Greetings. As an important postscript to yesterday's memo to the Board about our Section 97.113 lobbying effort and other FCC lobbying activities, this is the last update on this subject. Briefly, today, Dave and I met with the usual large crowd from the Office of Engineering and Technology, as we had been invited to do by Julius Knapp when we saw him in passing on the 8th floor during our first round of Section 97.113 meetings with the Commissioners' offices. We made the same pitch to the OET folks about BPL, and handed them our briefing paper on the subject (copy attached to refresh your recollection; you have received this before, however). We had a valuable exchange of views that led Dave and me to conclude that we should document in the BPL rulemaking record our basis for contending that virtually all BPL companies with presently operating systems have implemented full time notching of Amateur allocations to a notch depth of minus 35 dB. We made our argument that we have a "win-win" solution to BPL regulation, a point we have made numerous times to OET already. We also noted that there is an outstanding interference complaint that we are in the process of documenting. Bruce Romano at OET was most interested in this and challenged us about it, as he has repeatedly at meetings on this subject that he has attended. He is not our friend on this issue, but his probing questions have been helpful to us in deciding what tactically we need to do "next" in the BPL proceeding. We then asked about the long-pending status of the 5 MHz channel modification petition, RM-11353. Knapp was sheepish about this, and promised to move it as and NPRM soon; It is drafted and ready for FCC consideration. Knapp made some reference to hoping that a simple order could be issued, but he could not have been serious, and Geri Matise, his lawyer, said correctly, and in no uncertain terms that this would have to be an NPRM. We think Julie was trying to placate us somewhat. They also made reference to the possibility of a future upgrade of our status at 1900-2000 kHz, which was welcome and unexpected, but we won't hold our breath on that until we see something coming from OET. Finally, Dave alerted them to a possible PLT threat on the horizon in the 80-200 MHz band, which of course includes 2 meters. We did not have to explain the impact of such a problem; they were well-aware that any interference threat to 2 meters from PLT systems would not be tolerated by ARRL. Finally, Dave explained our efforts with respect to a medium frequency allocation. Overall, this was more cordial than prior recent OET meetings, and we do expect finally to see an NPRM on 5 MHz channels soon, perhaps this Spring. Our second meeting today was the last of our meetings on 97.113. We have completed our aggressive lobbying effort for the Board's Section 97.113 proposal, and the favorable reception that we have had from the Commissioners' offices, and from the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau was well-taken. We met with Admiral Jamie Barnett, the Chief of PSHSB, and his deputy, David Firth, the author of the draft NPRM that is before the Commission now. After this meeting, we are relatively certain that the draft does exactly what we are told it does: it would allow employees to conduct Amateur Radio communications on behalf of their employers during government sponsored drills and exercises. While we explained the reasons why the Board's language is more appropriate, the draft from PSHSB had already gone to the Commissioners before the Board met, and therefore, the draft on the 8th floor is largely out of PSHSB's hands at the moment. While we are hoping that one or more of the Commissioners' offices will cause the draft that PSHSB sent up there before the Board meeting will be modified before it is released, it is not now for the PSHSB to unilaterally change the draft sent up to the Commissioners long ago. Barnett and Firth urged us to note in any comments why drills and training exercises that are not government sponsored should be permitted. We will of course do that. We warned them that they should expect a large number of comments on this issue, and they well understood the importance of this to the Amateur community. We told them that we had been told by the Chairman's office that the Board version of 97.113(a) dovetailed largely with the PSHSB version, and they essentially agreed. Their interest was in having the NPRM released by FCC soon, and we told them that we anticipated it quite soon; probably shortly after "Job #1" (the National Broadband Plan) was completed and sent to Congress, which it must be by March 17. Speaking only for myself here, I believe that we have as aggressively as possible advocated the Board's version of Section 97.113, and we can report accurately that it was well-received by the Commissioners and by the PSHSB staff. Please do not expect that the Board's language will appear in the NPRM when it is released by the Commission. While we can hope that one or more of the Commissioners' offices will ask that such be done, or that the PSHSB version will be amended prior to releasing the document, the more likely outcome is that we will have to file comments urging the substitution of the Board's language for that of the earlier-prepared NPRM draft from PSHSB. That said, we have positioned the Commission as well as we can at this point to ultimately adopt the conceptual framework of the Board's version of 97.113, if not the specific words. 73, and good DX contest weekend to all. Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper. P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG