[BCVHFA] Fwd: ARLB019 FCC extends reply comment deadline in BPL proceeding

[K8CM]

>Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 18:22:10 -0400
>From: ARRL Web site <memberlist at www.arrl.org>
>Subject: ARLB019 FCC extends reply comment deadline in BPL proceeding
>To: K8CM at cinci.rr.com
>Cc: Subscribed ARRL Members: ;
>X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine
>Original-recipient: rfc822;K8CM at cinci.rr.com
>
>SB QST @ ARL $ARLB019
>ARLB019 FCC extends reply comment deadline in BPL proceeding
>
>ZCZC AG19
>QST de W1AW
>ARRL Bulletin 19  ARLB019
> From ARRL Headquarters
>Newington CT  May 28, 2004
>To all radio amateurs
>
>SB QST ARL ARLB019
>ARLB019 FCC extends reply comment deadline in BPL proceeding
>
>The FCC has extended the deadline to file reply comments (comments
>on filed comments) in its broadband over power line (BPL) Notice of
>Proposed Rule Making (NPRM), ET Docket 04-37, to Tuesday, June 22.
>The FCC acted this week on a request from the National Antenna
>Consortium and the Amherst Alliance (NAC/Amherst) for a much longer
>filing deadline extension. The organizations said the June 1 reply
>comment deadline FCC would not allow stakeholders adequate time to
>prepare comments that address the full two-part National
>Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Phase 2 BPL
>study. The FCC said the NTIA has indicated that it soon will submit
>comments and a technical appendix that will include key findings of
>the Phase 2 report, which is due for release later this year.
>
>NAC/Amherst had sought to have the FCC postpone the filing comment
>deadline until either September 1 or two months after the public
>release of the NTIA's Phase 2 study--whichever was later. The FCC
>said, however, that the additional three weeks should be ''ample
>time'' to respond to the anticipated NTIA submission, provided it's
>filed reasonably close to the anticipated May 28 date.
>
>Noting that its Part 15 rules already permit Access BPL systems and
>that its February BPL NPRM places additional requirements on BPL
>systems over and above current Part 15 requirements, the FCC
>asserted that any further delay would diminish the Commission's
>ability to protect licensed users now occupying the HF spectrum. A
>further extension, the FCC added, also would ''needlessly increase
>regulatory uncertainty'' about BPL.
>
>The FCC turned down a request that the FCC reissue in substantially
>greater detail the provisions of its proposed BPL rules concerning
>interference prevention and mitigation and the enforcement of
>standards.
>
>The FCC does not routinely grant such time extensions, and it denied
>earlier petitions, including filings from the ARRL and NAC/Amherst,
>to extend the initial May 3 comment filing deadline.
>NNNN
>/EX