ODV,
Mickey, your attachments won’t open for me. I am familiar with the FCC correspondence, but not with the draft QEX article that I assume is very technical in nature (?). If it addresses SAR, it should be reviewed given that ARRL has pending
at the FCC a request for clarification that addresses the use of MPE as a surrogate for SAR with regard to (1) 137 kHz stations and (2) handheld/mobile units. I attached a copy of this request, which was distributed to the Board when filed and since has been
referred to the RFSC in the context of their discussions with the FCC staff.
In most cases, it is not difficult to demonstrate compliance with the FCC’s exposure requirement, including making any adjustments necessary comply. I’ve done it for my station, and I am an attorney, not an engineer of any sort. Too be
emphasized is that (1) the relevant FCC standards remain unchanged from those adopted in 1996; but (2), the method of demonstrating compliance is changing for radio amateurs because they no longer can take advantage of categorical exclusions that specifically
addressed typical amateur stations. (Example: for 40 meters, running 500 or fewer watts excluded the need to demonstrate compliance.) Categorical exclusion did NOT excuse one from compliance, however, in the strict legal sense. It just made it permissible
to rely upon the categorical exclusion if the installation was typical.
The RFSC in its discussions with the FCC staff is correctly focused on the difficult cases. To me, the news should be that the ARRL committee is working with the FCC to provide authoritative up-to-date information in FCC’s OET Bulletin
65B well before the new assessment requirements go into effect for existing stations in May, 2023.
The best current information to which ARRL members should be referred is at these two links:
http://www.arrl.org/rf-exposure
http://www.arrl.org/files/file/Technology/RFsafetyCommittee/RFXFAQ.pdf
There was talk several months ago that an article is urgently needed in QST explaining this to the average ham, and I assume that one is progressing. I know that CQ Magazine has one planned for an upcoming issue – I referred the authors
to the above links for ARRL information on the topic.
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: "david@davidsiddall-law.com" <david@davidsiddall-law.com>
Date: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 at 11:26 AM
To: 'ODV' <arrl-odv@arrl.org>
Subject: ARRL Requests Clarification Related to Application of RF Safety Rules
ODV,
The attached ARRL Request for Clarification was filed with the FCC to address use of MPE measurements to determine compliance in two instances (2200-meter operations and evaluation of handhelds and portables) that earlier had been covered
by the exemption that the new rules deleted.
Ed Hare at the League’s Lab provided the primary analysis and substantive review.
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@reflector.arrl.org> on behalf of "Baker, Mickey, N4MB (Dir, SE)" <mbaker@arrl.org>
Date: Sunday, May 30, 2021 at 2:11 PM
To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>
Subject: [arrl-odv:32431] Re: "RSFC dispatches" regarding the new FCC rules
Some of you have already seen this information from the RFSC. I had not, but the whole of these documents do illustrate relatively the difficulty of being compliant with the new RF exposure requirement.
I believe that sending this out as a news item is premature – it needs context for the average amateur to understand.
The reason I’m sending this to the Board is that this was emailed to several lists by the Southern Florida Section Manager this morning. You may be asked about it.
It includes a yet-to-be-published QEX article that Kai Siwiak warned about redistribution… yet the SM decided to distribute it widely. Sigh.
Preview attachment Gregory D Lapin Ex Parte
Disclosure 2021-05-06.pdf
Gregory D Lapin
Ex Parte Disclosure 2021-05-06.pdf
Preview attachment Gregory
D Lapin Ex Parte Disclosure 2021-05-26.pdf
Gregory
D Lapin Ex Parte Disclosure 2021-05-26.pdf
Preview attachment ##-QEX
2021-07 Tell Exposure Considerations.pdf
##-QEX
2021-07 Tell Exposure Considerations.pdf
Preview attachment ##-Ex
Parte Disclosure Letter for Meeting of 2021-04-12.pdf
##-Ex
Parte Disclosure Letter for Meeting of 2021-04-12.pdf
--
Mickey Baker
Director, Southeastern Division
ARRL
Phone (561) 320-2775
Email: n4mb@arrl.org
From: Kai <k.siwiak@ieee.org>
Date: Sun, May 30, 2021 at 7:38 AM
Subject: "RSFC dispatches" regarding the new FCC rules
To: Mickey Baker <fishflorida@gmail.com>
Hi Mickey,
For your information, here are Greg Lapin's first three Ex Parte disclosures
documenting our meetings with FCC folks regarding new RF Exposure rules.
These are part of the public disclosure on the matter, but they are hard to find
on the FCC web pages.
I am also enclosing Ric Tell's QEX manuscript (to be published in the
July/August 2021 QEX) dealing with SAR measurements. Do not distribute except
with the ARRL copyright notice and permission statement intact.
Everything is in a state of flux, but we are pedaling as fast as we can!
The usual "roundup of suspects" from RFSC volunteers are also meeting regularly
with the Radio Society of Great Britain (RSGB) hams to coordinate with Ofcom
efforts.
Kindest regards,
Kazimierz "Kai" Siwiak, KE4PT
Member ARRL RFSC
QEX Editor