Special Frequency Report - 2001/03
Recent magazine articles and E-mail communications have raised concerns regarding three important radio frequency–related issues: the legality of continuing the process of "narrowbanding" older, so-called "wideband" transmitters; the changing of transmitter crystals by the user; and the use of one manufacturer's frequency module in another brand.
In an effort to supply the membership with information on these subjects, two letters from AMA's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) legal counsel are included at the end of this column.
AMA's position regarding federal regulations has been to promote adherence to them. However, AMA does not act in the capacity of an enforcement agency for the federal government. Rather, AMA's practice has been to monitor regulatory governmental activity, provide research, initiate appropriate rule-making when it is deemed necessary, and keep members informed.
AMA has long been a champion for the acquisition and protection of frequencies for model use. This has been true not only for model aircraft, but for surface model activity as well.
AMA initiated the actions that resulted in the FCC creating the present model frequency assignments. To implement these new frequencies, AMA and the radio control industry developed a phase-in program. Further cooperation created guidelines for "narrowband" systems. A program for identifying and labeling transmitters was instituted during the new frequency transition period, and the FCC was petitioned for permission to "narrowband" older "wideband" transmitters.
AMA worked diligently to defend against proposed rule-making in 1992, which would have rendered the majority of the 72-megahertz (MHz) frequencies unusable.
Historically, the AMA Frequency Committee has spearheaded these activities. Early in the last decade, AMA was joined in its efforts by the Radio Control Manufacturers Association (RCMA). The cooperative effort has been an important ingredient in the success of the hobby/sport acquiring and maintaining frequencies for model use.
AMA and RCMA are represented before the FCC by legal counsel headquartered in Washington, D.C. Mr. Raymond Kowalski of the firm Keller and Heckman has provided the following opinions concerning the issues mentioned above. Mr. Kowalski has represented AMA in FCC matters since 1988. Prior to moving to private practice, he served as head of the FCC radio service that contained model frequency activity.
First Letter
"As requested, we have examined the question of permissibility of using R/C transmitters that have been modified to bring them into conformance with the Federal Communications Commission's narrowband regulations.
"The use of narrowband transmitters has been promoted by the Academy of Model Aeronautics for many years. Well before the FCC formalized narrowband requirements for R/C transmitters in PR Docket 90-222 (Report and Order, FCC 91-103, released on April 10, 1991), the Academy had informed the FCC that the production of narrowband transmitters had already become the industry standard. In fact, late in 1988, the Academy sought and obtained a ruling from the FCC that the modification of wideband transmitters to improve their performance to narrowband standards was indeed permissible and did not require any filing with the FCC, so long as the modification was performed by the manufacturer's authorized service representative.1
"In PR Docket No. 90-222, the FCC amended Section 95.623 of its rules to add subsections (b) and (c). By these amendments, the FCC formally required the use of narrowband transmitters in the R/C Radio Service and established a transition timetable. In particular, subsection (c) states:
"(c) All R/C transmitters capable of operation in the 72-76 MHz band that are manufactured in or imported into the United States, on or after March 1, 1992, or marketed on or after March 1, 1993, must be maintained within a frequency tolerance of 0.002%. R/C transmitters operating in the 72-76 MHz band and marketed before March 1, 1992 could lawfully be sold until March 1, 1993. Persons who purchased such transmitters could lawfully operate them until March 1, 1998.
"Note that the rule looks to the frequency tolerance of the transmitter. All R/C transmitters in use today 'must be maintained within a frequency tolerance of 0.002%.' The rule does not say that converted transmitters may not be operated after March 1, 1998, nor does the rule say that the transmitter must have been converted to narrowband operation prior to March 1, 1998. Nor did the ruling received in 1988 from the FCC that narrowbanding qualifies as a 'Class I permissive change' within the meaning of Section 2.1001(b)(1) of the FCC's rules, bear any time limits.
"Accordingly, we conclude that wideband transmitters, manufactured or imported into the United States prior to March 1, 1992, may continue to be converted to meet the frequency tolerance requirements of Section 95.623(c) of the FCC's rules and that transmitters that have been converted may continue to be lawfully operated.
"We trust this information will clarify any confusion that may have arisen as to this question."
1 Letter, October 20, 1988, from the Academy to the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology. Reply, Dec. 14, 1988. 2 Now Section 2.1043(b)(1) of the rules.
Second Letter
"As requested, we have re-examined the question of whether one manufacturer's frequency-determining plug-in modules may be substituted into another manufacturer's R/C transmitter.
"The applicable rule is Section 95.645 of the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission, which reads, in subsection (b):
"95.645 Control accessibility. "(b) An R/C transmitter which incorporates plug-in frequency determining modules which are changed by the user must be certified with the modules. Each module must contain all of the frequency determining circuitry including the oscillator. Plug-in crystals are not considered modules and must not be accessible to the user.
"Formerly, this rule used the term 'type accepted' instead of 'certificated.'1 In our opinion, however, this change in terminology had no effect on the substance of the rule. Type acceptance and certification are two of several FCC equipment authorization procedures. The FCC in recent years has streamlined its regulations by reducing the number of equipment authorization procedures and revising which procedure is to be used with which kind of equipment.
"In fact, in the Report and Order in ET Docket No. 97-94 (FCC 98-58, released April 16, 1998) the FCC concluded that the certification and the type acceptance procedures were so similar that they could be combined into one procedure, certification.
"However, these streamlining revisions did not change the underlying equipment performance standards which the equipment must meet. That is, regardless of the authorization procedure employed, the underlying requirements remained the same.
"Our opinion, that it is impermissible to use one manufacturer's plug-in modules in the transmitter of another manufacturer, was based on the current rule, which speaks of 'certification.' Similarly, we confirmed this view with the FCC's staff, based on the current text of the rule.
"In short, the equipment authorization procedure makes no difference to the substantive requirement of the rule. Nothing we have seen in recent discussions of this issue gives us any reason to change our opinion.
"We trust this information will clarify any confusion that may exist as to this point.
"1 Although we quoted this rule in its current form in our letter to you of Sept. 25, 2000, the rule as published in the January 2001 issue of Model Aviation used the older version, which speaks of 'type acceptance' instead of 'certification.'" MA
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
