Manufacturers vs users, who is responsible for compliance

Mark, as an illustration of how it works in the USA, here is a list of all the NOUOs of part 15 AM stations that had been issued over about a 20 year period: https://part15lab.blogspot.com/2014/04/nouo-notices-of-unlicensed-operation.html Most of these were Rangemasters, Talking Houses, or LPB units. So a majority of citations issued in the USA involve Certified units.

Now, how many of those non-compliant operations did the FCC cite the manufacturers? The answer is none.

How many of the thousands of non-compliant FM stations shut down every year in the USA over non-compliance did the FCC cite the manufacturer? - None of course, because it's never the manufacturers responsibility on if your install or operation is compliant.

Now I realize it almost the opposite in Canada, but that's not how it works in the USA 

For future reference, this topic arose and branched from this post https://www.part15.org/community/postid/61781/

Now I've got a question for you.. In Canada, as you have pointed out before, the requirement is that you are only permitted to broadcast part 15 (RSS-210 or BETS) with a certified unit, that's all an inspecting agent is concerned about, they ask to see what your using and if it's certified Procaster then the inspector acknowledges that your good and are allowed to continue (have I got this right?). Well, what if your Procaster has a 30ft ground lead attached? Obviously - or rather I presume - you will be cited. So even the in Canada it wouldn't be the manufacturer who's to blame for your non compliant operation. So even there it's the user that's always responsible, and it's never the manufacturer.

AM with a long ground lead is a bad example - it can be argued that you're modifying that certified transmitter to be non compliant, always a no go in both the U.S. and Canada.

I believe the intent of the discussion was surrounding FM transmitters.  In the U.S., they don't even ask to see your transmitter - if the field strength is non compliant, you can get cited, certified transmitter or not.  The difference is that in Canada, if a complaint is received, the first thing they do is check that the transmitter being used is certified for that particular use (i.e., BETS-1 for a broadcast venture).  That's what they care about the most.

It is interesting to note that there is wordage in the FCC Part 15 rules that refers to this issue.  It states that the manufacturer, as part of certification, warrants that their transmitters will comply with the regulations.  It seems to me that that would set up an interesting legal challenge to the FCC, if someone who is using a certified transmitter gets cited for non compliance.

Posted by: @artisan-radio

↑

AM with a long ground lead is a bad example - it can be argued that you're modifying that certified transmitter to be non compliant, always a no go in both the U.S. and Canada.

I believe the intent of the discussion was surrounding FM transmitters.... ...

It is interesting to note that there is wordage in the FCC Part 15 rules that refers to this issue.  It states that the manufacturer, as part of certification, warrants that their transmitters will comply with the regulations.  It seems to me that that would set up an interesting legal challenge to the FCC, if someone who is using a certified transmitter gets cited for non compliance.

No, the intent of this discussion is clearly stated in the title, don't know why your interpretation is that it's about FM.

As for your second point, I don't see any legal challenge potential concerning an individual being cited non-compliant operations while using a certified transmitter, because in essentially all cases it's never the transmitter itself thats at fault. It's always the exceeding the 3 meter antenna limit that is cited. The transmitters themselves are certified compliant provided the installation is compliant as well.

The only cases I know of of the top of my head where a certified transmitter was at fault was in the case of the old Whole House FM units.

I guess you could also include that famous citation for the Talking House unit plugged into the outlet in an old 8 story apartment building that provided an excess of radiation due to how the building had been wired, but the TH certification have always been looked at as dubious for its use of the neutral plug as ground. Maybe its certification could face legal challenge, but I think it's 40 year plus precidence of use would easily trump any legal challenge.

@richpowers Whether a kit or certified transmitter even in the USA if transmitter is certified or in the case of a kit where the manufacturer like Sstran for example, where the manufacturer states that it meets part 15 rules when assembled according to instructions with supplied parts the manufacturer is responsible. the user doesn't have the equipment to measure field strength, what the input to the final is, the harmonics, and the user assumes that what the manufacturer says is true. So if it is out of compliance how can this be the user's responsibility? If there's a certified label the manufacturer assumes responsibility to adhere to that. Gerry told me that if he cheats and sells his transmitters after certified and then alters them after the fact he is 100% responsible, not the user. The user doesn't have an FIM to measure field strength. The user is innocent unless knowingly modded it in some way.
I drive a car that is certified or claimed by the manufacturer that it meets all the emission rules as of date of manufacture am I the end user responsible for compliance? I don't have the know how or $$$$ equipment to measure this myself. No, the manufacturer is.
The example you gave with a 30 ft ground lead is on the user as the end user modded it by doing that or changed something else which voids certification. Same as a car, if the end user defeats an emission control to get more power then of course that is on you. 

As for inspection in Canada yes if you have the approval(certified or technical acceptance) you are good BUT.....in Canada there's this broadcasting and not broadcasting thing which the USA doesn't have. So even if certified, like the Winnipeg guy who was using a certified Procaster and told you are doing a broadcast undertaking which he was as he was a business and putting them in different locations and you need BETS for that the certification wasn't good to go in that case.

Actually, this topic arose quite a while ago - I think I started a discussion on it with Carl Blare, as I had found wordage in the Part 15 rules stating that if a transmitter is certified, then the manufacturer warrants that all transmitters marketed would be compliant.  That would appear to put the onus on the manufacturer and the certification process.

And the discussion there was primarily aimed at FM.  I saw your link regarding prior discussion, and assumed it was that thread you were referring to.  AM is a whole other ball of wax, particularly surrounding ground leads.

On FM, it doesn't appear to matter in the U.S. what transmitter you are using - the major factor is field strength.  In other words, even if you are using a non modified certified transmitter, it is your responsibility if you are not compliant.  That should be a warning to users of the BVE and the Whole House transmitters, which have been tested (here in fact) to be well over compliant field strength.

In Canada, the major factor is appropriate certification for what the transmitter is being used for.   Of course, if you're wildly out of compliance, or generating interference, then you still can be shut down.  But ISED will first ask to see your transmitter before doing anything else, which is quite different from the U.S.

Listen, anyway you look at it or whatever way the argument is presented, it is always the users responsibility to insure the operation is in compliance. In the USA it doesn't matter if your transmitter is certified or not - that's a non-issue.

The BVE is so far out of compliance as it comes it is scary! I gave mine to Gerry as I am too afraid to use it. And when put on a metal surface it is even "better" than the Retekess .5 watt Chinese one! He measured it at 25,000+ uV at 3 meters! 30,000 with an aluminum foil sheet under it!
Now it has a FCC and IC certification on it's label. If I use it and I am innocent, I don't know anything and take the certification as good and I the user has no idea how far legal field strength can carry yeah I'd be told to turn it off but I say it is a certified item, I thought I could use it based on the certification, I thought this was legal, same as the CZH Chinese transmitters with part 15 sticker the manufacturer making them has to take the blame, and responsibility.
With AM the certified transmitters and even the uncertified but compliant ones say in the manual if you read all of it about the 3 meter antenna and ground and the rules. Then the end user knows if extending a ground it is breaking the rule and the manufacturer is not responsible in that case, like mounting it on a high pole and a ground lead 10 or more feet down to the ground. The user in this case is responsible not the manufacturer as the user has the knowledge that that is out of compliance. Best to use it then like Timinbovey and me with no ground. At least no physical wire attached to the ground lug on the outside of the cabinet.

I am using my Procaster with an earth grounded 3 prong adaptor like the ones that came with the Talking sign and I believe the Talking House in the USA, but even though getting a ground now with the electrical ground of the house wiring the only difference I find with my procaster is the elimination of humming on air that is present with just a two prong plug with no ground pin. It doesn't make the range any better and is actually not quite as good as a power supply with no ground pin. Go figure.
I know by seeing what is coming off the antenna and the peak on the tuning meter as I tried both all things the same.

Rich, you're correct in stating that in the U.S., despite words to the contrary in the Part 15 regulations, the FCC in the field doesn't care about certification, and only goes by field strength for FM.  Even for AM, it appears, as citations refer to field strength and Part 15.209, ignoring Part15.219.

In Canada, that is definitely not the case.  ISED looks at certification first, and then determines what to do next.  If you're not using a transmitter certified for your particular use, then you're hooped and will be forced to cease and desist.  But I know of at least one case here in Canada where the user of a Decade MS-100-U (UHF connector) had an outside antenna of about 20 feet.  However, because the transmitter was certified, they let him continue and just told him to apply for an RSS-123 license.  That transmitter certification is the key!

I believe the differences are there because Canada historically has been much stricter about certification than the U.S.  While the Retekess TR-508 was Part 15 certified, it could not get an unlicensed certification in Canada.  In short, the FCC cannot trust that a Part 15 certification means a compliant transmitter, while ISED can have much more confidence.  The FCC has recently announced it will be decertifying suspect labs, but even then, they will not remove any certifications obtained from those labs.

And finally, there are very few users of FM transmitters (and AM transmitters if you take Part15.209 as the standard) that can guarantee compliance without thousands of dollars of test equipment.  That doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense when it stated that the user is responsible for compliance.  How do you know?

You, as an end user, have been sold a transmitter that has been tested in an FCC-approved laboratory to be compliant.  The Part 15 rules state that the manufacturer is responsible for ensuring compliance of all units sold.  And the transmitter cannot be sold unless it is certified.

If you don't modify that transmitter, and install it according to instructions (which form part of the certification), then how can you be blamed if you have been sold a bill of goods?  Not only from the manufacturer, but also, apparently, the FCC.

Posted by: @artisan-radio

↑

 

..I had found wordage in the Part 15 rules stating that if a transmitter is certified, then the manufacturer warrants that all transmitters marketed would be compliant.  ...

Rich, you're correct in stating that in the U.S., despite words to the contrary in the Part 15 regulations, the FCC in the field doesn't care about certification, and only goes by field strength for FM.  Even for AM, it appears, as citations refer to field strength and Part 15.209, ignoring Part15.219. 

There are no words to contrary in the rules, what do you mean? and the FCC does care about certification, but it's only applicable to the manufacturers. So if you have a Rangemaster or Procaster installed within 18" of the ground (earth), then an agent would deem it compliant due to the certifications of those transmitters. But all NOUO citations observe they have extended ground leads, which are the basis of those citations

And your correct that in citations 15.219 has been ignored for many years, but as I have pointed out before, that practice had been corrected after the 3 year battle between the FCC and KENC. All citations since do included both 15.209 and 15.219 

Addum.. The citations state the field strength to show that it also exceeds 15.209 (which has no antenna length restrictions), that reading is taken because the extended ground is not compliant with 15.219 (which is the other option). The NOUO is issued because neither option has been met. It must meet either 15.209 or 15.219 to be deemed compliant. If it doesn't then a NOUO is issued 

Posted by: @artisan-radio

↑

 

Actually, this topic arose quite a while ago - I think I started a discussion on it with Carl Blare, .. .. And the discussion there was primarily aimed at FM.  I saw your link regarding prior discussion, and assumed it was that thread you were referring to.  AM is a whole other ball of wax, particularly surrounding ground leads.