Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 42631 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this rule on small entities, I 

certify that this action will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule does not contain a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for State, local, and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or the private sector in 

any one year. This proposed rule is 

estimated to result in one-time 

compliance costs of $13,877.00 to the 

private sector. In addition, this rule does 

not create any additional federally 

enforceable duty for State, local and 

tribal governments. Thus, this proposed 

rule is not subject to the requirements 

of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications. ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ This 

proposed rule does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the States, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal 

implications’’ is defined in the 

Executive Order to include regulations 

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and the Indian tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes.’’ This 

proposed rule does not have tribal 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on tribal governments, on 

the relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it does not establish 

an environmental standard intended to 

mitigate health or safety risks. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 

note) directs EPA to use voluntary 

consensus standards in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, and 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. The NTTAA directs 

EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, 

explanations when the Agency decides 

not to use available and applicable 

voluntary consensus standards. This 

proposed rule does not establish 

technical standards. Therefore, EPA did 

not consider the use of any voluntary 

consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not affect the level of 

protection provided to human health or 

the environment. 

This proposed rule does not relax the 

control measures on sources regulated 

by the rule and therefore will not cause 

emissions increases from these sources. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 372 

Environmental protection, 

Community right-to-know, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Toxic 

chemicals, Articles Exemption. 

Dated: August 17, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. E9–20293 Filed 8–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 15 

[ET Docket Nos. 04–37 and 03–104; FCC 

09–60] 

Broadband Over Power Line Systems 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: This document addresses 

certain issues from the Commission’s 

Report and Order on rules for 

broadband over power line systems and 

devices (BPL Order) that was remanded 

by the United States Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia. In the BPL 

Order, the Commission established 

technical standards, operating 

restrictions and measurement guidelines 

for Access Broadband over Power Line 

(Access BPL) systems to promote the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
42632 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

development of such systems while 

ensuring that licensed radio services are 

protected from harmful interference. In 

ARRL v. FCC, the court remanded the 

BPL Order to the Commission for further 

consideration and explanation of certain 

aspects of its decision. Specifically, the 

court directed the Commission to 

provide a reasonable opportunity for 

public comment on unredacted staff 

technical studies on which it relied to 

promulgate the rules, to make the 

studies part of the rulemaking record, 

and to provide a reasoned explanation 

of the choice of an extrapolation factor 

for use in measurement of emissions 

from Access BPL systems. 

DATES: Comments must be filed on or 

before September 23, 2009, and reply 

comments must be filed on or before 

October 8, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by ET Docket No. 04–37 by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s Web Site: http:// 

www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: [Optional: Include the Email address only if you plan to accept 

comments from the general public]. 

Include the docket number(s) in the 

subject line of the message. 

• Mail: [Optional: Include the mailing 

address for paper, disk or CD–ROM 

submissions needed/requested by your 

Bureau or Office. Do not include the 

Office of the Secretary’s mailing address 

here.] 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202– 

418–0432. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anh 

Wride, Office of Engineering and 

Technology, (202) 418–0577, e-mail: 

Anh.Wride@fcc.gov, TTY (202) 418– 

2989. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Further 

Request for Comment and Further 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET 

Docket No. 04–37 and 03–104, FCC 09– 

60, adopted July 16, 2009, and released 

July 17, 2009. The full text of this 

document is available for inspection 

and copying during normal business 

hours in the Commission’s Reference 

Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 

Street, SW., (Room CY–A257), 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text of this document also may be 

purchased from the Commission’s copy 

contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 

Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room, 

CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554, 

telephone (202) 488–5300, facsimile 

(202) 488–5563 or via e-mail 

FCC@BCPIWEB.com. The full text may 

also be downloaded at: http:// 

www.fcc.gov. 

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 

1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using: (1) The Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS), (2) the Federal Government’s 

eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing 

paper copies. See Electronic Filing of 

Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 

63 FR 24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the Internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ 

cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 

Filers should follow the instructions 

provided on the Web site for submitting 

comments. 

• For ECFS filers, if multiple docket 

or rulemaking numbers appear in the 

caption of this proceeding, filers must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments for each docket or 

rulemaking number referenced in the 

caption. In completing the transmittal 

screen, filers should include their full 

name, U.S. Postal Service mailing 

address, and the applicable docket or 

rulemaking number. Parties may also 

submit an electronic comment by 

Internet e-mail. To get filing 

instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the 

following words in the body of the 

message, ‘‘get form.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in response. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must file an original and 

four copies of each filing. If more than 

one docket or rulemaking number 

appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, filers must submit two 

additional copies for each additional 

docket or rulemaking number. 

Filings can be sent by hand or 

messenger delivery, by commercial 

overnight courier, or by first-class or 

overnight U.S. Postal Service mail 

(although we continue to experience 

delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service 

mail). All filings must be addressed to 

the Commission’s Secretary, Office of 

the Secretary, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

• The Commission’s contractor will 

receive hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the 

Commission’s Secretary at 236 

Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, 

Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours 

at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All 

hand deliveries must be held together 

with rubber bands or fasteners. Any 

envelopes must be disposed of before 

entering the building. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 

East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, 

MD 20743. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail should be 

addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities: To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– 

418–0432 (tty). 

Filings and comments are also 

available for public inspection and 

copying during regular business hours 

at the FCC Reference Information 

Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., 

room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. 

They may also be purchased from the 

Commission’s duplicating contractor, 

Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 

445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, 

Washington, DC 20554, telephone: (202) 

488–5300, fax: (202) 488–5563, or via 

e-mail http://www.bcpiweb.com. 

Summary of Request for Further 

Comment and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 

1. This Request for Further Comment 

and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (FNPRM), addresses certain 

issues from the Commission’s Report 

and Order on rules for broadband over 

power line systems and devices (BPL 

Order), 70 FR 1360, January 7, 2005, 

that was remanded by the United States 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia. In the BPL Order, the 

Commission established technical 

standards, operating restrictions and 

measurement guidelines for Access 

Broadband over Power Line (Access 

BPL) systems to promote the 

development of such systems while 

ensuring that licensed radio services are 

protected from harmful interference. In 

ARRL v. FCC, the court remanded the 

BPL Order to the Commission for further 

consideration and explanation of certain 

aspects of its decision. Specifically, the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 42633 

court directed the Commission to 

provide a reasonable opportunity for 

public comment on unredacted staff 

technical studies on which it relied to 

promulgate the rules, to make the 

studies part of the rulemaking record, 

and to provide a reasoned explanation 

of the choice of an extrapolation factor 

for use in measurement of emissions 

from Access BPL systems. 

2. The unredacted staff technical 

studies have been placed into the record 

of the proceeding and the Commission 

is requesting comment on the 

information in those studies as it 

pertains to our BPL decisions. The 

Commission is also placing into the 

record certain additional materials that 

contain preliminary staff research and 

educational information and were not 

previously available therein. In response 

to its remand of a portion of the BPL 

measurement procedure, the 

Commission is also providing an 

explanation of our reasons for selecting 

40 dB per decade as the extrapolation 

factor for frequencies below 30 MHz. 

The Commission further explains why it 

believes that the studies and technical 

proposal submitted earlier by the ARRL 

do not provide convincing information 

that we should use an extrapolation 

factor that is different from that which 

was adopted. The Commission also 

notes the existence of more recent 

studies that verify the correctness of our 

determination, although we do not rely 

on those studies as post facto rationale 

or justification for our decision. 

3. Consistent with the opportunity 

provided by the court’s remand and the 

Commission’s stated intention in the 

BPL Order to review the decision on the 

extrapolation factor if new information 

becomes available, we are also reexamining the current extrapolation 

factor in light of the recently issued 

technical studies addressing the 

attenuation of BPL emissions with 

distance and efforts by the IEEE to 

develop BPL measurement standards. 

As the several studies now available 

show and as the Commission has 

observed previously, there can be 

considerable variability in the 

attenuation of emissions from BPL 

systems across individual measurement 

sites that is not captured in the fixed 40 

dB per decade standard. To address this 

variability, the Commission is 

requesting comment on whether it 

should amend the BPL rules to (1) 

adjust the extrapolation factor 

downward to 30 dB or some other fixed 

value and, (2) as an alternative, also 

allow use of a special procedure for 

determining site-specific BPL 

extrapolation values using in situ 

measurements. The special in situ 

procedure the Commission is proposing 

is based on a concept under 

consideration by the Institute of 

Electrical and Electronics Engineers 

(IEEE) working group on power line 

communications technology 

electromagnetic compatibility (EMC). In 

addition, the Commission clarifies that 

parties testing BPL equipment and 

systems for compliance with emissions 

limits in our the rules may measure at 

the standard 30 meter distance rather 

than only the shorter distances 

recommended in the BPL measurement 

guidelines. The Commission request 

comments on the unredacted staff 

studies, our decision for selecting an 

extrapolation factor for BPL systems 

based on slant range method and the 

explanation provided herein, and our 

proposal to allow use of site-specific 

extrapolation factors as an alternative to 

the standard extrapolation factor. In the 

interim, as justified herein, the 

Commission will continue to apply the 

standard as adopted in the BPL Order. 

Issues for Comment 

A. Staff Technical Studies 

4. In the BPL Order, the Commission 

adopted operational and technical 

requirements and restrictions on Access 

BPL devices over and above those 

applied to other Part 15 devices. These 

included requirements for consultation 

with specific entities, mandatory listing 

of BPL installations in a public 

database, exclusion of certain 

frequencies from operation, exclusion 

zones, frequency notching, and a remote 

shut-down mechanism, and were based 

on the aggregate information from 

comments and technical studies 

submitted into the rulemaking record, 

including ARRL’s and FCC staff’s 

studies. 

5. Subsequent to the release of the 

BPL Order, the Commission on 

December 22, 2004 submitted five staff 

technical studies, in redacted form, into 

the record of the above-mentioned 

docket in response to a Freedom of 

Information Act (FOIA) request from 

ARRL. The staff studies measured 

emissions from various Access BPL 

systems at various locations in 

Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, and 

North Carolina. The studies were used 

in the decision-making process along 

with studies submitted by commenters 

such as ARRL and the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA). The 

Commission redacted certain portions of 

those studies on the basis that they 

represented preliminary or partial 

results or staff opinions that were part 

of the internal deliberative process. On 

reconsideration of the BPL Order, ARRL 

alleged that the Commission violated 

the APA reasoned decision making 

requirements because it responded to 

ARRL’s FOIA request belatedly and 

because it redacted certain information 

from the released information. The 

Commission disagreed with ARRL’s 

arguments, and ARRL sought judicial 

review of the Commission’s decisions in 

the BPL Order and the Reconsideration 

Order. 

6. In ARRL v. FCC, the court 

determined that the APA requires the 

Commission to disclose the studies 

upon which it relies in promulgating 

rules, and it directed the Commission to 

make available for notice and comment 

the unredacted ‘‘technical studies and 

data that it has employed in reaching 

[its] decision.’’ In accordance with the 

court’s mandate, and in response to a 

FOIA request from ARRL filed March 

31, 2009, the Commission has placed in 

the record complete copies of the five 

staff studies identified by the court, 

including the previously redacted pages. 

The first two studies, included in a 

single file entitled BPL Measurements in 

Allentown, PA, contain data collected 

on the Amperion BPL system and on the 

Main.Net BPL system, both in 

Allentown, PA. The third study, 

Emissions Measurements on Current 

Technologies Medium Voltage BPL 

System, contains data collected on the 

Current Technologies BPL system in 

Potomac, MD. The fourth study, BPL 

Summary After Briarcliff Manor, NY 

Test, contains data collected on the 

Ambient BPL system in Briarcliff, NY, 

and some staff reactions. The fifth 

study, BPL Emission Test Near Raleigh, 

NC, contains data collected on the 

Amperion/Progress Energy BPL system 

in Raleigh, NC. The Commission 

observes that the redacted pages mostly 

contain information regarding specific 

test notes and test set-up 

recommendations with respect to the 

BPL systems at the various test sites, 

certain requests from third parties, and 

preliminary and partial data with 

respect to the noise floor and with 

respect to the attenuation rate of the 

signal strength at the test sites as well 

as the opinion of one staff member as to 

whether BPL systems are point-source 

systems and that staff member’s 

proposed options on how to treat these 

systems. The Commission seeks 

comment on the information contained 

in these staff studies as it pertains to the 

issues in this proceeding. 

7. The Commission has several staff 

working papers and video files that 

contain data and information on 

research from BPL field tests that were 

used in preparing the staff studies and 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
42634 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

for staff education. These are materials 

that the Commission would not 

routinely, and in this case did not, place 

in the record. However, in order to fully 

and most efficaciously continue to 

examine this issue, the Commission 

believes it is important that it make 

available all potentially relevant 

research and information materials. The 

Commission is therefore placing these 

additional materials in the record of this 

proceeding and invites comment. A list 

of these additional materials is provided 

in Appendix E of this ‘‘Request for 

Further Comment and FNPRM.’’ 

B. Distance Extrapolation Factor 

8. ARRL filed a petition for 

reconsideration of the Commission’s 

decision to use 40 dB per decade as the 

extrapolation factor for frequencies 

below 30 MHz. In support of its 

argument that an extrapolation factor of 

20 dB per decade should be used, ARRL 

also submitted, through ex parte 

comments, the results of three studies 

conducted by the United Kingdom’s 

Office of Communications (OFCOM) 

and one by the Special International 

Committee on Radio Interference 

(CISPR) regarding emission 

measurements for BPL systems. On 

reconsideration, the Commission 

affirmed its decision to use the existing 

Part 15 distance extrapolation factor of 

40 dB per decade decay rate for 

measuring BPL emissions on 

frequencies below 30 MHz, stating: ‘‘No 

new information has been submitted 

that would provide a convincing 

argument for modifying this 

requirement at this time.’’ 

9. In ARRL v. FCC, the court found 

that the Commission did not offer a 

reasoned explanation for its dismissal of 

empirical data that was submitted ex 

parte by ARRL, i.e., the three studies 

conducted by OFCOM and additional 

ARRL analysis intended to suggest that 

an extrapolation factor of 20 dB per 

decade may be more appropriate for 

Access BPL. The court faulted the 

Commission for summarily dismissing 

the data submitted by ARRL because 

such a conclusory statement ‘‘provides 

neither assurance that the Commission 

considered the relevant factors nor a 

discernable path to which the court may 

defer.’’ The court ordered the 

Commission either to ‘‘provide a 

reasoned justification for retaining an 

extrapolation factor of 40 dB per decade 

for Access BPL systems sufficient to 

indicate that it has grappled with the 

2005 studies, or adopt another factor 

and provide a reasoned explanation for 

it.’’ 

10. ARRL’s proposal for a sliding 

scale extrapolation factor referenced a 

1996 CISPR Standard. This standard, 

which was published in 1996 well 

before Access BPL was developed, 

evaluates radio noise generated by highvoltage converter power stations and 

similar high-voltage installations and 

discusses methods on how to reduce 

radio noise from inherent power line 

components, such as mercury arc and 

thyristor valves. ARRL pointed to a 

graph in the standard, Figure 17, which 

shows calculated values of the field 

strength attenuation of emissions from a 

vertical electrical dipole antenna as a 

function of the distance on a horizontal 

plane for different frequencies. Based on 

this graph, ARRL then proposed a 

formula which effectively constitutes a 

sliding-scale calculation for an 

extrapolation factor that varies with 

frequencies. 

11. In the period of time since the 

Commission’s adoption of the 

Reconsideration Order, reports have 

become available on two new technical 

studies addressing attenuation of BPL 

emissions with distance, one by NTIA 

in October 2007 that describes a second 

phase of its simulation study on the 

potential for interference from Access 

BPL systems (NTIA Phase 2 Study) and 

the other by the Federal Republic of 

Brazil (Brazil Study) in June 2008 that 

presents the results of a measurement 

study of BPL emissions. In addition, the 

Commission is aware that the IEEE 

working group on power line 

communications technology 

electromagnetic compatibility is 

working on a standard for EMC testing 

and measurements methodology for BPL 

equipment and installations (IEEE 

P1775/D2) that includes a provision for 

determining extrapolation (distance 

correction) factors on a site-by-site basis 

using in situ measurements as part of its 

work on that standard. 

12. Consistent with the Commission’s 

stated intention in the BPL Order, to 

review the decision on the extrapolation 

factor if new information becomes 

available and the opportunity provided 

by the Court’s remand of the 

extrapolation factor for explanation, the 

Commission is reviewing its decision on 

that factor in light of the NTIA Phase 2 

and Brazil studies and the site-specific 

option suggested by the IEEE P1775/D2 

work. The Commission’s goal is to 

provide BPL measurement procedures 

that will adequately ensure compliance 

with the § 15.209 emissions standard for 

emissions at or below 30 MHz without 

placing unfair or undue compliance 

burdens on equipment manufacturers 

and users. In conducting this review, 

the Commission advised interested 

parties that at this point it continues to 

believe that the decision to apply the 

existing 40 dB per decade distance 

attenuation extrapolation factor in the 

rules for Access BPL operations, in 

conjunction with slant distance, on 

frequencies in this range was reasonable 

and appropriate. 

13. The Commission is also mindful 

that the Court has ordered that it 

provide a reasoned justification for 

retaining the 40 dB per decade 

extrapolation for Access BPL systems or 

adopt another factor and provide 

reasoning, and specifically remarked 

that the Commission did not offer an 

explanation for dismissing the technical 

studies and technical proposal for an 

alternative extrapolation submitted ex 

parte in 2005 by ARRL. The 

Commission is therefore providing an 

explanation of its reasons for selecting 

40 dB per decade as the extrapolation 

factor for frequencies below 30 MHz and 

why it do not believe that the studies 

and technical proposal submitted earlier 

by the ARRL provide convincing 

information that the Commission should 

use an extrapolation factor that is 

different from (and, specifically, less 

than) 40 dB. The Commission believes 

that the NTIA Phase 2 and Brazil 

Studies further validate the use of 40 dB 

as the extrapolation factor. In addition, 

the sufficiency of the rules for ensuring 

compliance is further validated by the 

fact that the Commission has not had 

any new complaints of interference for 

more than two years. 

14. The Commission also recognizes, 

however, that there can be considerable 

variability in the attenuation of 

emissions from BPL systems at 

individual measurement sites, although 

NTIA’s modeling results do not 

generally indicate that differences are 

expected to be typically as high as the 

15 to 20 dB for an underground system 

such as was observed in the Winchester 

Study. To address this variability, the 

Commission is requesting comment on 

whether it should adjust the 

extrapolation factor downward to 30 dB 

or some other fixed value and also 

specify and allow use of a special 

procedure for determining site-specific 

BPL extrapolation values using in situ 

measurements. The procedure for 

determining these site-specific 

extrapolation values would follow the 

general model under consideration in 

the IEEE P1775/D2 work. 

15. The Commission is requesting that 

interested parties submit additional 

comment and information on the BPL 

extrapolation factor and on our proposal 

to modify the value specified for that 

factor and to alternatively allow use of 

special procedure for determining sitespecific BPL extrapolation values. Such 

comment and information should 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 42635 

address (1) the three studies and 

proposal for a sliding scale 

extrapolation factor submitted 

previously by the ARRL as part of its ex 

parte filing on July 8, 2005 in 

conjunction with its petition for 

reconsideration of the BPL Order 

identified by the court, (2) the NTIA 

Phase 2 and Brazil studies with respect 

to findings on the extrapolation factor 

for BPL systems, and (3) our existing 

slant range method as it pertains to the 

effective field attenuation rate in a 

horizontal distance context. The 

Commission further request submission 

of any other new empirical studies or 

information that may inform us 

regarding the BPL distance attenuation 

extrapolation factor. Our goal is to 

ensure that the extrapolation factor used 

when tests cannot be made at the 

standard measurement distance 

provides effective protection to 

authorized services from harmful 

interference without unnecessarily 

burdening Access BPL technology. 

a. The 40 dB per Decade BPL 

Extrapolation Factor 

16. In explaining our reasoning for 

adopting 40 dB per decade as the 

extrapolation factor value for BPL 

emissions, it is important to understand 

that this is a measurement protocol (or 

‘‘tool’’), not an adjustment to the 

emissions standard. The Commission 

first observed that a concern in the BPL 

proceeding was that BPL systems are 

not traditional point-source emitters. 

Rather, they could act to some extent in 

a manner similar to line source emitters 

that would radiate along the power 

lines, and, therefore the emissions from 

these systems would not attenuate in 

the same manner as a typical pointsource emitter. In addressing this 

concern in the BPL Order, the 

Commission agreed with the ARRL that 

Access BPL systems on overhead lines 

are not traditional point-source emitters. 

17. The Commission also observed 

that NTIA’s earlier BPL computer 

simulation modeling as reported in the 

Technical Appendix to its June 2004 

comments showed results indicating 

that the attenuation in field strength of 

emissions from BPL systems with 

distance from the power line is 

consistent with the existing distance 

extrapolation factors for unlicensed 

devices in § 15.31(f)(1) and (2) of the 

Commission’s rules when used with the 

slant range to the power line. No party 

offered analysis or argument to dispute 

NTIA’s results. These simulation results 

were conducted using the widely 

recognized and employed National 

Electromagnetic Code (NEC) software 

for analyzing radio propagation. 

Although, the Commission does not rely 

on NTIA’s more recent Phase 2 

simulation results to justify its earlier 

decision, the Commission noted here 

that those results indicate that the 

attenuation at individual locations can 

be expected to vary around the standard 

40 dB value with frequency, 

configurations of line arrangements on 

poles, and other site-specific 

characteristics. The Commission is 

aware that measurements of the 

emissions from BPL systems at different 

distances will vary, but cluster around 

the 40 dB per decade factor. As the 

NTIA simulation results show, this 

variation is to be expected when 

measuring emissions below 30 MHz 

from points near the ground at distances 

close to a source of emissions. 

18. While the Commission recognizes 

the potential value and importance of 

empirical data with respect to this issue, 

there were no significant studies that 

examined the very large number of 

measurements that would be needed to 

address the different site characteristics 

that affect the attenuation of emissions 

below 30 MHz. In this regard the studies 

submitted by the ARRL in its 2005 ex 

parte provided only anecdotal 

information on two different types of 

installations (overhead and 

underground) from two single sites, and 

also had certain methodological 

shortcomings. These studies did not 

provide sufficient information to 

support a statistically valid and 

comprehensive description of how BPL 

emissions attenuate over the short 

distances at which measurements are 

made. 

19. The Commission specifically 

observed that only two of the studies 

(the Winchester Study and the Crieff 

Amperion Study) collected data relevant 

to the extrapolation factor. In addition, 

those two studies each report only a few 

measurements on a small number of 

operating frequencies along a single 

perpendicular path each at two small 

and very dissimilar BPL installations 

(one underground and one overhead) on 

power line configurations which may 

not be representative of power line 

configurations in the United States. In 

order for a study to provide statistically 

significant information on the 

attenuation of BPL emissions in the 

close vicinity of power lines and to 

adequately include signal conditions 

under different configurations of power 

lines on a pole or underground 

installations, a much larger body of 

empirical data at sites with varying 

configurations of power line 

attachments to poles and differing site 

characteristics would be needed. 

Moreover, such samples would need to 

demonstrate that they are conducted on 

power distribution systems 

representative of those found in the U.S. 

20. Second, the RF propagation 

environments in which BPL emissions 

are measured can affect the results such 

that results from a given site may not be 

characteristic of the general rate at 

which BPL emissions attenuate. The 

measurements in these two studies were 

taken near the ground (as are 

measurements BPL emissions under our 

measurement procedure), where the 

field strength of radio signals, and 

particularly those below 30 MHz, is 

typically affected to a significant degree 

by reflections and absorption by the 

ground, nearby vegetation, vehicles, 

structures, measuring equipment, 

equipment stands, and even the 

positions of the persons making the 

measurements. Of particular importance 

in this context are the presence and 

configuration of other power lines in 

addition to the power line to which the 

BPL device is attached and of metallic 

structures and vehicles. Because of the 

effects of these factors, the field 

strengths of radio signals emitted at the 

same power level will often vary 

significantly when measured near the 

ground at different locations that are the 

same distance from a source. Thus, in 

order to obtain empirical data from 

which general conclusions about the 

attenuation characteristics of Access 

BPL emissions may be drawn, it is 

necessary to have a very large number 

of observations from different BPL 

installations and from different 

locations at those installations. The 

small number of observations provided 

by the measurements in the Winchester 

and Crieff Amperion studies is not 

sufficient to form a basis for establishing 

a value for the extrapolation factor. 

21. The Commission notes that even 

at the two installations examined in the 

OFCOM studies, the data describe that 

the electromagnetic field attenuates at 

different rates. In addition, the data does 

not even appear sufficient to determine 

whether the type of BPL technology and 

architecture made a difference in the 

field attenuation rate. Moreover, 

OFCOM itself recommends that 

‘‘[d]uring the course of future PLT 

leakage emission measurements, further 

work is undertaken to confirm this 

finding elsewhere. The Commission saw 

nothing in the studies submitted by the 

ARRL that would warrant selection of a 

different (lower value) extrapolation 

factor. 

22. With respect to its proposal for a 

sliding scale extrapolation factor, the 

Commission observed that the ARRL 

did not provide an explanation as to 

how its formula was derived or how to 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
42636 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

use it to determine the extrapolation 

factor, nor did it provide a rationale for 

selecting such a formula. Further, even 

the CISPR graph has no explanation for 

the data showed thereon. In addition, 

the Commission has no information as 

to the relationship between the 

performance of emissions from BPL 

technology and the specifications for 

reduction of power line noise adopted 

in the standard. Therefore, the 

Commission was unable to determine 

whether or how the sliding scale factor 

proposed by the ARRL could be used to 

represent the attenuation of emissions 

from a BPL system. 

23. Accordingly, the extrapolation 

factor adopted in the BPL Order, and 

affirmed in the BPL Reconsideration 

Order, was based on the best 

information available at the time each of 

those decisions were made, while 

acknowledging that it might be desirable 

to revisit this issue if more information 

would become available, as we are now 

undertaking. 

b. Review of the Extrapolation Factor 

24. In reviewing the BPL 

extrapolation factor, the Commission 

intends to seek new information and 

studies, including those with empirical 

research, and to consider new 

approaches for the extrapolation that 

could use a lower value for the 

attenuation rate of emissions. Looking at 

new information, shortly after the 

release of the Commission’s BPL 

Reconsideration Order, NTIA published 

its ‘‘Phase 2 Study.’’ This study 

illustrates the application of the 

Commission’s BPL rules and 

measurement guidelines in a case study. 

Using the well-known and validated 

simulation software it employed in its 

Phase 1 Study, NTIA created an 

elaborate power line model that 

approximates existing overhead Access 

BPL power line structures in the U.S. 

After applying the emissions limits and 

methodology from the BPL 

measurement guidelines, NTIA 

analyzed the noise floor increase 

expected in nearby receivers as a result 

of BPL operations. NTIA states that its 

simulations confirm that ‘‘at or above 10 

MHz, the simulation results show good 

agreement between the rate that field 

strength decays and the part 15 distance 

extrapolation rate using the slant range 

distance to the Access BPL device and 

power lines.’’ NTIA does, however, 

further state that ‘‘the simulations in the 

4 to 8 MHz frequency range exhibited 

somewhat slower rates of field strength 

decay with distance than would be 

expected by the distance extrapolation 

rate in the part 15 rules for Access BPL 

systems. This difference was up to 6 dB 

less than the distance extrapolation rate. 

25. The Commission also observes 

that, like OFCOM in the United 

Kingdom, the regulatory agencies of 

other countries are testing BPL systems 

as part of the international forum’s 

discussions on BPL technology. The 

recently released study from the Federal 

Republic of Brazil reports results that 

show attenuation of emissions from BPL 

that is greater than the 40 dB per decade 

extrapolation factor, which indicates 

variation on the other side of the results 

found in the OFCOM studies. Here 

again, the amount of data collected is 

relatively small. The Commission 

believes that the information in the 

NTIA Phase 2 and Brazil studies, when 

viewed in light of the NTIA’s Technical 

Appendix and the OFCOM studies 

taken together not only provide 

validation for our previous conclusions 

selecting 40 dB per decade as the 

extrapolation factor, recognizing that 

there will be variation around that value 

at individual locations, but also inform 

our further consideration of this matter. 

26. There may be other new studies of 

the attenuation of BPL emissions with 

distance. The Commission requests that 

interested parties provide additional 

empirical information and studies 

regarding the distance extrapolation 

factor for use in measurements of 

emissions from Access BPL operating 

below 30 MHz. Such information and 

studies will be most useful if they are 

compiled using the FCC measurement 

guidelines and cover various BPL 

technologies that operate below 30 

MHz. The data should also cover the 

different operating frequencies of BPL 

emitters in their typical deployment 

configurations and the field strength 

attenuation at these frequencies. Access 

BPL systems from which data is 

collected also should be representative 

of power line configurations 

(underground and overhead) and 

current BPL network architectures in 

the United States. 

27. The Commission also observes 

that the slant range distance in the 

measurement procedure works with the 

40 dB per decade factor to yield 

extrapolated measurement values that 

have the effect of imposing a more 

conservative emissions standard than 

would be derived if using the horizontal 

distance from a power pole. In this 

regard, at relatively short distances, i.e., 

distances 30 meters or less, the slant 

range measurement method effectively 

reduces the emission limit for BPL 

systems with respect to the horizontal 

distance from the pole because at any 

given horizontal distance from the pole, 

the slant range distance is longer than 

the horizontal distance. This is simple 

geometry resulting from the height of 

the power line on which the BPL 

emitter is installed. (The hypotenuse of 

a right triangle is longer than either of 

the sides.) When extrapolated values at 

40 dB per decade of slant range distance 

are plotted against the horizontal 

distance, the effective slant range 

emission limit curve more closely 

follows the emission limit curve based 

on a 20 dB per decade extrapolation 

factor than the emission limit curve 

based on a 40 dB per decade 

extrapolation factor. NTIA’s modeling 

results effectively support this 

observation. The Commission also notes 

that given that its BPL measurement 

procedure requires that compliance 

measurements be taken at 30 meters or 

less, the effect of the slant range 

distance provision is significant at all 

distances where the extrapolation factor 

can be used. The Commission seeks 

comment on our slant range method as 

it pertains to the effective field 

attenuation rate in a horizontal distance 

context and on NTIA’s findings with 

respect to the extrapolation factor in its 

Phase 2 Study. 

28. The Commission observes that 

while 40 dB per decade continues to 

best describe the attenuation rate of 

emissions from BPL systems, there is 

also considerable variability around that 

value at different sites. The result of this 

variability is that the actual attenuation 

at some sites could be less than 40 dB 

per decade and using the current 

extrapolation factor at such sites could 

produce an adjusted measurement that 

would be less than the signal that would 

be measured at the standard 30 meter 

measurement distance specified in 

§ 15.209. The Commission requests 

comment on whether it would be 

desirable to modify the value of the BPL 

extrapolation factor to be 30 dB per 

decade or some other value. This lower 

value would apply a more conservative 

approach that would compensate for 

those cases where the actual attenuation 

is less than 40 dB. While the 

Commission does not have statistics that 

indicate the distribution of cases where 

the attenuation rate is less than 40 dB 

per decade, it believes that the 

additional margin provided by a 30 dB 

standard would encompass a large 

number of such cases. A 30 dB standard 

would also substantially reduce the 

remaining differences in underadjustment of measurements at 

locations where the attenuation rate 

might be less than 30 dB per decade. 

The Commission further notes that 

extrapolated emission limits based on 

our proposed 30 dB extrapolation factor 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 42637 

1See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612, has been amended by the Contract With 

America Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 

104–112, 110 Stat. 847 (1996)(‘‘CWAAA’’). Title II 

of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (‘‘SBREFA’’). 

2 See 5 U.S.C. 603(a). 

3See U.S.C. 603(b)(3). 

4 Id. 601(3). 

5 Id. 632. 

6See SBA, Office of Advocacy, ‘‘Frequently 

Asked Questions,’’ http://web.sba.gov/faqs 

(accessed Jan. 2009). 

7 5 U.S.C. 601(4). 

when applied to slant distance are 

comparable to the extrapolated emission 

limits based on a 20 dB extrapolation 

factor applied to horizontal distance. 

29. The Commission recognizes that 

reliance on a 30 dB per decade 

extrapolation factor could increase the 

compliance burden for BPL equipment 

and systems that are tested at locations 

where the attenuation rate is in fact 

greater than 40 dB per decade. The 

Commission, therefore clarifies that in 

all cases measurements of BPL 

equipment and systems may be made at 

the 30 meters distance specified in 

§ 15.209 and that where possible, the 

Commission’s staff will make 

measurements at this distance when 

testing for compliance. Further, to 

provide manufacturers and system 

operators the opportunity to use a 

higher extrapolation rate at locations 

where they believe the attenuation rate 

is higher than 30 dB per decade, the 

Commission is also considering 

allowing parties testing BPL systems for 

compliance with the radiated emissions 

limits to determine distance correction 

factors on a site-by-site basis using an in 

situ measurements procedure. The sitespecific extrapolation factor would be 

an alternative to the proposed 30 dB per 

decade standard and would replace the 

existing alternative method currently in 

the rules but that is not included in the 

BPL measurement procedures. This 

alternative method would only be 

applicable to Access BPL devices 

operating on overhead power lines on 

frequencies below 30 MHz. 

30. The Commission requests 

comment on the suitability of an 

extrapolation factor lower than 40 dB 

per decade and the in situ procedure for 

determining the field strength of BPL 

emissions in locations where 

measurements cannot be made at the 

lateral distance of 10 meters from the 

overhead line. Interested parties are 

invited to suggest alternative values for 

the extrapolation factor that would 

account for the variability of attenuation 

rates without unfairly burdening 

manufacturers of users of BPL 

equipment and systems. Parties 

submitting such suggestions should also 

provide information to support their 

proposal. Interested parties are 

specifically requested to address (1) 

whether use of the proposed procedure 

would provide an appropriate and 

reliable means of accounting for any 

variation in the attenuation rate at 

individual sites; (2) the effect that an 

extrapolation factor lower than 40 dB 

per decade would have on the effective 

emission limits for Access BPL devices 

operating on overhead power lines 

when used in conjunction with our 

slant range method; and (3) any special 

provisions that may be necessary to 

ensure that site-specific attenuation 

rates derived through this procedure 

reliably and fairly represent the 

attenuation rate at individual sites. 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

31. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980 as amended,1 the 

Commission has prepared this present 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

(IRFA) of the possible significant 

economic impact on small entities by 

the policies and rules proposed in this 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(‘‘FNPRM’’). Written public comments 

are requested on this IRFA. Comments 

must be identified as responses to the 

IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines 

for comments provided on the first page 

of the FNPRM. The Commission will 

send a copy of this FNPRM, including 

the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration (SBA).2

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

32. Consistent with the opportunity 

provided by the court’s remand and the 

Commission’s stated intention in the 

BPL Order to review the decision on the 

extrapolation factor if new information 

becomes available, the Commission is 

re-examining the current extrapolation 

factor in light of the recently issued 

technical studies addressing the 

attenuation of BPL emissions with 

distance and efforts by the IEEE to 

develop BPL measurement standards. 

As the several studies now available 

show and as the Commission has 

observed previously, there can be 

considerable variability in the 

attenuation of emissions from BPL 

systems across individual measurement 

sites that is not captured in the existing 

fixed 40 dB per decade standard. 

33. The Commission proposes to 

amend part 15 of our rules to adjust the 

extrapolation factor downward to 30 dB 

for Access Broadband over Power Line 

(BPL) systems and, as an alternative, 

also allow use of a special procedure for 

determining site-specific BPL 

extrapolation values using in situ 

measurements. Specifically, as a means 

to address the concerns that the rate of 

attenuation of BPL emissions at a 

specific site can differ from the existing 

40 dB per decade standard, the 

Commission proposes to modify its 

rules and measurement procedures for 

Access BPL to specify the use of a 30 dB 

extrapolation factor and to allow parties 

testing BPL systems for compliance with 

the radiated emissions limits to 

determine distance correction factors on 

a site-by-site basis using an in situ 

measurements procedure when 

measurements cannot be made at the 

measurement distance of 30 meters as 

specified in the rules. In addition, the 

Commission is clarifying that parties 

testing BPL equipment and systems for 

compliance with emissions limits in the 

Commission rules may measure at the 

standard 30 meter distance rather than 

only the shorter distances recommended 

in the BPL measurement guidelines. The 

Commission’s actions will ensure that 

the BPL measurement rules would not 

unnecessarily burden this technology 

while providing appropriate protection 

from harmful interference for authorized 

services. 

B. Legal Basis 

34. This action is taken pursuant to 

Sections 1, 4, 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f) 

and 303(r) of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 4, 301, 

302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r). 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

35. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the proposed rules, if adopted.3 The 

RFA defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’ 

and ‘‘small business concern’’ under 

Section 3 of the Small Business Act.4

Under the Small Business Act, a ‘‘small 

business concern’’ is one that: (1) Is 

independently owned and operated; (2) 

is not dominant in its field of 

operations; and (3) meets many 

additional criteria established by the 

Small Business Administration (SBA).5

36. Nationwide, there are a total of 

approximately 27.2 million small 

businesses, according to the SBA.6 A 

‘‘small organization’’ is generally ‘‘any 

not-for-profit enterprise which is 

independently owned and operated and 

is not dominant in its field.’’ 7

Nationwide, as of 2002, there were 

approximately 1.6 million small 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
42638 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

8 Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit 

Almanac & Desk Reference (2002). 

9 5 U.S.C. 601(5). 

10U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the 

United States: 2006, Section 8, page 272, Table 415. 

11We assume that the villages, school districts, 

and special districts are small, and total 48,558. See 

U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the 

United States: 2006, section 8, page 273, Table 417. 

For 2002, Census Bureau data indicate that the total 

number of county, municipal, and township 

governments nationwide was 38,967, of which 

35,819 were small. Id. 

12U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, 

‘‘334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and 

Wireless Communications Equipment 

Manufacturing’’; http://www.census.gov/naics/ 

2007/def/ND334220.HTM#N334220. 

13 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334220. 

14U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, 

2002 Economic Census, Industry Series, Industry 

Statistics by Employment Size, NAICS code 334220 

(released May 26, 2005); http:// 

factfinder.census.gov. The number of 

‘‘establishments’’ is a less helpful indicator of small 

business prevalence in this context than would be 

the number of ‘‘firms’’ or ‘‘companies,’’ because the 

latter take into account the concept of common 

ownership or control. Any single physical location 

for an entity is an establishment, even though that 

location may be owned by a different establishment. 

Thus, the numbers given may reflect inflated 

numbers of businesses in this category, including 

the numbers of small businesses. In this category, 

the Census breaks-out data for firms or companies 

only to give the total number of such entities for 

2002, which was 929. 

15 Id. An additional 18 establishments had 

employment of 1,000 or more. 

16 5 U.S.C. 603(c). 

organizations.8 The term ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdiction’’ is defined 

generally as ‘‘governments of cities, 

towns, townships, villages, school 

districts, or special districts, with a 

population of less than fifty 

thousand.’’ 9 Census Bureau data for 

2002 indicate that there were 87,525 

local governmental jurisdictions in the 

United States.10 We estimate that, of this 

total, 84,377 entities were ‘‘small 

governmental jurisdictions.’’ 11 Thus, 

we estimate that most governmental 

jurisdictions are small. 

37. The proposed rules pertain to 

manufacturers of unlicensed 

communications devices. The 

appropriate small business size standard 

is that which the SBA has established 

for radio and television broadcasting 

and wireless communications 

equipment manufacturing. The Census 

Bureau defines this category as follows: 

‘‘This industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

manufacturing radio and television 

broadcast and wireless communications 

equipment. Examples of products made 

by these establishments are: 

Transmitting and receiving antennas, 

cable television equipment, GPS 

equipment, pagers, cellular phones, 

mobile communications equipment, and 

radio and television studio and 

broadcasting equipment.’’12 The SBA 

has developed a small business size 

standard for firms in this category, 

which is: all such firms having 750 or 

fewer employees.13 According to Census 

Bureau data for 2002, there were a total 

of 1,041 establishments in this category 

that operated for the entire year.14 Of 

this total, 1,010 had employment of less 

than 500, and an additional 13 had 

employment of 500 to 999.15 Thus, 

under this size standard, the majority of 

firms can be considered small. The 

Commission does not believe this action 

would have a negative impact on small 

entities that manufacture unlicensed 

BPL devices. Indeed, it believes the 

actions should benefit small entities 

because it should make available 

increased business opportunities to 

small entities. The Commission request 

comment on these assessments. 

D. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements 

38. The FNPRM does not contain 

proposed new or modified information 

collection requirements. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

39. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives (among 

others): (1) The establishment of 

differing compliance or reporting 

requirements or timetables that take into 

account the resources available to small 

entities; (2) the clarification, 

consolidation, or simplification of 

compliance or reporting requirements 

under the rule for small entities; (3) the 

use of performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for small entities.16

40. In this FNPRM, the Commission 

proposed to modify its rules and 

measurement procedures for Access 

BPL to specify the use of a 30 dB 

extrapolation factor and, as an 

alternative, to allow parties testing BPL 

systems for compliance with the 

radiated emissions limits to determine 

distance correction factors on a site-bysite basis using an in situ measurements 

procedure when measurements cannot 

be made at the measurement distance of 

30 meters as specified in the rules. In 

addition, the Commission clarifies that 

parties testing BPL equipment and 

systems for compliance with emissions 

limits in the rules may measure at the 

standard 30 meter distance rather than 

only the shorter distances recommended 

in the BPL measurement guidelines. The 

Commission seeks comment on the 

alternatives and the clarification. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

41. None. 

Ordering Clauses 

42. Pursuant to Sections 1, 4, 301, 

302, 303(e), 303(f) and 303(r) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 4, 301, 302, 

303(e), 303(f) and 303(r), the Request for 

Comment and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making is hereby 

adopted. 

43. The Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, shall send a copy of 

this Request for Comment and Further 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 

including the Initial Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15 

Communications equipment, Radio. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

William F. Caton, 

Deputy Secretary. 

Proposed Rules Changes 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

Part 15 to read as follows: 

PART 15—RADIO FREQUENCY 

DEVICES 

1. The authority citation for part 15 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 

307 and 544A. 

2. In § 15.31 redesignate paragraphs 

(f)(3) through (f)(5) as (f)(4) through 

(f)(6), and add a new paragraph (f)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 15.31 Measurement standards. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(3) For Access BPL devices operating 

at frequencies below 30 MHz, the results 

shall be extrapolated to the specified 

distance by using an extrapolation factor 

of 30 dB/decade. Measurements may be 

performed at a distance closer than that 

specified with the radiated emissions 

limit in § 15.209 of this part; however, 

an attempt should be made to avoid 

making measurements in the near field. 

The distance correction to the emission 

limit for measurements on overhead 

power line installations shall be based 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 162 / Monday, August 24, 2009 / Proposed Rules 42639 

on the slant range distance, which is the 

line-of-sight distance from the 

measurement antenna to the overhead 

line. Alternatively, a site-specific 

extrapolation factor may be used in lieu 

of the 30 dB/decade standard. This 

extrapolation factor shall be derived 

from a best fit straight line fit 

determined by a first-order regression 

calculation from measurements for at 

least four lateral distances from the 

overhead line. Compliance 

measurements for Access BPL and use 

of site-specific extrapolation factors 

shall be made in accordance with the 

Guidelines for Access BPL systems 

specified by the Commission. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–20336 Filed 8–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

GENERAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATION 

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND 

SPACE ADMINISTRATION 

48 CFR Parts 2, 17, 22, 36, and 52 

[FAR Case 2009–005; Docket 2009–0024; 

Sequence 2] 

RIN 9000–AL31 

Federal Acquisition Regulation; FAR 

Case 2009–005, Use of Project Labor 

Agreements for Federal Construction 

Projects 

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DoD), 

General Services Administration (GSA), 

and National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: The Civilian Agency 

Acquisition Council and the Defense 

Acquisition Regulations Council 

(Councils) are proposing to amend the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to 

implement Executive Order (E.O.) 

13502, Use of Project Labor Agreements 

for Federal Construction Projects. The 

comment period is being reopened for 

an additional 30 days to provide 

additional time for interested parties to 

review the proposed FAR changes. 

DATES: Interested parties should submit 

written comments to the Regulatory 

Secretariat on or before September 23, 

2009 to be considered in the 

formulation of a final rule. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments 

identified by FAR case 2009–005 by any 

of the following methods: 

• Regulations.gov: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Submit comments via the Federal 

eRulemaking portal by inputting ‘‘FAR 

Case 2009–005’’ into the field 

‘‘Keyword’’. Select the link that 

corresponds with FAR Case 2009–005. 

Follow the instructions provided to 

submit your comments. Please include 

your name, company name (if any), and 

‘‘FAR Case 2009–005’’ on your attached 

document. 

• Fax: 202–501–4067. 

• Mail: General Services 

Administration, Regulatory Secretariat 

(VPR), 1800 F Street, NW, Room 4041, 

ATTN: Hada Flowers, Washington, DC 

20405. 

Instructions: Please submit comments 

only and cite FAR case 2009–005 in all 

correspondence related to this case. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal and/or business confidential 

information provided. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

clarification of content, contact Mr. 

Ernest Woodson, Procurement Analyst, 

at (202) 501–3775. For information 

pertaining to status or publication 

schedules, contact the Regulatory 

Secretariat at (202) 501–4755. Please 

cite FAR case 2009–005. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Background 

The Councils published a proposed 

rule in the Federal Register at 74 FR 

33953, July 14, 2009. The comment 

period is being reopened for an 

additional 30 days to provide additional 

time for interested parties to review the 

proposed FAR changes. 

Dated: August 18, 2009 

Edward Loeb, 

Deputy Director, Acquisition Policy Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–20305 Filed 8–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–S 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 571 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2009–0150] 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

No. 108; Lamps, Reflective Devices 

and Associated Equipment 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Denial of petition for 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: This document responds to a 

petition for rulemaking regarding the 

Federal motor vehicle safety standard 

for lighting. The Groupe de Travail 

‘‘Bruxelles 1952’’ (GTB) and the Society 

of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Lighting 

Committee requested that new 

specifications be added for optional 

lower beam and upper beam headlamp 

patterns on the basis they would 

increase harmonization with European 

requirements. After completing a 

technical review of the petition, NHTSA 

is denying this petition. The agency 

notes the petitioners did not provide 

data to demonstrate that the requested 

new optional specifications would 

provide safety benefits comparable to 

those of the existing standard or that 

cost savings would be realized without 

compromising safety. Additionally, 

NHTSA is pursuing a more 

comprehensive review of the lighting 

standard and is currently studying the 

feasibility of many issues and potential 

regulatory changes, some of which 

would address issues raised in this 

petition. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

non-legal issues, you may call Mr. David 

Hines, Office of Crash Avoidance 

Standards (Phone: 202–493–0245; FAX: 

202–366–7002). 

For legal issues, you may call Mr. Ari 

Scott, Office of the Chief Counsel 

(Phone: 202–366–2992; FAX: 202–366– 

3820). 

You may send mail to these officials 

at: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. The Petition 

II. Agency Technical Evaluation 

III. Agency Conclusions 

I. The Petition 

On July 21, 2004, the SAE Lighting 

Committee and GTB petitioned the 

agency to add new specifications to 

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 

(FMVSS) No. 108; Lamps, reflective 

devices, and associated equipment, for 

optional upper and lower beam patterns 

based on specifications pending 

approval by the United Nations’ 

Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) 

under ECE R112. If these requested 

amendments were adopted, 

manufacturers of vehicles sold in the 

U.S. would be able to choose to certify 

products to either the existing 

requirements of FMVSS No. 108 or the 

requested alternative new requirements. 

Modifications to the agency’s test 

procedures were also requested. The 

petitioners stated that Japan had 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1