FCC Web Documents citing 73.318

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2570A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2570A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2570A1.txt
  • Broadband Systems, Inc., Susquehanna Radio Corp., Verizon Wireless and Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. We have considered aspects of these filings in formulating our proposals set forth in this Public Notice. See 47 CFR � 27.58. The rules require WCS licensees to resolve interference to MDS/ITFS licensees at no cost to the licensee experiencing interference. See also 47 CFR � 73.318. The rules require new FM broadcast stations to resolve interference within their blanketing contour at no cost to the complainant for one year after commencing operations. See Supra n. 6. See 47 CFR � 27.58. XM STA Order Supra n. 4 at para. 17, Sirius STA Order Supra n. 4 at para. 17. See CFR 47 � 27.58, � 73.318.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2253A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2253A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2253A1.txt
  • complaints should be sent to Federal Communications Commission, Media Bureau, Audio Division, 445 12th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20554, Attn: Dale Bickel, Room 2-A324. San Diego has the sixth highest cable penetration rate, at 85 percent of all households, among all Nielsen Media Research Designated Market Areas. See Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook 2006, p. C-11 (2005). See 47 C.F.R. � 73.318. Id. � 1.110. 47 C.F.R. �� 0.61 and 0.283 Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 October 31, 2006 - . , - / : ; < O [ _ i j l m M � �7��x"kxq ^e o 7���"�b4ҏ-��X� ��bU%G...���1�^-�<:��3��ό�k��"�?؉� ''�� �]� � &E��E" ��M;g m�I��-}��Q��7�:?�E�g�Qn�v� �k �j=3z �u}3P��u���� ;� qxϵ���+�/� p��% �``� p;_ �2;o����'?������\��� -60� p�\[& �+m''e' K6F� U�-��c
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1206A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1206A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1206A1.txt
  • its Supplement to Opposition, MCBI details several attempts to locate the complainant, but to no avail. Supplement to Opposition at 3-4. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 225 (1991). Id. at 225 n.3, 226. Id. at 227-28. See Exhibit 2 to DJ Petition. See also 47 C.F.R. � 73.317(d). See Exhibits A and B to Opposition. 47 C.F.R. �� 73.318(b), (d). Id. � 73.5003. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 � �B��k�(/YM��`鉉��PNG �0���eX...�W0f�"˸ -ʝ �D... p-C� C\ i8 �] ~'��\��� g�bF�JU �}p�� Ӵ�:|Y�.̕� ���`]fe�ʦ�S ��8���o��(R)� �� -�o} �^ rt2 ; X�0~B�e6%����70o�B(R)x�oG�� �k��"a �n�"W -1��$�7'����2 o �  ��2� ����" ��� +� bK`�˯� � �����v'�B-�7sp?$ � ����)} �� �s���-�U�(� �� ��T��`��:�I�a�D"M+ �%i� n�� 0:*�� ��Ԩ�h8R� �� �E�x�΂`�D����#pWQ%m�m3Xķ���N<�{�1 ܋ Y� -$ ��
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3268A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3268A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3268A1.txt
  • that the blanketing interference was being caused ``not to the actual electronic monitoring equipment,'' but to the ``hard-wired telephone modem'' that transmits HPC's electronic monitoring equipment images to a remote reading location.'' GKB states that because the telephone modem is a non-RF device, HPC has no basis to argue that GKB has failed to comply with its obligations under Section 73.318. GKB also asserts that its sole obligation under the blanketing interference rule would have been to provide HPC with technical information or assistance on remedies for such interference, which it did. GKB states that it promptly responded to HPC's initial interference complaint, and advised HPC that it should install filters on the problematic phone lines, fax lines and electrical outlets,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3269A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3269A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-3269A1.txt
  • by the complainant may be attributable to "blanketing" interference, which can occur to electronic devices that are in close proximity to an AM transmitter. Irrespective of whether the interference situation described by Ms. Pitt is ``blanketing'' interference, however, the Objection does not raise a prima facie case calling for further Commission inquiry. Section 73.88 of the Rules refers to Section 73.318, the blanketing interference rules for FM stations, for more detailed instructions. Section 73.318 states that licensees "must satisfy all complaints of blanketing interference which are received by the station during a one year period. The period begins with the commencement of program tests . . . These requirements specifically do not include interference complaints resulting from malfunctioning or mistuned receivers,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-366A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-366A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-366A1.txt
  • the following: � Whether or not the complaint was filed within the first year of operation. � Whether the complainant is located inside or outside the blanketing contour. � Whether the device experiencing interference is covered under the blanketing interference rule. Situation # 1 The station is financially responsible for resolving complaints of interference to electrical devices covered under Section 73.318 if the complaint is filed within the first year of program test authority and the complainant is located inside the station's blanketing contour. See FM Broadcast Station Blanketing Interference (``Blanketing Interference ''), FCC 84-514, 57 RR 2d 126 (1984) at paragraph 15. Situation # 2 The station is not financially responsible for resolving complaints of interference to electrical devices covered
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-407A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-407A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-407A1.txt
  • 1, 2005, alleging that persons in Ferndale, Washington, are experiencing interference problems due to their proximity to KRPI's transmitter. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Objection and grant the Application. In an attachment to this letter, we also outline the station's responsibilities under the blanketing interference provisions for AM stations as set forth in Sections 73.88 and 73.318 of the Commission's Rules (the "Rules"). Background. Residents allege that: (a) KRPI causes blanketing interference to radio frequency (``R.F.'') and non-R.F. devices located in the vicinity of the KRPI towers; (b) KRPI signals exceed safe environmental levels; (c) KRPI does not conform to the spurious emission limits in the Rules; (d) the fences and warning signs at the KRPI tower
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-699A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-699A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-699A1.txt
  • of such magnitude that it causes receivers near the transmitting antenna to be partially or completely blocked from receiving other broadcast stations. Nevada-Utah received a construction permit for the Bishop facility on August 11, 2008, and it has not yet commenced operation with that facility. When it does so, Nevada-Utah will be subject to the blanketing interference provisions of Section 73.318 of the Rules. Site Availability. In her Petition, Kessler argues that Nevada-Utah filed the Application without reasonable assurance of site availability because Kessler contends that Nevada-Utah never contacted the site owner about use of its site. Specifically, Kessler submits a declaration which she made under penalty of perjury declaring the following: ``Daniel McClenaghan [representative for tower owner Living Proof, Inc.]
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-349A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-349A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-349A1.txt
  • signal level. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 73.509. The predicted 100 dBu contour of an LPFM station operating at maximum facilities would extend slightly less than one kilometer from the LPFM's transmitter site. Because of these complexities, the Commission generally does not hold an FM radio station responsible for alleviating interference problems caused to mobile receivers. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.318. The exact number of complaints necessary to satisfy this one-percent threshold can only be calculated on the basis of a specific antenna location of an allegedly interfering LPFM station. Assuming uniform population distribution within a community of license, the number of complaints necessary to reach this threshold would be, for example, approximately 19 in Charlottesville, Virginia, 29 in Minneapolis, Minnesota,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-418A1.txt
  • minute and 60 minute criteria on the top 30 television markets, based on the Nielsen Media Research Designated Market Areas (DMAs). A summary of this analysis is attached herein as Appendix J. Alternatively, the MVDDS licensee could maintain the certification in its station file. Under this alternative, the certificate could be made available to the Commission upon request. 47 C.F.R. �73.318 See � 216, supra. See � 221, supra. SkyBridge July 10, 2000 ex parte letter. Northpoint July 11, 2000 ex parte letter at 1-2. See �25.208(b), infra. Spatial and frequency diversity, as well as reduced power, is the way that NGSO FSS systems will share spectrum with GSO FSS systems; e.g., when an NGSO FSS satellite is aligned in its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/2000/fcc00418.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/2000/fcc00418.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/2000/fcc00418.txt
  • minute and 60 minute criteria on the top 30 television markets, based on the Nielsen Media Research Designated Market Areas (DMAs). A summary of this analysis is attached herein as Appendix J. Alternatively, the MVDDS licensee could maintain the certification in its station file. Under this alternative, the certificate could be made available to the Commission upon request. 47 C.F.R. �73.318 See � 216, supra. See � 221, supra. SkyBridge July 10, 2000 ex parte letter. Northpoint July 11, 2000 ex parte letter at 1-2. See �25.208(b), infra. Spatial and frequency diversity, as well as reduced power, is the way that NGSO FSS systems will share spectrum with GSO FSS systems; e.g., when an NGSO FSS satellite is aligned in its
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00019.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00019.pdf
  • in the same manner applicable to full power stations. Although the potential for blanketing interference from LPFM stations may be quite limited, affected parties are entitled to relief from such interference caused by a new source of radiation, whether it is a full-power commercial station or a new low power community broadcaster. Accordingly, we will apply the requirements in � 73.318 to all LPFM stations. Potential Television Channel 6 Interference. Presently, noncommercial educational FM applicants are required to consider the impact of their operations on reception of television Channel 6, which operates on a frequency band (82 to 88 MHz) just below the FM band (88 to 108 MHz) in accordance with the provisions of 47 CFR � 73.525. Determining the
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00349.pdf
  • See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 73.509. The predicted 100 dBu contour of an LPFM station operating at maximum facilities would extend slightly less than one kilometer from the LPFM's transmitter site. 85 Because of these complexities, the Commission generally does not hold an FM radio station responsible for alleviating interference problems caused to mobile receivers. 86 See 47 C.F.R. � 73.318. 87 The exact number of complaints necessary to satisfy this one-percent threshold can only be calculated on the basis of a specific antenna location of an allegedly interfering LPFM station. Assuming uniform population distribution within a community of license, the number of complaints necessary to reach this threshold would be, for example, approximately 19 in Charlottesville, Virginia, 29 in Minneapolis,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/bc-chklsts/EB18LPFM06_2008.pdf
  • contour would extend 39 meters (128 ft) from the transmitter site. Resolution of complaints shall be at no cost to the complainant. These requirements do not include interference complaints involving malfunctioning or mistuned receivers, improperly installed antenna systems, high gain antennas, booster amplifiers, mobile receivers and non-RF devices such as tape recorders, hi-fi amplifiers, or hard wired telephone devices. [See 73.318] 44. BLANKETING: Has this licensee resolved all complaints of blanketing interference within the stations blanketing contour occurring within the specified one year? [See 73.318] 13 14 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK SECTION V: UNATTENDED OPERATION A. ATTENDED VS UNATTENDED: Broadcast stations may be operated as either attended or unattended. No prior FCC approval is required to operate a station in
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/amfmrule.html
  • / SCA ] [213]TEXT [214]PDF 73.297 FM stereophonic sound broadcasting. [215]TEXT [216]PDF 73.310 FM technical definitions. [217]TEXT [218]PDF 73.311 Field strength contours. [219]TEXT [220]PDF 73.312 Topographic data. [221]TEXT [222]PDF 73.313 Prediction of coverage. [223]TEXT [224]PDF 73.314 Field strength measurements. [225]TEXT [226]PDF 73.315 FM transmitter location. [227]TEXT [228]PDF 73.316 FM antenna systems. [229]TEXT [230]PDF 73.317 FM transmission system requirements. [231]TEXT [232]PDF 73.318 FM blanketing interference. [233]TEXT [234]PDF 73.319 FM multiplex subcarrier technical standards. [235]TEXT [236]PDF 73.322 FM stereophonic sound transmission standards. [237]TEXT [238]PDF 73.333 Engineering charts. [ [239]Propagation Curves ] Subpart C -- Noncommercial Educational FM Broadcast Stations [240]TEXT [241]PDF 73.501 Channels available for assignment. [242]TEXT [243]PDF 73.503 Licensing requirements and service. [244]TEXT [245]PDF 73.504 Channel assignments in the Mexican border area.
• http://transition.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/engrser.html
  • 23, 2000 [ [564]HTML | [565]Word ]. NOTE: Jurisdiction over interference. June 15, 1993 Greater Boston Radio, Inc., [WMJX (FM), Boston, MA] MO&O, FCC 93-300, 8 FCC Rcd 4065, released June 15, 1993 [ [566]PDF ]. NOTE: In the absence of any listener complaints, RITOIE interference did not require WMJX to satisfy listener complaints. The blanketing interference rule, 47 CFR 73.318, does not apply to RITOIE. 1993 Interference Handbook 1993 Edition; no longer updated [ [567]PDF ] (4.1 MB). NOTE: This handbook was produced by the former Field Operations Bureau of the FCC. Addresses, phone numbers, and FCC field office locations are long out of date. Search for businesses' web sites to obtain current contact information. December 2, 1992 Forus FM
• http://transition.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/engrser.html
  • 23, 2000 [ [564]HTML | [565]Word ]. NOTE: Jurisdiction over interference. June 15, 1993 Greater Boston Radio, Inc., [WMJX (FM), Boston, MA] MO&O, FCC 93-300, 8 FCC Rcd 4065, released June 15, 1993 [ [566]PDF ]. NOTE: In the absence of any listener complaints, RITOIE interference did not require WMJX to satisfy listener complaints. The blanketing interference rule, 47 CFR 73.318, does not apply to RITOIE. 1993 Interference Handbook 1993 Edition; no longer updated [ [567]PDF ] (4.1 MB). NOTE: This handbook was produced by the former Field Operations Bureau of the FCC. Addresses, phone numbers, and FCC field office locations are long out of date. Search for businesses' web sites to obtain current contact information. December 2, 1992 Forus FM
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/14/releases/fc970112.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/14/releases/fc970112.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/14/releases/fc970112.wp
  • EIRP = 33 dBW + 10 log (360 � beamwidth), where 10 log (360 � beamwidth) < 6 dB. We note that broadband PCS base stations are limited to 1640 watts EIRP, and that, as explained below, PACS base 26 stations would operate in WCS spectrum with 800 mW EIRP at a height of 25 feet. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.318. 27 The 50 watts EIRP allowance provides a 2 dB margin of protection against overload of the frequency converter. 28 We calculated the power density, F, contour by the following method: Assume, per WCA's Petition, a 24 dBi antenna 29 (numeric of which is 251.2 = G) and that the maximum allowable input to the MDS/ITFS downconverter, P, is -12
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/53/releases/fc000418.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/53/releases/fc000418.txt
  • area will have a variety of techniques at its disposal to mitigate interference to DBS subscribers.561 We expect that the MVDDS and DBS licensees will mutually agree if the MVDDS 559 Alternatively, the MVDDS licensee could maintain the certification in its station file. Under this alternative, the certificate could be made available to the Commission upon request. 560 47 C.F.R. �73.318 561 See � 216, supra. Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-418 105 licensee will act through the DBS licensee or an independent third party or work directly with the DBS customer in addressing mitigation techniques. 276. We seek comment on all aspects of our mitigation proposal for MVDDS operators. Commenters suggesting specific methods for identifying and mitigating interference to DBS customers
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/2000/fcc00418.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/2000/fcc00418.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Orders/2000/fcc00418.txt
  • minute and 60 minute criteria on the top 30 television markets, based on the Nielsen Media Research Designated Market Areas (DMAs). A summary of this analysis is attached herein as Appendix J. Alternatively, the MVDDS licensee could maintain the certification in its station file. Under this alternative, the certificate could be made available to the Commission upon request. 47 C.F.R. �73.318 See � 216, supra. See � 221, supra. SkyBridge July 10, 2000 ex parte letter. Northpoint July 11, 2000 ex parte letter at 1-2. See �25.208(b), infra. Spatial and frequency diversity, as well as reduced power, is the way that NGSO FSS systems will share spectrum with GSO FSS systems; e.g., when an NGSO FSS satellite is aligned in its
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fc00019a.doc
  • Stations (LPFM) 7. A new Section 73.801 is added, as follows: � 73.801 Broadcast regulations applicable to LPFM stations. The following rules are applicable to LPFM stations: Section 73.201-Numerical definition of FM broadcast channels. Section 73.220-Restrictions on use of channels. Section 73.267-Determining operating power. Section 73.277-Permissible transmissions. Section 73.297-FM stereophonic sound broadcasting. Section 73.310-FM technical definitions. Section 73.312-Topographic data. Section 73.318-FM blanketing interference. Section 73.322-FM stereophonic sound transmission standards. Section 73.333-Engineering charts. Section 73.503-Licensing requirements and service. Section 73.508-Standards of good engineering practice. Section 73.593-Subsidiary communications services. Section 73.1015-Truthful written statements and responses to Commission inquiries and correspondence. Section 73.1030-Notifications concerning interference to radio astronomy, research and receiving installations. Section 73.1201-Station identification. Section 73.1206-Broadcast of telephone conversations. Section 73.1207-Rebroadcasts. Section 73.1208-Broadcast
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00019.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00019.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00019.txt
  • in the same manner applicable to full power stations. Although the potential for blanketing interference from LPFM stations may be quite limited, affected parties are entitled to relief from such interference caused by a new source of radiation, whether it is a full-power commercial station or a new low power community broadcaster. Accordingly, we will apply the requirements in � 73.318 to all LPFM stations. Potential Television Channel 6 Interference. Presently, noncommercial educational FM applicants are required to consider the impact of their operations on reception of television Channel 6, which operates on a frequency band (82 to 88 MHz) just below the FM band (88 to 108 MHz) in accordance with the provisions of 47 CFR � 73.525. Determining the
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00349.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00349.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/2000/fcc00349.txt
  • signal level. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. � 73.509. The predicted 100 dBu contour of an LPFM station operating at maximum facilities would extend slightly less than one kilometer from the LPFM's transmitter site. Because of these complexities, the Commission generally does not hold an FM radio station responsible for alleviating interference problems caused to mobile receivers. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.318. The exact number of complaints necessary to satisfy this one-percent threshold can only be calculated on the basis of a specific antenna location of an allegedly interfering LPFM station. Assuming uniform population distribution within a community of license, the number of complaints necessary to reach this threshold would be, for example, approximately 19 in Charlottesville, Virginia, 29 in Minneapolis, Minnesota,
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2253A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-06-2253A1.pdf
  • complaints should be sent to Federal Communications Commission, Media Bureau, Audio Division, 445 12th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20554, Attn: Dale Bickel, Room 2-A324. San Diego has the sixth highest cable penetration rate, at 85 percent of all households, among all Nielsen Media Research Designated Market Areas. See Broadcasting and Cable Yearbook 2006, p. C-11 (2005). See 47 C.F.R. � 73.318. Id. � 1.110. 47 C.F.R. �� 0.61 and 0.283 Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 October 31, 2006 - . , - / : ; < O [ _ i j l m M � �7��x"kxq ^e o 7���"�b4ҏ-��X� ��bU%G...���1�^-�<:��3��ό�k��"�?؉� ''�� �]� � &E��E" ��M;g m�I��-}��Q��7�:?�E�g�Qn�v� �k �j=3z �u}3P��u���� ;� qxϵ���+�/� p��% �``� p;_ �2;o����'?������\��� -60� p�\[& �+m''e' K6F� U�-��c
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1206A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-1206A1.pdf
  • its Supplement to Opposition, MCBI details several attempts to locate the complainant, but to no avail. Supplement to Opposition at 3-4. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 225 (1991). Id. at 225 n.3, 226. Id. at 227-28. See Exhibit 2 to DJ Petition. See also 47 C.F.R. � 73.317(d). See Exhibits A and B to Opposition. 47 C.F.R. �� 73.318(b), (d). Id. � 73.5003. Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 � �B��k�(/YM��`鉉��PNG �0���eX...�W0f�"˸ -ʝ �D... p-C� C\ i8 �] ~'��\��� g�bF�JU �}p�� Ӵ�:|Y�.̕� ���`]fe�ʦ�S ��8���o��(R)� �� -�o} �^ rt2 ; X�0~B�e6%����70o�B(R)x�oG�� �k��"a �n�"W -1��$�7'����2 o �  ��2� ����" ��� +� bK`�˯� � �����v'�B-�7sp?$ � ����)} �� �s���-�U�(� �� ��T��`��:�I�a�D"M+ �%i� n�� 0:*�� ��Ԩ�h8R� �� �E�x�΂`�D����#pWQ%m�m3Xķ���N<�{�1 ܋ Y� -$ ��
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3268A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-07-3268A1.pdf
  • that the blanketing interference was being caused ``not to the actual electronic monitoring equipment,'' but to the ``hard-wired telephone modem'' that transmits HPC's electronic monitoring equipment images to a remote reading location.'' GKB states that because the telephone modem is a non-RF device, HPC has no basis to argue that GKB has failed to comply with its obligations under Section 73.318. GKB also asserts that its sole obligation under the blanketing interference rule would have been to provide HPC with technical information or assistance on remedies for such interference, which it did. GKB states that it promptly responded to HPC's initial interference complaint, and advised HPC that it should install filters on the problematic phone lines, fax lines and electrical outlets,
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-366A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-366A1.pdf
  • the following: � Whether or not the complaint was filed within the first year of operation. � Whether the complainant is located inside or outside the blanketing contour. � Whether the device experiencing interference is covered under the blanketing interference rule. Situation # 1 The station is financially responsible for resolving complaints of interference to electrical devices covered under Section 73.318 if the complaint is filed within the first year of program test authority and the complainant is located inside the station's blanketing contour. See FM Broadcast Station Blanketing Interference (``Blanketing Interference ''), FCC 84-514, 57 RR 2d 126 (1984) at paragraph 15. Situation # 2 The station is not financially responsible for resolving complaints of interference to electrical devices covered
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-407A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DA-08-407A1.pdf
  • 1, 2005, alleging that persons in Ferndale, Washington, are experiencing interference problems due to their proximity to KRPI's transmitter. For the reasons set forth below, we deny the Objection and grant the Application. In an attachment to this letter, we also outline the station's responsibilities under the blanketing interference provisions for AM stations as set forth in Sections 73.88 and 73.318 of the Commission's Rules (the "Rules"). Background. Residents allege that: (a) KRPI causes blanketing interference to radio frequency (``R.F.'') and non-R.F. devices located in the vicinity of the KRPI towers; (b) KRPI signals exceed safe environmental levels; (c) KRPI does not conform to the spurious emission limits in the Rules; (d) the fences and warning signs at the KRPI tower
• http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DOC-232619A1.doc http://www.fcc.gov/fcc-bin/audio/DOC-232619A1.pdf
  • signal received from the airport tower on 118.5 MHz. None of the aircraft reports identify KFEG as the source of the interference, and the reports do not reveal any consistent location affected by interference. Construction permit condition. The construction permit for KFEG contained a condition requiring the station to conduct spurious emissions tests to demonstrate compliance with 47 C.F.R. Section 73.318. These tests were performed on October 11, 2000, by Boyd Broadcast Technical Services. Fundamental and likely harmonic frequencies were checked, and the report indicates that all harmonic emissions were at least 80 dB below the carrier reference frequency, in compliance with the rule. The results of Boyd's testing demonstrate that Cove Road has met the condition in its construction permit.
• http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/91-3.pdf
  • proposedantennawhichmayproducereceiverinduced intermodulationinterference."Stonerchargesthat:(1) thismisrepresentationwas"reckless,ifnotintentional"; (2)WKLX"musthaveknownofthepossibility"of RITOIE,yetnevertheless"gaveamisleadinglyincomplete answer[toitem14],withnomentionofreceiverinduced interference";(3)WKLX"knew,oroughttohave known"thatcollocationwas"likelytocauseinterfer- ence";(4)the"possibilityofRITOIEinterferencewould beapparenttoanyresponsibleengineer"andismath- ematicallycalculable;(5)WKLX"didnotdisclose"the problempriortoconstruction;(6)WKLX"concealed"the interferenceproblem;and(7)the"principalsofWKLX havepubliclyadmittedthatthey'anticipated'interference problems." FCC91-3 19.WKLXclaimsthatStoner'schargesareprocedurally defectivebecausetheyarenotsupportedbyanydeclara- tionoraffidavitbysomeonewithpersonalknowledgeof thefactsinviolationofthegeneralpleadingrequirements ofSection309(d)oftheCommunicationsActandSection 1.229(d)oftheCommission'sRulesfordesignationof hearingissues.WKLXalsochargesthatStoner'sallega- tionsare"plainlyincorrectasamatteroffactandlaw" because:(1)WKLX'sJuly1987applicationamendment, whichfirstproposedcollocationwithWRMM(FM),an- swered"Yes"toItem14'sinquiryregardingtheexistence of"transmitterswhichmayproducereceiver-induced intermodulationinterference";(2)ExhibitE-1ofthe amendmentreferenced(withoutcallsigns)tenFMand fiveTVstationsthatwerelocatedwithin10kilometersof theproposedsite;(3)"neitherWKLXnoritsconsulting engineershadanyactualknowledgethattherewouldbe anyinterferenceatanytimethroughoutthefilingand applicationprocessingperiodleadingtograntofthecon- structionpermit";and(4)WKLX"hadnoreasonto specificallyanticipateaRITOIEproblem"inthiscase because"asofJuly7,1987,therehadonlybeenthree RITOIEcasesknowntohavebeenreportedtotheCom- missionoutofthehundredsofcollocatedfacilitiesinthe UnitedStates."WKLXarguesthat,"[i]nlightofthese indisputablefacts[,]...itprovidedasmuchinterference 'notice'initsfilingsastheengineeringstate-of-the-artand therequirementsofCommissionKrulesandpoliciesdic- tatedandwarranted." 20.Inresponse,Stonercontendsthat:(1)itsmisrepre- sentationclaimisprocedurallyproperbecausethe evidenceonwhichitisbasedisallamatterofpublic recordforwhichnoaffidavitisrequired;and(2)notwithstanding theanswerof"Yes"toItem14,WKLXdidnot complywithItem14'sinstructionstoprovide"adescrip- tionofanyexpected,undesiredeffectsofoperationsand remedialstepstobepursuedifnecessary,andastatement acceptingfullresponsibilityfortheeliminationofany objectionableinterference(includingthatcausedbyre- ceiverinducedorothertypesofmodulation)."Stoner arguesthatWKLX:(1)"madenotasinglementionof receiver-inducedor'RITOIE'interference"initsamend- mentapplication;(2)didnotdescribeanyremedialsteps tobepursued;and(3)promisedonlytorectifyallcom- plaintsofinterferencepursuanttoSection73.318which dealssolelywithblanketinginterference. 21.Withrespecttotheproceduralaspectofthisissue, wewillconsiderStoner'sallegationsonlytotheextent thattheyarebasedonfactsofwhichofficialnoticemay betaken.Asfortheargumentsonthemerits,wedisagree withStoner'sclaimthatWKLX'sanswertoItem14in- dicatesthat"therewerenotanyauthorizedFMtransmit- terswithin10kilometersoftheproposedantennawhich mayproducereceiverinducedintermodulationinterfer- ence."WKLXcompliedwiththeCommission'sreporting requirementsthroughitsaffirmativeanswertoItem14, whichputothersonnoticeofthepossibilityofinterfer- ence,includingservicedisruptioncausedbyreceiver-in- ducedintermodulation.AstoWKLX'sfailuretoprovidea descriptionofanyexpectedinterferenceandremedial stepsitwouldtake,Stonerhasprovidednofactualbasis tosuggestthatatthetimeWKLXfileditsapplicationit "expected"anysuchinterferenceandthereforeinsome wayintendedtodeceivetheCommissionbyitssilence, whichtraditionallyhasbeenthesinequanonofamisrepresentation issue.CBS,Inc..49FCC2d1214,1223 FederalCommunicationsCommissionRecord (1974),citedinLefloreBroadcastingCo.,Inc.v.FCC,636 F.2d454,461(1980).Accordingly.wefindthatStoner hasnotmadeaprimafacieshowingunderSection309(d) thatWKLXengagedinmisrepresentation.Inanyevent,in lightofWKLX'sswornstatementsthatitinfacthadno knowledgeofanyexpectedinterference,andgiventhat RITOIEisarareoccurrence,webelievenosubstantial andmaterialquestionsoffactexistregardingpossible misrepresentation. 22.Inconclusion,theBureau'sletterarticulatedposi- tionswhichwebelievearesound.Thus.havinggivenfull anddetailedconsiderationtothePetition,wefindthat Stonerhasfailedtostateaclaimonwhichreliefcanbe granted.Accordingly,Stoner'sPetitionforReconsider- ationISDENIED.Additionally,thelicensegrantof WKLX(FM)toWKLX,Inc.,FileNo.BLH-880506KB,IS AFFIRMED. FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION DonnaR.Searcy Secretary 6FCCRedNo.2 FOOTNOTES 1TheseincludetheJanuary10,1989"OppositiontoPetition forReconsideration"filedbyWKLXandtheJanuary24,1989 "ReplyofStonerBroadcastingSystem,Inc."filedbyStoner. 2RITOIEoccurswhenstrongsignalsfromtwostationsinter- actwithinareceivertogenerateasignalonathirdfrequency. Thisreceiver-generatedsignalwilldisruptreceptionofanysta- tionoperatingonthisthirdfrequency.RITOIEarisesinthe instantcasebecausethecarriersofWKLX(FM)(98.9MHz)and WRMM(FM)(101.3MHz),whichoperatefromthesametrans- mittersite,enterintoatwo-frequencythirdorder intermodulationproduct(98.9x2-101.3=96.5MHz)thatis co-channelwithWCMF(FM). 3 PriortothefilingofitsInformalObjection,Stoner complainedtotheCommissiononApril29,1988.TheField OperationsBureauverifiedtheservicedisruptiononApril29
• http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/93-300.pdf
  • Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 8FCCRcd.No.13 IntheMatterof Beforethe FederalCommunicationsCommission Washington,D.C.20554 GREATERBOSTON FileNo.BLH-860218KB RADIO,INC. LicenseeofStationWMJX(FM) Boston,Massachusetts MEMORANDUMOPINIONANDORDER Adopted:June4,1993; Released:June15,1993 BytheCommission: 1.TheCommissionhasbeforeitforconsideration:(a)an "ApplicationforReview"filedNovember16,1987,by FairbanksCommunications,Inc.("Fairbanks");and(b)an "OppositiontoApplicationforReview"filedDecember 11,1987,byGreaterBostonRadio,Inc.("GreaterBos- ton").ByletterdatedOctober14,1987,theChief,Audio ServicesDivision,MassMediaBureau("Bureau"),acting bydelegatedauthority,deniedFairbanks'February20, 1986,"RequestforRevocationofProgramTestAuthority" anditsMarch19,1987,"PetitionforRelief."Theletter alsoaffirmedthegrantofGreaterBoston'slicensetocover constructionofmodifiedfacilitiesforStationWJMX(FM), Boston.FairbanksseeksCommissionreviewoftheBu- reau'saction.Wedenytheapplicationforreviewforthe reasonssetforthbelow. BACKGROUND 2.OnFebruary7,1986,GreaterBostonnotifiedthe Commissionofitsplantocommenceprogramtestsfor StationWMJX(FM)fromitsnewlocationatopthePruden- tialTowerbuildingindowntownBoston.OnFebruary18, 1986,GreaterBostonfiledalicenseapplicationtocover constructionofitsmodifiedfacilities(FileNo.BLH- 860218KB).OnFebruary20,1986,Fairbanksfileda"Re- questforRevocationofProgramTestAuthority." FairbanksallegedthatStationWMJX(FM)wascausingin- terferencetoreceptionofthesignalofitsstation, WVBF(FM),intheimmediateenvironsofthePrudential Tower.Inresponse,GreaterBostonstatedthatonFebruary 19,1986,ithadinstalledfilterswhichsuppressed 1"Blanketinginterferenceoccurswhen'anFMstation'ssignal strengthisofsuchmagnitudethatitcausesreceiversnearthe transmittingantennatobepartiallyorcompletelyblockedfrom receivingotherbroadcaststations."'FMBroadcastStationBlan- ketingInterference,57RR2d126(1984)("Blanketing').Seealso, CalvaryEducationalBroadcastingNetwork,Inc.,7FCCRcd 4037n.3(1992).Section73.318oftheCommission'sRulespro- vides,interalia,thatpermitteesorlicenseesmustsatisfyall complaintsofblanketinginterferencereceivedbythestation duringaoneyearperiod.Theabovedefinitionofblanketing andtherule'sreferencestolicenseeobligationsandtoreceiving FederalCommunicationsCommissionRecord FCC93-300 intermodulationproductstomorethan80dBbelow WMJX(FM)'scarrierincompliancewithSection73.317(d) oftheCommission'sRules.Suchactionisdesignedto eliminatespuriousemissionsfromtheWMJX(FM)trans- mitter,assumingthattherehadbeenanysuchemissions. OnMarch14,1986,theMassMediaBureau,bydelegated authority,grantedGreaterBoston'slicenseapplication.On March19,1987,morethanoneyearafterthegrantof GreaterBoston'slicenseapplication.Fairbanksfileda"Pe- titionforRelief."FairbanksreiteratedthatStation WMJX(FM)wascausinginterferencetoreceptionofSta- tionWVBF(FM),anditclaimedthattheinterferencewas duetoblanketing.' 3.InitsletterdatedOctober14,1987,theBureaudealt withFairbanks'claims.Initially,theBureaudetermined that,becauseFairbanks'allegationsofinterference,which wereoriginallyfiledpriortothegrantofthelicenseap- plication,hadnotyetbeenformallyaddressed,theywould betreatedasatimelyfiledpetitionforreconsiderationof thegrantoftheGreaterBostonlicenseapplication.Al- thoughFairbankscalledtheinterferenceaboutwhichit complained"blanketinginterference,"itwasinfact allegingaformofinterferenceknownasReceiverInduced ThirdOrderIntermodulationEffect("RITOIE");whichis differentfromblanketinginterference.2CitingSection 73.209(a)oftheCommission'sRules(Protectionfromin- terference)andBlanketing,theBureauruledthatFairbanks wasnotprotectedfromtheallegedRITOIEinterference undertheprovisionsofourblanketingrule.TheBureau foundthatStationWMJX(FM)wasoperatinginaccor- dancewiththeCommission'stechnicalrulesandthatFair- bankshadnotfurnishedlistenercomplaintsnorotherwise shownthatanyinterferencehadoccurred.TheBureaualso notedthattheCommissionhadnotdirectlyreceivedlis- tenercomplaintsofinterference.Accordingly,theBureau deniedFairbanks'objectionsandaffirmedthegrantof GreaterBoston'slicenseapplication. 4.Initsapplicationforreview.Fairbankscontendsthat theBureaumisinterpretedSection73.318oftheCommis- sion'sRules(FMblanketinginterference).Fairbankssub- mitsthatitproperlyallegedthatthesignalofStation WMJX(FM)wascausingblanketinginterferencetorecep- tionofStationWVBF(FM).Thus,accordingtoFairbanks. becausetheblanketingrulerequiresthatlicenseesmust satisfyallcomplaintsofblanketinginterferencereceived withinoneyearofthecommencementofprogramtests, theBureaushouldhaveorderedGreaterBostontomove itstransmitterabsentresolutionofFairbanks'complaint. Alternatively,Fairbankscontendsthatahearingshouldbe commencedtodeterminetheexistenceorextentofblan- ketinginterference.Fairbanksconcedes,however,thatlis- tenershadnotcomplainedaboutaninabilitytoreceive WVBF(FM).3 equipmentnotsubjecttoprotectionaremeanttomakeclear
• http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/93-311.pdf
  • incombinationareabletoprovideservicetomostpopulated areasoftheKeys.andalloftheKeysareservedby daytimeAMstations. 10.The"Denvercases"4involvedBureauwaiversof �73.313,theCommission'sruleinvolvingpredictionof coverage.Inthatcontext.applicantssoughttoavoidthe automaticdowngradingprovidedforinBCDocket80-90. Althoughtherulewaswaivedinbothcasesforthepurpose ofcomputingantennaheightaboveaverageterrain.the basisforwaiverwasthattheportionsoftheterrainradials extendingovertheRockyMountainswouldimproperly skewthecalculatedvalueofthestations'HAAT.TheBureau specificallynotedinbothdecisionsthatallradials weretobeutilizedincomputingthestations'predicted servicecontours.5The"Denver"applicantsreceivedno changeseitherinfacilitiesorinallowablecoverage.and thesecasesdonotimplythattheCommissionwillwaiveits maximumpowerlimitationsimplyinordertoallowa stationtoincreasecoveragetoavoidadowngrade.Finally,inBayshore,anallotmentrulemakingproceeding,achannel wasallotteddespitepredictionsthatcitygradecoverage wouldbeunlikelyinthefaceofenvironmentalrestrictions. Itwasrecognizedthatthecommunityoflicensemight,in fact,receiveanadequatesignalbecauseofasignalpath overwaternearthetransmittersite.However,nowaiver wasgrantedinthatrulemakingproceeding,anditwas merelysuggestedthatwaiversof47C.F.R.��73.211and 72.315mightbesoughtintheapplicationscontext.More- over,nowaiverofSection72.211wasultimatelygranted. MalriteRadio&Television,Inc.fromtheChief,AudioServices Division,MassMediaBureau("Malrite"),June11,,1987(reference 8920-AED). 5Thus.Crain'sargumentthat"terrainanomalies"intheKeys rendertheCommission'spropagationcurvesunreliablecarries noweighthere. FCC93-311 Again,thereisnoindicationthatWWUS'coverageofBig PineKeyisinadequate.andCraindoesnotdemonstrate thatanysuchwaivergrantswererealizedpursuanttoany permitapplication.6 11. Crain'sproposalwouldbeextremelydisruptiveto theFMallotmentscheme.Itistruethatinthiscasegrant ofCrain'sproposalwouldnothaveasignificantdirect adversepreclusionaryeffectvis-a-visnewallotmentsorfacilities changes.7However.Craindidnotaddresstheindirect preclusionaryeffectonnewallotmentsresulting fromchannelchangesamongexistingstations.Additionally .whileCrainpointsoutthatits34dBu"interfering" contourwouldextendnofurtherthanthatofaClassC stationoperatingwithmaximumfacilities,its60dBucoverage contourwillextend17kmlessthanthatofafull ClassCstation;itscoveragecontourthuswillextendto only81%ofthatofaClassCstationoperatingwith maximumpowerandheightaccordingtotheRules.We believeittobeaninefficientutilizationofspectrumto permitCraintocreateasmuchinterferencepotentialasa ClassCstationwithacoveragecontourwhichextendsonly 81%asfar.8WealsonotethatCrain'sproposalofextremely highpoweratarelativelylowantennaheightwill greatlyincreasetheriskofblanketinginterference.See47 C.F.R.�73.318. t2.Finally.approvaloftherequestedpowerlevelwould treatWWUSdifferentlythanothersimilarlysituatedapplicants .See,e.g.,MelodyMusic,Inc.v.FCC,245F.2d730 (D.C.Cir.1965).Inthisregard.threeformerClassC stations,WEON,WOZN,KeyWest.Florida.andWCTH wererecentlydowngradedtoClassC1,asrequiredbyBC Docket80-90.becausetheycouldnotachieveminimum ClassCfacilitiesincompliancewiththerules.Additionally .WCTH.alongwithtwootherClassC1stations,WAIL andWWFT.KeyWest.Florida.meetthespacingrequire- mentsforClassCfacilities.IfCrain'sproposalisgranted, thesestationscouldbeexpectedtoapply(afterappropriate rulemaking)forClassCfacilities,usingCrain'sgrantas precedenttoseekasimilarexemptionfromthepower limitationcomponentofourFMallocationscheme.This wouldineffectvitiatethatschemeinsouthernFloridaand setaprecedentforundercuttingtheallotmentprocessin analogouscircumstancesthroughouttheUnitedStates.The possibilitythatsomeClassCstationssuchasWWUSwould facedifficultiesinsecuringadequatesiteswasexpressly recognizedbytheCommissioninthecontextofBCDocket 80-90.Nevertheless,wespecificallynotedinprovidingfor downgradingthatsuchfacilitieswouldnotloseservicebut 6Infact,nowaiversofSection73.211wereultimatelygranted inthatproceeding,butratherablanketwaiverofSection73.315 wasgrantedtothoseapplicantsproposingtolocatetheirantennae ontheFireIslandLighthouse.WarrenPriceCommunications ,2FCCRed4201,4203(M.M.Bur.1987),erratum,2FCC Rcd4452(M.M.Bur.1987). 7TheFloridakeysaresowell-servedthatthereisnoroomfor new"drop-in"FMallotments,andthesestationsareadequately spacedsuchthatCrain'sproposalwouldappeartohaveno preclusionaryeffectvis-a-visfacilitieschanges. 8AClassC1stationoperatingwithfullfacilities(100kWat 300meters)willhaveapredictedservicecontouratadistance of72kmandapredictedco-channelinterferencecontourat172 km.RequiredspacingsbetweensuchaC1stationandother stationsarepredicated,inpart,onthesedistances.AClassC stationoperatingwithfullfacilities(100kWat600meters)will haveapredictedservicecontouratadistanceof92kmanda predictedco-channelinterferencecontourat198km.Conse- FederalCommunicationsCommissionRecord 4408 WilliamF.Caton ActingSecretary 8FCCRedNo.14 couldcontinuetoprovideservicetotheirexistingareas.49 Fed.Reg.10260,paragraphs9and15.TopermitWWUS toextenditsauthorizedcoveragecontoursor,alternatively, allowretentionofClassCstatus.9despitetheCommission's BCDocket80-90determinationwouldamounttosanctioning the"warehousing"ofspectrum.Sucharesultwould, contrarytoCrain'sarguments.undermineCommission policy. 13.ACCORDINGLY,ITISORDERED,ThattheApplication forReview,filedJuly17,1989byCrainBroadcasting, Inc..ISDENIED. FEDERALCOMMUNICATIONSCOMMISSION quently,therequiredspacingsbetweensuchaClassCstation andotherstationsaresignificantlygreaterthanisthecasefor
• http://www.fcc.gov/ftp/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Databases/documents_collection/da92-1547.pdf
  • reiterateditsintenttoresolvealloutstandingcomplaints. WedeniedForus'requestforanextensionofitsoperating authorityonApril25.1991.sothatwecouldhavean opportunitytoanalyzetheSTAresultswithoutthepotential forfurthercomplaints. CONTENTIONSOFTHEPARTIES 10.BothForusandWKFMfiledreportsandreplycomments ontheresultsoftheSTAoperation.WKFM reportedthatithadforwarded48listenercomplaintsinvolving 51radioreceiverstoForusforresolution.Ofthe 48complaintsreceived.19requiredresolutionand29required nofurtheractionbecausethecomplaintswereei- thernotboosterrelatedorassistancewasdeclined.Sixof the19complaintsrequiringresolutionremainunresolved. These sixcomplaintsallinvolvemobilereceivers. 11.Forusattributestheremainingunresolvedcomplaints ofinterferencetoFrontEndReceiverOverload("FERO"). Itsuggeststhattheobligationstosatisfyallinterference complaintsimposeduponpermitteesforFMboostersta- remainvalid. 4Inadditiontotheequipmenttestprovisionsof�74.13,short testtransmissionsarepermittedby�74.1203(b)duringthe periodofsuspendedoperationtochecktheefficacyofremedial FederalCommunicationsCommissionRecord DA92-1547 tionsby�74.1203shouldheviewedthesameasthe obligationssetoutforfullserviceFMpermitteestosatisfy allinterferencecomplaintswithintheirblanketingcontour. Inthisregard.Forusnotesthatunder47C.F.R.� 73.3.18(b),mobilereceivers.becauseoftheir"inherent transientnature."areexcludedfromafullserviceFM permittee'sobligationforcorrectiveefforts.ReportandOrder inBCDocketNo.82-186.57RR2d125.130(1984). ForusnotesfurtherthattheCommissionextendedthis mobilereceiverexclusiontointerferencecausedbyReceiver InducedThirdOrderIntermodulationEffect ("RITOIE").SeeWKLX,Inc.,6FCCRcd225.227(1991). ClaimingthatinterferencecausedbyFEROisnogreater thanblanketingorRITOIE.Forusarguesthattheprinciple shouldbeextendedinthisinstance.therebyalleviatingitof havingtoresolvetheremainingcomplaintsofinterference. 12.Alternatively,Forusviews19cognizablecomplaints. outofWKFM'spotentialof5,300listenersperquarter hour,asinsufficienttobeconsidered"significant"fordetermining whethertheboostercauses"harmfulinterfer- ence"toWKFM'sreception.ReportandOrderinMM DocketNo.87-13.2FCCRcd4625.4629(1987)("Booster ReportandOrder");antended,6FCCRcd6060(1991). Forusagainreiteratesitswillingnesstocontinuetoresolve allreportsofcognizableinterferencecomplaintsthatare broughttoitsattentionandtoreplaceanyaffectedmobile receivers.Finally,Forusbelievesthatoperationofthe boosterstationwithverticalpolarizationonlywouldalleviate agreatportionoftheinterferencepresentlycaused. 13.Inresponse.WKFMcontendsthatForushasfailedto resolveasignificantnumberofcomplaintsand.pursuant to�74.1203.suchfailureshouldresultinrescissionofthe constructionpermit.Further.WKFMarguesthatForus' relianceonFEROortheCommission'sblanketingrules(� 73.318)ismisplacedandshouldnotexcuseForus'failure toresolvetheremaininginterferencecomplaints.WKFM assertsthatthoserulesapplyonlytofullserviceFMstations authorizedunderPart73oftheCommission'sRules (47C.F.R.�73).andnottosecondarystationsauthorized underPart74oftherules(47C.F.R.�74).Additionally, WKFMinsiststhatifForusiswillingtoresolveinterferencecomplaints,ifshouldherequiredtoresolvethose experiencedbymobilereceivers.Moreover,itcontends thatinallprobabilityinterferencewasgreaterthanreported inthatsomelistenerswhoreceivedinterference mostlikelychangedstationsinsteadoftakingtheeffortto filecomplaints. DISCUSSION 14.Section74.1203establishesthestandardsfordealing withinterferencetosecondandthirdadjacentchannel stationswhichresultsfromoperationofanFMbooster stationsBoosterReportandOrder,supraat4629.Therule wasrevisedbytheCommissionintheTranslatorReport andOrder,supran.2.,andtherevisedsubsection(a)ofthe rulecurrentlyreadsasfollows: measurestakenbytheboosteroperator. 5PriortotheBoosterReportandOrder,theprovisionsof� 74.1203setoutonlytheinterferenceprotectionstandardforFM translators. DA92-1547 AnauthorizedFM...boosterstationwillnotbe permittedtocontinuetooperateifitcausesany actualinterference to...thedirectreceptionbythe publicoftheoff-the-airsignalsofanyauthorized broadcaststation....Interferencewillbeconsideredto occurwheneverreceptionofaregularlyusedsignal isimpairedbythesignalsradiatedbytheFM... boosterstation,regardlessofthequalityofsuchre- ception,thestrengthofthesignalsoused.orthe channelonwhichtheprotectedsignalistransmitted. 47C.F.R.�74.1203(a)(1991),(emphasisadded).Ifthe interferencecannotbepromptlyeliminatedbytheapplica- tionofsuitabletechniques,�74.1203(b)providesfurther that"operationoftheoffendingFM...boosterstationshall besuspendedandshallnotberesumeduntiltheinterfer- encehasbeeneliminated," 15.Thus,theprovisionsof�74.1203proscribebooster stationsfromcausinganyactualinterferencetotheoff-the-airsignalofanyauthorizedbroadcaststation,Inthat regard,actualinterferenceoccurswhenbroadcastoperation oftheFMboosterstationresultsinthereceiptoflistener complaintsallegingtheimpairmentofaregularlyreceived signal,BecauseofthesecondarynatureoftheFMbooster service,weviewthisproscriptiontobeinclusiveofall typesofinterference,includinginterferenceresultingfrom FEROandIFinterference." 16.Sixinterferencecomplaintstomobilereceiversremain unresolvedinthismatter.Werecognizethat,dueto their"inherenttransientnature."mobilereceivershave beenexplicitlyexcludedfromthecorrectionresponsibility offullserviceFMpermitteesandlicenseeswheretheinterference resultsfromblanketingandRITOIE.Reportand Order inBCDocketNo,82-186,supra;WKLX,Inc.,supra. However,becauseofthesecondarynatureofFMboosters, andtheresultingrequirementthattheyprovideinterference-free
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/bickel/amfmrule.html
  • / SCA ] [213]TEXT [214]PDF 73.297 FM stereophonic sound broadcasting. [215]TEXT [216]PDF 73.310 FM technical definitions. [217]TEXT [218]PDF 73.311 Field strength contours. [219]TEXT [220]PDF 73.312 Topographic data. [221]TEXT [222]PDF 73.313 Prediction of coverage. [223]TEXT [224]PDF 73.314 Field strength measurements. [225]TEXT [226]PDF 73.315 FM transmitter location. [227]TEXT [228]PDF 73.316 FM antenna systems. [229]TEXT [230]PDF 73.317 FM transmission system requirements. [231]TEXT [232]PDF 73.318 FM blanketing interference. [233]TEXT [234]PDF 73.319 FM multiplex subcarrier technical standards. [235]TEXT [236]PDF 73.322 FM stereophonic sound transmission standards. [237]TEXT [238]PDF 73.333 Engineering charts. [ [239]Propagation Curves ] Subpart C -- Noncommercial Educational FM Broadcast Stations [240]TEXT [241]PDF 73.501 Channels available for assignment. [242]TEXT [243]PDF 73.503 Licensing requirements and service. [244]TEXT [245]PDF 73.504 Channel assignments in the Mexican border area.
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/decdoc/engrser.html
  • 23, 2000 [ [564]HTML | [565]Word ]. NOTE: Jurisdiction over interference. June 15, 1993 Greater Boston Radio, Inc., [WMJX (FM), Boston, MA] MO&O, FCC 93-300, 8 FCC Rcd 4065, released June 15, 1993 [ [566]PDF ]. NOTE: In the absence of any listener complaints, RITOIE interference did not require WMJX to satisfy listener complaints. The blanketing interference rule, 47 CFR 73.318, does not apply to RITOIE. 1993 Interference Handbook 1993 Edition; no longer updated [ [567]PDF ] (4.1 MB). NOTE: This handbook was produced by the former Field Operations Bureau of the FCC. Addresses, phone numbers, and FCC field office locations are long out of date. Search for businesses' web sites to obtain current contact information. December 2, 1992 Forus FM
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/includes/30-engrser.htm
  • 23, 2000 [ [518]HTML | [519]Word ]. NOTE: Jurisdiction over interference. June 15, 1993 Greater Boston Radio, Inc., [WMJX (FM), Boston, MA] MO&O, FCC 93-300, 8 FCC Rcd 4065, released June 15, 1993 [ [520]PDF ]. NOTE: In the absence of any listener complaints, RITOIE interference did not require WMJX to satisfy listener complaints. The blanketing interference rule, 47 CFR 73.318, does not apply to RITOIE. 1993 Interference Handbook 1993 Edition; no longer updated [ [521]PDF ] (4.1 MB). NOTE: This handbook was produced by the former Field Operations Bureau of the FCC. Addresses, phone numbers, and FCC field office locations are long out of date. Search for businesses' web sites to obtain current contact information. December 2, 1992 Forus FM
• http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/includes/63-amfmrule.htm
  • / SCA ] [166]TEXT [167]PDF 73.297 FM stereophonic sound broadcasting. [168]TEXT [169]PDF 73.310 FM technical definitions. [170]TEXT [171]PDF 73.311 Field strength contours. [172]TEXT [173]PDF 73.312 Topographic data. [174]TEXT [175]PDF 73.313 Prediction of coverage. [176]TEXT [177]PDF 73.314 Field strength measurements. [178]TEXT [179]PDF 73.315 FM transmitter location. [180]TEXT [181]PDF 73.316 FM antenna systems. [182]TEXT [183]PDF 73.317 FM transmission system requirements. [184]TEXT [185]PDF 73.318 FM blanketing interference. [186]TEXT [187]PDF 73.319 FM multiplex subcarrier technical standards. [188]TEXT [189]PDF 73.322 FM stereophonic sound transmission standards. [190]TEXT [191]PDF 73.333 Engineering charts. [ [192]Propagation Curves ] Subpart C -- Noncommercial Educational FM Broadcast Stations [193]TEXT [194]PDF 73.501 Channels available for assignment. [195]TEXT [196]PDF 73.503 Licensing requirements and service. [197]TEXT [198]PDF 73.504 Channel assignments in the Mexican border area.
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/97-9141.doc http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/97-9141.html
  • C.F.R. �� 73.201-73.333 (1998). These rules govern, among other things, the power and height of antennas, see id. � 73.211, the use of common antenna sites, see id. � 73.239, and FM transmitter locations, see id. � 73.315. Most significantly, the FCC regulates "FM blanketing interference," which is the sort of interference complained of by the Homeowners. See id. � 73.318. The FCC first defines the area assumed to be blanketed by radio emissions as a function of the effective radiated power of the antenna. Notably, the FCC imposes a requirement that licensees remedy the RF interference occurring in that area: "[P]ermittees or licensees who ... are issued a new construction permit must satisfy all complaints of blanketing interference which are