FCC Web Documents citing 2.301

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-15A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-15A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-15A1.txt
  • AFTRCC. Once AFTRCC approval is received, the Commission will issue an individual station license for each application referred to AFTRCC. We seek comment on these proposed coordination procedures. We also note that licensees in the 2385-2390 MHz band may pursue market-based mechanisms to facilitate relocation of and coordination with non-Government aeronautical flight test operations. 5. Canadian and Mexican Coordination Section 2.301 of our Rules requires stations using radio frequencies to identify their transmissions with a view to eliminate harmful interference and generally enforce applicable radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements. At this time, international agreements between and among the United States, Mexico and Canada concerning the reallocation of this spectrum are not complete. One option would be to propose certain
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-180A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-180A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-180A1.txt
  • include in agreements between band mangers and spectrum users. Finally, we seek comment on whether we should require band managers to file annual reports on their spectrum usage with the Commission. The annual reports would enable the Commission to ensure that spectrum is not being warehoused or otherwise not being made available despite existing demand. Canadian and Mexican Coordination Section 2.301 of our Rules requires stations using wireless frequencies to identify their transmissions with a view to eliminating harmful interference and generally enforcing applicable wireless treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements. At this time, there are no international agreements between and among the United States, Mexico and Canada concerning the reallocation of the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz and 92-95 GHz spectrum.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-302A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-302A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-302A1.txt
  • frequency stability limits that we should adopt to prevent DSRC-based ITS applications from causing interference to DSRC-based ITS applications on other channels or other services in nearby spectrum. In that connection, we note that the ASTM-DSRC Standard specifies that the transmitter center frequency tolerance shall be plus or minus 10 ppm for RSUs and OBUs. Canadian and Mexican Coordination Sections 2.301 and 1.923 (f) of our Rules requires stations using radio frequencies to identify their transmissions with a view to eliminating harmful interference and to generally enforce applicable radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements. At this time, international agreements between and among the United States, Mexico, and Canada concerning the 5.9 GHz spectrum for ITS applications have not been established.
• 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
  • navigation, environmental requirements, quiet zones, and disturbance of AM broadcast antenna patterns. We seek comment on applying these provisions to the spectrum that is the subject of this Notice. We propose that all of these technical rules would apply to all licensees in these bands, including licensees who acquire their licenses through partitioning or disaggregation. Canadian and Mexican Coordination. Section 2.301 of our rules requires stations using radio frequencies to identify their transmissions with a view to eliminate harmful interference and generally enforce applicable radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements. With respect to Canada, coordination of frequency assignments in the 1710-1755 MHz band is presently subject to the provisions of Arrangement D of the Agreement between the United States of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1554A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1554A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-1554A1.txt
  • and must be protected in accordance with the procedures in § 101.103. A list of public safety incumbents is attached as Appendix I to the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, Docket 98-206, released May 23, 2002. Please check with the Commission for any updates to that list. § 101.1423 Canadian and Mexican coordination. Pursuant to § 2.301 of this chapter, MVDDS systems in the United States within 56 km (35 miles) of the Canadian and Mexican border will be granted conditional licenses, until final international agreements are approved. These systems may not cause harmful interference to stations in Canada or Mexico. MVDDS stations must comply with the procedures outlined under § 101.147(p) and § 1.928(f)(1) and (f)(2)
• 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
  • propose to require adjacent licensees to develop their own sharing and protection agreements based on the design and architecture of their systems, in order to ensure that no harmful interference occurs between adjacent service areas. This approach is similar to the approach we took in the 24 GHz proceeding. We seek comment on this proposal. Canadian and Mexican Coordination Section 2.301 of our Rules requires stations using radio frequencies to identify their transmissions with a view to eliminate harmful interference and generally enforce applicable radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements. At this time, international coordination between and among the United States, Mexico and Canada concerning the reallocation of this spectrum is not complete. We propose to adopt certain interim requirements
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-116A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-116A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-116A1.txt
  • from adjacent band operations, particularly in the upper adjacent band. An MVDDS licensee will need to consider the adjacent band licensees in its system design. We will not require incumbent adjacent band licensees to modify their equipment to protect MVDDS operations, only that they meet the out-of-band emission limits of their relevant rule parts. Canadian and Mexican Coordination Background. Section 2.301 of our rules requires stations using radio frequencies to identify their transmissions with a view to eliminating harmful interference and generally enforcing applicable radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements. At this time, international coordination between and among the United States, Mexico and Canada concerning the 12 GHz band is not complete. The Commission sought comment on interim requirements for
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-15A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-15A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-15A1.txt
  • AFTRCC. Once AFTRCC approval is received, the Commission will issue an individual station license for each application referred to AFTRCC. We seek comment on these proposed coordination procedures. We also note that licensees in the 2385-2390 MHz band may pursue market-based mechanisms to facilitate relocation of and coordination with non-Government aeronautical flight test operations. 5. Canadian and Mexican Coordination Section 2.301 of our Rules requires stations using radio frequencies to identify their transmissions with a view to eliminate harmful interference and generally enforce applicable radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements. At this time, international agreements between and among the United States, Mexico and Canada concerning the reallocation of this spectrum are not complete. One option would be to propose certain
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-180A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-180A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-180A1.txt
  • include in agreements between band mangers and spectrum users. Finally, we seek comment on whether we should require band managers to file annual reports on their spectrum usage with the Commission. The annual reports would enable the Commission to ensure that spectrum is not being warehoused or otherwise not being made available despite existing demand. Canadian and Mexican Coordination Section 2.301 of our Rules requires stations using wireless frequencies to identify their transmissions with a view to eliminating harmful interference and generally enforcing applicable wireless treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements. At this time, there are no international agreements between and among the United States, Mexico and Canada concerning the reallocation of the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz and 92-95 GHz spectrum.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-302A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-302A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-302A1.txt
  • frequency stability limits that we should adopt to prevent DSRC-based ITS applications from causing interference to DSRC-based ITS applications on other channels or other services in nearby spectrum. In that connection, we note that the ASTM-DSRC Standard specifies that the transmitter center frequency tolerance shall be plus or minus 10 ppm for RSUs and OBUs. Canadian and Mexican Coordination Sections 2.301 and 1.923 (f) of our Rules requires stations using radio frequencies to identify their transmissions with a view to eliminating harmful interference and to generally enforce applicable radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements. At this time, international agreements between and among the United States, Mexico, and Canada concerning the 5.9 GHz spectrum for ITS applications have not been established.
• 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
  • navigation, environmental requirements, quiet zones, and disturbance of AM broadcast antenna patterns. We seek comment on applying these provisions to the spectrum that is the subject of this Notice. We propose that all of these technical rules would apply to all licensees in these bands, including licensees who acquire their licenses through partitioning or disaggregation. Canadian and Mexican Coordination. Section 2.301 of our rules requires stations using radio frequencies to identify their transmissions with a view to eliminate harmful interference and generally enforce applicable radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements. With respect to Canada, coordination of frequency assignments in the 1710-1755 MHz band is presently subject to the provisions of Arrangement D of the Agreement between the United States of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-251A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-251A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-251A1.txt
  • in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands. We therefore will modify sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of our rules to include services and devices applicable to the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands. We note, however, that the standard we adopt today is subject to change. Canadian and Mexican Coordination Background: In the AWS Service Rules NPRM, we noted that section 2.301 of our rules requires stations using radio frequencies to identify their transmissions with a view to eliminate harmful interference and generally enforce applicable radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements. With respect to Canada, we noted that coordination of frequency assignments in the 1710-1755 MHz band is presently subject to the provisions of Arrangement D of the Agreement between the
• 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
  • propose to require adjacent licensees to develop their own sharing and protection agreements based on the design and architecture of their systems, in order to ensure that no harmful interference occurs between adjacent service areas. This approach is similar to the approach we took in the 24 GHz proceeding. We seek comment on this proposal. Canadian and Mexican Coordination Section 2.301 of our Rules requires stations using radio frequencies to identify their transmissions with a view to eliminate harmful interference and generally enforce applicable radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements. At this time, international coordination between and among the United States, Mexico and Canada concerning the reallocation of this spectrum is not complete. We propose to adopt certain interim requirements
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98191.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98191.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98191.wp
  • channels 60-69 which would increase the stations' service areas, which creates a known environment for public safety licensees.425 The second requirement is that since only existing TV station licensees can apply for DTV channels, the applicants and their proposed locations are already known.426 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 98-191 Puerto Rico Aguadilla 12 69 691.8 665 427 See 47 C.F.R. § 2.301 which describes station identification and use of frequencies with a view to the elimination of harmful interference and general enforcement of applicable radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements in force. 428 NYS Police Comments at 8; FLEWUG Reply Comments at 2. 75 164. We therefore conclude that public safety base and mobile systems can ensure reliable interference protection in
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/46/releases/fc020015.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/46/releases/fc020015.txt
  • AFTRCC. Once AFTRCC approval is received, the Commission will issue an individual station license for each application referred to AFTRCC. We seek comment on these proposed coordination procedures. We also note that licensees in the 2385-2390 MHz band may pursue market-based mechanisms to facilitate relocation of and coordination with non-Government aeronautical flight test operations. 5.Canadian and Mexican Coordination 139. Section 2.301 of our Rules requires stations using radio frequencies to identify their transmissions with a view to eliminate harmful interference and generally enforce applicable radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements.312 At this time, international agreements between and among the United States, Mexico and Canada concerning the reallocation of this spectrum are not complete. One option would be to propose certain
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/53/releases/fc000418.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/53/releases/fc000418.txt
  • require adjacent licensees to develop their own sharing and protection agreements based on the design and architecture of their systems, in order to ensure that no harmful interference occurs between adjacent service areas. This approach is similar to the approach we took in the 24 GHz proceeding.627 We seek comment on this proposal. h. Canadian and Mexican Coordination 309. Section 2.301 of our Rules requires stations using radio frequencies to identify their transmissions with a view to eliminate harmful interference and generally enforce applicable radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements.628 At this time, international coordination between and among the United States, Mexico and Canada concerning the reallocation of this spectrum is not complete. We propose to adopt certain interim requirements
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/53/releases/fc020116.pdf
  • band operations, particularly in the upper adjacent band. An MVDDS licensee will need to consider the adjacent band licensees in its system design. We will not require incumbent adjacent band licensees to modify their equipment to protect MVDDS operations, only that they meet the out-of-band emission limits of their relevant rule parts. i. Canadian and Mexican Coordination 193. Background. Section 2.301 of our rules requires stations using radio frequencies to identify their transmissions with a view to eliminating harmful interference and generally enforcing applicable radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements.459 At this time, international coordination between and among the United States, Mexico and Canada concerning the 12 GHz band is not complete. The Commission sought comment on interim requirements for
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/53/resources/M_Pollak.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/53/resources/M_Pollak.pdf
  • protected in accordance with the procedures in § 101.103 of this part. A list of public safety incumbents is attached as Appendix I to the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, Docket 98-206 released April 23, 2002. Please check with the Commission for any updates to that list. § 101.1423 Canadian and Mexican coordination. Pursuant to § 2.301 of this chapter, MVDDS systems in the United States within 56 km (35 miles) of the Canadian and Mexican border will be granted conditional licenses, until final international agreements are approved. These systems may not cause harmful interference to stations in Canada or Mexico. MVDDS stations must comply with the procedures outlined under § 101.147(p) of this part and §§
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/63/resources/MVDDS_rules_excerpts.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/63/resources/MVDDS_rules_excerpts.pdf
  • geographical areas and must be protected in accordance with the procedures in §101.103. A list of public safety incumbents is attached as Appendix I to the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, Docket 98-206, released May 23, 2002. Please check with the Commission for any updates to that list. § 101.1423 Canadian and Mexican coordination. Pursuant to §2.301 of this chapter, MVDDS systems in the United States within 56 km (35 miles) of the Canadian and Mexican border will be granted conditional licenses, until final international agreements are approved. These systems may not cause harmful interference to stations in Canada or Mexico. MVDDS stations must comply with the procedures outlined under §101.147(p) and §1.928(f)(1) and (f)(2) of this
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref98.pdf
  • July 1, 1987 1.480.910.69 1.891.170.88 2.091.290.98 2.381.471.11 2.561.58 1.20 2.751.70 1.29 2.951.821.38 2.96 1.83 1.39 3.08 1.90 1.44 January 1, 1988 1.470.950.73 1.791.160.89 1.991.290.99 2.181.411.09 2.451.59 1.22 2.551.65 1.27 2.741.781.37 2.76 1.79 1.38 2.88 1.87 1.44 December 1, 1988 1.470.980.70 1.781.190.85 1.981.320.95 2.161.441.03 2.341.56 1.12 2.431.62 1.16 2.641.761.26 2.64 1.76 1.26 2.75 1.84 1.32 April 1, 1989 1.711.140.88 2.011.341.04 2.211.481.14 2.301.541.19 2.311.54 1.20 2.311.54 1.20 2.411.611.25 2.51 1.68 1.30 2.51 1.68 1.30 July 1, 1989 1.711.140.88 2.011.341.04 2.211.481.14 2.211.481.14 2.301.54 1.19 2.311.54 1.20 2.401.601.24 2.50 1.67 1.30 2.50 1.67 1.30 November 29, 19891.711.140.97 2.011.341.10 2.211.481.20 2.211.481.20 2.301.54 1.21 2.311.54 1.22 2.401.601.26 2.50 1.67 1.30 2.50 1.67 1.32 January 1, 1990 1.711.140.97 2.001.341.10 2.011.481.20 2.151.481.20 2.151.53 1.21 2.301.54 1.22 2.391.581.26 2.50 1.58
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/ref99.pdf
  • July 1, 1987 1.480.910.69 1.891.170.88 2.091.290.98 2.381.471.11 2.561.58 1.20 2.751.70 1.29 2.951.821.38 2.96 1.83 1.39 3.08 1.90 1.44 January 1, 1988 1.470.950.73 1.791.160.89 1.991.290.99 2.181.411.09 2.451.59 1.22 2.551.65 1.27 2.741.781.37 2.76 1.79 1.38 2.88 1.87 1.44 December 1, 1988 1.470.980.70 1.781.190.85 1.981.320.95 2.161.441.03 2.341.56 1.12 2.431.62 1.16 2.641.761.26 2.64 1.76 1.26 2.75 1.84 1.32 April 1, 1989 1.711.140.88 2.011.341.04 2.211.481.14 2.301.541.19 2.311.54 1.20 2.311.54 1.20 2.411.611.25 2.51 1.68 1.30 2.51 1.68 1.30 July 1, 1989 1.711.140.88 2.011.341.04 2.211.481.14 2.211.481.14 2.301.54 1.19 2.311.54 1.20 2.401.601.24 2.50 1.67 1.30 2.50 1.67 1.30 November 29, 19891.711.140.97 2.011.341.10 2.211.481.20 2.211.481.20 2.301.54 1.21 2.311.54 1.22 2.401.601.26 2.50 1.67 1.30 2.50 1.67 1.32 January 1, 1990 1.711.140.97 2.001.341.10 2.011.481.20 2.151.481.20 2.151.53 1.21 2.301.54 1.22 2.391.581.26 2.50 1.58
• 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
  • propose to require adjacent licensees to develop their own sharing and protection agreements based on the design and architecture of their systems, in order to ensure that no harmful interference occurs between adjacent service areas. This approach is similar to the approach we took in the 24 GHz proceeding. We seek comment on this proposal. Canadian and Mexican Coordination Section 2.301 of our Rules requires stations using radio frequencies to identify their transmissions with a view to eliminate harmful interference and generally enforce applicable radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements. At this time, international coordination between and among the United States, Mexico and Canada concerning the reallocation of this spectrum is not complete. We propose to adopt certain interim requirements
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98191.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98191.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/1998/fcc98191.wp
  • channels 60-69 which would increase the stations' service areas, which creates a known environment for public safety licensees.425 The second requirement is that since only existing TV station licensees can apply for DTV channels, the applicants and their proposed locations are already known.426 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION FCC 98-191 Puerto Rico Aguadilla 12 69 691.8 665 427 See 47 C.F.R. § 2.301 which describes station identification and use of frequencies with a view to the elimination of harmful interference and general enforcement of applicable radio treaties, conventions, regulations, arrangements, and agreements in force. 428 NYS Police Comments at 8; FLEWUG Reply Comments at 2. 75 164. We therefore conclude that public safety base and mobile systems can ensure reliable interference protection in