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
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
73 Joel W5ZN