In response to Mike’s message of 2-24-16: In some ways this approach may be better for PRB-1’s future. As someone who has advised maybe a hundred or more hams in PRB-1 case for over 30 years, I firmly believe in separating the rules applying to PRB-1 cases involving freely owned land without any private restriction, from rules for restricted HOA and CC&R lands. The law should evolve separately. Our PRB-1 case law, which is mixed as it is and not that great, should never be muddled and reduced with to-be-expected decisions on the application of PRB-1 to private restrictions. That will happen I am afraid. I am sure interpretation of PBR-1 in applications to CC&R situations will serve to water down the “full version” case law resulting from cases where there is no complication from private restrictions and also enough land to reasonably support something proposed by a ham. That would be a serious problem in my view. While I would like to see HOA restrictions eased, one can at least appreciate the opposition’s needs. Now, allow me to make some observations about this language which provides CAI some serious loopholes. Sec. 3 contains the meat. BTW, I do realize that troublesome language compromise may be necessary given how legislation is made. Remember the cliché about not watching how sausage is made. Non-intrusive use of common areas without permanent installations might have been nice in a compromise, but perhaps is out of reach now, at this point in the deal. I’ve tried to work deals like that for hams. Some of the below suggestions is likely a bridge too far for HOA hams, but, consider this: 1. In sec 3 (b): What if the HOA never adopts any standard? They are not required to adopt a standard, just “may” establish standards – which of course, they could always do anyway. Idea is to require them to adopt standards . Can those standards preclude bands? Can they say only 2 meter or other small VHF vertical is allowed? In some situations, they may be justified. Others, not. Suggestion: Where no standard has been adopted by the HOA, the default shall be a standard created by the FCC (or we provide a default of some sort). 2. There is no distinction between HOA where each home is on five acres, and HOA where all the ham owns is a city apartment with little access to reasonably expansive outside areas. Suggestion: We may consider negotiating several situations – a step-ladder approach, where larger properties with more privacy get more privileges that smaller property with less privacy. a. Apartment-like condo ownership, where the only area under routine exclusive use by the applicant for permission is a lanai, porch, or perhaps less – just a window that opens to the world. In that case, maybe a ham may put an antenna on the roof, not to exceed 20 feet in height, and set back at least 10 feet from the nearest edge of the roof and meeting all safety codes. That is likely not going to happen though. These hams may be just out of luck. b. Common wall townhomes – where minimally visible antennas may be erected that do not interfere with landscaping machinery (grass mowers and trimmers and such) and small wires may be erected in the woods out back, with feed lines underground. Antennas not visible to the naked eye from a public way are permitted. c. Stand alone homes – where the HOA maintains the lawns and driveways, where minimally visible antennas may be erected that do not interfere with landscaping machinery, and small wires may be erected in the woods out back, with feed lines underground. Antennas not visible to the naked eye from a public way are permitted. d. Stand alone homes – where the HOA does NOT maintain the lawns and driveways, antennas , lots exceeding perhaps 0.25 acres or more with some such standard including common area. Reasonable accommodation under the PRB-1 standard. 3. Sec 3 (b): Discusses “effective, efficient” antennas. What does this mean? If the HOA allows effective antennas on two meters and 440 MHZ FM, but not HF, does that meet the requirements of the statute? That argument requires 8 hours of evidence presentation alone and expert witnesses. 4. “on frequencies allocated thereto by the Commission” - OK, you can have a full length whip antenna on 2 and 440. But what if the ham wants to rag chew with his old buddies on 80 meter SSB? Or 160 meter AM and the HOA interprets that differently? The language suggests some and not all (which we know it cannot be all). Why can’t he have an OCF or end-fed (EFHW?) wire #16 or less to the trees? Again, we certainly understand in some situations the ham will necessarily be out of luck and frankly cannot operate HF from a town house or condo. Frankly, my initial legal advice to such hams who call me as a Volunteer Counsel to complain about HOA or CC&R is still –move! - As harsh as it is. 5. Can we define minimally visible something like #16 or #18 wire or less, at least 15 feet from any neighbor’s boundary line? 6. The language is not personal to the applicant: Does not allow frequencies that this particular amateur wants to use, for communications to areas he intends to reach, i.e., does not echo PRB-1 “communications he/she desires.” But again, understandably, maybe it cannot in many situations. 7. Should allow: “minimally visible outdoor antennas” that do not require antenna support structures (i.e., wire to trees, or wires in trees, verticals, Buddipoles or ground planes no higher than 12 feet (why 12 feet? That’s the height of a basketball net with backboard you see at many HOA developments), and should allow non-permanent (no concrete) support structures with antennas up to 12 feet in height on common area adjacent to, and normally under the exclusive use of the applicant. 8. Maybe a step-ladder (larger common area, larger non-common area) approach could be negotiated. It may be too late for that at this point. This might be argued to address the CAI concerns they articulate. We all might agree we do not argue even a lightweight self-supporting short tower with several antennas in most townhouse situations, but maybe in single family suburban/semi-rural one, two or more acre HOA developments that are common enough. And I do like: (c) The Commission shall make no change in Section 97.15(b) of Title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, which will remain applicable to State and municipal land use regulation of amateur radio communications. This actually works for us. (No change to 97.15(b) needed I would observe, of course, until we get legislation with cleaner definitions of what PRB-1 case law struggles to define with mixed results. A shortened, simplified “Telecommunications Act of 1996” type law with clean, more objective definitions just for licensed radio amateurs should be our long-term project/goal. Judges, zoning boards and town managers or lawyers always ask me something like “what the hell does reasonable accommodation mean”? Then we are off to the races. Some state statutes are much better than PRB-1 is now in that regard. We can do much better. My 2 cents worth. Thanks for reading this. No refunds will be offered. 73. See you on the radio. Bob Famiglio, K3RF Vice Director, ARRL Atlantic Division 610-359-7300 www.QRZ.com/db/K3RF