FWIW: Licensing Part 90 itinerants as an individual is tough

[fog]

Hi there,

No worries on my part; I'm just going to resubmit properly later. But the topic comes up somewhat often here and elsewhere, so I wanted to share my experience trying to license a UHF itinerant frequency. (One frequency, two neighboring states.) For background, I'm filing as an individual (I'm a ham and also have an unused GMRS license), but I'm involved in a few organizations that would be Part 90 eligible (e.g., shooting competitions at various clubs) and figured, based on existing licenses, that I could license it as an individual rather than trying to make the group file with the FCC or keep using FRS radios.)

My application was bounced back today. It went into "Returned" status a few days ago, and today I got the letter via email. (First learning: it takes a few days to get an explanation of the status change.)

What came back to me was:

Eligibility in the Industrial/Business Pool is restricted to activities listed under 90.35(a). Your eligibility statement indicates the
radio use ‘Radios used to coordinate volunteer activities among eligibles at temporary, non-fixed locations. ’ It is unclear if
you, as an individual, are utilizing the communication services proposed to support an activity listed in 90.35(a). Please amend
your application to provide the specific rule part and section that you are claiming eligibly under, e.g. 90.35(a)1 for the
operation of a commercial activity.

Provide in an attachment a copy of your business license and other documentation, such as, work orders, contracts etc. that
demonstrates your commercial status.

Are you a sole proprietor?
Do you have a DBA name?

Use of these radios for personal use, recreational use, volunteering or a hobby is prohibited. You should apply instead in the
radio services under part 95.
Please amend your application to demonstrate that you operate an eligible activity listed in 90.35(a) or withdraw your request.

I think this is fair feedback; my application was very vague. But wanted to share this for others, because it seems more restrictive than what I've seen discussed before, and more stringent than what some existing licenses show. Those looking to submit such an application might want to be more prepared than I was.

 

[prcguy]

Resubmit and tell them you are in the "security business" or "oversize truck escort" or some other business that would justify the license in different areas. I have never seen anyone question a business justification.

 

[fog]

Resubmit and tell them you are in the "security business" or "oversize truck escort" or some other business that would justify the license in different areas. I have never seen anyone question a business justification.

I don't want to say anything untruthful. Especially when they've explicitly asked for certain documentation, I think failing to provide it is going to lead to an outright rejection.

 

[n3obl]

90.35A1 - PRIVATE CARRIER PROVIDING RADIO SERVICE TO PART 90 ELIGIBLES.​

 

[Cameron314]

90.35A1 - PRIVATE CARRIER PROVIDING RADIO SERVICE TO PART 90 ELIGIBLES.​

I would not do that.

 

[alcahuete]

And they are absolutely right. Part 90 is not for hams/hobbyists who simply want a private frequency for themselves. That's just not what it's for. You can use FRS, GMRS, etc.

Kudos to the FCC on this one.

 

[natedawg1604]

And they are absolutely right. Part 90 is not for hams/hobbyists who simply want a private frequency for themselves. That's just not what it's for. You can use FRS, GMRS, etc.

Kudos to the FCC on this one.

Except you can't use FRS or GMRS with P25 or any other digital protocol, a lot of people need itinerant freqs for this reason...

 

[Floridarailfanning]

For background, I'm filing as an individual (I'm a ham and also have an unused GMRS license),

Did you reuse your existing FRN?

If you have an FRN with Part 95 and Part 97 authorizations and then file form 601 for a Part 90 they will typically question the validity of your eligibility. If you have your heart set on using Part 90, make a new FRN, and wait a couple of weeks before trying again.

 

[alcahuete]

Except you can't use FRS or GMRS with P25 or any other digital protocol, a lot of people need itinerant freqs for this reason...

Need is the wrong word. It's "want." Personal use is not what the Part 90 frequencies are for. He has a ham license and can use P25 to his heart's content there.

 

[natedawg1604]

Need is the wrong word. It's "want." Personal use is not what the Part 90 frequencies are for. He has a ham license and can use P25 to his heart's content there.

Not with AES.

 

[alcahuete]

Not with AES.

And he needs AES for personal use? You're grasping at straws here. Leave the business frequencies for the businesses. Leave GMRS and ham radio to the hobbyists.

 

[natedawg1604]

And he needs AES for personal use? You're grasping at straws here. Leave the business frequencies for the businesses. Leave GMRS and ham radio to the hobbyists.

Yes exactly, it's actually growing in popularity for personal use.

 

[fog]

Yes exactly, it's actually growing in popularity for personal use.

That's the point of my post, really. I've seen a lot of posts here and elsewhere about grabbing a Part 90 license for fun with crypto and such, but it seems like the FCC is applying increasing scrutiny to these sort of applications.

 

[alcahuete]

That's the point of my post, really. I've seen a lot of posts here and elsewhere about grabbing a Part 90 license for fun with crypto and such, but it seems like the FCC is applying increasing scrutiny to these sort of applications.

When I applied for a license for my business, years ago, the FCC made a mistake and used my personal FRN (ham and GMRS) instead of my business FRN. I still have the email about it being a glitch in their system. Mine was not just for itenerants either. I had a frequency coordinator involved, several locations, simplex and repeaters, etc. It was a major application.

Long story short, the tech basically explained it to me almost exactly like they did to you. People are applying for Part 90 licenses for personal use, and none of them would be approved. As soon as I supplied my corporate tax EIN and they changed my application to use the FRN for the corporation, it was approved literally within a couple days.

Wanting to play with encryption or digital or whatever else is just not a reason to have the license, and shockingly, the FCC actually cares.

Can you make up some company and try it that way? Possibly. Would anybody even know or care if you were to use itinerants without a license? Probably not. Good on you for wanting to do it the right way though.

 

[ecps92]

Never heard of that issue, nor have had a problem with it in 35+ years of being licensed for Marine, GMRS, Amatuer and Business (Itinerant and Local Repeater] all under the same FRN

Did you reuse your existing FRN?

If you have an FRN with Part 95 and Part 97 authorizations and then file form 601 for a Part 90 they will typically question the validity of your eligibility. If you have your heart set on using Part 90, make a new FRN, and wait a couple of weeks before trying again.

 

[Floridarailfanning]

Never heard of that issue, nor have had a problem with it in 35+ years of being licensed for Marine, GMRS, Amatuer and Business (Itinerant and Local Repeater] all under the same FRN

It's certainly not impossible to have multiple services on one FRN, and perhaps this is an uncommon issue, but I have seen several applications get returned over the years when Part 90 was applied for after Part 97, and in almost every case, creating a fresh FRN and reapplying resolved any scrutiny from the commission.

 

[DeoVindice]

I have an itinerant license for my company. It uses my personal FRN but I supplied our EIN in the initial application. It was approved quickly.

 

[FKimble]

Just get some decent MURS radios and no license needed. Who are you planning on talking to? Do they have a license for this UHF frequency? Are they digital or encrypted? Public service or a business? Or will you be supplying their radios? I may have missed the answers. If so sorry about that.

Frank

 

[celestis]

It's certainly not impossible to have multiple services on one FRN

Yeah no kidding
I've got Part 97, 95, 90, and even 27Q (pending approval)

 

[a417]

...ok, I had to look up 27Q.

It's been too long since 47 CFR had been an on the clock thing.