Jim, Chris may have a different take on this but mine is that the FCC's sin was committed four or five years ago. They should have acted at the time and at least one FCC attorney we spoke with at the time recognized that they should, but they didn't -- despite Chris's diligent badgering. Now, having had it sit this long and with no actual cases of harm to licensed amateurs, our pending item is being cleared out as part of the Commission's overall effort to clear out old, unaddressed business. This week the FCC put out two significant NPRMs relating to procedural efficiency and transparency. In connection with this effort to "reboot" the FCC they're trying to clear the decks. As for the next step, unfortunately there really is none to take until one of the two states in question takes unwarranted action against an amateur. We've essentially been told to come back when we have a real problem. Dave K1ZZ ________________________________ From: James F. Boehner MD [mailto:jboehner01@yahoo.com] Sent: Sat 2/27/2010 4:18 AM To: arrl-odv Cc: arrl-odv Subject: FCC denies ARRL declaratory ruling request This is disturbing on so many levels. The ARRL request basically "requested" the FCC to do their job, and not allow unqualified agencies do it for them. Perhaps like a police force that decides what they want to enforce, and have vigilantes do the rest. Monitoring Times has articles about Pirate Broadcasters in virtually every issue. If my memory serves me correctly, There was a major problem with pirate broadcasters in Florida. I believe the broadcast stations were "fed up" with slow action or inaction by the FCC, and resulted in Florida passing their law. I guess NJ just followed suit. In this age of accountability, it is sad that it will often take a lawsuit to have a federal agency follow their own rules, while private firms have government inspectors (sometimes with questionable qualifications) tell them what they have to do to be "compliant", or get fined. We know that the risk to licensed amateur radio operators in the two involved states is still high, even though enforcement has not occurred (yet). This is truly disappointing. Next step? '73 de JIM N2ZZ ARRL Vice Director Roanoke Division ARRL, the national association for Amateur Radio(tm) From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 12:36 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18615] FCC denies ARRL declaratory ruling request The FCC just released the attached denial of our request for a Declaratory Ruling preempting state legislation in Florida (and later, New Jersey) that we submitted FIVE YEARS ago. While Chris is disappointed, as am I, it's significant that the denial is not based on the merits of our argument but rather on the fact that in the intervening time there have been no reports of the statutes being used against radio amateurs. We are invited to "file a new petition for declaratory ruling in the event of changed circumstances." One obvious motivator for the Commission's action is that they are trying to clear out a huge pile of pending items, although we also have heard that they're not unhappy for the states to be going after pirate broadcasters. Dave K1ZZ <<DA-10-342A1.pdf>>