FCC Web Documents citing 80.477

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

• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2359A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2359A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2359A1.txt
  • of Inland Waterways Communications Systems, Report and Order, GEN Docket No. 81-822, 51 R.R. 2d (P&F) 440, 443 � 15 (1982) (indicating that ``adjacent lakes, bays, feeder canals and the like'' are not part of a waterway for purposes of the AMTS (formerly IWCS) coverage requirement, but may be served pursuant to the rule now codified at 47 C.F.R. � 80.477(c)); see also 47 C.F.R. � 81.913(a) (1982) (setting out Mississippi River and its tributaries as separate waterways). Petition for Reconsideration at 4-6. 47 C.F.R. � 80.477(c). See Applications of Fred Daniel d/b/a Orion Telecom, Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 1050, 1055 n.43 (WTB PSPWD 1999) (citing Quinnipiac College, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6285, 6286 � 12
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2509A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2509A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2509A1.txt
  • File No. 851659, Bakersfield, California, Havens refers to a contour map from an April 19, 2001 ex parte filing by Regionet's parent company, which was presented to support an argument not related to the AMTS coverage requirement, rather than to the application, which was granted years earlier. See Petition for Review at Exhibit 2a. Id. at 7. 47 C.F.R. � 80.477(c). See Nextel Communications, Inc., Order, 14 FCC Rcd 11678, 11693 � 34 (WTB 1999). See WWIZ, Inc., 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff'd sub nom. Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 967 (1966); 47 C.F.R. � 1.106(c). Id.; see also Gaines, Bennett Gilbert, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 3986
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2024A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2024A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-02-2024A1.txt
  • purpose indicate that private communications to units on land are not authorized. See questions 12-14, January 24, 2002 Petition for Declaratory Ruling at 15. See C.F.R. � 80.123(f); Public Coast Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16966 � 26. 47 C.F.R. � 80.123(a). See questions 12-14, January 24, 2002 Petition for Declaratory Ruling at 15. 47 C.F.R. � 80.477(c). See Amendment of Parts 2, 81 and 83 of the rules to add the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the authorized service area of Inland Waterways Communications Systems, Report and Order, GEN Docket No. 81-822, 51 R.R. 2d (P&F) 440, 443 � 15 (1982). Federal Communications Commission DA 02-2024 Washington, D.C. 20554 August 15, 2002 { | � � � �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-11-1333A1.txt
  • ability to use any modulation or channelization scheme, as long as that scheme complies with Section 80.211 at the band edges. Legal Basis: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332; 47 U.S.C. 151-155, 301-609; 3 U.S.T. 3450, 3 U.S.T. 4726 and 12 U.S.T. 2377. Section Number and Title: 80.475(b) Scope of service of the Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS). 80.477(d) AMTS points of communication. 80.481 Alternative technical parameters for AMTS transmitters. PART 90-PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES SUBPART B-PUBLIC SAFETY RADIO POOL Brief Description: These rules contain limitations on the assignment of channels in the Public Safety Radio Pool. Need: In implementing the goal of efficient spectrum use, these rules list technical and geographic limitations applicable to each frequency in
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-370A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-370A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-370A1.txt
  • it is unclear whether digital television receivers are any less susceptible to AMTS interference than analog receivers. We are unpersuaded by NAB/MSTV, and we find that adding flexibility as discussed above to our AMTS licensing rules with respect to fill-in stations will not result in increased interference to television stations. As requested by RegioNet and PSI, we also amend Section 80.477 of our Rules to authorize AMTS stations to provide fixed service communications on a secondary basis to support AMTS deployment in remote fixed locations at which other communications facilities are not available. We already provide AMTS licensees in the offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico with authority to use AMTS coast and ship station frequencies on a secondary basis
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-252A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-252A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-252A1.txt
  • the matter was being considered under delegated authority, its consideration at this juncture is barred. In support of his claim that Regionet has received favorable licensing treatment, Havens refers to certain Regionet applications which he contends did not comply with the service coverage requirements but were nonetheless granted. Havens further contends that these applications were improperly granted pursuant to Section 80.477(c). We note that Havens has offered no evidence that would cause us to differ with the Bureau's judgment that it was reasonable for the staff to conclude that the applications were properly granted as extensions of Regionet's existing West Coast system. Contrary to what Havens contends, the Bureau did not suggest in the Order on Further Reconsideration that the subject
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-256A1.txt
  • applications, which he contends did not comply with the service coverage requirement but were nonetheless granted. In rejecting this argument, the Division noted that it was reasonable to conclude that the granted applications were extensions of Regionet's existing West Coast system. In this connection, the Division observed that Regionet is allowed to provide coverage to these inland waterways because Section 80.477(c) expressly permits service to vessels operating beyond the served waterway. Finally, the Division rejected Havens's argument that its interpretation of the service coverage requirement is contrary to the rule's underlying intent. On November 13, 2001, Havens filed the instant application for review. On November 28, 2001, Regionet filed an opposition and on December 12, 2001, Havens filed a reply. On
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/20/releases/f970217a.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/20/releases/f970217a.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/20/releases/f970217a.wp
  • does not have an enclosed wheelhouse, it must be kept where it will be readily available for inspection. * * * 26. Section 80.453 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(4) to read as follows: � 80.453 Scope of communications. (a) * * * (4) With units on land in accordance with � 80.123; * * * * * 27. Section 80.477 is amended by revising the title and revising paragraph (a) to read as follows: � 80.477 AMTS Points of Communication (a) AMTS coast stations may communicate with fixed platform stations located in the offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico, with ship stations, and with land units in accordance with � 80.123. * * * * * 60 28. Section