Greetings. with thanks toall of the officers for helpful edits and to the Executive Committee for a quick review and approval of the attached document, here is an as-filed, *ex parte* written statement in the open docket proceeding governing service rules for the 2200-meter band and allocation and service rules for the 630-meter band. We prepared this in an effort to head off what I was told by an OET staff person is FCC's intention in the Report and Order finalizing the service rules for the 2200-meter and 630-meter bands. FCC told me recently that their intention is to place in a Report and Order in this docket a requirement for *all amateurs* who wish to operate in either band, regardless of whether their stations are or are not closer than 1 kilometer to a transmission line; regardless of whether that line is or is not carrying PLC, and regardless of what frequencies a PLC system is using, to notify UTC of the intent to operate and wait 30 days for a negative option approval from UTC. This is untenable. We tried to meet with FCC about this but UTC, which OET would want to be there, refused to do the meeting. So OET won't meet with us for an oral ex parte presentation. The filing of a written *ex parte* statement is our only procedural recourse. There was some urgency to the filing of this. FCC has this Docket on their work calendar for the first quarter of this year and that ends at the end of this month, so we wanted to file this quickly so as to have a better chance of it's being considered substantively by OET. I should say that this draft does NOT disclose the fact that FCC has given us insider trading about what their tentative plans are. But the information we received is 100 percent reliable. We are protecting a rather candid source within OET who cautioned us not to "out" them and we have not. So if this reads cryptically with respect to the source of our concern, that is why. I am pessimistic about our ability to change OET's mind about this. Here is why: UTC is clearly not going to want to disclose to us or anyone else the database of PLCs. They use PLCs for switching in the power grid and, as stupid as that is, using non-interference-protected technology for that sensitive purpose does worry FCC a good deal. Dave Sumner and I are of the view that UTC's database is probably not complete and if that is true they are not at all going to want to share it and reveal its inadequacies in any case. I also think that these new Amateur allocations are UTC's gold mine for membership recruitment and revenue generation. UTC has always been focused almost completely on land mobile Part 90 issues. They are the Part 90 coordinator for critical infrastructure VHF and UHF licensing. That has been their area of expertise and focus for years. Now comes a threat to LF PLCs. It may be old technology but there is a lot of it still out there. Now UTC has a role that they can play as the protector of LF and MF PLC systems and that is a great way to cause utilities to join UTC. UTC also charges a fee for updating the database of PLCs that they have to maintain by FCC rule. They get money that way. So even if the database is garbage, they can persuade utilities to join UTC and to update the PLC database and get paid for the privilege of doing it. For FCC, the very safest thing to do when creating a new Amateur allocation in a band that has PLCs in it is to allow UTC to keep the database to themselves, and require all amateurs who want to operate in the band to contact UTC and to allow UTC to give yea or nay answers on a case by case basis to every ham who inquires. FCC does not want to suffer the bad PR for allowing some uncontrolled hams from mistaking a transmission line for a distribution line and to fail to give a notice that might cause a switching problem. The point is, they don't know what to expect. So the "everyone has to notify" policy is safe for FCC. We have in any case insisted on a technically,quantitatively justified explanation for any denial in the rare cases that a ham will be within 1 km of a PLC-carrying transmission line that uses all or part of either new Amateur allocation. Looking at the cup as being half-full, we are going to get both of these two allocations. The notification requirements will fall where they may, but this is still a big win for ARRL and for Amateur Radio generally. 73, Chris W3KD -- Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret & Imlay, LLC 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG