FCC Web Documents citing 22.535

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-480A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-480A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-480A1.txt
  • 2000 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. Kitchen Productions, Inc. filed the above-captioned formal complaint, pursuant to Section 208 of the Communications Act, against Desert Mobilfone on August 31, 1999. Kitchen Productions alleged therein that Desert Mobilfone had operated a common carrier paging radio station licensed to it in an unauthorized manner in violation of Sections 22.535(c) and 22.352(a) of the Commission's Rules and Section 301 of the Communications Act. After the complaint was filed and served on the defendant, further proceedings herein were stayed at the request of the parties, in order to facilitate settlement negotiations between the parties. The parties have now reached a mutually satisfactory settlement agreement, and Kitchen Productions on December 22, 1999,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-815A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-815A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-815A1.txt
  • without prejudice, Adams's application as defective because it did not contain an encompassment exhibit required pursuant to Commission rule 22.559. 3. On June 20, 1997, Adams filed a Petition for Reconsideration, arguing that the Bureau erred in dismissing its application because an encompassment exhibit was unnecessary where its proposed operations were consistent with the height-power limits of Commission rule section 22.535(c), even where its proposed operation exceeded 500 Watts ERP. Adams sought to have its application reinstated, or in the alternative, sought leave to amend its dismissed application to conform to the 500 Watt limitation. 4. On October 20, 1999, the Division denied Adams's Petition for Reconsideration, stating that under rule section 22.559(b), an encompassment exhibit is required where proposed operation
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/18/releases/220_e.pdf
  • transmitters, including Phase I and Phase II licensees, both nationwide and non-nationwide. 220 MHz Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 11007-08 (paras. 138-139), 11013-14 (paras. 150-151). 149 Comtech Third Order Petition at 4-6; Glenayre Third Order Petition at 4-5. 150 Comtech Third Order Petition at 4. 151 Id. 152 Id. 153 Id. at 4-5. See Sections 22.531 and 22.535 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.531, 22.535. 154 Comtech Third Order Petition at 5, citing 47 C.F.R. § 22.535. 155 Glenayre Third Order Petition at 4. 156 PAGE 40 5. Allowable Power Limit for Mobile Channels 81. For the 220 MHz service, the maximum allowable power for transmissions on mobile channels (channels in the 221-222 MHz band) is
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/18/releases/fc980093.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/18/releases/fc980093.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/18/releases/fc980093.wp
  • transmitters, including Phase I and Phase II licensees, both nationwide and non-nationwide. 220 MHz Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 11007-08 (paras. 138-139), 11013-14 (paras. 150-151). 149 Comtech Third Order Petition at 4-6; Glenayre Third Order Petition at 4-5. 150 Comtech Third Order Petition at 4. 151 Id. 152 Id. 153 Id. at 4-5. See Sections 22.531 and 22.535 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.531, 22.535. 154 Comtech Third Order Petition at 5, citing 47 C.F.R. § 22.535. 155 Glenayre Third Order Petition at 4. 156 PAGE 39 5. Allowable Power Limit for Mobile Channels 80. For the 220 MHz service, the maximum allowable power for transmissions on mobile channels (channels in the 221-222 MHz band) is
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/26/releases/fc970059.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/26/releases/fc970059.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/26/releases/fc970059.wp
  • note that the co-channel interference protection discussed above requires incumbents and geographic licensees to provide interference protection to each other, but does not apply to interference between geographic licensees. Geographic licensees generally are not required to file applications with the Commission, therefore it is possible that a geographic licensee with a Federal Communications Commission FCC 97-59 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.535(a), 24.132(c), and 90.494(g). 195 See Part 22 Rewrite Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 6513, ¶¶ 72-82. Intermodulation interference can occur where a number 196 of base stations (transmitters and receivers) operate in close proximity to each other, i.e., on the same or immediately adjacent roof tops, mountain peaks, etc. Under such conditions, strong signals from adjacent transmitters may interact with
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/26/releases/pagebp_g.pdf
  • condition requiring coordinated, shared use and equal access by licensees in both countries: 931.4375 .... 931.8875 .... 931.9125 .... 931.9375 (f) For the purpose of issuing paging geographic authorizations, the paging geographic areas used for UHF channels are the MEAs, and the paging geographic areas used for the low and high VHF channels are the EAs (see § 22.503(b)). § 22.535 Effective radiated power limits. The effective radiated power (ERP) of transmitters operating on the channels listed in § 22.531 must not exceed the limits in this section. (a) Maximum ERP. The ERP must not exceed the applicable limits in this paragraph under any circumstances. -------------------------------------------- Frequency range Maximum ERP (MHz) (Watts) -------------------------------------------- 45 35-36 .................................. 600 43-44 .................................. 500 152-159
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000480.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000480.txt
  • 2000 By the Chief, Market Disputes Resolution Division, Enforcement Bureau: 1. Kitchen Productions, Inc. filed the above-captioned formal complaint, pursuant to Section 208 of the Communications Act, against Desert Mobilfone on August 31, 1999. Kitchen Productions alleged therein that Desert Mobilfone had operated a common carrier paging radio station licensed to it in an unauthorized manner in violation of Sections 22.535(c) and 22.352(a) of the Commission's Rules and Section 301 of the Communications Act. After the complaint was filed and served on the defendant, further proceedings herein were stayed at the request of the parties, in order to facilitate settlement negotiations between the parties. The parties have now reached a mutually satisfactory settlement agreement, and Kitchen Productions on December 22, 1999,