"It would be useful for stations that maintain verified documentation to have access to source information demonstrating the claim that FCC authority supercedes the privacy boundaries of property owners."
http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/otherinfo/inspect.html
The Federal Communications Commission has the authority to inspect most radio installations. Responsibility for conducting these inspections generally rests with the Enforcement Bureau's Field Agents. In the course of fulfilling this responsibility, the Agents often receive questions concerning the authority and procedure under which they are working. The Enforcement Bureau has assembled this general information sheet to address some of the more commonly asked questions concerning inspections and to clarify why and how inspections occur.
INSPECTION AUTHORITY
Section 303(n) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (Act) gives the Federal Communications Commission the "authority to inspect all radio installations associated with stations required to be licensed by any Act, or which the Commission by rule has authorized to operate without a license under section 307(e)(1), or which are subject to the provisions of any Act, treaty, or convention binding on the United States . . ." 47 U.S.C. 303(n) Both Section 303(n) of the Act, and the Rules which implement the Act, grant the right to inspect most radio operations to the Commission, and by delegated authority to the Commission's Bureaus and agents. The Enforcement Bureau conducts inspections of radio installations as part of the Bureau's function to "[e]nforce the Commission's Rules and Regulations." 47 CFR 0.111(a).
In earlier posting it was strongly implied that the FCC had the authority to supercede private property boundaries under their own authority with no mention of a need to communicate with the property manager.
But that's not what we learn from the source material now presented.
The fact is, according to the submitted document, that an inspector is required to make contact with the property owner or resident of a building and state an intention to inspect radio equipment transmitting from the premisis.
If the proprietor acknowledges the obligation to allow the inspector access, it is his choice to do so.
However, the proprietor may refuse access, in which case the inspection becomes suspended pending agency decision on further action.
FCC authority does not supercede private property authority, but depends upon the voluntary cooperation of the proprietor, who, at a later time, may suffer consequences for refusal to allow access so long as transmissions eminate from the facility.
The detail and nuance of what's actually true is less imposing than what was first claimed.
Just my oppinion, but all of this is a little over the top. If there is a complaint, then I would fully expect to receive a simple NOUO letter, as per the most common practice. NOUOs are issued without official visits into the premisis.
For the vast majority of us who are concerned with staying legal, we should not succomb to paranoia. An NOUO is a warning. You are given time to provide a written response describing what you've done to correct the problem. If your response is acceptable, you can then continue operation with the corrective changes. If you don't want to correct the problem, just tell them in your letter that you have ceased transmissions. Either response is acceptable
If the FCC wants to come on my property to do a FS reading, I don't care. Go ahead. Other people frequently walk on my property. However, I would expect they would make their FS measurement from a distance that is off the property. This can be validated by looking at the reported long meadurement distances in all the NOUOs.
I suspect that the very few premisis intrusions, or "raids" are only done when there is an adverse history of defiant activity or a grossly high signal evel indicative of a deliberate pirate.
Be happy.
If you look out the window and see a guy on a 50-foot self-supporting ladder, don't distract him or his delicate calculations might have too many zeros.
Thinking about this thread, I believe one thing would have improved it.
We might have disclosed that it was presented as an academic exercise and not a description of likely encounters with enforcement of 15.239.
Certified FM transmitters operating according to manufacturers instructions very probably never get sought and inspected; their footprint is too small.
Transmitters that are "hunted" are most likely the ones intentionally operating beyond reasonable limits by persons who knowingly venture a risk.
... Chart Comment # 3 says: "Relating such accurately measured fields to compliance of an unlicensed system with 15.239 will depend on those making/evaluating the measurement." This seems to say that "interpretations may vary" depending on differences among inspector. .... Now would be a good spot to summarize what's actually been said in this thread with Special English for the benifit of less endowed readers.
Such differences will depend on the technical background and experience of the evaluator.
The chart in Reply #2 shows a field of about 25 µV/m at a horizontal distance of 3 meters and a height of 2.5 meters. That field was produced for those conditions by a radiator exactly meeting FCC §15.239 in free space.
Based on that measurement, someone might decide that the power radiated by that system could be increased until that field measured 250 µV/m.
In reality that change could make that system non-compliant, if the field(s) at other heights over a path distance of 3 meters then exceed 250 µV/m.
For example, the NEC chart shows the field for a horizontal distance of 3 meters and a height of 5 meters is about 4.64X the field for a height of 2.5 meters at that horizontal distance. So for this scenario if the field at a 2.5-meter height was 250 µV/m, the field at a 5-meter height would be 1,160 µV/m.
Even a person with a calibrated field intensity meter needs to understand and use the methodology needed to make accurate measurements of the system under test with respect to its applicable standard, and to determine whether those measurements prove compliance, or not.