Willful vs. Unintentional Non-compliance with FCC §15.219

[rfry]

Some posts on this topic have stated that a very high MW field intensity resulting in an FCC NOUO for the operator was the result of that operator not even trying to be Part 15 compliant. But that isn't necessarily true.

Recently the FCC issued a Part 15 AM NOUO based on the 8400 µV/m groundwave field intensity they measured at a distance of 89 meters from the transmit antenna.

The first link below shows that such a field intensity could be produced at that distance by a moderately-efficient transmitter with 100 mW of d-c input power using the "elevated" mounting described in the NOUO, an r-f ground consisting of a 2-meter buried rod at the base of the antenna structure, and an earth conductivity of 8 mS/m. Other hardware/earth conditions with a transmitter input power not exceeding 100 mW [compliant with §15.219(a)] also could produce that field at that distance.

However the elevated mounting described in this NOUO (and others) is/has been suggested in the installation descriptions of some suppliers of transmitters popularly used by unlicensed operators. So those operators logically could believe that installing the transmitter using an elevated configuration would not lead them to the risk of getting an FCC NOUO.

Likewise installing such a transmitter/antenna system configuration would not become proof that the operator chose to be willfully non-compliant with §15.219(b) -- if s/he was following the installation information given in the documentation for the transmitter.

There may be some unlicensed operators understanding all this who still chose to be non-compliant with §15.219. But probably the majority of the FCC Part 15 AM NOUOs have been issued to operators who innocently believed their systems were compliant -- even those using transmitters FCC-certified for Part 15 AM.

Analysis of NOUO:

http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h85/rfry-100/Part_15_AM_NOUO_zpsec8f3673.jpg

Link to the NOUO for this case:

http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/FieldNotices/2003/DOC-321497A1.html

 

[audioguy]

It's understandable when the Enforcement Bureau goes after people who are wilfully non-compliant with the rules-- like this person who mounted the transmitter on top of a tower. But recently some of the field agents-- notably the Resident Agent in Oregon-- have been taking it upon themselves to go after people who were apparently operating their equipment in a compliant manner. This particular agent cited a gentleman for operating a certified Talking House transmitter inside his apartment using only the 3 meter wire antenna and no ground connection except for the fact that the equipment was plugged into a wall outlet as it was designed to be used. I don't understand the rationale for that.

 

[rfry]

It's understandable when the Enforcement Bureau goes after people who are wilfully non-compliant with the rules-- like this person who mounted the transmitter on top of a tower.

IMO it might be unwarranted to label people as being willfully non-compliant with Part 15 without proof of such, if in good faith they were just following the installation suggestions provided for that transmitter by its supplier, and/or the many "Part 15" website posts promoting such elevated installations.

But unfortunately, and whether or not such non-compliant installations were made innocently or deliberately, they all might result in an FCC NOUO -- even if those transmitters are FCC-certified.

This may be the case where

... an NOUO was issued to a gentleman for operating a certified Talking House transmitter inside his apartment using only the 3 meter wire antenna and no ground connection except for the fact that the equipment was plugged into a wall outlet as it was designed to be used..."

as no exact details responsible for issuing that NOUO other than non-compliance with §15.209 were included in the text of that NOUO.

It would be interesting to learn why the NOUO in this instance did not refer to §15.219, as most likely that is the reference used for the FCC Part 15 certification of the transmitter reported (by its operator) to be in use when this NOUO was issued.

 

[part15radioman]

i have it on very good authority that there is much more to the referenced Oregon nouo than just running a stock talking house with the supplied 3m whip. i am not permitted to go into details as they were given in confidence. i really wish i could go into detail on this and dispel a lot of the current nonsense but you all will just have to take my word for it that there is much more going on than just using a certified transmitter.

 

[druidhillsradio]

i have it on very good authority that there is much more to the referenced Oregon nouo than just running a stock talking house with the supplied 3m whip. i am not permitted to go into details as they were given in confidence. i really wish i could go into detail on this and dispel a lot of the current nonsense but you all will just have to take my word for it that there is much more going on than just using a certified transmitter.

Maybe an amplifier?

 

[Ermi Roos]

i have it on very good authority that there is much more to the referenced Oregon nouo than just running a stock talking house with the supplied 3m whip. i am not permitted to go into details as they were given in confidence. i really wish i could go into detail on this and dispel a lot of the current nonsense but you all will just have to take my word for it that there is much more going on than just using a certified transmitter.

I also thought that there was something about the NOUO issued to Mr. Gaule that doesn't add up. The field strength measurement taken by the FCC agent was 1800 uVm at 175 meters, and that is just too high. My guess is that the efficiency of a typical legal Part 15 AM system at ground level is about 0.1%, which corresponds to a field strength of about 540 uV/m at 175 meters. I was hoping that the data taken by Bill DeFelice in his recently published AM Transmitter Challenge would shed some light on the anomolously high field strength in the Gaule NOUO. Mr. DeFelice demonstrated that the iAM actually produces a low field strength compared to the other transmitters tested, and so a properly functioning iAM is unlikely to produce the high field strength in the NOUO.

We don't have any data from FCC enforcement actions for Part 15 transmitters operating at ground level. In the famous Ken Carwright NOUO, the field strength was measured at 4000 uV/m at 137 meters, which corresponds to 3131 uV/m at 175 meters. Given the much higher radiation resistance when a Part 15 AM transmitter is mounted on Cartwright's 40 foot tower compared to when it is mounted at ground level, the field strengt of Ken Cartwright's transmitter when mounted at ground level should be about 363 uV/m at 175 meters. Thus, a field strength of 1800 uV/m at 175 meters is suspiciously high. Could the long AC ground wire from Gaule's second floor apartment to earth ground have produced that much of an increase in field strength?

Since we don't have any FCC field strength readings for a Part 15 transmitter operating at ground level, I appeal to Bill DeFelice to release his measurement on a Rangemaster or other transmitter at ground level. This would help decide if the FCC field strength reading in the Gaule NOUO can be valid or not.

 

[RadioMan203]

@Ermi: I had been troubled and puzzled about the NOUO issued against Mr. Gaule even before performing the transmitter comparison. I had been in contact with the manufacturer of this transmitter during the time he and another radio enthusiast were on the receiving end of NOUOs. I knew particulars regarding the performance characteristics of the Talking House well before the challenge took place. The alleged measurement in the NOUO didn't add up in my mind. Having been informed on the backstory regarding this "incident" directly by the affected party compounded with documented past practices of the particular agent brought doubts in the low power radio community regarding the legitimacy of this NOUO. If Mr. Gaule retained the equipment in his possession I believe it could have been proven that there was some impropriety transpiring in his situation as the manufacturer was ready to act on his behalf. It was more puzzling how this could occur considering he was using an original version Talking House transmitter operated with it's attached wire antenna - a product that has a history of thousands of units in the marketplace and, as far as can be ascertained, zero NOUOs issued against any operator of such device. Also, there seems no effort taken by the inspector to confirm the transmitter's operation under 15.219 - a specification which dictates no field strength limit! This very fact was confirmed via two individual's filing Freedom of Information Act requests that unearthed internal FCC documents used by inspectors - plainly state the fact no field strength is specified.

I am particularly interested in comparing multiple Talk House transmitters to see if there is any reason why an inspector would measure such an unexpected difference in field strength from such a device.

With this discussion in mind I'm planning on repeating the testing in the Spring using at least two different ground rod locations and, hopefully, a larger field to accomodate greater unobstructed measurement distances. Had I recalled Mr. Gaule's NOUO during the testing I would have retained better detail in my notes. This has piqued my interest to the point where I want to see if there's any significant difference between four different Talking House transmitters I have at my disposal for testing. The only thing my ground-mounted installations won't duplicate is having the Talking House's wall wart ground pin utilize the in-building wiring for the ground connection. Having it connected to the ground rod may provide a ground connection but doesn't duplicate normal operation while powered by a typical dwelling's electrical system.

In regards to elevated installations go, there's discussion about the Ultra Sensors Inc Part 15 AM Transmitter (later sold by LPB) having been mounted on an elevated surface and no NOUOs being made against it. Granted, the ground "lead" was interrupted by an MOV surge protector which appears to have satisfied both 15.219 antenna and ground "lead" length in addition for the requirement of a safety ground according to electrical code. This was previously discussed at length on William Walker's listserv.

As far as willful verses unintentional non-compliance goes, one would think that an inspector would be able to ascertain the difference and would possibly assist a would-be radio enthusiast as opposed to treating everybody collectively as common criminals. I've seen instances where certain inspectors go after Part 15 operators much more aggressively than blatant pirates pushing hundreds of watts - in fact there's been a Caribbean pirate in the Southern Connecticut area operating on FM for at least 5 years (maybe more) and they have yet to be shut down.

 

[Ermi Roos]

I consider it unlikekly that Agent Nguyen contrived his field strength reading, no matter what his personal feelings about Part 15 may be; but the reading he obtained makes no sense. part15radioman said that there is more to the story than meets the eye, but he claims he can't explain what he means. In my experience, AC wiring makes a poor "ground lead," and doesn't account for the high field strength that was measured. It's cerainly a mystery!

 

[rfry]

Below is a link to a NEC4.2 analysis of a system possibly similar to the one used by Mr. Gaule. The top of the antenna system is elevated 7 meters above the surface of the earth. A wire path representing the a-c wiring in the structure connects the transmitter chassis to a 3 meter buried conductor, which represents the utility ground rod at the service entrance.

The analysis shows that an r-f power of 60 mW applied to the input of the loading coil produces a field intensity of 1.8 mV/m (1,800 µV/m) at a horizontal distance of 0.175 km (175 meters). That field intensity was shown for that distance in the FCC NOUO issued to Mr. Gaule, for this 1700 kHz frequency.

The two outlined areas shown in the left pane of the graphic give some of the relevant parameters of this study.

So it does not appear to be unpredictable or mysterious that a system such as this could produce the field measured by the FCC at that distance -- whether or not its transmitter was FCC-certified for Part 15 AM.

http://s27.postimg.org/bp0d6nqub/Pt_15_AM_AC_Gnd.jpg

 

[pascoradio]

What is really strange to me is why would he surrender his transmitter to the FCC? This typically happens with a NOUO for pirate radio activity. And even then based on a video of a pirate bust in Austin, TX is only a request by the FCC agent. You are not required to surrender anything though it may help in subsequent enforcement action. There is some key information missing here.

 

[Ermi Roos]

According to Jerry Gaule, he did not fight the FCC because he wanted the matter over and done with. He posted on this website that he was using a new Talking House II in his second floor apartment, with no ground other than through the power line, mounted on a box, with the antenna wire hung from the ceiling. I suppose that transmitter performance can vary with the environment (including building structure and the AC wiring). Then the same thing can happen to some other Talking House/iAM users operating in a similar environment as Jerry. I still wonder what part15radioman was talking about. Does he really know something that is not known to the public, or was he just trolling?

For the sake of continuity, I will mention that Pasco County, FL has the famous scenic Pasco County Courthouse, situated in Dade City Florida, which includes the Druid Hills neighborhood. My guess is that John re-registered after having difficulty logging on after last year's "improvement" to this website.

 

[RadioMan203]

So it does not appear to be unpredictable or mysterious that a system such as this could produce the field measured by the FCC at that distance -- whether or not its transmitter was FCC-certified for Part 15 AM.

So, if a factory-spec transmitter legally operating within the parameters for 15.219 can produce this field strength and there is no field strength limit specified in the very same regulation then this sounds more like a witch hunt against Mr. Guale than anything else.

 

[Ermi Roos]

So, if a factory-spec transmitter legally operating within the parameters for 15.219 can produce this field strength and there is no field strength limit specified in the very same regulation then this sounds more like a witch hunt against Mr. Guale than anything else.

The physical explanation given by Mr. Fry for higher field strength than expected was that a long ground lead was formed by the internal AC wiring of the building, and this would be a 15.219(b) violation, if actually true; although the NOUO makes no mention of 15.219(b). This means that the NOUO was not correctly drafted, because only 15.209 was mentioned, and not 15.219(b). I'm not sure that a technical error in the wording of the NOUO could have gotten Gaule off the hook. Moreover, since he was operating in an apartment, he was perhaps not the owner of the building, and possible problems with the landlord (Nguyen could have issued an NOUO to the landlord as well) would have limited Jerry's options further.

Even if this was a witch hunt, it really doesn't matter. The government can (and does) have witch hunts. I can give an example, but that would be off-topic.

 

[RadioMan203]

The OET accepted certification of the transmitter DECADES ago, which includes its wall wart with ground pin attaching the unit to a ground system of a building's electrical service. If they had some issue with this design they should have done something about it long ago. If the device in question did produce the stated field strength while installing in a manner compliant with its certification under Part 15.219 then I would have to say something about the entire incident is quite fishy, especially with the glaring omission in the NOUO not citing that there was any verification of a violation that existed in reference to 15.219.

I believe had Mr. Gaule not surrendered his transmitter there would have been able proof for a legal challenge.

 

[Ermi Roos]

The OET is an organization with people possessing tremendous technical knowledge, but they nevertheless lacked the foresight to anticipate the situation postulated here, which is a Part 15 transmitter causing AC power ground wires in a building to radiate. If that is actually happening, the certification does not cancel the 15.219 rules.

If Jerry Gaule did not feel "too old to fight" (he doesn't look that old in his picture) the matter could have been taken before an FCC administrative judge who would have made a final determination. No doubt the OET would have been given further testing to do to decide the case.

Which gives me an idea, Bill: Since you can obtain iAMs for testing, and you also have an FIM, why not try to duplicate the conditions described by Mr. Gaule, and see if additional radiation is actually obtained from building AC power ground wires? Of course, there is the risk that the results may be bad news for iAM; but maybe not. The AC wiring may be such a convoluted mess that no significant antenna gain advantage occurs from the postulated AC power ground line radiation.

 

[rfry]

The OET accepted certification of the transmitter DECADES ago, which includes its wall wart with ground pin attaching the unit to a ground system of a building's electrical service. If they had some issue with this design they should have done something about it long ago. ...

Just wondering what physical installation geometry was used when that system was tested and accepted in its DECADES old FCC certification, and if that hardware is electrically the same at the present time as it was when originally tested/certified.

Measuring the added radiation from the "ground" conductors of the a-c wiring in a building used to connect the chassis of a Part 15 AM transmitter to a non-radiating r-f ground of a Part 15 AM system (such as a buried ground rod) most likely was not included in the compliance testing of that system.

Probably those compliance tests were conducted in an anechoic chamber which volume would not permit the emulation of a system installed on the second floor of an apartment building.

The FCC accepts/certifies a Part 15 product for the test conditions and data submitted to them.

But if a buyer/installer/user of that product does not follow the installation configuration described in the FCC compliance test and certification, then it is reasonable to predict that s/he may be at increased risk for an FCC NOUO.

 

[RadioMan203]

Measuring the added radiation from the "ground" conductors of the a-c wiring in a building used to connect the chassis of a Part 15 AM transmitter to a non-radiating r-f ground of a Part 15 AM system (such as a buried ground rod) most likely was not included in the compliance testing of that system.

Probably those compliance tests were conducted in an anechoic chamber which volume would not permit the emulation of a system installed on the second floor of an apartment building.

I'm sure the OET engineers could have really thought about the intended use of the device and could have request supplemental information. It appears you take the OET personnel as clueless and would never examine/determine how a product would be operated as part of its use and are nothing more than paper pushers.

The FCC accepts/certifies a Part 15 product for the test conditions and data submitted to them.

That makes THEM guilty as far as I'm concerned. If THEY (FCC, OET, etc.) had any doubts or concerns then THEY should have requested more information. I've seen Part 15 transmitter product certs where the commission requested clarification information MULTIPLE TIMES so it's not like it's some out-of-the-box thinking for them.

But if a buyer/installer/user of that product does not follow the installation configuration described in the FCC compliance test and certification, then it is reasonable to predict that s/he may be at increased risk for an FCC NOUO.

It's not the responsibility of the buyer/installer/user if the FCC's personnel didn't mandate that a manufacturer provides a specifically documented installation method as a condition of the product's certification. The operator's responsibility is a compliant installation and operation for regulations applicable to the device such as 15.219 in which the Talking House transmitter was certified under.

I would have loved to have seen Mr. Gaule take his case to a legal venue. I still believe he was railroaded due to his particular circumstance (and yes, I know about it and I don't plan on sharing anything regarding it unless he explicitly gives permission).

 

[Ermi Roos]

Bill,

Since you mentioned your knowledge of unspecified "particular circumstances" relating to the Gaule NOUO, there must be at least some substance to the comments by "part15radioman" saying that there is more to the case than meets the eye. The rest of us, not having the background information related to the case, are probably wasting their time speculating about what might have been really going on.

 

[RadioMan203]

@Ermi: Yes, those of us who actually spoke to Mr. Gaule were made aware of his situation directly by him so I would think "part15radioman" likely knows the same exact background. Until Gaule conveyed the fact that he had voluntarily surrendered the transmitter I had began seeking assistance from the manufacturer as I was quite certain there was something that didn't come out in the wash.

 

[pascoradio]

Just wondering what physical installation geometry was used when that system was tested and accepted in its DECADES old FCC certification, and if that hardware is electrically the same at the present time as it was when originally tested/certified.

Measuring the added radiation from the "ground" conductors of the a-c wiring in a building used to connect the chassis of a Part 15 AM transmitter to a non-radiating r-f ground of a Part 15 AM system (such as a buried ground rod) most likely was not included in the compliance testing of that system.

Probably those compliance tests were conducted in an anechoic chamber which volume would not permit the emulation of a system installed on the second floor of an apartment building.

The FCC accepts/certifies a Part 15 product for the test conditions and data submitted to them.

But if a buyer/installer/user of that product does not follow the installation configuration described in the FCC compliance test and certification, then it is reasonable to predict that s/he may be at increased risk for an FCC NOUO.

Back in the day when this was certified it is unlikely that anechoic chambers were priced beyond what many test facilities could afford. More likely tested on an open area test site. In fact the FCC only had an open area test site.