Chris,
Thanks for correcting me on the type certification issue, and that an individual unit can actually be certificated for multiple services.
So, I believe what is actually being questioned is the ARRL allowing advertising of a radio that has been Part 90 certificated by the FCC to amateur radio operators, indicating in the advertising that it is indeed Part 90 certificated.
Like Jim, I really do not want to “stir the pot”, but extending this thinking would this mean that we would not be able to indicate the a units transmit frequency coverage as described by the manufacturer, because it may exceed the transmit limits of the amateur bands, and could promulgate improper use.
Encryption/scrambling would be an entirely different matter, as that is clearly against Part 97.
Chris, I hope I have an opportunity to have a side conversation with you about FCC Type certification this January, as there are clearly some issues on which I would like to get up to speed.
Thanks!
’73 de JIM N2ZZ
From: Christopher Imlay [mailto:w3kd.arrl@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 11:18 AM
To: James F. Boehner MD
Cc: Jim Pace K7CEX NW Division Director; ODV
Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:23659] Part 90 Radio Advertising
Dr. Jim, A couple of notes:
Your statement that "any unit that is marketed must be FCC type-certificated for only one service" is not correct. Most radios that are certified for Part 90 use are also typically certified for Part 74 and sometimes other rule part operation such as 22, 95, 80 or 87.
You are of course correct that there is no problem using a Part 90 certified radio on Part 97 frequencies, but to modify a radio to do that vitiates the Part 90 certification so that it can't be used again on Part 90 channels by a Part 90 licensee.
Jim Pace's point (actually one of several) is that the Part 90 certification grant is drawn into question by virtue of the fact that the radio he speaks about is field programmable, which indicates that the certfication grant should not have been made in the first place. But equipment authorization issues are complaint driven and FCC is (sadly) not actively involved in investigating them on their own. Jim Pace (I think quite reasonably) is concerned about the fact that we are advertising these radios.
There is some ARRL history to this issue. When the Wouxan and Baofeng radios first made their debut, Icom and other manufacturers of mainstream Amateur products objected to our advertising them because they were arguably field programmable (for at least Amateur frequencies; it was a question whether they were field programmable on Part 90 channels). Those radios have scanning receivers and the FCC rules say that Amateur products that have scanning receivers must be granted certification before they can be marketed, sold, offered for sale or used. Icom suggested that ARRL should stop advertising these products because the Part 90 certification was improperly granted. Our response at the time was that, whether or not improperly granted, the radios nevertheless were Part 90 certified and that was sufficient to allow scanning receivers to be marketed, sold, advertised for sale and used on Amateur bands by licensed Amateurs. We suggested to the manufacturers that if the FCC were to rescind the Part 90 certification of those radios, through some action of the manufacturers, that of course ARRL would notify its members that the radios could not be sold or used and therefore we would not take their ads. But no complaint was ever filed or at least not acted on by FCC.
So the suggestion that we not advertise some additional Part 90-certified radios because they are field programmable and therefore the Part 90 certification is vitiated would be inconsistent with our prior actions. If the radios that Jim Pace is talking about are not useful on Amateur bands by licensed amateurs, that is a different story entirely.
And whether or not we want to advertise Part 90 capabilities of radios, the main point that Jim Pace raises, is a very important policy question that isn't related to whether or not any given radio should or should not have been certified in the first place.
73, Chris W3KD
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 6:57 PM, James F. Boehner MD via arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> wrote:
Jim,
You bring up several points that should be addressed.
First, I understand that any unit that is marketed must be FCC type-certificated for only one service.
That being said, there never has been a problem using a part 90 certificated device on the part 97 service, at least to my knowledge.
The fact that there is a part 90 certificated device implies that the FCC or their designees have already evaluated that device, and have deemed it worthy of their part 90 certification, and then allow it to be sold in the USA. If that device can be programmed from the front panel, one wonders why the FCC certificated that device for part 90 in the first place. It would follow that the part 90 certification was their (FCC) responsibility in the first place.
Granted that if the device was purchased from a dealer for a commercial service, they could disable the menu, and not allow front panel programming.
Second, if an amateur radio licensee has passed the technician class license, they should know what frequencies that they may operate under their amateur license, regardless of advertising claims by a company.
I’ve always been an advocate for personal responsibility. I think as the National Association for Amateur Radio, we are responsible for education of our members. Should they decide to operate outside of those guidelines, they are on their own. I doubt that our advertising plays a factor, especially where the individual should be aware of FCC regulations.
So, even though I question why certain devices were given part 90 certification in the first place, they were, and the individual should assume the responsibility of the legal use of those units. Should the FCC decide not to enforce their rules, that is their choice.
Jim, it is an interesting point that you brought up, and perhaps our legal eagle(s) could shed some additional light.
To All, a very Happy New Year!
’73 de JIM N2ZZ
From: arrl-odv [mailto:arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org] On Behalf Of Jim Pace K7CEX NW Division Director
Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 3:21 PM
To: ODV
Subject: [arrl-odv:23657] Part 90 Radio Advertising
Greetings all and I wish you a wonderful New Year:
I was just reviewing a packet of information that was sent to a new licensee, which contained an ARRL Quickstart Guide, experience Ham Radio with ARRL flyer and the attached flyer from Radio City.
Although I commend the Membership folks for their constant effort to recruit new members, I question the wisdom of advertising Part 90 equipment - in that Amateur Radio Operators are not allowed operate Part 90 frequencies with an Amateur Radio License, with Amateur equipment.
Already, here in the NW and I understand in other places, these radios have been purchased by various groups, believing that they can just be changed to Narrow Band (now required for Part 90) and a Part 90 frequency, and be in full compliance with the Commission. Because these radios can be programmed by the operator - using the keyboard - in the field, that appears to make them non-compliant. While I recognize that chasing after improper use of $60 handhelds is quite low on the priority list of the Commission, I strongly feel that ARRL, in advertising Part 90 equipment, is giving the wrong idea to the new Ham and the general public.
We are the National Association for Amateur Radio, not an organization for Public Service Land Mobile. I think it is in our best interests not to advertise the Part 90 capability of a radio, even if the manufacturer claims Part 90 certified, which the flyer claims. Please give this some thought; I'm not trying to stir the pot, but am concerned for our market image. (excerpt from 90.203 below my signature).
73 and good Hamming.
Jim Pace, K7CEX
ARRL - The National Association for Amateur Radio
Northwestern Division
Director
§90.203(e). Except as provided in paragraph (g) of this section, transmitters designed to operate above 25 MHz shall not be certificated for use under this part if the operator can program and transmit on frequencies, other than those programmed by the manufacturer, service or maintenance personnel, using the equipment’s external operation controls.
_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
--
Christopher D. Imlay
Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC
14356 Cape May Road
Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011
(301) 384-5525 telephone
(301) 384-6384 facsimile