KB6NU's Ham Radio Blog

KB6NU's Ham Radio Blog

Rules, Regulations, Enforcement

FCC reminds us not to do anything illegal

By 7 Comments

I got this odd email from the FCC this morning:

From: FCC Office of Media Relations <[email protected]>
Subject: Enforcement Advisory to Amateur & Personal Radio Service Licenses & Operators
Date: January 17, 2021 at 9:45 AM

The FCC’s Enforcement Bureau today issued an Enforcement Advisory warning amateur and personal radio services licensees and operators that they may not use radio equipment to commit or facilitate criminal acts.  The Enforcement Advisory says: “The Bureau has become aware of discussions on social media platforms suggesting that certain radio services regulated by the Commission may be an alternative to social media platforms for groups to communicate and coordinate future activities.  The Bureau recognizes that these services can be used for a wide range of permitted purposes, including speech that is protected under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  Amateur and Personal Radio Services, however, may not be used to commit or facilitate crimes.  Specifically, the Bureau reminds amateur licensees that they are prohibited from transmitting ‘communications intended to facilitate a criminal act’ or ‘messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning.’”

The full enforcement advisory is available at: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-21-73A1.pdf

Media Contact: Will Wiquist, [email protected]

This is, of course, in response to the call by some to use amateur radio in place of social media outlets, such as Twitter and Parler. Here’s a CNN story reporting on this. And, of course, preppers have been getting licenses for years.

I find it kind of funny that the FCC would issue such a statement. After all, isn’t it obvious that using personal radio services for illegal purposes is also illegal?

As for using amateur radio as a substitute for Twitter or Parler, I think that those that try this will be very disappointed. Amateur radio really isn’t set up for one-to-many or many-to-many communications like social media websites are. I think those that try to use ham radio in place of social media are going to find that it’s too much work for too little gain. Who knows, though? Maybe they’ll come up with a novel approach.

If I were in law enforcement, I might be more worried about the use of DMR encryption. I’m certainly no expert, but it sounds like it would be awful tough to decrypt a DMR communication if they use the 40-bit encryption mode.

At any rate, I haven’t heard of any unusual activity in this area, but I’m curious if you have where you are. If so, please let us—and perhaps the Volunteer Monitor Program—know.

FCC Sets Amateur License Fee at $35

By 30 Comments

In Report and Order FCC 20-184, the FCC has set the amateur radio licensing fee at $35. It includes quite a bit of commentary on how it decided on that amount. In the R&O they noted, “We agree with commenters asserting this fee is too high to account for the minimal staff involvement in these applications and therefore adopt a reduced amount of $35 fee for all personal license application fees.”

They also addressed some other other concerns brought up by the nearly 4,000 people who commented on the amateur radio license fee. For example, they write:

Numerous commenters suggest that amateur radio licenses should be exempted or are exempt under section 8(d)(1) of the Act. We disagree and note as a starting point that the Commission has no authority to create an exemption where none presently exists. Thus, if an exemption exists, it must be contained within the wording of section 8(d)(1) of the Act.61 None of the listed exemptions apply to exempt Amateur Radio Service licenses.

Basically, what they are saying is that since Congress did not specifically exempt amateur radio, they cannot do it on their own.

The FCC also disagreed with the argument that the Amateur Radio Service should be exempt from fees because amateur radio operators provide emergency and public communications:

[The argument] that amateur radio licenses should be exempt under section 8(d)(1)(B) as they are “operating for all intents and purposes as non-profit entities” because they provide public safety and special emergency radio services in times of crisis on a volunteer basis. While we are very much aware of these laudable and important services amateur radio licensees provide to the American public, we do not agree that amateur radio licenses fit within the section 8(d)(1)(B) exemption Congress provided. These specific exemptions do not apply to the amateur radio personal licenses. Emergency communications, for example, are voluntary and are not required by our rules. Further, there is no indication that most or all amateurs solely use their license for emergency communications; even the section of our rules allowing certain amateur operators to broadcast civil defense communications limit such authorization to periods of local, regional or national civil emergencies. As we have noted previously, “[w]hile the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communications service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications, is one of the underlying principles of the amateur service, the amateur service is not an emergency radio service.

How’s that for a zinger?

They also addressed the argument that it will discourage younger people and others who may not be able to afford the fee from entering the  hobby:

ARRL and many individual commenters additionally claim that the proposed fee will harm the public interest by discouraging people who are younger from becoming licensed or by causing people who are older and living on fixed income to leave the service (depriving others of their skills and experience). These commenters explain that participation in the amateur radio service can be an entry point to science, technology, engineering, and math careers. They also note that amateur licensees have driven innovation in communications and other technologies. While we agree that participation in the Amateur Radio Service offers important public interest benefits, that determination does not alter our obligation under RAY BAUM’s Act to adopt cost-based fees for processing applications regarding nonexempt service.

They also addressed the argument should this fee go into effect, the FCC should then use that money to provide better enforcement. They write:

These commenters argue that if the Commission adopts application fees for the service, it should use the fees for the benefit of licensees, for example, by taking more robust enforcement actions against unlawful operators.88 While we appreciate the commenters’ diligent advocacy for their service, we remind them that the Commission does not have discretion on how to use application fees, which must be deposited in the U.S. Treasury.

To address the arguments that the FCC’s hands are tied with respect to imposing the fees and how the fees are to be used, the ARRL is going to gear up its lobbying effort. The next time a bill like this is in the works, someone is going to have to be looking out for amateur radio and ensure that specific language gets put into the bill. Unfortunately, that’s how our system works when your interests are not very high on the priority list.

The date on which the FCC will start charging the fee has not yet been set, but it will be announced at least 30 days in advance. The FCC needs time to develop the procedures detailing how and when the fees will be collected.

You can download the entire Report & Order by going to https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-184A1.pdf

FCC to Require Email Addresses on Applications

By 6 Comments

From the ARRL 12/02/2020:

Amateur radio licensees and candidates will have to provide the FCC with an email address on applications, effective sometime in mid-2021. If no email address is included, the FCC may dismiss the application as defective.

The FCC is fully transitioning to electronic correspondence and will no longer print or provide wireless licensees with hard-copy authorizations or registrations by mail.

A Report and Order (R&O) on “Completing the Transition to Electronic Filing, Licenses and Authorizations, and Correspondence in the Wireless Radio Services” in WT Docket 19-212 was adopted on September 16. The new rules will go into effect 6 months after publication in the Federal Register, which hasn’t happened yet, but the FCC is already strongly encouraging applicants to provide an email address. When an email address is provided, licensees will receive an official electronic copy of their licenses when the application is granted.

Under Section 97.21 of the new rules, a person holding a valid amateur station license “must apply to the FCC for a modification of the license grant as necessary to show the correct mailing and email address, licensee name, club name, license trustee name, or license custodian name.” For a club or military recreation station license, the application must be presented in document form to a club station call sign administrator who must submit the information to the FCC in an electronic batch file.

Under new Section 97.23, each license will have to show the grantee’s correct name, mailing address, and email address. “The email address must be an address where the grantee can receive electronic correspondence,” the amended rule will state. “Revocation of the station license or suspension of the operator license may result when correspondence from the FCC is returned as undeliverable because the grantee failed to provide the correct email address.”

Do you feel violated?

By 12 Comments

Under §97.103, Station licensee responsibilities, section (c) states,

The station licensee must make the station and the station records available for inspection upon request by an FCC representative.

This is, of course, to ensure that your equipment meets the technical requirements of Part 97. Having said that, I’ve never heard of any instance where the FCC has actually requested such an inspection.

Even so, an organization called the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) thinks that this requirement is unconstitutional. Timothy Snowball, a lawyer with the PLF writes:

People eagerly joining up for the hobby may not realize that FCC licensure rules require them to give up an important constitutional safeguard of their privacy. In order to receive a ham radio license from the FCC, would-be operators are forced to give up their Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable warrantless searches.

This last requirement is blatantly unconstitutional.

One doesn’t need to be a criminal or have anything to hide to be concerned about letting government officials into one’s home for unannounced FCC “inspections.”

…

And as long as the FCC can deploy that power against hams, it will continue to do so. But that could change if someone has the courage to stand up for the constitutional rights of amateur radio operators. It’s time for the amateur radio community to challenge these onerous and unconstitutional licensing requirements.

This is an interesting question. On the one hand, I can certainly see where this might be unconstitutional, but to me, this sounds like someone looking for a problem where none exists.

For example, despite what Snowball writes, there’s nothing in the rules that say that the inspections will be “unannounced.” The rules say “upon request,” and even then, I’ve not heard of any requests by the FCC to inspect a station in my nearly 50 years of being a radio amateur.

It seems to me that if this were truly an issue that I would have heard about it and that the ARRL would already be involved. I’ve just emailed my ARRL director to see if he knows of any FCC inspection requests and if the ARRL legal counsel has any opinion on the matter. I’ll post whatever I find out here.

In the meantime, I’d like to hear what you think. Do you feel violated, or is this much ado about nothing? Do you know of anyone whose station has been inspected by the FCC?

FCC proposes new fees for amateur radio licenses

By 83 Comments

I cadged this off QRZ.Com, but am requesting the permission of the author, Michelle Bradley, KU3N, founder of REC Networks.

On Wednesday, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in MD Docket 20-270 which implements portions of the Repack Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018 (or RAY BAUM’S Act), which gives the FCC statutory authority to collect application fees. As a part of the Act, the FCC is required to switch from a fee structure mandated by Congress 20 years ago to a new cost-based system. This change will result in some fees being reduced and in some cases, such as the Amateur Radio Service, new fees are being added.

Proposed new fees for Amateur Radio and reduction in GMRS fees

Section 8 of the RAY BAUM’S Act does not provide any kind of statutory exemption for filing fees in the Amateur Radio Service, which, historically has had no filing fees. Citing the costs involved in the automated processes, routine maintenance of the Commission’s Universal Licensing System (ULS) and limited instances where staff needs to be involved in the application process, the FCC is proposing an across-the-board fee of $50 for new and modified licenses in the personal radio services, which includes Amateur Radio and the General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS). For GMRS, this is a reduction of the current $70 fee. The FCC also proposes these fees for license renewals and requests for vanity call signs, the latter which had its filing fee eliminated several years ago. The FCC is proposing to still not charge for administrative updates, such as mailing address changes on amateur or GMRS applications. Amateur Radio will remain exempt from annual regulatory fees under Section 9 of the RAY BAUM’S Act.

Commenting on the changes

Once the NPRM is published in the Federal Register, filing deadlines for comments and reply comments will be established. Those dates will be announced by the FCC in a separate Public Notice. Comments will be accepted in the FCC’s Electronic Comment Filing System under proceeding 20-270.

A copy of the NPRM, which includes the proposed fee structures, can be found here.

The RAY BAUM’S Act is part of Public Law 115-141 and can be found in this PDF document starting on page 734 (Division P). The relevant part of the law starts on Page 736, under Section 8.

Link to full article at REC Networks, which also discusses fee changes for commercial broadcast radio can be found at https://recnet.com/node/3182

ARRL HF Band Plan Committee submits final recommendation

By 12 Comments

At the recent ARRL board meeting, the HF Band Plan Committee submitted its final recommendation. A couple of days ago, a friend of mine emailed me about it:

Seen the new proposal? I’m not seeing much chatter about it which seems weird. Of course, in typical ARRL fashion when they want to slide it by with little protest they keep it on the down low. The news item has been up for a week – no chatter. Seeing anything online?

I haven’t seen much aside from this Reddit post. Thinking that this was mostly about new Tech privileges, I replied:

This has been in the works for more than two years now:

As I recall, I didn’t really think much about this one way or the other. I’m not sure that these privileges are enough to get many Techs on HF, but I could be wrong. What do you think?

To which, he replied:

I think it will probably squelch upgrades from Tech. It may be a longer term goal of the ARRL to get amateur radio licensing down to just two classes – maybe even a single class someday?

I generally support the league but hate whenever they mess with licensing and band planning. It’s like New Coke – things are working well and they still feel the need to fix it. And I especially don’t like when they go into sneaky mode. This proposal was buried in BoD notes and has had no front ARRL page news attention (or did I miss it?). Even more, I’m surprised there isn’t already a long hate thread on reddit or QRZ.com.

This perpetual notion that there must be something wrong with ham radio therefore we must fix it has gotten terribly old to me after 44 years of it…

I sympathize with his views on what seems like a lack of transparency, but the Band Plan Committee did ask for input on this back in February. It seems like they’re being a little secretive about this now, but only because the minutes of the July board meeting haven’t been released yet. I think that’s because there’s still some unfinished business.

As far as the ARRL continually messing around with ham radio, I think it’s inevitable. As Heraclitus is purported to have said around 500 BCE, “change is the only constant in life.” Likewise, amateur radio is going to change whether we like it or not. The question really comes down to whether these changes are going to be beneficial or not.

Something similar is happening here in Ann Arbor, actually. Beginning in about 2000, a group of people took control of city government and began pushing the city in ways that have irrevocably changed the nature of the town. Instead of being a sleepy college town, this group has pushed for denser development, more mass transit, and “affordable housing” (whatever that is). The latest is that they’re pushing for yet another millage to allow the city to implement a “carbon zero” environmental policy. Many long-term residents, like myself, are not really on board with some of these initiatives.

We think that while some of these things sound good in meetings and on paper (screens?), we don’t think the mayor and his faction on city council have really thought through all the consequences of their actions. I think the net result is going to be even more inequality as raising taxes is going to speed the exodus of people like me who can probably afford the added taxes, but would rather not pay them. 35 years ago—when I moved to Ann Arbor—the taxes were high, but it was worth it because we had pretty good city services, and it was a fun place to live. Now, the taxes are even higher, there are fewer city services (for example, the city no longer has a special leaf pickup in the fall), and a more dense population means more aggravating traffic (despite the thought that a denser population will mean more people will take public transportation and use cars less).

A more cynical person might say that they’re doing this on purpose to force people like me out of Ann Arbor. I think they’re just misguided.

Getting back to amateur radio, though, what the ARRL is trying to do with this band plan is two things:

  1. Make space for more WinLink (ACDS stations).
  2. Get more Techs on HF, with the thought that they will engage more with “mainstream” amateur radio and thereby have an incentive to upgrade to General and then Extra.

I’m not sure that attempting to do both of these things in one fell swoop is the greatest idea, but doing it in two steps would be a lot more work. As for objective #1, I think that blocking off a portion of the band for ACDS operation is probably the right thing to do. I’m no expert on that, though. I do think it’s inevitable that this type of operation is going to be more commonplace, be it WinLink or some other system.

As for objective #2, I agree with my friend that I think it’s a disincentive for Techs to upgrade to General. Why bother upgrading if all they’re doing to do is work FT8? Like our city government, I don’t think the band plan committee and entry-level license committee have completely thought through the consequences of their actions. In blog post two years ago this proposal is called, ironically, “disincentive licensing.”

Seriously, I’d like to know exactly how the Entry Level License Committee came up with this recommendation. I believe I asked this question a couple years ago when they submitted their recommendations, but never did get a good answer. Did they call up some Techs and ask them what it would take for them to get more engaged in amateur radio and upgrade, or did they simply pull this idea out of thin air?

In an online discussion of the changes occurring in Ann Arbor, I noted that change is inevitable, but some changes are for the good, while others are not so good. The same thing is true in amateur radio. I’m not sure that reducing the incentives to upgrade is the right thing to do, and unfortunately, once you’ve increased privileges, it’s nearly impossible to take them away. If it doesn’t work out, then we’re pretty much stuck with it.

What would you do if you came across a group illegally using amateur radio frequencies?

By 7 Comments

This morning, I got the following email from a former student:

I’m looking for some wisdom. If I’m communicating over amateur radio channels with a couple groups of people who are using radios without licenses, should I use my call sign? I’m wondering if by doing so, I make myself a target. The groups I’m dealing with are two militia groups and one RV campground, all three using Baofengs. I cannot stop the usage. So do you think it’s wiser to just hide in the group and not identify myself, or always identify myself so I am legal?

Thanks for your wisdom.

Wow. What a question, eh? My initial reaction was that this is really a no-win situation, if you want to be strictly legal. It’s a rules violation to not properly identify, but it’s also a violation to communicate as an amateur radio operator with other stations not operating in the Amateur Radio Service (except, of course, in emergencies).

I asked Dan Henderson, N1ND, the ARRL “rules guy” about this, and he replied,

The FCC doesn’t require amateur licensees to verify whether the other station is licensed before the are allowed to communicate with them – but upon determining that the other station is not one with which you are permitted to communicate, then the burden falls to the licensed amateur to follow the rules and cease communication with the unlicensed station.

I also suggested that he consider reporting the illegal operation to the ARRL. The ARRL Volunteer Monitor Program is supposed to work with the FCC on these types of issues, but I didn’t find any way to do this on the ARRL website. I emailed Riley Hollingsworth, K4ZDH, who’s heading up the program, about this, and he replied that you can report this activity directly to him. His email address is [email protected].

If it were me, I might politely advise them that it’s not really legal to use amateur radio frequencies, and that they might want to use the Family Radio Service (FRS) or General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) frequencies instead.

FRS is license-free, but radios used on FRS frequencies are supposed to be limited to 2 W output. I’m guessing, though, that they could use their Baofengs on FRS frequencies at the 5 W or even 8 W level, without serious repercussions, even though it’s technically illegal.

GMRS would really be the way to go. Legally using GMRS radios does require paying for a license—which some preppers would be hesitant to do—but you can use higher power radios (up to 50 W!) and even set up repeaters.

Anyway, my question to you is what advice would you give my student?

From the “pro” magazines: LM386 regen, IEEE Spectrum on ham radio, measure resonator Q factor

By 4 Comments

Create radio receiver circuits with the LM386 audio amplifier

I didn’t have much luck using an LM386 as an audio amplifier (I needed more output power), but perhaps I’ll have more success using it to make a regenerative receiver. I think that I even have all the parts in my junk box.

Here’s a schematic from the article:

Is Ham Radio a Hobby, a Utility…or Both? A Battle Over Spectrum Heats Up

This was actually last summer’s controversy, but while the arguments about WinLink have cooled down, it’s still an issue. I used to be quite anti-WinLink, but since it seems to really be useful for emergency communications, I’m less strident about it than I used to be. I just searched fcc.gov to see if I could find out what’s going on with RM-11831, and was surprised to see that as recently as April 3, 2020, there were still comments being filed. So, I guess it ain’t over until it’s over.

Determining Resonator Q Factor from Return-Loss Measurement Alone

The author uses an expensive VNA from his employer, Copper Mountain Technologies, but with a little ingenuity, you can probably do with your $60 NanoVNA.

2020 Extra Class study guide: E1F – Miscellaneous rules: external RF power amplifiers; prohibited communications; spread spectrum; auxiliary stations; Canadian amateurs operating in the U.S.; special temporary authority; control operator of an auxiliary station

By 2 Comments

WHEW! You’ll be glad to know that this is the last section of the 2020 version of the No Nonsense Extra Class License Study Guide. Real soon now, you’ll be able to actually purchase the entire study guide. Thanks for all your support!

As the name of this section implies, it contains a hodgepodge of questions covering sometimes obscure rules. About the only way to get these right is to memorize the answers.

The use of spread-spectrum techniques is a topic that comes up from time to time. Many amateurs feel that the rules are too restrictive. For example, spread spectrum transmissions are permitted only on amateur frequencies above 222 MHz. Other conditions apply as well. Spread spectrum emissions must not cause harmful interference to other stations employing other authorized emissions, the transmitting station must be in an area regulated by the FCC or in a country that permits SS emissions, and the transmission must not be used to obscure the meaning of any communication.

QUESTION: On what frequencies are spread spectrum transmissions permitted? (E1F01)
ANSWER: Only on amateur frequencies above 222 MHz

QUESTION: Which of the following conditions apply when transmitting spread spectrum emissions? (E1F09)
ANSWER: All these choices are correct

    • A station transmitting SS emission must not cause harmful interference to other stations employing other authorized emissions.
    • The transmitting station must be in an area regulated by the FCC or in a country that permits SS emissions.
    • The transmission must not be used to obscure the meaning of any communication.

External RF power amplifiers

The rules governing the use of external amplifiers is also somewhat controversial. A dealer may sell an external RF power amplifier capable of operation below 144 MHz if it has not been granted FCC certification only if it was purchased in used condition from an amateur operator and is sold to another amateur operator for use at that operator’s station. One of the standards that must be met by an external RF power amplifier if it is to qualify for a grant of FCC certification is that it must satisfy the FCC’s spurious emission standards when operated at the lesser of 1500 watts, or its full output power.

QUESTION: Under what circumstances may a dealer sell an external RF power amplifier capable of operation below 144 MHz if it has not been granted FCC certification? (E1F03)
ANSWER: It was purchased in used condition from an amateur operator and is sold to another amateur operator for use at that operator’s station

QUESTION: Which of the following best describes one of the standards that must be met by an external RF power amplifier if it is to qualify for a grant of FCC certification? (E1F11)
ANSWER: It must satisfy the FCC’s spurious emission standards when operated at the lesser of 1500 watts or its full output power

Oh, Canada!

There are regulations that protects Canadian Land/Mobile operations near the US/Canadian border from interference. Amateur stations may not transmit in the 420 – 430 MHz frequency segment if they are located in the contiguous 48 states and north of Line A, which is a line roughly parallel to and south of the US-Canadian border. There is a corresponding “Line B” parallel to and north of the U.S./Canadian border.

QUESTION: Amateur stations may not transmit in which of the following frequency segments if they are located in the contiguous 48 states and north of Line A? (E1F05)
ANSWER: 420 MHz – 430 MHz

QUESTION: Which of the following geographic descriptions approximately describes “Line A”? (E1F04)
ANSWER: A line roughly parallel to and south of the border between the U.S. and Canada

And, while we’re on the topic of Canada, did you know that Canadian amateurs can operate in the U.S. using their Canadian license? They have the same privileges here as they do in Canada, as long as those privileges do not exceed U.S. Amateur Extra Class license privileges.

QUESTION: What privileges are authorized in the U.S. to persons holding an amateur service license granted by the government of Canada? (E1F02)
ANSWER: The operating terms and conditions of the Canadian amateur service license, not to exceed U.S. Amateur Extra Class license privileges

Compensated communications

As you might expect, there are questions about not making any money from operating an amateur radio station. You cannot, for example, accept any material compensation for operating an amateur radio station, except as otherwise provided in the rules. And, an amateur station may send a message to a business only when neither the amateur nor his or her employer has a pecuniary interest in the communications.

QUESTION: Which of the following types of amateur station communications are prohibited? (E1F08)
ANSWER: Communications transmitted for hire or material compensation, except as otherwise provided in the rules

QUESTION: When may an amateur station send a message to a business? (E1F07)
ANSWER: When neither the amateur nor his or her employer has a pecuniary interest in the communications

This next question is a bit of a trick question. 97.201 states that only Technician, General, Advanced or Amateur Extra Class operators may be the control operator of an auxiliary station. It’s a trick question because there are also holders of Novice Class licenses, even though no new Novice licenses have been issued for many years.

QUESTION: Who may be the control operator of an auxiliary station? (E1F10)
ANSWER: Only Technician, General, Advanced or Amateur Extra Class operators

Special temporary authority

Some amateurs are granted special privileges called special temporary authority. The FCC issues a Special Temporary Authority (STA) to an amateur station to provide for experimental amateur communications.

QUESTION: Under what circumstances might the FCC issue a Special Temporary Authority (STA) to an amateur station? (E1F06)
ANSWER: To provide for experimental amateur communications

2020 Extra Class study guide: E1E – Volunteer examiner program: definitions; qualifications; preparation and administration of exams; accreditation; question pools; documentation requirements

By Leave a Comment

The Volunteer Examiner program started in the early 1980s, and has been a boon for amateur radio. Exam sessions are now more accessible than when tests were given by the FCC, meaning that it is much easier to obtain an amateur radio license, and that more people can now enjoy our hobby.

Volunteer Examiner Coordinators (VECs) are the organizations that have entered into an agreement with the FCC to coordinate amateur operator license examinations. There are currently 14 VECs in the U.S. Part 97 assigns VECs the task of maintaining the question pools used for U.S. amateur license examinations. VECs also accredit individual Volunteer Examiners (VEs). That is to say that they confirm that a VE applicant meets FCC requirements to serve as an examiner.

QUESTION: What is a Volunteer Examiner Coordinator? (E1E03)
ANSWER: An organization that has entered into an agreement with the FCC to coordinate, prepare, and administer amateur operator license examinations

QUESTION: Which of the following best describes the Volunteer Examiner accreditation process? (E1E04)
ANSWER: The procedure by which a VEC confirms that the VE applicant meets FCC requirements to serve as an examiner

QUESTION: Who does Part 97 task with maintaining the pools of questions for all U.S. amateur license examinations? (E1E02)
ANSWER: The VECs

As the name implies, volunteer examiners (VEs) are volunteers. They may not accept any payment for administering tests, but Part 97 rules state that VEs (and VECs) may be reimbursed for some out-of-pocket expenses, such as preparing, processing, administering and coordinating amateur radio license examinations.

QUESTION: For which types of out-of-pocket expenses do the Part 97 rules state that VEs and VECs may be reimbursed? (E1E01)
ANSWER: Preparing, processing, administering, and coordinating an examination for an amateur radio operator license

The rules and procedures for administering the tests are written so that everything is on the up and up. For example, each administering VE is responsible for the proper conduct and necessary supervision during an amateur operator license examination session. Having three VEs present at a test session, and making them all responsible for how they conduct the test session, leaves very little room for cheating.

VEs are not to show any favoritism. To minimize the chance of this happening, the FCC rules list relatives to whom a VE may not administer an examination. The penalty for a VE who fraudulently administers or certifies an examination can be revocation of the VE’s amateur station license grant and the suspension of the VE’s amateur operator license grant.

Before administering a test, the VEs instruct the candidates of the rules. For example, the candidates are not allowed to consult any books during the test. They may use a calculator, but only if they can demonstrate to a VE that all of the calculator’s memories have been cleared. If a candidate fails to comply with the examiner’s instructions during an amateur operator license examination, a VE must immediately terminate the candidate’s examination.

QUESTION: Who is responsible for the proper conduct and necessary supervision during an amateur operator license examination session? (E1E06)
ANSWER: Each administering VE

QUESTION: To which of the following examinees may a VE not administer an examination? (E1E08)
ANSWER: Relatives of the VE as listed in the FCC rules

QUESTION: What may be the penalty for a VE who fraudulently administers or certifies an examination? (E1E09)
ANSWER: Revocation of the VE’s amateur station license grant and the suspension of the VE’s amateur operator license grant

QUESTION: What should a VE do if a candidate fails to comply with the examiner’s instructions during an amateur operator license examination? (E1E07)
ANSWER: Immediately terminate the candidate’s examination

After the test, three VEs must correct each test sheet. This minimizes the chance for making a scoring mistake. To pass the test, an examinee must achieve a minimum passing score of 74%. If an examinee scores a passing grade on all examination elements needed for an upgrade or new license, the three VEs must certify that the examinee is qualified for the license grant and that they have complied with the administering VE requirements.

After someone has successfully completed an examination for an amateur operator license, the VEs must submit the application document to the coordinating VEC according to the coordinating VEC instructions. If the examinee does not pass the exam, however, the VE team must return the application document to the examinee.

QUESTION: What is the minimum passing score on all amateur operator license examinations? (E1E05)
ANSWER: Minimum passing score of 74%

QUESTION: What must the VE team do if an examinee scores a passing grade on all examination elements needed for an upgrade or new license? (E1E11)
ANSWER: Three VEs must certify that the examinee is qualified for the license grant and that they have complied with the administering VE requirements

QUESTION: What must the administering VEs do after the administration of a successful examination for an amateur operator license? (E1E10)
ANSWER: They must submit the application document to the coordinating VEC according to the coordinating VEC instructions

QUESTION: What must the VE team do with the application form if the examinee does not pass the exam? (E1E12)
ANSWER: Return the application document to the examinee