50 M ODEL AVIATION
ReCenT MAGAzIne articles and Email
communications have raised
concerns regarding three important radio
frequency-related issues: the legality of
continuing the process of
“narrowbanding” older, so-called
“wideband” transmitters; the changing
of transmitter crystals by the user; and
the use of one manufacturer’s frequency
module in another brand.
In an effort to supply the membership
with information on these subjects, two
letters from AMA’s Federal
Communications Commission (FCC)
legal counsel are included at the end of
this column.
The Academy’s position regarding
federal regulations has been to promote
adherence to them. However, the
Academy does not act in the capacity of
an enforcement agency for the federal
government.
Rather, the Academy’s practice has
been to monitor regulatory
governmental activity, provide research,
initiate appropriate rule-making when it
is deemed necessary, and keep members
informed.
The Academy has long been a
champion for the acquisition and
protection of frequencies for model use.
This has been true, not only for model
aircraft, but for surface model activity
as well.
AMA initiated the actions that
resulted in the FCC creating the present
model frequency assignments. To
implement these new frequencies, AMA
and the Radio Control industry
developed a phase-in program.
Further cooperation created
guidelines for “narrowband” systems. A
program for identifying and labeling
transmitters was instituted during the
new frequency transition period, and the
FCC was petitioned for permission to
“narrowband” older “wideband”
transmitters.
AMA worked diligently to defend
against proposed rule-making in 1992,
which would have rendered the majority
of the 72-megahertz (MHz) frequencies
unusable.
Historically, the AMA Frequency
Committee has spearheaded these
activities. Early in the last decade, AMA
was joined in its efforts by the Radio
Control Manufacturers Association
(RCMA). The cooperative effort has
been an important ingredient in the
success of the hobby/sport acquiring and
maintaining frequencies for model use.
AMA and RCMA are represented
before the FCC by legal counsel
headquartered in Washington DC. Mr.
Raymond Kowalski of the firm Keller
and Heckman has provided the
following opinions concerning the
issues mentioned in the first paragraph.
Mr. Kowalski has represented the
AMA in FCC matters since 1988. Prior
to moving to a practice in the private
sector, he served as head of the FCC
radio service that contained model
frequency activity.
First letter:
“As requested, we have examined the
question of permissibility of using R/C
transmitters that have been modified to
bring them into conformance with the
Federal Communications Commission’s
narrowband regulations.
“The use of narrowband transmitters
has been promoted by the Academy of
Model Aeronautics for many years. Well
before the FCC formalized narrowband
requirements for R/C transmitters in PR
Docket 90-222 (Report and Order, FCC
91-103, released on April 10, 1991), the
Academy had informed the FCC that the
production of narrowband transmitters
had already become the industry
standard. In fact, late in 1988, the
Academy sought and obtained a ruling
from the FCC that the modification of
wideband transmitters to improve their
performance to narrowband standards
was indeed permissible and did not
require any filing with the FCC, so long
as the modification was performed by
the manufacturer’s authorized service
representative.1
“In PR Docket No. 90-222, the FCC
amended Section 95.623 of its rules to
add subsections (b) and (c). By these
amendments, the FCC formally required
the use of narrowband transmitters in
the R/C Radio Service and established a
transition timetable. In particular,
subsection (c) states:
“(c) All R/C transmitters capable of
operation in the 72-76 MHz band that
are manufactured in or imported into the
United States, on or after March 1,
1992, or marketed on or after March 1,
1993, must be maintained within a
frequency tolerance of 0.002%. R/C
transmitters operating in the 72-76 MHz
band and marketed before March 1,
1992 could lawfully be sold until March
1, 1993. Persons who purchased such
transmitters could lawfully operate them
until March 1, 1998.
“Note that the rule looks to the
frequency tolerance of the transmitter.
All R/C transmitters in use today ‘must
be maintained within a frequency
tolerance of 0.002%.’ The rule does not
say that converted transmitters may not
be operated after March 1, 1998, nor
does the rule say that the transmitter
must have been converted to
narrowband operation prior to March 1,
1998. Nor did the ruling received in
1988 from the FCC that narrowbanding
qualifies as a ‘Class I permissive
change’ within the meaning of Section
2.1001(b)(1)2 of the FCC’s rules, bear
any time limits.
“Accordingly, we conclude that
wideband transmitters, manufactured or
imported into the United States prior to
March 1, 1992, may continue to be
converted to meet the frequency
tolerance requirements of Section
95.623(c) of the FCC’s rules and that
transmitters that have been converted
may continue to be lawfully operated.
“We trust this information will
clarify any confusion that may have
arisen as to this question.”
“1 Letter, October 20, 1988, from the
Academy to the FCC Office of
Engineering and Technology. Reply,
Dec. 14, 1988.
“2 Now Section 2.1043(b)(1) of the
rules.”
Second letter:
“As requested, we have re-examined
the question of whether one
manufacturer’s frequency-determining
plug-in modules may be substituted into
another manufacturer’s R/C transmitter.
“The applicable rule is Section
95.645 of the Rules and Regulations of
the Federal Communications
Special Frequency Report
Commission, which reads, in
subsection (b):
“95.645 Control accessibility.
“(b) An R/C transmitter which
incorporates plug-in frequency
determining modules which are charged
by the user must be certified with the
modules. Each module must contain all of
the frequency determining circuitry
including the oscillator. Plug-in crystals
are not considered modules and must not
be accessible to the user.
“Formerly, this rule used the term
‘type accepted’ instead of ‘certificated.’1
In our opinion, however, this change in
terminology had no effect on the
substance of the rule. Type acceptance
and certification are two of several FCC
equipment authorization procedures. The
FCC in recent years has streamlined its
regulations by reducing the number of
equipment authorization procedures and
revising which procedure is to be used
with which kind of equipment.
“In fact, in the Report and Order in
ET Docket No. 97-94 (FCC 98-58,
released April 16, 1998) the FCC
concluded that the certification and
the type acceptance procedures were
so similar that they could be combined
into one procedure, certification.
“However, these streamlining
revisions did not change the underlying
equipment performance standards which
the equipment must meet. That is,
regardless of the authorization procedure
employed, the underlying requirements
remained the same.
“Our opinion, that it is impermissible
to use one manufacturer’s plug-in
modules in the transmitter of another
manufacturer, was based on the current
rule, which speaks of ‘certification.’
Similarly, we confirmed this view with
the FCC’s staff, based on the current
text of the rule.
“In short, the equipment
authorization procedure makes no
difference to the substantive
requirement of the rule. Nothing we
have seen in recent discussions of this
issue gives us any reason to change
our opinion.
“We trust this information will
clarify any confusion that may exist as
to this point.
“1 Although we quoted this rule in its
current form in our letter to you of
Sept. 25, 2000, the rule as published
in the January 2001 issue of Model
Aviation used the older version, which
speaks of ‘type acceptance’ instead of
‘certification.’” MA
52 M ODEL AVIATION
