Question on "Qualifications" part of FCC rules....

[guitar_199]

This is, hands down, the most TECHNICAL and TECHNICALLY COMPETENT forums I have ever seen on the web to date.

With that in mind, I submit the following disclaimer:

I don't work for or with the FCC!
I am interested in using my past electronics training as a hobby near and in my retirement for fun and pass-time.
I have a wicked sense of humor and can take needling like nobody's business!!!!

Now here is the question...

In FCC Part 95 (Specifically 95.919 replacement parts) the first paragraph says.....

The operator of a CBRS transmitter may replace
parts of the CBRS transmitter as stated in this
section. All other internal maintenance and repairs
must be carried out in accordance with § 95.319.

Now, let's look at 95.319 (Specifically 95.319(b))

(b) Internal repairs. Internal adjustments and
repairs to Personal Radio Services transmitters
must be performed by or under the supervision of
an individual who is qualified to maintain and
repair transmitters.

Okay! I am thinking that, at one time, these rules required repairs to be carried out by someone
with a 2nd Class Radiotelephone license. NOW it just seems to vaguely say....."an individual who is
qualified to maintain and repair transmitters".

I would think that, somewhere, they would have to spell out "what qualifies someone" but there seems to be no reference to any such definition.

1) Trying to think like the FCC... what "qualifies" an individual to maintain and repair transmitters?

2) Is anyone aware of anything in FCC rules and regs that covers/spells out the required qualification?

3) And, finally..... am I just "over-thinking" again??????

Seriously though.. it is just a curiosity of my own........

 

[Tokin]

This is, hands down, the most TECHNICAL and TECHNICALLY COMPETENT forums I have ever seen on the web to date.

With that in mind, I submit the following disclaimer:

I don't work for or with the FCC!
I am interested in using my past electronics training as a hobby near and in my retirement for fun and pass-time.
I have a wicked sense of humor and can take needling like nobody's business!!!!

Try this first then scroll down


Feel better? Great!
Now from what i can find according to the FCC what qualifies a person to maintain and repair radio equipment is the possession of a Commercial Operator license. In order to obtain that you must pass element 3 which covers repair and maintenance of radio equipment.
Thats what i found in my searching.

https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau...l-radio-operator-license-program/examinations

 

[Road Squawker]

Amateur radio is not a Personal Radio Service.
Your first reference (95.919) does not apply, so nothing you posted after that does either.

 

[WECSOG]

Amateur radio is not a Personal Radio Service.
Your first reference (95.919) does not apply, so nothing you posted after that does either.

Unless I missed something or it has been edited, nothing in the OP nor in the subforum in which it was posted refers to amateur radio.

Now to the OP's observation; in my opinion the end result is what the FCC would use to determine qualifications. If the transmitter meets spec after being worked on, the technician is qualified. If not, well...

 

[guitar_199]

I don't know why.... I would have expected an actual reference to the qualifications required. Either the name of the license or a link of some sort. To just say "someone qualified" leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

But that CERTAINLY would not be the first time I had seen THAT in legal mumbo jumbo!!!

Try this first then scroll down

Now from what i can find according to the FCC what qualifies a person to maintain and repair radio equipment is the possession of a Commercial Operator license. In order to obtain that you must pass element 3 which covers repair and maintenance of radio equipment.
Thats what i found in my searching.

https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau...l-radio-operator-license-program/examinations
View attachment 40478

 

[guitar_199]

For the most part I agree with that. Sometimes I wonder if things like this are put in just to be "one more point to hang you on!"

What I mean is.... if they inspect your station (seeing all the test equipment and parts) and your radio PASSES you are fine. But, if it doesn't..... you are not ONLY operating a dirty or perhaps illegal radio....but you are NOT doing the work as or under the auspices of a "qualified person"..... so they have you an TWO violations....

I don't know!

Anyway... thanks for the responses!!!!

Now to the OP's observation; in my opinion the end result is what the FCC would use to determine qualifications. If the transmitter meets spec after being worked on, the technician is qualified. If not, well...

 

[Handy Andy]

Amateur radio is not a Personal Radio Service.
Your first reference (95.919) does not apply, so nothing you posted after that does either.

hmmm. Like the "Windows 8.1 is Irrelevant" virus...

It normally wouldn't matter to anyone unless they "click OK" - then, by that action - they confirm that it is and the Cookie string continues to launch and redirect you to a java site to dump a script to literally give you the virus.

It's the literal string of "Nothing you posted after that does either" part that bothers me to even post this.


Maybe rephrased to say - er, add... "Because of the requirement, the service you're looking at, can not apply to this rule."

Else you just told the OP - "nothing you posted after that does either" - kind of diminishes the resolution.

Or are we wasting your time?

 

[Handy Andy]

Now to the OP's observation; in my opinion the end result is what the FCC would use to determine qualifications. If the transmitter meets spec after being worked on, the technician is qualified. If not, well...

Hmmm. Good point, because what we DON'T know is if the station (your station) when transmitting, is causing interference with another - it would have to be within reasonable doubt that the offending station is truly in any violation or just needs to install a device to remove the interference (a compliance issue) or relocate the stations frequency of operation so as to not interfere - this becomes very important when it is a factor of life or death (Emergency Communications)

I would have expected an actual reference to the qualifications required. Either the name of the license or a link of some sort. To just say "someone qualified" leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

The interpretation goes back to the owner of the offending equipment and the manufacturer of it has also some responsibility of compliance - so the effort and burden of proof is on the operator to prove the compliance - if modifications were made - proof of compliance needs to shown upon request to the FCC and then to be determined by the FCC if the Station operator was - or was not in compliance.

There is a reference in Part 15 and 47 about this. I just can't think offhand where exactly - for it pertains to protecting the operator from failure to comply when the device used, was purchased and used in compliance by the station yet interference is generating the issue from another station - is it due to the Operator or the device?

 

[WECSOG]

I don't know why.... I would have expected an actual reference to the qualifications required. Either the name of the license or a link of some sort. To just say "someone qualified" leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

But that CERTAINLY would not be the first time I had seen THAT in legal mumbo jumbo!!!

The thing is, there used to be a license requirement for radio techs but the requirement was removed. The wording about licensing was removed and the rest of it left in. That's the only difference. "Golden screwdrivers" are still not allowed; the "qualified" requirement remains but the license doesn't.

 

[guitar_199]

Hence, my wondering about what constitutes "qualified".

Do I have electronics in my educational background?
- yes. two years of college at DeVry

Do I have equipment?
- yes. SigGen, scope, spectrum analyzer and more

Have I worked in RF for my career?
-no

Do I understand the concepts and procedures and use of the equipment?
- yes.

-----

Somehow..... I doubt that THIS adds up to "qualified" from the FCC point of view.

That is the reason for my "lunatic wondering".

 

[WECSOG]

Hence, my wondering about what constitutes "qualified".

Do I have electronics in my educational background?
- yes. two years of college at DeVry

Do I have equipment?
- yes. SigGen, scope, spectrum analyzer and more

Have I worked in RF for my career?
-no

Do I understand the concepts and procedures and use of the equipment?
- yes.

-----

Somehow..... I doubt that THIS adds up to "qualified" from the FCC point of view.

That is the reason for my "lunatic wondering".

If you can work on the radio and have it still meet the required specifications, then yes, you are qualified. That's the bottom line. FCC doesn't care what you do for a living. If they did, they wouldn't have removed the license requirement.

 

[sunbulls]

Little or no qualifications are a prerequisite to work in most positions of government. In particular, all those positions that are legislating. It's mostly backwards nowadays. My old 1st Class Radiotelephone license is now only beneficial for bragging rights, nothing more. Fortunately, I cut my own hair plus the dogs, so I don't need a ridiculous Barber license that dates back to bloodletting.

 

[Handy Andy]

@guitar_199 - when it comes to the FCC - No News is GOOD news.

The problem is, you don't know or have ANY news until the FCC sends a letter.

So keep your station "honest" - run clean signal equipment - and it doesn't require you have a test bench, but if you are Licensed for Amateur Bands - you are considered "Competent" when it comes to understanding and expressing the Responsibilities of care and feeding of your equipment and it's proper use and function.

• Repair is up to you, if you think you're qualified - go for it. Many do try and succeed, some fail and bail out altogether because of the hassles around re-certification.
• Recertification only occurs, as needed, if the incident warrants treatment as an Infraction - an Actual violation of rules, they will spell it out for you - and you may need an Attorney to help defend your rights.

It's a learning curve and if you hit too many bumps, that FCC letter is a "Hey - let's talk, we'll stop by to see you" moment - e.g. time to shut up and get it straight - sort of thing.

Now does the FCC follow thru, yes, sometimes, a visit, but mostly a flurry of letters explaining the steps you need to follow and whom to contact to resolve the issue and conditions around this event - else a VEC can work with you or other correspondence can be held with others including the ARRL and even the Justice department as back and forth for paperwork and proof - then if nothing more or they are satisfied - then you should be notified as a procedure that you're ok to continue - any further issues may escalate the responses because they now have your number.

 

[AudioShockwav]

You guys that have been here for a while know my love for the FCC.


The FCC is king of writing vague confusing rules that there own personal have a hard time defining.
The FCC has had to admit, in court, before a Judge, that it's own employees have been confused by there own rules.
The FCC has had to admit, in court, before a Judge that
It's field agents have released documents that they can not enforce.
Ok
As for confusing language...
Here is a excellent example posted below, right from the fcc web site.



(b) Internal repairs. Internal adjustments and repairs to Personal Radio Services transmitters must be performed by or under the supervision of an individual who is qualified to maintain and repair transmitters.

________________
Then, further reading requires that the owners manual include the following info.

_______________

2) Warnings concerning any adjustment that could result in a violation of FCC rules or that is recommended to be performed only by or under the immediate supervision and responsibility of a person certified as technically qualified to perform transmitter maintenance and repair duties in the relevant radio service by an organization or committee representative of users of that service;
____________


Must Be performed by......

Or
Recommended to be performed

recommended to be performed only by or under the immediate supervision and responsibility ' of a person certified as technically qualified to perform transmitter maintenance and repair duties in the relevant radio service by" an organization or committee representative of users of that service;"'


What the hell?

"by an organization or committee representative of users of that service;"

what organization?
what committee?

As users of this forum , and operators of the CB radio service, what stops any of us from forming a committee, representative of its users, as we are users of CB , and telling you that you are good to go
Really?

73
Jeff

On edit:
Sorry about the rant guys, I just wish they would be consistent and clear about the rules they write.

 

[TM86]

I just take it that FCC has deliberately left these things vague so that if you really piss them off they've got something to hang you with. If you play nice with them the same vagueness gives them leeway to let you go on your merry way after a talking to.

Kinda like a DA exercising "prosecutorial discretion".