As was previously reported to you, earlier this month meetings were scheduled at FCC with the PSHSB and the Chairman's office. The bulk of the report below is from Chris Imlay's notes and as such should be considered Attorney-Client privilege. The first meeting was with Jamie Barnett, Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, to discuss with PSHSB their position on Section 97.113. This you will recall was a meeting called for by the Executive Committee at their most recent meeting in Dallas. It was a recommendation from Bill Cross, who had urged us to meet with PSHSB due to that Bureau's disagreement with the WTB's Mobility Division on the subject of further relaxation of the rule banning communications on behalf of one's employer. Our goal, per the EC's direction, was to determine the thinking of the PSHSB. The fear going into this meeting was that it would not be possible for us to ferret out their thinking, since the normal procedure at FCC is for presentations to be made to the staff instead. We did bring along copies of the Board's Paper Commercialization of Amateur Radio: The Rules, The Risks, The Issues. Before the meeting, Dave suggested that we call Bill Cross to tell him that we were having the meeting that he had recommended. It was a good thing we did, as it turned out. Bill told us that he and Scot Stone would be at the meeting, and that he was aware that PSHSB was in the process of drafting a Notice of Proposed Rule Making to modify Section 97.113 to create in the rules an exception to the "no communications on behalf of one's employer" prohibition that would be co-extensive with the waiver policy now in effect that is being administered by WTB. In other words, the proposal would permit Amateurs to participate in government-sponsored, emergency communications drills and exercises on behalf of one's employer. This was a surprise in one respect, and not in another. It was surprising that, WTB supposedly having just won the jurisdictional battle over which Bureau was going to administer the Amateur Service rules, the PSHSB was drafting an NPRM that would modify a specific Part 97 section. It was no surprise that FCC intended to codify the waiver process, so as to eliminate the administrative burden inevitably created by this unusual waiver process. At the meeting, we were introduced to Rear Admiral (Ret.) Jamie Barnett, a quite engaging person, ; his Deputy Chief, David Furth, a long time FCC staff person; Bill Lane, Chief Engineer for the PSHSB; Suzanne Tetreault, Deputy Chief of the Enforcement Bureau; and Cross and Stone from Mobility Division, WTB. Dave began discussing, by way of getting the issues on the table, the inherent conflict between the desire of most radio Amateurs to demonstrate the extensive capabilities of their avocation and to help where it is needed, and the need to insure that Amateur Radio's role remains as it is intended, and does not become a convenient, inexpensive substitute for Part 90 or Part 95 land mobile radio. Barnett, perceptively, asked whether it wasn't a conflict easily and normally resolved by the exercise of "self-restraint" on the part of Amateur licensees in determining what is proper and what is not in terms of communications furnished to served agencies. We noted that in fact, it really was not; that there were pressures brought to bear (for example by employers who want to recruit employees who are hams to provide business restoration communications) on Amateurs, and Amateurs typically are willing to be as helpful as possible. At no time did anyone from PSHSB mention during the meeting that PSHSB was preparing an NPRM, though David Furth (who Cross later identified as the draftsman) was feverishly taking notes as we were talking. At one point, Chris mentioned that we were aware that there was not complete agreement between PSHSB and WTB on the Section 97.113 issue. This, the PSHSB people were quick to deny; Cross and Stone simply looked sheepish. In terms of gathering information about PSHSB's attitudes about the business communications rule, there is relatively little success to claim. Barnett cut it off after about 25 minutes, saying he had another appointment, so we left, accompanied by Cross, who we met with for a time in the cafeteria at FCC to discuss the meeting and other subjects. Cross is clearly of the opinion that there are no changes needed to 97.113, but he made it sound as though PSHSB was working with WTB on the codification of the "government sponsored drill" exception to Section 97.113(a)(3) so it was all fine. Incidentally, we understand the draft NPRM has been drafted by PSHSB and sent to WTB. The timing of the release of the NPRM (i.e. before or after the January Board meeting) is unknown. The EC had decided to prepare for the Board an "options paper" for Section 97.113, which Chris has drafted and sent to the EC for review. It seems timely for the Board to consider that, because there are now two petitions on file at FCC (neither having been given an RM number yet apparently) to change 97.113. One option is to support the PSHSB "government sponsored drill" exception, or some version of that concept, in lieu of any other changes to Section 97.113. The options paper will be sent to you in a day or two as soon as the EC finished their review. The second meeting in Chairman Genachowski's office was with Ms. Priya Aiyar, the Legal Advisor for Wireline Competition and International Issues. She did not have much to say at all during our presentation, which was about BPL and the results of the Court remand, and our expectations from the Further Notice in Docket 04-37. This completed our lobbying effort following our comments in the BPL proceeding. We were left with the impression that BPL was not an issue that meant much to the Chairman's office, but we were very careful, knowing of the Chairman's preoccupation with Broadband rollout, to note our support for broadband and the absence of our opposition to BPL save for its interference potential. We also emphasized the fact that our solution to the interference potential would resolve the regulatory uncertainty that has undoubtedly harmed BPL deployment. Our meeting was about 20 minutes long. 73 Joel W5ZN