Three days ago, the FCC published Enforcement Advisory, No. 2018-03. It begins:
The Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has observed that a growing number of conventional retailers and websites advertise and sell low-cost, two-way VHF/UHF radios that do not comply with the FCC’s rules. Such devices are used primarily for short-distance, two-way voice communications and are frequently imported into the United States. These radios must be authorized by the FCC prior to being imported, advertised, sold, or operated in the United States.
Many of these radios violate one or more FCC technical requirements. For example, some can be modified to transmit on public safety and other land mobile channels for which they are not authorized, while others are capable of prohibited wideband operations. Such radios are illegal, and many have the potential to negatively affect public safety, aviation, and other operations by Federal, state, and local agencies, as well as private users. Because these devices must be, but have not been, authorized by the FCC, the devices may not be imported into the United States, retailers may not advertise or sell them, and no one may use them. Rather, these devices may only be imported, advertised, sold, or used only if the FCC first has approved them under its equipment authorization process (or unless the devices operate exclusively on frequencies reserved for amateur licensees or they are intended for use exclusively by the federal government). Moreover, with only very limited exceptions, after being authorized, the devices may not be modified. Anyone importing, advertising or selling such noncompliant devices should stop immediately, and anyone owning such devices should not use them. Violators may be subject to substantial monetary penalties.
This advisory seems aimed squarely at radios, such as the Baofeng UV-5R and other inexpensive Chinese radios, and a lot of hams are worried that a) they won’t be able to get cheap Chinese radios anymore, and b) the radios that they currently have are now illegal.
Fortunately, that’s not the case. Having done some work for BTECH, a company that sells a lot of Baofeng radios, I asked them how they read this enforcement advisory. What they said is that what is illegal is selling radios without FCC certification or selling radios “outside of their designed use.” The example they gave me would be selling a UV-5R for FRS use.
This morning, on reddit, Noji, KN0JI, posted the text of an email exchange that he had with Scott Stone, Deputy Chief, Mobility Division of the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Noji asked,
Does Part 95. 591 mean that all Baofeng UV-5R and UV-92 radios (which can transmit [on] FRS and GMRS frequencies) will become illegal to buy or sell in the U.S. after September 2019, even for amateur use?
To which, Stone replied,
No. Those devices to not have Part 95 certification, so they are not authorized for use in FRS or GMRS. i.e. they are not capable of operating under this subpart. They can be used by amateurs, but only on amateur frequencies.
So, there you have it. If you’re ever in Ann Arbor, MI, give me a call on the W8UM repeater (145.23-, 100 Hz PL), and I’ll (legally) answer with one of my Baofengs.
UPDATE 9/28/18: I should have listened to Bob, K0NR, who, in his comment below says, “This story is far from over.” Apparently so. See FCC Back pedals — All transceivers capable of transmitting on frequencies that require certification must be certified and can not be used on Amateur radio for more info. It may just be that the FCC does consider these radios to be illegal for use on amateur radio frequencies. Frankly, this discussion is over my head. I guess that we’ll see how concerned we have to be when the FCC starts shutting down companies selling these radios or actually confiscating them from hams.
It seems to me that the manufacturers could sidestep all this legal turmoil by simply producing service-specific models that are programmed to transmit only on those frequencies of that particular service. The hardware needn’t change, just the software.
UPDATE 10/3/18:
The ARRL has now gotten involved in this discussion. Their position is that these radios are legal for amateur radio use. I expect the FCC to issue another clarification at some point stating this.
E says
I believe that they have always been illegal. That’s why you see the major amateur manufacturers blocking access to transmit outside of the amateur band. To my knowledge, a radio for amateur service has to be authorized as a receiver, and for inadvertent emissions, but as a transmitter per se.
Radios that can operate on other services normally have to be certified for those service. I’ve seen the Baofeng sold as marine radios, public service radios, commercial service, and GMRS all services that require explicit authorizations. And while a manufacturer or distributor may not have done it, they are responsible for what their resellers do.
I recently saw a Baofeng used on a small tourist railroad (even with antenna broken off) which hopefully was on an allocated frequency.
So, take the response from the Deputy Chief with an understanding of the legal terminology and the specificness of the question. I feel the question “Are they legal to sell” what have resulted in a quite different response, i.e. the reason for the entire action.
Ron Wright, N9EE says
I agree, Before the UV5R was available in US the Wouxun KG-UVD1P and similar that look very similar and operate the same as the UV5R was sold by Hong Kong distributors to US buyers, I bought one from radiogearpro.com in Hong Kong a few years ago.
I thought it was illegal to sell sense as it came could transmit without mods on it’s entire freq range, 136-174 & 400-470 MHz.
But I ordered and received the Wouxun KG-UVD1P for $103. I only use on Ham frequencies for that is all I have an interest for, but know they and the UV5R are sold for and used on commercial and other frequencies. I did program in the 7 weather frequencies, but made the xmt in the Ham Bands.
I do wonder why it took the FCC at least 5 years to post their notice, maybe they did not want to spend the money to enforce the rules. But seems except for one version of these radios there has been no action. The only others I have seen complaining are those that do not like us in US buying Chinese gear at very low prices and it competing heavily with other manufactures like the Japanese. But obviously few have paid much attention to this complaint.
Homer Miller says
They did it because they were pressured into it by the major Japanese and US manufacturers. The FCC should be requiring retailers to collect call signs before they sell. We are in a special class. Don’t you remember, you took a test to certify that you knew what frequencies to use. We are permitted to make our own equipment with whatever frequencies we want to put in them. However we are licensed to transmit on our assigned frequencies. This is clear and simple, stop selling the radios to non licensed individuals.
larry says
By that “logic” then only licensed persons should be allowed to buy a car, gun, or shovel, as these are also only tools, that can be used for there intended uses and not permitted uses. Having something that can go beyond its intended use is not a crime, nor should the items be such. It is the responsibility of the person to stay legal.
I see no problem in buying a lower priced item (the big named company’s need to know about and understand competition), but do not like so much of the stuff we buy coming from a communist country.
KX4IV says
You might be legal with it. On the other hand, you might not. Some have spurious emissions above Part 97 limits.
Stephen Hache says
I was at a local Ham fair and asked about having one tested. I was told that as long as I am using the stock antenna I would be fine. The problem comes in when you start modifying the radios, and putting antennas on them that were not sold with them. The change in gain is what brings the emissions to a level that is concerning or worse. I am not sure if I believe that but I have not modified mine and will use it as necessary.
Dan KB6NU says
That’s pretty much hogwash, I’m afraid, and if there was any truth to that, it would mean that the stock antenna is so inefficient that it’s significantly attenuating the signal that you want to transmit as well as the spurious emissions.
henry a cross says
“Air Cooled Dummy Load”
WØDN 73
Walter Underwood says
“…so they are not authorized for use in FRS or GMRS. i.e. they are not capable of operating under this subpart.”
It seems to me that “authorized” and “capable” are very different things. This quote says they are the same thing. Odd interpretation, but very convenient for the vendors.
Also, even if the rigs are not legal for sale in the US, an amateur could transmit with them as long as they assure that the transmissions are legal (frequency, mode, spurious emissions, and so on).
Douglas B Pritchett says
Wish I had read this before I threw mine in the dumpster.
Gilbert. K Stevenson says
It’s a lot on authorized radio operators out there interfering with local repeaters they’re about a radio somebody set it up for him interfering Melissa interference and stuff. You need to take them off the market
Chris says
Funny how a moot topic becomes a big deal. Probably at least %75 of active hams have their Japan model vhf/uhf radios modified to TX out of band. Nothing new, except the Baofeng can go beyond 470mhz. Big wow! Not to mention commercial radios programmed as part of a purchased deal on Ebay, or a friend. I think I’m falling asleep……………….
Steve Grimes says
Exactly where are these 75% of people? I’ve never met any. As an Amateur Extra Class (and even way back to Technician), I tried to be legal to the very best of my ability. I even felt bad if I said something improper in casual conversation. I have 5 radios, and they are are in the same parameters as when I bought them.
David says
The baofeng has an FCC logo on it. Dose not that mean it is certified ? As a ham, (control operator) I am respisible for the proper use of the radio. Transmit only on ham frequencies and watch that silly alarm feature (or bug) and we should be okay.
Mickey Applebaum says
Not all Baofengs have an FCC Type Acceptance certification attached, depends on the model and depends on the importer. And, if you were actually look at the type acceptance that the radio has it’s Part 90 Business Band… not Amateur radio part 97.
The current definitive word is what’s written in DA 18-980, which states very clearly, including in the Amateur Radio Service Exception, devices that are capable of transmitting outside the Amateur Radio frequencies for the band(s) it is intended to used be on, are illegal for use in the US for the Amateur Radio Service. This was also confirmed via telephone with FCC General Counsel Laura Smith.
Although I, and many others, believe this is an unintended consequence of a poorly worded exception, it is the current ruling by the FCC and until the DA 18-980 gets rescinded or rewritten with a clearer meaning to the HAM exception, it is currently illegal for anyone to use a radio that is capable of transmitting outside the HAM bands as a HAM radio.
The fix is to get with your section managers and petition the FCC through whatever HAM organization you belong to, to clarify and simplify the Amateur Radio Service Exception for use of these radios. And the implication goes far beyond the cheap Chinese radios… who here owns a software defined radio? Think about it.
WA6VPS says
https://medium.com/@lucky225/did-the-fcc-just-make-baofengs-illegal-1fd4ba048194
A more definitive article
Bob K0NR says
Two thoughts:
1. This story is far from over. If you are really bored, take some time to read through Part 90 and Part 95 to see what the FCC says there. Then take a look at the Chinese radios certified as Part 90 and compare their features and frequency range to what Part 90 actually says. Then read the recent FCC enforcement advisory. You will find all kinds of inconsistencies and gray areas. I am tempted to do this and write a brilliant article explaining it all but frankly it seems like a giant waste of time. Time to get out the popcorn and watch the fun.
2. Radio amateurs can keep using their Baofeng radios legally. We may see the specific features and frequency ranges change on these radios (sold as new) but it likely won’t be a big deal to hams.
Dan KB6NU says
I agree that the story is far from over for the other services, but I have enough to worry about in amateur radio to bother about them.
W9CTR says
What I want to know is what is the motivation in these vague contradictory statements. Who are we protecting? Granted, as a HAM, I don’t want it to be the Wild West, but I can’t remember the last time I scanned an FRS frequency and was overwhelmed by rouge radio traffic. I agree with needed regulation, but I don’t get the fear tactics. The advisory just adds confusion to regulation that seems to be pretty clear already.
K5PDC says
Exactly! The essence of what the law (FCC) intends to do is protect the spectrum. Use the frequencies and do no harm! If harm is done then repercussions are expected!
Lucky225 WA6VPS says
You state:
“This morning, on reddit, Noji, KN0JI, posted the text of an email exchange that he had with Scott Stone”
Actually KN0JI posted his exchanges on Facebook, I posted a blog on reddit which included his exchanges, and more importantly, my exchange with Laura Smith which clarified further:
To be clear, while it may be illegal to import, sell, market or advertise such a device discussed in the Public Notice, it is not illegal for an end user to purchase or possess such a device, and someone who does possess such a device would not be operating it illegally if they are a licensed amateur radio operator and operating on licensed amateur bands assuming the device does not violate some other part 97 rule, is that correct?
Thank you,
Lucky225
WA6VPS
To which Smith replied:
Your interpretation is correct.
Ernest says
Why the comments on wide band usage, and even more laughable, on aviation bands, which most are not capable to begin with.
Amateur use has always been wide band, so to make that statement, clearly indicates no thought has been given to this.
Claiming illegal use without substantiated proof, is crazy, but we’re talking about a federal agency…expect lunacy as the norm.
Too bad nobody understands that the FCC is a creation without constitutional validity.
Powers not granted government, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.
The FCC is a creation without constitutional legality.
Ever wonder why they can only make ‘rules’?
They have no legislative, judicial or regulatory powers, nobody is elected, and their existence is a form of usurpation.
While proper use and staying away from other services is the right thing to do, it also does not create an air of ‘criminal intent’ simply for having these radios.
Guilt by ‘association’ does not create proof or evidence that ‘wrongful use’ has taken place.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty, is our legal mantra, not simply because someone stated something.
Bob, KG6AF says
The 9/27 ARRL Newsletter doesn’t mention the advisory, and the recent article about it appears to have been pulled from the ARRL website. Perhaps the League wants to take another shot at interpreting the advisory before reposting the article.
I took a snapshot of the advisory and went through it a few times. For something that is meant to be read and followed by radio operators, most of whom are not lawyers, it is one wretched piece of writing.
Dan KB6NU says
That’s curious. I wonder why they did that?
I do agree that the writing is atrocious. It almost couldn’t be less clear.
Lloyd Mitchell KO4L says
That newsletter probably under went several reviews before being released No way a just breaking article would be included without review from someone at the arrl senior management. Probably next month..
Charlie, W9CTR says
I agree with KG6AF. The advisory adds confusion to an already solid and clear regulation as well as the statements made by the FCC official. What I’d like to understand is the motivation behind all of this? It feels like there is some deeper motivation driving this action which comes across to be as a scare tactic. I am all for regulating the bands as a HAM. It is better for me and all of us, but the regulation is already in place. I don’t feel that more is needed.
David says
It’s simple. Just download Advisory 2018-03 and read it for yourself.
John says
Having spent a lot of time in the govt. this whole thing doesn’t surprise me. A policy statement comes out that is confusing. Someone asks an administrator who says this is what it means. Then someone asks an agency attorney who says it means something different. So the agency puts any implementation on hold while they try and figure it out. Internally the administrators are telling the attorneys that this was supposed to just be about getting rid of the chinese radios. The attorneys say you approved it, why didn’t you tell us this broad ruling would be a problem. So eventually a new interpretation will come out. Home built equipment that is not for resale is excepted. Equipment that previously had been certified part 95 is legal to use if it is modified. They’ll figure that will just target the chinese radios.
Until some other technicality they didn’t think about comes up.
Dennis says
I’m 70 years old and have used (legally) CB and GMRS radios since I was a teenager and young adult. A few years ago I made the jump and got my Technician ticket.
I now have a Wouxun HT and a TYT mobile that are capable of transmitting in both the Amateur and GMRS bands. My understanding is that both are Part 90 certified for Amateur use but not certified for Part 95 (GMRS) use and therefore technically unlawful for use on the GMRS band.
Since I have a license for both bands and frequently use both of them for different activities at the same time, it is very nice to be able to only have to carry one radio to do both tasks. I would love to see the Chinese makers, or whoever is responsible for getting the FCC certification, get the Part 95 certification for those radios. It would sure make our lives a lot less complicated.
All that said… What are the actual chances of a person like myself, or even someone not licensed in both bands, actually getting caught and fined for using the unauthorized radio or band in a mobile operation?
I would guess that it is slim to none unless it is a base station transmitting in a fixed location that can be easily found or a mobile who is really stupid and doing crazy things that cause havoc.
Am I wrong to use my Wouxun? Yes. Am I legally licensed for what I operate on, using it responsibly, and within Amateur and FCC operating requirements. Yes.
Would I love it and buy it if Yaesu, Icom, Alinco, Toshiba, and other popular major Amateur and commercial companies offered a single radio that worked in both services? DEFINITELY!
But I am just getting too old to hold my breath that long and will continue using what I have… responsibly.
Mickey Applebaum KE7NZA says
Dennis,
Part 90 certification is Business Band, not Amateur Radio Service. The Amateur service has no certification requirements or type acceptance so that HAM’s have the opportunity to “Home brew” equipment if they choose to do so.
The problem, and reason you won’t see cross service certifications for public service radios (CB, FRS, GMRS, MURS etc) is that each service has it’s own hardware restrictions, which a single device can not satisfactorily meet across all service options. It’s one of the reasons the FCC finally split FRS and GMRS into separate services because the combination radios would transmit on the shared frequencies at the highest output power available and most of the folks using those radios never got a license.
The explicit statement in DA 18-980 is that any device used for the Amateur Radio Service must ONLY be able to transmit on the HAM frequencies within the band(s) it is designed for. Your Wouxun, the Baofengs and many other handheld and mobile radios have the ability to transmit outside the HAM frequencies. By the strict rule of the advisory, it is illegal to use those radios for HAM operation in the US as of this moment in time.
But, as General Counsel for the FCC said in a statement as a reply to one of the requests for clarification, with as many of these radios in use today this is a Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell situation. The FCC will not be seeking out users of these radios and you have nothing to be concerned about unless you are violating some other FCC rule.
George says
Trump vs China
Drang says
I thought I was the only one that saw that connection.
jack wilde says
could it be that the overpriced japanese and american manufacturers are upset because the chinese are more realistically priced and are behind this????
Tom @ WWashington says
Vendors will sell these devices to ANYONE .No knowledge no call sign and no participation in the Ham community .They have turned these assigned bands into a CB like pig pile.Why do organizations who supposedly support the well regulated and rational use of bands advertise and even encourage these “starter” radios.?If the FCC cracks down on these terrorist radios we may lose all access.(Just like in war time ).Bless the contributor who threw his 5R in the trash .I just hope they ran over it with a rotary mower first.73
Jason says
If you don’t mind me asking, were you born into a rich family? Have you ever known hardship? There are people who want to learn but have no foreseeable increases in their disposable income. That’s where imported things like Baofeng radios make the most difference. More people can become experienced and educated for less money. That’s a good thing.
Steve says
I have complained and complained on these programmable sets for any desired freq. and also the so-called 10 m and 10/12m sets being sold exclusively on the trucker internet sites, trucker exit CB shops, eBay and other. How about all the so-called 10m Amature ( intentionally misspelled for search engines for Amateur) amplifiers , 10 m, or Ham amps,or bi-lateral amps, CW amps with no CW keys for sale nor XTALS, which they disguise trying to dodge FCC enforcement ?
Also, how about those all so innocent wash my hands Judas disclaimers they say on some to not be used for 11m or for scientific experimental purposes only , or need a license to operate, etc ???
Many use Facebook and other besides own web sites to.
I’ luv’ 10m CW and I need not explain further on that. Land of free bander’s, truckers 10m expanded tripped sets and so on… Friend of mine says where he lives poachers use them to hunt for team tagging using 2m , 10m etc….
Good examples out there >>
http://www.jokermanelectronics.com/linear-cb-amplifiers/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jO2W6-gKCpY
http://bbiamps.com/
http://www.wizardbuilt.com/
https://www.copperelectronics.com/cart/CW-Amps
http://www.ap-cbsales.com/ap-fatboyamps.htm
Dave New, N8SBE says
I have a CS750, which has an FCC ID. Looking it up in the FCC OET database, it shows that it is type-approved for Part 90. This means that it COULD be used for commercial part 90 uses (the frequency coverage is listed as 400-470 MHz), IF the user has the appropriate commercial license. It also means that it COULD be used for Part 97 uses, by a licensed radio amateur. That’s because amateur radio equipment does not need to be type-approved (except commercial receivers, see below), since an operator “skilled in the art” is responsible for operating it.
This really doesn’t need to be difficult.
Where it might get gray would be if said amateur ‘tuned up’ the radio on the bench. If he doesn’t have the requisite commercial technician license, the radio would then fall out of Part 90 compliance. Then the issue of marketing vs. possessing may come into play.
Amateur radio operators are allowed to build their own equipment, whether from scratch or a kit, and even if that equipment MIGHT operate outside the amateur bands, it appears to not be illegal to build or possess such equipment. Modifying Part 90 commercial equipment (for whatever reason) by a non-commercial-license-toting technician, on the other hand, MIGHT step over whatever line the FCC is trying to paint.
As a counterpoint, I have a Baofeng UV-6R, which doesn’t have an FCC ID sticker on it (?!). The FCC rules are quire clear that the ID must be easily visible. I haven’t torn the unit apart, or spent much time trying to find any more information on it in the FCC OET database, but it seems pretty suspicious. Even if the UV-6R is meant for amateur use only, a commercial receiver must have a FCC ID to show it meets Part 15 (that the local oscillator doesn’t interfere with nearby receivers). I hadn’t bothered to look for an FCC ID, until this all came up. At the moment, I’m not using it, until I get a better idea of just what is going on with those guys.
John Wright, K6CPO says
In a YouTube video of a phone conversation with Laura Smith posted on September 28th, the same day the advisory is dated, Smith sted that it was indeed illegal to operate ON ANY FREQUENCY [emphasis mine] any radio capable of transmitting in any service requiring certification if the radio does not possess the require certification.
For all intents and purposes, this makes a good percentage of the Baofeng radios illegal to use, particular the early UV-5R series. I posses a UV-5RE that is capable of transmitting in the Land Mobile radio Service (Part 90), amateur bands and GMRS (Part 95.) Both Part 90 and GMRS have certification requirements. I have been unable to find any information indicating that my UV-5RE is certified in either service, so it is illegal for me to use. (I haven’t used it in several years as I put it aside when I learned of the spectral purity issues with these radios until I could have it tested.)
As this issue develops further, I think a lot of amateurs are going to find their radios can’t be used at all.
Mickey Applebaum - KE7NZA says
This is what I have posted to one of the Facebook pages I belong to and includes my response to the author of the Friend or Foe article. It’s long.. take a breath…
————————————–
So.. I followed Noji Ratzlaff’s link (we are both part of the same Facebook page membership) to the Friend or Foe article (https://thisoldhamshack.com/baofeng-friend-or-foe-what-you-need-to-know/). While I agree with the comment from FCC Counsel Laura Smith that this is basically a “don’t ask/don’t tell” situation, the author of the article is way off base considering the specific wording of the public notice and the recorded phone call that Steven Whitehead (also a member of the Facebook page) has posted (https://youtu.be/i248EzJtNlE).
And, before everyone starts jumping all over my case one way or the other… many of you know I have been an advocate for Baofeng and other inexpensive radios for a while. And, although I have not gone through the hassle of testing my two Baofeng radios for spurious emissions, I would challenge anyone to be able to tell whether I was using my UV-5RE+ or my Icom IC-T90A when operating through a repeater. I have already run that test on the 62 (the 146.62 repeater in Salt Lake, the primary talk in repeater) when I first got mine.. for 4 hours no one could tell the difference, until the battery in the Icom started fading long before the Baofeng battery did.
Anyway… I have been involved in various commercial and non-commercial radio services for 40 years. I, at one point, held my Commercial Radio Technicians license.. but let it lapse. I have a Commercial Radio Operators license (broadcast radio, when I was a DJ on KRCL).. I worked on CB;s, HAM radios, car and home audio receivers etc… Although I believe that the Baofengs and other inexpensive options have a place for those just getting started in the hobby and not knowing what they really want to do yet is, as well as having the throw away radio for use in harsh or dangerous environments where the loss of a sub-$100 radio isn’t going to prevent you from volunteering to assist in a call out or event.
This is what I wrote in response to the author of the article,,,
———————————-
But in this phone call recording (https://youtu.be/i248EzJtNlE) she, Laura Smith, states very clearly that ANY radio that was originally certified for a non-HAM service, e.g. an old Motorola VHF Police Radio, that has been modified to operate on the HAM frequencies is illegal because the radio no longer meets it’s original compliance AND it can operate on frequencies outside of the HAM radio frequencies.
Her exact words are “The amateurs have an exception from certification requirements, and we did that because we encourage homebrew, and that has always been the case, the amateurs have always been permitted to build these devices, to operate these devices, but they can only do so and they are only exempt from certification requirements if, in fact, those devices only operate in the amateur radio bands. If they extend beyond operation in the amateur radio bands they are to be type certified pursuant to the act and the certification rules of the FCC.”
So, by her words, ANY radio, whether homebrew or not, that has the ability to operate outside the amateur radio bands is in violation of the definitions as stated in public notice 18-980. She was also asked in this phone conversation specifically about homebrew and modified radios and she again said that if the radio is capable of operating outside the HAM frequencies then it is illegal.
My personal belief is that they had intended the wording of the Amateur Radio Service Exception within the notice to allow HAM operators the ability to use radios that have that ability as long as the licensed HAM operator stayed within the appropriate frequencies for the band they are operating on and didn’t violate some other FCC rule. Unfortunately, the wording of the exception is such that it does not provide for that.
The exception – “Amateur Radio Exception. There is one exception to this certification requirement: if a device is capable of operating only on frequencies that the FCC has allocated for use by Amateur Radio Service licensees, it does not require FCC equipment authorization, and an amateur licensee may use his or her license to operate such radios. However, many two-way radios that purport to operate on amateur frequencies also operate on frequencies that extend beyond the designated amateur frequency bands.
If a two-way VHF/UHF radio is capable of operating outside of the amateur frequency bands, it cannot be imported, advertised, sold, or operated within the United States without an FCC equipment certification.”
This exception states very clearly that if a radio comes from the factory with only the amateur radio frequencies then any licensed HAM operator can use it. BUT.. if the radio is capable of operating outside the HAM frequencies then it can not be imported. advertised, sold OR OPERATED within the US without an FCC equipment certification. The part 90 certification that some of these radios have is NOT certification for the HAM frequencies and therefore does not fit the guidelines of the exception.
Another unintended consequence of the wording of the exception is that, strictly speaking, ANY Software Defined Radio that you use for transmitting a signal is now considered illegal because all it takes to change what frequencies those radios operate on is the appropriate programming software. There is no physical means by which you can restrict what frequencies an SDR radio transmits on within a band that it was designed to use as long as the bandwidth within the programming allows those frequencies.
So, homebrew that could be used to transmit on a non-amateur frequency, any previously type accepted radio for a non-amateur band that has been modified to operate on the HAM frequencies, and SDR and ANY radio that comes from the factory with the ability to transmit on non-HAM frequencies is in violation of the FCC rules as defined by this public notice.
Feel free to call her again and point out the consequences of the poor wording of the exception to her. A more appropriate exception would have been simply stated as –
If a device is capable of operating on non-Amateur bands or frequencies, as long as the licensed amateur radio operator maintains their operation within the allocated frequencies within the band they wish to operate in, and they do not violate any other FCC regulation while operating the device, then they are free to use any radio device, whether homebrew, type modified, SDR or factory delivered with the ability to operate outside of the Amateur Radio Service regulations.
Dave New, N8SBE says
“The part 90 certification that some of these radios have is NOT certification for the HAM frequencies and therefore does not fit the guidelines of the exception.”
That is the statement (yours) that I DO NOT agree with. There is NO certification required for ham frequencies, so a Part 90 certified radio that also covers ham frequencies without modification, can be operated on ham frequencies by a licensed ham operator.
We’ve been down this road before. There was an article in QST a few years ago when the Baofengs first appeared, with a sidebar that discussed exactly this issue. “Is it legal to use a Part 90 radio on ham frequencies?” It was discussed then, and with feedback from the FCC at the time, if I recall. The answer was “yes”, but the article went on to warn hams that the radio under discussion might not meet FCC ham requirements for spectral purity, and that ham operators would be responsible for ensuring their units met those standards.
Dave New, N8SBE says
Here is the discussion, by ARRL General Counsel, as a sidebar to the Wouxon KG-UV2D product review on page 54, November 2010, QST:
“The FCC doesn’t require equipment authorization for any “Amateur Radio” transmitter to be operated under Part 97, except those that incorporate scanning receivers, which require a grant of certification. If an Amateur Radio transmitter also includes frequencies allocated to other services, and if the device is intended to operate in those other services as well as the Amateur Service, then the transmitter must be certified for all non-Part 97 radio services for which it is intended to operate. The FCC uses the term “intended to operate” as being equivalent to “capable of operation.”
Wouxun is able to legally market a device that operates in the bands specified and that has a scanning receiver, because it has a certification grant (for Part 90 operation) which satisfies the certification requirement with respect to the scanning receiver. It can be operated by Part 97 licensees and by Part 90 licensees in their respective frequency bands.
Wouxun US chooses to limit the frequency range of the amateur version of the device to ham bands only. Restricting the frequency range of the device to ham bands only is okay as a Class I permissive change (without recertification) as long as the means for restricting the frequency range in the amateur version of the device is not done with hardware changes and without any denigration of the characteristics of the device as reported to the FCC. Wouxun US presumably wants to make sure that Part 97 licensees do not operate the device on Part 90 channels, and vice-versa. It is good practice for them to market the ham band only version to hams, and to market the Part 90 band only version to Part 90 licensees. Good fences make good neighbors.
— Chris Imlay, W3KD, ARRL General Counsel”
Jerry Bosak says
Chris is 100% correct, I think Chris also spoke about this during one of the Society of Broadcast Engineers when they spoke about the signal noise floor today and the problems associated with too many users in such a small spectrum of bandwidth. One of the most basic problems I see is that the spectral purity of these bogus transmitters is so poor – due to the fact that many of the components used are counterfeit – not designed to be good filters, that they splatter. Even if the LMRS people does not complain about hearing your transmission on their band, you are still there. Even worse is the fact that when they narrow banded their radios it was to make room so the radio could both do voice and digital communications. Anyone that has ever worked with digital will tell you that it is all 1’s and 0’s. When you corrupt it, all you get is garbled noise. So just telling someone to stay out of the PLMRS frequencies does not solve the problem of interference when you unintentionally are already there because of the spurs your radio produces and it does not meet the part 15 requirements set forth by The FCC.
The best thing to do is to tell The Lids, Kids, Bicycle Riders – to get rid of them.
They are OK if all you use them for is an inexpensive Scanner.
By 2022 when Firstnet is implemented, the only thing you will hear of them will be FRS, MURS, GMRS and Ham. Most of the police, ambulance will be up on the digital Firstnet, while some fire companies will still be analog – due to the fact that they are poor and cannot afford to upgrade their equipment to all digital, due to the fact that most fire companies uses scanners and pagers to page out their firemen. It would create too much of a hardship to force all of them to comply and go 100% digital…
MARS is an exception to the rule, Mars is dying. Since MARS does not take place on UHF / VHF – this rule will not affect them. You get a FCC Wavier when you belong to MARS. Maybe this will entice more people to join and participate..
Walter white says
what mars frequencies mars is discontinued and in the vhf/hf bands, do you even think? The point of digital is to give better range and clarity Unless your lmrs is next door but thats a long shot too since your completely wrong and the actual emissions of an actual fcc certified part 90 baofeng were surprisingly good. So good luck with your big three and locked tx. In 2022 ill either still have a ton or surplus commercial or ill just still be buying the baofengs just as they are hate to tell you thats the more likely outcome.
Stephen Peterson says
MARS requires amateurs to modify their radios to operate outside amateur frequencies. How does that wash with the regulations?
Bob, KG6AF says
More from the ARRL:
http://www.arrl.org/news/arrl-fcc-discussing-issue-of-uncertified-imported-vhf-uhf-transceivers
spaceman says
Glad to hear the FCC has taken action against the junk Chinese crap.
Jason says
This would also ban radios like the AN/PRC-6, capable of transmitting outside the 6m band. I don’t think that qualifies as “cheap Chinese crap”.
Doug Douglas says
So how can you now (legally) build a part 95 certified GMRS repeater? Moreover, how can anyone even operate a repeater “authorized for use in GMRS”? Does anyone even sell a GMRS-only part 95 certified repeater? Seem like the gear I will need (and the equipment I have been looking—all non-Chinese hardware, btw) would never be compliant. Yes, I am a licensed GMRS user.
Walter white says
Gmrs will be discontinued per fcc rules since its garbage anyway. Oh well, i wont miss it:
Jody Huneycutt says
You know, Mr. White, I cringe whenever I read a post by someone like you who is an obvious “radio snob” whether it’s regarding inexpensive equipment that they label as garbage, (or “junk Chinese crap”, as spaceman opines) just because they are too experienced or too well off to consider using it themselves, or whether it’s the hams licensed in the 50’s & 60’s who look down on those of us who didn’t get into the hobby early enough to have been required to know CW for our licensing test, and as such, aren’t considered “real” hams. GMRS and FRS radios make wonderful choices for getting children interested in radio so that when they get old enough to be able to pass their Technician Class exam, they will have 2 or 3 or 4 years experience using the “garbage” services to hone their skills and pique their interest in radio.
Daniel Jones says
If the chief executive of a police/fire department authorizes the use of one of these radios for their frequencies, is it now legal? Does it matter if the radio has a FCC number?
Walter Underwood says
Only if activated under RACES, which isn’t likely to happen. Even then, I bet nobody in the agency knows enough radio theory to assess the risk of using the radio. If they don’t understand the risk, they won’t do it.
The most likely thing is that you’ll be handed a huge Bendix-King HT that belongs to the Sheriff’s department and/or SAR. Then you’ll be operating under their license with FCC-approved equipment.
Mark Heritage says
I have been a licensed tech class for over 10 years, although not very active. In fact I just renewed this year. My Icom HT was stolen 6 years ago, and I just never replaced it. After the 7.0 quake up here in Alaska last week, I have decided to get back into radio. I also wanted my wife, who is not a HAM, to be able to have a means of local communication should we lose cell towers on the next big one (we have 3.0 to 4.0 quakes up here routinely). I looked at GMRS as a good fit for that need since it enabled longer range than FRS. I purchased a GMRS license and bought a pair of Midland HT’s for that purpose. I also bought a Baofeng BF-F8HP for HAM use.
Since I hold a HAM, and GMRS license I thought I might be able to also use the Baofeng to communicate on GMRS frequencies as long as I stayed below 5 watts of power. But after reading all these posts it doesn’t look like I’ll be able to use it for GMRS at all.
Andy F. says
I think the FCC should have bigger fish to fry. One side effect of these inexpensive radios is that a lot of non-hams are now getting their hands on these and using them illegally. I know a certain reputable healthcare organization in my area which has a Baofeng 888 in just about every room of their 2-story building. I think they are using them like an intercom system. One day I took my laptop and programming cable and downloaded the channel programming of one of their radios to find out what frequencies they were using. Voila- I found they were using them with the test frequencies as shipped from Baofeng – totally illegal bands even if they did have a commercial license. I haven’t turned them in (yet)
Dan KB6NU says
I wouldn’t turn them in. Heck, the FCC is in “shutdown mode,” anyway, so you’d have to wait till they get up and running again anyway. What I’d do is to contact their administrators and point out that the way they’re using them is illegal. Not only are they illegal from a frequency usage standpoint, I bet it’s a HIPAA violation as well.
Archstone says
So are they “illegal” to own if you never transmit, but only use them as a scanner?
Dan KB6NU says
I don’t think so.
Joe Casey says
The big companies got mad they could not rip us off anymore.
Truthfully to all you self righteous hams, you never operated outside the 40 channels on cb?
You never used a ham radio on a cb?
How about have you used a Motorola radio on the ham band?
You know all those 900 gtx radios .
That is all illegal .
How many off you modified a portable to operate on gmrs with a ham radio…yup illegal too.
These baofeng radios are great for kids or adults on a low budget who can’t afford getting screwed from all the big guys.
And be honest .. if you have one of these Chinese radios are you going to throw it away or keep using it like me.
Neil says
Once you sort through the armchair lawyers, it’s simple: If you’re a ham you can use your baofeng legally – but you’re on the hook for the emissions, and they’d better be within the specifications of part 97 of the commission’s rules. Many of these chicom rigs aren’t (see also: spectral purity). If you’re a CBer (GMRS, FRS or “MURS”), they’re not legal. The antennas are removable (FRS), the rig puts out 5W (“MURS”) and an FCC licensed technician isn’t required to set them up for GMRS – any Joe Six-pac can program them. That’s why the FCC is taking a dim view of the way these radios are marketed. Since vendors ain’t about to change their marketing techniques, the FCC must use other measures to restrict these radios’ availability. It’s not really that hard to understand.
Jeff KG7WGK says
In an emergency, band usage isn’t an issue – but lack of band access is an issue.
Proper usage of equipment is what licensing is about. (testing of knowledge, OR acceptance of responsibility.)
A couple decades ago, we bought my in-laws a pair of Cobra FRS/GMRS 2-way radios (if I recall correctly, 5 channels in each band). The instructions were NOT clear on usage of the bands – that one band was ONLY usable, if a family license was purchased.
We are told that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, but NO ONE can possibly understand what government calls “the law” (government has unfolded a FOUR-PAGE CONTRACT, into millions of “laws” and “regulations” and “decisions”, with which to bash the People about the head and rob us of our rights.
ANY tool can be misused (with purpose, or by the ignorant), but THAT does not automatically extend the long arm of the “law”, without limits, to punishing the “law-abiding”, along with those who abuse.
I do not recognize any usurped authority of the Federal, nor the State governments, as legitimate, though we must pick our battles. The FCC is another TLA (Three-Letter Acronym agency, created by an out-of-bounds Congress and NO DIFFERENT from hiring Halliburton, the IRS, the “Federal Reserve”, or other contractors, to rule over the People without getting Congressional hands “dirty”.)
That said, I can see how having a common set of rules allows for usage of the “airwaves” with less contention; less vigilantly-enforcement of civility (e.g. the CB radio “rabbit hunts” of the 1970’s?) BUT that is how government grows without limits – find a solution in need of a problem…
If e-bay, or Amazon allow illegal advertisement of usage of radio equipment, ASK e-bay and Amazon to filter / block usage of, OR warn of the penalties of misuse of, certain keywords. It isn’t like these companies are lacking in the ability to CENSOR selected words, or even phrases.
Back to EMERGENCY USAGE: In case of wildfires, earthquakes, who-knows-what-and-when, someone may find their ONLY means of calling for help, is the (pretty much worthless, under-powered) FRS/GMRS radio and the ONLY hope of being heard, is a nearby Amateur Radio operator, who is scanning the band (e.g. the Ch3 project) for calls for “HELP”, on their Baofeng radio… Take away the ability to use those bands and people may die simply because the government, meant to defend the rights of the People – Life, Liberty, Property AND the Right to defend the same), cut-off that ability to access the band, without dedicated radio equipment.
Two-way communication is nice/fun/etc… in the good times, but can be essential in the bad! It should NOT be regulated into emergency-worthlessness.
Kevin KZ3L says
It’s almost the end of September 2019 and I still see a lot of Baofeng UV-5R and similar radios listed on Amazon.
Are there any updates to this story or changes to interpretation of the FCC advisory that allow these vendors to continue selling, or for that matter, for amateur radio ops to continue using these radios within the ham bands?
Jim K4GVO says
I haven’t read the entire set of posts, but we’ve been using radios that can transmit outside of the ham bands for as long as I’ve been a ham and beyond. Let list a few, ARC-5 BC610, Most commercial Motorola, RCA and GE radios. All of the Collins S-Line and KWM-2 radios.
Jim.
Doug says
I have an FT-897D rig with the mod for MARS freqs (I was formally a MARS participant), thus a radio capable of transmitting outside of HAM bands. And please note, the FCC does not control all frequencies, the DoD regulates many frequencies including those used by MARS participants.
Robert Haggerty says
Does anyone know the correct status of this issue. I’m retired, currently studying for the Technician Class Amateur Radio License and now I find that by HT radio might not be legal, and most other HT & mobile radios marketed to Hams aren’t legal. Additionally, New York and some other states are making it a criminal offense to have a Ham radio in a vehicle (even if it’s not in use).
AG6CF - Brian says
Wow! There is just an enormous amount of confusion by everyone.
The issue is with the new rule:
95.591 Sales of FRS combination radios prohibited.
Effective September 30, 2019, no person shall sell or offer for sale hand-held portable radio equipment capable of operating under this subpart (FRS) and under any other licensed or licensed-by-rule radio services in this chapter (devices may be authorized under this subpart with part 15 unlicensed equipment authorizations).
This rule was primarily intended to prohibit the FRS/GMRS combination “bubble pack” radios that have been so prevalent. This is largely because “people” bought them and then operated on GMRS without the license.
It also means that the Baofengs that can transmit on FRS, GMRS and ham frequencies are no longer legal to SELL. If you own one, you may continue to use it (but not on FRS frequencies, which was NEVER legal with these radios).
Baofeng will modify their radios to be compliant, and be back to selling them on Ebay and Amazon before the end of the year, legally.
That’s all there is to it.
David Shanks AJ4TJ says
Some Baofengs, like the UV-82HP and the GT-5TP (which I own), can be programmed with a PC using CHIRP software so that they can transmit ONLY within the amateur bands. If you punch in a non-ham frequency, the device refuses to take it and a voice announcement says “cancelled.”
If Baofeng had programmed this restriction at the factory, my Baofeng would definitely be legal under current rulings. So, does it matter if the frequency restriction is done at the factory or in my home? I think that restricting the transmit capabilities to the ham bands at home ought to satisfy the FCC and render my Baofeng HT legal to use.
Generally, I support the FCC advisory, as it is intended to prevent interference with important radio services and protect public safety.
Roger Miller AC6BW says
Read the article in the January 2020 QST, titled “ARRL Lab Handheld Transceiver Testing”. 45 BaoFeng radios were tested, and only 9% of them passed spurious emissions and harmonics testing. 100% of the radios from the other 7 manufacturers passed. That includes Wouxun, who has recently got their act together.
I would not use the BaoFengs. They are garbage.
Pennsylvania Worker says
(Rule 95.591 ) if it was intended to stop manufacturers from placing FRS channels on the licensed GMRS radios, they went overboard. Anytone produced their Terminator, which was capable of transmitting on GMRS, MURS, and the amateur frequencies by pressing special key combinations. The radio also received AM, FM broadcast, and Aircraft band. The radio was intended for the licensed user who wanted to use one radio for several purposes. This was a terrific option for the volunteer who worked with emergency management/ search and rescue. I say that this is an over reach because licensed users take an FCC examination or submit their personal information for scrutiny. What is wrong with a licensed user having the use of a radio capable of transmitting on multiple services. Jealous Japanese and American manufacturers are responsible for lobbying for this ridiculous rule. FCC, amend this ruling and make it possible for licensed users to practice their craft. Why don’t you make a ruling that in order for a shipment to be made for transmitting equipment, the FCC database must be checked. That would make the entire licensing practice credible.
Sun Tzu Lao says
Normally I don’t pay any attention about what the government has to say about what’s acceptable and what isn’t, but I wonder if I can have my radios checked for being spurious emission etc? I understand you’re not supposed to transmit on frs or gmrs with 8W of power (not that the 8w handhelds from baofeng actually put out 8watts) but I’m glad I bought a ten pack of the pofung pf9+ radios as part of a group buy years ago (I bought 3 of them) now that I have a mobile radio with 50 watts and crossband repeating ability they’ll be much more valuable in an emergency locally.
Keith Jennings---AD8L says
Not only about FCC part 97….but ALSO FCC part 90 that the Baofeng radios are illegal to buy, sell, trade and Y E S to use. It is illegal even for Amateur Radio Operators (Hams) to use a Baofeng radio. And the reason being is because those rigs can and do operate outside the Ham frequencies. They will transmit on rescue squad, fire dept, police, and other government frequencies as well as aircraft also. These radios are not legal for Hams to use even IF you stay within the Ham frequencies.
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-980A1.pdf
Jeff O'Hara says
So did Smith use of Title of Section 302 have any thing to do with hams transmitting on a ham frequencies on any radio that is at least part 15b approved?
“SEC. 302. [47 U.S.C. 302] DEVICES WHICH INTERFERE WITH RADIO RECEPTION.”
So are they saying a UV-82HP, for example is a device that interferes with radio reception. 15b compliant.
But can TX on many frequencies not type accepted for.
Here is the title and part and section just before 302
“TITLE III–PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO”
“PART I–GENERAL PROVISIONS”
“SEC. 301. [47 U.S.C. 301] LICENSE FOR RADIO COMMUNICATION OR TRANSMISSION OF ENERGY”
Link https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf
Relevant part starts on page 137
302a is on page 138
“(a) The Commission may, consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, make reasonable regulations (1) governing the interference potential of devices which in their operation are capable of emitting radio frequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other means in sufficient degree to cause harmful interference to radio communications; and (2) establishing minimum performance standards for home electronic equipment and systems to reduce their susceptibility to interference from radio frequency energy. Such regulations shall be applicable to the manufacture, import, sale, offer for sale, or shipment of such devices and home electronic equipment and systems, and to the use of such devices.”
So yes l agree that no one should use a device that cause interference. Isn’t there a difference between transmitting and causing interference.
And that operators need to be trained so this does not happen. But why do need to be trained if you can’t use a radio that lets you break the rules?
How did I end up going down this rabbit hole? Just wanted better coms for four wheeling.
I started at zero knowledge of FCC rules. Even in 2019, when I bought my HP, and still now you can buy UV-82C and HP on Amazon that say you can operate them with a ham license. I started studying for the Technician lisence. That lead to a lot of other web surfing. Which ultimately brought me here. A year too late.
Conclusion;
While the ham test cost less than GMRS license and I like the technical aspect of ham radios, the realities are;
From reading it seems that even dedicated hams have trouble convincing those in their direct circles to study and take the test. I like the idea of taking a test. FYI
I don’t need or want to communicate around the world. Maybe repeaters in case of an emergency, contact local help.
Sounds like SDR radios are made illegal by this.
I don’t need an expensive hobby, not going to make a big base statio, in he foreseeable future.
I considered MURS, no license, inexpensive radios, channels hardly used. VHF good for bending around natural terrain. If I start my own club I might go the murs route. But no Repeaters and it doesn’t seem like enough people know about it, while many people have FRS and/or GMRS radios and GMRS can use repeaters.
I will probably go GMRS. With HT that tx on all GMRS/FRS channels, repeaters and can dualband scan. And keep the UV-82HP for when SHTF! Beings that there is n legal way to transmit otherwise. BTW I could not find a SAR report for the 82HP.
So, as someone moderately interested in ham, all this has done, has discouraged me!
But I liked the edification that I received, these many months. Helped keep me occupied during COVID 19 craziness.
Jeff O'Hara says
https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/presentations/files/nov17/54-Part-95-Misc-Eqpt-Filing-r1-TH.pdf
Here is a link that spells it out. Quite clearly. Go to the end to the notes
Jeffrey O'Hara says
I think this is the relevant section
– n149 Several commenters are concerned that the proposal to prohibit combination radios would prevent GMRS licensees from using surplus Part 90 equipment in GMRS. … This is not our intent. We will continue to certify equipment that meets the respective technical standards for Part 90 (land mobile) and Part 95 (GMRS) in both services, if requested. However, we are amending the language in new section 95.1761(c) to clarify the requirement in old section 95.655(a) that Part 95 GMRS radios will not be certified if they are equipped with the capabilities to operate in services that do not require equipment certification, such as the Amateur Radio Service.
Bad Dog says
People here are so confused about the GMRS/FRS….
GMRS has 30 channels and 8 of them are repeater input freqs, FRS is using the same 22 freqs that are not the repeater input freqs.. FRS is set to 0.5 watts on those 22 freqs until now the FCC up 14 of them to 2 watts and 8 are still 0.5 watts, GMRS radios can use ch 1 thru 7 at 5 watts and for GMRS/FRS on 8-14 is half watt and 15 to 30 can pound out 50 watts on the repeater input freqs and simplex on the output freqs, the only thing that is good for GMRS is the open repeaters that FRS has no way to access but FRS is still sharing GMRS frequencies so they are not separated like people think, they share the same bandwith so to say FRS is on their own and can’t be sold with GMRS Freqs is hogwash because I can talk on my FRS HT and talk back with my mobile GMRS. Only great thing is the GMRS has repeaters and the FCC dropped the license fee to $35 for a 10 year license, FRS is free but for $3.50 a year I can talk with more power and have access to repeaters all across the country when I travel. FRS is blister pack radios and GMRS is Mobile and HT and repeaters private and open, FRS was a troublesome way to use a bandwidth already being used by paid users and the low power was their way to try to not be heard and bother us, them half watt blister packs could only talk to the end of the block, now they are 2 watt… but I put out 50 with my mobile so its not a bother to me… its worth $3.50 a year
As for Baofeng they are programmable so we have a loophole, yes we can disable the bandwidth or lock out freqs, I use mine on the ham bands and I scan a few local channels for police and SAR along with fire… but I have duplex shut off on those so if you push the PTT nothing happens, on the UHF side I only have the ham band set all else is blocked out by chirp, so with that in mind anybody with a license for ham can key up on my baofeng and not be illegal whatsoever because its all locked up except for ham talk. Nothing wrong with owning a Baofeng unless you use it wrong then thats your fault, lots of radios can be set to transmit where their not suppose to with just software or simple as removing a pin or cut a wire and BAMMM you are now illegal, so yeah selling them is not illegal because they can be programmed and owning then is not illegal either, its just how you use it will make YOU illegal not the radio… So many radios like this and mobile units sold everyday and impotered in so stop trying to say they can’t import them, just about every 10 meter radio I have ever seen can simply transmit from 24mhz to 32mhz and its so easy even a cave man can do it and most every 10m radio is imported too… some come ready to go full bandwidth out of the box and I know persons who are hams that chat illegal all the time in the 27mhz band with more than 4 watts… LOLOLOL yeah I do it too but if you are going to buy a Baofeng and do something stupid like tripping the police repeater and such then you my friend get what you deserve, if you have respect then you know how to play on the airwaves and not bother anybody you will be just fine..