Interpretation of FCC Part 97 Emergency Distress Operations Rules

[K5MPH]

had to laugh, with the China Toy comment (And I agree), but my mind flashed to
David Bowie...

Oh, oh, oh, little China toy
Oh, oh, oh, little China toy

I could escape this feeling, with my China toy
I feel a wreck without my, little China toy
I hear her heart beating, loud as thunder
Saw they stars crashing
I'm a mess without my, little China toy
Wake up mornings where's my, little China toy
I hear her heart's beating, loud as thunder

I dont think he was talking about an radio LOL........

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Mmckenna

Also refer to 97.405 , and if that is not enough, read the ARRL General Class Q&A study guide, 5th edition, supplement G2 page 10, question G2B11. This describes my argument exactly, any frequency, any power, as long as it jis a real emergency.

Here is what ARRL says:

 

[AI7PM]

You sure are persistent with your argument about this. I will say nothing more than I believe my interpretation to be correct.

Your interpretation conflicts with that of the FCC. This was played out a couple of years ago in another thread, and someone finally asked the FCC.

The FCC said:

"Your question was referred to me because it concerns the Commission’s amateur radio rules.

Section 97.105(b) answers your question: “A station may only be operated in the manner and to the extent permitted by the privileges authorized for the class of operator license held by the control operator.” Control operator privileges are specified in Section 97.301.

Part 97 does not contain any “privileges authorized” for amateur radio operators that include Part 90 or Part 95 frequencies. Part 90 and 95 both require the use of certificated equipment. See Section 90.203 and 95.409. Use of modified amateur radio transceivers on Part 90 or 95 frequencies violate the rules because modified amateur radio equipment is not certified for either Part 90 or 95 radio services.

As you note, “The rules are clear that in order to use Part 90 or 95 spectrum, the operator must have the correct licensing and certified radios to use those services.” The debate you are referring to, therefore, comes down to “How can we get around the rules?” The answer is, “You can’t.” We will be happy to relieve you of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars and your amateur radio license if you transmit on channels you are not licensed to transmit on.

William

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau"

 

[mmckenna]

Here is what ARRL says:

This quote is their interpretation, which I say is wrong.

ARRL is a group of hobbyists that sell magazines. They do not have the authority to interpret the FCC rules, they do not have the authority to enforce the FCC rules. It appears they like to think they do, but you'll find that the FCC would disagree.

The ARRL is no more of an authority on this than you or I.

Sorry, this particular argument is invalid.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Your interpretation conflicts with that of the FCC. This was played out a couple of years ago in another thread, and someone finally asked the FCC.

The FCC said:

"Your question was referred to me because it concerns the Commission’s amateur radio rules.

Section 97.105(b) answers your question: “A station may only be operated in the manner and to the extent permitted by the privileges authorized for the class of operator license held by the control operator.” Control operator privileges are specified in Section 97.301.

Part 97 does not contain any “privileges authorized” for amateur radio operators that include Part 90 or Part 95 frequencies. Part 90 and 95 both require the use of certificated equipment. See Section 90.203 and 95.409. Use of modified amateur radio transceivers on Part 90 or 95 frequencies violate the rules because modified amateur radio equipment is not certified for either Part 90 or 95 radio services.

As you note, “The rules are clear that in order to use Part 90 or 95 spectrum, the operator must have the correct licensing and certified radios to use those services.” The debate you are referring to, therefore, comes down to “How can we get around the rules?” The answer is, “You can’t.” We will be happy to relieve you of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars and your amateur radio license if you transmit on channels you are not licensed to transmit on.

William

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau"

Please provide the entire context, including the question. The answer by "William" implies the question pertained to routine use of modified amateur radio for Part 90 and 95 spectrum. Unless this question was regarding emergency use, it is irrelevant to the discussion thread
.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

This quote is their interpretation, which I say is wrong.

ARRL is a group of hobbyists that sell magazines. They do not have the authority to interpret the FCC rules, they do not have the authority to enforce the FCC rules. It appears they like to think they do, but you'll find that the FCC would disagree.

The ARRL is no more of an authority on this than you or I.

Sorry, this particular argument is invalid.

Then you would probably choose answer "C" and you would lose points on getting a General License.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I suggest to the Moderator that instead of the new thread title being "Transmitting out of band with Amateur Radios " it be written "Interpretation of FCC Part 97 Emergency Distress Operations Rules"

 

[oregontreehugger]

There was an incident back in 2000, with some hikers injured during a climb of Mount Hood. See here for their side of the story:

Use of a VHF radio in the backcountry

They were able to summon for help on a state SAR VHF frequency. Ruffled a few feathers? Sure. But the results are what count. Technology sure has progressed since then, but carrying a radio of some sort in the backcountry doesn't hurt. Just one more tool in the toolbox, and hopefully one of very last resort. There are still lots of areas without cell phone service, especially out west, and you might as well leverage your options in a true emergency.

The problem comes when trying to define what someone feels is an "emergency". Plenty of day hikers have activated a PLB, only to be rescued at great expense because they got tired, forgot to bring enough water, wore the wrong clothing, etc. Folks are going to abuse the system and not use common sense, that's a fact of life. Look at all the 9-1-1 calls for pizza orders, cab rides, and so on. And even false maritime distress calls via radio. It isn't exclusive to one system or another.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

There was an incident back in 2000, with some hikers injured during a climb of Mount Hood. See here for their side of the story:

Use of a VHF radio in the backcountry

They were able to summon for help on a state SAR VHF frequency. Ruffled a few feathers? Sure. But the results are what count. Technology sure has progressed since then, but carrying a radio of some sort in the backcountry doesn't hurt. Just one more tool in the toolbox, and hopefully one of very last resort. There are still lots of areas without cell phone service, especially out west, and you might as well leverage your options in a true emergency.

The problem comes when trying to define what someone feels is an "emergency". Plenty of day hikers have activated a PLB, only to be rescued at great expense because they got tired, forgot to bring enough water, wore the wrong clothing, etc. Folks are going to abuse the system and not use common sense, that's a fact of life. Look at all the 9-1-1 calls for pizza orders, cab rides, and so on. And even false maritime distress calls via radio. It isn't exclusive to one system or another.

Thanks for the story. Usually when there is a S&R in that part of the country, it involves death and many hours of volunteers and thousands of taxpayer dollars in Public Safety resources (including helicopters) to locate the victim(s). In this case the rescue was speedy and uneventful. Also the article points out correctly that there is nothing illegal about having such frequencies in a radio. It is what the possessor of the radio does with the radio that counts. Much like current gun laws in most states.

 

[N4GIX]

In my opinion, I think these RACES or ARES groups are preaching to these people that they are needed in times of power outages, disasters, etc. When in reality these guys are not properly trained and don't know what it's like to work in true power outage scenarios. That means no AC, no lights, nothing!

You do know that RACES, while composed of amateur operators, is part of FEMA, right?

RACES is administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and acts as a communications group of the government. Registered members of RACES are authorized to respond when a civil defense organization requests amateur radio assistance. Typically these activities occur during periods of local, regional or national civil emergencies such as hurricanes, earthquakes, floods or wildfires. RACES stations may only communicate with specified stations [47CFR 97.407(c), (d)].

As far as "working off the grid" the local ham club (LCARC) just held our annual INPOTA event last weekend. We had our field station up and running in thirty-four minutes, most of which was getting our club's G5RV antenna up 60' and strung N/S from two very tall trees at the Indiana Dunes Park. Of the participating members, the average age was forty-two, a few decades short of being geriatrics... :lol:

 

[mmckenna]

Then you would probably choose answer "C" and you would lose points on getting a General License.

Uh-Oh, too late, passed my general a few years ago. Haven't had my license revoked (yet...).

I still say that ARRL is not a governing body. They cannot make or enforce rules. Their question pool is not a source of legal information. It's enough to get someone a passing score on a multiple choice test.

ARRL's opinions or interpretations do not impress me. I got rid of my ARRL membership years ago. There own point of view is just that, a point of view.

 

[MaximusTheGreat]

You do know that RACES, while composed of amateur operators, is part of FEMA, right?


To my knowledge, they are not "part" of FEMA. They are sponsored, which is a huge difference between part of and sponsored by.

If I remember correctly, FEMA removed funding to them back in 2012.

Either way, I find it extremely difficult to grasp how a Hamster would be the savior or when all else fails. Now do I see a need for them to be a liason to hospitals and the EOC, sure do. But even then the training and recruitment is not existent.

 

[AK9R]

The ARRL does not make up the Amateur Radio Question Pools. That task is the responsibility of the National Conference of Volunteer Examiner Coordinators (NCVEC) Question Pool Committee (QPC). The QPC has five members, only one of which is from the ARRL VEC. Note that the QPC also determines the correct answers for the questions in the pools, so you can't blame the ARRL for what you believe to be an incorrect answer. (Note, I agree that 97.405 does not necessarily give an amateur radio operator the right to transmit on any frequency in an emergency.)

The ARRL does, however, publish amateur radio exam study guides which contain their explanations of the questions and answers. The description of the answer posted above was written by the ARRL, not the FCC.

As for RACES, I don't believe that RACES has ever been part of FEMA in the 25 years that I've been licensed. While RACES is loosely defined in Part 97, there is no automatic connection to FEMA though some grant money from FEMA does trickle down to RACES teams from time to time. Many counties in the U.S. have RACES teams that answer only to the county EMA director. And, some states have statewide RACES teams that answer to the state EMA or Department of Homeland Security. But, I'm not aware of any nationwide RACES team answering directly to FEMA now or in the past.

 

[N4DES]

The following rule section covers all of the parts and is very clear. I bolded the specific language that means, as stated earlier, that having a Part 97 license does not give you authorizations in others parts, such as Part 90.

§1.903 Authorization required.

(a) General rule. Stations in the Wireless Radio Services must be used and operated only in accordance with the rules applicable to their particular service as set forth in this title and with a valid authorization granted by the Commission under the provisions of this part, except as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Restrictions. The holding of an authorization does not create any rights beyond the terms, conditions and period specified in the authorization. Authorizations may be granted upon proper application, provided that the Commission finds that the applicant is qualified in regard to citizenship, character, financial, technical and other criteria, and that the public interest, convenience and necessity will be served. See §§301, 308, and 309, 310 of this chapter.

Part 90 also states:

§90.427 Precautions against unauthorized operation.

(a) Each transmitter shall be so installed and protected that it is not accessible to or capable of operation by persons other than those duly authorized by and under the control of the licensee. Provisions of this part authorizing certain unlicensed persons to operate stations, or authorizing unattended operation of stations in certain circumstances, shall not be construed to change or diminish in any respect the responsibility of station licensees to maintain control over the stations licensed to them (including all transmitter units thereof), or for the proper functioning and operation of those stations and transmitter units in accordance with the terms of the licenses of those stations.

(b) Except for frequencies used in accordance with §90.417, no person shall program into a transmitter frequencies for which the licensee using the transmitter is not authorized.

 

[N4DES]

Your interpretation conflicts with that of the FCC. This was played out a couple of years ago in another thread, and someone finally asked the FCC.

The FCC said:

"Your question was referred to me because it concerns the Commission’s amateur radio rules.

Section 97.105(b) answers your question: “A station may only be operated in the manner and to the extent permitted by the privileges authorized for the class of operator license held by the control operator.” Control operator privileges are specified in Section 97.301.

Part 97 does not contain any “privileges authorized” for amateur radio operators that include Part 90 or Part 95 frequencies. Part 90 and 95 both require the use of certificated equipment. See Section 90.203 and 95.409. Use of modified amateur radio transceivers on Part 90 or 95 frequencies violate the rules because modified amateur radio equipment is not certified for either Part 90 or 95 radio services.

As you note, “The rules are clear that in order to use Part 90 or 95 spectrum, the operator must have the correct licensing and certified radios to use those services.” The debate you are referring to, therefore, comes down to “How can we get around the rules?” The answer is, “You can’t.” We will be happy to relieve you of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars and your amateur radio license if you transmit on channels you are not licensed to transmit on.

William

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau"

This is an accurate re-post.

 

[N4GIX]

I didn't make up that quoted paragraph out of a fevered imagination. It was a direct quote from the FCC's own website:
https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/techtopics/techtopics13.html

Instead of "I believe" or "I think" how about simply reading from the source directly?

See also this link from the cited footnote #2 Homeland Security Bureau's Amateur Radio Services:
https://transition.fcc.gov/pshs/services/amateur.html

As for training, there's a host of courses required for full certification as a RACES operator. See National Incident Management System as well as FEMA's own Independent Study program.

 

[Chronic]

Ask Riley

Here is a great way to ask someone who will know the answer .

Ask Riley Hollingsworth

We need to get more activity on our FCC segment. Please send your FCC questions to AskRiley@w5kub.com Riley is retired from the FCC and can provide a lot of information. Include your phone number if you would like Riley to call you back.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

This is an accurate re-post.

I am not disputing its accuracy. I am requesting the original question for context.

 

[KC4RAF]

Dead horse, dead horse, dead horse!

For over 30+ years, this type of question has been asked, THOUSANDS of times. And always, as now, NO. You are not allowed to get on the police/LEO frequencies and say you have an emergency. The rules posted by some here, are for the AMATEUR radio operator and his/her frequencies (ham).
Now would I, use a police transmitter to call for help? If it was a matter of life, yes. And then I would pay the price for my actions, which the FCC has listed in their rules.
The rules are laid out, you are not permitted to use Public Safety frequencies for calling for help.
73s

 

[N4DES]

I am not disputing its accuracy. I am requesting the original question for context.

This is what was sent to me by the author of the original email to the FCC in 2013:

I am researching information regarding FCC rules and regulations pertaining to unlicensed operation in the Part 90 and Part 95 spectrum. I looked up members of the Enforcement Bureau from the FCC website and am guessing that someone in Spectrum Enforcement Division would know the answer or be able to point me in the right direction. I would appreciate it if you could take a few moments to see if you can answer my questions.

I am an FCC licensed operator in the Amateur Radio Service, call sign (redacted). I spend a good bit of time on internet sites and forums dedicated to various radio services. One subject that continually comes up for debate is the use of modified amateur radio transceivers that is not certified for Part 90 or 95 radio services for both personal and emergency use. In order to better educate operators of the amateur radio service I am trying to find out the correct answer to this debate.

The rules are clear that in order to use Part 90 or 95 spectrum, the operator must have the correct licensing and certified radios to use those services. However, many amateur radio operators will quote the following Part 97 rules stating that in an extreme emergency situation any radio on any frequency is acceptable to use for assistance. Part 97.403 states that “No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station of any means of radiocommunication at its disposal to provide essential communication needs in connection with the immediate safety of human life and immediate protection of property when normal communication systems are not available.”

The debate is centered around the argument that any radio operator using a non-certified Part 90 or 95 radio in a part of the spectrum that one is not licensed to use is either A) against FCC rules and the operator can be fined for such radio use, or, B) that under part 97.403 an amateur radio operator is allowed under certain emergency situations to use a modified amateur radio transceiver on Part 90 or 95 frequencies to obtain help, without fear of being fined or having their licensed revoked.

As a member of the Enforcement Bureau, how would you respond to the use of modified non-part 90 or 95 equipment during an emergency situation? How does the Enforcement Bureau interpret and enforce 97.403?

Thank you for your time and have a great Memorial Day weekend.