Attachment SESSTA2012022200189.

SESSTA2012022200189.

DECISION submitted by EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS OF COLORADO SPRINGS INC.`

STA GRANT

0000-00-00

This document pretains to SES-STA-20120222-00189 for Special Temporal Authority on a Satellite Earth Station filing.

IBFS_SESSTA2012022200189_941132

1B2012000627 E120034 SES—STA—20120222—00189 of Colorado prings Inc S Educational Communications Approved by OMB 3060—0678 APPLICATION FOR EARTH STATION SPECIAL TEMPORARY AUTHORITY APPLICANT INFORMATIONEnter a description of this application to identify it on the main menu: STA request for Briargate Boulevard uplink 1. Applicant Name: Educational Communications of Phone Number: 202—293—0569 Colorado Springs Inc DBA Name: Fax Number: 202—293—0810 Street: 1850 M Street NW #240 E—Mail: lee@s—plaw.com City: Washington State: DC Country: USA Zipcode: 20036 — Attention: Lee J Peltzman

2. Contact Name: Dane Ericksen, P.E. Phone Number: 707—996—5200 Company: Hammett & Edison, Inc. Fax Number: 707—996—5280 Street: 470 Third Street West E—Mail: dericksen@h—e.com City: Sonoma State: CA Country: USA Zipcode: 95476 — Attention: Relationship: Engineer (If your application is related to an application filed with the Commission, enter either the file number or the IB Submission ID of the related application. Please enter only one.) 3. Reference File Number or Submission ID 1B2012000580 4a. Is a fee submitted with this application? C IfYes, complete and attach FCC Form 159. If No, indicate reason for fee exemption (see 47 C.F.R.Section 1.1114). C Governmental Entity @ Noncommercial educational licensee C Other(please explain): 4b. Fee Classification CGX — Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth Station 5. Type Request @ Use Prior to Grant C Change Station Location {3 Other 6. Requested Use Prior Date 02/16/2012 7. CityColorado Springs 8. Latitude (dd mm ss.s h) 38 56 394 N

9. State CO 10. Longitude (dd mm ss.s h) 104 47 48.0 W 11. Please supply any need attachments. Attachment 1: STA Justification Attachment 2: RF safety exhibit Attachment 3: 12. Description. (If the complete description does not appear in this box, please go to the end of the form to view it in its entirety.) STA justification (attachment 1) RF safety exhibit (attachment 2) 13. By checking Yes, the undersigned certifies that neither applicant nor any other party to the application is Yes «y No subject to a denial of Federal benefits that includes FCC benefits pursuant to Section 5301 of the Anti—Drug Act of 1988, 21 U.S.C. Section 862, because of a conviction for possession or distribution of a controlled substance. See 47 CFR 1.2002(b) for the meaning of "party to the application" for these purposes. 14. Name of Person Signing 15. Title of Person Signing Ronald Johnson Chairman, Board of Directors WILLFUL FALSE STATEMENTS MADE ON THIS FORM ARE PUNISHABLE BY FINE AND / OR IMPRISONMENT (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001), AND/OR REVOCATION OF ANY STATION AUTHORIZATION (U.S. Code, Title 47, Section 312(a)(1)), AND/OR FORFEITURE (U.S. Code, Title 47, Section 503).

FCC NOTICE REQUIRED BY THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT The public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 2 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the required data, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. If you have any comments on this burden estimate, or how we can improve the collection and reduce the burden it causes you, please write to the Federal Communications Commission, AMD—PERM, Paperwork Reduction Project (3060—0678), Washington, DC 20554. We will also accept your comments regarding the Paperwork Reduction Act aspects of this collection via the Internet if you send them to PRA@fce.gov. PLEASE DO NOT SEND COMPLETED FORMS TO THIS ADDRESS. Remember — You are not required to respond to a collection of information sponsored by the Federal government, and the government may not conduct or sponsor this collection, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number or if we fail to provide you with this notice. This collection has been assigned an OMB control number of 3060—0678. THE FOREGOING NOTICE IS REQUIRED BY THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995, PUBLIC LAW 104—13, OCTOBER 1, 1995, 44 U.S.C. SECTION 3507.

Educational Communications of Colorado Springs, Inc. Ku—Band Satellite Uplink STA Request Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained by the Educational Communications of Colorado Springs, Inc. (ECCS), licensee of Noncommercial Educational FM Station KTLF, Channel 213CO, 90.5 MHz, Colorado Springs, Colorado, to prepare the technical portions of an application for Special Temporary Authority (STA) for a new Ku—band satellite uplink station at the KTLF studios, 1665 Briargate Boulevard, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Reason for STA ECCS operates an extensive network of FM Translator stations, fed by satellite. This uplink, formerly E930054, was inadvertently allowed to expire in 2003. Also, circa 2007, the uplink had been relocated by 1.9 km, from the previously licensed location of 1802 Chapel Hills Drive, Colorado Springs, to the current KTLF studios at 1665 Briargate Boulevard, Colorado Springs. The expired license and location discrepancy were only recently discovered by new KTLF staff. In order to avoid disruption of the FM translator network, ECCS is requesting STA for the continued operation of the uplink until its application for a new satellite uplink license is granted. As is documented in a just— filed Ku—band uplink license application, Application Submission ID 1B2012000580, the uplink is in compliance with FCC guidelines for human exposure to radio frequency energy. A copy of the RF safety exhibit is also included as an attachment to this STA application. Summary An application for a new uplink license, at the current location, has been filed. Grant of STA will allow the continued operation of the ECCS FM Translator network without interruption, and is respectfully requested. February 17, 2012 HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. 120208B CONSULTING ENCINEERS h: SAN FRANCISCO STA Exhibit, Page 1 of 1

Educational Communications of Colorado Springs, Inc. Ku—Band Satellite Uplink Application « Colorado Springs, Colorado Statement of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers The firm of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, has been retained by the Educational Communications of Colorado Springs, Inc., licensee of Noncommercial Educational FM Station KTLF, Channel 213C0O, 90.5 MHz, Colorado Springs, Colorado, to prepare the technical portions of an application for a new Ku—band satellite uplink station from the KTLF studios at 1665 Briargate Boulevard, Colorado Springs, Colorado. Prevailing Exposure Standards The U.S. Congress requires that the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the environment. In Docket 93—62, effective October 15, 1997, the FCC adopted the human exposure limits for field strength and power density recommended in Report No. 86, "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," published in 1986 by the Congressionally chartered National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements ("NCRP"). Separate limits apply for occupational and public exposure conditions, with the latter limits generally five times more restrictive. The more recent standard, developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and approved as American National Standard ANSI/IEEE C95.1—2006, "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," includes similar exposure limits. These limits apply for continuous exposures and are intended to provide a prudent margin of safety for all persons, regardless of age, gender, size, or health. For 14.0—14.5 GHz Ku—Band satellite transmitting antennas, the prevailing standard for occupational exposures of unlimited duration is 5 mW/cm, and 1 mW/cm2 for public exposures of unlimited duration. Proposed Uplink Facilities It is proposed to use a Prodelin Model 1184 1.8—meter diameter satellite earth station Ku—Band transmitting antenna, and the 2—watt version of the Raydyne ComSearch Model DT8000 transmitter. The antenna would be pole—mounted on the ground, in a fenced area at the rear of the KTLF studios parking lot, as shown by the attached Figure 1. The eastern—most geostationary communication satellite that the proposed antenna would communicate with would be at 69°W longitude, and the western—most satellite would be at 125°W longitude. The antenna orientation to the eastern—most satellite would be 131.1°T with an elevation angle of 31.7°, the antenna orientation to a satellite at the middle of the domestic satellite arc would be 167.7°T with an elevation angle of 44.2°, and the antenna orientation to the western—most HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. 120208 CONsSULTT CGINEERS s P san 1?R.AN::{§§)EN ‘ RF Safety Exhibit, Page 1 of 3

Educational Communications of Colorado Springs, Inc. Ku—Band Satellite Uplink Application » Colorado Springs, Colorado satellite would be 210.3°T with an elevation angle of 40.3°. The greatest elevation angle would occur when communicating with a satellite at 105°W, where an elevation angle of 44.9° would be needed. Thus, communication with the eastern—most satellite represents the antenna orientation with the lowest elevation angle. NIST Nomograph The highest power density was determined using a method developed by the staff of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS, now the National Institute for Standards and Technology, "NIST"), "An Efficient and Accurate Method for Calculating and Representing Power Density in the Near—Field Zone of Microwave Antennas.""* Figure 2 from Page 6 of that report is applicable to the proposed installation, and it is reproduced here in Figure 2. According to the NIST paper, this nomograph is applicable to all aperture antennas with diameter—to—wavelength ratios of 30 or greater. Since a 1.8—meter diameter antenna at 14.25 GHz has a diameter—to—wavelength ratio of approximately 85.5 to 1, the nomograph is applicable. Figure 2 characterizes the power density variation in the near—field. The extent of the near—field covered by this nomograph extends to a D#/A ratio of unity, where D is the antenna diameter and A is the wavelength, expressed in compatible units (F.e., either both in meters or both in centimeters). For Ku—Band uplinks the mid—band wavelength is 0.021 m (2.1 em), so for the proposed 1.8—m antenna, D®/A equals approximately 154 meters. Thus, the distance over which this nomograph is applicable includes substantial distances from the uplink site. At Page 3 of the NIST paper, the formula S = 38.6 — 20l0ogiqD is given for calculating the maximum power density for watt of antenna input power, where S is the power density in dBm/cm? and D is the antenna diameter in centimeters. For higher input powers a 10logio(P) factor must be applied, where P is the antenna input power in watts. Thus for the maximum antenna input power of 2.0 watts the main beam the power density would be 38.6 — 20logi,(180) + 10logi,(2.0), or —3.5 dBm/cm2. This is 3.5 dB lower than the 1.0 mW/cm(0 dBm/cm?) the FCC guideline for uncontrolled (public) exposures. Thus, because of the relatively low transmitter power, there are no areas where the public limit would be exceeded, even for a person elevated above ground and in the main beam of the uplink antenna. Because there is no portion of the uplink signal predicted to exceed even the public limit, the normally pertinent locations of the closest nearby structures in the satellite arc look angle become moot. The uplink antenna is therefore inherently compliant with respect to public exposures, and, of course, also * Publication number NBSIR—85/8036, December 1985. This paper was written by Richard L. Lewis and Allen C. Newell, and was sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. 120208 CONSULTING ENGINEERS e SAN FRANCISCO RF Safety Exhibit, Page 2 of 3

Educational Communications of Colorado Springs, Inc. Ku—Band Satellite Uplink Application » Colorado Springs, Colorado occupational exposures. Nevertheless, the applicant will keep the fence around the uplink antenna locked, to prevent unauthorized access, and in the event maintenance or repairs are needed on the feedhorn—side of the parabolic antenna, the uplink transmitter will first be shut off. Summary Operation of the proposed uplink will comply with the public exposure guidelines, since there are no portions even in the main beam of the uplink where the predicted power density will exceed the public limit. List of Figures In carrying out these engineering studies, the following attached figures were prepared under my direct supervision: 1. Satellite views of the KTLF studio site. 2. NIST nomograph February 9, 2012 HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. 120208 CONSULTING ENCGINEERS w SANFPRANCICO _ RF Safety Exhibit, Page 3 of 3

Educational Communications of Colorado Springs, Inc. Ku—Band Satellite Uplink Application « Colorado Springs, Colorado Uplink Site Satellite _Hybrid A = Satellite uplink location. Source: ACME Mapper HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENCGINEERS 120208A SAN FRANCISCO RF Safety Exhibit, Figure 1A

Educational Communications of Colorado Springs, Inc. Ku—Band Satellite Uplink Application » Colorado Springs, Colorado Uplink Site Map Satellite Hybrid Terrain Topo DoOQ m [N 38 5639.4" W 104 48.0° nome zisce A = Satellite uplink location. Source is again ACME Mapper. HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 120208A SAN FRANCISCO RF Safety Exhibit, Figure 1B

Educational Communications of Colorado Springs, Inc. Ku—Band Satellite Uplink Application » Colorado Springs, Colorado Y—axis distance divided by D Relative Power Density Contours in the Y—Z Plane for D >30)1 0.67 0.50 0.33 ~2.S@@ 0 0.25 0.5 75 1.0 Z—axis distance divided by D /A Nomograph from NTIS #NBSIR85—3036, page 6. Additional notations by Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, San Francisco HAMMETT & EDISON, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS 120208A SAN FRANCISCO RF Safety Exhibit, Figure 2


Document Created: 2012-02-29 17:30:12
Document Modified: 2012-02-29 17:30:12
© 2024 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC