-
You can now help support WorldwideDX when you shop on Amazon at no additional cost to you! Simply follow this Shop on Amazon link first and a portion of any purchase is sent to WorldwideDX to help with site costs.
New Part 97 R&O
- Thread starter 229
- Start date
The commission finally admits that the law regarding 10 meter amplifiers as written is vague. They have agreed to change it. As many said time and time again on this forum.
This admitted vagueness is likely the reason why the FCC never forced it to court, as there was a chance the court would have struck it down as "void for vagueness". From the FCC's point, it is much better that the commission deem the law vague, rather than a judge. A ruling by a judge is the law of the land (absent appeal).
[void for vagueness
adj. referring to a statute defining a crime which is so vague that a reasonable person of at least average intelligence could not determine what elements constitute the crime. Such a vague statute is unconstitutional on the basis that a defendant could not defend against a charge of a crime which he/she could not understand, and thus would be denied "due process" mandated by the 5th Amendment, applied to the states by the 14th Amendment.]
THE COMMISSIONS CONCLUSIONS:
G. Limitations Imposed on Manufacturers.
41. Background. Currently, our rules prohibit commercial manufacturers from marketing RF power amplifiers that are capable of transmitting on the 12 m and 10 m 182 amateur service bands, 183 as a way to prevent use of these amplifiers by Citizens Band (CB) Radio Service users. 184 In the NPRM, the Commission requested comment on whether it should amend Sections 97.315 and 97.317 of our Rules 185 to clarify and simplify those restrictions. 186 Specifically, the Commission requested comment on whether it should eliminate the disparate restrictions imposed on manufacturers (as compared to the restrictions imposed on amateur service licensees), whether it should allow manufacturers to market equipment in the United States that they may market overseas, and whether we should eliminate the requirements in our Rules 187 that a manufacturer must design an amplifier to (1) use a minimum of fifty watts drive power and (2) not be capable of operating on any frequency between 24 MHz and 35 MHz. 188 Additionally, the Commission requested comment on whether it should eliminate the definition of an external RF power amplifier kit in Section 97.3( a)( 19) of our Rules. 189 In this regard, the Commission noted that an amateur radio operator may find it difficult to determine if a group of electronic parts he or she purchases or possesses will be defined by the Commission as an external RF power amplifier kit, and that this rule has created uncertainty because any group of
electronic parts, particularly if supplemented by additional parts, could be assembled to make a power amplifier or part of a RF power amplifier. 190
42. Decision. We believe that clarifying and simplifying Sections 97.315 and 97.317 of our Rules is warranted. We agree with ARRL that the requirements imposed on amateur radio operators by the current rule are unnecessary because, under the present rules, "the equipment, once authorized, can be modified to transmit on all amateur service frequency allocations," 191 and that revising the rule "will enhance use of the 12 and 10 m amateur bands, and allow amateur....
Accordingly, we conclude that the definition of an external RF power amplifier kit is no longer needed in Part 97.
Stay tuned, the 10 meter radio statute will be deemed void as well, either by a judge, or by the commission.
I said it first.
This admitted vagueness is likely the reason why the FCC never forced it to court, as there was a chance the court would have struck it down as "void for vagueness". From the FCC's point, it is much better that the commission deem the law vague, rather than a judge. A ruling by a judge is the law of the land (absent appeal).
[void for vagueness
adj. referring to a statute defining a crime which is so vague that a reasonable person of at least average intelligence could not determine what elements constitute the crime. Such a vague statute is unconstitutional on the basis that a defendant could not defend against a charge of a crime which he/she could not understand, and thus would be denied "due process" mandated by the 5th Amendment, applied to the states by the 14th Amendment.]
THE COMMISSIONS CONCLUSIONS:
G. Limitations Imposed on Manufacturers.
41. Background. Currently, our rules prohibit commercial manufacturers from marketing RF power amplifiers that are capable of transmitting on the 12 m and 10 m 182 amateur service bands, 183 as a way to prevent use of these amplifiers by Citizens Band (CB) Radio Service users. 184 In the NPRM, the Commission requested comment on whether it should amend Sections 97.315 and 97.317 of our Rules 185 to clarify and simplify those restrictions. 186 Specifically, the Commission requested comment on whether it should eliminate the disparate restrictions imposed on manufacturers (as compared to the restrictions imposed on amateur service licensees), whether it should allow manufacturers to market equipment in the United States that they may market overseas, and whether we should eliminate the requirements in our Rules 187 that a manufacturer must design an amplifier to (1) use a minimum of fifty watts drive power and (2) not be capable of operating on any frequency between 24 MHz and 35 MHz. 188 Additionally, the Commission requested comment on whether it should eliminate the definition of an external RF power amplifier kit in Section 97.3( a)( 19) of our Rules. 189 In this regard, the Commission noted that an amateur radio operator may find it difficult to determine if a group of electronic parts he or she purchases or possesses will be defined by the Commission as an external RF power amplifier kit, and that this rule has created uncertainty because any group of
electronic parts, particularly if supplemented by additional parts, could be assembled to make a power amplifier or part of a RF power amplifier. 190
42. Decision. We believe that clarifying and simplifying Sections 97.315 and 97.317 of our Rules is warranted. We agree with ARRL that the requirements imposed on amateur radio operators by the current rule are unnecessary because, under the present rules, "the equipment, once authorized, can be modified to transmit on all amateur service frequency allocations," 191 and that revising the rule "will enhance use of the 12 and 10 m amateur bands, and allow amateur....
Accordingly, we conclude that the definition of an external RF power amplifier kit is no longer needed in Part 97.
Stay tuned, the 10 meter radio statute will be deemed void as well, either by a judge, or by the commission.
I said it first.chipotle said:
Continuing where you left off:
We also believe it is appropriate to revise our rules to allow manufacturers of amateur radio equipment to market RF power amplifiers that are capable of operating in the 12m and 10m amateur bands but still require that they design such products to avoid operation on CB Radio Service frequencies.
We observe that since these rules were adopted, methods of preventing RF equipment from transmitting on frequencies other than those intended have been developed and we have approved amplifiers incorporating such limitations on transmit frequencies for use in the amateur service. We note, however, that the Commission still receives complaints of interference to television service that is attributable to overpower operation by CB radio operators.
In order to prevent the use of amateur radio amplifiers by CB operators, we find that it is necessary to continue to require that manufacturers of amateur radio amplifiers design their products to avoid operation on the CB frequencies. We will, therefore, retain the requirement that amplifiers exhibit no amplification capability between 26 MHz and 28 MHz and require manufacturers to certify that amplifiers are not capable of amplification between 26 MHz and 28 MHz and are not easily modifiable to operate between 26 MHz and 28 MHz prior to the grant of an equipment certification.
Accordingly, we will amend Sections 97.315 and 97.317 of our Rules to permit the marketing of linear amplifiers for use at amateur radio stations as discussed above, provided that the equipment complies with our rules.
Stay tuned, the 10 meter radio statute will be deemed void as well, either by a judge, or by the commission.
On this point you are wrong. Read the line but still require that they design such products to avoid operation on CB Radio Service frequencies. The FCC has clarified their position on the matter by passing this R&O.
Simply put: No dual-use equipment (radios, amps, etc) may be legally offered for sale to users within the U.S. Don't expect a change in said position; if anything, look for increased enforcement efforts due to the fact that the so-called 'gray area' has now been eliminated.
"On this point you are wrong. Read the line 'but still require that they design such products to avoid operation on CB Radio Service frequencies." The FCC has clarified their position on the matter by passing this R&O."
Two words: Physically impossible.
Post a link to an amp (or radio) anywhere in the world that works on 10 and 12 meters but "avoids operation on CB Radio Service frequencies". God made sure that no such amplifier or radio will ever exist.
The law requires the impossible. Can such a law ever be constitutional?
Two words: Physically impossible.
Post a link to an amp (or radio) anywhere in the world that works on 10 and 12 meters but "avoids operation on CB Radio Service frequencies". God made sure that no such amplifier or radio will ever exist.
The law requires the impossible. Can such a law ever be constitutional?
C2 said:
If an amp is offered for sale as a new product, it must be certified.
If - on the other hand - you go rooting around Ye Olde Junque-Box and find one of those old Palomar amps...then modify it to comply with spectral-purity regulations, you may use it on 10M (or any other amateur band, for that matter).
Hams may construct their own gear for use within the ARS; this includes modifying existing equipment. You may not use said equipment on another service after it has been modified due to the fact that the mods have voided its original type acceptance.
chipotle said:
Two words:
Microprocessor Control.
I'll show you how to do it - but - my services as a consultant do not come cheap.
"Microprocessor Control. "
Send it to Justin. He will have it working on 11 meters in 10 minutes.
Send it to Justin. He will have it working on 11 meters in 10 minutes.
chipotle said:"Microprocessor Control. "
Send it to Justin. He will have it working on 11 meters in 10 minutes.
This Justin happens to be a ham, correct?
chipotle said:
If he holds a ticket - and enages in activity such as illegally modifying equipment - he risks losing said ticket if caught.
But we all knew that going in, right?
Any system designed to perform a given function can be circumvented. It makes no difference whether the device is a PLL chip in a CB rig, an amplifier band restriction control or a combination lock on a bank vault. What matters in the case of the amplifiers under discussion is that manufacturers of such will be required to implement circuitry that prevents an individual from readily using the device where he or she shouldn't. If a manufacturer does so ("in good faith", legally stated) and someone such as Justin manages to bypass the restrictions, said manufacturer isn't at that point legally reponsible for any misuses of the device. The user and/or person who performed the mod, on the other hand, IS.
Converting one of the older amateur amplifiers to operate on 10M was laughably easy, and it fell to the user(s) of such to ensure their proper operation. That said, quite a few ended up on 11M.
With this R&O, the FCC attempted to tighten the manufacturing restrictions a bit where CB amplifier use is concerned while at the same time allowing legitimate users to buy an off-the-shelf 10M capable device.
No one is stopping you from modifying such an amp to operate on 11M, even if you do it for profit. Additionally, no one is stopping the FCC from fining and/or jailing you when you get caught doing it, either.
The ham community is not thrilled with the FCC at this point:
"ARRL seeks review of the orders on the ground that they exceed the Commission's jurisdiction and authority; are contrary to the Communications Act of 1934; and are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law," the League said in its petition. "ARRL requests that this court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin and set aside the orders."
Full story
ARRL v. FCC
"ARRL seeks review of the orders on the ground that they exceed the Commission's jurisdiction and authority; are contrary to the Communications Act of 1934; and are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and otherwise not in accordance with law," the League said in its petition. "ARRL requests that this court hold unlawful, vacate, enjoin and set aside the orders."
Full story
ARRL v. FCC
chipotle said:
The ARRL does not speak for me. I dropped membership in that 'organization' some time ago and have no plans to renew it.
Here is a *Linky* which cites two Ohio amateurs for "marketing non-certified radio transmitters" and "modifying certified radio equipment to cause it to operate on unauthorized frequencies and at power limits that violate Commission rules". They may have lost their licenses as a result of this action...
I must say that I side with the FCC on this one.
If I were the FCC, this is how I would respond to the ARRL's law suit.
Mr. Hollingworth talking: "Pursuant to the ham communities' request, we (the FCC) have sent numerous letters to 10 meter amp and radio companies. We have done this, knowing that should the cases ever be brought before a judge, we might loose. This was the risk I (Mr. Hollingsworth) personally took to make you happy.
As you know, ARRL, we (the FCC) also must answer to the US citizens regarding broadband, issues, cell phones, and the U.S. Military; at the same time we are trying to please the ham community who is more divided now than ever. What do we get for using up some of our political juice on behalf of the ham community? A lawsuit. Thanks, but no thanks. Either you dismiss your suit, or no more favors. See how long you will last without the FCC on your side.
If I were the FCC, this is how I would respond to the ARRL's law suit.
Mr. Hollingworth talking: "Pursuant to the ham communities' request, we (the FCC) have sent numerous letters to 10 meter amp and radio companies. We have done this, knowing that should the cases ever be brought before a judge, we might loose. This was the risk I (Mr. Hollingsworth) personally took to make you happy.
As you know, ARRL, we (the FCC) also must answer to the US citizens regarding broadband, issues, cell phones, and the U.S. Military; at the same time we are trying to please the ham community who is more divided now than ever. What do we get for using up some of our political juice on behalf of the ham community? A lawsuit. Thanks, but no thanks. Either you dismiss your suit, or no more favors. See how long you will last without the FCC on your side.
chipotle said:
The FCC needs to talk to their peers over in ATF. When that organization makes a bust and files charges, you ARE NOT getting out of them ...