Forwarded per Fred's request Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA<x-apple-data-detectors://14> Telephone: +1 860-594-0404<tel:+1%20860-594-0404> email: hmichel@arrl.org<mailto:hmichel@arrl.org> Begin forwarded message: From: Fred Hopengarten <Fred@antennazoning.com<mailto:Fred@antennazoning.com>> Date: December 15, 2018 at 4:52:07 PM EST To: 'G Widin' <gpwidin@comcast.net<mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net>> Cc: "'Michel, Howard, Wb2Itx'" <wb2itx@arrl.org<mailto:wb2itx@arrl.org>>, 'arrl-odv' <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org>>, 'Ria Jairam' <rjairam@gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>>, <W2RU@b2xonline.com<mailto:W2RU@b2xonline.com>>, 'Mike Ritz' <w7vo@comcast.net<mailto:w7vo@comcast.net>> Subject: RE: [arrl-odv:27759] DRAFT Petition for Rule Making, Amateur Radio Parity Act Reply-To: <hopengarten@post.harvard.edu<mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu>> Greg, Good exchange. See comments interspersed. Thanks. -Fred K1VR From: G Widin [mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2018 2:40 PM To: Fred Hopengarten Cc: Michel, Howard, Wb2Itx; arrl-odv; Ria Jairam; W2RU@b2xonline.com<mailto:W2RU@b2xonline.com>; Mike Ritz Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:27759] DRAFT Petition for Rule Making, Amateur Radio Parity Act Fred, With regard to existing antennas, please note the language in the second paragraph of the proposed 97.15 c) which indicates it is not retroactive — “…with respect to antennas first installed after the effective date hereof,…” It sounds to me like existing installations are exempted. K1VR: Yes, existing installations are exempted in the PROPOSED NRPM. This saving grace was not included in the original ARPA. The proposed ARRL Request for Rule Making claims that “The specific language for the single rule change proposed in the attached Appendix represents a full and complete accommodation reached (at the urging of House and Senate members of the respective committees of jurisdiction) between ARRL and the Community Associations Institute (CAI), the only national association representing HOAs.” Yet the specific language proposed includes tweaks like the one you’ve caught above--to which CAI did not agree. And there are others. Of course, the real import of the new language is to give currently HOA-restricted amateurs a new legal tool to prevent their HOA from responding to a request with an automatic “no.” I agree that ARRL should not encourage behavior outside what is described; that part of the FAQ needs adjustment. Far from being “an end run” around Congress, seeking administrative instruction to the Commission is exactly what they asked us to do, in order for them to justify enacting appropriate language. K1VR: I don’t understand. In seeking the passage of ARPA, ARRL was “(f)ollowing the Commission’s directive to seek Congressional guidance.” W3KD Proposed Petition for Rule Making at para. 55. But the Congress has not spoken. Many have spoken, but not the Congress. The Congress only acts as a body when both houses vote affirmatively and a law is forwarded to the President for his signature. That has not happened. Congress having failed to act, seeking a Rule Making is indeed an end run. The FCC did not seek instruction from the administration, it sought “a statutory directive.” See below. If there’s an “end run” at all, it is around (soon to be ex-) Senator Nelson. All other members of the House and Senate have voted in favor of the ARPA, multiple times. K1VR: Yes, this is an end run around Sen. Nelson. As he has prevented the Senate from acting as a body, I am unaware that, excepting Sen. Nelson, “all members of the . . . Senate have voted in favor of ARPA, multiple times.” Perhaps you can point me to those 99 votes, multiple times, as I just don’t know that this has happened. As an example, is there one instance when Sen. McConnell, the Majority Leader of the Senate, has voted in favor of ARPA? This Petition is no different than the approach used when we asked for relief from local government restrictions that resulted in PRB1. K1VR: True. But we tried this before and the FCC said no, get a law passed first. See below for the FCC’s exact words. Worse, on its face, this petition is no different than the approach used when we asked for relief from CC&Rs the last few times. The only difference is that this time we followed direct guidance from FCC as to the approach it wanted us to take to expand its rules to include HOA’s. Namely, seek substantial support from Congress to “encourage” FCC to use its jurisdiction to impose restrictions on HOA’s ability to limit/prohibit amateur antennas. K1VR: I have not understood that the FCC’s request was for “substantial support from Congress.” Instead of “substantial support,” or “guidance,” what the FCC actually wrote was: “[S]hould Congress see fit to enact a statutory directive mandating the expansion of our reasonable accommodation policy, the Commission would expeditiously act to fulfill its obligation thereunder.” (Emphasis added.) https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/mobility-division/amateur-radi..., para. 8 Finally, nothing in the Petition prevents a future request for Rule-making if necessary. K1VR: This raises the question: Is the reason for submitting the petition now because (1) the Congress has had elections and there will be different players in the Congress before January is over? Or, (2) the ARRL has had elections and there will be different players on the Board before January is over? If we can submit a “future request for rule-making,” why not – in the future? I really don’t want to get turned down by the FCC again. (Is it fair to say that the FCC ruled against a move on CC&Rs in 1985, 1999 and 2001? Are we “0 for 3” at the FCC? I’ve lost track of how many times we’ve lost this bid.) NOTE TO WB2ITX: Please forward this response to ODV, as I am not on the Board, having declined to sign the NDA. – Fred, K1VR 73, Greg, K0GW On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:30 PM Fred Hopengarten <Fred@antennazoning.com<mailto:Fred@antennazoning.com>> wrote: Mr. Widin: I have made several comments that are interspersed in the FAQ. I am puzzled to learn that it could be possible, according to the FAQ, to willfully violate a federal regulation with a potential monetary forfeiture and not be an outlaw. Similarly, I am disheartened to learn that the ARRL might take a position that violations may be acceptable because “there would be no enforcement.” That doesn’t show much respect for law, does it? To be clear, I do not favor an end-run around the Congress with the NPRM I participated in drafting, when the drafting was done on the assumption that ARPA had passed and fixed the limits of FCC discretion. I do not favor the route now proposed. Fred Hopengarten, Esq. K1VR hopengarten@post.harvard.edu<mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> Six Willarch Road Lincoln, MA 01773 antennazoning.com<http://antennazoning.com> 781.259.0088 From: G Widin [mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net<mailto:gpwidin@comcast.net>] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 6:21 PM To: Michel, Howard, Wb2Itx Cc: arrl-odv; rjairam@gmail.com<mailto:rjairam@gmail.com>; W2RU@b2xonline.com<mailto:W2RU@b2xonline.com>; Mike Ritz; hopengarten@post.harvard.edu<mailto:hopengarten@post.harvard.edu> Subject: Re: [arrl-odv:27759] DRAFT Petition for Rule Making, Amateur Radio Parity Act (Administrative Implementation) There is obviously some history behind what is in the petition, and how it got to be the way it is. Because not everyone may be aware of this background, I thought it would be helpful to prepare a "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ) document providing some of this information. This might also become a good basis for communication to members. I've attached the FAQ as a Word document. I'm sure there will be suggestions for change, and I invite these, as they will help improve the document. 73, Greg, K0GW On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 10:56 AM Michel, Howard, WB2ITX (CEO) <wb2itx@arrl.org<mailto:wb2itx@arrl.org>> wrote: During its electronic meeting on 12/12/18, the Executive Committee approved the filing on the Amateur Radio Parity Act petition for rule making with the FCC, which had been previously authorized by the Board, before December 31, 2018. Meeting minutes are being prepared and will be made available shortly. The Committee authorized sharing the petition with the 2018 and 2019 Board. It is attached. Please note that this petition has not yet been made public, and it should not be shared outside this group. Please share any comments about the petition with Atty Imlay as soon as practical. 73, Howard, WB2ITX -- Howard E. Michel, WB2ITX Chief Executive Officer ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio® 225 Main Street, Newington, CT 06111-1494 USA Telephone: +1 860-594-0404 email: hmichel@arrl.org<mailto:hmichel@arrl.org> _______________________________________________ arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org<mailto:arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv [https://ipmcdn.avast.com/images/icons/icon-envelope-tick-round-orange-animated-no-repeat-v1.gif]<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon> Virus-free. www.avast.com<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>