Is this legal?

[Kmagrill]

(sigh)
There are type accepted AND type approved transmitters. Most transmitters are type accepted, essentially self-certified by manufacturer. LPFM stations must have "type-approved" transmitters, unfortunately resulting in LPFM stations using the lowest common denominator type gear since there is little incentive otherwise for major manufacturers to obtain type approval for what is a low-end product.

The terms type accepted and type approved actually went away in 1998. The processes are pretty much the same, but the correct terms used for parts 73 and 74 devices today are type verified and type certified. If you look on the back of virtually any FM transmitter made for USA sale since 1998, it says one of those two things on it. In my shop, we have an RVR, an older Ramsey, a dBelectronica and a Superior Products, which all state that they are type verified on the back. I also have a Harris THE-1 from 1995 which bears no mark, so I assume it is not intended for use in a stand alone situation, A Power-Pak (Energy-Onyx) that is type certified and two Nicoms that are also type certified. I also have a pTEK on a translator that is type certified. I have not seen a type approved, type notified or type verified transmitter since the 1990s. There is a link posted earlier in this thread that goes to the FCC's 1998 order doing away with type approval and replacing it with type certification instead. The FCC's order also has the complete wording changes for all parts of the rules at the end, including part 73 and 74 as well as parts 2 and 15, among others.

But, whatever you want to call the process, I still don't think anyone has exactly answered the big question which is, IF someone like HLLY certifies their transmitter for part 73 & 74, can they sell it to anyone? I think we can all agree that selling HLLY gear is illegal as they are now.

Then, the second question is: If a manufacturer type verifies their transmitter for part 73 & 74, can they also sell it to anyone and why or why not?

Finally, if it is completely legal to sell these transmitters (assuming that they get type certified or approved for part 73 and 74), then it appears that there is no way to prevent Joe Pirate from buying a dozen of them for whatever purpose he or she wants. The FCC can only try to stop him if the pirate uses the equipment. Is that a correct statement.

 

[nocomradio]

Kmagrill,

I believe that you are correct in that without approval from the FCC, that these units would be illegal for sale in the US. However, that hasn't stopped China in the past and it won't be stopping them anytime soon either. Cheap scooters and ATV's have been flooding the market for years from China, and they skirt the law by selling through retailers, rather than dealer networks, and in such a way, they avoid any scrutiny by the D.O.T. (another federal agency) using several loopholes like the lack of a dealer network and other backdoor ways. I suspect this is no different.

If they come incomplete i.e; without an antenna, or power supply, they may qualify as a kit then for an "experimenter" maybe? It'd be a stretch, but that is one possibility I can think of.

 

[w9wi]

But, whatever you want to call the process, I still don't think anyone has exactly answered the big question which is, IF someone like HLLY certifies their transmitter for part 73 & 74, can they sell it to anyone?

Yes.

I think we can all agree that selling HLLY gear is illegal as they are now.

(agreed)

Then, the second question is: If a manufacturer type verifies their transmitter for part 73 & 74, can they also sell it to anyone and why or why not?

Yes. As several of us have said, there is no law on the books which prohibits possession of a transmitter without a license. As long as the transmitter has been properly certified* for legal use in the intended service, it is legal to sell it, whether the buyer can legally use it or not.

* I use the word "certified", recognizing that different words with similar meanings appear in the actual regulations.

Finally, if it is completely legal to sell these transmitters (assuming that they get type certified or approved for part 73 and 74), then it appears that there is no way to prevent Joe Pirate from buying a dozen of them for whatever purpose he or she wants. The FCC can only try to stop him if the pirate uses the equipment. Is that a correct statement.

Yes.

---

It is not difficult to find perfectly legitimate reasons for unlicensed individuals/entities to possess a transmitter.

- Transmitter manufacturers.
- Shipping companies & importers. (how does the transmitter get from the plant to the licensed buyer?)
- Equipment brokers & distributors.

I'm sure readers can come up with more.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

Contract Engineers.

 

[TomT]

Indeed. Fewer and fewer stations and even clusters have full-time engineers. For various reasons, right at this moment I am the only "full-time" engineer in the market. Since I own my three stations, it would even be accurate to say no-one in the market employes a full time engineer (except for the TV station). Everyone else is using contract, corporate (out of town) or semi-retired engineers.

Right at this moment, I have an Optimod 8100 on loan to one station, and an Armstrong STL transmitter to another, while a third has my Scala one bay FM vertical. Don't have any transmitters on loan right now, but have spare exciters and a 1 kw BE FM transmitter that could be stuck into my back seat in an emergency.

 

[OKCRadioGuy]

Yup. All it takes is one good massive storm or semi-disaster to really, really need a good stockpile of toys to help the local industry get back up and going. Luckily most of the OKC stations around here have full-time people still. Most of us have stockpiled older things where we can to have ways of saving ourselves. In my case, I also do some contract stuff on off-hours. I stockpile a bit of stuff and tools for this purpose. Most of my contract folks are small market broadcasters in the surrounding area of the state. Many of them are smart enough (through their own trials and tribulations) to also save and stockpile spares. A few aren't. I want to have some things around, including exciters and transmitters, to help those that haven't thought ahead or new clients that are "on fire". I try to educate people after we get to know each other a bit that it's better for THEM to make sure they have something to get themselves back up quickly than anything. Actually, small market needs backups and spares worse than the big guys. No one can come quick enough really to get them out of trouble in a hurry. Things don't have to be the nicest... just has to be there when needed. If the RF is emitting and the needles are wiggling with decent audio, everyone can breath easier.

 

[TomZ]

You might enjoy reading about Arthur Lee Young in Cosby, TN.

Just yesterday, the FCC assessed a "Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture"

A. Unlicensed Operations
5. Section 301 of the Act states that no person shall use or operate any apparatus for the
transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio within the United States, except under and in
accordance with the Act and with a license granted under the provisions of the Act.12 On April 14, 2011,
and February 29, 2012, Mr. Young operated an unlicensed radio station on the frequency 87.9 MHz from
his residence. Mr. Young admitted owning and operating the unlicensed radio station on April 14, 2011,
and Mr. Young’s wife told the agent that he was operating the unlicensed radio station on February 29,
2012. A review of the Commission’s records revealed that Mr. Young did not have a license to operate a radio station at this location. Because Mr. Young consciously operated the station, and did so on more than
one day, the apparent violations of the Act were both willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us,
we find that Mr. Young apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating
radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization.
B. Refusal to Allow Inspection
6. Section 303 of the Act states that the Commission has authority to inspect radio
installations associated with stations required to be licensed or authorized by the Act.13 On February 29,
2012, Mr. Young refused an official request by a Commission agent to inspect the radio station located in
his residence and in spite of being informed that such refusal was a separate violation of the applicable law.
Because Mr. Young explicitly refused a reasonable and duly made request by a Commission agent, we find
the apparent violation willful. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on February 29, 2012, Mr.
Young apparently willfully violated Section 303 of the Act by refusing an official and duly made request
by a Commission agent to inspect the radio installation located inside his residence while the station was in
operation.
C. Proposed Forfeiture Amount
7. Pursuant to the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules,
the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and for refusing
to allow inspection is $7,000.14 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account
the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.15 In doing so, we find that the
violations here warrant a proposed forfeiture above the base amount. The fact that Mr. Young repeatedly
operated an unlicensed station—and also refused to allow a lawful inspection of his equipment—when he
knew that such actions were unlawful demonstrate a deliberate disregard for the Act and the Commission’s
requirements. Thus, we find that an additional upward adjustment of $5,000 in the forfeiture amount is
warranted.16 Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the statutory factors
to the instant case, we conclude that Mr. Young is apparently liable for a total forfeiture in the amount of
$22,000. We further caution Mr. Young that future violations may be subject to more severe enforcement
action, including but not limited to larger monetary forfeitures, criminal prosecution, and the in rem seizure
of his equipment.

Even with a history of violations, they didn't take his equipment.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0327/DA-12-475A1.pdf

 

[xmtrland]

Does anyone Lease their transmitter or transmitting gear? That asset tag from the leasing company mean's they own it. I had to once put an asset tag from the leasing company on the Coax on the tower including TSL and STL. The auditor decided I didn't have to put them on the antennas which were already installed.

Leasing companies have owned transmitters for years and never held a license.

 

[nocomradio]

You might enjoy reading about Arthur Lee Young in Cosby, TN.

Just yesterday, the FCC assessed a "Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture"

A. Unlicensed Operations
5. Section 301 of the Act states that no person shall use or operate any apparatus for the
transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio within the United States, except under and in
accordance with the Act and with a license granted under the provisions of the Act.12 On April 14, 2011,
and February 29, 2012, Mr. Young operated an unlicensed radio station on the frequency 87.9 MHz from
his residence. Mr. Young admitted owning and operating the unlicensed radio station on April 14, 2011,
and Mr. Young’s wife told the agent that he was operating the unlicensed radio station on February 29,
2012. A review of the Commission’s records revealed that Mr. Young did not have a license to operate a radio station at this location. Because Mr. Young consciously operated the station, and did so on more than
one day, the apparent violations of the Act were both willful and repeated. Based on the evidence before us,
we find that Mr. Young apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 of the Act by operating
radio transmission equipment without the required Commission authorization.
B. Refusal to Allow Inspection
6. Section 303 of the Act states that the Commission has authority to inspect radio
installations associated with stations required to be licensed or authorized by the Act.13 On February 29,
2012, Mr. Young refused an official request by a Commission agent to inspect the radio station located in
his residence and in spite of being informed that such refusal was a separate violation of the applicable law.
Because Mr. Young explicitly refused a reasonable and duly made request by a Commission agent, we find
the apparent violation willful. Based on the evidence before us, we find that, on February 29, 2012, Mr.
Young apparently willfully violated Section 303 of the Act by refusing an official and duly made request
by a Commission agent to inspect the radio installation located inside his residence while the station was in
operation.
C. Proposed Forfeiture Amount
7. Pursuant to the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules,
the base forfeiture amount for operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000, and for refusing
to allow inspection is $7,000.14 In assessing the monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into account
the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances,
extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of
prior offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.15 In doing so, we find that the
violations here warrant a proposed forfeiture above the base amount. The fact that Mr. Young repeatedly
operated an unlicensed station—and also refused to allow a lawful inspection of his equipment—when he
knew that such actions were unlawful demonstrate a deliberate disregard for the Act and the Commission’s
requirements. Thus, we find that an additional upward adjustment of $5,000 in the forfeiture amount is
warranted.16 Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the statutory factors
to the instant case, we conclude that Mr. Young is apparently liable for a total forfeiture in the amount of
$22,000. We further caution Mr. Young that future violations may be subject to more severe enforcement
action, including but not limited to larger monetary forfeitures, criminal prosecution, and the in rem seizure
of his equipment.

Even with a history of violations, they didn't take his equipment.

http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0327/DA-12-475A1.pdf

He musta' really P.O'ed somebody down at FCC Central. I've seen a large number of NOUO's and a few NAL's to individuals, but usually they are for repeated and constant violations. Most of the NAL's are for broadcasting corporations for the most part. That's a stiff one with a lot more details than usual, to boot.

 

[secondchoice]

I wonder if the commission will actually get any money? Has the FCC really put someone in prison for being a pirate? No joke intended.

 

[w9wi]

I wonder if the commission will actually get any money? Has the FCC really put someone in prison for being a pirate? No joke intended.

The FCC can refer violators to the Justice Department for prosecution and potential prison sentences. I can't say I've *ever* heard of it happening for *any* violation of the Communications Act.

 

[ScottJ]

One of the amateur radio service's biggest menaces, Glenn Baxter (K1MAN) has had a forfeiture order in place since 2005. Not a penny has been collected. His license also expired ... but since his application for renewal has been neither granted nor set aside, he's still allowed to operate. The FCC is all talk these days.

I wonder if the commission will actually get any money? Has the FCC really put someone in prison for being a pirate? No joke intended.

 

[boiseengineer]

Think they can get him through the IRS?