wheatley@inuxi.UUCP (Steven Wheatley) (10/14/85)
/\
/ \
/ A \
/ \
===============/ \==============
THE / R R \ LETTER
VOLUME 4 \ / NUMBER 20
===============\ /==============
\ /
\ L /
\ /
\/
September 30, 1985
The ARRL Letter is published bi-weekly by the Information
Services Department of the American Radio Relay League, 225 Main
St., Newington, CT, 06111; (203) 666-1541. Larry E. Price, W4RA,
President; David Sumner, K1ZZ, Executive Vice President; Dave
Newkirk, AK7M, Editor; Debra Chapor, Circulation Manager.
Information from The ARRL Letter may be reproduced in whole
or part in any form including photoreproduction and electronic
databanks, providing credit is given to The ARRL Letter and to
the American Radio Relay League.
The ARRL Letter is available in printed form from ARRL.
Subscriptions, limited to ARRL Members, are $19.50 (U.S. funds)
per year for First-Class Mailing to the U.S., Canada, and
Mexico. Overseas air mail subscriptions are available at $31
(U.S. funds) per year. Sample copies are available for an
s.a.s.e.
In this issue:
o IN THE DAYS OF THE COMET
o DXCC, NO-NO
o FCC: YES TO FEDERAL PREEMPTION
o ...and much more!
FCC: "YES" TO FEDERAL PREEMPTION!
"State and local regulations that operate to preclude
amateur communications in their communities are in direct
conflict with federal objectives and must be preempted." So
saying, FCC, on September 16, 1985, adopted a Memorandum Opinion
and Order in PRB-1, granting ARRL's request for limited Federal
preemption over state and local regulations involving Amateur
Radio facilities. In filing its request, the League had
acknowledged the need for local authorities to regulate Amateur
Radio facilities to the degree necessary to insure the safety and
health of community residents. But, ARRL argued, such
regulations must not be so restrictive that they could preclude
effective amateur communication.
FCC's Opinion picks up the tale with a discussion of local
ordinances: "Conflicts between amateur operators regarding radio
antennas and local authorities regarding restrictive ordinances
are common. The amateur operator is governed by the regulations
contained in Part 97 of our rules. Those rules do not limit the
height of an amateur antenna but they require, for aviation
safety reasons, that certain FAA notification and FCC approval
procedures must be followed . . . on the other hand, local
municipalities or governing bodies frequently enact regulations
limiting antennas and their support structures in height and
location, e.g. to side or rear yards, for health, safety or
aesthetic considerations. These limiting regulations can result
in conflict because the effectiveness of the communications . . .
from an amateur station are directly dependent upon the location
and the height of the antenna. Amateur operators maintain that
they are precluded from operating in certain bands allocated for
their use if the height of their antennas is limited by a local
ordinance." Examples of restrictive local ordinances were
submitted by several amateur operators in PRB-1.
"Other limits are enacted by local jurisdictions," said FCC,
"--anti-climb devices on towers, or fences around them; minimum
distances of towers from property lines; and regulations
pertaining to the structural soundness of the antenna
installation. By and large, amateurs do not find these safety
precautions objectionable. What they do object to are the
sometimes prohibitive, non-refundable application filing fees to
obtain a permit to erect an antenna installation and those
provisions in ordinances which regulate antennas for purely
aesthetic reasons."
FCC touched upon restrictive covenants, noting that such
covenants (contained in the deeds for homes or in apartment
leases) are contractual agreements between private parties and,
as such, "are not generally a matter of concern to the
Commission. However, since some amateurs who commented in this
proceeding provided us with examples of restrictive covenants,
they are included for information."
Who came out in support of PRB-1? Answer: the American Red
Cross, the Department of Defense, and city and county civil
defense groups, who agreed that overly restrictive antenna
ordinances would adversely affect the success of disaster relief
efforts, national security and emergency preparedness operations.
The Quarter Century Wireless Association also took a strong stand
in favor of limited federal preemption.
On the adversarial side, subdivision associations, the
National Association of Counties (NACO), American Planning
Association (APA) and the National League of Cities (NLC) were
opposed to federal preemption. The subdivision associations
maintained that amateur installations constitute safety hazards,
cause interference to home electronic equipment, and detract from
the value of surrounding property. NACO warned that federal
intrusion into local concerns of health and
safety would weaken traditional police power and unduly interfere
with legitimate activities of the state. APA and NLC maintained
that federal and local interests could be accommodated without
preemption of local authority.
The Commission took a long hard look at all of this while
pro and con parties crossed their fingers. And in the
"Discussion" section of the PRB-1 Opinion, the first words
touched upon a document important to us all: "When considering
preemption, we must begin with two constitutional provisions.
The Tenth Amendment provides that any powers which the
constitution either does not delegate to the United States or
does not prohibit the states from exercising are reserved to the
states. These are the police powers of the states. The
Supremacy Clause, however, provides that the constitution and the
laws of the United States shall supersede any state law to the
contrary . . . given these basic premises, state laws may be
preempted in three ways: First, Congress may expressly preempt
the state law . . . or, Congress may indicate its intent to
completely occupy a given field so that any state law encompassed
within that field would implicitly be preempted . . . finally,
preemption may be warranted when state law conflicts with federal
law . . . the situation before us requires us to determine the
extent to which state and local zoning regulations may conflict
with federal policies concerning amateur radio operators.
"Few matters coming before us present such a clear dichotomy
of viewpoint as does the instant issue . . . cities, counties,
local communities and housing associations see an obligation to
all of their citizens and try to address their concerns . . . at
the opposite pole are the individual amateur operators and their
support groups . . . [and] aligned with the operators are such
entities as the Department of Defense, the American Red Cross and
local civil defense and emergency organizations who have found in
Amateur Radio a pool of skilled radio operators and a readily
available backup network . . .
"Preemption is primarily a function of the extent of the
conflict between federal and state and local regulation . . . we
recognize here that there are certain general state and local
interests which may, in their even-handed application,
legitimately affect amateur radio
facilities. Nonetheless, there is also a strong federal interest
in promoting amateur communications . . . upon weighing these
interests, we believe a limited preemption policy is warranted.
State and local regulations that operate to preclude amateur
communications in their communities are in direct conflict with
federal objectives and must be preempted.
"Because amateur station communications are only as
effective as the antennas employed, antenna height restrictions
directly affect the effectiveness of amateur communications.
Some amateur antenna configurations require more substantial
installations than others if they are to provide the amateur
operator with the communications that he/she desires to engage
in. For example, an antenna array for international amateur
communications will differ from an antenna used to contact other
amateur operators at shorter distances. We will not, however,
specify any particular height limitation below which a local
government may not regulate, nor will we suggest the precise
language that must be contained in local ordinances, such as
mechanisms for special exceptions, variances, or conditional use
permits. [Emphasis added.] Nevertheless, local regulations
which involve placement, screening, or height of antennas based
on health, safety or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to
accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent
the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local
authority's legitimate purpose."
So the preemption issue is not cut and dried. How many
towns, villages and cities are there in the United States, with
how many properties, how many citizens, how many amateurs in each
town? The 11-page document we call PRB-1 is not an instant cure-
all for difficulties we face now, nor does it guarantee friendly
agreement on the placement of antennas and antenna supports
everywhere in future. Yet, FCC feels it has provided a valuable
tool in PRB-1. "Obviously, we do not have the staff or financial
resources to review all state and local laws that affect amateur
operations. We are confident, however, that state and local
governments will endeavor to legislate in a manner that affords
appropriate recognition to the important federal interest at
stake here and thereby avoid unnecessary conflicts with federal
policy, as well as time-consuming and expensive litigation in
this area. Amateur operators who believe that local and state
governments
have been overreaching and thereby have precluded accomplishment
of their legitimate communication goals may, in addition, use
this document to bring our policies to the attention of local
tribunals and forums."
W1AW carried news of the release of PRB-1 within minutes of
its receipt from Washington. November QST will carry its full
text -- food for thought, a tool waiting to be used, and
recommended reading.
FCC SCUTTLES WAITING PERIOD FOR RE-EXAMINATION
Effective November 8, 1985, FCC has amended the amateur rules
to eliminate the 30-day wait before an applicant for an amateur
examination may retake a failed examination element. This
action, in PR Docket 85-21, is the result of a petition filed by
Phil Miller, KB8QX, in 1984. Miller had requested that the
waiting period for retaking an amateur exam be reduced from 30
days to 7 days. FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposed
elimination of the waiting period altogether, and included a
proposal to require public announcement only of examination
sessions intended for five or more candidates. The extant rule
required Volunteer-Examiner Coordinators to publicize all exam
sessions.
In its Report and Order on 85-21, the Commission opened with
discussion of the retest waiting period. "Commenters favoring
complete elimination of a waiting period are of the belief that
without a waiting period, amateur applicants would have more
incentive to study and retake the examination." The other of the
two basic positions was characterized by the Commission as more
multifaceted: "Commenters who favor retaining a waiting period
before retaking an examination element believe that an interval
is necessary to preclude answering the examination questions
mechanically or unthinkingly as a result of repetitive rote
learning. They do not want a candidate to encounter the same
questions on subsequent examinations. They also feel that it
would be an undue burden on Volunteer-Examiner Coordinators to
prepare new examinations more than once a month, resulting in
increased costs. These commenters also oppose the idea of
allowing each VEC the latitude to establish a waiting period to
suit its own capabilities, stating that it would lead to
confusion and loss of program integrity."
ARRL was one of the commenters arguing in favor of retention
of a waiting period; it asked for 27 days. The idea behind this
reduction by three days was that the 30-day wait often causes a
person to miss the next exam where examination opportunities are
offered monthly.
The Commission countered that the aim of the 30-day waiting
period had not necessarily been that of guaranteeing the
integrity of the examination and successful exam candidates. It
was, instead, "a carry-over from the days when the Commission
administered the examinations. While it may promote
conscientious preparation for examinations, its purpose was to
conserve Commission resources. If concerns for integrity can be
satisfied, we see no need to restrict the remarkably flexible
volunteer examination system with outdated prohibitions." The
Commission next turned its guns on the question of whether the
waiting period ever improved the quality of the knowledge of
applicants who had to wait before successful retesting. "There
is no persuasive evidence in the record that an applicant who has
waited 30 days between tests will be better prepared for the next
test than one who has waited 27 days, or 13 days or 7 days or any
other period of time. Thus, we feel that the only circumstance
which must be guarded against is the administration of the same
questions at the applicant's next examination. Our instructions
to the VECs already prevent this from occurring. VECs have been
instructed not to use the same set of questions in successive
examination sessions. This prevents, for example, Friday test
takers from giving advance information to Saturday test takers.
It also precludes the possibility of the same questions on
reexaminations. Different VECs can and do coordinate examination
sessions at different events in the same locality. Since each
VEC makes up its own test designs following our algorithm, it is
highly unlikely that examination sessions coordinated by two
different VECs will contain the same questions . . . we conclude
that the public interest will best be served by eliminating the
retest waiting period altogether. This decision adds no
additional burdens on VECs. They are under no obligation to give
tests on demand, to hold sessions on multiple dates, to examine
more people than they can plan for or accommodate, to promptly
return to a locality for retesting or in any other way to alter
their present procedures. Their only obligations are to maximize
the number of different examinations in use and to change
frequently the questions used. These obligations already exist."
So, retention of the waiting period, any waiting period, was
blown out of the water. What about requiring public announcement
only of exam sessions intended for five or more candidates? ARRL
had opposed the proposal, saying that no examination should be
private, i.e., without public announcement -- that unannounced
"back room" exams promote abuse or the perception of possible
abuse, and that exams should be in the public eye to insure
integrity. If the Commission did decide to eliminate the public
announcement of exams, said the League, it should be done not on
the basis of the number of persons present, but rather on the
basis that special exceptions are made for those who are
handicapped or who cannot leave their homes because of a
disability. The Central Vermont Amateur Radio Club also opposed
deletion of the public announcement requirement.
FCC's reply was that no matter where an exam was given, it
had to be given by a team of three examiners, each of whom had to
be accredited by a VEC. "This circumstance alone is calculated
to preclude fraudulent examinations. Nevertheless, in view of
the comments, we will continue to require that public
announcement of all examinations be given." Recognizing that the
number of exam candidates at any one exam session may be limited,
FCC will require that public announcements of exams alert the
public to any such limitation.
To update your copy of the FCC Rule Book, revise paragraph
(a) of Section 97.26 to read:
(a) Each examination for an amateur operator license must be
administered at a place and time chosen by the examiner(s). The
number of candidates at any examination session may be limited.
Public announcement must be made before all examinations for
elements 1(B), 1(C), 3, 4(A) or 4(B).
Paragraph (h) of Section 97.26 is removed and reserved.
PRIBILOF ISLANDS WILL NOT BE A NEW ONE FOR DXCC
On September 17, the ARRL Awards Committee voted 7-0 that
the Pribilof Islands not be added to the DXCC Countries List --
this after the DX Advisory Committee had recommended addition of
the Pribilofs to the list by a 9-7 vote. Country status was not
conferred because the Pribilofs are less than 225 miles away from
the Aleutian Islands -- which are part of the "governing area" of
Alaska -- and as such were judged to fail the test of DXCC
Countries List Criteria Rule 2(a). The "mainland" reference in
2(a) was seen only as clarifying the situations to which the Rule
itself applies.
IN THE DAYS OF THE COMET
On October 8, the Earth will pass through the orbit of Comet
Giacobini-Zinner (phonetically: "jock-o-benny zinner") only 25
days after the comet's passage. Experts have estimated that this
might produce 6,000 to 10,000 meteors per hour. For comparison,
we've tended to consider the annual Perseids shower a high
producer with its "mere" 40 to 60 meteors per hour.
With the advent of packet radio, we have an excellent
opportunity to collect data on the effect of meteor showers on
VHF communications. It is suggested that from 0500Z to 2100Z on
October 8, packet stations use 28.0985, 50.65 and 145.09 MHz.
Send CQ every 10 seconds and your grid square locator. In
between, monitor and capture all incoming transmissions. Please
send reports to: Wake Digital Communications Group, c/o Ed
Stephenson, AB4S, 700 Madison Avenue, Cary NC 27511. A summary
and report will be prepared for QST -- Will Harper, K4IWW
EARTHQUAKE IN MEXICO--AND HURRICANE GLORIA Disaster struck
Mexico on September 19 when an earthquake measuring 7.8 on the
Richter scale, centered 40 miles off the west coast of Mexico,
devasted coastal areas and brought down highrises in Mexico City,
including hotels and a hospital -- official reports say at least
4000 have died.
One week later, Hurricane Gloria raked the Eastern Seaboard
with winds topping 100 mph, and energy outages widespread.
Amateur Radio jumped into the breach in both emergencies --
watch QST for details.
*eof