NavyBOFH

Not that I agree or dissagree with linking, but I'm not finding the changes you speak of. Based on the current eCFR copy:
§ 95.1749 GMRS network connection.
Operation of a GMRS station with a telephone connection is prohibited, as in § 95.349. GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations, however, may be connected to the public switched network or other networks for the sole purpose of operation by remote control pursuant to § 95.1745.
§ 95.349 Network connection.
Operation of Personal Radio Services stations connected with the public switched network is prohibited, unless otherwise allowed for a particular Personal Radio Service by rules in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.949 and 95.2749.
§ 95.1745 GMRS remote control.
Notwithstanding the prohibition in § 95.345, GMRS repeater, base and fixed stations may be operated by remote control.
§ 95.303 Definitions.
The following terms and definitions apply only to the rules in this part.
Remote control. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from a location that is not in the immediate vicinity of the transmitter. Operation of a Personal Radio Services station from any location on the premises, vehicle or craft where the transmitter is located is not considered to be remote control.
 
 

Lets put how our legal system works... or SHOULD work:
Does your action have a direct effect on someone else's life or wellbeing/living? Is your action able to be construed as malicious or harmful? Is your action only going to affect YOU? If you cannot answer "no, no, yes" to the above - the rule exists for good reason. The FCC exists because while you can gnash your teeth about "laws" and "natural phenomena" or whatever else... it boils down to simply this. There is only so much EM spectrum in the current technical realm - and anything YOU can do with it will directly affect someone else's non-malicious use of it as well. The decision will come down to that - pure and simple. The FCC acts as a traffic director more than a law enforcement agency so the idea of "enforcement" doesn't have much weight behind it on its own - but that is not to say the FCC is "useless" or "toothless".
TL;DR: Don't be a prick and do things that will affect how someone else uses the same spectrum you think you have the "natural right" to use. Problem with that is - there's way more people spewing this "sovereign citizen" take than not - which makes me think the FCC's enforcement bureau needs to step up their game instead of taking a knee. I pay good money for my licenses, equipment, and my "time is money" for doing all of it as well, and I will gladly move everything I own 100% to Part 90 coordinated if it means having the ability to go after malicious interference with actual legal precedent at my back as well.
The only reason I even care to comment at this point is because THIS type of BS is what the FCC looks at while an NPRM is open, and will laugh their way to the bank as Midland gets to vendor-lock an otherwise "self regulating" service. So please, either get with the program or find another service like CB that has been relegated to being an RF trash can. 

Lets put how our legal system works... or SHOULD work:
Does your action have a direct effect on someone else's life or wellbeing/living? Is your action able to be construed as malicious or harmful? Is your action only going to affect YOU? If you cannot answer "no, no, yes" to the above - the rule exists for good reason. The FCC exists because while you can gnash your teeth about "laws" and "natural phenomena" or whatever else... it boils down to simply this. There is only so much EM spectrum in the current technical realm - and anything YOU can do with it will directly affect someone else's non-malicious use of it as well. The decision will come down to that - pure and simple. The FCC acts as a traffic director more than a law enforcement agency so the idea of "enforcement" doesn't have much weight behind it on its own - but that is not to say the FCC is "useless" or "toothless".
TL;DR: Don't be a prick and do things that will affect how someone else uses the same spectrum you think you have the "natural right" to use. Problem with that is - there's way more people spewing this "sovereign citizen" take than not - which makes me think the FCC's enforcement bureau needs to step up their game instead of taking a knee. I pay good money for my licenses, equipment, and my "time is money" for doing all of it as well, and I will gladly move everything I own 100% to Part 90 coordinated if it means having the ability to go after malicious interference with actual legal precedent at my back as well.
The only reason I even care to comment at this point is because THIS type of BS is what the FCC looks at while an NPRM is open, and will laugh their way to the bank as Midland gets to vendor-lock an otherwise "self regulating" service. So please, either get with the program or find another service like CB that has been relegated to being an RF trash can. 

Lets put how our legal system works... or SHOULD work:
Does your action have a direct effect on someone else's life or wellbeing/living? Is your action able to be construed as malicious or harmful? Is your action only going to affect YOU? If you cannot answer "no, no, yes" to the above - the rule exists for good reason. The FCC exists because while you can gnash your teeth about "laws" and "natural phenomena" or whatever else... it boils down to simply this. There is only so much EM spectrum in the current technical realm - and anything YOU can do with it will directly affect someone else's non-malicious use of it as well. The decision will come down to that - pure and simple. The FCC acts as a traffic director more than a law enforcement agency so the idea of "enforcement" doesn't have much weight behind it on its own - but that is not to say the FCC is "useless" or "toothless".
TL;DR: Don't be a prick and do things that will affect how someone else uses the same spectrum you think you have the "natural right" to use. Problem with that is - there's way more people spewing this "sovereign citizen" take than not - which makes me think the FCC's enforcement bureau needs to step up their game instead of taking a knee. I pay good money for my licenses, equipment, and my "time is money" for doing all of it as well, and I will gladly move everything I own 100% to Part 90 coordinated if it means having the ability to go after malicious interference with actual legal precedent at my back as well.
The only reason I even care to comment at this point is because THIS type of BS is what the FCC looks at while an NPRM is open, and will laugh their way to the bank as Midland gets to vendor-lock an otherwise "self regulating" service. So please, either get with the program or find another service like CB that has been relegated to being an RF trash can. 

Lets put how our legal system works... or SHOULD work:
Does your action have a direct effect on someone else's life or wellbeing/living? Is your action able to be construed as malicious or harmful? Is your action only going to affect YOU? If you cannot answer "no, no, yes" to the above - the rule exists for good reason. The FCC exists because while you can gnash your teeth about "laws" and "natural phenomena" or whatever else... it boils down to simply this. There is only so much EM spectrum in the current technical realm - and anything YOU can do with it will directly affect someone else's non-malicious use of it as well. The decision will come down to that - pure and simple. The FCC acts as a traffic director more than a law enforcement agency so the idea of "enforcement" doesn't have much weight behind it on its own - but that is not to say the FCC is "useless" or "toothless".
TL;DR: Don't be a prick and do things that will affect how someone else uses the same spectrum you think you have the "natural right" to use. Problem with that is - there's way more people spewing this "sovereign citizen" take than not - which makes me think the FCC's enforcement bureau needs to step up their game instead of taking a knee. I pay good money for my licenses, equipment, and my "time is money" for doing all of it as well, and I will gladly move everything I own 100% to Part 90 coordinated if it means having the ability to go after malicious interference with actual legal precedent at my back as well.
The only reason I even care to comment at this point is because THIS type of BS is what the FCC looks at while an NPRM is open, and will laugh their way to the bank as Midland gets to vendor-lock an otherwise "self regulating" service. So please, either get with the program or find another service like CB that has been relegated to being an RF trash can. 

Lets put how our legal system works... or SHOULD work:
Does your action have a direct effect on someone else's life or wellbeing/living? Is your action able to be construed as malicious or harmful? Is your action only going to affect YOU? If you cannot answer "no, no, yes" to the above - the rule exists for good reason. The FCC exists because while you can gnash your teeth about "laws" and "natural phenomena" or whatever else... it boils down to simply this. There is only so much EM spectrum in the current technical realm - and anything YOU can do with it will directly affect someone else's non-malicious use of it as well. The decision will come down to that - pure and simple. The FCC acts as a traffic director more than a law enforcement agency so the idea of "enforcement" doesn't have much weight behind it on its own - but that is not to say the FCC is "useless" or "toothless".
TL;DR: Don't be a prick and do things that will affect how someone else uses the same spectrum you think you have the "natural right" to use. Problem with that is - there's way more people spewing this "sovereign citizen" take than not - which makes me think the FCC's enforcement bureau needs to step up their game instead of taking a knee. I pay good money for my licenses, equipment, and my "time is money" for doing all of it as well, and I will gladly move everything I own 100% to Part 90 coordinated if it means having the ability to go after malicious interference with actual legal precedent at my back as well.
The only reason I even care to comment at this point is because THIS type of BS is what the FCC looks at while an NPRM is open, and will laugh their way to the bank as Midland gets to vendor-lock an otherwise "self regulating" service. So please, either get with the program or find another service like CB that has been relegated to being an RF trash can. 

With the newest NPRM out, I think it is time that I re-visit this before submitting a public comment... if I end up choosing to do so.
The NPRM needs to address that 95.335(a) should fully codify Part 90 radios into the rule, as all of them meet or exceed technical standards for Part 95 use. Digital modulation and "data" should be allowed, but that Midland should NOT be permitted to make a vendor-lock exception via the FCC. This means using an already-mature digital standard like DMR. On that end, narrowbanding would become mandated with a transition period, and interstitial frequencies assigned to the service to further leverage the narrowbanding "side-effect". Using all of the above, then in-band GPS signaling along with cadence-based GPS and other "data" functions become "tolerable" in the service since there would be more channels, more talk paths, and more opportunity to use the service that has grown exponentially. I am only writing this here because I want to see if the GMRS groups can even remotely come to some sort of agreement... because to be fully blunt Midland is the only one putting a compelling argument out with no one coming out with an actual comment to the proposal short of a long-winded "yes" or "no".
I will check in as I can but look forward to seeing what everyone says about this.

With the newest NPRM out, I think it is time that I re-visit this before submitting a public comment... if I end up choosing to do so.
The NPRM needs to address that 95.335(a) should fully codify Part 90 radios into the rule, as all of them meet or exceed technical standards for Part 95 use. Digital modulation and "data" should be allowed, but that Midland should NOT be permitted to make a vendor-lock exception via the FCC. This means using an already-mature digital standard like DMR. On that end, narrowbanding would become mandated with a transition period, and interstitial frequencies assigned to the service to further leverage the narrowbanding "side-effect". Using all of the above, then in-band GPS signaling along with cadence-based GPS and other "data" functions become "tolerable" in the service since there would be more channels, more talk paths, and more opportunity to use the service that has grown exponentially. I am only writing this here because I want to see if the GMRS groups can even remotely come to some sort of agreement... because to be fully blunt Midland is the only one putting a compelling argument out with no one coming out with an actual comment to the proposal short of a long-winded "yes" or "no".
I will check in as I can but look forward to seeing what everyone says about this.

Yup hams trying to inter-fear in yet another service. My hopes are the FCC laughs at this one. 
 

The FCC does actually go after pirate radio stations very aggressively - not just the pirates but also going after the people/landlords that own the houses/land that they broadcast from and by definition none of those guys signed up for a license.
Source: https://www.fcc.gov/enforcement/orders 

I think this is more of a "what gives them the right?" sovereign citizen take. I'm pretty sure that the writers of the Constitution never quite envisioned the possibility of a wireless communication system back in 1789. At best, they left it up to the People and the individual States with the 9th and 10th amendments. Pretty sure nobody pays much of any attention to the 9th and 10th since the Wickard v. Filburn decision.
Feel free to fight the battle. I doubt I'll invest in your fight, but I'd be thrilled to read the legal arguments once you make it to the Supreme Court.
I do recall a company called TeraWave who was going to be using Infrared light as an unlicensed high bandwidth beam between buildings. They did some amazing things in the Lab, but once they got out in the real world & put up some systems on rooftops, they discovered that there are some real world problems like fog and rain that played havoc on their systems. Not sure if the FCC got involved in that one, I think all it took was economic reality. Giving up a few hundred MB of bandwidth in exchange for a licensed microwave system with Six Sigma reliability was the winner.

This Topic of using FCC part 90 equipment on 95 A service seems like a never-ending saga. I'm guilty of using Motorola Maxtacs and HT 1000s on GMRS prior to the recent update in 2017 taking GMRS from Part 95A to Part 95 E.  Of course, someone who just get their GMRS License will tell me the GMRS was never Part 95 A. I know I probably right about that. I mean someone disagreeing from about GMRS use to be Part 95A. I wonder why the FCC changed it from Part A to E. FRS is still found in Part  95 B...
 
I apologize in advance for rambling on nonsense, but those same folks, sound like hall monitors. I mean when it comes to using used or new old stock radio that are part 90 certified for GMRS. 

In 2014 the FCC opened docket 14-180 to try and clean up Part 22 (the auctioned Paging & Radiotelephone Service, now popularly used by some governments as a supplement or substitute for Part 90 freqs when they're unavailable) rules
Interestingly a good number of the commenters there were screaming "let us use Part 90 cert'd stuff on Part 22" in unison

Hello all! I am a couple years late to posting this topic, but mostly because this discussion created such heated arguments on Facebook that I either left or was banned from certain communities. At the time I was working as a state frequency coordinator and LMR engineer, now working with "one of the big LMR brands". As a result, I had and still have access to discuss issues with the FCC Enforcement Bureau and their in-house counsel. This is a rundown of said conversation I had after the last rule changes...
Specifically towards the Part 90/95 issue - I asked why in the new rules it loosely stated that Part 90 equipment was permitted, but then later in the same rules mentioned it was not permitted. The in-house counsel agreed the wording was ambiguous at best, which would result in a hard time in them enforcing the rule on its own. Essentially, the conversation was "If you are caught with a Part 90 radio in the process of us investigating an issue such as malicious interference, it will be an added charge... but we cannot and will not pursue it on its own".
The wording specifically I mentioned was:
95.335 (a) - Which states that non-Part 95 equipment may be operated in the service if they are certified for use in land mobile radio services. 
With that said, the Enforcement Bureau and their legal counsel agreed that the wording was added because of a distinct lack of Part 95 licensed equipment being added to the list, but that the wording wasn't fully clarified to explicitly permit it either. The resolution to the issue is what I quoted above... that they will not be pursuing certification violations by end-users, and the end user will not be caught and fined unless it was within the investigation into other issues which will usually be your worse issue regardless. The biggest hurdle this presented was for manufacturers to comply with certification of devices, and the wording was created to make sure Baofeng and others would not market their radios as GMRS radios without proper certification.
 
So in the end - enjoy your Motorola XTS/APX/XPR radios, your Harris P7100/7200/etc radios, and so-forth. Just be wise and safe!
 
What I hope to accomplish by posting this here is a CIVIL and PRODUCTIVE discussion to petition the FCC for a clarification into the rules where 95.335 can be either refined or referred to elsewhere in the Part 95 rules to be the "one rule to rule them all" and state that if a radio is Part 90 compliant, it will be permitted. The end.
 

Nailed it - I spent 90+ minutes on the phone with their in-house counsel regarding how the rules were written and they agreed that enforcement is essentially out of the question because it can be thrown out so easily... unless they find a way to tack it onto another charge which in their own words "you'll be in deeper trouble for the reason we were out there in the first place before we examined any equipment".

Hello all! I am a couple years late to posting this topic, but mostly because this discussion created such heated arguments on Facebook that I either left or was banned from certain communities. At the time I was working as a state frequency coordinator and LMR engineer, now working with "one of the big LMR brands". As a result, I had and still have access to discuss issues with the FCC Enforcement Bureau and their in-house counsel. This is a rundown of said conversation I had after the last rule changes...
Specifically towards the Part 90/95 issue - I asked why in the new rules it loosely stated that Part 90 equipment was permitted, but then later in the same rules mentioned it was not permitted. The in-house counsel agreed the wording was ambiguous at best, which would result in a hard time in them enforcing the rule on its own. Essentially, the conversation was "If you are caught with a Part 90 radio in the process of us investigating an issue such as malicious interference, it will be an added charge... but we cannot and will not pursue it on its own".
The wording specifically I mentioned was:
95.335 (a) - Which states that non-Part 95 equipment may be operated in the service if they are certified for use in land mobile radio services. 
With that said, the Enforcement Bureau and their legal counsel agreed that the wording was added because of a distinct lack of Part 95 licensed equipment being added to the list, but that the wording wasn't fully clarified to explicitly permit it either. The resolution to the issue is what I quoted above... that they will not be pursuing certification violations by end-users, and the end user will not be caught and fined unless it was within the investigation into other issues which will usually be your worse issue regardless. The biggest hurdle this presented was for manufacturers to comply with certification of devices, and the wording was created to make sure Baofeng and others would not market their radios as GMRS radios without proper certification.
 
So in the end - enjoy your Motorola XTS/APX/XPR radios, your Harris P7100/7200/etc radios, and so-forth. Just be wise and safe!
 
What I hope to accomplish by posting this here is a CIVIL and PRODUCTIVE discussion to petition the FCC for a clarification into the rules where 95.335 can be either refined or referred to elsewhere in the Part 95 rules to be the "one rule to rule them all" and state that if a radio is Part 90 compliant, it will be permitted. The end.
 

Hello all! I am a couple years late to posting this topic, but mostly because this discussion created such heated arguments on Facebook that I either left or was banned from certain communities. At the time I was working as a state frequency coordinator and LMR engineer, now working with "one of the big LMR brands". As a result, I had and still have access to discuss issues with the FCC Enforcement Bureau and their in-house counsel. This is a rundown of said conversation I had after the last rule changes...
Specifically towards the Part 90/95 issue - I asked why in the new rules it loosely stated that Part 90 equipment was permitted, but then later in the same rules mentioned it was not permitted. The in-house counsel agreed the wording was ambiguous at best, which would result in a hard time in them enforcing the rule on its own. Essentially, the conversation was "If you are caught with a Part 90 radio in the process of us investigating an issue such as malicious interference, it will be an added charge... but we cannot and will not pursue it on its own".
The wording specifically I mentioned was:
95.335 (a) - Which states that non-Part 95 equipment may be operated in the service if they are certified for use in land mobile radio services. 
With that said, the Enforcement Bureau and their legal counsel agreed that the wording was added because of a distinct lack of Part 95 licensed equipment being added to the list, but that the wording wasn't fully clarified to explicitly permit it either. The resolution to the issue is what I quoted above... that they will not be pursuing certification violations by end-users, and the end user will not be caught and fined unless it was within the investigation into other issues which will usually be your worse issue regardless. The biggest hurdle this presented was for manufacturers to comply with certification of devices, and the wording was created to make sure Baofeng and others would not market their radios as GMRS radios without proper certification.
 
So in the end - enjoy your Motorola XTS/APX/XPR radios, your Harris P7100/7200/etc radios, and so-forth. Just be wise and safe!
 
What I hope to accomplish by posting this here is a CIVIL and PRODUCTIVE discussion to petition the FCC for a clarification into the rules where 95.335 can be either refined or referred to elsewhere in the Part 95 rules to be the "one rule to rule them all" and state that if a radio is Part 90 compliant, it will be permitted. The end.
 

Nailed it - I spent 90+ minutes on the phone with their in-house counsel regarding how the rules were written and they agreed that enforcement is essentially out of the question because it can be thrown out so easily... unless they find a way to tack it onto another charge which in their own words "you'll be in deeper trouble for the reason we were out there in the first place before we examined any equipment".

I put it in my original post: 95.335 (a) which states:
(a) Exceptions. Under certain exceptions, non-certified Personal Radio Service transmitters, or transmitters certified for use in the land mobile radio services may be operated. Any such exceptions applicable to stations in a Personal Radio Service are set forth in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.735 and 95.1735.
95.735 is for CB, and 95.1735 is currently not codified and "reserved for future use". The part in 95.335 specifically saying "certified for use in the land mobile radio services may be operated" points RIGHT AT PART 90.
Hence my 90 minute phone call years ago - and that further discussion is still ongoing to push that somewhere in 95.1735 this is codified in literal black-and-white for everyone to quit debating this.

I put it in my original post: 95.335 (a) which states:
(a) Exceptions. Under certain exceptions, non-certified Personal Radio Service transmitters, or transmitters certified for use in the land mobile radio services may be operated. Any such exceptions applicable to stations in a Personal Radio Service are set forth in the subpart governing that specific service. See e.g., §§ 95.735 and 95.1735.
95.735 is for CB, and 95.1735 is currently not codified and "reserved for future use". The part in 95.335 specifically saying "certified for use in the land mobile radio services may be operated" points RIGHT AT PART 90.
Hence my 90 minute phone call years ago - and that further discussion is still ongoing to push that somewhere in 95.1735 this is codified in literal black-and-white for everyone to quit debating this.

Hello all! I am a couple years late to posting this topic, but mostly because this discussion created such heated arguments on Facebook that I either left or was banned from certain communities. At the time I was working as a state frequency coordinator and LMR engineer, now working with "one of the big LMR brands". As a result, I had and still have access to discuss issues with the FCC Enforcement Bureau and their in-house counsel. This is a rundown of said conversation I had after the last rule changes...
Specifically towards the Part 90/95 issue - I asked why in the new rules it loosely stated that Part 90 equipment was permitted, but then later in the same rules mentioned it was not permitted. The in-house counsel agreed the wording was ambiguous at best, which would result in a hard time in them enforcing the rule on its own. Essentially, the conversation was "If you are caught with a Part 90 radio in the process of us investigating an issue such as malicious interference, it will be an added charge... but we cannot and will not pursue it on its own".
The wording specifically I mentioned was:
95.335 (a) - Which states that non-Part 95 equipment may be operated in the service if they are certified for use in land mobile radio services. 
With that said, the Enforcement Bureau and their legal counsel agreed that the wording was added because of a distinct lack of Part 95 licensed equipment being added to the list, but that the wording wasn't fully clarified to explicitly permit it either. The resolution to the issue is what I quoted above... that they will not be pursuing certification violations by end-users, and the end user will not be caught and fined unless it was within the investigation into other issues which will usually be your worse issue regardless. The biggest hurdle this presented was for manufacturers to comply with certification of devices, and the wording was created to make sure Baofeng and others would not market their radios as GMRS radios without proper certification.
 
So in the end - enjoy your Motorola XTS/APX/XPR radios, your Harris P7100/7200/etc radios, and so-forth. Just be wise and safe!
 
What I hope to accomplish by posting this here is a CIVIL and PRODUCTIVE discussion to petition the FCC for a clarification into the rules where 95.335 can be either refined or referred to elsewhere in the Part 95 rules to be the "one rule to rule them all" and state that if a radio is Part 90 compliant, it will be permitted. The end.
 

This document is often referred to support what you're saying.
https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/presentations/files/nov17/54-Part-95-Misc-Eqpt-Filing-r1-TH.pdf
Attached the 3 mainly relevant slides regarding GMRS.
In the notes the OET says
 

Hello all! I am a couple years late to posting this topic, but mostly because this discussion created such heated arguments on Facebook that I either left or was banned from certain communities. At the time I was working as a state frequency coordinator and LMR engineer, now working with "one of the big LMR brands". As a result, I had and still have access to discuss issues with the FCC Enforcement Bureau and their in-house counsel. This is a rundown of said conversation I had after the last rule changes...
Specifically towards the Part 90/95 issue - I asked why in the new rules it loosely stated that Part 90 equipment was permitted, but then later in the same rules mentioned it was not permitted. The in-house counsel agreed the wording was ambiguous at best, which would result in a hard time in them enforcing the rule on its own. Essentially, the conversation was "If you are caught with a Part 90 radio in the process of us investigating an issue such as malicious interference, it will be an added charge... but we cannot and will not pursue it on its own".
The wording specifically I mentioned was:
95.335 (a) - Which states that non-Part 95 equipment may be operated in the service if they are certified for use in land mobile radio services. 
With that said, the Enforcement Bureau and their legal counsel agreed that the wording was added because of a distinct lack of Part 95 licensed equipment being added to the list, but that the wording wasn't fully clarified to explicitly permit it either. The resolution to the issue is what I quoted above... that they will not be pursuing certification violations by end-users, and the end user will not be caught and fined unless it was within the investigation into other issues which will usually be your worse issue regardless. The biggest hurdle this presented was for manufacturers to comply with certification of devices, and the wording was created to make sure Baofeng and others would not market their radios as GMRS radios without proper certification.
 
So in the end - enjoy your Motorola XTS/APX/XPR radios, your Harris P7100/7200/etc radios, and so-forth. Just be wise and safe!
 
What I hope to accomplish by posting this here is a CIVIL and PRODUCTIVE discussion to petition the FCC for a clarification into the rules where 95.335 can be either refined or referred to elsewhere in the Part 95 rules to be the "one rule to rule them all" and state that if a radio is Part 90 compliant, it will be permitted. The end.
 

Ham transceivers are not certified by most definitions - Part 97 doesn't hold a technical certification standard for equipment. The Amateur Radio motto is just "operate as efficiently as possible within these guidelines".
Part 90 (and others like 87 and 80, etc) have specific requirements for emissions standards which can be quantitatively measured and analyzed. Which is why its easy to be said Part 90 is allowed - but not expressly worded within the current rules.

Ham transceivers are not certified by most definitions - Part 97 doesn't hold a technical certification standard for equipment. The Amateur Radio motto is just "operate as efficiently as possible within these guidelines".
Part 90 (and others like 87 and 80, etc) have specific requirements for emissions standards which can be quantitatively measured and analyzed. Which is why its easy to be said Part 90 is allowed - but not expressly worded within the current rules.