Yes, Dave, Section 97.19 IS badly worded. And there are actually two loopholes that would allow a club to have an unlimited number of club call signs despite the language in that revised Section and Section 97.17(d) as amended by the Order. Here's why: (1) a club could simply have multiple trustees, as you note; or (2) the same trustee could get multiple FRNs and use his or her own name multiple times. The ULS goes by FRN, not name, because licensees can have the same name and be two different persons. You can have multiple FRNs for the same Social Security Number or EIN (I know this because I do, and so do some of my clients). So, in order to fool the ULS (though perhaps not its successor, the consolidated database system now under development) it is easy to register for any number of FRNs and therefore any number of club licenses. As to the FCC's rather brusque dismissal of ARRL's proposals to increase the availability of Group A callsigns and other helpful proposals, the Executive Committee discussed, since we knew in advance that FCC was going to not adopt our proposals, how to respond. We discussed the two alternatives, depending on how the FCC addressed our proposals. If they simply said they were beyond the scope of the rulemaking, we would consider filing a separate petition for issuance of further rulemaking or a stand-alone petition. However, if the FCC dealt with our proposals substantively, we would have no choice but to either (1) forget it, or (2) file a Petition for Reconsideration. Since the FCC did in fact deal with our proposals in a substantive manner (albeit tersely and summarily, and in my view not well) we can either abandon the proposals or file a Petition for Reconsideration. The politics of the matter do not seem overly favorable to us, but now that this order is out, perhaps the EC might want to revisit the issue of ARRL's response to this Report and Order. There is time to consider this. A Petition for Reconsideration is due within 30 days of the date of publication of the Order in the Federal Register, which of course has not yet occurred and may not for a few weeks. 73, 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 -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ <dsumner@arrl.org> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Mon, Nov 8, 2010 12:48 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:19507] RE: [arrl-odv:19506] Vanity call sign Report and Order I have read this over. The only possibly controversial parts that I have spotted are: 1. Club station trustees are limited to being trustee for one club. Present trustees are grandfathered. (New 97.17(d)). 2. The R&O says (paragraph 30) that clubs are limited to one vanity call sign, with existing holders grandfathered. However, as I read the rules as adopted, the FCC is assuming that a club can only name one person as a club station trustee. There appears to be a loophole that will permit a club to apply for multiple vanity call signs if they appoint multiple trustees. (Note to Chris Imlay: Chris, am I reading new 97.19(a) correctly? It looks badly worded to me.) 3. Unrelated to vanity call signs, the FCC chose to use this proceeding to delete the rule pertaining to RACES stations – which makes sense since there are no longer any RACES station licenses, but which probably will set off a flurry of comment that “the FCC has killed RACES.” 4. None of our proposals to expand the pools of available call signs were adopted, nor was our proposal to limit vanity call signs to U.S. citizens. Dave K1ZZ From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Monday, November 08, 2010 11:49 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:19506] Vanity call sign Report and Order I haven’t read this yet. Dave <<FCC-10-189A1.pdf>> =