believe  that 
 conducted  emissions  limits  should  still  be  applied  to  Access  BPL  systems  in  the  laboratory  before  equipment  is  shipped  and  installed,  in  order  to  detect  variations  in  equipment.  89  We  find  no  need  to 
 subject  Access  BPL  equipment  to  a  conducted  emission  limit  that  would  apply  for  compliance  measurement  purposes  before  the  equipment  is  shipped  and  installed.  We  note  that  Access  BPL 
 manufacturers  already  test  their  equipment  for  the  proper  power  levels  in  a  laboratory  as  part  of  their  manufacturing  procedures,  and  in  any  case,  as  discussed  below,  the  radiated  emissions  from  a 
 representative  model  of  equipment  would  be  measured  in-  situ  at  three  sites  as  part  of  the  equipment  authorization  process.  We  therefore  find  that  requiring  conducted  emission  tests  in  the  laboratory  would 
 be  a  redundant  and  unnecessary  procedure. 
 43.  With  regard  to  LecStars  request  that  we  treat  Access  BPL  systems  as  Class  A  devices  in  order  to  allow  these  systems  to  take  advantage  of  the  higher  Class  A  emission  limits,  we  note,  as  indicated  above, 


 that  the  medium  voltage  portions  of  such  systems  are  already  treated  as  Class  A  devices  under  our  rules.  The  Class  A  limits  are  appropriate  in  this  case  because  Access  BPL  devices  are  not  marketed  to  the 
 general  public  and  operate  on  the  medium  voltage  power  lines  as  commercial  facilities.  Those  portions  of  Access  BPL  systems  that  operate  above  30  MHz  on  the  low-  voltage  power  lines  from  the  distribution 
 transformer  to  a  residence  and  all  in-  house  wiring  connected  to  a  BPL  device  are  subject  to  Class  B  radiated  emission  limits.  The  Class  B  limits  are  appropriate  for  these  operations  because  they  are  located 
 within  residential  environments  and  are  marketed  for  use  by  the  general  public.  Although  Access  BPL  systems  are  required  to  comply  with  the  less  stringent  Class  A  limits,  operators  will  nonetheless  have  a 
 strong  incentive  to  exercise  the  utmost  caution  in  installing  and  operating  their  systems  to  avoid  harmful  interference  and  ensure  uninterrupted  service  to  their  customers,  given  that  there  is  significant  investment 
 in  the  deployment  of  the  service.  We  do  not  find  that  a  10  dB  increase  in  the  allowable  emissions  levels  is  warranted  or  desirable  for  systems  that  can  reduce  emissions  by  40  dB  in  selected  bands,  as  suggested 
 by  Satius.  We  believe  that  it  is  important  that  Access  BPL  systems  comply  with  the  emission  limits  across  their  entire  operating  range  in  order  to  minimize  the  potential  for  interference  in  all  bands,  not  just 
 those  where  interference  may  be  more  likely  at  a  particular  location.  Accordingly,  we  are  denying  Satius  request  for  such  an  exception. 


 44.  b)  Other  Protection  Measures.  NTIA  states  in  its  comments  that  additional  emission  restrictions  are  needed  in  certain  frequency  bands  and  geographic  areas  in  order  to  protect  Federal  Government  and 
 certain  other  radio  operations.  It  states  that  these  restrictions  would  have  the  form  of  geographic  coordination  areas  wherein  BPL  deployments  at  any  frequency  in  those  areas  must  be  pre-coordinated 
 by  BPL  operators;  excluded  bands  in  which  certain  frequencies  are  not  to  be  used  by  BPL  in  any  geographic  area;  and  small  geographic  exclusion  zones  wherein  BPL  emissions  are  forbidden  at 


 87  See  comments  of  Progress  Energy  at  5;  Southern  at  17;  Main.  Net  at  6;  PowerWAN  at  2. 
 88  See  comments  of  IEEE/  PSRC  at  3. 
 89  See  e.  g.,  comments  of  Dale  G.  Svetanoff  at  3;  Cortland  E.  Richmond  at  13. 
20
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 21 
 specified  frequencies  in  accordance  with  protection  requirements  and  electromagnetic  compatibility  studies.  Under  NTIAs  plan,  these  coordination  areas,  excluded  bands,  and  exclusion  zones  would  be 
 defined  in  the  rules  for  Access  BPL  systems.  NTIA  submits  that  to  protect  Federal  Government  radio  users,  it  plans  to  voluntarily  provide  BPL  operators  with  site  location  and  frequency  band  information  to 
 Access  BPL  users  that  would  facilitate  steps  to  prevent  interference  to  these  users.  It  states  that  these  measures  would  virtually  eliminate  certain  interference  risks  for  even  the  most  sensitive  and  vulnerable 
 Federal  Government  and  other  radio  services.  NTIA  has  separately  provided  lists  of  the  coordination  areas  and  radio  users  therein  that  would  be  specially  considered,  the  excluded  bands,  and  the  geographic 
 exclusion  zones  that  would  be  subject  to  these  additional  protections.  90 
 45.  NTIA  further  recommends  that  we  require  Access  BPL  operators  to  consider  frequency  avoidance  capabilities  in  conjunction  with  voluntary,  a  priori  consultation  regarding  potentially  affected 


 receiving  stations  at  known  locations  or  service  areas.  It  states  that  Access  BPL  operators  would  receive  radio  frequency  usage  data  from  concerned  radio  service  licensees  by  e-  mail  and  then  use  frequency 
 avoidance  capabilities  (as  discussed  below)  to  preclude  Access  BPL  operation  on  locally  used  frequencies  where  necessary.  In  contrast,  within  consultation  areas  and  at  the  associated  frequencies,  the  radio  and 
 BPL  operators  would  mutually  determine  whether  BPL  deployment  or  operating  constraints  are  needed.  To  make  information  available  to  local  radio  users,  NTIA  proposes  that  Access  BPL  operators  be  required 
 to  notify  planned  deployments  to  the  Access  BPL  data  base  administrator  (as  discussed  below)  at  least  30  days  in  advance  of  system  implementation.  91  It  further  suggests  that  Access  BPL  operators  can  extract 
 local  frequency  assignment  data  from  our  data  bases,  identify  the  locations  and  frequencies  used  by  local  radio  receivers,  and  plan  their  operational  frequencies  in  a  manner  that  avoids  BPL  interference  to  local 
 radio  receivers.  92 
 46.  NAC/  Amherst  suggests  that  we  establish  BPL-  free  zones  in  which  Access  BPL  would  not  be  permitted  within  20  miles  of  airports  and  antennas  for  ground-  to-  air  communications  and  military  bases, 


 and  within  two  miles  of  hospitals,  police  stations,  and  fire  stations.  93  ARINC  urges  the  Commission  to  refrain  from  authorizing  Access  BPL  to  operate  in  the  Aeronautical  Mobile  [R]  frequency  bands.  94  In 
 response  to  NTIAs  comments  on  excluded  bands  and  exclusion  zones,  ARRL  also  strongly  urges  that  all  Amateur  HF  and  VHF  allocations  be  included  with  other  bands  that  NTIA  determines  require  protection 
 from  BPL  interference.  95 


 90  The  coordination  areas,  excluded  bands,  and  geographic  exclusion  zones  identified  by  NTIA  are  set  forth  in  the 
 new  rules  in  Appendix  B.  When  considered  together,  the  excluded  frequency  bands  listed  in  Section  15.615(  f)(  1),  Table  1  in  Appendix  B  are  limited  to  those  allocated  to  aeronautical  mobile  [R]  and  radionavigation  services  that 


 are  used  to  provide  aeronautical  safety  of  life  services.  The  exclusion  zones  are  limited  to  a  radius  of  1  km  around  coast  station  facilities  located  at  the  106  coordinates  listed  in  Section  15.615(  f)(  2)(  i),  Table  2  in  Appendix  B,  and 
 within  a  radius  29  km  (for  Access  BPL  using  overhead  medium  voltage  power  lines)  or  11  km  (for  other  Access  BPL  implementations)  of  the  coordinates  for  the  ten  Very  Long  Baseline  Array  facilities  listed  in  allocation 
 US311.  To  avoid  confusion  with  coordination  requirements  specified  elsewhere  in  the  Commissions  rules,  we  are  adopting  the  term  consultation  area  rather  than  coordination  area  in  connection  with  the  Access  BPL  rules. 
 The  frequency  bands  and  areas  for  consultation  are  listed  in  Section  15.615(  f)(  3),  Tables  3-  6  of  Appendix  B. 
 91  See  comments  of  NTIA  at  11. 


 92  See  comments  of  NTIA  at  11. 
 93  See  reply  comments  of  NAC/  Amherst  at  6. 
 94  See  reply  comments  of  ARINC,  Section  IV. 
 95  See  reply  comments  of  ARRL  at  17-  18. 
21
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 22 
 47.  Ameren,  PLCA,  and  Southern  recognize  the  benefits  of  NTIAs  offer  to  make  available  to  BPL  operators  information  on  Federal  Government  frequency  assignments  to  assist  in  Access  BPL  frequency 
 selection,  but  it  opposes  mandatory  prior  frequency  coordination.  96  Southern  argues  that  the  mandatory  prior  coordination  would  effectively  subject  BPL  to  the  same  conditions  as  a  licensed  service  without  the 
 benefits  of  licensing.  97  Ameren  Energy  Communications,  Inc.  (Ameren)  and  the  Power  Line  Communications  Association  (PLCA)  argue  that  a  requirement  for  Access  BPL  operators  to  prior 
 coordinate  is  not  borne  by  other  broadband  service  providers  with  equipment  similarly  subject  to  Part  15  of  the  Commissions  rules.  98  The  PLCA  adds  that,  more  undesirably,  there  would  be  no  licensing  process 
 or  procedure  in  place  to  determine  whether  a  contested  installation  may  proceed.  Current  and  Duke  Energy  is  concerned  that  NTIAs  excluded  bands  and  exclusion  zone  proposals  could  result  in  limitations 
 on  the  deployment  of  Access  BPL  systems  such  that  there  would  be  gaps  in  coverage  to  the  point  where  it  would  no  longer  make  economic  or  operational  sense  to  deploy.  99  Current  contends  that  while  there  may 
 be  a  few  instances,  such  as  locations  very  close  to  co-  frequency  radio  astronomy  receive  sites,  where  coordination  would  be  appropriate,  the  levels  of  BPL  emissions  should  make  such  instances  extremely 
 uncommon.  100 
 48.  APCO/  NPSTC,  APCO  Region  21,  the  International  Municipal  Signal  Association  (IMSA),  and  the  Missouri  State  Highway  Patrol  (MSHP)  submit  that  there  are  public  safety  systems  in  the  HF  (2-  7 


 MHz),  low  VHF  (30-  50  MHz),  and  VHF  (72-  76  MHz)  bands  that  must  be  protected  from  interference.  101  APCO/  NPSTC  states  that  considering  the  rural  nature  of  public  safety  operations  in  the  low  VHF  bands, 
 the  only  way  a  public  safety  officer  will  know  that  interference  is  present  in  a  given  location  is  when  the  officer  cannot  communicate  in  an  area.  APCO  Region  21  states,  for  example,  that  Access  BPL  could 
 raise  noise  levels  and  overwhelm  receiver  circuits.  102  The  MSHP  submits  that  because  Access  BPL  is  a  distributed  technology,  it  will  be  difficult  to  isolate  interference  locations.  The  MSHP  therefore 
 recommends  that  Access  BPL  be  required  to  take  steps  to  avoid  interference  with  public  safety  operations  before  deployment,  rather  than  wait  for  a  public  safety  agency  to  find  out  about  harmful  interference  by 
 being  unable  to  communicate  with  an  originating  distress  call.  103  It  argues  that  Access  BPL  systems  should  be  required  to  prove  a  priori  that  they  are  not  causing  interference,  rather  than  waiting  until  a 
 public  safety  agency  finds  out  that  harmful  interference  is  present  in  an  area  where  a  distress  call  originates.  APCO/  NPSTC  also  submits  that  it  does  not  want  to  be  in  the  position  of  demanding  that 


 96  See  reply  comments  of  Southern  at  28. 
 97  See  reply  comments  of  Southern  at  35. 
 98  See  reply  comments  of  Ameren  at  12  and  PLCA  at  4. 
 99  See  reply  comments  of  Current  at  30  and  reply  comments  of  Duke  Energy  at  19. 
 100  Reply  comments  of  Current  at  30. 
 101  See  comments  of  APCO/  NPSTC  at  2;  APCO  Region  21  at  4.  The  High  Frequency  (HF)  band  covers 
 frequencies  from  3  to  30  MHz.  The  Very  High  Frequency  (VHF)  band  covers  frequencies  from  30  to  300  MHz.  APCO  indicates  that  the  HF  band  (2-  7  MHz)  is  used  by  state  emergency  management  agencies  to  coordinate 


 disaster  relief  and  that  the  low  VHF  (30-  50  MHz)  band  is  used  by  many  first  responder  agencies  (emergency  medical  systems  (EMS),  fire,  and  law  enforcement)  as  well  as  public  safety  support  agencies.  APCO  further 
 indicates  that  the  30-  50  MHz  band  is  used  significantly  by  thirteen  states  for  state  police  operations,  with  nine  states,  including  California,  using  it  as  their  primary  communications  band. 


 102  See  comments  of  APCO  Region  21  at  4. 
 103  See  comments  of  the  MSHP  at  3. 
22
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 23 
 Access  BPL  operators  cease  operating  due  to  harmful  interference  to  public  safety  radio  after  the  operators  have  made  large  investments  in  BPL  infrastructure. 
 49.  We  agree  with  NTIA  and  the  parties  representing  public  safety  agencies  that  critical  Federal  Government  and  other  services  specified  by  NTIA  and  public  safety  warrant  additional  protection.  These 
 services,  including  national  defense,  maritime  distress  and  safety,  aeronautical  navigation  and  communications,  emergency  response,  radioastronomy,  and  others  provide  important  safety  and  research 
 services  whose  functions  would  be  afforded  additional  protection  against  possible  interference  from  Access  BPL  operations.  We  agree  with  and  are  adopting  NTIAs  approach  for  addressing  additional 
 protection  to  critical  Federal  Government  and  other  radio  operations.  The  excluded  frequency  bands  amount  only  to  a  total  of  1731  kHz,  or  2%  of  the  spectrum  within  the  1.7-  80  MHz  band.  The  exclusion 
 zones  are  relatively  few,  on  only  the  2173.5  to  2190.5  kHz  global  maritime  distress  signaling  band  with  prohibited  distances  of  1  km  from  coast  station  facilities,  and  73.0    74.6  MHz  band  used  by  the  ten  Very 
 Long  Baseline  Array  facilities  of  radio  astronomy  observatories  with  prohibited  distances  of  29  km  and  11  km  for  Access  BPL  systems  using  overhead  medium  voltage  power  lines  and  other  Access  BPL 
 implementations,  respectively.  104  We  agree  with  NTIA  that  the  potential  for  interference  from  Access  BPL  to  the  critical  services  in  exclusion  zones  is  somewhat  greater  for  transmissions  carried  on  overhead 
 medium  voltage  lines  than  other  Access  BPL  implementations,  i.  e.  transmissions  carried  on  underground  lines  or  low  voltage  lines.  In  this  regard,  emissions  from  underground  power  lines  are  generally 
 attenuated  by  the  earth  materials  in  which  they  are  buried,  while  emissions  from  low  voltage  lines  are  generally  lower  because  such  lines  are  generally  used  only  for  short  feeder  links  from  a  transformer  to  a 
 customer  service  location  and  these  lines  are  more  closely  spaced  with  an  accompanying  neutral  line--  and  in  fact  are  often  twisted  together  with  the  neutral  line.  The  close  spacing--  together  with  the  shorter 
 length--  reduces  radiated  RF  emissions  relative  to  those  from  overhead  medium  voltage  lines.  In  addition,  the  requirement  to  contact  and  work  with  the  Federal  Government  in  the  53  consultation  areas  is  not 
 generally  expected  to  result  in  major  impact  on  Access  BPL  operators  flexibility  to  use  specific  frequency  bands.  105  We  therefore  find  that  avoiding  operation  on  the  frequencies  excluded  under  these 
 restrictions  and  requirements  will  not  be  burdensome  for  Access  BPL  operators  and  manufacturers  in  order  to  protect  distress  and  safety  communications.  Indeed,  several  manufacturers  and  Access  BPL 
 operators  have  indicated  that  they  are  capable  of,  and  already  do,  notch  out  certain  frequency  bands.  106  We  disagree  with  Ameren,  PLCA,  and  Southern  that  the  mandatory  consultation  provisions  imposed  on 
 Access  BPL  operators  impose  burdens  on  Access  BPL  operators  not  borne  by  other  unlicensed  broadband  operators  without  countervailing  benefits.  For  example,  in  Part  76,  we  require  that  cable  operators 
 conduct  measurements  annually  to  ensure  that  signal  leakage  does  not  create  interference  risks.  Moreover,  the  distributive  nature  and  other  technical  characteristics  of  Access  BPL  pose  somewhat  higher 
 potential  for  interference  than  point-  source  wireless  broadband  systems  that  warrant  additional  protective  measures.  In  addition,  the  consultation  actions  will  benefit  Access  BPL  operators  by  leading  them  to 
 select  frequencies  at  the  beginning  of  their  service  so  as  to  avoid  interference  to  critical  services  that  might  have  to  be  corrected  later.  Accordingly,  we  are  adopting  NTIAs  list  of  consultation  areas, 
 excluded  bands,  and  exclusion  zones  to  which  Access  BPL  equipment  must  adhere.  For  all  other  radio  communication  operations  not  addressed  in  these  special  provisions,  radio  operators  have  the  opportunity 


 104  See  Section  15.615(  f)(  1),  Table  1  and  Section  15.615(  f)(  2)(  i),  Tables  2  and  2.1  in  Appendix  B 
 105  We  note  that  the  operations  in  these  coordination  areas  generally  include  Federal  Government  users  in  the  1.7- 
 80  MHz  spectrum  that  provide  safety  services  (e.  g.  the  Federal  Emergency  Management  Agency  (FEMA),  the  Department  of  Homeland  Security  (DHS),  etc.). 


 106  See,  e.  g.,  comments  of  PowerWAN  at  1,  indicating  that  it  already  notched  amateur  bands  in  its  BPL  system. 
23
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 24 
 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. 
 50.  With  regard  to  the  consultation  areas,  we  will  require  Access  BPL  operators  to  provide  notification  to  the  parties  listed  as  Federal  Government  contact  points,  as  designated  in  the  rules  set  forth 
 in  Appendix  B,  for  the  area  in  which  their  systems  will  operate  at  least  30  days  prior  to  initiation  of  service.  The  notification  shall  include:  1)  the  name  of  the  Access  BPL  provider,  2)  the  frequencies  of  the 
 Access  BPL  operation,  3)  the  postal  zip  codes  served  by  the  Access  BPL  operation,  4)  the  manufacturer  of  and  type  of  Access  BPL  equipment  being  deployed  (i.  e.,  FCC  ID),  5)  point  of  contact  information 
 (both  telephone  and  e-  mail  address),  and  6)  the  proposed  or  actual  date  of  initiation  of  Access  BPL  operation.  We  will  also  require  that  systems  located  in  consultation  areas  that  were  in  operation  prior  to 
 the  effective  date  of  these  rules  provide  this  notice  to  the  appropriate  contact  point  within  45  days  of  that  date.  NTIA  has  indicated  that  it  plans  to  arrange  to  have  information  made  available  to  BPL  operators  on 
 Federal  Government  operations.  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. 
 51.  As  indicated  in  the  Notice,  we  believe  that  the  risk  of  harmful  interference  to  state  and  local  public  safety  services,  i.  e.,  EMS,  fire,  law  enforcement,  and  emergency  management  agencies  from 


 Access  BPL  operations  is  essentially  low.  107  In  general,  we  believe  that  a  properly  designed  and  operated  Access  BPL  system  will  pose  little  interference  hazard  to  services  such  as  aeronautical,  maritime  and 
 public  safety  that  are  designed  to  operate  with  relatively  high  signal-  to-  noise  ratios.  In  analyzing  the  potential  for  harmful  interference  to  public  safety  systems,  we  took  into  account  the  fact  that  low-  level 
 Part  15  signals  from  Access  BPL  devices  attenuate  rapidly  as  the  distance  from  the  power  line  increases;  and  that  most  public  safety  systems  are  designed  so  that  mobile  and  portable  units  receive  a  signal  level 
 significantly  above  the  noise  floor.  From  an  interference  analysis  standpoint,  this  latter  characteristic  distinguishes  public  safety  systems  from  amateur  radio  stations  using  high-  sensitivity  receivers  to  receive 
 signals  from  transmitters  often  thousands  of  miles  away.  However,  it  is  foreseeable  that  under  certain  rare  circumstances  a  public  safety  unit  could:  a)  operate  in  close  proximity  to  a  power  line  carrying 
 Access  BPL  transmissions  at  a  location  where  field  strength  is  near  the  Part  15  limit;  b)  be  tuned  to  a  frequency  radiated  by  an  Access  BPL  device;  and  c)  be  receiving  a  weak  signal  from  a  distant,  or 
 obstructed,  public  safety  base  station.  In  general,  potential  harmful  interference  under  these  conditions  would  be  limited  to  public  safety  units  operating  on  systems  using  low-  band  VHF  channels  (25-  50 
 MHz).  108  We  therefore  conclude  that  the  interference  protections  set  forth  above  will  be  adequate  to  foreclose  harmful  interference  to  public  safety  systems  except  perhaps  under  such  unusual  circumstances. 


 52.  However,  we  also  conclude  that  public  safety  systems  merit  additional  protection  because  of  the  often  critical  and/  or  safety-  of-  life  nature  of  the  communications  they  provide.  Given  the  importance  and 
 nature  of  public  safety  communications,  we  believe  it  is  necessary  to  require  Access  BPL  systems  to  notify  the  public  safety  agencies  in  their  local  areas,  i.  e.,  state  and  local  police,  fire,  emergency  medical, 
 any  special  emergency  coordinators,  call  box  operators,  and  other  entities  that  are  eligible  for  public  safety  licenses  under  Section  90.20  of  the  rules.  109  This  advance  notification  will  provide  public  safety 


 107  See  Notice  at  37. 
 108  The  Commissions  records  reflect  that  there  are  approximately  18,237  Public  Safety  licenses  (Radio  Service 
 Code  -  PW)  for  systems  operating  between  25-  50  MHz.  The  historical  trend  in  public  safety  systems  is  use  of  higher  frequency  bands.  Although  we  are  not  imposing  operating  frequency  limitations  on  Access  BPL  devices, 


 we  note  that  the  equipment  available  to  date  operates  on  frequencies  below  50  MHz. 
 109  See  47.  C.  F.  R.    90.20. 
24
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 25 
 operators  with  an  opportunity  to  assess  whether  there  are  portions  of  its  geographic  area  of  responsibility  about  which  it  should  make  special  arrangements  with  the  Access  BPL  operator  in  order  to  avoid 
 interference.  Consistent  with  our  decision  on  notifications  for  Federal  Government  consultation  areas  above,  we  will  require  that  this  notification  be  provided  to  local  public  safety  agencies  at  least  30  days 
 prior  to  a  systems  initial  operation,  the  activation  of  any  major  extensions  of  the  system,  or  any  changes  in  its  operating  characteristics,  i.  e.,  transmitting  frequencies.  The  notification  shall  include:  1)  the  name 
 of  the  Access  BPL  provider,  2)  the  frequencies  of  the  Access  BPL  operation,  3)  the  postal  zip  codes  served  by  the  Access  BPL  operation,  4)  the  manufacturer  of  and  type  of  Access  BPL  equipment  being 
 deployed  (i.  e.,  FCC  ID),  5)  point  of  contact  information  (both  telephone  and  e-  mail  address),  and  6)  the  proposed  or  actual  date  of  initiation  of  Access  BPL  operation.  We  will  also  require  that  systems  in 
 operation  prior  to  the  effective  date  of  these  rules  provide  this  notice  to  local  public  safety  agencies  within  45  days  of  that  date. 


 53.  We  do  not  see  a  need  to  establish  Access  BPL-  free  zones  around  airports,  military  bases,  hospitals,  police  stations  and  fire  stations,  as  requested  by  NAC/  Amherst.  To  the  extent  that  these 
 services  warrant  special  protection,  they  will  be  afforded  protection  through  the  excluded  bands,  exclusion  zones  and  consultation  areas  specified  by  NTIA.  We  similarly  do  not  find  that  amateur  radio 
 frequencies  warrant  the  special  protection  afforded  frequencies  reserved  for  international  aeronautical  and  maritime  safety  operations.  We  note  that  in  many  instances  amateur  frequencies  are  used  for  routine 
 communications  and  hobby  activities.  While  we  recognize  that  amateurs  may  on  occasion  assist  in  providing  emergency  communications,  we  believe  that  the  general  Part  15  provisions  and  the  specific 
 provisions  being  adopted  herein  for  Access  BPL  operations  are  sufficient  to  protect  these  amateur  operations. 


 C.  Interference  Mitigation 
 54.  In  the  Notice,  we  proposed  to  apply  certain  additional  operational  requirements  to  Access  BPL  systems  and  devices  to  address  the  interference  concerns  raised  in  the  Inquiry.  110  First,  we  proposed  to 


 require  that  Access  BPL  systems  and  devices  incorporate  capabilities  that  would  allow  operators  to  modify  their  systems  operations  and  performance  to  mitigate  or  avoid  potential  harmful  interference  to 
 radio  services.  We  stated  that  such  adaptive  techniques  would  include,  for  example,  the  capabilities  to  include  or  exclude,  i.  e.,  notch  out,  specific  operating  frequencies  or  bands,  and  to  reduce  power  levels 
 on  a  dynamic  or  remote  controlled  basis.  111  We  further  requested  comment  on  whether  we  should  require  that  each  Access  BPL  device  be  capable  of  operating  across  a  minimum  range  of  frequencies  and  have  the 
 capability  to  remotely  exclude  a  specific  percentage  of  frequencies  within  this  range.  We  also  proposed  to  require  that  Access  BPL  devices  incorporate  a  shut-  down  feature  that  would  allow  system  operators  to 
 deactivate  specific  units  found  to  actually  cause  harmful  interference.  We  noted  that  several  Access  BPL  equipment  providers  were  already  including  these  mitigation  capabilities  in  their  products  and  indicated 
 our  belief  that  such  capabilities  would  enable  Access  BPL  operators  to  avoid  causing  localized  and  site-specific  harmful  interference. 


 55.  NTIA  supports  our  proposals  for  Access  BPL  operational  requirements.  112  It  believes  that  Access  BPL  operators,  as  the  parties  responsible  for  eliminating  harmful  interference,  will  voluntarily  implement 
 equipment,  organizational  elements,  and  installation  and  operating  practices  that  prevent  interference  and  facilitate  interference  mitigation.  NTIA  submits  that  market  appeal  for  Access  BPL  could  quickly 


 110  Notice  at  40. 
 111  Notice  at  37. 
 112  See  comments  of  NTIA  at  8-  10. 
25
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 26 
 evaporate  if  these  systems  were  to  endemically  cause  interference  and  have  to  be  shut  down.  Thus,  it  believes  that  Access  BPL  operators  have  strong  incentives  to  prevent  interference.  However,  it  submits 
 that  to  preserve  the  high  degree  of  regulatory  certainty  enjoyed  by  licensed  radio  operators,  the  rules  should  require  implementation  of  the  most  widely  effective  features  for  preventing  interference,  that  is, 
 local  exclusion  of  BPL  use  of  specific  frequencies  or  bands,  dynamic  or  commanded  power  reduction,  and  commanded  shut-  down. 


 56.  The  American  Public  Power  Association  (APPA),  Current,  Main.  Net,  NAS/  CORF,  PowerWAN,  Progress  Energy,  and  Southern,  also  support  these  proposals.  113  The  APPA,  Current  and  PowerWAN 
 state  that  a  requirement  that  Access  BPL  systems  and  devices  incorporate  capabilities  that  would  allow  the  operator  to  modify  system  performance  to  mitigate  or  avoid  harmful  interference  to  radio  services  is 
 desirable,  but  ask  that  we  not  adopt  specific  mitigation  requirements.  Southern  similarly  states  that  rules  should  allow  for  flexibility  in  the  innovation  of  Access  BPL  equipment  and  systems.  Though  ARINC 
 urges  that  we  refrain  from  authorizing  Access  BPL  to  operate  in  the  Aeronautical  Mobile  [R]  frequency  bands,  it  supports  requiring  Access  BPL  to  have  interference  mitigation  capabilities  such  as  remote  shut-off 
 features  and  frequency  agility.  114 
 57.  A  number  of  parties  representing  users  of  HF  and  low  VHF  band  radio  services  submit  that  our  mitigation  proposals  are  not  sufficient  to  protect  their  operations  from  interference  from  Access  BPL 


 operations.  115  These  parties  generally  argue  that  the  proposed  operational  requirements  would  not  serve  to  prevent  interference  from  occurring,  but  rather  would  only  provide  for  after-  the-  fact  remedies.  For 
 example,  APCO/  NPSTC,  API,  ARRL,  and  the  MSHP  argue  that  our  interference  mitigation  proposals  would  improperly  place  the  burden  of  initiation  of  actions  to  resolve  interference  on  the  victim  licensed 
 radio  service.  116  APCO/  NPSTC  and  the  MSHP  express  concern  that  the  only  way  a  public  safety  agency  will  know  that  interference  is  present  in  a  given  location  will  be  when  a  officer  cannot  communicate  in 
 that  area.  117  ARRL  states  that  any  post  hoc  interference  mitigation  is  impractical  in  the  case  of  licensed  mobile  stations.  Boeing  argues  that  it  would  be  impractical  for  an  Access  BPL  system  to  reduce  power 
 levels  or  shut  down  operations  in  time  to  restore  communications  between  a  specific  aircraft  and  a  specific  HF  receiving  station.  118  The  API  also  recommends  that  Access  BPL  providers  be  required  to  act 
 immediately  upon  receipt  of  a  complaint  of  interference  and  to  resolve  that  interference  in  real  time,  24  hours  a  day/  7  days  a  week.  119  Shipcom  LLC,  an  operator  of  MPC  stations,  requests  that  we  require 
 Access  BPL  operators  to  shut  down  their  systems  within  four  hours  of  an  interference  complaint  from  MPC  receiving  stations,  airports,  airports,  military  bases,  hospitals,  and  other  sensitive  facilities.  120  The 
 API  and  the  Potomac  Valley  Radio  Club  (PVRC)  contend  that  BPL  transmitters  should  be  required  to  be 


 113  See  comments  of  APPA  at  6;  Current  at  3;  Main.  Net  at  6;  PowerWAN  at  2;  Progress  Energy  at  1-  2;  Southern  at 
 17. 
 114  See  reply  comments  of  ARINC,  Section  IV. 


 115  See  comments  of  APPI  at  4-  11;  ARRL  at  19-  21. 
 116  See  comments  of  ARRL  at  17-  21;  APCO/  NPSTC  at  2;  MSHP  at  3. 
 117  See  comments  of  APCO/  NPSTC  at  2. 
 118  See  comments  of  Boeing  at  10  and  12. 
 119  See  comments  of  API  at  4-  11. 
 120  See  comments  of  Shipcom  at  3. 
26
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 27 
 shut  off  as  soon  as  interference  is  reported.  121  The  NAC/  Amherst  recommend  that  we  clarify  the  structure  of  the  mitigation  measures  and  how  those  measures  are  to  be  enforced  in  order  that  Access  BPL  operators 
 will  have  a  clearer  sense  of  how  they  are  to  be  held  accountable  for  any  interference  they  cause.  122  Southern  states  that  the  Commission  does  not  specify  response  times  for  resolution  of  interference 
 involving  other  services  and  should  not  do  so  in  the  case  of  Access  BPL  either.  123 
 58.  We  continue  to  believe  that  it  is  important  that  Access  BPL  systems  include  capabilities  that  allow  them  to  modify  their  operations  to  mitigate  or  avoid  instances  of  harmful  interference  that  may 


 arise.  These  capabilities  will  allow  Access  BPL  system  operators  to  resolve  interference  found  to  occur  at  specific  locations  or  in  specific  areas  of  their  plant  in  an  expeditious  manner  and  without  disrupting 
 service  to  their  broadband  service  subscribers.  We  agree  with  NTIA  that  Access  BPL  operators  would  have  strong  incentives  to  voluntarily  implement  such  equipment  and  operating  practices.  We  also  agree 
 with  NTIA  that,  notwithstanding  these  incentives,  it  is  necessary  that  we  adopt  requirements  for  interference  mitigation  capabilities  to  ensure  that  any  interference  can  be  resolved  quickly  without  the 
 need  to  address  the  tension  that  might  arise  over  the  possible  disruption  of  service  to  BPL  subscribers  if  mitigation  capabilities  were  not  available.  The  concerns  of  those  commenting  parties  who  argue  that  the 
 mitigation  requirements  would  not  be  sufficient  to  protect  their  operations  from  interference  by  BPL  operations  are  misplaced.  That  protection  will  be  provided  by:  1)  the  emissions  limits  for  Access  BPL 
 systems;  2)  the  provisions  for  consultation  areas,  excluded  bands,  and  exclusion  zones;  and  3)  the  requirement  that  Access  BPL  systems  not  cause  interference,  as  set  forth  above.  The  mitigation 
 requirements  are  intended  to  ensure  that  Access  BPL  systems  are  designed  with  features  that  support  interference  mitigation,  both  during  initial  installation,  if  sensitive  local  communications  systems  are 
 identified  in  advance,  and  after  installation,  when  the  newly  required  operational  capabilities  will  allow  Access  BPL  system  operators  to  expeditiously  resolve  any  instances  of  interference  that  may  occur, 
 without  the  need  to  cease  operations  and  thereby  disrupt  the  broadband  data  services  they  provide  to  their  subscribers. 


 59.  Accordingly,  we  are  adopting  requirements  that  Access  BPL  systems  incorporate  capabilities  to  modify  their  systems  operations  and  performance  to  mitigate  or  avoid  potential  harmful  interference  to 
 radio  services  and  to  deactivate  specific  units  found  to  actually  cause  harmful  interference  that  cannot  be  remedied  through  modification  of  their  operations  as  proposed,  but  with  certain  modifications.  Our 
 approach  in  specifying  these  requirements  is  to  provide  Access  BPL  equipment  manufacturers  and  operators  with  flexibility  to  design  and  implement  a  broad  range  of  products  and  system  designs  to  meet 
 particular  service  and  operational  needs  while  ensuring  that  systems  have  the  capabilities  to  make  operational  changes  to  avoid  any  interference  that  may  arise.  The  specific  provisions  of  the  mitigation 
 requirements  and  the  comments  that  concern  them  are  addressed  below.  We  also  see  no  basis  for  subjecting  Access  BPL  systems  to  requirements  for  addressing  interference  complaints  that  are  different 
 and  more  stringent  than  our  procedures  for  addressing  interference  from  other  types  of  unlicensed  devices.  In  this  regard,  we  will  continue  to  subject  Access  BPL  systems  to  the  procedures  of  Section 
 15.5(  c)  of  the  rules.  Under  this  rule,  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.  If  that  action  does  not  resolve  the  interference,  the  party  may  then  seek  intervention  by  the  Commission. 


 121  See  comments  of  API  at  8  and  reply  comments  of  PVRC  at  9. 
 122  See  comments  of  NAC/  Amherst  at  14-  17. 
 123  See  comments  of  Southern  at  32. 
27
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 28 
 60.  To  be  more  specific,  in  the  event  a  BPL  interference  complaint  is  filed  by  a  licensee  with  the  Commission,  the  Commission  will  contact  the  complainant  and/  or  the  BPL  provider  to  determine  if  they 
 have  first  attempted  to  resolve  the  interference  complaint  among  themselves.  If  they  have  not  made  such  an  attempt,  the  complaint  will  be  forwarded  to  the  BPL  provider  for  action  and  the  complainant  notified 
 that  they  will  be  contacted  by  the  BPL  provider  concerning  their  interference  complaint.  The  Commission  may  periodically  monitor  the  resolution  process  to  ensure  that  the  parties  are  working  in  good  faith  and 
 making  appropriate  progress  in  resolving  the  interference  complaint.  If  the  parties  have  attempted  to  address  the  complaint  but  the  matter  remains  unresolved,  the  Commission,  through  its  Enforcement 
 Bureau  with  assistance  from  the  Office  of  Engineering  and  Technology  will  review  the  complaint  and  take  appropriate  action.  In  general,  the  Commission  will  contact  the  BPL  operator  and  request 
 information  on  what  steps  they  have  taken  to  address  the  licensees  complaint.  If  these  actions  are  deemed  insufficient  to  resolve  the  interference  complaint,  the  Commission  will  instruct  the  BPL  operator 
 to  take  immediate  remedial  actions,  such  as  notching  or  avoiding  specific  frequencies,  or  ceasing  operations.  124  In  specific  instances,  the  Commission  may  undertake  field  testing  and  measurements  to 
 address  interference  complaints  and  determine  the  most  appropriate  remedial  action. 
 61.  Frequency  Avoidance.  NTIA  supports  our  assessment  in  the  Notice  that  BPL  frequency  avoidance  capabilities  can  be  used  to  prevent  or  rapidly  diagnose  and  eliminate  interference.  125  It  states 


 that  to  quickly  diagnose  claims  of  interference  while  sustaining  Access  BPL  service,  a  system  operator  could  simply  shift  its  operating  frequency  to  determine  whether  its  system  was  causing  the  interference. 
 NTIA  further  states  that  if  it  is  determined  that  a  system  is  the  source  of  the  interference,  the  systems  operation  could  be  reset  to  use  only  non-  interfering  frequencies.  NTIA  submits  that  to  achieve  these 
 benefits,  Access  BPL  systems  should  be  required  to  be  capable  of  precluding  transmissions  in  bands  of  at  least  3  kHz  at  frequencies  below  30  MHz  and  30  kHz  at  frequencies  above  30  MHz. 


 62.  NTIA  also  suggests  that  use  of  adaptive  or  commanded  power  control  could  significantly  reduce  the  risk  of  interference  by  maintaining  Access  BPL  signals  near  the  minimum  power  level  needed  for 
 service  in  response  to  measured  or  predicted  transmission  channel.  126  It  states  that  interference  risks  can  be  significantly  reduced  by  adjusting  power  consistent  with  variations  in  noise  power  that  cannot 
 reasonably  be  eliminated  prior  to  Access  BPL  deployment,  rather  than  simply  setting  a  BPL  devices  output  power  at  a  constant  level  that  is  high  enough  to  yield  the  requisite  BPL  Signal-  to-  Noise  ratio  (S/  N) 
 during  peak  noise  levels.  127  NTIA  also  recommends  that  Access  BPL  systems  use  blocking  filters  to  limit  the  reach  of  their  transmissions  beyond  where  service  is  provided. 


 124  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.5. 
 125  See  comments  of  NTIA  at  9-  10. 
 126  See  comments  of  NTIA  at  9.  NTIA  notes  that  power  line  noise  can  vary  by  upwards  of  20  dB  throughout  the 
 day  and  seasonally,  especially  at  frequencies  below  12  MHz. 
 127  See  comments  of  NTIA  at  9.  NTIA  also  suggests  that  the  Access  BPL  device  multiple  access  technique  and 
 modulation  details  in  addition  to  the  method  of  power  control  would  sufficiently  describe  the  BPL  emission  waveforms  to  enable  identification  of  BPL  emissions  using  a  spectrum  analyzer.  In  a  letter  of  September  21, 


 2004,  from  Frederick  R.  Wentland,  Associate  Chief,  NTIA  Office  of  Spectrum  Management,  to  Ed  Thomas,  Chief  of  the  Commissions  Office  of  Engineering  and  Technology,  NTIA  states  that  it  does  not  support  a  requirement 
 for  Access  BPL  systems  to  transmit  identification  codes  or  call  signs.  NTIA  indicates  that  such  codes  would  unacceptably  increase  interference  risks. 
28
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 29 
 63.  Access  BPL  proponents  generally  argue  that  Access  BPL  providers  should  have  the  flexibility  in  designing  their  own  mitigation  techniques.  128  These  parties  generally  hold  that  while  the  specific 
 techniques  and  practices  suggested  by  NTIA  are  desirable  features  for  mitigating  interference  from  Access  BPL  systems,  we  should  not  mandate  them  by  rule.  For  example,  the  APPA,  AT&  T, 
 PowerWAN,  Progress  Energy,  and  Southern  submit  that  particular  specifications  for  range  of  frequencies  and  other  specific  control  mechanisms  are  not  necessary  because  the  modulation  techniques  that  make 
 Access  BPL  operation  feasible  are  by  their  nature  adaptable.  Southern  agrees  with  NTIA  that  power  reduction  at  specific  devices  and  or  specific  frequencies  should  be  considered  as  an  option  for  mitigating 
 interference.  It  also  agrees  with  NTIA  that  techniques  such  as  frequency  avoidance,  using  balanced  differential  BPL  signal  injection,  and  using  blocking  filters  to  limit  the  reach  of  BPL  signals  beyond 
 where  service  is  provided  could  also  be  useful  components  in  interference  mitigation.  However,  its  states  that  the  viability  of  any  of  these  techniques  will  depend  on  the  type  of  technology  and  network  and  that 
 we  should  therefore  provide  flexibility  for  system  operators.  129  AT&  T  similarly  states  that  requiring  specific  mitigation  techniques  and  procedures  would  not  be  appropriate  because  each  system  will  have 
 different  operational  parameters,  including  the  frequencies  used,  the  equipment  deployed,  the  geographic  scope  of  the  deployment,  and  the  surrounding  topographies.  AT&  T,  Duke  Energy  and  PowerWAN  also 
 argue  that  any  requirements  for  frequency  notching  and  remote  control  power  reduction  should  be  applied  prudently,  as  the  cost  and  complexity  of  equipment  will  be  affected  as  more  requirements  are  specified. 
 Duke  Energy  states  that  mandating  all  or  even  some  specific  interference  mitigation  capabilities  be  available  on  every  piece  of  BPL  equipment  could  result  in  wasted  resources.  130 


 64.  NAS/  CORF  supports  the  use  of  notching  of  Access  BPL  signals  to  protect  radio  astronomy  stations.  It  states  that  such  notching  should  ensure  that  Access  BPL  emissions  in  the  HF  and  low  VHF 
 radio  astronomy  bands  do  not  exceed  100  V/  m  at  3  meters.  The  ARRL  contends  that  dynamic  frequency  selection  capabilities  will  not  work  because  that  technology  only  responds  to  transmitted 
 signals  heard,  and  these  capabilities  are  not  sensitive  enough  to  hear  the  weak  signals  that  a  licensed  station  is  attempting  to  receive.  131  The  ARRL,  API,  Boeing,  IMSA,  MSHP  and  SBE  request  that  Access 
 BPL  systems  be  required  to  notch  the  bands  used  by  their  services,  and  REC  Networks  asks  that  we  require  Access  BPL  systems  to  notch  all  licensed  radio  bands  in  the  2-  80  MHz  bands.  132  Anthony  Good, 
 Boeing,  and  Tracy  K.  Wood  recommend  that  we  require  Access  BPL  devices  to  incorporate  "marker  beacons"  that  carry  identifying  data  for  use  in  tracing  interference.  133  Boeing  states  that  absent  such 
 markers,  there  is  no  way  for  aeronautical  operators  to  identify  the  source  of  Access  BPL  signals.  134 


 128  See  comments  of  AT&  T  at  5-  6,  APPA  at  5,  PowerWAN  at  2,  Progress  Energy  at  6,  and  Southern  at  18-  19;  see 
 also,  reply  comments  of  Ameren  at  11  and  Con  Edison  at  5;  see  also  reply  comments  of  Current  at  21-  25. 
 129  See  reply  comments  of  Southern  at  34. 


 130  See  reply  comments  of  Duke  Energy  at  15-  16.  For  example,  it  would  not  be  cost-  effective  or  necessary  to 
 require  underground  devices  to  incorporate  a  host  of  mitigation  capabilities,  as  interference  concerns  are  greatly  reduced  due  to  the  shielding  that  would  naturally  or  inherently  occur. 


 131  See  comments  of  ARRL  at  21. 
 132  See  comments  of  ARRL  at  21,  API  at  7,  Boeing  at  2,  IMSA  at  4,  MSHP  at  6,  REC  Networks  at    3-  4.,  and 
 reply  comments  of  SBE  at  5. 
 133  See  comments  of  Tracy  K.  Wood  at  4-  5,  Anthony  Good  at  2. 


 134  See  comments  of  Boeing  at  13. 
29
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 30 
 65.  We  conclude  that  the  most  appropriate  approach  regarding  mitigation  techniques  that  involve  altering  system  operation  is  to  require  that  Access  BPL  systems  incorporate  the  capability  to  avoid  the  use 
 of  specific  frequency  bands.  The  ability  to  alter  a  systems  operation  to  notch-  out  transmissions  from  specific  frequencies  where  interference  is  occurring  is  a  necessary  feature  for  resolving  interference 
 without  disrupting  service  to  BPL  subscribers.  While  other  mitigation  capabilities,  such  as  adaptive  or  commanded  power  control,  are  desirable  system  features  that  can  serve  to  reduce  interference  potential, 
 they  generally  would  provide  a  much  lower  degree  of  benefit  in  eliminating  interference  than  frequency  avoidance.  Limiting  the  requirement  for  operational  modification  capabilities  to  frequency  avoidance  is 
 also  consistent  with  our  intent  to  minimize  the  impact  of  these  requirements  on  manufacturers  and  system  operators  so  as  preserve  their  flexibility  to  design  products  and  systems  that  will  best  meet  the  needs  of 
 Access  BPL  subscribers. 
 66.  In  considering  specifications  for  the  notching  requirement,  we  find  that  the  most  important  consideration  is  to  ensure  that  the  notch  provides  enough  filtering  to  effectively  reduce  the  potential  for 


 interference.  Our  experience  in  examining  the  field  performance  of  various  Access  BPL  operations  indicates  that  at  frequencies  below  30  MHz,  a  notching  capability  that  provides  at  least  a  20  dB  reduction 
 of  Access  BPL  emissions  below  the  current  applicable  Part  15  emission  limits  is  adequate  to  resolve  interference  occurrences  that  might  result  to  mobile  reception  from  such  operations.  In  this  regard,  we 
 will  generally  assume  that  a  20  dB  notch  is  sufficient  to  resolve  any  harmful  interference  that  might  occur  to  mobile  operations,  given  the  low  signal  levels  allowed  under  the  Part  15  emission  limits  and  the  fact 
 that  a  mobile  transceiver  can  readily  be  re-  positioned  to  provide  some  separation  from  the  Access  BPL  operation.  The  interference  potential  from  emissions  at  this  low  level  would  be  limited  to  a  very  short 
 range  from  an  Access  BPL  device  or  a  power  line  on  which  Access  BPL  transmissions  are  carried.  We  also  believe  that  notching  at  this  level  with  some  distance  separation  will  generally  avoid  interference  to 
 fixed  operations,  including  those  that  use  more  sensitive  receivers.  135  Above  30  MHz  we  believe  that  a  notching  capability  of  at  least  10  dB  is  sufficient  to  provide  the  same  level  of  protection,  given  the  more 
 stringent  Part  15  emission  limits  that  apply  to  Access  BPL  transmissions  above  30  MHz  and  the  increased  attenuation  of  emissions  that  occurs  from  propagation  losses  as  the  frequency  of  operation  increases.  136 
 With  regard  to  NAS/  CORFs  requests  for  protection  of  radioastronomy,  we  note  that  special  protections  are  provided  for  radioastronomy  in  the  exclusion  zones  and  consultation  requirements  for  Access  BPL  as 
 set  forth  above. 
 67.  We  do  not  believe  it  is  necessary  to  specify  the  bandwidth  over  which  the  notching  capability  must  function.  Rather,  we  will  adopt  the  more  general  requirement  that  Access  BPL  systems  must  be 


 capable  of  avoiding  transmissions  in  any  frequency  band  or  bands  in  order  to  eliminate  any  instances  of  interference  with  the  operations  of  licensed  radio  services.  We  therefore  are  amending  our  rules  to 
 require  that  Access  BPL  devices  have  the  capability  to  reduce  emissions  by  at  least  20  dB  below  the  Part  15  emission  limits  in  frequency  bands  below  30  MHz  and  10  dB  below  those  limits  in  frequency  bands  30 
 MHz  and  above.  We  believe  that  these  provisions  adequately  set  forth  the  structure  of  the  required  capabilities  for  modifying  the  operation  of  an  Access  BPL  system.  We  are  not  specifying  requirements  for 
 use  of  the  frequency  avoidance  capabilities.  Rather,  we  believe  that  system  operators  should  have  the  discretion  to  use  this  capability  or  any  other  alternative  available  to  them  as  they  might  deem  appropriate 


 135  Under  this  requirement,  Access  BPL  systems  will  have  to  be  able  to  limit  their  emissions  in  bands  selected  for 
 frequency  avoidance  to  50  dBV/  m  at  frequencies  from  1.705  to  30  MHz  and  30  dBuV/  m  at  frequencies  above  30  MHz.  These  values  apply  for  measurements  at  3  meters. 


 136  For  example,  the  free  space  propagation  loss  between  two  isotropic  antennas  separated  by  100  meters  is 
 approximately  18.5  dB  at  2  MHz,  32  dB  at  10  MHz,  38  dB  at  20  MHz,  42  dB  at  30  MHz,  and  50  dB  at  80  MHz. 
30
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 31 
 to  resolve  specific  situations  involving  interference  that  they  may  encounter  in  the  course  of  their  operations. 
 68.  We  do  not  find  any  justification  for  a  requirement  that  Access  BPL  operators  notch  the  frequencies  of  any  or  all  of  those  services  that  use  frequencies  in  the  HF  and  low  VHF  bands.  As  stated 
 above,  we  believe  that  the  emission  limits,  consultation  areas,  excluded  bands,  exclusion  zones,  and  the  requirement  that  Access  BPL  systems  not  cause  interference,  as  set  forth  above,  are  generally  sufficient  to 
 control  the  interference  potential  of  these  systems.  The  required  notching  capability  will  enable  a  system  operator  to  address  any  specific  instances  of  interference  that  might  otherwise  arise.  We  also  decline  to 
 adopt  a  rule  requiring  transmission  of  identification  codes.  As  NTIA  states,  such  codes  could  increase  the  potential  for  interference  from  Access  BPL  operations.  We  also  do  not  believe  that  it  would  be 
 practicable  for  ARINC  or  any  other  operator  to  identify  an  Access  BPL  system  as  the  source  of  interference  and  contact  its  operator  on  a  real  time  basis  to  resolve  the  interference.  As  NTIA  indicates  in 
 its  letter  of  September  24,  2004,  no  practical  method  has  been  identified  for  Access  BPL  systems  to  transmit  an  identifying  code.  We  believe  that  the  Access  BPL  notification  requirements,  as  described 
 below,  will  provide  sufficient  information  to  locate  and  mitigate  interference. 
 69.  Shut  Down  Requirement.  NTIA  submits  that  in  addition  to  providing  a  means  for  final  resolution  of  interference,  a  shut-  down  feature  could  be  used  to  rapidly  test  whether  the  system  is  causing 


 interference.  It  states  that  a  simple  on-  off  test  using  the  shut-  down  feature  would  serve  to  indicate  whether  the  system  was  the  source  of  observed  interference.  NTIA  states  that  a  shut-  down  requirement  is 
 also  practicable  and  effective.  In  this  regard,  NTIA  submits  that  in  the  course  of  conducting  its  BPL  measurements,  its  personnel  requested  shut-  downs  and  confirmations  of  BPL  frequency  usage  via 
 telephone  and  these  requests  were  executed  within  a  matter  of  seconds  under  pre-  arranged  conditions.  It  states  that  while  such  speedy  responses  may  not  be  routinely  practicable  in  response  to  complaints  of 
 suspected  interference,  a  requirement  to  be  capable  of  shut-  down  of  Access  BPL  network  elements  coupled  with  system  operators  incentives  to  preclude  filings  of  interference  complaints  with  the 
 Commission  should  yield  prompt  resolution  of  cases  of  Access  BPL  interference.  NTIA  also  indicates  that  shut  down  should  be  the  last  resort  if  other  mitigation  techniques  are  ineffective  in  resolving 
 interference.  137 
 70.  The  AMA,  ARINC,  ARRL,  API,  and  Boeing  support  our  proposal  to  require  that  Access  BPL  systems  incorporate  a  shut-  down  feature  that  would  allow  deactivation  of  units  found  to  cause  harmful 


 interference.  For  example,  ARINC  and  Boeing  recommend  that  the  rules  require,  at  a  minimum,  that  Access  BPL  system  devices  incorporate  circuitry  allowing  operators  to  remotely  turn  their  devices  on  and 
 off.  138  Boeing  notes,  however,  that  it  would  be  impractical  to  expect  an  Access  BPL  network  to  shut  down  operations  in  sufficient  time  to  restore  communications  between  a  specific  aircraft  and  a  specific 
 HF  receive  station  on  a  case-  by-  case  basis.  139  The  ARRL,  API  and  AMA  also  ask  that  we  require  Access  BPL  operators  to  notify  their  customers  in  advance  of  possible  service  interruptions  resulting  from 
 interference  mitigation.  140 
 71.  Other  parties  ask  that  we  clarify  that  interference  mitigation  techniques  may  be  implemented  in  the  first  instance  and  that  the  shut-  off  feature  should  be  used  as  a  last  resort.  In  their  reply  comments, 


 137  See  comments  of  NTIA  at  viii. 
 138  See  reply  comments  of  ARINC  at  7. 
 139  See  comments  of  Boeing  at  10  and  12. 
 140  See  comments  of  ARRL  at  24,  API  at  11  and  AMA  at  6-  7.  See  also  reply  comments  of  PVRC  at  13. 
31
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 32 
 Con  Edison,  Duke  Energy,  Southern,  and  the  UPLC  submit  that  Access  BPL  operators  should  be  permitted  to  correct  harmful  interference  by  notching  or  shifting  frequencies  prior  to  having  to  shut  down 
 an  Access  BPL  device.  141  Progress  Energy  suggests  that  any  mandatory  shut-  down  capability  be  specified  as  manually  controlled  because  any  automated  shut-  down  capability  could  have  detrimental  effects  on  a 
 power  utility  services  operations  in  addition  to  disrupting  broadband  service  to  its  Access  BPL  customers.  142  Ameren  opposes  the  proposed  requirement  that  Access  BPL  equipment  include  a  shut-down 
 feature  that  allows  deactivation  of  units  found  to  be  causing  interference.  143  It  argues  that  this  feature  would  add  unnecessary  cost  and  complexity  to  equipment  and  suggests  that  we  instead  rely  on  the 
 requirements  for  no  interference  in  Section  15.5  to  address  interference. 
 72.  We  continue  to  believe  that  Access  BPL  equipment  and  systems  should  have  the  capability  to  deactivate  individual  system  components.  This  feature  will  allow  systems  to  deactivate  limited  portions 


 of  their  plant  so  that  localized  interference  problems  can  be  addressed  without  affecting  service  to  all  of  their  subscribers.  As  a  secondary  benefit,  the  shut-  down  feature  will  allow  system  operators  to  rapidly 
 diagnose  whether  their  operations  are  causing  reported  interference.  We  are  also  requiring  that  the  shut-down  feature  in  individual  devices  be  remote-  controllable  from  the  central  system  operations  facility  or 
 other  appropriate  location.  This  will  allow  rapid  response  to  resolve  interference  in  any  emergency  or  other  urgent  situation  that  might  arise.  We  also  agree  with  Progress  Energy  the  required  shut-  down 
 capability  should  be  manually  controlled.  Moreover,  we  have  no  record  on  which  to  base  a  decision  on  the  conditions  under  which  an  automated  capability  would  be  activated.  We  also  recognize  that, 
 depending  on  how  it  would  be  triggered,  an  automated  shut-  down  capability  could  unnecessarily  have  detrimental  effects  on  a  power  utility  services  operations  in  addition  to  disrupting  broadband  service  to 
 its  Access  BPL  customers. 
 73.  It  is  not  our  intention  that  a  service  shut-  down  be  the  first  step  in  a  system  operators  response  to  a  valid  interference  complaint.  As  suggested  by  several  of  the  commenting  parties,  we  would  anticipate 


 that  shut-  down  would  be  a  last  resort  when  all  other  efforts  to  satisfactorily  reduce  interference  have  failed.  We  disagree  with  Ameren  that  the  shut-  down  requirement  will  add  unnecessary  costs  and 
 complexity  to  Access  BPL  equipment.  As  NTIA  and  our  own  field  testing  indicate,  most  Access  BPL  systems  and  equipment  already  include  the  capability  to  shut-  down  specific  components  of  their 
 operation.  Accordingly,  we  are  requiring  that  Access  BPL  systems  incorporate  features  that  will  allow  the  deactivation  of  individual  components  on  a  remote  controlled  basis,  to  be  implemented  and  used  as 
 discussed  above.  We  reiterate,  however,  that  the  Commission,  through  a  duly  authorized  representative,  is  the  sole  authority  that  may  direct  an  Access  BPL  operator  to  cease  operating  any  of  its  devices  to 
 eliminate  interference.  144 
 D.  Access  BPL  Notification  and  Database  Requirements 
 74.  In  the  Notice,  we  proposed  to  subject  Access  BPL  systems  to  a  notification  requirement  similar  to  the  notification  requirements  in  our  rules  for  power  line  carrier  (PLC)  systems.  145  Under  this  requirement, 


 141  See  reply  comments  of  Con  Edison  at  4,  Duke  Energy  at  46,  Southern  at  17  and  31,  and  UPLC  at  10. 
 142  See  comments  of  Progress  Energy  at  6. 
 143  See  comments  of  Ameren  at  8-  9. 
 144  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.5(  c). 
 145  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.113  and  47  C.  F.  R.    2.106,  Note  US294.  Under  the  existing  rules,  information  on  power 
 line  carrier  systems  must  be  entered  into  a  database  administered  by  United  Telecom  Council  (UTC). 
32
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 33 
 an  Access  BPL  system  operator  would  submit  information  on  its  system  to  an  industry-  operated  entity.  This  entity  would  establish  a  publicly  accessible  database  for  Access  BPL  information  to  ensure  that  the 
 location  of  Access  BPL  systems  and  their  operating  characteristics  can  be  identified  if  harmful  interference  occurs  and  to  facilitate  the  activation  of  interference  mitigation  and  avoidance  measures.  As 
 proposed,  this  notification  would  include  information  on  the  location  of  the  installation,  the  type  of  modulation  used,  and  the  frequency  bands  of  operation.  We  sought  comment  on  these  proposals 
 including  suggestions  on  the  appropriate  industry-  operated  entity  that  should  be  selected  to  receive  the  notifications  and  maintain  the  Access  BPL  data  base.  In  addition,  we  asked  for  suggestions  regarding 
 other  approaches  for  making  this  information  available  and  for  input  on  whether  it  would  be  more  reasonable  to  allow  each  Access  BPL  operator  to  maintain  a  database  of  its  own  rather  than  require  a 
 more  centralized  data  base.  We  further  sought  input  on  the  burden  that  the  proposed  notification  requirement  would  place  on  entities  operating  Access  BPL  systems,  and  any  impact  of  a  notification 
 system  on  the  availability  of  customer  data,  as  well  as  how  any  concerns  regarding  the  proprietary  nature  of  that  data  can  be  addressed.  146 


 75.  NTIA  supports  a  requirement  that  BPL  operators  notify  key  BPL  system  parameters  to  an  industry  database.  NTIA  states  that  the  database  will  serve  to  facilitate  prior  consultation  of  Access  BPL 
 deployments  with  licensed  radio  users.  147  NTIA  suggests  that  by  entering  planned  new  Access  BPL  deployments  in  the  data  base  at  least  30  days  in  advance  of  consultation,  concerned  radio  operators  could 
 inform  BPL  system  operators  of  local  radio  operations  that  may  be  affected  and  that  the  system  operators  could  consult  with  potentially  affected  parties  as  necessary  in  order  to  prevent  interference.  NTIA 
 recommends  that  notification  of  the  earliest  anticipated  date  of  actual  operation  within  each  deployment  area  should  be  included  in  any  notification  so  that  NTIA  can  properly  prioritize  its  responses  to  Access 
 BPL  notifications.  NTIA  states  that  in  response  to  each  advance  notification,  it  plans  to  provide  the  BPL  operator  with  information  that  will  enable  prevention  of  interference  to  local  federal  radio  operations. 


 76.  NTIA  recommends  for  each  deployment  area  that  Access  BPL  operators  specify  the  maximum  number  of  each  type  of  Access  BPL  device  to  be  deployed  in  the  specified  area  and  that  subsequent 
 notifications  should  be  submitted  at  least  quarterly  for  each  deployment  area,  as  needed,  to  report  the  total  numbers  of  each  type  of  device  that  have  been  deployed  and  to  update  other  advance  notification 
 parameters.  148  NTIA  also  indicates  that  Access  BPL  system  notifications  should  include  information  on  the  modulation  type(  s),  number(  s)  of  carriers,  minimum  and  maximum  carrier  spacing,  symbol  rate(  s)  per 
 carrier,  range  of  transmission  duty  cycle,  and  the  multiple  access  technique.  149  NTIA  also  recommends  that  planned  BPL  system  locations  be  notified  in  the  form  of  one  or  more  geographic  coordinates  (in 
 decimal  degrees)  and  associated  radii  (in  kilometers).  Finally,  NTIA  recommends  that  each  notification  of  BPL  deployment  include  a  single  telephone  point  of  contact  for  each  deployment  area  and  an  e-  mail 
 address.  NTIA  asserts  that  the  telephone  point  of  contact  should  be  required  to  receive  complaints  of  suspected  interference  and  be  capable  of  accomplishing  rapid  diagnosis  during  the  same  telephone 
 session,  or  shortly  thereafter,  by  a  mutually  agreed  schedule.  150 


 146  Notice  at  43. 
 147  See  comments  of  NTIA  at  9-  11. 
 148  See  comments  of  NTIA  at  11-  12.  NTIA  states  that  over  time  this  data  would  assist  in  updating  its  predictions 
 of  increases  in  ambient  radio  noise  due  to  ionospheric  propagation  and  aggregation  of  emissions  from  BPL  devices. 


 149  See  comments  of  NTIA  at  12. 
 150  See  comments  of  NTIA  at  13. 
33
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 34 
 77.  A  number  of  potential  Access  BPL  providers  and  proponents  generally  support  the  creation  of  a  publicly  accessible  database,  as  proposed  in  the  Notice.  Southern  recommends  that  each  BPL  operator 
 provide  to  an  industry-  operated  entity  a  list  of  zip  codes  where  BPL  is  deployed,  the  range  of  frequencies  over  which  its  BPL  system  operates  and  a  point  of  contact  to  whom  interference  complaints  should  be 
 sent.  Anyone  experiencing  interference  could  query  the  database  which  would  return  general  information  on  deployed  BPL  systems  and  direct  the  complainant  to  a  contact  name  and  phone  number  at  the  BPL 
 operators  company.  151  Main.  Net  and  Earthlink  recommend  that  the  information  submitted  to  the  database  include  only  the  city  or  town  where  the  BPL  system  is  deployed,  the  responsible  power  utility  or 
 BPL  operator,  and  a  toll  free  contact  number.  152  Duke  Energy  recommends  that  disclosures  and  database  access  be  limited  to  the  minimum  necessary  to  place  a  licensee  in  touch  with  the  appropriate  BPL 
 operator  to  cooperatively  diagnose  and  remedy  harmful  interference  issues.  153 
 78.  Some  parties  raise  concerns  that  a  publicly  available  BPL  database,  or  the  inclusion  of  more  detailed  information  in  the  database,  could  compromise  sensitive  or  critical  information  about  the  electric 


 power  grid.  UPLC  supports  the  FCCs  proposal  of  a  notification  database,  but  only  to  the  extent  that  public  disclosure  of  information  is  limited  to  that  which  is  necessary  to  effectively  resolve  interference 
 without  providing  sensitive  information  that  could  compromise  critical  infrastructure.  154  APPA  states,  for  example,  that  the  database  proposal  raises  serious  national  security  issues  and  it  urges  the  Commission  to 
 adopt  a  notification  rule  that  does  not  require  the  disclosure  of  sensitive  information.  155  HECO  recommends  the  use  of  a  secure,  independent  database  custodian  to  guard  potential  risks  of  disclosure  of 
 critical  infrastructure,  as  defined  by  FEMA.  156  PPL  Telcom  argues  that  in  the  near  future,  BPL  may  be  used  for  electric  utility  supervisory  control  and  data  acquisition  (SCADA)  communications  and  public 
 disclosure  of  BPL  locations  and  operating  frequencies  would  expose  electric  utility  operations  to  risk  through  deliberate  degradation  or  interruptions  of  the  SCADA  communications  carried  by  BPL. 


 79.  Other  parties  argue  that  providing  detailed  information  on  BPL  deployment  also  raises  competitive  issues.  Cinergy,  for  example,  states  that  creating  a  publicly  accessible  database  would  provide 
 entrenched  broadband  providers  with  free  competitive  intelligence  about  a  BPL  providers  network  build-out,  and  would  permit  them  to  target  marketing  and  promotion  efforts  in  an  attempt  to  pre-  empt  BPL 
 providers  offers.  157  Cinergy  is  also  concerned  that  the  database  could  lead  to  abuses  and  be  used  to  file  meritless  interference  complaints  against  access  BPL  operations.  158  Similarly,  PLL  Telecom  is  concerned 
 that  broadband  competitors  would  obtain  an  unfair  advantage  in  the  marketplace  through  access  to  a  database  that  would  reveal  BPL  growth  plans  and  marketing  strategies. 


 80.  A  number  of  parties,  on  the  other  hand,  recommend  that  the  database  contain  more  detailed  information  on  BPL  operations.  AMA  supports  making  public  information  on  the  location  of  all  BPL 


 151  See  comments  of  Southern  at  10-  11. 
 152  See  comments  of  Main.  Net  at  8.  See  reply  comments  of  Earthlink  at  2. 
 153  See  reply  comments  of  Duke  Energy  at  12. 
 154  See  comments  of  UPLC  at  10. 
 155  See  reply  comment  APPA  at  2  and  comments  at  9. 
 156  See  comments  of  HECO  at  4. 
 157  See  comments  of  Cinergy  at  4. 
 158  See  comments  of  Cinergy  at  4. 
34
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 35 
 transmitters,  and  argues  that  such  information  would  not  disclose  critical  infrastructure  facility  locations  or  present  competitive  concerns.  159  It  notes  vendors  in  the  market  readily  disclose  where  they  offer 
 service  and  commonly  do  so  on  their  internet  web  sites.  AMA  adds  that  a  database  that  is  not  public  is  of  little  use  in  planning  operations  and  avoiding  interfering  conditions.  160  CEA  believes  that  it  is  prudent  to 
 include  the  power  spectral  density  mask  that  represents  the  maximum  power  transmitted  by  the  system  for  any  given  frequency  in  addition  to  location,  modulation  and  frequency  band  of  the  BPL  operations.  161  The 
 PVRC  also  asserts  that  information  on  Access  BPL  would  constitute  the  same  information  typically  available  in  equipment  brochures  or  websites  and  should  not  be  viewed  as  a  source  of  competitive 
 disadvantage.  162  Anthony  Good  states  that  having  a  public  database  of  BPL  systems  will  enable  interference  victims  to  properly  identify  the  operators  of  interfering  BPL  systems  and  file  complaints.  163 
 SBT  recommends  that  the  database  include  mapping  software  that  is  sufficiently  detailed  to  show  the  exact  locations  of  the  lines  over  which  BPL  is  traveling.  164 


 81.  ARRL  supports  NTIAs  proposal  that  BPL  operators  provide  a  single  point  of  contact  for  each  deployment  area  that  can  effectuate  immediate  interference  diagnosis  and  resolution.  ARRL  notes, 
 however,  that  the  single  point  of  contact  would  not  facilitate  resolution  of  interference  to  mobile  stations.  165  ARRL,  ARINC  and  others  assert  that  Access  BPL  operators  should  be  required  to  provide 
 points  of  contact  fluent  in  all  major  languages  that  are  reachable  24  hours  a  day/  seven  days  a  week  in  order  to  allow  parties  using  international  broadcast  services  to  report  interference  complaints.  166  ARINC 
 also  states  that  those  points  of  contact  must  be  capable  of  remotely  initiating  the  steps  needed  to  ascertain  whether  the  interference  complaints  are  likely  due  to  Access  BPL  operations  and  be  empowered  to 
 dispatch  personnel  to  troubleshoot  any  complaints  that  cannot  be  resolved  remotely.  167  Southern,  in  its  reply  comments,  objects  to  a  requirement  to  have  multilingual  employees  so  that  BPL  operators  could 
 address  interference  complaints  from  non-  English  speaking  shortwave  radio  listeners.  It  states  that  such  a  requirement  is  unreasonable  and  would  place  it  and  other  BPL  providers  at  a  disadvantage  to  other 
 communications  service  providers.  168  Duke  Energy  states  that  it  is  unreasonable  and  unnecessary  to  require  BPL  operators  to  staff  a  hotline  and  maintain  field  personnel  to  address  interference  concerns 
 instantaneously  during  non-  business  hours  on  a  non-  emergency  basis.  169 


 159  See  reply  comments  of  AMA  at  3-  4. 
 160  Id.. 
 161  See  comments  of  CEA  at  7. 
 162  See  reply  comments  of  PVRC  at  10. 
 163  See  reply  comments  of  Anthony  Good  at  2. 
 164  See  comments  of  SBT  at  8. 
 165  See  reply  comments  of  ARRL  at  21. 
 166  See  reply  comments  of  ARINC  at  2  and  comments  of  ARRL  at  23;  North  American  Shortwave  Association  at 
 5;  Small  Business  in  Telecommunications  at  7-  9;  and  Tracy  K.  Wood  at  5. 
 167  See  reply  comments  of  ARINC  at  8. 


 168  Id.  at  32. 
 169  See  reply  comments  of  Duke  Energy  at  12. 
35
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 36 
 82.  At  least  two  parties,  UPLC  and  Comsearch,  offer  to  provide  BPL  notification  database  administration  services.  170  UPLC  states  that  it  has  the  resources  and  the  experience  from  its  relationship 
 with  the  United  Telecom  Council  (UTC)  to  effectively  serve  as  the  BPL  database  administrator.  171  Comsearch  states  that  it  has  extensive  experience  in  maintaining  state  of  the  art  software  and  databases 
 for  mobile,  microwave  and  satellite  communications  systems.  172  Comsearch  also  states  that  its  position  as  an  independent  third  party  would  address  concerns  raised  by  certain  parties  that  the  database 
 administrator  not  be  associated  with  the  utilities  providing  BPL  service.  Comsearch  indicates  that  is  feasible  for  a  third-  party  entity  to  perform  the  database  notification  functions  as  well  as  interference 
 analyses  and  interference  resolution  without  releasing  information  in  bulk.  173  NAC/  Amherst  agrees  with  Comsearch  that  the  proposed  BPL  database  should  be  administered  by  a  third  party  rather  than  the  BPL 
 service  industry  itself  or  its  members.  It  states  that  the  FCC  should  permit  interested  non-  profit  organizations  as  well  as  private  sector  parties  that  have  no  connection  to  the  BPL  industry  to  compete  for 
 the  position.  NAC/  Amherst  recognize  that  such  an  entity  would  need  to  be  compensated  for  its  services  and  suggests  that  the  Commission  establish  a  surcharge  on  the  sale  or  lease  of  BPL  services,  facilities 
 and/  or  equipment  to  provide  revenue  for  the  third  party  entity.  174 
 83.  Decision.  We  continue  to  believe  that  the  Access  BPL  notification  and  database  requirements  proposed  in  the  Notice  are  appropriate  and  sufficient  to  ensure  that  any  potential  interference  to  licensed 


 services  from  BPL  operations  can  be  adequately  identified  and  quickly  addressed.  The  primary  intent  of  our  notification  and  database  requirements  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.  The  information  contained  in  the  notification  database  need  only  be  sufficient  to  determine  whether  there  may  be  a  BPL  operation  in  the  local  area,  the  nature  of  the 
 BPL  operations,  whether  the  BPL  system  is  operating  on  frequencies  that  could  potentially  be  a  source  of  harmful  interference  to  the  licensed  user  and  to  identify  an  appropriate  contact  person  who  can  work 
 directly  with  the  complainant  to  resolve  the  harmful  interference  if  it  is  determined  to  be  caused  by  the  local  BPL  operations.  Additional  or  more  detailed  relevant  information  needed  by  a  radio  operator  could 
 be  requested  via  the  contact  person  indicated  in  the  data  base,  as  appropriate. 
 84.  We  therefore  are  adopting  rules  that  will  require  the  BPL  industry  to  establish  within  180  days  from  publication  of  this  item  in  the  Federal  Register  a  centralized  publicly  accessible  Access  BPL 


 notification  database.  175  We  note  that  two  organizations  have  indicated  their  willingness  to  perform  this  task  and  that  the  issue  of  independence  of  the  database  manager  has  been  raised  by  some  of  the 
 commenting  parties.  The  responsibilities  and  duties  of  the  database  manager  are  to  maintain  complete, 


 170  See  comments  of  UPLC  at  12  and  reply  comments  of  Comsearch  at  3. 
 171  Under  the  existing  rules,  information  on  power  line  carrier  systems  must  be  entered  into  a  database  coordinated 
 by  the  United  Telecom  Council,  formerly  Utilities  Telecommunications  Council,  (UTC),  the  designated  coordinator  and  database  operator  for  power  line  carrier  systems.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.113  and  90.35(  f).  See  also 


 footnote  58  and  comments  of  UPLC  at  12-  13. 
 172  See  reply  comments  of  Comsearch  at  3. 


 173  Id.,  at  2-  3. 
 174  See  reply  comments  of  NAC/  Amherst  at  5  and  additional  reply  comments  at  2-  3. 
 175  Prior  to  the  time  the  Access  BPL  industry  database  manager  is  established  and  the  database  operational,  we 
 encourage  Access  BPL  operators  to  make  available  the  notification  information  on  an  individual  basis. 
36
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 37 
 accurate  and  timely  records  of  FCC-  mandated  information.  We  are  not  requiring,  as  some  parties  have  suggested,  that  the  database  manager  be  involved  in,  monitor,  or  manage  the  interference  resolution 
 process.  The  party  responsible  for  avoiding  interference  is  clearly  the  Access  BPL  operator  and  his  responsibilities  are  clearly  set  forth  in  the  existing  procedures  under  Section  15.5(  c)  of  the  Commission 
 rules.  We  therefore  do  not  find  that  the  database  manager  need  be  an  independent  third-  party  with  no  relationship  to  the  BPL  or  utility  industry  and  are  not  adopting  such  a  requirement. 


 85.  With  regard  to  the  information  to  be  included  in  the  database,  we  are  adopting  rules  that  require  the  Access  BPL  operator  to  provide  the  BPL  industry  designated  database  manager  with  the  following 
 information  30  days  prior  to  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.  176  The  database  manager  shall  be  required  to  enter  this  information  into  the  publicly  accessible  database  within  3  business  days  of  receipt. 
 This  will  allow  some  period  of  time  for  the  database  manager  and  BPL  provider  to  address  any  questions  with  regard  to  information  submitted  and  to  ensure  that  information  entered  into  the  database  is  correct. 
 We  believe  that  the  above  information  provides  sufficient  specificity  for  identifying  potential  interference  while  at  the  same  time  avoiding  valid  concerns  that  sensitive  information  on  critical  infrastructure  not  be 
 revealed. 
 86.  We  believe  that  using  zip  codes,  as  suggested  by  Southern,  would  sufficiently  identify  the  area  of  Access  BPL  deployment  without  revealing  specific  sensitive  information  and  would  facilitate  a  more 


 organized  approach  to  identification  and  resolution  of  harmful  interference.  We  note  that  zip  codes  are  easily  understood  and  can  be  identified  by  both  licensees  and  BPL  operators.  With  regard  to  those  parties 
 that  request  more  comprehensive  information,  we  do  not  find  that  benefits  of  providing  such  information  in  the  database  would  outweigh  the  substantial  cost  of  collecting  and  reporting  this  additional 
 information.  We  note,  for  example,  that  NTIAs  proposals  to  require  information  on  modulation  types,  number  of  carriers,  range  of  transmission  duty  cycle,  minimum  and  maximum  carrier  spacing,  symbol 
 rates  per  carrier,  etc.,  would  provide  little  additional  guidance  on  whether  interference  were  being  caused  in  a  particular  instance  as  compared  to  the  more  simple  requirement  of  identifying  BPL  operating 
 frequencies.  In  addition,  we  are  requiring  herein  that  BPL  equipment  must  be  certified  and  therefore  more  detailed  technical  information  will  be  available  through  our  equipment  authorization  files  for  those 
 parties  desiring  such  information.  We  also  are  not  requiring  Access  BPL  operators  to  have  multi-  lingual  contact  persons.  We  believe  that  requiring  both  telephone  and  e-  mail  contact  information  is  sufficient  to 
 address  interference  inquiries.  We  are  also  not  requiring  that  telephone  contact  positions  be  staffed  24  hours  per  day  and  seven  days  a  week.  We  believe  that  our  emission  requirements  and  other  mitigation 
 rules  will  ensure  that  interference  is  generally  avoided.  We  believe  that  telephone  contact  staffing  during  normal  business  hours  is  sufficient  and  also  note  that  e-  mail  would  generally  allow  interference  reports  to 
 be  filed  at  any  time. 
 87.  We  expect  the  Access  BPL  operators  and  licensees  to  cooperate  in  good  faith  to  identify  and  resolve  instances  of  harmful  interference.  We  require  the  notification  database  for  Access  BPL  operators 


 to  notify  the  operation  of  its  devices  and  systems  to  facilitate  the  speedy  resolution  of  interference.  Speedy  resolution  of  interference  will  not  result  if  the  database  information  on  Access  BPL  deployments 
 is  abused  and  the  BPL  operators  are  deluged  with  frivolous  interference  complaints.  We  expect  the 
 176  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. 
37
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 38 
 Access  BPL  operators  to  take  every  complaint  of  interference  seriously  and  to  diagnose  the  possible  cause  of  interference  quickly.  At  the  same  time,  we  expect  the  complainant  to  have  first  taken  reasonable  steps 
 to  confirm  that  interference  rather  than  a  receiver  system  malfunction  is  occurring  and,  to  the  extent  practicable,  to  determine  that  the  interference  source  is  located  outside  the  complainants  premises.  We 
 expect  both  parties  to  cooperate  to  determine  a  mutually  acceptable  schedule  to  diagnose  and  resolve  the  interference  complaint,  recognizing  that  the  Access  BPL  operator  may  have  to  prioritize  any  complaints 
 of  interference  that  it  receives  (e.  g.  from  a  public  safety  agency).  With  regard  to  public  safety  operations,  however,  we  will  require  that  the  BPL  operator  respond  to  complaints  of  harmful  interference  from  public 
 safety  users  within  24  hours;  the  BPL  provider  shall  be  required  to  immediately  cease  the  operations  causing  the  public  safety  complaint  if  it  fails  to  respond  to  such  complaint  within  24  hours.  Any 
 complaints  of  interference  that  are  not  resolved  in  accordance  with  the  mutually  agreed  schedule  may  be  filed  with  the  Commission  along  with  the  particulars  of  the  interference  case.  Upon  receipt  of  the 
 interference  complaint,  the  Commission  will  investigate  the  complaint  and  take  action  against  the  Access  BPL  operator  if  it  is  found  to  be  causing  harmful  interference.  If,  on  the  other  hand  the  Commission  uses 
 its  resources  to  investigate  an  interference  complaint  that  is  found  to  be  frivolous,  the  Commission  will  impose  appropriate  sanctions  for  abuse  of  its  administrative  process. 


 E.  Measurement  Guidelines 
 88.  In  order  to  ensure  that  emissions  from  Access  BPL  systems  are  accurately  measured,  in  the  Notice,  we  proposed  specific  measurement  guidelines  for  both  Access  BPL  and  all  other  carrier  current 


 systems.  In  doing  so,  the  Commission  also  fulfills  a  deferred  promise  from  another  docket.  177 
 1.  Access  BPL  Systems 
 89.  In  the  Notice,  we  proposed  to  require  that  Access  BPL  systems,  including  all  of  their  component  electronic  devices,  e.  g.,  couplers,  injectors,  extractors,  repeaters,  boosters,  concentrators  installed  on  the 


 electric  utility  overhead  or  underground  medium  voltage  lines  etc.,  be  measured  in  situ  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  our  Part  15  rules.  As  proposed,  such  measurements  would  be  made  at  a  minimum  of 
 three  overhead  and  three  underground  representative  locations,  using  the  measurement  guidelines  in  Appendix  C  of  the  Notice.  178  For  Access  BPL  systems  in  underground  installations,  the  proposed 
 guidelines  employ  the  common  principle  of  measuring  radiated  fields  along  a  number  of  radials  at  a  specified  distance  from  the  periphery  of  the  pad-  mounted  above-  ground  transformer  where  the  Access 
 BPL  equipment  is  located  to  find  the  maximum  emissions.  For  Access  BPL  systems  installed  on  overhead  lines,  in  order  to  take  into  account  the  effect  of  the  long  power  line,  the  proposed  guidelines 
 specify  measurements  at  fixed  horizontal  distances  from  the  power  line  where  the  Access  BPL  signal  injection  source  is  installed.  Thus,  rather  than  finding  the  maximum  emissions  across  a  number  of  radials, 
 -  as  currently  performed  for  other  Part  15  emitters    the  proposed  guidelines  specify  that  the  receive  antenna  be  moved  down-  line,  parallel  to  the  power  line,  starting  from  the  Access  BPL  signal  injection 
 equipment  location,  to  find  the  maximum  emissions  at  each  frequency  within  the  requisite  frequency  range  of  the  Access  BPL  device;  the  minimum  down-  line  distances  at  which  measurements  are  to  be 
 taken  in  this  sequence  are  specified  in  terms  of  the  wavelength  of  the  Access  BPL  mid-  band  frequency.  179 
 177  See  1998  Biennial  Regulatory  Review  -  Conducted  Emission  Limits  Below  30  MHz  for  Equipment  Regulated 
 under  Parts  15  and  18  of  the  Commission's  Rules,  ET  Docket  98-  80,  Report  and  Order,  17  FCC  Rcd  10806  (2002)  at  2.  In  that  proceeding,  the  Commission  deferred  the  measurement  procedures  for  carrier  current  systems 


 to  a  future  proceeding. 
 178  Notice  at  45  and  Appendix  C,  Notice  at  30-  33. 


 179  Id. 
38
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 39 
 The  proposed  guidelines  also  allow  the  use  of  the  existing  distance  extrapolation  factors  for  measurements  made  at  distances  other  than  the  specified  distance  in  the  rules.  180 
 90.  In  addition,  we  specifically  solicited  comments  on  the  height  of  the  receive  antennas  used  for  measuring  radiated  emissions  from  Access  BPL  systems  operating  on  overhead  power  lines  and  on  the 
 possible  use  of  correction  factors  to  account  for  the  height  of  these  antennas.  The  proposed  guidelines  in  Appendix  C  of  the  Notice  recommend  measuring  with  a  fixed  loop  antenna  at  1  meter  height  for 
 frequencies  below  30  MHz  and  varying  the  height  of  electric  field  sensing  antennas  (e.  g.,  a  dipole)  from  1  to  4  meters  for  measurements  at  frequencies  above  30  MHz.  We  stated  that  while  these 
 recommendations  correspond  to  standard  practice  for  other  types  of  devices  (especially  when  measured  on  a  test  site),  these  heights  may  not  capture  the  maximum  emissions  from  an  overhead  power  line.  In 
 Appendix  C  of  the  Notice,  this  issue  was  addressed  by  proposing  that  distance  extrapolations  for  emission  measurements  on  overhead  lines  be  based  on  slant-  range  distance  from  the  overhead  power  line  to  the 
 measuring  antenna,  rather  than  on  horizontal  distance.  181  We  remarked  however  that  this  technique  does  not  account  for  field  strength  reductions  caused  by  ground  effects,  and  sought  comment  on  whether  it  is 
 necessary  to  require  that  emission  measurements  be  conducted  at  antenna  heights  greater  than  those  proposed  in  Appendix  C.  We  also  asked  whether  it  is  practical  and  safe  to  make  in  situ  emission 
 measurements  with  an  antenna  up  to  the  height  of  an  overhead  medium  voltage  power  line  (typically  11  meters)  when  operating  10  meters  from  the  power  line.  As  an  alternative  to  requiring  measurements  at 
 higher  antenna  locations,  we  asked  whether  we  should  specify  that  measurements  that  are  performed  at  heights  significantly  lower  than  the  power  line  are  subject  to  a  correction  factor  to  estimate  the  maximum 
 field  strength  that  would  have  been  observed  at  a  higher  measurement  height;  and  how  should  such  a  correction  factor  be  determined.  182 


 91.  NTIA  Phase  1  Study,  Comments  and  Follow-  Up  Letters.  As  mentioned,  supra,  NTIA  submitted  an  extensive  report  on  BPL  (the  NTIA  Phase  1  Study),  addressing  several  issues  dealing  with  emission 
 measurements  for  Access  BPL.  This  study  addressed  interference  risks  to  radio  services,  and  suggested  means  of  reducing  these  risks  and  identifying  techniques  for  local  interference  mitigation.  183  In  this  study, 
 NTIA  conducted  testing  at  locations  of  actual  Access  BPL  installations  and  performed  theoretical  modeling  using  the  Numerical  Electromagnetic  Code  (NEC)  software.  Using  the  NEC  software,  NTIA 
 evaluated  interference  risks  in  terms  of  the  geographic  extent  of  locations  where  interference  may  occur  to  radio  reception.  These  evaluations  were  performed  at  four  frequencies  for  outdoor,  overhead  Access 
 BPL  systems  conforming  to  existing  Part  15  rules.  184 


 180  The  rules  allow  using  a  20  dB  per  decade  distance  extrapolation  factor  for  frequencies  above  30  MHz  and  40 
 dB  per  decade  distance  extrapolation  for  frequencies  below  30  MHz.  Thus,  if  the  rules  specify  a  radiated  emission  limit  of  100V/  m  at  10  meters,  if  the  measurement  was  made  at  3  meters  for  a  frequency  of  20  MHz,  a 


 correction  factor  of  20.9  dB  (40  log  (10/  3))  would  be  subtracted  from  the  measurement  data  to  account  for  the  difference  in  measurement  distances.  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.31(  f)(  1)  and  (2).  See  also,  footnote  181,  infra. 


 181  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.31(  f)(  1)  and  (2).  The  extrapolation  factor  is  used  to  address  the  difficulty  of  making 
 measurements  at  large  distances.  Decade,  a  10:  1  range,  refers  to  the  ratio  of  the  specified  measurement  distance  to  the  actual  measurement  distance.  For  example,  in  the  1.705-  30  MHz  band,  measurements  are  specified  at  a 


 distance  of  30  meters.  If  however,  actual  measurements  were  made  at  a  distance  of  3  meters,  the  ratio  of  the  distances  is  a  decade  (30/  3=  10)  and  the  field  strength  result  must  be  corrected  by  subtracting  40  dB. 


 182  Notice  at  46  and  Notice,  Appendix  C  at  31-  33. 
 183  See  footnote  1. 
 184  NTIA  Phase  1  Study,  at  v  and  vi. 
39
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 40 
 92.  The  NTIA  Phase  1  Study  concludes  that  the  most  effective  approach  for  reducing  BPL  interference  risks  would  be  to  establish  proper  compliance  measurement  procedures,  and  that  measuring 
 Access  BPL  emissions  in  accordance  with  the  existing  Part  15  measurement  provisions  can  mistakenly  indicate  compliance  with  field  strength  limits  when  the  limits  actually  are  substantially  exceeded.  NTIA 
 recommends  several  modifications  to  the  proposed  emission  measurement  guidelines  to  ensure  that  maximum  emissions  are  measured.  In  its  study,  NTIA  recommends:  1)  measuring  an  Access  BPL  device 
 at  a  fixed  measurement  distance  of  10  meters;  2)  using  a  measurement  height  approximately  equal  to  the  power  line  height,  however,  it  also  suggests  that  a  small  adjustment  factor  would  still  be  necessary  to 
 account  for  higher  emissions  at  even  higher  elevation  angles;  3)  making  measurements  below  30  MHz  with  a  rod  antenna  rather  than  the  FCC  and  industry  practice  of  using  a  loop  antenna.  NTIA  also  provides 
 some  recommendations  for  the  selection  of  the  three  representative  measurement  sites,  including  requirements  for  a  variety  of  power  line  configurations  (e.  g.  single  phase,  three-  phase,  sharp  turns, 
 transitions  to  underground  cables,  etc.).  NTIA  also  indicates  that  these  recommendations  are  still  under  study,  and  that  additional  suggestions  will  be  presented  in  the  Phase  2  of  the  study.  The  study  also 
 contains  a  recommendation  for  a  smaller  distance  extrapolation  factor  than  that  specified  by  the  existing  Part  15  rules,  but  which  is  also  under  study.  185 


 93.  Subsequently,  NTIA  submitted  comments  that  were  accompanied  by  a  Technical  Appendix  containing  preliminary  results  and  recommendations  from  Phase  2  of  its  study.  In  those  comments,  NTIA 
 modifies  some  of  the  assessments  in  the  NTIA  Phase  1  Study,  and  supersedes  them  with  specific  recommendations,  aiming  at  shifting  emphasis  away  from  eliminating  interference  and  toward  preventing 
 it,  premised  on  the  fact  that  BPL  operators  have  a  market  incentive  to  prevent  interference.  186  In  its  letter  of  September  24,  2004,  NTIA  reported  the  findings  of  its  further  studies  of  measurement  guidelines. 


 94.  a)  Measurement  Distance.  NTIA  stated  that  its  measurements  and  modeling  indicate  that  the  change  in  BPL  field  strength  with  increasing  distance  from  a  BPL  device  and  overhead  power  lines  is  not 
 well  approximated  by  the  existing  Part  15  distance  extrapolation  factor  when  measuring  distances  horizontally  (rather  than  using  slant  range  to  the  power  line  as  proposed  in  Appendix  C  of  the  Notice). 
 NTIA's  recommended  solution  to  this  anomaly  is  to  uniformly  apply  a  ten-  meter  standard  measurement  distance  to  such  installations,  present  explicit  equivalent  field  strength  limits  for  those  distances,  and 
 provide  an  appropriate  distance  extrapolation  factor.  We  note  that  while  NTIA,  in  its  comments,  indicated  that  it  was  still  developing  equivalent  field  strength  limits  and  distance  extrapolation  factors  on 
 the  basis  of  the  radiation  and  propagation  properties  of  Access  BPL  emissions,  it  subsequently  informed  the  Commission  that  it  has  now  completed  its  studies  of  these  issues  and  it  has  arrived  at  the  same 
 conclusions  as  we  arrive  at  below.  187 
 95.  b)  Receive  Antenna  Height  and  Height  Correction  Factor.  NTIAs  initial  analysis  of  radiated  emissions  from  overhead  Access  BPL  systems  shows  that  relatively  high  emissions  can  occur  at  various 


 distances  from  a  BPL  device  along  a  power  line,  in  some  cases  at  regular  distance  intervals.  Thus,  the  peak  field  strength  level  can  occur  at  any  fraction  or  multiple  of  a  wavelength  from  the  BPL  emitter.  188 


 185  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.31(  f)(  1)  and  (2).  47  CFR  15.31(  f)  applies  20  dB  per  decade  for  frequencies  above  30 
 MHz  and  40  dB  per  decade  for  frequencies  below  30  MHz  as  distance  extrapolation  factors  to  adjust  field  strength  measured  at  a  distance  other  than  the  specified  measurement  distance.  See  also,  footnote  181. 


 186  See  NTIA  Comments  at  8-  9. 
 187  See  NTIA  Comments  at  16-  17;  see  also  letter  of  September  24,  2004  from  Frederick  R.  Wentland,  Associate 
 Chief,  NTIA  Office  of  Spectrum  Management,  to  Ed  Thomas,  Chief  of  the  Commissions  Office  of  Engineering  and  Technology. 


 188  See  Technical  Appendix  of  NTIA  Comments  at    3. 
40
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 41 
 NTIA  therefore  submits  in  its  comments  that  measurements  taken  at  distances  along  the  power  lines  that  are  fractions  of  a  wavelength,  as  proposed  in  the  Notice,  will  fail  to  reveal  the  peak  field  strength  in  many 
 cases.  To  prevent  underestimation  of  peak  field  strength  during  compliance  measurements,  in  its  comments  NTIA  recommends  a  comprehensive  search  for  the  peak  field  strength  along  the  power  lines  at 
 a  height  of  one-  meter.  In  its  September  24,  2004  follow-  up  letter,  NTIA  supports  the  procedure  in  the  Notice  because  it  will  not  significantly  underestimate  the  peak  field  strength.  189 


 96.  c)  Height  Correction  Factor.  To  avoid  the  need  to  search  for  the  peak  field  in  the  height  dimension  as  well,  NTIA  recommends  use  of  a  5  dB  height  correction  factor.  Using  NEC  models,  NTIA 
 evaluated  the  distributions  of  heights  and  the  magnitudes  of  peak  field  strength  from  over  one-  thousand  combinations  of  nineteen  power  line  configurations,  polarization  and  location,  at  each  of  twenty-  five  BPL 
 operating  frequencies.  This  analysis  revealed  that  80  percent  of  the  local  field  strength  peaks  at  any  height  will  be  within  5  dB  of  the  peak  electric  field  strength  measured  along  the  power  line  at  a  height  of 
 one  meter.  In  the  large  number  of  potential  cases  modeled  by  NTIA,  the  maximum  field  strength  at  any  polarization  over  all  cases  exceeded  the  peak  value  measured  one-  meter  height  by  up  to  20  dB  in  small 
 spatial  regions.  NTIA  believes  that  the  use  of  the  80  percentile  value  of  5  dB  rather  than  the  100  percentile  value  of  about  20  dB  would  avoid  undue  constraint  on  BPL  systems  without  significant  impact 
 on  interference  risks.  Thus  NTIA  states  that  use  of  a  5  dB  height  correction  factor  with  the  peak  field  strength  measured  at  a  one-  meter  height  is  a  good  estimate  of  the  electric  field  strength  not  exceeded  at 
 80%  of  the  heights  above  one-  meter.  190  Based  on  its  further  studies,  NTIA  reported  in  its  September  24,  2004  letter  that  this  height  correction  is  not  needed  below  30  MHz  and  that  above  30  MHz,  the  5  dB 
 height  correction  could  serve  as  an  alternative  to  varying  the  measurement  antenna  height  as  proposed  in  the  Notice. 


 97.  d)  Type  of  Antenna  Used  for  Testing.  NTIA  concurs  with  our  proposal  to  use  a  loop  antenna  at  frequencies  below  30  MHz  and  an  electric  field  antenna  at  higher  frequencies.  191  NTIA  further 
 recommends  that  an  appropriate  magnetic-  to-  electric  field  strength  conversion  factor  be  applied  to  enable  correct  comparisons  of  magnetic  field  measurements  with  the  electric  field  strength  limit,  because  a  loop 
 antenna  measures  magnetic  field  strength  and  the  measurements  are  performed  in  the  near-  field.  192  In  its  comments,  NTIA  indicated  that  it  was  continuing  to  study  the  issue  of  an  appropriate  conversion  factor; 


 189  See  NTIA  letter  dated  September  24,  2004. 
 190  See  NTIA  Comments  at  vii  and  20. 
 191  The  NTIA  Comments  modify  the  position  in  the  NTIA  Phase  1  Study  regarding  the  use  of  a  loop  antenna 
 below  30  MHz  by  concurring  with  the  FCC  proposed  position. 
 192  The  issue  here  is  the  accuracy  of  the  measured  data.  Most  radiated  emission  specifications  are  given  in  terms 
 of  electric  field  strength  (volts  per  meter),  however,  at  low  frequencies,  the  fields  may  be  predominantly  magnetic  or  electric.  Many  common  antennas  are  more  sensitive  to  one  or  the  other  type  of  fields;  for  example,  dipole-based 


 antennas  are  sensitive  to  electric  fields  but  are  not  substantially  affected  by  magnetic  fields,  which  are  sensed  more  readily  by  magnetic  loop  antennas.  47  C.  F.  R.  Part  15  requires  the  use  of  a  magnetic  loop  antenna 
 below  30  MHz,  because  the  Commission  has  found  that  calibrated  loop  antennas  provide  more  accurate  and  repeatable  field  strength  measurements  below  30  MHz.  However,  the  radiated  emission  limits  are  specified  in 
 terms  of  electric  field,  in  volts  per  meter.  To  convert  a  measured  magnetic  field  strength  in  dBA/  m  to  an  associated  electric  field  strength  in  dBV/  m  in  the  far  field  region,  one  would  add  20  log  (377  ohms),  or  51.2  dB, 
 to  the  measured  magnetic  field  strength. 
41
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 42 
 however  NTIA  subsequently  informed  the  Commission  that  it  has  now  completed  those  studies  and  has  arrived  at  the  same  conclusions  as  we  arrive  at  below.  193 
 98.  e)  Effects  of  Power  Lines  on  the  Radiated  Emissions  of  BPL  Devices.  NTIA  found  that  its  measurements  and  analyses  show  in  most  cases  that  peak  field  strength  levels  are  not  centered  on  the  BPL 
 device,  and  that  multiple  segments  of  the  power  lines  and  impedance  discontinuities  are  the  most  significant  BPL  signal  radiating  elements.  194  Thus,  NTIA  recommends  that  BPL  compliance 
 measurements  address  both  the  BPL  device  and  the  power  lines  to  which  it  is  connected.  It  submits  that  field  strength  measurements  should  be  performed  at  a  10  meter  horizontal  distance  from  the  power  line  to 
 which  a  BPL  device  is  connected,  and  all  along  the  connected  power  line  wiring.  Furthermore,  because  power  lines  have  frequency  selective  radiation  properties  and  BPL  device  frequencies  are,  or  should  be, 
 tunable  in  frequency,  NTIA  states  that  Access  BPL  radiation  characteristics  are  not  uniform  across  all  possible  operating  frequencies.  Thus,  to  properly  address  frequency-  selective  radiation  characteristics, 
 NTIA  recommends  that  measurements  be  made  sequentially  with  the  Access  BPL  devices  operating  at  all  frequencies  at  which  they  are  capable;  and  should  be  accomplished  using  the  maximum  possible  BPL 
 device  output  power  and  operational  duty  factor.  195 
 99.  f)  Selection  of  Representative  Installations.  In  order  to  ensure  that  the  highest  representative  field  strength  levels  are  measured  and  that  these  levels  do  not  exceed  the  limits,  NTIA  further 


 recommends  adoption  of  guidelines  for  selection  of  the  three  Access  BPL  deployments  for  in  situ  measurements  and  a  rule  specifying  how  those  measurements  are  to  be  applied.  In  its  comments,  NTIA 
 does  not  address  rules  and  guidelines  for  the  selection  of  test  sites.  However,  the  NTIA  Phase  1  Study  specifies  that  1)  the  BPL  device  should  be  located  near  the  center  of  a  straight  section  of  power  lines  at 
 least  600  meters  in  length  that  is  devoid  of  significant  impedance  discontinuities;  and  2)  a  variety  of  representative  medium  voltage  (MV)  power  line  configurations  should  be  present  in  the  test  site;  for 
 example,  the  site  should  include  single  and  three-  phase  power  line  segments,  sharp  turns  in  the  power  line,  and  risers  that  connect  overhead  lines  to  underground  lines.  196 


 100.  g)  Other  Requirements.  NTIA  recommends  that  representative  spectral  power  distributions  of  Access  BPL  signals  be  measured  and  included  in  the  measurement  report  to  facilitate  identification  of  the 
 BPL  signals  in  the  event  they  cause  interference.  NTIA  also  recommends  that  the  locations  and  magnitudes  of  the  six  highest  field  strength  levels  measured  at  one  meter  height  (plus  5  dB  correction) 
 should  be  recorded  in  the  measurement  report.  197  Furthermore,  NTIA  indicates  that  the  measurement  bandwidth  to  be  used  for  testing  BPL  emissions,  the  measurement  height  correction,  and  the  measurement 


 193  See  NTIA  Comments  at  20;  see  also  letter  of  September  24,  2004  from  Frederick  R.  Wentland,  Associate 
 Chief,  NTIA  Office  of  Spectrum  Management,  to  Ed  Thomas,  Chief  of  the  Commissions  Office  of  Engineering  and  Technology,  supra. 


 194  See  NTIA  Phase  1  study,  5  and  Appendixes  D  and  E. 
 195  For  example,  a  BPL  system  that  has  5  MHz  bandwidth  and  can  be  tuned  between  5  MHz  and  30  MHz  would 
 be  measured  while  tuned  to  5  MHz,  10  MHz,  15  MHz  and  30  MHz.  This  principle  should  not  be  confused  with  the  requirement  to  adjust  measurement  frequencies  throughout  frequency  ranges  specified  in  15.33.  See  NTIA 


 Comments  at  21. 
 196  See  NTIA  Phase  1  Study,  7.9. 


 197  Id.,  at  21. 
42
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 43 
 distances  should  be  embodied  in  the  rules  and  not  merely  as  guidelines,  as  BPL  compliance  measurement  provisions  are  deemed  most  important  to  limitation  of  interference  risks.  198 
 101.  Comments.  BPL  providers  strongly  disagree  with  most  of  NTIAs  findings  and  recommendations.  Current  states  that  NTIAs  study  is  based  on  both  computer  simulations  and  field 
 measurements  of  three  distinct  technologies  of  Access  BPL  systems,  that  these  two  types  of  studies  did  not  yield  consistent  results,  and  that  the  discrepancies  have  not  been  reconciled.  Current  believes  that  a 
 major  weakness  in  the  NTIA  simulations  is  a  set  of  starting  assumptions  that  do  not  reflect  actual  Access  BPL  practice  or  specific  system  design  or  implementation.  As  a  consequence,  Current  believes  that  any 
 attempt  to  apply  the  NTIA  simulation  results  to  real-  world  BPL  systems  becomes  inaccurate  and  unreliable.  For  example,  Current  contends  that  NTIAs  simulations  use  a  pure  tone  on  the  power  line 
 whereas  real  Access  BPL  uses  a  broadband  signal  having  a  far  lower  propensity  to  cause  interference.  Current  further  contends  that  while  NTIA's  simulations  place  the  BPL  signal  on  the  power  line  by 
 creating  a  differential  voltage  signal  in  the  middle  of  the  line,  in  practice  that  is  all  but  impossible  to  do  without  cutting  the  line;  and  that,  in  reality,  the  couplers  used  by  Current  (and  other  Access  BPL  vendors) 
 display  very  different  characteristics,  resulting  in  different  propagation  along  the  line.  Current  asserts  that  NTIA's  interference  model  uses  frequencies  and  line  lengths  that  create  a  phase  mismatch  equal  to  1/  3  of 
 a  wavelength  at  each  end  of  the  line,  thereby  setting  up  standing  waves;  thus,  the  results  are  not  representative  of  emissions  from  actual  BPL  devices  using  noise-  like  signals,  which  would  not  cause 
 standing  waves.  199  Finally,  Current  submits  that  each  of  NTIAs  recommendations  would  unduly  and  unnecessarily  burden  BPL  by  impairing  one  or  both  of  its  core  attributes  for  economic  success,  i.  e., 
 transmission  range  and  data  capacity,  because  the  proposals  rest  on  NTIAs  study  which  overestimates  the  interference  potential  of  Access  BPL.  200  Ambient  Corporation  (Ambient)  also  echoed  the  concerns  of 
 Current  regarding  NTIAs  simulations  and  measurements.  201  Southern  states  that  many  of  NTIAs  conclusions  appear  to  have  been  based  on  its  computer  modeling,  which  even  NTIA  concedes  had  to  be 
 simplified  due  to  the  number  of  variables  involved  in  modeling  an  electric  power  system  and  the  limits  on  computer  access  memory.  202 


 102.  Duke  Energy  also  argues  that  NTIAs  recommendations  are  overly  burdensome  and  unnecessary.  Duke  Energy  believes  that  NTIAs  suggestions  that  measurements  be  taken  at  the  center  of  lines  at  least 
 600  m  in  length,  devoid  of  discontinuities,  and  measuring  at  a  variety  of  representative  lines  are  impractical.  Duke  Energy  further  disagrees  with  NTIAs  recommendation  that  Access  BPL  be  measured 
 sequentially  across  the  entire  band  of  operations,  because  it  believes  that  this  will  create  excessive  testing  burden.  203  PPL  Telcom  states  that  it  opposes  use  of  the  adjustment  factor  proposed  by  NTIA  as  an 
 attempt  to  predict  how  measurements  may  increase  with  increasing  height.  PPL  Telcom  asserts  that  in  its  experience  in  deployment  of  Access  BPL  systems,  it  has  found  little  and  inconsistent  increase  in 
 emissions  with  increasing  height.  It  states  that  other  factors  in  distribution  power  line  construction,  such  as  the  type  of  construction,  phase  spacing,  grounding  configuration,  age  of  equipment  and  type  and 
 number  of  electrical  devices  connected  to  the  line  appear  to  have  as  much,  or  more,  influence  on  radiated 


 198  See  NTIA  Comments  at  23. 
 199  Reply  comments  of  Current  Technologies  at  18-  19. 
 200  Id.,  at  4-  5. 
 201  Reply  comments  of  Ambient  at  3. 
 202  Reply  comments  of  Southern  at  26-  27. 
 203  Reply  comments  of  Duke  Energy  at  20-  21. 
43
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 44 
 emissions  as  measurement  height.  PPL  Telcom  also  objects  to  NTIAs  recommendation  for  measurements  taken  along  distribution  power  lines  that  are  at  least  600  meters  in  length  and  devoid  of 
 impedance  continuities  because  such  lines  are  extremely  rare  and  would  make  such  a  requirement  impossible  to  fulfill.  204 


 103.  Progress  Energy  suggests  that  emission  measurements  should  be  performed  with  the  Access  BPL  equipment  power  levels  set  for  normal  operations  at  the  site  being  examined,  not  at  the  maximum  levels 
 as  proposed  in  the  Notice.  Progress  Energy  also  recommends  that  testing  be  performed  during  data  transfer  at  a  sustained  rate  that  would  be  similar  to,  or  slightly  greater,  than  the  expected  usage  at  that  site. 
 It  argues  that  performing  the  test  with  the  equipment  operating  with  the  maximum  power  and  duty  cycle  it  is  capable  of  generating,  as  proposed  in  the  Notice,  may  not  represent  the  normal  operation  of  the 
 equipment.  205  Progress  Energy  furthers  requests  clarification  regarding  how  to  test  if  the  Access  BPL  equipment  installed  at  a  site  is  from  more  than  one  vendor,  which  vendors  equipment  should  be  used  in 
 testing  and  should  three  tests  be  conducted  for  each  vendors  equipment?  206  Ambient  disagrees  with  NTIAs  recommendation  that  a  5  dB  correction  factor  should  be  added  to  emission  measurement  data 
 taken  with  an  antenna  at  one  meter  high.  Southern  disagrees  with  NTIAs  recommendation  that  measurements  be  taken  sequentially  across  the  entire  frequency  range  over  which  the  BPL  device  could 
 operate  and  states  that  such  a  requirement  could  greatly  increase  the  costs  of  verifying  BPL  compliance  without  significantly  improving  the  confidence  that  the  device  under  test  complies  with  the  Part  15 
 limits.  207  Southern  further  states  that  once  a  network  is  up  and  operating,  conducting  sequential  testing  across  a  large  number  of  frequencies  would  be  extremely  difficult  due  to  the  need  to  coordinate  frequency 
 usage  among  all  the  devices  on  the  same  line  as  the  device  under  test.  In  fact,  Southern  states  that  it  might  be  necessary  to  take  the  network  down  in  order  to  conduct  such  testing;  hence  NTIAs  proposals 
 are  overly  burdensome.  208 
 104.  The  UPLC  advocates  measurements  on  overhead  installations  parallel  to  the  power  line  at  various  distances  from  each  BPL  device  and  on  underground  installations  at  various  radials  from  the  devices. 


 The  UPLC  recommends  that  all  measurements  be  taken  in  accordance  with  the  Part  15  rules,  at  one  to  four  meters  above  ground  and  at  a  distance  of  10  meters  away  from  the  line.  The  UPLC  specifically 
 opposes  measuring  for  peak  field  strength  at  every  frequency  all  along  the  power  line  and  taking  measurements  at  the  height  of  the  power  line,  or  alternatively,  using  an  adjustment  factor  for  estimated 
 increased  signal  strength  at  that  height.  209 
 105.  Ameren  states  that  its  main  concern  with  any  search  procedure  for  finding  the  peak  field  strength  along  the  line  is  the  upper  bound  of  the  number  of  necessary  measurements.  Ameren  agrees,  however,  in 


 general  terms  with  the  NTIAs  study  findings  concerning  the  field  variability  with  respect  to  observation  (measurement)  height.  Ameren  has  performed  its  own  theoretical  modeling  and  submits  that  its  model 
 shows  that  the  maximum  field  seen  from  zero  to  15  meters  above  ground  at  any  distance  from  the  BPL 


 204  NTIA  Phase  1  Study  at  7-  6,  reply  comments  of  PPL  at  15.  NTIA  did  not  repeat  this  recommendation  in  the 
 NTIA  Comments,  submitted  after  the  NTIA  Phase  1  Study. 
 205  Comments  of  Progress  at  3. 


 206  Id.,  at  4. 
 207  Id.,  at  39. 
 208  Id.,  at  40. 
 209  Reply  comments  of  UPLC  at  23. 
44
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 45 
 device  along  the  line  is  at  most  3.5  dB  greater  than  the  maximum  field  seen  at  1  meter  above  ground  at  any  distance  from  the  BPL  device  along  the  power  line.  210  Ameren  therefore  affirms  that  NTIAs 
 proposed  5  dB  height  correction  factor  is  close  to  Amerens  proposed  3.5  dB;  and  that  until  better  correlation  can  be  established,  Ameren  urges  we  to  allow  the  more  lenient  factor  of  3.5  dB  proposed  by 
 Ameren. 
 106.  In  its  comments,  the  ARRL  concurs  with  our  proposed  measurement  guidelines,  but  states  that  measurements  should  be  made  at  a  fixed  10  meter  distance.  211  In  its  reply  comments,  the  ARRL  states 


 that  the  5  dB  correction  factor  recommended  by  NTIA  makes  sense  and  that  use  of  the  5  dB  correction  factor  is  a  far  simpler  mechanism  than  to  attempt  to  find  field  strength  peaks  at  various  distances  from  the 
 lines  and  at  various  heights  as  well.  The  ARRL  nonetheless  believes  that  any  combination  of  NTIAs  well-  intentioned  technical  operating  requirements  would  still  be  insufficient  to  avoid  widespread 
 interference  to  Amateur  Radio  stations  in  residential  areas,  or  in  vehicles.  212  This  concern  is  echoed  in  filings  from  individual  Amateur  operators.  213 


 107.  Decision.  We  find  the  extensive  measurement  and  modeling  efforts  presented  in  the  NTIA  Phase  1  Study  and  the  Technical  Appendix  to  NTIAs  comments  to  be  highly  useful  in  our  efforts  to 
 develop  appropriate  measurement  procedures  for  Access  BPL.  The  scientific  engineering  in  those  submissions  clarifies  the  interference  potential  of  Access  BPL  on  radio  reception  and  the  recommended 
 techniques  for  measurement  of  Access  BPL  emissions  provide  us  with  a  well  thought-  out  plan  on  which  to  base  our  decisions  on  measurement  issues.  Our  decision,  discussed  below,  takes  into  account  NTIAs 
 research  and  adopts  a  modified  version  of  its  recommendations. 
 108.  We  find  that  our  proposed  measurement  procedure  for  testing  Access  BPL  systems  including  the  presence  and  testing  of  all  of  their  electronic  components  to  be  reasonable  as  each  component  is  part  of 


 the  Access  system  of  that  installation.  We  do  not  agree  with  Southern  that  the  testing  should  be  limited  to  three  representative  signal  injection  points.  214  Southern  believes  that  the  highest  levels  of  emissions  on 
 overhead  systems  are  found  at  the  signal  injection  point,  and  it  states  that  the  biggest  variable  affecting  emissions  is  impedance  mismatch  between  the  signal  injection  system  and  the  power  system  at  the  point 
 of  injection,  which  could  be  a  coupler  or  a  repeater.  We  agree  with  Southern  that  each  injection  point  affects  the  radiated  emissions.  However,  Southerns  suggestion  of  selecting  only  representative  signal 
 injection  points  precludes  the  presence  of  other  components,  e.  g.,  booster,  concentrator,  extractor,  etc.  if  they  should  be  together  at  an  installation  to  make  up  the  complete  Access  BPL  system.  Our  requirement 
 for  a  typical  installation  takes  into  account  the  topology  of  the  power  lines  and  of  all  Access  BPL  devices  at  that  installation,  thus  choosing  only  representative  injection  points,  as  Southern  recommends,  does  not 
 cover  the  installation  as  a  whole.  215  Accordingly,  we  will  keep  our  proposed  in-  situ  requirements  for  including  and  testing  all  components  of  an  Access  BPL  system.  We  also  find  that  our  measurement 
 procedure  for  testing  Access  BPL  systems  in  situ  at  three  typical  underground  locations  along  a  number  of  radials  consistent  with  testing  other  Part  15  carrier  current  devices.  The  selection  of  three  typical 


 210  Reply  comments  of  Ameren  at  5. 
 211  ARRL  comments  at  25. 
 212  Reply  comments  of  ARRL  at  24. 
 213  See,  e.  g.,  comments  of  David  Garnier;  Edwin  S.  Toal;  John  E.  Matz;  Richard  E.  Polivka;  Thomas  D.  Cox,  etc. 
 214  See  comments  of  Southern  at  21. 
 215  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.31(  j)  and  (k). 
45
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 46 
 underground  installations  is  a  streamlined  procedure,  compared  to  testing  each  and  every  installation,  as  recommended  by  some  parties;  216  therefore  we  do  not  agree  with  Main.  Net  that  only  one  underground 
 location  should  be  tested.  217  We  discuss  below  the  issues  with  respect  to  measuring  radiated  emissions  from  Access  BPL  systems  on  overhead  power  lines. 


 109.  Measurement  Distance.  Despite  the  stated  aversion  of  NTIA  and  ARRL  to  distance  extrapolation,  we  recognize  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.  If  a  10-  meter  distance  places  the  measurement  antenna  on  a  roadway,  safety  may  dictate  increasing  the  distance  to,  e.  g.,  14  meters  in  order 
 to  position  the  testers  out  of  harms  way.  Hence,  we  expect  that  distance  extrapolation  will  be  necessary  for  in  situ  testing.  We  note  that  NTIAs  latest  computer  modeling  results  show  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.  We  also  note  that 
 although  the  ARRL  and  ARINC  recommend  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,  Ameren  states  that  it  has 
 determined  the  characteristics  of  the  fields  near  the  line  support  the  case  for  assuming  a  40  dB  per  decade  decay  rate  of  the  field  away  from  the  line  and  recommends  the  use  of  the  existing  40  dB  per  decade 
 extrapolation  factor.  218  Given  the  lack  of  conclusive  experimental  data  pending  large  scale  Access  BPL  deployments,  we  will  continue  the  use  of  the  existing  Part  15  distance  extrapolation  factors  in  our  rules, 
 but  with  the  slant  range  rather  than  horizontal  distance.  219  If  new  information  becomes  available  that  alternative  emission  limit/  distance  standards  or  extrapolation  factors  would  be  more  appropriate,  we  will 
 revisit  this  issue  at  another  time. 
 110.  Receive  Antenna  Height  and  Correction  Factor.  NTIA  expresses  a  possible  need  for  adjustments  to  measured  data  due  to  three  factors:  1)  effect  of  antenna  height,  2)  effect  of  distance 


 (extrapolation  methods),  and  3)  effect  of  using  an  H-  field  sensing  antenna  to  predict  E-  fields  in  the  near-  field  region.  However,  NTIA  initially  provided  a  specific  recommendation  regarding  only  one  of 
 these  issues  correction  for  the  effect  of  antenna  height.  Our  modeling  suggests  that  there  is  a  linkage  between  these  factors.  We  believe  that  all  three  areas  must  be  considered  together  in  order  to  develop 
 appropriate  measurement  procedures.  Furthermore,  NTIAs  recommendation  for  a  5  dB  correction  factor  is  based  on  a  constant  measurement  antenna  height  of  1  meter.  On  the  other  hand,  for  frequencies  above 
 30  MHz,  our  current  measurement  guidelines  require  varying  the  receive  antenna  height  from  1  to  4  meters,  hence  higher  peaks  at  a  higher  antenna  height  would  be  found  with  our  test  procedure,  obviating 
 the  need  for  a  height  correction  factor  at  those  frequencies.  However,  we  recognize  that  NTIAs  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.  The  Commissions  rules  have  historically  allowed  the  use  of  alternative  methods  for 
 compliance  measurements,  based  on  good  engineering  practices.  In  deference  to  NTIAs  extensive  work  culminating  in  the  NTIA  recommendations  in  this  proceeding,  we  will  adopt  NTIAs  recommendations 
 for  antenna  height  and  correction  factor  as  an  alternative  method  within  the  measurement  guidelines  of  Appendix  C.  We  note  however  that  the  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  the  two. 


 216  See  e.  g.,  comments  of  API  at  9-  10;  reply  comments  of  ARINC  at  7. 
 217  See  comments  of  Main.  Net  at  9. 
 218  See  reply  comments  of  ARINC  at  2  and  Ameren  at  8;  comments  of  ARRL  at  15. 
 219  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.31(  f)(  1)  and  (2). 
46
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 47 
 111.  Type  of  Antenna  Used  for  Testing.  Given  NTIAs  concurrence  with  the  use  of  a  magnetic  loop  antenna  for  emission  measurements  below  30  MHz  and  electric  field  sensing  antennas  above  30  MHz,  we 
 are  adopting  our  proposal  to  use  these  antenna  types  in  Access  BPL  emission  measurements.  This  decision  is  consistent  with  the  use  of  such  antennas  for  testing  other  types  of  Part  15  devices. 


 112.  Effects  of  Power  Lines  on  the  Radiated  Emissions  of  a  BPL  Device.  We  are  concerned  that  NTIAs  recommendation  for  performing  field  strength  measurements  all  along  a  1200-  meter  section  of 
 the  connected  power  line  wiring  would  be  difficult  and  burdensome  for  Access  BPL  system  operation.  In  this  regard,  we  note  that  such  a  process  could  be  time-  consuming  and  would  require  many  individual 
 measurements,  when  power  wiring  may  be  many  miles  long,  and  the  interval  between  measurements  may  have  to  be  a  small  fraction  of  a  wavelength  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  true  peak  is  captured.  It  is  clear 
 from  the  modeling  results  presented  by  NTIA  that  the  maximum  emission  from  the  system  often  occurs  further  down-  line  from  the  coupler  than  the  one-  wavelength  maximum  distance  proposed  in  Appendix  C 
 of  the  Notice.  However,  it  is  also  clear  from  the  NTIA  data  that  the  true  maximum  is  not  significantly  larger  than  the  maximum  that  would  be  found  over  the  limited  search  space  that  we  proposed.  We 
 understand  the  concerns  of  Ameren,  Southern,  and  other  BPL  providers  regarding  an  overly  large  number  of  necessary  measurements,  which  could  increase  the  costs  of  compliance  testing.  We  therefore  believe 
 that  the  approach  in  our  proposed  measurement  guidelines  strikes  an  appropriate  balance  in  avoiding  a  potentially  very  large  number  of  measurements  by  allowing  the  use  of  the  mid-  band  frequency  in 
 determining  measurement  distances  down-  line  for  a  given  frequency  band  of  operation.  We  also  note  that,  at  each  of  the  five  specified  down-  line  points,  measurements  must  be  made  at  all  operating 
 frequencies  of  the  Access  BPL  device,  in  order  to  find  the  peaks.  220 
 113.  We  concur  with  NTIAs  recommendation  that  measurements  be  made  sequentially  with  the  Access  BPL  devices  operating  at  all  frequencies  at  which  they  are  capable.  This  is  consistent  with 


 existing  Part  15  requirements,  and  with  our  proposed  measurement  guidelines.  221  It  is  important  that  radiated  emissions  be  measured  at  all  operating  frequencies  to  find  the  peaks.  222  We  also  concur  with 
 NTIAs  recommendation  that  measurements  be  made  using  the  maximum  possible  BPL  device  output  power  and  operational  duty  factor.  We  disagree  with  Progress  Energy  that  emission  measurements 
 should  be  performed  with  the  Access  BPL  equipment  power  levels  set  for  normal  operations  at  that  site,  and  not  at  the  maximum  levels.  223  Testing  at  the  BPL  maximum  output  power  and  operational  duty  factor 
 is  necessary  to  ensure  identification  of  the  maximum  field  strength  that  the  device  is  capable  of  generating.  The  measurement  report  and  operating  instructions  must  clearly  state  the  maximum  output 
 power  and  duty  factor  settings  necessary  to  certify  that  the  installed  device  will  comply  with  our  limits.  However,  because  the  same  device  might  be  used  on  either  overhead  or  underground  power  lines  having 
 different  radiating  properties,  we  are  not  requiring  that  the  device  be  modified  to  prevent  operation  at  higher  power  levels  and  duty  cycle  settings.  Furthermore,  Access  BPL  devices  must  comply  with  our 
 limits  upon  power-  up  following  a  fault  condition,  or  during  a  start-  up  operation  after  a  shut-  off  procedure, 
 220  The  specified  down-  line  points  are  at  distances  of  0,    ,    ,  ,  and  1  wavelength  down  the  line  from  the  BPL 
 injection  point  on  the  power  line.  Wavelength  spacing  is  calculated  based  on  the  mid-  band  frequency  of  each  operating  frequency  band  used  by  the  Access  BPL  device. 


 221  47  C.  F.  R.    15.31(  i)  requires  emission  tests  to  be  performed  with  the  device  and  accessories  configured  in  a 
 manner  that  tends  to  produce  maximized  emissions  within  the  range  of  variations  that  can  be  expected  under  normal  operating  conditions.  Appendix  C  of  the  Notice  proposed  to  require  testing  at  all  frequencies,  but  allows 


 the  use  of  five  points  based  on  the  wavelength  of  the  mid-  band  frequency 
 222  Id. 


 223  Comments  of  Progress  Energy  at  3.  See  also  102. 
47
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 48 
 by  the  use  of  a  non-  volatile  memory,  or  some  other  method,  to  immediately  restore  previous  settings  with  programmed  notches  and  excluded  bands.  This  is  necessary  to  avoid  the  situation  where  programmed 
 protection  schemes,  such  as  excluded  bands  and  notches,  have  to  be  restored  manually,  thus  leaving  protected  licensed  services  vulnerable  during  the  time  delay  caused  by  a  manual  re-  programming 
 procedure. 
 114.  Based  on  the  foregoing,  we  believe  that  our  proposed  measurement  guidelines  that  require  selection  of  fractional  wavelengths  based  on  mid-  band  frequency  for  down-  line  measurements  strike  an 


 appropriate  balance  between  the  need  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  rules  and  practical  considerations  of  the  burden  and  degree  of  measurement  difficulty  placed  on  system  operators,  and  that  our  requirements 
 for  testing  at  maximum  output  power  and  operational  duty  factor  and  requirement  for  clear  identification  of  maximum  compliant  operating  levels  will  ensure  that  devices  comply  under  all  conditions. 
 Accordingly,  we  are  adopting  the  measurement  guidelines  in  Appendix  C  of  the  Notice,  modified  to  incorporate  some  of  NTIAs  recommendations,  as  discussed  supra. 


 115.  Selection  of  Representative  Installations.  Although  we  concur  with  NTIA  that  the  selection  of  typical  Access  BPL  installations  for  in  situ  measurements  must  be  made  in  a  careful  manner,  taking  into 
 account  the  various  configurations  of  the  power  lines  to  select  a  typical,  representative  installation,  we  will  not  require  specific  criteria  for  site  selection  process,  because  this  may  limit  the  number  of  test  sites 
 which  may  actually  be  more  typical  in  a  specific  providers  service  area  than  those  recommended  by  NTIA.  224  We  find  that  our  proposed  guidelines  for  three  typical  overhead  installations  and  three  typical 
 underground  installations  are  reasonable  to  cover  a  number  of  test  sites  in  deployment.  225  We  also  find  that  by  requiring  Access  BPL  devices  to  be  certified  by  the  equipment  manufacturer,  the  concerns  of 
 Progress  Energy  regarding  Access  BPL  installation  sites  with  multiple  vendors  equipment  no  longer  exist  because  the  responsibility  for  site  selection  to  test  for  equipment  certification  purposes  rests  with  the 
 Access  BPL  manufacturer  and  not  with  the  utility.  226  We  are  however  recommending  that  the  utility  operator  verify  that  each  representative  Access  BPL  site  complies  following  the  installation  of  a 
 separately  certified  Access  BPL  equipment.  In  such  cases,  the  selection  of  the  test  site  should  be  based  on  the  characteristics  of  the  installation  and  not  on  vendors  equipment  types.  Additionally,  we  concur  with 
 Southern  and  UPLC  that  NTIAs  recommendation  in  the  NTIA  Phase  1  Study  of  requiring  a  representative  power  line  of  600  meters  devoid  of  discontinuities  is  impractical,  because  of  the  difficulty 
 of  finding  such  a  line.  Accordingly,  in  the  absence  of  more  specific  input,  we  will  not  require  the  selection  of  such  a  specific  type  of  power  line. 


 116.  Other  requirements.  We  find  that  NTIAs  recommendations  regarding  the  various  reporting  requirements  for  the  test  report  are  satisfied  by  our  adoption  of  the  certification  procedure  for  Access  BPL 
 equipment  authorization,  discussed  infra.  227  Information  regarding  the  test  conditions,  spectrum  distribution  and  other  relevant  technical  specifications  will  be  required  in  the  certification  report  for  the 
 equipment,  which  will  be  accessible  through  our  equipment  authorization  database.  We  further  find  that  NTIAs  recommendation  to  embody  requirements  such  as  measurement  distance,  measurement 


 224  See  NTIA  Phase  1  Study,  7.9.  NTIA  recommends  to  select  a  test  site  with  a  variety  of  representative 
 medium  power  line  configurations,  i.  e.,  the  site  should  include  single  and  three-  phase  power  line  segments,  sharp  turns  in  the  power  line  and  risers  that  connect  overhead  lines  to  underground  lines. 


 225  Appendix  C,  Notice,  at  2. 
 226  See  comments  of  Progress  Energy  at  4.  See  also  103. 
 227  See  124. 
48
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 49 
 bandwidth,  etc.  directly  into  the  rules  and  not  merely  as  guidelines,  would  not  be  consistent  with  our  current  practice  of  including  measurement  specifications  in  a  separate  guideline.  228 
 2.  In-  House  Carrier  Current  Systems 
 117.  In  the  Notice,  we  noted  that  the  International  Electrotechnical  Commission  (IEC),  International  Special  Committee  on  Radio  Interference  (CISPR)  Subcommittee  I  on  Interference  Relating  To 


 Multimedia  Equipment,  Working  Group  3  on  Emissions  from  Information  Technology  Equipment  has  been  developing  conducted  emission  limits  for  new  BPL  technologies.  229  We  observed  that  this  work  on 
 an  international  standardized  measurement  method  for  In-  House  BPL  is  still  under  way,  including  the  definition  of  a  line  impedance  stabilization  network  (LISN),  230  associated  injection  methods,  and  conducted 
 emission  limits  for  systems  using  the  power  line  port  as  a  communication  port.  231  We  proposed  in  the  interim,  pending  the  completion  of  such  work,  to  retain  the  three-  installation  radiated  emissions  method 
 for  In-  House  BPL  and  traditional  CCS,  using  the  measurement  guidelines  in  Appendix  C  of  the  Notice.  We  sought  comments  on  using  these  guidelines  for  In-  House  BPL  and  other  carrier  current  systems.  232 


 118.  The  HomePlug  PowerLine  Alliance  (HomePlug)  supports  application  of  the  existing  rules  for  in  situ  testing  of  In-  House  BPL  and  other  carrier  current  systems,  but  disagrees  with  the  proposal  to  require 
 testing  along  the  outside  service  lines  at  specified  distances  because  it  contends  that  in  many  instances  it  will  be  impractical  to  find  test  sites  suitable  for  the  proposed  measurements.  233  HomePlug  argues  that  the 
 detailed  guidelines  would  require  test  sites  with  low  voltage  service  wires  longer  than  110  feet  with  33  feet  of  clear  space  along  both  sides  of  the  wire  (66  feet  total)  for  its  entire  length,  and  that  finding  such 
 sites  would  limit  choices  of  tests  sites  to  those  not  necessarily  representative  of  typical  In-  House  BPL  installations.  HomePlug  contends  that  application  of  the  proposed  test  guidelines  to  In-  House  BPL 
 systems  with  respect  to  the  points  along  the  service  wires  would  be  overly  burdensome  and  serve  no  useful  purpose.  234 


 119.  Decision.  We  note  that  although  CISPR  is  continuing  to  work  on  addressing  emission  issues  that  will  apply  to  In-  House  BPL,  no  final  recommendation  has  been  adopted.  235  We  also  note  that  most 


 228  See  e.  g.,  Unlicensed  National  Information  Infrastructure  (U-  NII)  Devices  in  the  5  GHz  Band,  18  FCC  Rcd 
 24484  (2003). 
 229  Notice  at  47. 


 230  A  line  impedance  stabilization  network  (LISN)  is  an  artificial  power  line  network  that  provides  a  specified  load 
 impedance  in  a  given  frequency  range.  This  device  is  also  used  to  isolate  the  equipment  from  the  AC  supply  and  to  facilitate  measurements. 


 231  See  the  work  of  IEC  CISPR  Subcommittee  I  on  Interference  Relating  To  Multimedia  Equipment,  Working 
 Group  3  on  Emissions  from  Information  Technology  Equipment,  at  <  http://  www.  iec.  ch/  cgi-bin/  procgi.  pl/  www/  iecwww.  p?  wwwlang=  E&  wwwprog=  sea1112.  p&  committee=  CIS%  2FI&  class=&  refno=&  type 


 =&  date  >. 
 232  See  Notice  at  47  and  Notice,  Appendix  C  at  31-  33. 


 233  Comments  of  HomePlug  at  1-  2. 
 234  Id.,  at  6-  7. 
 235  CISPR  is  working  on  a  committee  draft  (CD)  for  power  line  communications  (PLC),  but  the  draft  is  far  from 
 being  finalized  as  an  international  standard.  See  http://  www.  iec.  ch/  cgi-(  continued.) 
49
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 50 
 commenters  in  this  proceeding  address  Access  BPL,  and  not  In-  House  BPL,  issues.  Measurements  along  the  service  wire  leading  to  the  house  have  been  proposed  because  this  wire  can  be  one  of  the  conduits  for 
 radiation  coming  from  In-  House  BPL  devices.  We  are  sympathetic  to  HomePlugs  concerns,  however.  To  address  HomePlugs  concerns,  we  will  allow  measurements  to  be  made  at  three  different  points  along 
 the  wire,  where  the  highest  radiated  emissions  are  found;  these  points  would  not  need  to  be  associated  with  specific  wavelengths  of  the  devices  operating  frequencies,  if  the  installation  under  test  does  not 
 include  a  service  wire  with  a  sufficient  length  for  the  required  measurements.  236  Moreover,  testing  is  required  on  only  one  side  of  the  service  wire  because  radiation  is  nearly  symmetrical  on  either  side  of  the 
 wire.  The  test  report  must  provide  documentation  explaining  the  test  configuration.  As  for  the  required  clear  space  along  the  service  wire,  the  guidelines  do  allow  the  test  to  be  performed  at  3  meters  with  a 
 distance  extrapolation  factor  when  a  10-  meter  clearance  is  not  available,  hence  we  would  expect  that  most  residence  configurations  would  not  pose  any  clearance  problem.  Accordingly,  we  partially  grant 
 HomePlugs  request  and  hereby  adopt  the  guidelines  for  In-  House  BPL  and  all  other  in-  house  types  of  carrier  current  systems  in  Appendix  C  of  this  Report  and  Order. 


 F.  Equipment  Authorization 
 120.  In  the  Notice,  we  proposed  to  retain  the  Verification  procedure  for  Access  BPL  equipment.  Section  302  of  the  Communications  Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  authorizes  the  Commission  to  make 


 reasonable  regulations,  consistent  with  the  public  interest,  governing  the  interference  potential  of  equipment  that  emits  radio  frequency  energy.  Under  Section  302,  we  establish  technical  regulations  for 
 transmitters  and  other  equipment  to  minimize  their  potential  for  causing  interference  to  radio  services,  and  administer  an  equipment  authorization  program  to  ensure  that  equipment  reaching  the  market  complies  with 
 the  technical  requirements.  237  The  authorization  program  requires  that  equipment  be  tested  either  by  the  manufacturer  or  at  an  independent  test  laboratory  to  ensure  that  it  complies  with  the  technical  requirements. 
 The  authorization  program  specifies  several  procedures  for  demonstrating  equipment  compliance.  The  procedure  to  which  a  device  is  subject  depends  on  the  risk  of  interference  that  the  equipment  poses  to  licensed 
 radio  services. 
 121.  Certification  is  an  equipment  authorization  issued  by  the  Commission  or  its  designated  entities  238  based  on  representations  and  test  data  submitted  by  the  applicant.  239  Declaration  of  Conformity  (DoC)  is 


 a  manufacturers  self-  approval  procedure  where  the  responsible  party,  who  could  be  the  manufacturer,  the  grantee  or  the  importer  of  the  equipment,  as  defined  in  47  C.  F.  R.    2.909,  makes  measurements  or  takes 


 (Continued  from  previous  page)  bin/  procgi.  pl/  www/  iecwww.  p?  wwwlang=  E  &wwwprog=  sea1112.  p&  committee= 
 CIS%  2FI&  class=&  refno=&  type=&  date=. 
 236  In  addition  to  testing  radials  around  the  building,  testing  for  In-  House  BPL  shall  be  performed  at  three 
 positions  along  the  overhead  line  connecting  to  the  building  (i.  e.  the  service  wire),  where  the  maximum  emissions  are  found.  It  is  recommended  that  these  measurements  be  performed  starting  at  a  distance  10  meters  down  the  line 


 from  the  connection  to  the  building.  If  this  test  cannot  be  performed  due  to  insufficient  length  of  the  service  wire,  a  statement  explaining  the  test  condition  and  configuration  shall  be  included  in  the  technical  report.  See 
 Appendix  C,    3(  b)(  1). 
 237  See  47  U.  S.  C.    302(  a). 


 238  In  1999,  the  Commission  made  changes  to  Part  2  of  the  rules  to  allow  designated  private  organizations,  called 
 Telecommunication  Certification  Bodies  (TCBs),  to  approve  equipment  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Commission,  see  Report  and  Order  in  GEN  Docket  98-  68,  13  FCC  Rcd  24687  (1999). 


 239  See  47  C.  F.  R.    2.907. 
50
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 51 
 other  necessary  steps  to  ensure  that  the  equipment  complies  with  the  appropriate  technical  standards.  240  The  laboratory  performing  the  measurements,  either  the  manufacturers  laboratory  or  an  independent  test 
 laboratory,  must  be  accredited.  241  A  copy  of  the  DoC,  listing  the  party  responsible  for  compliance,  must  be  included  in  the  literature  supplied  with  the  product.  Verification  is  a  manufacturers  self-  approval 
 procedure  where  the  manufacturer  makes  measurements  or  takes  the  necessary  steps  to  ensure  that  the  equipment  complies  with  the  appropriate  technical  standards.  242  However,  unlike  the  DoC  procedure, 
 verification  does  not  require  that  measurements  be  made  by  an  accredited  laboratory  and  does  not  require  a  DoC  to  be  supplied  with  the  equipment. 


 122.  In  the  Notice,  we  recognized  that  administrative  burdens  and  the  need  to  ensure  compliance  with  the  rules  must  be  balanced  in  order  to  ensure  that  regulatory  requirements  keep  pace  with  Access  BPL 
 technology  development.  243  We  therefore  proposed  to  keep  the  authorization  procedure  for  Access  BPL  equipment  the  same  as  for  all  unintentional  radiators,  including  traditional  types  of  carrier  current 
 systems.  We  noted  that  low-  speed  carrier  current  systems,  which  for  a  number  of  years  have  been  operating  inside  buildings,  have  rarely  been  a  source  of  harmful  interference  to  radio  communications, 
 and  that  the  verification  procedure  has  been  adequate  to  ensure  that  such  systems  comply  with  the  rules.  244 


 123.  BPL  providers  strongly  support  retaining  verification  as  the  equipment  authorization  procedure  for  Access  BPL  equipment.  245  On  the  other  hand,  amateurs  and  some  other  organizations  recommend  that 
 we  apply  the  certification  procedure  because  they  believe  that  the  Commission  should  maintain  close  oversight  of  Access  BPL  technology.  246  The  ARRL  believes  that  use  of  the  verification  procedure  for 
 Access  BPL  devices  is  unreasonable,  because  of  its  concerns  that  Access  BPL  devices  pose  more  substantial  interference  potential  than  other  Part  15  unintentional  radiators.  247  NTIA  recommends 
 certification  by  the  operator,  rather  than  by  the  manufacturer,  because  Access  BPL  is  deployed  by  utilities  operators  who  receive  the  BPL  service  revenue  benefit  and  have  strong  incentives  to  ensure  that 
 interference  risks  are  properly  limited  and  that  technical  standards  are  not  violated.  248  In  its  reply  comments,  Current  states  that  a  provider  cannot  rationally  assume  responsibility  for  products  over  whose 
 manufacture  it  has  no  control,  thus,  a  provider,  purchasing  equipment  from  a  vendor  cannot  make  compliance  representations  based  on  its  own  knowledge.  249 


 240  See  47  C.  F.  R.    2.906. 
 241  See  47  C.  F.  R.    2.948(  d).  The  laboratory  must  be  accredited  by  the  American  Association  for  Laboratory 
 Accreditation  (A2LA),  the  National  Voluntary  Laboratory  Accreditation  Program  (NVLAP)  or  a  Designating  Authority  of  a  trading  partner  having  a  Mutual  Recognition  Agreement/  Arrangement  (MRA)  with  the  United  States 


 242  See  47  C.  F.  R.    2.902. 
 243  See  Notice  at  44. 
 244  Id. 
 245  See  comments  of  Ameren  at  10;  UPLC  at  13;  Main.  Net  at  8;  Current  Technologies  at  24;  PPL  Telcom  at  8; 
 Duke  Energy  at  13-  14;  HECO  at  5. 
 246  See  e.  g.,  comments  of  AMA  at  9;  ARRL  at  24;  David  Garnier;  Gary  C.  Sutcliffe. 


 247  See  comments  of  ARRL  at  23. 
 248  See  comments  of  NTIA  at  14. 
 249  See  reply  comments  of  Current  Technologies  at  37-  38. 
51
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 52 
 124.  Upon  careful  consideration  of  the  record,  we  find  that  Access  BPL  systems  are  not  typical  unintentional  radiators,  and  that  emission  measurements  for  such  systems  in  situ  are  critical  in 
 determining  their  interference  potential.  We  are  persuaded  by  NTIA  that  the  newness  of  the  Access  BPL  measurement  procedures  warrants  review  of  measurement  reports.  250  We  therefore  conclude  that  the 
 Certification  procedure  is  appropriate  for  this  new  technology  to  allow  us  to  maintain  oversight  until  additional  operational  experience  is  obtained  from  its  wide  deployment.  While  we  appreciate  NTIAs 
 concerns  for  assigning  responsibility  with  respect  to  Access  BPL  compliance,  we  do  not  find  that  the  operator,  rather  than  the  Access  BPL  equipment  manufacturer,  should  bear  the  burden  of  the  certification 
 requirement.  Since  a  system  operator  does  not  control  the  manufacture  of  the  equipment,  it  will  not  be  in  a  position  to  control  production  to  ensure  that  each  unit  marketed  conforms  to  the  unit  tested  for 
 compliance.  251  We  believe  that  the  legal  and  business  relationship  between  the  system  operator  and  the  BPL  manufacturer  will  be  sufficient  to  ensure  that  Access  BPL  equipment  installed  on  a  power  line  be  in 
 compliance  with  our  rules.  We  do,  however,  strongly  recommend  that  operators  perform  initial  installation  and  subsequent  periodic  testing  on  their  systems  in  order  to  ensure  that  the  systems  maintain 
 compliance  with  our  emission  limits. 
 125.  Based  on  the  foregoing,  we  are  subjecting  Access  BPL  to  the  certification  procedure  to  be  carried  out  by  the  equipment  manufacturer.  We  are  also  clarifying  that  we  are  retaining  the  verification 


 procedure  for  all  carrier  current  systems  other  than  Access  BPL,  because  the  verification  procedure  has  been  adequate  to  ensure  that  other  types  of  carrier  current  systems  comply  with  the  Part  15  rules. 


 126.  We  also  specify  that  Access  BPL  certification  will  be  initially  performed  by  the  Commission.  In  General  Docket  98-  68,  we  established  the  requirements  for  Telecommunication  Certification  Bodies  (TCBs) 
 that  are  allowed  to  approve  equipment  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Commission.  252  In  that  proceeding,  we  stated  that  while  we  intended  to  use  TCBs  to  certify  a  broad  range  of  equipment,  we  found  that  certain 
 functions  should  continue  to  be  performed  by  the  Commission.  253  The  functions  included  certifying  new  or  unique  equipment  for  which  the  rules  or  requirements  do  not  exist  or  for  which  the  application  of  the  rules  is 
 not  clear.  254  Because  Access  BPL  is  a  new  technology  and  many  questions  about  the  application  of  the  rules  may  arise,  we  believe  that  TCBs  should  not  be  permitted  to  certify  Access  BPL  systems  or  approve 
 permissive  changes  to  Access  BPL  systems  until  the  Chief  of  the  Office  of  Engineering  and  Technology  acting  under  the  existing  delegated  authority  announces  that  TCBs  may  certify  Access  BPL  systems.  255 


 250  NTIA  at  ix. 
 251  47  C.  F.  R.  2.931. 
 252  See  In  the  Matter  of  1998  Biennial  Regulatory  Review    Amendment  of  Parts  2,  25  and  68  of  the 
 Commissions  Rules  to  Further  Streamline  the  Equipment  Authorization  Process  for  Radio  Frequency  Equipment,  Modify  the  Equipment  Authorization  Process  for  Telephone  Terminal  Equipment,  Implement  Mutual  Recognition 


 Agreements  and  Begin  Implementation  of  the  Global  Mobile  Personal  Communications  by  Satellite  (GMPCS)  Arrangements,  Report  and  Order,  FCC  98-  338,  13  FCC  Rcd  24687  (1999). 


 253  We  currently  do  not  allow  TCBs  to  certify  equipment  requiring  measurements  of  the  specific  absorption  rate 
 (SAR)  of  RF  radiation  by  the  body. 
 254  Id.  at    33. 


 255  See  47  C.  F.  R.    0.241(  g). 
52
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 53 
 G.  Miscellaneous 
 127.  Transition  Period  and  Grandfathering  of  Existing  Access  BPL  Equipment.  In  the  Notice,  we  sought  comment  on  the  appropriate  period  of  time  that  should  be  allowed  for  BPL  systems  to  come  into 


 compliance  with  any  new  requirements  that  may  be  adopted  pursuant  to  this  rule  making  proceeding.  We  further  requested  comment  on  whether  Access  BPL  systems  currently  deployed  should  be  required  to  be 
 brought  into  compliance  with  the  new  rules,  and  if  so,  what  period  of  time  should  be  afforded  for  them  to  come  into  compliance.  256 


 128.  Some  parties  recommend  that  existing  Access  BPL  systems  be  grandfathered  indefinitely,  stating  that  early  adopters  of  new  technologies  should  not  be  required  to  bear  the  burden  of  after-  the-  fact 
 revisions  to  the  technical  standards,  as  long  as  the  installations  cause  no  harmful  interference.  257  Others  believe  that  18  to  36  months  would  be  an  appropriate  period  of  time  for  existing  systems  to  come  into 
 compliance  with  the  new  rules,  citing  the  fact  that  technology  is  advancing  so  rapidly  that  early  equipment  is  likely  to  be  replaced  on  a  rapid  schedule.  These  parties  contend  that  mandating  premature 
 replacement  of  Access  BPL  equipment  would  cause  economic  burden  with  little  or  no  regulatory  benefit.  258  The  City  of  Manassas,  a  municipal  BPL  provider,  states  that  a  30-  day  period  for  bringing 
 equipment  into  compliance  would  be  practical  and  appropriate,  if  the  new  requirements  do  not  require  the  addition  of  new  facilities  or  significant  software  modifications.  259  The  CEA  states  that  it  is  not  necessary 
 to  require  existing  Access  BPL  systems  to  be  brought  into  compliance  with  the  adopted  rules,  however,  it  believes  that  all  systems,  even  systems  currently  deployed,  should  be  required  to  comply  with  the 
 notification  requirements  of  section  15.109(  g).  260  Amateurs  and  other  groups  recommend  retroactive  application  of  the  adopted  rules.  261 


 129.  We  note  that  the  major  differences  between  the  existing  Part  15  rules  for  carrier  current  systems  and  the  newly  adopted  rules  in  subpart  G  for  Access  BPL  are  1)  the  type  of  equipment  authorization 
 procedure,  --  Verification  for  existing  carrier  current  systems,  Certification  for  Access  BPL  systems;  2)  the  requirement  for  interference  mitigation  techniques  and  avoidance  of  excluded  bands  and  exclusion  zones 
 for  Access  BPL  systems;  and  3)  the  requirement  for  an  Access  BPL  database  concurrent  with  consultation  with  licensed  spectrum  users.  Insofar  as  existing  deployed  Access  BPL  systems  can  satisfy  (2)  and  (3) 
 above  by  working  with  licensed  spectrum  users  to  avoid  co-  channel  operations,  and  by  being  listed  in  the  Access  BPL  database,  the  requirements  of  (1)  above  can  be  satisfied  by  having  compliance  test  data 
 available  for  inspection  during  the  transition  period.  We  clarify  that  after  the  transition  period,  all  Access  BPL  devices  that  are  manufactured,  imported,  marketed  or  installed  shall  comply  with  the  requirements 
 specified  in  subpart  G  of  Part  15,  including  certification  of  the  equipment. 
 130.  We  believe  that  it  would  be  an  undue  burden  on  those  operators  who  have  deployed  Access  BPL  systems  to  require  their  systems  to  come  into  compliance  with  the  rules  adopted  herein,  as  long  as  the 


 deployed  equipment  does  not  cause  harmful  interference  and  the  operator  takes  the  necessary  steps  to  eliminate  occurrences  of  harmful  interference.  We  agree  with  Progress  Energy  that  once  a  system  has 


 256  Notice  at  42. 
 257  See  comments  of  Duke  Energy  at  11-  12;  Southern  at  19-  20;  APPA  at  6. 
 258  See  comments  of  Sprint  at  4;  Current  Technologies  at  20;  UPLC  at  9. 
 259  See  comments  of  City  of  Manassas  at  4. 
 260  See  comments  of  the  Consumer  Electronics  Association  at  7. 
 261  See  e.  g.,  comments  of  the  Potomac  Valley  Radio  Club  at  10. 
53
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 54 
 been  installed  and  is  operating  within  the  limits  and  requirements  in  place  when  it  was  installed,  the  system  should  be  allowed  to  remain  in  operation.  262  We  will,  of  course,  require  that  all  Access  BPL 
 systems  and  equipment  comply  with  the  non-  interference  rule  of  Part  15,  that  is,  there  is  not  transition  period  for  compliance  with  the  emission  limits,  which  we  are  not  changing  herein.  263  We  find  that  Access 
 BPL  equipment  should  be  allowed  a  transition  period  for  compliance  with  new  rules,  in  the  manner  that  we  typically  provide  for  other  Part  15  devices.  This  will  minimize  economic  hardships  on  manufacturers 
 by  allowing  them,  during  the  transition  period,  to  continue  producing  and  selling  existing  equipment  while  modifying  their  products  to  meet  the  new  requirements.  If  an  Access  BPL  device  does  not  cause 
 harmful  interference,  it  can  continue  to  operate  until  its  natural  replacement,  unless  the  equipment  is  subsequently  modified,  at  which  time  it  must  be  brought  into  compliance  with  the  new  rules.  We  believe 
 that  a  transition  time  frame  of  18  months  is  adequate  as  this  represents  the  typical  high  tech  equipment  life  cycle.  Accordingly,  we  are  adopting  a  cut-  off  date  of  18  months  from  the  date  of  publication  of  this 
 Report  and  Order.  All  Access  BPL  devices  that  are  manufactured,  imported,  marketed  or  installed  18  months  after  the  publication  of  this  Report  and  Order  in  the  Federal  Register  shall  comply  with  the 
 requirements  specified  in  subpart  G  of  this  part,  including  certification  of  the  equipment.  Access  BPL  equipment  manufactured,  imported,  marketed  and  installed  prior  to  this  date  shall  comply  with  the 
 requirements  that  were  in  effect  immediately  prior  to  the  effective  date  of  this  Report  and  Order. 
 131.  Separate  Rule  Part  for  Access  BPL  Systems.  NTIA  and  IEEE  802.18  advocate  the  creation  of  a  new,  dedicated  rule  part  or  a  separate  subpart  of  Part  15  for  Access  BPL  systems,  because  many  of  the 


 adopted  rules  will  be  unique  to  Access  BPL.  264  We  find  that  the  complete  separation  of  the  rules  for  Access  BPL  equipment  from  Part  15  inadvisable  due  to  possible  confusion  and  repetition  of  requirements 
 in  two  places,  as  Access  BPL  equipment  must  comply  with  the  general  requirements  for  unlicensed  devices  of  Subparts  A-  C  of  the  existing  Part  15  rules.  We  do,  however,  find  that  requirements  specific  to 
 Access  BPL  equipment  warrant  the  creation  of  a  separate  subpart  of  Part  15.  Accordingly,  we  are  adding  subpart  G  to  Part  15  of  our  rules  which  will  contain  unique  requirements  for  Access  BPL  equipment,  with 
 cross  reference  to  other  applicable  subparts. 
 132.  Motions  and  Requests.  We  have  received  several  motions  and  requests  for  additional  extensions  of  time  and  for  reiteration  of  proposals  to  take  into  account  information  added  to  the  record  since  the 


 Notice.  We  are  generally  considering  the  substance  of  these  motions  and  requests  as  filed  comments,  and  denying  the  specific  procedural  remedies  requested,  as  they  offer  no  new  information  or  arguments 
 sufficient  to  justify  procedural  delays,  nor  do  they  raise  issues  beyond  those  already  explicitly  or  implicitly  included  in  the  record  and  capable  of  full  consideration  in  this  Order. 


 133.  On  May  8,  2004,  James  E.  Whedbee  filed  a  Motion  to  Dismiss  and  to  Dismiss  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  for  Want  of  Supplemental  Jurisdiction,  alleging  lack  of  jurisdiction  from  the  Commission 
 over  the  transmission  of  energy  by  wire.  265  As  Access  BPL  systems  use  radio  frequencies  for  interstate 
 262  See  comments  of  Progress  Energy  at  7. 


 263  See  47  C.  F.  R.    15.5.  Under  these  rules,  operators  of  Access  BPL  systems  are  responsible  for  eliminating  any 
 harmful  interference  that  may  occur  or  must  cease  operation  upon  notification  by  a  Commission  representative,  even  if  the  equipment  otherwise  complies  with  the  rules.  We  also  point  out  to  Access  BPL  system  operators  that 


 ARRLs  measurements  appear  to  show  that  in  some  cases  systems  operating  to  date  have  exceeded  the  Part  15  emissions  limits.  We  again  urge  that  Access  BPL  operators  undertake  to  verify  that  their  systems  are  in 
 compliance  throughout  their  areas  of  operation  and  where  necessary  make  changes  to  bring  them  into  compliance. 
 264  NTIA  Comments  at  24-  25;  reply  comments  of  IEEE  802.18  at  3. 


 265  James  E.  Whedbee,  Motion  to  Dismiss  and  to  Dismiss  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  for  Want  of 
 Supplemental  Jurisdiction,  filed  May  8,  2004. 
54
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 55 
 communications  purposes  over  wire,  this  Commission  has  full  jurisdiction  over  such  transmissions.  266  Accordingly,  we  deny  Whedbees  motion. 
 134.  On  June  22,  2004,  NAC/  Amherst  filed  an  Amended  Motion  for  Re-  issuance  of  Certain  Proposed  Rule  Provisions,  in  which  it  requested  a  re-  issuance  of  proposed  interference  provisions  that  feature 
 greater  clarity  and  completeness  than  the  language  in  the  current  version  of  the  proposed  rule.  267  In  its  motion,  NAC/  Amherst  submitted  a  request  for  re-  issuance  of  the  text  of  the  proposed  Part  15  rules  to  set 
 forth  more  specific  standards  for  adaptive  interference  techniques,  special  procedures  and  criteria  for  dealing  with  potential  BPL  interference  that  violates  international  treaties,  requirements  for  public  access 
 to  the  database,  and  other  specific  explanations  for  the  proposed  rules,  etc,  in  conjunction  with  new  dates  for  comments  and  reply  comments  to  the  re-  issued  proposed  rules.  This  motion  follows  other  similar 
 motions  and  requests  from  NAC/  Amherst.  268  NAC/  Amhersts  motions  are  denied.  The  Administrative  Procedure  Act  (APA)  requires  that  an  agency  publish  general  notice  of  proposed  rules  in  the  Federal 
 Register,  and  that  interested  parties  are  sufficiently  informed  to  reasonably  divine  the  possible  outcome  of  the  proceeding.  269  An  additional  round  of  comments  is  not  required  where  changes  from  the  proposals 
 represent  a  logical  outgrowth  of  the  proposals.  270  Our  Notice  clearly  indicated  that  performance  standards  and  interference  resolution  procedures  would  be  determined  in  the  proceeding,  and  indicated  what 
 parameters    e.  g.,  notification  requirements,  equipment  capabilities,  time  frames,  and  appeals    would  be  included.  While  it  did  not  propose  specific  quantification  for  several  of  those  elements,  parties  were  able 
 to  comment  on  those  factors  and  to  reply  to  the  proposals  of  others.  The  Commissions  decision,  as  indicated  in  the  substantive  discussion  above,  is  based  on  the  information  provided  by  and  available  to  all 
 parties  in  this  proceeding.  NAC/  Amhersts  substantive  points  regarding  the  definition  of  Access  BPL  to  clarify  whether  it  encompasses  other  Access  BPL  technologies,  such  as  the  Corridor  Access  BPL  system, 
 are  considered  in  our  disposition  of  that  issue.  271  NAC/  Amhersts  substantive  point  regarding  the  details  of  adaptive  interference  mitigation  techniques  and  performance  standards  for  interference  mitigation  and 
 shut  down  provisions,  as  well  as  notification  requirements  are  considered  in  our  disposition  of  those  issues.  272  NAC/  Amhersts  substantive  points  regarding  eligibility/  selection  of  an  industry-  operated 
 entity  are  considered  in  our  disposition  of  that  issue.  273  NAC/  Amhersts  substantive  points  regarding  a  requirement  for  Access  BPL  to  transmit  an  identification  code  are  considered  in  our  disposition  of  that 
 issue.  274  NAC/  Amhersts  substantive  point  regarding  BPL-  free  zones  and  mobile  emergency 


 266  See  47  U.  S.  C    152. 
 267  See  National  Antenna  Consortium  and  the  Amherst  Alliance  (NAC/  Amherst),  Amended  Motion  for  Re-issuance 
 of  Certain  Proposed  Rule  Provisions,  filed  June  22,  2004. 
 268  See  also,  Motion  for  Extension  of  the  Reply  Comments  Deadline  and  for  Re-  Issuance  of  Certain  Proposed 
 Rule  Provisions  from  NAC/  Amherst,  filed  May  21,  2004;  and  Letter  from  NAC/  Amherst,  filed  June  23,  2004. 
 269  5  U.  S.  C.    553(  b). 


 270  See,  e.  g.,  Public  Service  Commission  of  the  District  of  Columbia  v.  FCC,  906  F.  2d  713,  717  (D.  C.  Dir. 
 1990). 
 271  See  discussion  in    32-  33,  supra. 


 272  See  discussion  in    65-  68,    49-  53  and    72-  73,  supra. 
 273  See  discussion  in    83-  87,  supra. 
 274  See  discussion  in  68,  supra. 
55
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 56 
 communications  are  considered  in  our  disposition  of  that  issue.  275  Finally,  we  disagree  with  NAC/  Amhersts  contention  that  there  was  insufficient  time  allotted  for  parties  to  respond  to  NTIAs 
 Phase  2  report,  as  evidenced  by  the  ample  comments  received  in  the  record,  and  as  evidenced  by  NTIA  comments  that  were  submitted  subsequent  to  the  NTIA  Phase  1  Study,  in  which,  NTIA  affirms  that 
 although  its  Phase  2  Study  will  be  devoted  to  ionospheric  propagation  and  aggregation  of  emissions  from  Access  BPL  systems,  this  is  not  a  potential  near-  term  issue  that  should  delay  adoption  of  Access  BPL 
 rules.  276  While  we  indicated,  in  establishing  a  new  reply  comment  date,  that  the  date  was  based  in  anticipation  of  the  filing  by  NTIA,  we  also  indicated  that  the  reply  comment  date  was  not  firmly  tied  to 
 the  NTIA  filing.  We  retained  the  prerogative  to  further  extend  the  reply  comment  date  if  necessary  and,  based  on  the  date  of  filing  and  the  substance  of  the  Phase  2  Report,  such  a  further  extension  was  not 
 warranted.  Moreover,  in  its  comments,  NTIA  urged  the  Commission  to  promptly  adopt  effective  new  technical  rules  that  will  enable  BPL  proponents  to  develop  and  implement  the  necessary  new  design 
 features  and  operating  practices  for  addressing  interference  concerns.  277  Accordingly,  we  deny  the  NAC/  Amhersts  motions. 


 135.  On  June  9,  2004,  Steven  E.  Matda  filed  a  Motion  for  Re-  issuance  of  the  Notice,  if  recommendations  are  added  to  the  eventual  rule  based  on  the  NTIAs  findings,  asserting  that  because 
 NTIA  suggested  several  additional  rules  to  remedy  BPL  interference,  it  is  impossible  for  parties  to  know  how  they  will  be  affected  by  the  final  rule.  278  As  discussed  supra,  the  NTIA  findings  were  appropriately 
 placed  in  the  record,  and  parties  have  had  ample  opportunity  to  consider  and  respond  to  them.  Accordingly,  we  deny  Matdas  motion. 


 136.  On  July  8,  2004,  W.  Lee  McVey  submitted  a  Motion  Requesting  a  Second  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking  in  this  proceeding,  asserting  that  additional  relevant  data  and  findings  have  been  entered  into 
 the  record  that  offer  compelling  reasons  for  both  modifications  and  additions  to  Part  15  that  would  be  substantially  different  than  those  that  formed  the  basis  for  the  proposed  codified  language  in  the  Notice.  279 
 This  Motion  follows  a  similar  motion  filed  on  June  3,  2004,  requesting  additional  time  for  re-  issuance  of  proposed  rules.  280  McVeys  motions  are  denied  as  there  is  ample  information  in  the  Notice  and  the 
 subsequent  record  to  have  provided  opportunity  for  informed  and  pertinent  comment  on  the  rules  as  ultimately  adopted,  as  indicated  in  the  analysis  supporting  our  conclusions  regarding  adaptive  control 
 requirements.  281  The  substance  of  McVeys  remarks,  which  are  similar  to  the  NAC/  Amherst  substantive  points  in  its  motions,  was  taken  into  consideration  as  comments  in  reaching  our  decisions.  Accordingly, 
 we  deny  McVeys  motions. 
 137.  On  October  12,  2004,  the  ARRL  filed  a  Motion  for  Recusal  of  Chairman  Michael  K.  Powell  from  this  proceeding,  alleging  that  the  presence  of  the  chairman  at  a  BPL  demonstration  in  the  city  of 


 275  See  discussion  in    51-  53,  supra. 
 276  See  NTIA  Comments,  filed  June  8,  2004,  at  ix. 
 277  NTIA  Comments,  at  iv. 
 278  See  Steven  E.  Matda,  Motion  for  Re-  issuance  of  the  Notice,  filed  June  9,  2004. 
 279  W.  Lee  McVey,  Motion  Requesting  a  Second  Notice  of  Proposed  Rulemaking,  filed  July  8,  2004. 
 280  W.  Lee  McVey,  Motion  Requesting  an  Extension  of  time  for  Re-  issuance  of  Proposed  Rules  and  Data 
 Requests,  filed  June  3,  2004. 
 281  See  discussion  in    65-  68,  supra. 
56
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 57 
 Manassas,  Virginia,  violates  the  Sunshine  prohibition  of  Section  1.1203  of  the  Commission  rules.  282  ARRLs  motion  was  addressed  in  a  response  letter  dated  October  14,  2004,  in  which  the  FCC  Office  of 
 General  Counsel  concluded  that  no  violation  occurred  because  the  prohibition  of  Section  1.1203  does  not  apply  to  presentations  deemed  exempt.  283 


 IV.  PROCEDURAL  MATTERS 
 138.  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis.  The  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  for  this  Report  and  Order,  pursuant  to  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act,  see  5  U.  S.  C.    604,  is  contained  in  Appendix  A. 


 139.  Paperwork  Reduction  Act.  This  Report  and  Order  contains  new  or  modified  information  collections  subject  to  the  Paperwork  Reduction  Act  of  1995  (PRA),  Public  Law  104-  13.  It  will  be 
 submitted  to  the  Office  of  Management  and  Budget  (OMB)  for  review  under  Section  3507(  d)  of  the  PRA.  OMB,  the  general  public,  and  other  Federal  agencies  are  invited  to  comment  on  the  new  or  modified 
 information  collection(  s)  contained  in  this  proceeding. 
 140.  To  make  cited  sources  more  easily  available  to  the  readers,  we  are  testing  the  use  of  hyperlinks  to  some  FCC  documents  that  are  cited  in  this  document.  The  World  Wide  Web  addresses/  URLs  that  we 


 give  here  were  correct  at  the  time  this  document  was  prepared  but  may  change  over  time.  We  do  not  have  staff  dedicated  to  updating  these  URLs,  however,  so  readers  may  find  some  URLs  to  be  out  of  date  as 
 time  progresses.  We  also  advise  that  the  only  definitive  text  of  FCC  documents  is  the  one  that  is  published  in  the  FCC  Record.  In  case  of  discrepancy  between  the  electronic  documents  cited  here  and  the 
 FCC  Record,  the  version  in  the  FCC  Record  is  definitive. 


 V.  ORDERING  CLAUSES 
 141.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that  Part  15  of  the  Commissions  Rules  ARE  AMENDED  as  specified  in  Appendix  B,  effective  30  days  after  publication  in  the  Federal  Register.  This  action  is  taken 


 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). 


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


 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 


 Marlene  H.  Dortch  Secretary 
 282  See  ARRL,  Motion  for  Recusal  of  Chairman  Michael  K.  Powell  from  the  BPL  proceeding,  filed  October  12, 
 2004.  See  also,  47  C.  F.  R.    1.1203. 
 283  See  Letter  from  the  FCC  to  ARRL,  dated  October  14,  2004.  See  also,  47  C.  F.  R.    1.1204(  a). 
57
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 58 
 APPENDIX  A 
 FINAL  REGULATORY  FLEXIBILITY  ANALYSIS 
 As  required  by  the  Regulatory  Flexibility  Act  ("  RFA"),  284  an  Initial  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis  ("  IRFA")  was  incorporated  in  the  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making  (  Notice)  in  this 


 proceeding,  ET  Docket  Nos.  04-  37  &  03-  104.  The  Commission  sought  written  public  comment  on  the  proposals  in  the  Notice,  including  comment  on  the  IRFA.  This  Final  Regulatory  Flexibility  Analysis 
 ("  FRFA")  conforms  to  the  RFA.  285 
 A.  Need  for,  and  Objectives  of,  the  Report  and  Order 
 By  this  action,  the  Commission  amends  Part  15  of  the  rules  for  radio  frequency  (RF)  devices  regarding  Access  Broadband  over  Power  Line  (Access  BPL),  a  new  type  of  carrier  current  system  that 
 operates  on  an  unlicensed  basis  under  Part  15.  Access  BPL  systems  use  existing  electrical  power  lines  as  a  transmission  medium  to  provide  high-  speed  communications  capabilities  by  coupling  RF  energy  onto 
 the  power  line.  Given  that  power  lines  reach  virtually  every  residence  and  business  in  every  community  and  geographic  area  in  this  country,  Access  BPL  service  could  be  made  available  nearly  everywhere. 
 This  new  broadband  delivery  medium  could  also  serve  to  introduce  additional  competition  to  existing  cable,  DSL,  and  other  broadband  services.  At  the  same  time,  we  recognize  the  concerns  of  authorized 
 radio  services  in  both  the  private  and  government  sectors  for  the  need  to  ensure  that  RF  energy  from  BPL  signals  on  power  lines  does  not  cause  harmful  interference  to  licensed  radio  services.  Our  goals  in 
 developing  the  rules  for  Access  BPL  therefore  are  to  provide  a  framework  that  will  both  facilitate  the  rapid  introduction  and  development  of  BPL  systems  and  protect  licensed  radio  services  from  harmful 
 interference.  Specifically,  we  adopt  in  this  Report  and  Order:  1)  new  operational  requirements  for  Access  BPL  to  promote  avoidance  and  resolution  of  harmful  interference,  2)  new  administrative 
 requirements  to  aid  in  identifying  Access  BPL  installations;  and  3)  specific  measurement  guidelines  and  certification  requirements  to  allow  accurate  and  repeatable  evaluations  of  emissions  from  Access  BPL  and 
 all  other  carrier  current  systems.  These  actions  will  further  the  development  of  BPL  systems  by  removing  regulatory  uncertainties  for  BPL  operators  and  equipment  manufacturers  and  facilitate  the  continued 
 deployment  of  these  new  broadband  networks  while  ensuring  that  licensed  radio  services  are  protected  from  harmful  interference.  The  record  and  our  investigations  indicate  that  BPL  network  systems  can 
 generally  be  configured  and  managed  to  minimize  and/  or  eliminate  this  interference  potential. 


 B.  Summary  of  Significant  Issues  Raised  by  Public  Comments  in  Response  to  the  IRFA 
 No  comments  were  filed  in  response  to  the  IRFA. 
 C.  Description  and  Estimate  of  the  Number  of  Small  Entities  To  Which  the  Rules  Will  Apply 
 The  RFA  directs  agencies  to  provide  a  description  of,  and,  where  feasible,  an  estimate  of,  the  number  of  small  entities  that  may  be  affected  by  the  rules  adopted  herein.  286  The  RFA  generally  defines  the 


 284  See  5  U.  S.  C.    603.  The  RFA,  see  5  U.  S.  C.    601  -  612,  has  been  amended  by  the  Small  Business  Regulatory 
 Enforcement  Fairness  Act  of  1996  (SBREFA),  Pub.  L.  No.  104-  121,  Title  II,  110  Stat.  857  (1996). 
 285  See  5  U.  S.  C.    604. 


 286  5  U.  S.  C.    604(  a)(  3). 
58
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 59 
 term  small  entity  as  having  the  same  meaning  as  the  terms  small  business,  small  organization,  and  small  governmental  jurisdiction.  287  In  addition,  the  term  small  business  has  the  same  meaning  as  the 
 term  small  business  concern  under  the  Small  Business  Act.  288  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).  289 
 The  rules  adopted  in  this  Report  and  Order  pertain  to  manufacturers  of  unlicensed  communications  devices.  The  appropriate  small  business  size  standard  is  that  which  the  SBA  has  established  for  radio  and 
 television  broadcasting  and  wireless  communications  equipment  manufacturing.  This  category  encompasses  entities  that  primarily  manufacture  radio,  television,  and  wireless  communications  equipment.  290  Under  this 
 standard,  firms  are  considered  small  if  they  have  750  or  fewer  employees.  291  Census  Bureau  data  for  1997  indicate  that,  for  that  year,  there  were  a  total  of  1,215  establishments  292  in  this  category.  293  Of  those,  there 
 were  1,150  that  had  employment  under  500,  and  an  additional  37  that  had  employment  of  500  to  999.  The  percentage  of  wireless  equipment  manufacturers  in  this  category  is  approximately  61.35%,  294  so  the 
 Commission  estimates  that  the  number  of  wireless  equipment  manufacturers  with  employment  under  500  was  actually  closer  to  706,  with  and  additional  23  establishments  having  employment  of  between  500  and 
 999.  Given  the  above,  the  Commission  estimates  that  the  great  majority  of  wireless  communications  equipment  manufacturers  are  small  businesses. 


 D.  Description  of  Projected  Reporting,  Recordkeeping,  and  Other  Compliance  Requirements 
 Although  a  large  number  of  Part  15  radio  frequency  devices  are  already  required  to  be  authorized  under  the  Commission's  Certification,  Declaration  of  Conformity,  or  Verification  procedures  as  a 
 prerequisite  to  marketing  and  importation,  the  adopted  rules  add  a  slight  amount  of  new  testing  and  reporting  requirements,  to  ensure  protection  of  licensed  spectrum  users  from  harmful  interference.  These 
 requirements  include  the  proposed  technical  requirement  for  adaptive  interference  mitigation  capabilities 


 287  5  U.  S.  C.    601(  6). 
 288  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. 


 289  15  U.  S.  C.    632. 
 290  NAICS  code  334220. 
 291  Id. 
 292  The  number  of  establishments  is  a  less  helpful  indicator  of  small  business  prevalence  in  this  context  than 
 would  be  the  number  of  firms  or  companies,  because  the  latter  take  into  account  the  concept  of  common  ownership  or  control.  Any  single  physical  location  for  an  entity  is  an  establishment,  even  though  that  location 


 may  be  owned  by  a  different  establishment.  Thus,  the  numbers  given  may  reflect  inflated  numbers  of  businesses  in  this  category,  including  the  numbers  of  small  businesses.  In  this  category,  the  Census  breaks-  out  data  for  firms 
 or  companies  only  to  give  the  total  number  of  such  entities  for  1997,  which  was  1,089. 
 293  U.  S.  Census  Bureau,  1997  Economic  Census,  Industry  Series:  Manufacturing,  Industry  Statistics  by 
 Employment  Size,  Table  4,  NAICS  code  334220  (issued  August  1999). 
 294  Id.  Table  5,  Industry  Statistics  by  Industry  and  Primary  Product  Class  Specialization:  1997. 
59
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 60 
 and  the  proposed  notification  of  Access  BPL  systems  in  a  database  similar  to  the  one  required  for  existing  Power  Line  Carrier  systems.  The  major  differences  between  the  existing  Part  15  rules  for  carrier  current 
 systems  and  the  newly  adopted  rules  in  subpart  G  for  Access  BPL  are  (1)  the  type  of  equipment  authorization  procedure,  --  Verification  for  existing  carrier  current  systems,  Certification  for  Access  BPL 
 systems;  (2)  the  requirement  for  interference  mitigation  techniques  and  avoidance  of  excluded  bands  and  exclusion  zones  for  Access  BPL  systems;  and  (3)  the  requirement  for  an  Access  BPL  database  concurrent 
 with  consultation  with  licensed  spectrum  users.  Because  Access  BPL  systems  operate  in  the  High  Frequency  (HF)  and  in  the  low  Very  High  Frequency  (VHF)  of  the  spectrum,  they  must  co-  exist  with 
 numerous  private  and  governmental  authorized  radio  services.  As  such,  they  present  concerns  for  these  licensed  users,  given  the  propagation  characteristics  of  radio  frequency  signals  in  these  ranges  of 
 frequencies,  the  diversity  of  users  of  these  frequencies,  and  the  fact  that  Access  BPL  devices  will  be  installed  at  many  locations  in  an  area,  primarily  over  unshielded  power  lines.  However,  the  record  and 
 our  own  investigations  indicate  that  BPL  network  systems  can  generally  be  configured  and  managed  to  minimize  and/  or  eliminate  this  interference  potential,  through  the  use  of  consultation  with  licensed 
 services  and  identification  of  installed  Access  BPL  equipment  in  a  database,  as  well  as  the  adoption  of  precise  measurement  procedures.  The  adopted  certification  procedure  for  Access  BPL  systems  will 
 therefore  help  provide  a  more  detailed  record  of  their  characteristics  toward  this  objective. 
 Although  the  adopted  rules  do  somewhat  increase  the  reporting  and  record  keeping  requirements  for  Access  BPL  systems,  the  benefit  of  ensuring  protection  to  critical  systems  operated  by  law 
 enforcement  groups,  government  users  and  emergency  operations  outweighs  this  small  cost  that  will  permit  the  growth  of  Access  BPL  in  the  shared  spectrum. 


 E.  Steps  Taken  to  Minimize  Significant  Economic  Impact  on  Small  Entities,  and  Significant  Alternatives  Considered 
 The  RFA  requires  an  agency  to  describe  any  significant  alternatives  that  it  has  considered  in  reaching  its  proposed  approach,  which  may  include  the  following  four  alternatives:  (1)  the  establishment 
 of  differing  compliance  or  reporting  requirements  or  timetables  that  take  into  account  the  resources  available  to  small  entities;  (2)  the  clarification,  consolidation,  or  simplification  of  compliance  or  reporting 
 requirements  under  the  rule  for  small  entities;  (3)  the  use  of  performance,  rather  than  design  standards;  and  (4)  an  exemption  from  coverage  of  the  rule,  or  any  part  thereof,  for  small  entities. 


 In  this  Report  &  Order,  we  have  maintained  the  existing  Part  15  emission  limits,  which  are  applicable  to  all  Part  15  devices,  including  BPL.  We  have  adopted  new  measurement  guidelines  for  BPL 
 and  existing  carrier  current  systems,  to  assist  manufacturers  and  testing  entities  to  follow  clearer  and  more  precise  measurement  procedures  in  the  testing  of  BPL  and  carrier  current  systems  (CCS),  which  will  help 
 in  eliminating  confusion  and  repetitive  and  costly  compliance  testing.  Although  we  changed  the  equipment  authorization  procedure  from  Verification  to  Certification  for  Access  BPL  systems,  this  is 
 because  Access  BPL  systems  operate  in  a  different  environment  than  other  unlicensed  Part  15  devices  and  to  avoid  overburdening  the  information  that  would  otherwise  be  required  to  be  submitted  into  the  Access 
 BPL  database.  We  have  adopted  a  simple  Access  BPL  database  format  for  the  notification  of  Access  BPL  systems,  rather  than  a  complex  one  with  all-  inclusive  and  more  comprehensive  information.  We 
 have  narrowed  down  the  list  of  absolutely  necessary  licensed  entities  that  Access  BPL  providers  must  consult  with  prior  to  operating  in  their  bands,  as  well  as  the  list  of  exclusion  zones  and  excluded 
 frequency  bands  in  which  Access  BPL  are  prohibited  from  operating.  We  have  provided  a  generous  time  frame  for  a  transition  period,  thus  allowing  existing  systems  to  continue  to  operate,  as  long  as  they  do  not 
 cause  harmful  interference  to  other  authorized  radio  services.  Finally,  the  rules  will  apply  equally  to  large  and  small  entities.  Therefore,  there  is  no  inequitable  impact  on  small  entities. 


 We  believe  that  the  rules  adopted  herein  are  equitable,  balancing  the  critical  needs  of  licensed 
60
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 61 
 radio  users  for  protection  against  harmful  interference,  with  facilitating  the  development  of  Access  BPL  by  removing  regulatory  uncertainties.  For  the  reasons  stated  above  we  find  that  the  rule  changes 
 contained  in  this  Report  and  Order  will  not  present  a  significant  economic  burden  to  small  entities. 
 Report  to  Congress.  The  Commission  will  send  a  copy  of  the  Report  and  Order,  including  this  FRFA,  in  a  report  to  Congress  pursuant  to  the  Congressional  Review  Act.  295  In  addition,  the  Commission  will  send 
 a  copy  of  the  Report  and  Order,  including  the  FRFA,  to  the  Chief  Counsel  for  Advocacy  of  the  SBA.  A  copy  of  the  Report  and  Order  and  FRFA  (or  summaries  thereof)  will  also  be  published  in  the  Federal 
 Register.  296 


 295  See  5  U.  S.  C.    801(  a)(  1)(  A). 
 296  See  5  U.  S.  C.    604(  b). 
61
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 62 
 APPENDIX  B 
 FINAL  RULE 


 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  15.3  is  amended  by  adding  paragraphs  (ff)  and  (gg)  to  read  as  follows: 
 Section  15.3  Definitions. 


 *  *  *  *  * 
 (ff)  Access  Broadband  over  Power  Line  (Access  BPL).  A  carrier  current  system  installed  and  operated  on  an  electric  utility  service  as  an  unintentional  radiator  that  sends  radio  frequency  energy  on 
 frequencies  between  1.705  MHz  and  80  MHz  over  medium  voltage  lines  or  over  low  voltage  lines  to  provide  broadband  communications  and  is  located  on  the  supply  side  of  the  utility  services  points  of 
 interconnection  with  customer  premises.  Access  BPL  does  not  include  power  line  carrier  systems  as  defined  in  Section  15.3(  t)  of  this  part  or  In-  House  BPL  as  defined  in  Section  15.3(  gg)  of  this  part. 


 (gg)  In-  House  Broadband  over  power  line  (In-  House  BPL).  A  carrier  current  system,  operating  as  an  unintentional  radiator,  that  sends  radio  frequency  energy  by  conduction  over  electric  power  lines 
 that  are  not  owned,  operated  or  controlled  by  an  electric  service  provider.  The  electric  power  lines  may  be  aerial  (overhead),  underground,  or  inside  the  walls,  floors  or  ceilings  of  user  premises.  In-  House  BPL 
 devices  may  establish  closed  networks  within  a  users  premises  or  provide  connections  to  Access  BPL  networks,  or  both. 


 3.  Section  15.15  is  amended  by  revising  paragraph  (b),  to  read  as  follows: 
 Section  15.15  General  Technical  Requirements 
 *  *  *  *  *  (b)  Except  as  follows,  an  intentional  or  unintentional  radiator  must  be  constructed  such  that  the 
 adjustments  of  any  control  that  is  readily  accessible  by  or  intended  to  be  accessible  to  the  user  will  not  cause  operation  of  the  device  in  violation  of  the  regulations.  Access  BPL  equipment  shall  comply  with 
 the  applicable  standards  at  the  control  adjustment  that  is  employed.  The  measurement  report  used  in  support  of  an  application  for  Certification  and  the  user  instructions  for  Access  BPL  equipment  shall 
 clearly  specify  the  user-  or  installer-  control  settings  that  are  required  for  conformance  with  these  regulations. 


 4.  Section  15.31  is  amended  by  revising  paragraph  (f)(  5),  to  read  as  follows: 
 Section  15.31  Measurement  standards. 


 *  *  *  *  * 
62
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 63 
 (f)  *  *  * 
 *  *  *  *  * 
 (5)  Measurements  shall  be  performed  at  a  sufficient  number  of  radials  around  the  equipment  under  test  to  determine  the  radial  at  which  the  field  strength  values  of  the  radiated  emissions 
 are  maximized.  The  maximum  field  strength  at  the  frequency  being  measured  shall  be  reported  in  the  equipment  authorization  report.  This  paragraph  shall  not  apply  to  Access  BPL  equipment  on  overhead 
 medium  voltage  lines.  In  lieu  thereof,  the  measurement  guidelines  established  by  the  Commission  for  Access  BPL  shall  be  followed. 


 *  *  *  *  *  5.  Section  15.37  is  amended  by  adding  paragraph  (m)  to  read  as  follows: 
 Section  15.37  Transition  provisions  for  compliance  with  the  rules. 
 *  *  *  *  *  (m)  All  Access  BPL  devices  that  are  manufactured,  imported,  marketed  or  installed  on  or  after 
 [insert  date  18  months  from  date  of  publication  in  the  Federal  Register]  shall  comply  with  the  requirements  specified  in  subpart  G  of  this  part,  including  certification  of  the  equipment. 


 6.  Section  15.101  is  amended  by  revising  paragraph  (a)  to  read  as  follows: 
 (a)  *  *  *  *  * 


 Type  of  device  Equipment  authorization  required 
 TV  broadcast  receiver............................................  Verification 
 FM  broadcast  receiver............................................  Verification 
 CB  receiver.............................................................  Declaration  of  Conformity  or  Certification 
 Superregenerative  receiver.....................................  Declaration  of  Conformity  or  Certification 
 Scanning  receiver...................................................  Certification 
 Radar  detector  Certification 
 All  other  receivers  subject  to  Part  15.....................  Declaration  of  Conformity  or  Certification 
 TV  interface  device................................................  Declaration  of  Conformity  or  Certification 
 Cable  system  terminal  device.................................  Declaration  of  Conformity 
 Stand-  alone  cable  input  selector  switch.................  Verification 
 Class  B  personal  computers  and  peripherals..........  Declaration  of  Conformity  or  Certification** 
 CPU  boards  and  internal  power  supplies  used  with  Class  B  personal  computers...........................  Declaration  of  Conformity  or  Certification** 


 Class  B  personal  computers  assembled  using  authorized  CPU  boards  or  power  supplies.............  Declaration  of  Conformity 
 Class  B  external  switching  power  supplies............  Verification 
63
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 64 
 Type  of  device  Equipment  authorization  required 
 Other  Class  B  digital  devices  &  peripherals..........  Verification 
 Class  A  digital  devices,  peripherals  &  external  switching  power  supplies.......................................  Verification 


 Access  Broadband  over  Power  Line  (Access  BPL)  Certification 
 All  other  devices.....................................................  Verification 


 7.  Part  15  is  amended  by  adding  a  new  Subpart  G,  to  read  as  follows: 
 SUBPART  G    ACCESS  BROADBAND  OVER  POWER  LINE  (Access  BPL) 
 Section  15.601  Scope. 
 This  subpart  sets  out  the  regulations  for  Access  Broadband  over  Power  Line  (Access  BPL)  devices  operating  in  the  1.705-  80  MHz  band  over  medium  or  low  voltage  lines. 


 Section  15.603  Definitions. 
 (a)  Excluded  Band:  A  band  of  frequencies  within  which  Access  BPL  operations  are  not  permitted. 


 (b)  Exclusion  Zone:  A  geographical  area  within  which  Access  BPS  operations  are  not  permitted  in  certain  frequency  bands. 
 (c)  Consultation.  The  process  of  communication  between  an  entity  operating  Access  BPL  and  a  licensed  public  safety  or  other  designated  point  of  contact  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  potential  harmful 
 interference. 
 (d)  Consultation  area:  A  designated  geographical  area  within  which  consultation  with  public  safety  users  or  other  designated  point  of  contact  is  required  before  an  Access  BPL  may  be  operated  at 
 designated  frequencies. 
 (e)  Low  Voltage  power  line.  A  power  line  carrying  low  voltage,  e.  g.,  240/  120  volts  from  a  distribution  transformer  to  a  customers  premises. 


 (f)  Medium  Voltage  power  line.  A  power  line  carrying  between  1,000  to  40,000  volts  from  a  power  substation  to  neighborhoods.  Medium  voltage  lines  may  be  overhead  or  underground,  depending 
 on  the  power  grid  network  topology. 
 (g)  Access  BPL  Database.  A  database  operated  by  an  industry-  sponsored  entity,  recognized  by  the  Federal  Communications  Commission  and  the  National  Telecommunications  and  Information 
 Administration  (NTIA),  containing  information  regarding  existing  and  planned  Access  BPL  systems,  as  required  in  Section  15.615(  a)  of  this  subpart. 


 Section  15.605  Cross  reference. 
 (a)  The  provisions  of  subparts  A  and  B  of  this  part  apply  to  Access  BPL  devices,  except  where 
64
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 65 
 specifically  noted.  The  provisions  of  subparts  C-  F  of  this  part  do  not  apply  to  Access  BPL  devices  except  where  specifically  noted. 
 (b)  The  requirements  of  this  subpart  apply  only  to  the  radio  circuitry  that  is  used  to  provide  carrier  current  operation  for  the  Access  BPL  device.  Other  aspects  of  the  operation  of  an  Access  BPL 
 device  may  be  subject  to  requirements  contained  elsewhere  in  this  chapter.  In  particular,  an  Access  BPL  device  that  includes  digital  circuitry  that  is  not  used  solely  to  enable  the  operation  of  the  radio  frequency 
 circuitry  used  to  provide  carrier  current  operation  also  is  subject  to  the  requirements  for  unintentional  radiators  in  subpart  B. 


 Section  15.607  Equipment  Authorization  of  Access  BPL  equipment 
 Access  BPL  equipment  shall  be  subject  to  Certification  as  specified  in  Section  15.101  of  this  part. 


 Section  15.609  Marketing  of  Access  BPL  equipment 
 The  marketing  of  Access  BPL  equipment  must  be  directed  solely  to  parties  eligible  to  operate  the  equipment.  Eligible  parties  consist  of  AC  power  line  public  utilities,  Access  BPL  service  providers  and 
 associates  of  Access  BPL  service  providers.  The  responsible  party,  as  defined  in  Section  2.909  of  this  chapter,  is  responsible  for  ensuring  that  the  equipment  is  marketed  only  to  eligible  parties.  Marketing  of 
 the  equipment  in  any  other  manner  may  be  considered  grounds  for  revocation  of  the  grant  of  certification  issued  for  the  equipment. 


 Section  15.611  General  technical  requirements. 
 (a)  Conducted  emission  limits.  Access  BPL  is  not  subject  to  the  conducted  emission  limits  of  Section  15.107. 


 (b)  Radiated  emission  limits 
 (1)  Medium  voltage  power  lines 
 (i)  Access  BPL  systems  that  operate  in  the  frequency  range  of  1.705  kHz  to  30  MHz  over  medium  voltage  power  lines  shall  comply  with  the  radiated  emission  limits  for  intentional 
 radiators  provided  in  Section  15.209  of  this  part. 
 (ii)  Access  BPL  systems  that  operate  in  the  frequency  range  above  30  MHz  over  medium  voltage  power  lines  shall  comply  with  the  radiated  emission  limits  provided  in  Section  15.109(  b) 
 of  this  part. 
 (2)  Low  voltage  power  lines.  Access  BPL  systems  that  operate  over  low-  voltage  power  lines,  including  those  that  operate  over  low-  voltage  lines  that  are  connected  to  the  in-  building  wiring, 
 shall  comply  with  the  radiated  emission  limits  provided  in  Section  15.109(  a)  and  (e)  of  this  part. 
 (c)  Interference  Mitigation  and  Avoidance. 
 (1)  Access  BPL  systems  shall  incorporate  adaptive  interference  mitigation  techniques  to  remotely  reduce  power  and  adjust  operating  frequencies,  in  order  to  avoid  site-  specific,  local  use  of  the 
 same  spectrum  by  licensed  services.  These  techniques  may  include  adaptive  or  notch  filtering,  or  complete  avoidance  of  frequencies,  or  bands  of  frequencies,  locally  used  by  licensed  radio  operations. 
65
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 66 
 (i)  For  frequencies  below  30  MHz,  when  a  notch  filter  is  used  to  avoid  interference  to  a  specific  frequency  band,  the  Access  BPL  system  shall  be  capable  of  attenuating  emissions  within  that 
 band  to  a  level  at  least  20  dB  below  the  applicable  Part  15  limits. 
 (ii)  For  frequencies  above  30  MHz,  when  a  notch  filter  is  used  to  avoid  interference  to  a  specific  frequency  band,  the  Access  BPL  system  shall  be  capable  of  attenuating  emissions  within  that 
 band  to  a  level  at  least  10  dB  below  the  applicable  Part  15  limits. 
 (2)  Access  BPL  systems  shall  comply  with  applicable  radiated  emission  limits  upon  power-  up  following  a  fault  condition,  or  during  a  start-  up  operation  after  a  shut-  off  procedure,  by  the  use 
 of  a  non-  volatile  memory,  or  some  other  method,  to  immediately  restore  previous  settings  with  programmed  notches  and  excluded  bands,  to  avoid  time  delay  caused  by  the  need  for  manual 
 re-  programming  during  which  protected  services  may  be  vulnerable. 
 (3)  Access  BPL  systems  shall  incorporate  a  remote-  controllable  shut-  down  feature  to  deactivate,  from  a  central  location,  any  unit  found  to  cause  harmful  interference,  if  other  interference 
 mitigation  techniques  do  not  resolve  the  interference  problem. 
 Section  15.613  Measurement  Procedures. 
 Compliance  measurements  for  Access  BPL  shall  be  made  in  accordance  with  the  Guidelines  for  Access  BPL  systems  specified  by  the  Commission. 


 Section  15.615  General  administrative  requirements. 
 (a)  Access  BPL  Database.  Entities  operating  Access  BPL  systems  shall  supply  to  an  industry-  recognized  entity,  information  on  all  existing  Access  BPL  systems  and  all  proposed  Access  BPL 
 systems  for  inclusion  into  a  publicly  available  data  base,  within  30  days  prior  to  initiation  of  service.  Such  information  shall  include  the  following: 


 (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  and  its  associated  FCC  ID  number,  or,  in  the  case  of  Access  BPL  equipment  that  has  been  subject  to  verification,  the 
 Trade  Name  and  Model  Number,  as  specified  on  the  equipment  label. 
 (5)  The  contact  information,  including  both  phone  number  and  email  address  of  a  person  at,  or  associated  with,  the  BPL  operators  company,  to  facilitate  the  resolution  of  any 
 interference  complaint. 
 (6)  The  proposed/  or  actual  date  of  Access  BPL  operation. 
 (b)  The  Access  BPL  database  manager  shall  enter  this  information  into  the  publicly  accessible  database  within  three  (3)  business  days  of  receipt. 


 (c)  No  notification  to  the  Commission  is  required. 
66
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 67 
 (d)  A  licensed  spectrum  user  experiencing  harmful  interference  that  is  suspected  to  be  caused  by  an  Access  BPL  system  shall  inform  the  local  BPL  operators  contact  person  designated  in  the  Access  BPL 
 database.  The  investigation  of  the  reported  interference  and  the  resolution  of  confirmed  harmful  interference  from  the  Access  BPL  system  shall  be  successfully  completed  by  the  BPL  operator  within  a 
 reasonable  time  period  according  to  a  mutually  acceptable  schedule,  after  the  receipt  of  an  interference  complaint,  in  order  to  avoid  protracted  disruptions  to  licensed  services.  The  Access  BPL  operator  shall 
 respond  to  complaints  of  harmful  interference  from  public  safety  users  within  24  hours.  With  regard  to  public  safety  complaints,  the  BPL  provider  shall  be  required  to  immediately  cease  the  operations  causing 
 such  complaint  if  it  fails  to  respond  within  24  hours. 
 (e)  Consultation  with  public  safety  users.  An  entity  operating  an  Access  BPL  system  shall  notify  and  consult  with  the  public  safety  users  in  the  area  where  it  plans  to  deploy  Access  BPL,  at  least  30  days 
 prior  to  initiation  of  any  operation  or  service.  This  entity  shall  design  or  implement  the  Access  BPL  system  such  that  it  does  not  cause  harmful  interference  in  those  frequencies  or  bands  used  by  the  public 
 safety  agencies  in  the  area  served  by  the  Access  BPL  system.  The  notification  shall  include,  at  a  minimum,  the  information  in  paragraph  (a)  of  this  section. 


 (f)  Federal  government  spectrum  users  and  other  radio  service  users.  An  entity  operating  an  Access  BPL  system  shall  ensure  that,  within  its  Access  BPL  deployment  area,  its  system  does  not  operate 
 on  any  frequencies  designated  as  excluded  bands  or  on  identified  frequencies  within  any  designated  exclusion  zones. 


 (1)  Excluded  Bands.  To  protect  Aeronautical  (land)  stations  and  aircraft  receivers,  Access  BPL  operations  using  overhead  medium  voltage  power  lines  are  prohibited  in  the  frequency  bands 
 listed  in  Table  1.  Specifically,  such  BPL  systems  shall  not  place  carrier  frequencies  in  these  bands. 


 Table  1.  Excluded  Frequency  Bands 
 FREQUENCY  BAND  2,850    3,025  kHz 
 3,400    3,500  kHz  4,650    4,700  kHz 
 5,450    5,680  kHz  6,525    6,685  kHz 
 8,815    8,965  kHz  10,005    10,100  kHz 
 11,275    11,400  kHz  13,260    13,360  kHz 
 17,900    17,970  kHz  21,924    22,000  kHz 
 74.8    75.2  MHz 


 (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  29  km  of  the  coordinates  for  the  ten  Very  Long  Baseline  Array  facilities  listed  in 
 Allocation  US311.  Exclusion  zones  further  encompass  the  operation  of  Access  BPL  systems  using  overhead  low  voltage  power  lines  or  underground  power  lines  within  11  km  of  the  coordinates  for  the  ten 
67
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 68 
 Very  Long  Baseline  Array  facilities  listed  in  Allocation  US311.  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  Very  Long  Baseline  Array  radio  astronomy  observatories,  Access  BPL  systems  shall  not  use  carrier  frequencies  within  the  73.0-  74.6  MHz  band. 


 (i)  Existing  coast  station  facilities.  Access  BPL  systems  shall  not  operate  in  the  frequency  band  2,173.5    2,190.5  kHz,  within  1  kilometer  (km)  of  the  boundary  of  coast  station 
 facilities  at  the  coordinates  listed  in  Tables  2  and  2.1.  BPL  operators  planning  to  deploy  Access  BPL  devices  at  these  frequencies  in  areas  within  these  exclusion  zones  as  defined  above  shall  consult  with  the 
 appropriate  point  of  contact  for  these  coast  stations  to  ensure  harmful  interference  is  prevented  at  these  facilities. 


 Table  2.  Exclusion  zones  for  U.  S.  Coast  Guard  Coast  Stations 
 Point  of  Contact  Commandant  (CG  622) 
 U.  S.  Coast  Guard  2100  2  nd  Street,  S.  W. 
 Washington,  DC  20593    0001  Telephone:  (202)  267    2860 
 E-  Mail:  cgcomms@  comdt.  uscg.  mil 


 Locale  Latitude  Longitude  Group  Guam  13  35'  23"  N  144  50'  24"  E 
 GANTSEC  18  18'  00"  N  65  46'  59"  W  Puerto  Rico  18  28'  11"  N  66  07'  47"  W 
 Honolulu  21  18'  21"  N  157  53'  23"  W  Group  Key  West  24  33'  35"  N  81  47'  59"  W 
 Trumbo  Point  CG  Base  24  33'  58"  N  81  47'  57"  W  Miami  25  37'  28"  N  80  23'  07"  W 
 Everglades  Park  25  50'  10"  N  81  23'  13"  W  Group  Saint  Petersburg  (Everglades) 
 25  51'  00"  N  81  23'  24"  W  Station  Ft.  Lauderdale  26  05'  21"  N  80  06'  40"  W 
 Station  Ft.  Myers  Beach  26  27'  34"  N  81  57'  15"  W  Group  Miami  (Ft.  Pierce)  27  27'  36"  N  80  18'  36"  W 
 Station  Ft.  Pierce  27  27'  50"  N  80  18'  27"  W  Group  Corpus  Christi  27  42'  01"  N  97  16'  11"  W 
 Group  Corpus  Christi  27  42'  06"  N  97  16'  45"  W  ESD  Saint  Petersburg  27  45'  21"  N  82  37'  32"  W 
 Group  Saint  Petersburg  27  46'  11"  N  82  37'  47"  W  Station  Port  O'Connor  28  26'  03"  N  96  25'  39"  W 
 S.  Padre  Island  28  26'  22"  N  97  09'  56"  W  Freeport  28  55'  59"  N  95  16'  59"  W 
 Group  Galveston  (Freeport)  28  56'  24"  N  95  17'  59"  W  Station  YANKEETOWN  29  01'  51"  N  82  43'  39"  W 
 Station  Ponce  De  Leon  Inlet  29  03'  50"  N  81  55'01"  W  Group  New  Orleans  (Grand  Isle)  29  15'  53"  N  89  57'  26"  W 
68
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 69 
 Locale  Latitude  Longitude  Galveston  29  19'  59"  N  94  46'  18"  W 
 Kapalan  29  20'  04"  N  94  47'  17"  W  Sabine  29  43'  42"  N  93  52'  14"  W 
 New  Orleans  30  01'  17"  N  90  07'  24"  W  Panama  City  30  10'  01"  N  85  45'  04"  W 
 Group  Mobile  (Panama  City)  30  10'  12"  N  85  45'  36"  W  ANT  Jacksonville  Beach  30  17'  16"  N  81  24'  10"  W 
 Pensacola  30  20'  24"  N  87  18'  17"  W  Group  Mayport  30  23'  10"  N  81  26'  01"  W 
 Group  Mayport  30  23'  24"  N  81  25'  48"  W  Ft.  Morgan  30  39'  07"  N  88  03'  12"  W 
 Tybee  Lighthouse  32  01'  15"  N  80  50'  39"  W  Point  Loma  Lighthouse  32  39'  56"  N  117  14'  34"  W 
 Point  Loma  32  40'  07"  N  117  14'  14"  W  Activities  San  Diego  32  43'  59"  N  117  11'  13"  W 
 Group  Charleston  (Sullivan's  Island)  32  45'  00"  N  79  49'  47"  W  Sullivan's  Island  Lights  32  45'  02"  N  79  50'  03"  W 
 Group  Charleston  32  46'  25"  N  79  56'  37"  W  Group  San  Diego  32  52'  48"  N  118  26'  23"  W 
 San  Pedro  33  45'  00"  N  118  15'  58"  W  Group  Fort  Macon  33  53'  24"  N  78  01'  48"  W 
 Point  Mugu  33  59'  32"  N  119  07'  18"  W  Group  LA  /  Long  Beach  34  07'  11"  N  119  06'  35"  W 
 Channel  Island  34  09'  17"  N  119  13'  11"  W  Station  Oxnard  Channel  Island  34  09'  43"  N  119  13'  19"  W 
 Group  Ft.  Macon  34  41'  48"  N  76  40'  59"  W  Group  Cape  Hatteras  35  13'  59"  N  75  31'  59"  W 
 Group  Cape  Hatteras  35  15'  35"  N  75  31'  48"  W  Morro  Bay  (Cambria)  35  31'  21"  N  121  03'  21"  W 
 San  Clemente  Island  32  50'  24"  N  118  23'  15"  W  Point  Pinos  36  38'  12"  N  121  56'  06"  W 
 CAMSLANT  36  43'  47"  N  76  01'  11"  W  Group  Hampton  Roads  36  53'  01"  N  76  21'  10"  W 
 Point  Montara  37  31'  23"  N  122  30'  47"  W  Point  Montara  Lighthouse  37  32'  09"  N  122  31'  08"  W 
 Group  San  Francisco  37  32'  23"  N  122  31'  11"  W  Group  San  Francisco  37  48'  34"  N  122  21'  55"  W 
 Point  Bonita  37  49'  00"  N  122  31'  41"  W  Group  Eastern  Shores  37  55'  47"  N  75  22'  47"  W 
 Group  Eastern  Shore  37  55'  50"  N  75  22'  58"  W  CAMSPAC  38  06'  00"  N  122  55'  48"  W 
 Point  Arena  Lighthouse  38  57'  18"  N  124  44'  28"  W  Point  Arena  38  57'  36"  N  123  44'  23"  W 


 Group  Atlantic  City  39  20'  59N"  N  74  27'  42"  W  Activities  New  York  40  36'  06"  N  74  03'  36"  W 
 Activities  New  York  40  37'  11"  N  74  04'  11"  W  ESD  Moriches  Hut  40  47'  19"  N  72  44'  53"  W 
69
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 70 
 Locale  Latitude  Longitude  Group  Moriches  40  47'  23"  N  72  45'  00"  W 
 Group  Humboldt  Bay  40  58'  41"  N  124  06'  31"  W  Group  Humboldt  Bay  40  58'  47"  N  124  06'  35"  W 
 Trinidad  Head  41  03'  15"  N  124  09'  02"  W  Group  Long  Island  Sound  41  16'  12"  N  72  54'  00"  W 
 Station  New  Haven  41  16'  12"  N  72  54'  06"  W  Station  Brant  Point  41  17'  21"  N  70  05'  31  "  W 
 Group  Woods  Hole  41  17'  23"  N  70  04'  47"  W  Station  Castle  Hill  41  27'  46"  N  71  21'  42"  W 
 Group  Woods  Hole  41  17'  29"  N  70  401'  07"  W  Boston  Area  41  40'  12"  N  70  31'  48"  W 
 Station  Provincetown  42  01'  48"  N  70  12'  42"  W  Eastern  Point  42  36'  24"  N  70  39'  26"  W 
 Cape  Blanco  42  50'  16"  N  124  33'  52"  W  Group  North  Bend  43  24'  16"  N  124  13'  22"  W 
 Group  North  Bend  43  24'  35"  N  124  14'  23"  W  Cape  Elizabeth  43  33'  28"  N  70  12'  00"  W 
 Group  South  Portland  43  38'  24"  N  70  15'  00"  W  Group  South  Portland  43  38'  45"  N  70  14'  51"  W 
 Group  SW  Harbor  44  16'  19"  N  68  18'  27"  W  Group  Southwest  Harbor  44  16'  48"  N  68  18'  36"  W 
 Fort  Stevens,  Oregon  46  09'  14"  N  123  53'  07"  W  Group  Astoria  46  09'  29"  N  123  31'  48"  W 
 Group  Astoria  46  09'  35"  N  123  53'  24"  W  La  Push  47  49'  00"  N  124  37'  59"  W 
 Station  Quillayute  River  47  54'  49"  N  124  38'  01"  W  Port  Angeles  48  07'  59"  N  123  25'  59"  W 
 Group  Port  Angeles  48  08'  24"  N  123  24'  35"  W  Juneau  (Sitka)  57  05'  24"  N  135  15'  35"  W 
 Kodiak  57  40'  47"  N  152  28'  47"  W  Valdez  (Cape  Hinchinbrook)  60  26'  23"  N  146  25'  48"  W 
 Note:  Systems  of  coordinates  conform  to  NAD  83 
 Table  2.1  Exclusion  zones  for  Maritime  Public  Coast  Stations  (Points  of  Contact  are  identified  in  the  Commissions  License  Database) 


 Licensee  Name  Location  Latitude  Longitude 
 Shipcom  LLC  Marina  Del  Ray,  CA  33  56'  21"  N  118  27'  14"  W 


 Globe  Wireless  Rio  Vista,  CA  38  11'  55"  N  121  48'  34"  W 
 Avalon  Communications  Corp  St.  Thomas,  VI  18  21'  19"  N  64  56'  48"  W 
 Globe  Wireless  Bishopville,  MD  38  24'  10"  N  75  12'  59"  W 
 Shipcom  LLC  Mobile,  AL  30  40'  07"  N  88  10'  23"  W 
70
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 71 
 Licensee  Name  Location  Latitude  Longitude 
 Shipcom,  LLC  Coden,  AL  30  22'  35"  N  88  12'  20"  W 


 Globe  Wireless  Pearl  River,  LA  30  22'  13"  N  89  47'  26"  W 
 Globe  Wireless  Kahalelani,  HI  21  10'  33"  N  157  10'  39"  W 
 Globe  Wireless  Palo  Alto,  CA  37  26'  44"  N  122  06'  48"  W 
 Globe  Wireless  Agana,  GU  13  29'  22"  N  144  49'  39"  E 
 Note:  Systems  of  coordinates  conform  to  NAD  83 
 (ii)  New  or  relocated  Coast  stations.  In  the  unlikely  event  that  a  new  or  relocated  coast  station  is  established  for  the  2.173.5    2.190.5  kHz  band  at  a  coordinate  not  specified  in  Table  2  or 
 2.1,  Access  BPL  operations  in  that  frequency  band  shall  also  be  excluded  within  1  km  of  the  new  coast  station  facility; 


 (iii)  Very  Long  Baseline  Array  (VLBA)  radio  astronomy  observatories.  Access  BPL  systems  using  overhead  medium  voltage  power  lines  shall  not  operate  in  the  frequency  band  73.0    74.6 
 MHz,  within  29  km  of  the  coordinates  of  the  ten  (10)  Very  Long  Baseline  Array  facilities  listed  in  47  C.  F.  R    2.106,  Note  US311.  Access  BPL  systems  using  overhead  low  voltage  power  lines  or 
 underground  power  lines  shall  not  operate  in  the  73.0    74.6  MHz  band  within  11  km  of  those  coordinates. 


 (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. 
 (i)  For  frequencies  in  the  1.7  30  MHz  frequency  range,  the  areas  within  4  km  of  facilities  located  at  the  following  coordinates: 
 A.  the  Commissions  protected  field  offices  listed  in  47  C.  F.  R.  0.121,  the  point-  of-  contact  for  which  is  specified  in  that  section; 
 B.  (ii)  the  aeronautical  stations  listed  in  Tables  3a  and  3b;  C.  (iii)  the  land  stations  listed  in  Tables  4  and  5; 


 (ii)  For  frequencies  in  the  1.7  38.25  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. 
 (iii)  For  frequencies  in  the  1.7  80  MHz  frequency  range,  the  area  within  1  km  of  the  Table  Mountain  Radio  Receiving  Zone,  the  coordinates  and  point  of  contact  for  which  are 
 specified  in  47  C.  F.  R.    21.113(  b). 
 (iv)  For  frequencies  in  the  1.7  30  MHz  frequency  range,  the  areas  within  37  km  of  radar  receiver  facilities  located  at  the  coordinates  specified  in  Table  6. 
71
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 72 
 Table  3a.  Consultation  Area  Coordinates  for  Aeronautical  (OR)  Stations  (1.7    30  MHz) 
 Point  of  contact  US  Coast  Guard  HQ 
 Division  of  Spectrum  Management  CG-  622  2100  Second  St.,  SW.  Rm.  6611 
 Washington,  DC  20593  Tel:  202-  267-  6036 
 Fax:  202-  267-  4106  Email:  jtaboada@  comdt.  uscg.  mil 


 Command  Name  Location  Latitude  Longitude 
 Washington  Arlington,  VA  38  51'  07"  N  77  02'  15"  W 
 Cape  Cod  Cape  Cod,  MA  41  42'  00"  N  70  30'  00"  W 
 Atlantic  City  Atlantic  City,  NJ  39  20'  59"  N  74  27'  42"  W 
 Elizabeth  City  Elizabeth  City.  NC  36  15'  53"  N  76  10'  32"  W 
 Savannah  Savannah,  GA  32  01'  30"  N  81  08'  30"  W 
 Miami  Opa  Locka,  FL  25  54'  22"  N  80  16'  01"  W 
 Clearwater  Clearwater,  FL  27  54'  27"  N  82  41'  29"  W 
 Borinquen  Aguadilla,  PR  18  18'  36"  N  67  04'  48"  W 
 New  Orleans  New  Orleans,  LA  29  49'  31"  N  90  02'  06"  W 
 Traverse  City  Traverse  City,  MI  44  44'  24"  N  85  34'  54"  W 
 San  Diego  San  Diego,  CA  32  43'  33"  N  117  10'  15"  W 
 Sacramento  McCllelan  AFB,  CA  38  40'  06"  N  121  24'  04"  W 
 Astoria  Warrenton,  OR  46  25'  18"  N  123  47'  46"  W 
 North  Bend  North  Bend,  OR  43  24'  39"  N  124  14'  35"  W 
 Barbers  Point  Kapolei,  HI  21  18'  01"  N  158  04'  15"  W 
 Kodiak  Kodiak,  AK  57  44'  19"  N  152  30'  18"  W 
 Houston  Houston,  TX  29  45'  00"  N  95  22'  00"  W 
 Detroit  Mt.  Clemens,  MI  42  36'  05"  N  82  50'  12"  W 
 San  Francisco  San  Francisco,  CA  37  37'  58"  122  23'  20"  W 
72
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 73 
 Command  Name  Location  Latitude  Longitude  N 
 Los  Angeles  Los  Angeles,  CA  33  56'  36"  N  118  23'  48"  W 
 Humboldt  Bay  McKinleyville,  CA  40  58'  39"  N  124  06'  45"  W 
 Port  Angeles  Port  Angeles,  WA  48  08'  25"  N  123  24'  48"  W 
 Sitka  Sitka,  AK  57  05'  50"  N  135  21'  58"  W  Note:  Systems  of  coordinates  conform  to  NAD  83 


 Table  3b.  Consultation  Area  Coordinates  for  Aeronautical  Receive  Stations  (1.7    30  MHz) 
 Point  of  contact  ARINC 
 2551  Riva  Road  Annapolis,  MD  21401 
 Tel:  1-  800-  633-  6882  Fax:  410-  266-  2329 
 Email:  arincmkt@  arinc.  com  www.  arinc.  com 


 Locale  Latitude  Longitude  Southampton,  NY  40  55  15  N  72  23  41  W 
 Molokai,  HI  21  12  23  N  157  12  30  W  Oahu,  HI  21  22  27  N  158  05  56  W 
 Half  Moon  Bay,  CA  37  39  00  N  122  41  00  W  Pt.  Reyes,  CA  38  06  00  N  122  56  00  W 
 Barrow,  AK  71  17  24  N  156  48  12  W  Guam  13  25  00  N  144  44  57  E  (note: 
 Eastern  Hemisphere)  NY  Comm  Center,  NY  40  46  48  N  73  05  46  W 
 Cedar  Rapids,  IA  42  02  05.0  N  91  38  37.6  W  Beaumont,  CA  33  54  27.1  N  116  59  49.1  W 
 Fairfield,  TX  31  47  02.6  N  96  47  03.0  W  Houston,  TX  29  36  35.8  N  95  16  54.8  W 
 Miami,  FL  25  49  05  N  80  18  28  W  Note:  Systems  of  coordinates  conform  to  NAD  83 


 Table  4.  Consultation  Area  Coordinates  for  Land  Stations,  Set  1  (1.7  30  MHz) 
 Point  Of  Contact  Us  Coast  Guard  HQ 
 Division  of  Spectrum  Management  CG-  622  2100  Second  St.,  SW.  Rm.  6611 
 Washington,  DC  20593  Tel:  202-  267-  6036 
 Fax:  202-  267-  4106  Email:  jtaboada@  comdt.  uscg.  mil 
73
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 74 
 Command  Name  Location  Latitude  Longitude  COMMSTA  Boston  Maspee,  MA  41  24'  00"  N  70  18'  57"  W 
 Camslant  Chesapeake,  VA  36  33'  59"  N  76  15'  23"  W  COMMSTA  Miami  Miami,  FL  25  36'  58"  N  80  23'  04"  W 
 COMMSTA  New  Orleans  Belle  Chasse,  IA  29  52'  40"  N  89  54'  46"  W  Camspac  Pt.  Reyes  Sta,  CA  38  06'  00"  N  122  55'  48"  W 
 COMMSTA  Honolulu  Wahiawa,  HI  21  31'  08"  N  157  59'  28"  W  COMMSTA  Kodiak  Kodiak,  AK  57  04'  26"  N  152  28'  20"  W 
 Guam  Finegayan,  GU  13  53'  08"  N  144  50'  20"  E  Note:  Systems  of  coordinates  conform  to  NAD  83 


 Table  5.  Consultation  Area  Coordinates  for  Land  Stations,  Set  2  (1.7    30  MHz) 
 Point  of  contact  COTHEN  Technical  Support  Center 
 COTHEN  Program  Manager  Tel:  (800)  829-  6336 


 Site  Name  Latitude  Longitude 
 Albuquerque,  NM  35  05'  02"  N  105  34'  23"  W 
 Arecibo,  PR  18  17'  26"  N  66  22'  33"  W 
 Atlanta,  GA  32  33'  06"  N  84  23'  35"  W 
 Beaufort,  SC  34  34'  22"  N  76  09'  48"  W 
 Cape  Charles,  VA  37  05'  37"  N  75  58'  06"  W 
 Cedar  Rapids,  IA  42  00'  09"  N  91  17'  39"  W 
 Denver,  CO  39  15'  45"  N  103  34'  23"  W 
 Fort  Myers,  FL  81  31'  20"  N  26  20'  01"  W 
 Kansas  City,  MO  38  22'  10"  N  93  21'  48"  W 
 Las  Vegas,  NV  36  21'  15"  N  114  17'  33"  W 
 Lovelock,  NV  40  03'  07"  N  118  18'  56"  W 
 Memphis,  TN  34  21'  57"  N  90  02'  43"  W 
 Miami,  FL  25  46'  20"  N  80  28'  48"  W 
 Morehead  City,  NC  34  34'  50"  N  78  13'  59"  W  Oklahoma  City,  OK  34  30'  52"  97  30'  52"  W 
74
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 75 
 Site  Name  Latitude  Longitude  N 
 Orlando,  FL  28  31'  30"  N  80  48'  58"  W 
 Reno,  NV  38  31'  12"  N  119  14'  37"  W 
 Sarasota,  FL  27  12'  41"  N  81  31'  20"  W 
 Wilmington,  NC  34  29'  24"  N  78  04'  31"  W  Note:  Systems  of  coordinates  conform  to  NAD  83 


 Table  6.  Consultation  Area  Coordinates  for  Radar  Receiver  Stations  (1.7    30  MHz) 
 Point  Of  Contact  ROTHR  Deputy  Program  Manager 
 (540)    653    3624 
 LATITUTDE  /  LONGITUDE  18  01'  N  /  66  30'  W 
 28  05'  N  /  98  43'  W  36  34'  N  /  76  18'  W 
 Note:  Systems  of  coordinates  conform  to  NAD  83 
75
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 76 
 APPENDIX  C 
 GUIDELINES  Measurement  Guidelines  for  Broadband  Over  Power  Line  (BPL)  Devices  Or  Carrier  Current 


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


 1.  General  Measurement  Principles  for  Access  BPL,  In-  House  BPL  and  CCS 
 1)  Testing  shall  be  performed  with  the  power  settings  of  the  Equipment  Under  Test  (EUT)  set  at  the  maximum  level. 


 2)  Testing  shall  be  performed  using  the  maximum  RF  injection  duty  factor  (burst  rate).  Test  modes  or  test  software  may  be  used  for  uplink  and  downlink  transmissions. 
 3)  Measurements  should  be  made  at  a  test  site  where  the  ambient  signal  level  is  6  dB  below  the  applicable  limit.  (See  ANSI  C63.4-  2003,  section  5.1.2  for  alternatives,  if  this  test  condition  cannot  be 
 achieved.) 
 4)  If  the  data  communications  burst  rate  is  at  least  20  burst  per  second,  quasi-  peak  measurements  shall  be  employed,  as  specified  in  Section  15.35(  a).  If  the  data  communications  burst  rate  is  20  bursts  per 
 second  or  less,  measurements  shall  be  made  using  a  peak  detector. 
 5)  For  frequencies  above  30  MHz,  an  electric  field  sensing  antenna,  such  as  a  biconical  antenna  is  used.  The  signal  shall  be  maximized  for  antenna  heights  from  1  to  4  meters,  for  both  horizontal  and  vertical 
 polarizations,  in  accordance  to  ANSI  C63.4-  2003  procedures.  For  Access  BPL  measurements  only,  as  an  alternative  to  varying  antenna  height  from  1  to  4  meters,  these  measurements  may  be  made  at  a 
 height  of  1  meter  provided  that  the  measured  field  strength  values  are  increased  by  a  factor  of  5  dB  to  account  for  height  effects. 


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


 7)  The  six  highest  radiated  emissions  relative  to  the  limit  and  independent  of  antenna  polarization  shall  be  reported  as  stated  in  ANSI  C63.4-  2003,  section  10.1.8.2. 
 8)  All  operational  modes  should  be  tested  including  all  frequency  bands  of  operation,  as  required  by  47  C.  F.  R.    15.31(  i). 
 2.  Access  BPL  Measurement  Principles 
 a.  Test  Environment 
76
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 77 
 1)  The  Equipment  Under  Test  (EUT)  includes  all  BPL  electronic  devices  e.  g.,  couplers,  injectors,  extractors,  repeaters,  boosters,  concentrators,  and  electric  utility  overhead  or  underground  medium 
 voltage  lines. 
 2)  In-  situ  testing  shall  be  performed  on  three  typical  installations  for  overhead  line(  s)  and  three  typical  installations  for  underground  line(  s). 


 b.  Radiated  Emissions  Measurement  Principles  for  Overhead  Line  Installations 
 1)  Measurements  should  normally  be  performed  at  a  horizontal  separation  distance  of  10  meters  from  the  overhead  line.  If  necessary,  due  to  ambient  emissions,  measurements  may  be  performed  a 
 distance  of  3  meters.  Distance  corrections  are  to  be  made  in  accordance  with  Section  15.31(  f)  of  the  Rules. 


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


 4)  The  distance  correction  for  the  overhead-  line  measurements  shall  be  based  on  the  slant  range  distance,  which  is  the  line-  of-  sight  distance  from  the  measurement  antenna  to  the  overhead  line.  Slant 
 range  distance  corrections  are  to  be  made  in  accordance  with  Section  15.31(  f)  of  the  Rules.  (For  example,  if  the  measurement  is  made  at  a  horizontal  distance  of  10  meters  with  an  antenna  height  of 
 1  meter  and  the  height  of  the  BPL-  driven  power  line  is  11  meters,  the  slant  range  distance  is  14.1  meters  [10  meters  vertical  distance  and  10  meters  horizontal  distance].  At  frequencies  below 
 30  MHz,  the  measurements  are  extrapolated  to  the  required  30-  meter  reference  distance  by  subtracting  40  log(  30/  14.1),  or  13.1  dB  from  the  measured  values.  For  frequencies  above  30  MHz, 
 the  correction  uses  a  20  log  factor  and  the  reference  distance  is  as  specified  in  section  15.109  of  the  rules.) 


 Note:  In  cases  where  Access  BPL  devices  are  coupled  to  low-  voltage  power  lines  (i.  e.,  Home-  Plug  or  modem  boosters),  apply  the  overhead-  line  procedures  as  stated  above  along  the  low-  voltage  lines. 
 c.  Radiated  Emissions  Measurement  Principles  for  Underground  Line  Installations 
 1)  Underground  line  installations  are  those  in  which  the  BPL  device  is  mounted  in,  or  attached  to,  a  pad-mounted  transformer  housing  or  a  ground-  mounted  junction  box  and  couples  directly  only  to 
 underground  cables. 
77
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 78 
 2)  Measurements  should  normally  be  performed  at  a  separation  distance  of  10  meters  from  the  in-  ground  power  transformer  that  contains  the  BPL  device(  s).  If  necessary,  due  to  ambient  emissions, 
 measurements  may  be  performed  a  distance  of  3  meters.  Distance  corrections  are  to  be  made  in  accordance  with  Section  15.31(  f)  of  the  Rules. 


 3)  Measurements  shall  be  made  at  positions  around  the  perimeter  of  the  in-  ground  power  transformer  where  the  maximum  emissions  occur.  ANSI  C63.4-  2003,  section  8.1,  specifies  a  minimum  of  16 
 radial  angles  surrounding  the  EUT  (In-  ground  transformer  that  contains  the  BPL  device(  s)).  If  directional  radiation  patterns  are  suspected,  additional  azimuth  angles  shall  be  examined. 


 d.  Conducted  Emissions  Measurement  Principles 
 1)  Conducted  emissions  testing  is  not  required  for  Access  BPL. 


 3.  In-  House  BPL  and  Carrier  Current  Systems  Measurement  Principles 
 1)  In-  House  BPL  devices  are  typically  composite  devices  consisting  of  two  equipment  classes  (Carrier  current  system  and  personal  computer  peripheral  (Class  B)).  While  carrier  current  systems  require 
 Verification,  personal  computer  peripherals  require  Declaration  of  Conformity  (DoC)  or  Certification,  as  specified  in  Section  15.101  of  the  Rules.  Appropriate  tests  to  determine  compliance 
 with  these  requirements  shall  be  performed. 
 2)  In-  situ  testing  is  required  for  testing  of  the  carrier  current  system  functions  of  the  In-  House  BPL  device. 


 3)  If  applicable,  the  device  shall  also  be  tested  in  a  laboratory  environment,  as  a  computer  peripheral,  for  both  radiated  and  conducted  emissions  tests  per  the  measurement  procedures  in  C63.4-  2003. 
 a.  Test  Environment  and  Radiated  Emissions  Measurement  Principles  for  In-  Situ  Testing 
 1)  The  Equipment  under  Test  (EUT)  includes  In-  House  BPL  modems  used  to  transmit  and  receive  carrier  BPL  signals  on  low-  voltage  lines,  associated  computer  interface  devices,  building  wiring,  and 
 overhead  or  underground  lines  that  connect  to  the  electric  utilities. 
 2)  In-  situ  testing  shall  be  performed  with  the  EUT  installed  in  a  building  on  an  outside  wall  on  the  ground  floor  or  first  floor.  Testing  shall  be  performed  on  three  typical  installations.  The  three 
 installations  shall  include  a  combination  of  buildings  with  overhead-  line(  s)  and  underground  line(  s).  The  buildings  shall  not  have  aluminum  or  other  metal  siding,  or  shielded  wiring  (e.  g.:  wiring  installed 
 through  conduit,  or  BX  electric  cable). 
 3)  Measurements  shall  be  made  at  positions  around  the  building  perimeter  where  the  maximum  emissions  occur.  ANSI  C63.4-  2003,  section  8.1,  specifies  a  minimum  of  16  radial  angles  surrounding 
 the  EUT  (building  perimeter).  If  directional  radiation  patterns  are  suspected,  additional  azimuth  angles  shall  be  examined. 


 4)  Measurements  should  normally  be  performed  at  a  separation  distance  of  10  meters  from  the  building  perimeter.  If  necessary,  due  to  ambient  emissions,  measurements  may  be  performed  a  distance  of  3 
 meters.  Distance  corrections  are  to  be  made  in  accordance  with  Section  15.31(  f)  of  the  Rules. 
78
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 79 
 b.  Additional  Measurement  Principles  for  In-  Situ  Testing  With  Overhead  Lines 
 1)  In  addition  to  testing  radials  around  the  building,  testing  shall  be  performed  at  three  positions  along  the  overhead  line  connecting  to  the  building  (i.  e.  the  service  wire).  It  is  recommended  that  these 
 measurements  be  performed  starting  at  a  distance  10  meters  down  the  line  from  the  connection  to  the  building.  If  this  test  cannot  be  performed  due  to  insufficient  length  of  the  service  wire,  a  statement 
 explaining  the  situation  and  test  configuration  shall  be  included  in  the  technical  report. 
 2)  Measurements  should  normally  be  performed  at  a  horizontal  separation  distance  of  10  meters  from  the  overhead  line  connecting  to  the  building.  If  necessary,  due  to  ambient  emissions,  measurements 
 may  be  performed  a  distance  of  3  meters.  Distance  corrections  are  to  be  made  in  accordance  with  Section  15.31(  f)  of  the  Rules  using  the  slant  range  distance  (see  paragraph  2.  b.  4,  above). 


 3)  The  distance  correction  for  the  overhead-  line  measurements  shall  be  based  on  the  slant  range  distance,  which  is  the  line-  of-  sight  distance  from  the  measurement  antenna  to  the  overhead  line.  Slant 
 range  distance  corrections  are  to  be  made  in  accordance  with  Section  15.31(  f)  of  the  Rules. 
 c.  Measurement  Principles  for  Testing  as  a  Computer  Peripheral 
 1)  The  data  rate  shall  be  set  at  the  maximum  rate  used  by  the  EUT.  Test  modes  or  test  software  may  be  used  to  simulate  data  traffic. 


 2)  For  In-  House  BPL  devices  operating  as  unintentional  radiators  below  30  MHz,  the  conducted  emissions  shall  be  measured  in  the  535    1705  kHz  band  as  specified  in  Section  15.107(  c).  For  In-House 
 BPL  devices  operating  as  unintentional  radiators  above  30  MHz,  the  conducted  emissions  shall  be  measured  as  specified  in  Section  15.107(  a).  Conducted  emissions  measurements  shall  be 
 performed  in  accordance  with  ANSI  C63.4-  2003  (Section  7  and  Annex  E).  3)  For  In-  House  BPL  devices  operating  as  unintentional  radiators  either  below  30  MHz  or  above  30 
 MHz,  the  radiated  emissions  limits  of  Section  15.109(  a)  apply.  The  radiated  emissions  from  the  computer  peripheral  shall  be  measured  at  an  Open  Area  Test  Site  (OATS)  in  accordance  with  the 
 measurement  procedures  in  C63.4-  2003  (Section  8  and  Annex  D) 
 4.  Certification  Technical  Report  Requirements  for  Access  PBL  Devices 
 1)  Certification  applications  shall  be  accompanied  by  a  technical  report  in  accordance  with  Section  2.1033  of  the  Rules.  Each  device  used  in  an  Access  BPL  system  requires  its  own  Certification. 


 2)  For  Access  BPL  devices,  the  statement  describing  how  each  device  operates  shall  include  the  following  information:  modulation  type,  number  of  carriers,  carrier  spacing,  channel  bandwidth, 
 notch  capability/  control,  power  settings/  control,  and  range  of  signal  injection  duty  factors. 
 3)  For  Access  BPL  devices,  the  measurement  report  shall  include  representative  emissions  spectrum  plot(  s)  of  the  reported  data. 


 5.  Responsibility  of  BPL  operator 
 It  is  recommended  that  a  BPL  operator  perform  initial  installation  and  periodic  testing  of  Access  BPL  systems  on  his  power  lines.  These  tests  shall  be  performed  to  ensure  that  the  system  in  conjunction  with 
 the  installation  site  complies  with  the  appropriate  emission  limits  using  the  measurement  procedures  outlined  in  Section  3  of  this  document.  The  BPL  operator  should  use  typical  installation  sites  within  his 
79
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 80 
 service  area  as  outlined  in  section  2(  a)  of  this  document.  Selection  of  typical  sites  shall  be  made  according  to  the  characteristics  of  the  installation  as  a  whole.  The  BPL  operator  is  not  required  to  submit 
 the  test  results.  In  the  instance  that  the  Access  BPL  system  was  tested  on  the  operator's  network  for  certification  purposes,  the  initial  installation  tests  do  not  need  to  be  repeated.  However,  periodic  testing 
 of  installed  Access  BPL  systems  is  recommended  to  ensure  that  the  system  maintains  compliance  with  Part  15  emission  limits. 
80
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 81 
 JOINT  STATEMENT  OF  CHAIRMAN  MICHAEL  K.  POWELL 
 AND  COMMISSIONER  KATHLEEN  Q.  ABERNATHY 


 Re:  Amendment  of  Part  15  Regarding  New  Requirements  and  Measurement  Guidelines  for  Access  over  Power  Line  Systems,  ET  Docket  No.  04-  37  &  In  the  Matter  Regarding  Carrier  Current 
 Systems,  including  Broadband  over  Power  Line  Systems,  ET  Docket  No.  03-  104,  Report  and  Order 


 A  strategic  goal  of  this  Commission  is  to  promote  the  availability  of  broadband  to  all  Americans  irrespective  of  platform.  Today,  the  Commission  takes  another  important  step  towards  achieving  this  goal 
 through  adoption  of  this  Report  and  Order  adopting  final  rules  on  broadband  over  power  line  (BPL)  communications  technologies. 


 The  technology  behind  BPL  is  both  fascinating  and  revolutionary.  Just  a  few  short  years  ago,  critics  argued  that  competition  for  the  last  mile  would  never  become  a  reality  because  no  one  could  duplicate 
 or  bypass  the  telephone  line  that  ran  from  the  curb  into  the  home.  With  the  advent  of  the  1996  Act,  the  Commissions  focus  on  fostering  facilities-  based  competition,  and  the  development  of  new  technologies, 
 the  market  for  last-  mile  connectivity  for  broadband  services  in  the  United  States  has  become  increasingly  competitive.  Today  we  see  viable  competition  from  multiple  platforms  including  cable  modem  services, 
 satellite,  Wi-  Fi,  Wi-  Max,  and  DSL.  BPL  provides  us  with  a  new  potential  competitor  in  the  broadband  market.  BPL  technology  also  holds  promise  in  improving  the  provision  and  management  of  electric 
 power  systems,  homeland  security,  and  protecting  vital  elements  of  the  Nations  critical  infrastructure.  This  is  one  of  the  reasons  our  colleagues  at  the  Federal  Energy  Regulatory  Commission  (FERC)  have 
 joined  us  in  supporting  this  new  technology. 
 By  crafting  a  minimal  regulatory  framework  for  BPL  we  are  advancing  Congresss  goal  of  creating  a  pro-competitive,  deregulatory  framework,  and  the  Commissions  goal  of  deploying  broadband  to  every 
 American.  Because  BPL  is  a  nascent  technology  and  the  broadband  market  has  no  dominant  incumbent  service  provider,  only  minimal  regulations  are  appropriate.  However,  this  does  not  mean  that  we  have  not 
 been  cognizant  of  the  need  to  protect  existing  licensed  services  from  interference.  To  address  this  issue,  the  Office  of  Engineering  and  Technology  (OET)  has  done  thorough  testing  of  BPL  systems  to  ensure  the 
 rules  we  are  adopting  protect  existing  governmental  uses,  amateur  radio  operators,  and  other  licensees  from  interference.  We  have  also  closely  coordinated  with  the  National  Telecommunications  and 
 Information  Administration  (NTIA)  to  make  sure  that  their  concerns  have  been  addressed.  We  believe  the  new  requirements  we  are  imposing  will  help  minimize  harmful  interference  that  may  occur  and,  to  the 
 extent  any  harmful  interference  does  occur,  to  quickly  resolve  any  issues. 
 We  have  both  had  the  opportunity  to  witness  BPL  services  first  hand  and  we  believe  that  this  new  technology  holds  great  promise  as  a  low  cost  broadband  competitor.  The  pervasiveness  of  the  utility  grid 
 means  that  almost  every  home  in  America  can  be  accessed  by  this  type  of  service.  Moreover,  the  presence  of  a  third  universal  broadband  connection  will  mean  a  robust  choice  for  consumers  and  strong, 
 healthy  competition.  Additionally,  unlike  some  other  technologies,  there  is  no  need  for  consumers  to  purchase  supplemental  broadband  connectors  in  order  to  receive  a  broadband  connection.  The  consumer 
 simply  plugs  a  device  of  choice  into  an  electrical  outlet  to  receive  a  broadband  connection  from  the  BPL  service  provider. 
81
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 82 
 The  benefits  and  advantages  of  BPL  are  just  beginning  to  be  recognized.  That  is  why  it  is  important  for  regulators  to  exercise  restraint  and  avoid  heavy-  handed  regulations.  We  must  allow  the  marketplace  to 
 develop  the  full  potential  of  this  technology.  In  the  long  run,  this  approach  should  result  in  Americans  receiving  the  full  benefits  of  this  new  technology  and  the  applications  it  supports. 
82
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 83 
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  MICHAEL  J.  COPPS 
 Approving  in  Part,  Dissenting  in  Part 


 RE:  Amendment  of  Part  15  regarding  new  requirements  and  measurement  guidelines  for  Access  Broadband  over  Power  Line  Systems,  ET  Docket  No.  04-  37;  Carrier  Current  Systems,  including 
 Broadband  over  Power  Line  Systems,  ET  Docket  No.  03-  104,  Report  and  Order 


 I  want  to  welcome  our  colleagues  from  FERC  to  the  FCC  as  we  work  to  move  forward  on  BPL.  I  think  we  all  agree  that  a  wide  deployment  of  BPL  would  benefit  broadband  consumers.  This  is  a  market 
 desperate  for  more  competition.  We  all  know  by  now  that  our  country  is  now  Number  11  in  broadband  penetration.  Thats  pretty  hard  to  take.  Some  argue  that  all  we  should  worry  about  is  broadband 
 availability,  and  not  bother  ourselves  worrying  about  whether  the  price  is  too  high  or  the  data  rates  too  low  for  people  to  actually  buy  it.  But  when  we  consider  that  consumers  in  other  countries  are  getting 
 magnitudes  more  of  capacity  at  prices  far  lower  than  we  are  getting,  its  time  to  get  concerned.  Im  not  arguing  that  every  country  has  the  same  broadband  market,  but  consider  that  in  countries  like  Japan, 
 Korea  and  Canada,  consumers  get  much  more  bang  for  their  buck  like  8,000-  10,000  kilobits  for  $10-  $15  a  month.  Should  we  be  surprised  that  consumers  in  those  countries  are  signing  up  in  droves? 


 Im  not  alone  in  my  concern.  Business  Week  recently  called  our  country  a  broadband  backwater.  Its  article  concluded:  If  the  U.  S.  is  not  to  lose  out  in  the  global  race  of  the  next-  generation 
 Internet  and  the  new  businesses  it  can  spawn,  change  is  needed.  I  agree.  We  simply  dont  have  a  game  plan.  Nearly  all  of  the  industrialized  nations,  except  the  U.  S.,  have  national  broadband  plans.  Where  is 
 our  comprehensive  strategy?  Were  late  to  the  game,  other  countries  are  far  ahead,  and  we  just  have  to  get  down  on  the  field  with  a  game  plan  of  our  own. 


 I  hope  that  someday  BPL  will  help  us  improve  the  situation  for  U.  S.  consumers.  This  is  a  powerful  and  exciting  new  technology  that  is  at  its  inception  and  just  beginning  to  be  deployed.  In  the 
 future  I  hope  that  it  will  substantially  increase  broadband  competition,  force  prices  lower,  and  force  investments  in  innovation.  Also,  while  today  BPL  deployments  are  occurring  in  urban  and  suburban 
 communities,  I  hope  that  in  the  future  BPL  will  serve  rural  America  as  well.  So  we  can  certainly  use  the  innovation  and  new  competition  BPL  may  bring,  and  I  am  happy  to  support  the  vast  majority  of  this  item. 
 But  I  do  have  some  worries  that  I  want  to  note. 
 I  remain  concerned  with  the  question  of  interference  to  amateur  radio  users.  I  take  the  concerns  of  this  community  very  seriously,  and  believe  that  the  FCC  has  an  obligation  to  work  hard  to  monitor, 
 investigate,  and  take  quick  action  where  appropriate  to  resolve  harmful  interference.  If  interference  occurs,  we  must  have  a  system  in  place  to  resolve  it  immediately.  If  an  amateur  radio  user  makes  a 
 complaint  and  an  agreement  between  the  BPL  provider  and  the  amateur  radio  user  cannot  be  reached,  the  FCC  should  step  in  and  resolve  the  matter.  These  cases  must  not  take  years  to  resolve. 


 Im  also  disappointed  that  todays  item  dodges  some  of  the  hardest  BPL  questions.  If  we  want  investment  in  BPL,  we  need  certainty  and  predictability.  But  issues  such  as  universal  service,  disabilities 
 access,  E911,  pole  attachments,  competition  protections,  and,  critically,  how  to  handle  the  potential  for  cross-  subsidization  between  regulated  power  businesses  and  unregulated  communications  businesses 
 remain  up  in  the  air.  Is  it  right  to  allow  electricity  rate  payers  to  pay  higher  bills  every  month  to  subsidize  an  electric  companys  foray  into  broadband?  Im  glad  our  FERC  colleagues  are  here  today,  because  this 
 last  part  needs  to  be  a  fully  collaborative  effort. 
83
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 84 
 Some  will  argue  that  we  dont  know  enough  about  what  this  technology  will  look  like  yet,  so  we  shouldnt  impose  any  obligations  lest  we  regulate  an  infant  technology  out  of  existence.  Or  that  we 
 shouldnt  saddle  a  new  technology  with  long-  standing  policy  objectives.  I  disagree.  Just  because  these  policy  goals  are  long  standing  doesnt  mean  that  they  are  out  of  date.  Public  safety,  rural  service, 
 competition  and  disabilities  access  never  go  out  of  date.  I  dont  yet  know  how  these  issues  will  play  out  for  powerline  broadband  or  what  rules  the  Commission  should  adopt.  But  we  should  have  used  this 
 proceeding  to  start  giving  investors  and  consumers  some  certainty  on  the  matter.  Having  understandable  rules  of  the  road  is  what  investors,  as  well  as  consumers,  are  looking  for. 


 So  we  have  a  promising  technology,  maybe  even  a  significant  new  broadband  pipe  if  everything  goes  really  well.  Weve  got  some  good  technical  rules  in  this  item.  They  can  work  or  be  adjusted  if  we 
 have  good  monitoring  and  enforcement.  But  we  just  have  to  get  to  the  big  picture  and  confront  the  challenges  I  have  mentioned  if  BPL  is  going  to  have  a  shot  at  realizing  its  full  potential.  Putting  it  all 
 together,  I  will  vote  to  approve  in  part  and  to  dissent  in  part.  And  I  thank  the  Bureau,  my  colleagues,  and  the  many  parties  who  shared  their  ideas  with  us,  for  working  so  hard  and  constructively  on  this  promising 
 technology. 
84
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 85 
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  KEVIN  J.  MARTIN 
 Re:  Amendment  of  Part  15  Regarding  New  Requirements  and  Measurement  Guidelines  for  Access  Broadband  Over  Power  Line  Systems,  ET  Docket  No.  04-  37;  Carrier  Current  Systems,  including 
 Broadband  over  Power  Line  Systems,  ET  Docket  No.  03-  104;  Report  and  Order 
 I  am  pleased  to  support  this  item,  which  adopts  new  rules  for  Broadband  over  Power  Line  (BPL)  systems.  BPL  systems  use  existing  electric  power  lines  to  provide  high-  speed  communications.  Because 
 power  lines  are  ubiquitous    reaching  virtually  every  community  and  every  home    BPL  systems  have  the  potential  to  become  a  last-  mile  solution  throughout  the  United  States.  As  such,  they  would  not  only 
 provide  competition  to  cable  broadband  and  DSL,  they  could  bring  Internet  access  and  high-  speed  broadband  to  rural  and  isolated  areas.  BPL  systems  also  serve  an  important  homeland  security  function, 
 providing  a  redundant  data  network.  For  these  reasons,  the  President  has  explicitly  encouraged  the  introduction  of  BPL  technology.  297 


 I  have  seen  a  BPL  system  first  hand,  and  I  came  away  very  impressed.  Using  BPL,  I  was  able  to  watch  a  DVD-  quality  movie,  play  a  video  game  on  the  Internet,  and  print  pages  from  a  news  web  site   
 all  simultaneously.  I  was  impressed  not  only  with  the  fast  transmission  speed,  but  also  with  the  ease  with  which  the  home  could  be  networked.  Simply  plugging  a  device  into  an  electrical  outlet  enabled  it  to 
 communicate  with  devices  plugged  into  outlets  in  other  rooms,  as  well  as  connect  to  the  Internet.  There  is  no  question  that  this  technology  has  terrific  potential. 


 In  this  Order,  we  have  attempted  to  facilitate  deployment  of  BPL  while  ensuring  that  existing  users  are  protected  from  harmful  interference.  Working  closely  with  NTIA,  we  have  taken  strides  to 
 address  interference  concerns  of  both  Government  and  private  users.  Nevertheless,  I  recognize  that  Amateur  radio  operators  still  have  concerns  that  they  will  experience  interference  from  BPL  systems.  In 
 addition,  broadcasters  are  concerned  that  BPL  systems  will  cause  interference  in  the  low  VHF  band.  I  take  these  concerns    as  well  as  the  other  concerns  expressed  about  BPL  systems  causing  interference   
 very  seriously.  I  am  confident  that  the  Commission  will  continue  to  monitor  these  concerns  and  will  take  steps,  where  needed,  to  address  interference  problems  going  forward. 


 297  See  President  George  W.  Bush,  Remarks  on  Innovation  at  the  U.  S.  Department  of  Commerce,  Washington, 
 D.  C.  (June  24,  2004);  Remarks  at  the  American  Association  of  Community  Colleges  Annual  Convention,  Minneapolis  Convention  Center,  Minneapolis,  Minnesota  (April  26,  2004). 
85
 Federal  Communications  Commission  FCC  04-  245 
 86 
 STATEMENT  OF  COMMISSIONER  JONATHAN  S.  ADELSTEIN 
 Re:  Amendment  of  Part  15  Regarding  New  Requirements  and  Measurement  Guidelines  for  Access  Broadband  over  Power  Line  Systems;  ET  Docket  No.  04-  37  Carrier  Current  Systems,  including 
 Broadband  over  Power  Line  Systems;  ET  Docket  No.  03-  104,  Report  and  Order 
 This  has  been  a  challenging  proceeding.  We  have  before  us  an  exciting  new  technology  in  Access  Broadband  over  Power  Line  (Access  BPL)  that  has  the  potential  to  be  a  new  broadband  pipe  into  the 
 home,  which  is  so  critical  to  pushing  the  deployment  of  broadband  services  across  the  country.  It  could  provide  badly  needed  competition  in  the  provision  of  broadband  services,  which  will  spur  all  providers  to 
 improve  their  offerings.  But  we  also  have  an  existing  user  base  that  includes  public  safety  licensees,  federal  Government  users,  and  amateur  radio  operators    important  services  that  we  need  to  protect  from 
 harmful  interference. 
 I  take  seriously  our  obligation  under  Section  157  of  the  Communications  Act  that  [  i]  t  shall  be  the  policy  of  the  United  States  to  encourage  the  provision  of  new  technologies  and  services  to  the  public.  I 
 am  fully  committed  to  that  mission  to  promote  new  technologies,  and  to  provide  a  framework  for  innovation  so  they  can  succeed.  In  order  to  do  so  in  this  case,  though,  we  must  ensure  that  sufficient 
 protections  are  in  place  to  limit  interference  concerns. 
 Recent  Access  BPL  test  deployments  have  been  very  useful  in  developing  techniques  to  address  interference  issues.  It  is  clear  that  some  Access  BPL  systems  can  co-  exist  very  well  with  existing 
 licensees  in  the  HF  and  VHF  bands.  In  the  limited  cases  of  increased  interference,  the  Access  BPL  operators  were  able  to  quickly  resolve  and  address  the  interference  problem.  Other  Access  BPL  systems, 
 though,  have  not  fared  so  well,  and  these  systems  should  not  be  deployed  on  a  commercial  basis  if  they  will  continue  to  result  in  harmful  interference. 


 We  have  put  in  place  on  Access  BPL  some  special  rules  that  are  not  normally  required  of  Part  15  operators.  However,  I  believe  that  these  restrictions  and  requirements,  such  as  adaptive  frequency 
 selection,  remote  shut  down  control,  and  a  publicly  available  Access  BPL  database,  are  critical  to  providing  an  operational  environment  that  safeguards  existing  licensees  from  harmful  interference.  I  am 
 also  pleased  to  support  our  specific  requirement  for  Access  BPL  providers  to  promptly  respond  to  complaints  of  harmful  interference  from  public  safety  licensees. 


 Access  BPL  can  work  side  by  side  with  existing  licensees  provided  that  Access  BPL  operators  respond  appropriately  to  harmful  interference  concerns.  I  encourage  all  affected  parties  to  work  together 
 in  a  cooperative  manner  to  address  legitimate  complaints  of  harmful  interference  in  a  timely  manner. 
86