FCC Web Documents citing 22.150

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-91A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-91A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-91A1.txt
  • in terms of increased flexibility and harmful interference? We invite comment on this approach to control interference in the context of the 698-746 MHz band, both generally and if used in conjunction with field strength standards. Should we adopt a general coordination approach is adopted, comments are requested on whether specific aspects of procedures, such as those contained in Section 22.150 of the Commission's rules, should apply or, alternatively, whether a general requirement such as the cellular rule should apply. Section 27.64 of the Commission's rules states generally that Part 27 stations operating in full accordance with applicable Commission rules and the terms and conditions of their authorizations are normally considered to be non-interfering, and provides for Commission action, after notice
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-305A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-305A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-305A1.txt
  • boundary limit to control co-channel interference in these bands. In the event we decide to use a coordination requirement, how far from the boundary should the coordination zone be located, and how would it be affected by power limits we might adopt? Comments are requested on whether specific aspects of coordination procedures should apply, such as those contained in section 22.150 or 101.103 of our rules, or, alternatively, whether a general requirement such as the cellular rule should apply. Our objective is to ensure that licensees receive protection from harmful interference with the minimum regulation necessary. Would a general coordination requirement minimize the potential for interference or impose unnecessary coordination for facilities with a low potential for interference under either approach?
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-91A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-91A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-91A1.txt
  • in terms of increased flexibility and harmful interference? We invite comment on this approach to control interference in the context of the 698-746 MHz band, both generally and if used in conjunction with field strength standards. Should we adopt a general coordination approach is adopted, comments are requested on whether specific aspects of procedures, such as those contained in Section 22.150 of the Commission's rules, should apply or, alternatively, whether a general requirement such as the cellular rule should apply. Section 27.64 of the Commission's rules states generally that Part 27 stations operating in full accordance with applicable Commission rules and the terms and conditions of their authorizations are normally considered to be non-interfering, and provides for Commission action, after notice
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-305A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-305A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-305A1.txt
  • boundary limit to control co-channel interference in these bands. In the event we decide to use a coordination requirement, how far from the boundary should the coordination zone be located, and how would it be affected by power limits we might adopt? Comments are requested on whether specific aspects of coordination procedures should apply, such as those contained in section 22.150 or 101.103 of our rules, or, alternatively, whether a general requirement such as the cellular rule should apply. Our objective is to ensure that licensees receive protection from harmful interference with the minimum regulation necessary. Would a general coordination requirement minimize the potential for interference or impose unnecessary coordination for facilities with a low potential for interference under either approach?
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Notices/2001/fcc01091.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Notices/2001/fcc01091.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Notices/2001/fcc01091.txt
  • in terms of increased flexibility and harmful interference? We invite comment on this approach to control interference in the context of the 698-746 MHz band, both generally and if used in conjunction with field strength standards. Should we adopt a general coordination approach is adopted, comments are requested on whether specific aspects of procedures, such as those contained in Section 22.150 of the Commission's rules, should apply or, alternatively, whether a general requirement such as the cellular rule should apply. Section 27.64 of the Commission's rules states generally that Part 27 stations operating in full accordance with applicable Commission rules and the terms and conditions of their authorizations are normally considered to be non-interfering, and provides for Commission action, after notice
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.wp
  • 1 rule).1.951 22.137 Assignment of authorization; transfer of control (move 1.931 to consolidated Part 1 rule). 22.139 Trafficking (move to consolidated Part 1 rule). 1.949(f) 22.142 Commencement of service; notification requirement 1.929 (move to consolidated Part 1 rule). 22.144 Termination of authorizations (move to consolidated 1.955 Part 1 rule). 22.145 Renewal application procedures (move to consolidated 1.935 Part 1 rule). 22.150(d) Standard pre-filing technical coordination procedure 22.150(d) (change to provide notification period where notification is done by electronic filing via ULS). Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-25 E-3 22.163 Minor modifications to existing stations (move to 1.927 consolidated Part 1 rule). 22.165(b) Additional transmitters for existing systems -- Antenna 22.165(b) structure clearance required (change organizational name from Private Radio Bureau to Licensing
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/26/releases/pagebp_g.pdf
  • Services Branch, Gettysburg, PA 17325; (5) The applicant has indicated in the application that the proposed facility would not have a significant environmental effect, in accordance with §§ 1.1301 through 1.1319 of this chapter; and, (6) Under applicable international agreements and rules in this part, individual coordination of the proposed channel assignment(s) with a foreign administration is not required. § 22.150 Standard pre-filing technical coordination procedure. 11 For operations on certain channels in the Public Mobile Services, carriers must attempt to coordinate the proposed use of spectrum with other spectrum users prior to filing an application for authority to operate a station. Rules requiring this procedure for specific channels and types of stations are contained in the subparts governing the individual
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Notices/2001/fcc01091.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Notices/2001/fcc01091.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Notices/2001/fcc01091.txt
  • in terms of increased flexibility and harmful interference? We invite comment on this approach to control interference in the context of the 698-746 MHz band, both generally and if used in conjunction with field strength standards. Should we adopt a general coordination approach is adopted, comments are requested on whether specific aspects of procedures, such as those contained in Section 22.150 of the Commission's rules, should apply or, alternatively, whether a general requirement such as the cellular rule should apply. Section 27.64 of the Commission's rules states generally that Part 27 stations operating in full accordance with applicable Commission rules and the terms and conditions of their authorizations are normally considered to be non-interfering, and provides for Commission action, after notice
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.wp
  • 1 rule).1.951 22.137 Assignment of authorization; transfer of control (move 1.931 to consolidated Part 1 rule). 22.139 Trafficking (move to consolidated Part 1 rule). 1.949(f) 22.142 Commencement of service; notification requirement 1.929 (move to consolidated Part 1 rule). 22.144 Termination of authorizations (move to consolidated 1.955 Part 1 rule). 22.145 Renewal application procedures (move to consolidated 1.935 Part 1 rule). 22.150(d) Standard pre-filing technical coordination procedure 22.150(d) (change to provide notification period where notification is done by electronic filing via ULS). Federal Communications Commission FCC 98-25 E-3 22.163 Minor modifications to existing stations (move to 1.927 consolidated Part 1 rule). 22.165(b) Additional transmitters for existing systems -- Antenna 22.165(b) structure clearance required (change organizational name from Private Radio Bureau to Licensing