New FCC RF Safety rules come into effect on May 3 - what you need to know

That's sort of how I approached this, as a "worst case" of 100w into the antenna. I used the calculators and printed the results.
My undertstanding here is that I did perform the evaluation so it should be fine. I did it for every antenna and every band the antenna is used on.
If I need to re-evaluate how I did this so be it, just want to be sure it's done correctly.

 

Sounds good to me. Your compliance can only improve with any sort of feed line loss, you can't suddenly be "out of compliance" if you have less radiated power than in you calculations. That is why if you run it with "worst case" power, duty cycle, and distance, you will always be "more compliant" than that, in any real situation.

 

Compliance is not a 'let's guess' scenario. It's not an 'oh we can always go back and plug in numbers' scenario.

It's a burden of proof.

Seems to me if you take a picture of your radio; and your antenna; and attach it with a diagram showing the height and separation between any areas of human proximity, you would be, IMO, fine showing that , in accordance with an attached calculation worksheet-- for 100 watts to a 35 foot high dipole.

Producing it later indicates a failure of compliance, because you failed to demonstrate it a priori, as required by the new rules.. Unless it is an extant antenna installation, in which case you have 3 years.

Realistically, legal issues will likely happen for higher power installations with low or portable antennas, especially on 12,10, and 6m. Moderate power HF mobile will be hugely problematic because cars typically are within the safety distance when on the road. Best, now, to document your mobile system and attach the caclulation worksheet. Figure out your power limit to be compliant.

However, if you have a low power fixed system, such as yours, and did not demonstrate compliance, just assumed it, this indicates you operated outside of FCC regulations. That, in turn, could turn on a neighbor claiming damages from your 'RF interference', or injurious 'health issues'. IOW other legal issues from failure to operate legally.

TAKE HEED of K0UO's quote:

"I have seen some pretty nasty situations over the past 20 years. Unfortunately I have been involved representing clients after the fact/ and many of which did not have any documentation of compliance."

 

I put my 100W and a wire into a calculator and showed that I was WAY under the limit. Like it's not even worth worrying about. So I should be good to go.

 

If you document it. Now (or three years for an extant antenna install).Sure.

 

Where does it say it has to be "documented"?

 

I think you are reading far more into it than actually is there. In many cases, hams will have an exemption. Those that don't will have a little more calculating to do. The FCC requires you to be in compliance, and in calculating an exemption, or calculating an estimate of exposure, to be compliant. It doesn't say what specific method you have to use, or how you have to document that evaluation.

 

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/mq3djoyq...o+FCC+RF+Exposure+Rules+2021+Presentation.pdf

 

Again, stop being 'personal'. I know full-well what I am saying, thanks. No reason for you to introduce doubt as to my understanding of the situation with compliance.

Compliance requires documentation. As for the ARRL slide--

I NEVER SAID SPECIAL TEST EQUIPMENT, for example. What is wrong with you OM?

A digital wattmeter , and a mini VNA are amateur accessories that have become standard of practice. They are NOT "special TEST EQUIPMENT".

PLEASE stop speaking for me.

The recommendation of using 'EZNEC' is a poor one, IMO, in most uncontrolled environments, as objects, materials, structures, and so on, are poorly modelled within the NEC2 from an accuracy standpoint.

Obviously I am aware of what the FCC reg says. Why do you think I am articulating these concerns?

Go look at K0UO's comment again. Take his opinion-- someone who deals with these issues on a professional basis.

IF you have some reason to believe the ARRL has said 'don't document', I suspect that will change at some point. I see no reason to believe they said that.

 

No it won't. A car passing by at 65mph is in the 'zone" for a few seconds? No danger.

 

If you look at the ARRL link above, you will see that you don't need ANY test equipment, since the evaluation consists of calculations, not physical RF measurements. All you really need to know is your TX power out, the gain of your antenna, and the distance to people. That's it. No watt meter or VNA is necessary to perform the evaluation.

Now, if you are close to the limit, you might want to refine the initial calculations. But again, this doesn't require any test equipment at all, unless you are very close to the line. Most hams will not be close to that line. If you run high power, or have an antenna relatively close to a sidewalk, or someone's yard, then it will be a more detailed calculation. A guy with 25 watts on 2M into a J-pole on his roof is probably not going to be anywhere near the borderline of compliance. Same with a ham with a dipole 25' above his back yard, running 100 watts.

 

Not the scenario of concern. Did not say: 'car passing at 65 MPH'.

If you are driving on a freeway, for example, the scenario clearly kicks in.

I really wish you guys would not try to convince yourselves that there is NOT a whole lotta new potential legal exposure from this new compliance requirement. You REALLY need to see what is possible and understand how the legal system tends to penalize in ways that often are unreasonable.

I am not defending that, just warning about it.

It's not the FCC that will likely go after you without documented compliance--its the ambulance chaser lawyers (note: not all lawyers are ambulance chasers) who will show your intentional act of illegal operation makes you exposed for lawsuit.

 

The compliance forms are not the same as a RF exposure calculator.

Why don't you volunteer to indemnify all the US hams against lawsuit , for those who just guess , plug in a number or two, don't document, and so on?

I mean really: do us all a good turn.

 

Why don't you stop trying to damnify every ham as being either an RF death hazard to his neighbors or else in financial threat of being sued to death.

Lighten up.

 

I haven't saved anything yet, but will do that soon. Haven't put up any new antennas so three years should be plenty of time.