I’ve had tremendous support in my local area and division regarding this effort. There are a lot of hams living in mobile home parks that would benefit from this, and who do have property on and around their home to erect an antenna. While section manager, a ham was successful in using PRB1 with the county, to keep a tower he erected without realizing it was not permitted. He did have to retain an attorney but was successful in working with the county to keep his tower based on PRB-1. If this is not pursued in a timely manner, I know there will be a lot of push-back, at least in Oregon, if not in more of the Northwestern Division. I’m asked for an update every month at my local club meeting. Bonnie AB7ZQ From: arrl-odv <arrl-odv-bounces@reflector.arrl.org> On Behalf Of G Widin Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2018 11:40 AM To: Fred Hopengarten <hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> Cc: W2RU@b2xonline.com; Ria Jairam <rjairam@gmail.com>; arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>; Mike Ritz <w7vo@comcast.net> Subject: [arrl-odv:27768] Re: DRAFT Petition for Rule Making, Amateur Radio Parity Act Fred, With regard to existing antennas, please note the language in the second paragraph of the proposed 97.15 c) which indicates it is not retroactive — “…with respect to antennas first installed after the effective date hereof,…” It sounds to me like existing installations are exempted. Of course, the real import of the new language is to give currently HOA-restricted amateurs a new legal tool to prevent their HOA from responding to a request with an automatic “no.” I agree that ARRL should not encourage behavior outside what is described; that part of the FAQ needs adjustment. Far from being “an end run” around Congress, seeking administrative instruction to the Commission is exactly what they asked us to do, in order for them to justify enacting appropriate language. If there’s an “end run” at all, it is around (soon to be ex-) Senator Nelson. All other members of the House and Senate have voted in favor of the ARPA, multiple times. This Petition is no different than the approach used when we asked for relief from local government restrictions that resulted in PRB1. The only difference is that this time we followed direct guidance from FCC as to the approach it wanted us to take to expand its rules to include HOA’s. Namely, seek substantial support from Congress to “encourage” FCC to use its jurisdiction to impose restrictions on HOA’s ability to limit/prohibit amateur antennas. Finally, nothing in the Petition prevents a future request for Rule-making if necessary. 73, Greg, K0GW On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:30 PM Fred Hopengarten <Fred@antennazoning.com <mailto:Fred@antennazoning.com> > wrote: Mr. Widin: I have made several comments that are interspersed in the FAQ. I am puzzled to learn that it could be possible, according to the FAQ, to willfully violate a federal regulation with a potential monetary forfeiture and not be an outlaw. Similarly, I am disheartened to learn that the ARRL might take a position that violations may be acceptable because “there would be no enforcement.” That doesn’t show much respect for law, does it? To be clear, I do not favor an end-run around the Congress with the NPRM I participated in drafting, when the drafting was done on the assumption that ARPA had passed and fixed the limits of FCC discretion. I do not favor the route now proposed. Fred Hopengarten, Esq. K1VR hopengarten@post.harvard.edu <mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> Six Willarch Road Lincoln, MA 01773 antennazoning.com <http://antennazoning.com> 781.259.0088 From: G Widin [mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net <mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net> ] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 6:21 PM To: Michel, Howard, Wb2Itx Cc: arrl-odv; rjairam@gmail.com <mailto:rjairam@gmail.com> ; W2RU@b2xonline.com <mailto:W2RU@b2xonline.com> ; Mike Ritz; hopengarten@post.harvard.edu <mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:27759] DRAFT Petition for Rule Making, Amateur Radio Parity Act (Administrative Implementation) There is obviously some history behind what is in the petition, and how it got to be the way it is. Because not everyone may be aware of this background, I thought it would be helpful to prepare a "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) document providing some of this information. This might also become a good basis for communication to members. I've attached the FAQ as a Word document. I'm sure there will be suggestions for change, and I invite these, as they will help improve the document. 73, Greg, K0GW On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:56 AM Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) <wb2itx@arrl.org <mailto:wb2itx@arrl.org> > wrote: During its electronic meeting on 12/12/18, the Executive Committee approved the filing on the Amateur Radio Parity Act petition for rule making with the FCC, which had been previously authorized by the Board, before December 31, 2018. Meeting minutes are being prepared and will be made available shortly. The Committee authorized sharing the petition with the 2018 and 2019 Board. It is attached. Please note that this petition has not yet been made public, and it should not be shared outside this group. Please share any comments about the petition with Atty Imlay as soon as practical. 73, Howard, WB2ITX -- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel@arrl.org <mailto:hmichel@arrl.org> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org <mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link> www.avast.com