[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 78 (Thursday, April 22, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21760-21761]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-9169]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 97

[ET Docket No. 02-98; FCC 04-71]


Amateur Radio Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document denies a Petition for Reconsideration filed by 
Mr. W. Lee McVey in response to the Commission's decision in a Report 
and Order. The Commission finds that arguments and information provided 
in the Petition were substantively addressed by the Report and Order 
and do not merit further consideration.

DATES: Effective May 24, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Miller, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, e-mail [email protected], telephone (202) 418-7351.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket No. 02-98, FCC 04-71, adopted 
March 24, 2004, and released March 31, 2004. The full text of this 
document is available on the Commission's Internet site at http://www.fcc.gov. It is also available for inspection and copying during 
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 
12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The full text of this document 
also may be purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor, 
Qualex International, Portals II, 445 12th St., SW., Room CY-B402, 
Washington, DC 20554; telephone (202) 863-2893; fax (202) 863-2898; e-
mail [email protected].

Summary of the Memorandum Opinion and Order

    1. The Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O), denied the Petition for 
Reconsideration filed by Mr. W. Lee McVey (petitioner) in response to 
the Commission's decision in the Report and Order (R&O), 68 FR 33020, 
June 3, 2003. The Commission found that the arguments and information 
provided in the Petition were substantively addressed by the R&O and do 
not merit further consideration.
    2. In the R&O, the Commission denied American Radio Relay League, 
Inc. (ARRL), petition requesting, inter alia, that the Commission make 
a secondary allocation to the Amateur Radio Service (ARS) in the 160-
190 kHz band for experimentation in the low frequency (LF) range. 
Amateur use of the 160-190 kHz band is permitted under part 15 of our 
rules, and use of any band, including the LF band, can be permitted 
under our experimental rules on a case-by-case basis. The band is 
allocated to both the fixed and maritime mobile services on a primary 
basis for Federal Government users and also to the fixed service on a 
primary basis for non-Federal Government users. There are ten Federal 
Government assignments for coast stations communicating with ships at 
sea, and several Federal Government fixed service sites in this band. 
There are no non-Federal Government assignments in the Commission's 
database for this frequency band.
    3. In addition, unlicensed devices use the LF spectrum. These 
systems do not have any allocation status, but are authorized to 
operate under part 15 of our rules on an unprotected, non-interference 
basis with respect to all other users. Section 15.209 of our rules 
generally permits unlicensed operation at power limits of 4.9 
microvolts/meter. Further, Sec.  15.113 of our rules specifically 
permits Power Line Carrier (PLC) systems to operate on power 
transmission lines for communications important to the reliability and 
security of electric service to the public in the 9-490 kHz band. In 
this regard, utility companies have generally come to rely on PLC 
systems to support a variety of monitoring and control functions of the 
national power grid. For example, electric utility operators use PLC 
signaling systems in this band in conjunction with monitoring devices 
to detect malfunctions and damage to power transmission facilities such 
as transformer failures and downed lines. When such events occur, these 
same PLC systems then are used to remotely trip protection circuits 
that minimize damage to the power system and eliminate danger to 
individuals in the area of the event.
    4. On reconsideration, the petitioner primarily reiterates the 
opinion he expressed in comments filed in response to the Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 67 FR 40898, June 14, 2002, in the 
proceeding that PLC use in power grid infrastructure is insignificant 
and alternative technologies should be encouraged. Although the 
petition provides additional specific information about PLC systems and 
alternative technologies used by electric power networks, this 
information is not substantially different from information in the 
record, including that supplied by petitioner in his comments, when the 
Commission made its subject decision. Based on its analysis of the 
record, including information provided by utility companies that use 
PLC systems, the Commission found that utility companies have come to 
rely on PLC systems for monitoring and control of the power grid. 
Although the petitioner may disagree with this conclusion, it was based 
on record evidence, and the petitioner has not provided evidence that 
contests this conclusion.
    5. We also disagree with the Petition's assertion that the 
Commission failed to

[[Page 21761]]

take proper action by continuing to rely upon part 15 of our rules and 
regulations to protect such alleged vital communications and that we 
should instead provide a primary allocation for PLC systems in this 
band. PLC systems have been operating successfully in this band for 
many years on an unlicensed basis pursuant to part 15 of our rules. The 
Commission acted responsibly in deciding not to modify the allocations 
for the band. As we noted in the R&O, the Commission considers the 
potential for interference conflicts between different types of 
operations, whether licensed or unlicensed, when it considers whether 
to make allocation changes to a band. That we found a potential threat 
to PLC operations in the licensing of a new service in the band is not 
to say that current operations are uncertain or insecure. The 
Commission concluded that it was better to maintain the status quo than 
to differentiate the status of one service vis-[agrave]-vis another in 
the band.
    6. Finally, in the NPRM in the proceeding, the Commission did not 
propose to provide an allocation for PLC systems in this band, and thus 
the Petition's request that we do so on reconsideration is beyond the 
scope of this proceeding. Further, we will not initiate a proceeding to 
provide such an allocation, nor to provide technical and service rules 
for PLC systems as the Petition requests. We note that the petitioner 
raised similar arguments in comments filed in response to the NPRM, 
suggesting that if PLC systems used narrow-band channels, a portion of 
the band could be made available for an ARS allocation. The Commission 
determined in the R&O that although other techniques, could be used to 
control the power grid, these alternatives may not be as effective, 
would be costly to implement, and would be disruptive to the public. 
The Commission is not persuaded that it should revisit this issue at 
this time.
    7. In conclusion, the petitioner alternately reiterates arguments 
and information already considered in the R&O, and requests action 
beyond the scope of this proceeding. Further, the Commission concludes 
that, on balance, our decision properly balances concerns for PLC use 
supporting the protection and control of the national power grid, 
without unduly constraining amateur use of the band. The Commission 
denies the Petition for Reconsideration.

Ordering Clauses

    8. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 303(c), 
303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r), the 
Petition for Reconsideration filed by petitioner is denied.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-9169 Filed 4-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P