Interpretation of FCC Part 97 Emergency Distress Operations Rules

[mmckenna]

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.

Thanks for the clarification.
However, and I think you'd agree, the ARRL and the NCVEC are not regulatory bodies. Neither the ARRL or the NCVEC can make rules or determine their true meaning. They may make an attempt to put them into "plain language", but it doesn't make their interpretations any better or worse than anyone else.

As for Riley Hollingsworth, he's a good source, but again, since he's no longer part of the FCC, he's going to give it an educated interpretation, not a ruling.

Again, calling it what it is, illegal operation of an uncertified radio on Part 90 frequencies.

 

[SCPD]

Hmmmm.... I thought I had said my say on this subject, but it got it's hook into me...
.
That said, I can sense a simmering heat of emotions just below the surface.. this is a very emotion-charged subject, this Part 97.403. And so saying, I decided to go to the people that could answer this best, at least for me...so this morning I called my contact at the FCC.
.
I won't elaborate on details, but I have had a relationship with the FCC for quite awhile... for thou my work doesn't involve FCC administer'd frequencies, often our signals cross boundaries- the net result- I have gotten know some of their people quite well, over the years.
.
Fast forward thru the day, I called my friend, one of their Field Engineers-----
. (bear in mind, this conversation has been edit'd/enhanced for sake of brevity and entertainment)
.

"Okay Lauri, what trouble are you thinking of getting into now?"
"This deals with amateur radio"
"And how do you want to torment the poor hams now?" *
"Actually, I don't--at least not this time*.... what can you tell me about Part 97 decimal 403?"
"What is that? Part 97 dot 403.... let me get back to you......................."
.
Later this afternoon he calls back
.
"I read that regulation" he said "now, what do you want to know about it?"
I filled him in on this discussion
"and your question is......?"
So I said my interpretation of it is: That in the event of an emergency, anyone can use any radio in any way to effect assistance for reasons as defined as "safety of life and/or property."
"which you are certainly legally allowed to do" he said "just make sure it is a bonafided emergency"
But, I added, the question that keeps arising in this forum discussion- is this legal under an Amateur Radio License?
" No, it isn't. Their is no provision to step outside the privileges of the license grant, but that isn't what is at issue here. You are not operating a Amateur radio station any longer-- you are now operating an unlicensed station in a dire emergency, which is allowed under both FCC and international regulations. You can use callsigns if you wish to establish legitimacy, if you like, but remember, this is no longer a 'ham' station....it would be the same for any station, ham, police, broadcast"
.
This confirmed what I thought... and as far as I am concerned, finishes me here.... but let the discussion continue! for I am sure it is far from over......
.
..............................CF
.
* I have had some issues with who exactly has primacy use in the 420-450Mhz band... some people unfortunately had to move

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

I see that not once does "William at FCC" refer back to 97.403 or does he mention the related section 97.405. Sort of reminds me of usual dealings with bureaucratic agencies.

It is truly odd that the rules state not once but three times an exemption to over ride the general provisions of Part 97 in a situation of dire emergency. In such cases, at risk is the amateurs station license, therefore the provisions 97.403 and 97.405 (a and b).

I have cited two examples of ordinary citizens using a police radio to summon help for a fallen officer, someone else cited a self rescue situation using VHF SAR frequencies in a radio they were carrying. In none of these cases were they charged with anything illegal.

So far no one has cited a case of an ordinary citizen using public safety radio to summon help in a true emergency actually being cited by the FCC. In fact I would challenge that apart from cases of intentional interference, no one has been cited by the FCC using a radio in this manner. I suspect there is an empty file in an empty filing cabinet in an empty warehouse in Gettysburg "overflowing" with these cases.

Finally, If these paragraphs do not mean that an amateur radio station operator can *Use any means of radiocommunication at its disposal* then I ask, what exactly are these paragraphs meant to imply?

§ 97.403 Safety of life and protection of property.

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.

§ 97.405 Station in distress.

(a) No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station in distress of *any means at its disposal * to attract attention, make known its condition and location, and obtain assistance.

(b) No provision of these rules prevents the use by a station, in the exceptional circumstances described in paragraph (a) of this section, * of any means of radiocommunications at its disposal * to assist a station in distress.

* Emphasis mine.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Hmmmm.... I thought I had said my say on this subject, but it got it's hook into me...
.
That said, I can sense a simmering heat of emotions just below the surface.. this is a very emotion-charged subject, this Part 97.403. And so saying, I decided to go to the people that could answer this best, at least for me...so this morning I called my contact at the FCC.
.
I won't elaborate on details, but I have had a relationship with the FCC for quite awhile... for thou my work doesn't involve FCC administer'd frequencies, often our signals cross boundaries- the net result- I have gotten know some of their people quite well, over the years.
.
Fast forward thru the day, I called my friend, one of their Field Engineers-----
. (bear in mind, this conversation has been edit'd/enhanced for sake of brevity and entertainment)
.

"Okay Lauri, what trouble are you thinking of getting into now?"
"This deals with amateur radio"
"And how do you want to torment the poor hams now?" *
"Actually, I don't--at least not this time*.... what can you tell me about Part 97 decimal 403?"
"What is that? Part 97 dot 403.... let me get back to you......................."
.
Later this afternoon he calls back
.
"I read that regulation" he said "now, what do you want to know about it?"
I filled him in on this discussion
"and your question is......?"
So I said my interpretation of it is: That in the event of an emergency, anyone can use any radio in any way to effect assistance for reasons as defined as "safety of life and/or property."
"which you are certainly legally allowed to do" he said "just make sure it is a bonafided emergency"
But, I added, the question that keeps arising in this forum discussion- is this legal under an Amateur Radio License?
" No, it isn't. Their is no provision to step outside the privileges of the license grant, but that isn't what is at issue here. You are not operating a Amateur radio station any longer-- you are now operating an unlicensed station in a dire emergency, which is allowed under both FCC and international regulations. You can use callsigns if you wish to establish legitimacy, if you like, but remember, this is no longer a 'ham' station....it would be the same for any station, ham, police, broadcast"
.
This confirmed what I thought... and as far as I am concerned, finishes me here.... but let the discussion continue! for I am sure it is far from over......
.
..............................CF
.
* I have had some issues with who exactly has primacy use in the 420-450Mhz band... some people unfortunately had to move

THANK YOU!

 

[mmckenna]

Again, it comes down to "amateur station".

Once you are working on Part 90, 95, 80, etc. frequencies, you are no longer an "amateur station" You are an average joe transmitting where you do not have a license.

Your amateur radio license does not grant you any privileges outside the amateur radio bands.

Seems pretty straightforward to me, but apparently it isn't to everyone.

Again, like I've said before, in a situation that was life or death, I would use whatever means I had at my disposal to get help. But, I'd call it was it is, transmitting without a license, unauthorized, and in the case of a modified amateur radio, with a non-type accepted radio. There is no question about that. Part 97 rules grant you zero privileges on frequencies belonging to any other radio services.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

"He's dead, Jim"

http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/015/050/DeForest_Kelley__Dr._McCoy__Star_Trek.jpg

Its dead, the horse is dead, Coyote-Frostbyte stuck a fork in it.

 

[N4DES]

Hmmmm.... I thought I had said my say on this subject, but it got it's hook into me...
.
That said, I can sense a simmering heat of emotions just below the surface.. this is a very emotion-charged subject, this Part 97.403. And so saying, I decided to go to the people that could answer this best, at least for me...so this morning I called my contact at the FCC.
.
I won't elaborate on details, but I have had a relationship with the FCC for quite awhile... for thou my work doesn't involve FCC administer'd frequencies, often our signals cross boundaries- the net result- I have gotten know some of their people quite well, over the years.
.
Fast forward thru the day, I called my friend, one of their Field Engineers-----
. (bear in mind, this conversation has been edit'd/enhanced for sake of brevity and entertainment)
.

"Okay Lauri, what trouble are you thinking of getting into now?"
"This deals with amateur radio"
"And how do you want to torment the poor hams now?" *
"Actually, I don't--at least not this time*.... what can you tell me about Part 97 decimal 403?"
"What is that? Part 97 dot 403.... let me get back to you......................."
.
Later this afternoon he calls back
.
"I read that regulation" he said "now, what do you want to know about it?"
I filled him in on this discussion
"and your question is......?"
So I said my interpretation of it is: That in the event of an emergency, anyone can use any radio in any way to effect assistance for reasons as defined as "safety of life and/or property."
"which you are certainly legally allowed to do" he said "just make sure it is a bonafided emergency"
But, I added, the question that keeps arising in this forum discussion- is this legal under an Amateur Radio License?
" No, it isn't. Their is no provision to step outside the privileges of the license grant, but that isn't what is at issue here. You are not operating a Amateur radio station any longer-- you are now operating an unlicensed station in a dire emergency, which is allowed under both FCC and international regulations. You can use callsigns if you wish to establish legitimacy, if you like, but remember, this is no longer a 'ham' station....it would be the same for any station, ham, police, broadcast"
.
This confirmed what I thought... and as far as I am concerned, finishes me here.... but let the discussion continue! for I am sure it is far from over......
.
..............................CF
.
* I have had some issues with who exactly has primacy use in the 420-450Mhz band... some people unfortunately had to move

Not to insult you or your friend, but I would tend to go with more what William Cross put in writing on official fcc.gov email vs. a verbal conversation.

Also if some continue to believe that cross-authorizations are permitted I'm sure you wouldn't mind a Part 73 user coming over and taking over Part 97 spectrum because their equipment malfunctioned and began broadcasting on a local repeater because they "claim" that they have an emergency. Oh wait, broadcasting is technically illegal in Part 97 right? Per some of the previous personal interpretations not for them because they don't hold a Part 97 license and don't have to adhere to those pesky rules.

 

[N4DES]

I see that not once does "William at FCC" refer back to 97.403 or does he mention the related section 97.405. Sort of reminds me of usual dealings with bureaucratic agencies.

It is truly odd that the rules state not once but three times an exemption to over ride the general provisions of Part 97 in a situation of dire emergency. In such cases, at risk is the amateurs station license, therefore the provisions 97.403 and 97.405 (a and b).

I have cited two examples of ordinary citizens using a police radio to summon help for a fallen officer, someone else cited a self rescue situation using VHF SAR frequencies in a radio they were carrying. In none of these cases were they charged with anything illegal.

So far no one has cited a case of an ordinary citizen using public safety radio to summon help in a true emergency actually being cited by the FCC. In fact I would challenge that apart from cases of intentional interference, no one has been cited by the FCC using a radio in this manner. I suspect there is an empty file in an empty filing cabinet in an empty warehouse in Gettysburg "overflowing" with these cases.

Finally, If these paragraphs do not mean that an amateur radio station operator can *Use any means of radiocommunication at its disposal* then I ask, what exactly are these paragraphs meant to imply?

§ 97.403 Safety of life and protection of property.

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.

§ 97.405 Station in distress.

(a) No provision of these rules prevents the use by an amateur station in distress of *any means at its disposal * to attract attention, make known its condition and location, and obtain assistance.

(b) No provision of these rules prevents the use by a station, in the exceptional circumstances described in paragraph (a) of this section, * of any means of radiocommunications at its disposal * to assist a station in distress.

* Emphasis mine.

What the FCC is stating is that you can operate out of the amateur band that your license provides. If you are a General class license holder and used the Extra class band for a distress call you would not be found liable of exceeding your license class that I noted previously from Section 1 of the FCC rules:

§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.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Not to insult you or your friend, but I would tend to go with more what William Cross put in writing on official fcc.gov email vs. a verbal conversation.

Also if some continue to believe that cross-authorizations are permitted I'm sure you wouldn't mind a Part 73 user coming over and taking over Part 97 spectrum because their equipment malfunctioned and began broadcasting on a local repeater because they "claim" that they have an emergency. Oh wait, broadcasting is illegal in Part 97 right? Per some of the previous personal interpretations not for them because they don't hold a Part 97 license and don't have to adhere to those pesky rules.

Yes in fact I would put more stock in a recent verbal convo with a field engineer who apparently took the time to research the subject and explain the exact logic behind the rules than someone at a help desk.

Your example of a broadcaster is yet another red herring I won't bite. How is this: What if he is calling from his overturned ENG truck in the everglades, injured, pinned in just above water and somehow dials the local ham repeater using his RF signal generator? Is that good enough?

 

[N4DES]

Yes in fact I would put more stock in a recent verbal convo with a field engineer who apparently took the time to research the subject and explain the exact logic behind the rules than someone at a help desk.

Your example of a broadcaster is yet another red herring I won't bite. How is this: What if he is calling from his overturned ENG truck in the everglades, injured, pinned in just above water and somehow dials the local ham repeater using his RF signal generator? Is that good enough?

Oh please....it would be more realistic for a broadcast engineer to take an amateur mobile radio and feed their broadcast audio to the local repeater that the absolute nonsense you wrote above.

As to William Cross working at a help desk, you obviously didn't do much research on the man before making that statement. FCC's Bill Cross: "Behave Yourselves!"

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Oh please....it would be more realistic for a broadcast engineer to take an amateur mobile radio and feed their broadcast audio to the local repeater that the absolute nonsense you wrote above.

As to William Cross working at a help desk, you obviously didn't do much research on the man before making that statement. FCC's Bill Cross: "Behave Yourselves!"

Respectfully; the letter you posted appears quoted in part in many forums and in every case is signed only by "William". This could actually be anyone.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

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.

I have just sent him a request. Hopefully he answers and I will post his reply.

 

[mmckenna]

Yes in fact I would put more stock in a recent verbal convo with a field engineer who apparently took the time to research the subject and explain the exact logic behind the rules than someone at a help desk.

I can understand that.
However, in reality, we're a bunch of strangers on the internet. With all due respect to Coyote Frostbyte, we don't know who Coyote F. is, we don't know if Coyote F. really talked to the FCC. It's all just words banged out on a keyboard. Might be 100% true, might not. All we have are words in this forum. Not suggesting C.F. is lying, just saying we're all strangers with no proof of anything other than we all seem to have the same interests and have access to a computer.

Hell, we could all be next door neighbors and not know it. I could be an 11 year old boy hiding in the basement.

I'd much rather see something from the FCC in writing, preferably on an FCC.gov website. Not ARRL. Not Bob's late night radio supply and fishing tackle. And certainly not the opinions of a bunch of amateurs that have dogs in the hunt.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

True, this internet thing could be just some big artificial intelligence experiment. For all we know C-F is a huge AI server deep in a missile silo somewhere that was programmed by Bjork!

"Magnets belong on refrigerators, NOT antennas!" ON THIS WE CAN AGREE!

 

[mmckenna]

Yeah, I was wondering that about her (or him, it, them, they?)

 

[mmckenna]

Actually, better than seeing the answer on a fcc.gov site, how 'bout we all gather around the table with some cold beers and talk this through. We may not come to a consensus, but it'd be a heck of a lot more fun.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Actually, better than seeing the answer on a fcc.gov site, how 'bout we all gather around the table with some cold beers and talk this through. We may not come to a consensus, but it'd be a heck of a lot more fun.

Ok! You buying?

 

[mmckenna]

First round is always on me.

 

[vagrant]

Nice, we can BBQ this dead horse I found!

 

[AK9R]

Mind if I roll another grenade under the table?

If you believe that 97.403 and/or 97.405 give an amateur radio operator the permission to transmit on public safety frequencies in an emergency, please tell us which provision anywhere in the FCC rules allows you to transmit on public safety frequencies (Part 90) with a transmitter that is not FCC certified under Part 90.

Have fun!