Review of FCC Radio Rules & Regulations

The following three paragraphs by Artisan Radio from a related thread make for interesting semi-formal argument:

I'm not saying you're wrong, Carl, but where in the FCC rules does it say that the end user is legally responsible for compliant operation? I've never looked explicitly for those words.

Yes, certification allows sellers to market assembled transmitters, but that is because they have been tested and found compliant with the rules.

If the end user is indeed fully responsible for compliant operation, why certify equipment at all? There's no point. It's just an inefficient and redundant operation, with no logic behind it.

Taken all together Artisan makes a strong logical point in these three paragraphs. We have said before in other threads that the portion of the rules of interest to us, namely regarding 'intentional radiators', are in ways incomplete, replete with gaps and uneven in terms of standardization. We find that the sum of all pertinent part 15 rules lack harmony. There is a sense that rules were hacked together by different authors at different times without a consistent style. But right now lets dial back for some reactions to Artisan's remarks;

In paragraph 1 the mention of 'end users' is erroneous because there are only 'users'. There are no users prior to the sole party who uses the equipment. So, where does it say that the user is responsible for compliant operation? We would argue that the very existence of the rules answers the question. Who else but a 'user' would be responsible for 'compliance of use'?

Artisan's second paragraph seems circular to me. The second half of the single sentence defines the first half in other words.

But, as already agreed, the third paragraph is the punch. There are various ways of wrestling with the certification rationale. If certification is a bona fide 'mark of compliance', would that not assure the user of being compliant? But no. It only assures the seller that the FCC bestows 'a right to sell' the given transmitter. The FCC will still inspect the user's application of the device with an implied suspicion that the user might be cheating somehow, which might actually happen once in awhile, so the user is in the same position as if using uncertified equipment. Artisan's point is made.

I took this little section to comment as this is what the discussion was about...or drifted to.
Bottom line according to this, the kit maker, that markets the kit with parts and instructions has to insure at the kit makers end that it conforms to the rules, and not have a way to defeat the rules.

Getting back to the certification and the Retekess TR 508 our(Artisan and mine) assumption that the manufacturer is responsible for compliance not the end user still holds up even with kits. The home built ones not from a marketed source is the only time the user is responsible.
At least the FCC allows this. In Canada it seems that no kits are allowed. Sad.

 (b) At least two units of the kit shall be assembled in exact
   accordance with the instructions supplied with the product to be
   marketed. If all components required to fully complete the kit (other
   than those specified in paragraph (a) of this section that are needed
   for compliance with the technical provisions and must be included with
   the kit) are not normally furnished with the kit, assembly shall be
   made using the recommended components. The assembled units shall be
   certified or authorized under Supplier's Declaration of Conformity, as
   appropriate, pursuant to the requirements of this part.

I am responding here to Mark's comments in his post just ahead of this one.

Mention is made, if I understand it, that we have drifted from the 'Certification of the Reketess TR508' thread, but let me explain why this is not the case. Although inspired by that thread, I wanted to expand the discussion so I opened an absolutely new thread titled 'Review of FCC Rules & Regulations'.

To make a point about kits, you (Mark) quoted a section without marking what is the identifying numbering, but I found it as Part 15.25 Kits. Unfortunately it is not about AM FM kits, which we are talking about, but is entirely about 'A TV Interface Device', therefore not applicable to our conversation. 

For our purposes there is a lone mention of Kits in Part 15.3 'Definitions' (p). It is that one brief description that enters radio incidental radiators into legitimacy in kit form.

Hobbybroadcaster, in the day when they were on the assault against PhilB and the SSTran transmitters, seemingly did not know this section because his group insisted there was nothing in the rules to allow kits. Now, satisfied that SSTran has been eliminated, they are wholeheartedly supporting a kit project being done by one of their friends, claiming to be an 'enhancement' of the SSTran5000.

It's so easy to lose the way in our more intense discussions because there are so many trails.

@carl-blare My mistake about the topics! Didn't realize was a different forum topic.

I thought that, the FCC section I saw on kits was about transmitters? So if not is a kit like the SStran actually legal to market or not? If not, then how did they do it, along with other kit makers over the years including Heathkit and Ramsey? And the Knight one from the 60s?
That section in part 15 says home built, NOT marketed?

It is so easy to get lost in the mixed up way the rules are written, and also because so many different things are being covered in the rules, all jumbled together.

Please don't be annoyed with me for going over things a few times to try to make what I am saying as clear as I can.

The single word 'Kits' can be found in only two places in the Part 15 rules, and that is 15.3 and 15.25.

I believe that 'Kits" ARE ENABLED AS LEGITIMATE PART 15 PRODUCTS BY THE SINGLE ENTRY AT PART 15.3 'Definitions' (P), otherwise what sense would it make to include the definition in the part 15 rules? So, I am believing that YES, kits are legal, or 15.3 (p) is included by mistake. 

However, it is natural to expect the FCC to say more about 'Kits', it's as if they forgot to complete the job.

Then to muddy the water even more we see 15.25 which is about TV Interface Devices, a rather blunt 'change of subject', one reason being that there are many TV related circuits that emit radiation, but most of all because this is not the kind of 'Kit' that we are talking about. And what about TV interface devices that are ready built? It seems like an orphan rule that again is not fully addressed. I have more to say about 15.25, and will come back to it later.

I made the argument previously that if a transmitter is Part 15 certified, it is OK to use.

Upon thinking on it further, I still say that, but with a few provisos.

Let's take a car as an example.  Cars are highly regulated in many ways.  They are supposed to have a certain level of pollutant emissions.  They have certain safety standards such as air bags.

Now, obviously it is up to the driver of a car to adhere to the 'rules of the road'.  They can't go over the posted speed, they can't modify their mufflers so that they pollute more.  But they certainly cannot be held responsible for the level of pollutants emitted by the car with an unmodified muffler - that car has been certified by both the manufacturer and whoever checks these things.  They're not responsible for the air bags.

Now look at a Part 15 transmitter.  If it's certified, that means that it's supposed to adhere to a certain signal output level, it's not supposed to have harmonics above a certain level (i.e., safety things), etc.  Certainly a user of this transmitter is responsible if they, say, transmit over top of an existing licensed radio station and interfere with it.  Or if they broadcast obscene or offensive material.  They have to adhere to the transmitter 'rules of the road'.

But they cannot be held responsible for harmonics in that transmitter, or the strength of the signal, as certification is supposed to give the OK to those things.  And much like pollutant levels in cars, signal strength can't be measured unless you have expensive equipment.

I believe that gives a fuller explanation of my point.  Yes, the user is responsible for transmitting responsibly, but the manufacturer and the FCC, through certification, are responsible for harmonics and signal strength.

And if transmitters with harmonics and high signal strength are getting through the certification process, it's up to the FCC and the laboratories testing for these things to fix the problems.  Not the user.

And it's now later, so let's look at 15.25 'Kits', the banner reads:

A TV interface device, including a cable system terminal device, which is marketed as a kit shall comply with the following requirements:

Then it lists 'the requirements', (a) through (e). The end. It does not talk about any other kinds of kits.

Therefore the only reference to 'Kits' of the transmitter variety, we say again, is 15.3 (p). No other detail exists in the regulations about transmitter kits. 

I have previously made the argument that transmitter kits are 'Home Made Devices', referenced in 15.23, given the fact that kits are assembled 'at home'. The 'home made devices' category assumes that a schematic plan of some kind would need to exist but doesn't indicate who is allowed to draft a schematic diagram for a home made device, therefore why not a kit maker? A home builder would need to order parts, why not by ordering a kit which provides parts?

@artisan-radio You couldn't have said it better! Great comparison with cars.

Artisan Radio's analogy between automobiles and part 15 transmitters is rational and nearly convincing, but it is an oranges vs. apples argument and there is no confidence in expecting an FCC inspector to have equity with a judge in driver's court. But in any case we, as users of part 15 equipment, are in a subservient position armed only with our best effort toward compliance and our own brand of interpretation regarding rules. The good news is that even if approached by an FCC inspector the worst that might happen is that we'd be asked to cease operation or perhaps modify our equipment to continue operating. There will be no hand-cuffs involved.

A big idea just flowed into my head, a business-like approach to preparing for a potential FCC visit, a practice that could help give one's radio operation a very 'professional' touch. This really could be a whole new stream, but let's tuck it into this 'Review of FCC Radio Rules & Regulations'.

1. Get yourself a nice file box to contain all documentation about your transmitter, keep it near your transmitter, indoors of course;

2. Keep a copy of Part 15/Canadian Rules among the file documents;

3. Write in clear detail your personal findings, interpretations, and beliefs about the rules, explaining why you operate as you do;

4. Document on paper your technical measurements and tests.

Present this to an Inspector if the occasion should arise. It certainly will show that you take your responsibility seriously, and hopefully will make the right impression.

And now back to 'The Review'.

@carl-blare I have been doing this for a while. I have the documentation printed from the website...rules, and certification info for the transmitter in a large brown envelope.

Ah! I have accidentally found an answer to the question of 'who is the responsible party' when it comes to certified transmitters. Turns out we are all right, depending on certain circumstances which are delineated in a far off hard to find section of the rules which I found by tracking references sprinkled here and there. Here's how to find it.

Close Part 15 of the rules.

Open Part 2 of the rules;

Scroll to Subpart 3;

Open 2.909 - Responsible Party.

Get ready to be rolled around in a pin-ball machine of either, or, if, except, and other conditionals.

I just realized I can link you straight to the

Responsible Party page of the FCC Rules!

Let's go!

http://www.hallikainen.com/FccRules/2021/2/909/

Good find, Carl!