August 2021 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:32705] QSO Today Ham Expo Attendance
by Michael Ritz 17 Aug '21

17 Aug '21

I asked Eric at QSO Today how many registrants he had in last weekend's Expo. The answer back was "over 5,000". That is quite a few more than I would have thought! I hope we got some exposure from that event. 73; Mike W7VO

2 1

[arrl-odv:32700] Fwd: ARLB021 FCC Application Fees Unlikely to Go into Effect Until 2022
by Michael Ritz 17 Aug '21

17 Aug '21

The below came out from the ARRL this morning, and inquiring minds want to know: Does anybody know what happens to the $35 sent in for vanity callsign applications that are denied? Is there still a mechanism still in place for those to apply for reimbursement? Some people apply for 1X2 or 2X1 callsigns where there is competition for those callsign. If the call(s) they want goes to somebody else they have to keep trying for new available callsigns and paying the $35 fees for each application until they win one. Will they be able to apply to get their money back for the ones they lose out on, (as it was before), or does the FCC now get to keep the money? 73; Mike w7VO > ---------- Original Message ---------- > From: ARRL Web site <memberlist(a)www.arrl.org> > To: w7vo(a)comcast.net > Date: 08/17/2021 9:47 AM > Subject: ARLB021 FCC Application Fees Unlikely to Go into Effect Until 2022 > > > SB QST @ ARL $ARLB021 > ARLB021 FCC Application Fees Unlikely to Go into Effect Until 2022 > > ZCZC AG21 > QST de W1AW > ARRL Bulletin 21 ARLB021 > From ARRL Headquarters > Newington CT August 17, 2021 > To all radio amateurs > > SB QST ARL ARLB021 > ARLB021 FCC Application Fees Unlikely to Go into Effect Until 2022 > > The schedule of FCC amateur radio application fees likely will not > go into effect before 2022. FCC staff confirmed during a recent > virtual meeting with Volunteer Examiner Coordinators (VECs) that the > agency is still working on the necessary changes to the Universal > Licensing System (ULS) software and other processes and procedures > that must be in place before it starts collecting fees from amateur > applicants. Earlier this year, the FCC said it would not start > collecting fees from amateur applicants before this Summer. The new > estimate is that the fees won't go into effect until early next > year. > > Once it's effective, the $35 application fee will apply to new, > modification (upgrade and sequential call sign change), renewal, and > vanity call sign applications. All fees will be per application. > Administrative update applications, such as those to change a > licensee's name, mailing, or email address, will be exempt from > fees. ARRL VEC manager Maria Somma, AB1FM, said Volunteer Examiner > (VE) teams will not face the burden of collecting the $35 fee. > > "Once the FCC application fee takes effect, new and upgrade > applicants will pay the exam session fee to the VE team as usual, > but they'll pay the $35 application fee directly to the FCC using > the FCC Pay Fees system," she explained. When the FCC receives the > examination information from the VEC, it will email a link with > payment instructions to each successful candidate who then will have > 10 days from the date of the email to pay. > > The FCC Pay Fees system can be accessed at, > https://apps2.fcc.gov/Batch_Filer/login.cfm . > > After the fee is paid and the FCC has processed an application, > examinees will receive a second email from the FCC with a link to > their official license. The link will be good for 30 days. Licensees > also will be able to view, download, and print official license > copies by logging into their FCC ULS account. The FCC no longer > provides printed licenses. > > Licensees can log into the ULS with their 10-digit FRN (FCC > Registration Number) and password at any time to view and manage > their license and application, print their license, and update > anything in their FCC license record, including adding an email > address. > > FEE SCHEDULE: > > INDIVIDUALS - > > $35 FEE: New, modification (upgrade and sequential call sign > change), renewal, and vanity call sign applications. All fees will > be per application. > > NO FEE: Administrative updates, such as a change of name, mailing or > email address, or license cancellation. > > AMATEUR RADIO CLUBS - > > $35 FEE: New, renewal, trustee change, and vanity call sign > applications. All fees will be per application. > > NO FEE: Administrative updates, such as a change of name, mailing or > email address, or license cancellation. > NNNN > /EX

3 3

[arrl-odv:32699] Latest ARISS report for your evening review
by Mark J Tharp 16 Aug '21

16 Aug '21

73.. Mark, HDX

1 0

[arrl-odv:32698] Typo in Document 26, Article 1-ARRL Articles of Association
by Kelly Wells 16 Aug '21

16 Aug '21

Good Afternoon: I am sorry to bother you with another email, but it was bought to my attention that the highlighted sentence in Article 1 is mistyped: The name of our corporation shall be The American Radio Relay League, Incorporated, also known as ARRL, the national associate on for Amateur Radio. Our corporation commenced its corporate existence as The American Radio Relay League, Incorporated, when its Articles of Association were approved by the Secretary of the State of Connecticut on January 29, 1915. The original Articles of Association were subscribed by Hiram Percy Maxim, Clarence D. Tuska and Lawrence A. Howard. The affairs of the corporation have since that time been continuously governed by a Board of Directors selected by the membership. Proposed July 2017, Minute 27 I have re-typed it to read: The name of our corporation shall be The American Radio Relay League, Incorporated, also known as ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio. Our corporation commenced its corporate existence as The American Radio Relay League, Incorporated, when its Articles of Association were approved by the Secretary of the State of Connecticut on January 29, 1915. The original Articles of Association were subscribed by Hiram Percy Maxim, Clarence D. Tuska and Lawrence A. Howard. The affairs of the corporation have since that time been continuously governed by a Board of Directors selected by the membership. Proposed July 2017, Minute 27 Kelly Wells Executive Assistant ARRL The National Association for Amateur Radio(r) Newington, CT 06111 860-594-0242 www.arrl.org<http://www.arrl.org>

1 0

[arrl-odv:32697] Final Draft-ARRL Articles of Association
by Kelly Wells 16 Aug '21

16 Aug '21

Good afternoon: I am aware that with the edits taking place, the text boxes in the Legal Structure Review Committee have shifted in the paragraph. I am correcting them now. Kelly -----Original Message----- From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces(a)reflector.arrl.org> On Behalf Of Kelly Wells Sent: Monday, August 16, 2021 1:35 PM To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:32696] Final (Draft) of the Board of Directors Second Meeting-Minutes Good Afternoon: Please consider this as the final draft after incorporating grammar edits. Please let me know if you have additional edits. Thank you, Kelly Wells Kelly Wells Executive Assistant ARRL The National Association for Amateur Radio® Newington, CT 06111 860-594-0242 www.arrl.org

1 0

[arrl-odv:32696] Final (Draft) of the Board of Directors Second Meeting-Minutes
by Kelly Wells 16 Aug '21

16 Aug '21

Good Afternoon: Please consider this as the final draft after incorporating grammar edits. Please let me know if you have additional edits. Thank you, Kelly Wells Kelly Wells Executive Assistant ARRL The National Association for Amateur Radio® Newington, CT 06111 860-594-0242 www.arrl.org

1 0

[arrl-odv:32695] No IMC Aug 17
by Niswander, Rick 15 Aug '21

15 Aug '21

There will be no IMC meeting on Tuesday, August 17. Frederick (Rick) Niswander, PhD, CPA, CGMA Professor of Accounting East Carolina University Greenville, NC 27858

1 0

[arrl-odv:32694] ECFSC Meeting Log-In and Agenda — Sunday, Aug. 15, 2021
by W2RU - ARRL 14 Aug '21

14 Aug '21

Here is the Zoom log-in information for the first meeting of the Emergency Communications and Field Services Committee. The pre-meeting agenda is attached. Currently we have more topics listed for EmComm than for either Field Services or Affiliated Clubs because Committee members had a head start at working on EmComm matters while on the EMDSC. A reminder: We will be following the same general protocol as A&F and PSC: 1. Please keep your audio muted except when recognized by the Chair (both committee members and other ODV attendees). 2. Non-committee attendees will be heard following discussion / comments by ECFSC members. 3. Non-committee attendees should kill their video except when speaking or a question of theirs is being answered. Bud, W2RU * * * * * Topic: ECFSC Meeting Date: Sunday, August 15, 2021 Time: 7:30 PM EDT 6:30 PM CDT 5:30 PM MDT 4:30 PM PDT Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86286257007?pwd=QWFGR2x1SXVYdisranVFaEFZR09tQT09 <https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86286257007?pwd=QWFGR2x1SXVYdisranVFaEFZR09tQT09> Meeting ID: 862 8625 7007 Passcode: 108267 One tap mobile +13017158592,,86286257007#,,,,*108267# US (Washington DC) +13126266799,,86286257007#,,,,*108267# US (Chicago) Dial by your location +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 862 8625 7007 Passcode: 108267 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kcTOtwph8v <https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kcTOtwph8v>

1 0

[arrl-odv:32693] Re: FCC Decision on RF Exposure Judicially Rejected in Part
by david davidsiddall-law.com 14 Aug '21

14 Aug '21

Art, No damages. But the FCC has to go back, consider whether there is credible evidence of non-cancer harm from radiation at levels below its current standard, and address this issue again. As the dissenting opinion points out that the Commission heretofore has been clear that it relies on the FDA, EPA, and related agencies that are directly charged with protecting the public health in these matters. But the Court found that the FCC cannot merely rely upon the conclusions of these expert agencies unless those agencies articulate fully in the FCC’s record the basis for their conclusions, even here when the Commission was asking questions in a Notice of Inquiry that did not propose to make rules changes on the matters and would have required further proceedings before it adopts any changes. The impact for amateur radio purposes is uncertain, but there is nothing positive here. Either the FCC will better justify on paper their conclusions that no change to the current standard relevant to the petitioners’ concerns is required; or that additional, and more strict limits should be considered to protect against non-cancer illnesses. I think it will be the former. But the fact that the Court declined to defer to the FCC’s reliance on the FDA conclusions, and seemed instead to require either that the FDA submit for the FCC’s record a full analysis backing its conclusions or the FCC itself independently evaluate FDA’s conclusions complicates the Commission’s work. 73, Dave K3ZJ From: "Arthur I. Zygielbaum" <aiz(a)ctwsoft.com> Date: Friday, August 13, 2021 at 1:43 PM To: "david(a)davidsiddall-law.com" <david(a)davidsiddall-law.com> Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:32684] FCC Decision on RF Exposure Judicially Rejected in Part Dave, Interesting. What effect would this have on the FCC or what action would it cause them to take? Or does it just make the federal government liable for damages? Art On 8/13/2021 11:58 AM, david davidsiddall-law.com wrote: ODV In what I can only describe as a highly unusual decision, today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit remanded to the FCC a case objecting to the Commission not changing its RF safety rules in 2019. “The Court found that the Commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer.” The case is Environmental Health Trust, Consumers for Safe Cell Phones, et al v. FCC, which can be read in full at this link: https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/FB976465BF00F8BD8525873…. For your background, the Environmental Health Trust (EHT) and 13 co-petitioners claimed the FCC violated several federal laws when the FCC decided in 2019 that no updates were needed to the Commission’s RF Safety rules and standards. The petitioners argued that there were “thousands of pages of research on the FCC record showing harmful effects from wireless radiofrequency radiation” that the Commission ignored. The basic proposition of these groups, as I understand it, is that cell phones and other wireless devices pose a risk to health. Should you want more information, the EHT website is at this link: https://ehtrust.org/eht-takes-the-fcc-to-court/. 73, Dave David R. Siddall Managing Partner DS Law, PLLC 1629 K St. NW, Ste 300 Washington, DC 20006 direct: +1 202 559 4690 Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited. This e-mail is intended solely for the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, it is prohibited to disclose, copy, distribute, or use the contents of this email and its attachments. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all electronic and physical copies of the e-mail message and its attachments. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of attorney-client or any other privilege. Thank you. _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv(a)reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv

1 0

[arrl-odv:32692] Re: 40m jamming
by david davidsiddall-law.com 14 Aug '21

14 Aug '21

Mickey, I think the subject jamming probably was that directed toward Radio Martí. I don’t remember any jamming from Cuba back then on the amateur bands. Radio Martí and the jamming started in the AM broadcast band, and then extended to SW frequencies, including 41M frequencies, which were within the upper amateur 40M band. This continues, but Radio Martí moved above 7.300 after the 41M broadcast allocations were changed. So it and the accompanying jamming no longer affect amateurs, but at one time it may have. And it so happens that an amateur who specialized in 40 meter contesting held down a day job as Under-Secretary of State around the time that Radio Martí started. Sandwiched among his many weightier responsibilities was international telecommunications. So while at the time I was peripherally involved elsewhere in Washington on jamming and related issues, but have no knowledge of anything like you describe, it wouldn’t totally surprise me. 73, Dave K3ZJ David R. Siddall Managing Partner DS Law, PLLC 1629 K St. NW, Ste 300 Washington, DC 20006 direct: +1 202 559 4690 Unauthorized Disclosure Prohibited. This e-mail is intended solely for the intended recipient(s) and may contain information that is proprietary, confidential or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, it is prohibited to disclose, copy, distribute, or use the contents of this email and its attachments. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all electronic and physical copies of the e-mail message and its attachments. Unintended transmission shall not constitute waiver of attorney-client or any other privilege. Thank you. From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces(a)reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of "Baker, Mickey, N4MB (Dir, SE)" <mbaker(a)arrl.org> Date: Friday, August 13, 2021 at 6:40 PM To: "Minster, David NA2AA (CEO)" <dminster(a)arrl.org>, arrl-odv <arrl-odv(a)arrl.org> Subject: [arrl-odv:32689] Re: 40m jamming Many member complaints. I can show the interference from here, loud, about -10dBm off a dipole. It appears to be a modulated square wave that lands on ONGOING Spanish speaking QSOs and stays there longer than a few minutes. On any given evening there are 4-8 of those, each occupying 6kHz of bandwidth. It is easy to find. The faculty sponsor at the Ga Tech ARC related a story to me about ARRL intervention with the Cuban Mission at the UN over a similar issue in the 1980s. It appeared that they were a lot more responsive to the ARRL than they were to the government. Maybe someone here recalls the details? 73, Mickey N4MB ________________________________ From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces(a)reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of Minster, David NA2AA (CEO) <dminster(a)arrl.org> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2021 4:35 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:32687] 40m jamming As an update: I asked Riley to engage the VMs to monitor 40m to determine whether they can confirm jamming is occurring and from roughly where. Riley’s VMs have observed jamming on 40m. However, the location of origin was inconclusive. Riley has also heard back from FCC that they are involved and are pursuing the matter, and that they have no further comment at this time. We were told this on two occasions in the past few weeks. It would appear that they may be handling through official channels. I don’t believe that there is anything else we need to do. We have been communicating with Laura Smith and she is very aware of the jamming reports. David

1 0