Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of ) WT Docket No. 98-143
)
1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- ) RM-9148
Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's ) RM-9150
Amateur Service Rules. ) RM-9196
)
)
NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
Adopted: July 29, 1998 Released: August 10, 1998
Comment Date: December 1, 1998
Reply Comment Date: January 15, 1999
By the Commission: Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth issuing a statement.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. We are initiating this proceeding as part of our 1998 biennial review of regulations pursuant to Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended.[1] Section 11 requires us to review all our regulations applicable to providers of telecommunications service and determine whether any rule is no longer in the public interest as a result of meaningful economic competition between providers of telecommunications services, and whether such regulations should be deleted or modified. In conjunction with our biennial review of regulations required under Section 11, however, we believe it is appropriate to review all of our regulations relating to administering wireless services, not just those pertaining to providers of telecommunications services, to determine which regulations can be streamlined or eliminated.[2]
2. With this Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Notice), we commence a proceeding to examine our rules for the Amateur Radio Service in an effort to eliminate unnecessary and duplicative rules, as well as to streamline our licensing processes. We also examine streamlining initiatives for the Amateur Radio Service in addition to those already described in our proposals concerning the Universal Licensing System (ULS).[3]
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3. In this Notice, we propose to modify our Amateur Radio Service rules as follows:
4. We seek comment on ideas for improving our enforcement processes as they relate to amateur radio.
5. We also seek comment on changes to the telegraphy requirements for the amateur radio service and to the written examinations that must be passed to qualify for an amateur radio license.
6. Finally, we dispose of various routine and repetitive petitions for rule making which concern matters on which the Commission already has acted.
III. BACKGROUND
7. Amateur radio operators engage in voluntary, noncommercial communications with other amateur operators located in the United States and in foreign countries. The Amateur Radio Service is for persons of any age who are interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.[4] It presents an opportunity for self-training, intercommunication and technical investigation. Millions of amateur operators in all areas of the world communicate with each other directly or through ad hoc relay systems. They exchange messages by voice, teleprinting, telegraphy, digital packets, facsimile and television. All frequencies are shared. No frequency is assigned for the exclusive use of any amateur station. When normal communication systems have been overloaded, damaged or disrupted because a disaster has occurred, or is likely to occur, amateur operators repeatedly have provided essential communications links and facilitated relief actions on a purely voluntary basis.
8. There are currently six classes of amateur operator licenses. The higher the license class, the more expertise the licensee must demonstrate by examination and the greater the frequency privileges the amateur operator is authorized.[5] Novice Class licensees pass a slow speed telegraphy examination and have limited frequency privileges. The Technician Class license holder may use any of seventeen frequency bands above 50 MHz. Holders of the Technician Plus Class have additional privileges in four shortwave bands, between 3-30 MHz. The General Class carries privileges in all twenty-seven amateur service bands. The privileges of an Advanced Class licensee includes 275 kHz of additional spectrum in the high frequency (HF) bands. The frequency privileges of an Amateur Extra Class includes access to an additional 175 kHz in the HF bands. The class for which each examinee is qualified is determined by the degree of skill and knowledge in operating a station that the examinee demonstrates at the examination.
9. The Amateur Radio Service rules are designed to provide emergency communications, advance radio technology, improve operator skills, enhance international goodwill, and expand the number of trained operators, technicians and electronic experts.[6] The last major restructuring of the Amateur Radio Service rules took place in 1989.[7] At that time, we eliminated unnecessary rules and simplified complex terminology to create a more meaningful and easy-to-use body of regulations. In view of advanced communication techniques, this is an opportune time to consider additional ways to streamline and simplify the Amateur Radio Service Rules by conforming them to contemporary technological advances in the art of radio communication.
10. Three petitions for rule making filed by The American Radio Relay League, Inc. (ARRL) are also addressed in this Notice. In RM-9148,[8] ARRL proposes revision to the amateur service rules to provide more opportunities to VEs to prepare and administer examinations. In RM-9150,[9] ARRL proposes amendment of the amateur service rules to create a private sector complaint procedure for resolving cases of malicious interference in the amateur service. In RM-9196,[10] ARRL proposes amendment of the amateur service rules allowing telegraphy examination credit to examinees with a disability. The issues raised in the ARRL petitions are within the scope of this Regulatory Review and are consolidated in this proceeding.
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Number of License Classes
11. There are six classes of operator licenses in the amateur radio services.[11] Each time that an amateur operator moves to a higher class, the VEs must prepare and administer an examination, and the Commission must process a license transaction to modify the data base and issue a license document. While we continue to believe there should be a number of license classes sufficient to encourage amateur operators to advance their skills in meaningful ways,[12] six classes of operator licenses may be unnecessary. Reducing the number of classes of operator licenses would relieve the VEs from the tasks of preparing and administering unnecessary examinations. It would also ease the Commission's burden of providing oversight of the system and maintaining a data base of the current operator class for every amateur operator.[13] We note that an ARRL committee recommended that the number of license classes be reduced from six to five by deleting the Novice Class and restructuring the Technician and Technician Plus Classes.[14]
12. We have reviewed the various license classes and there appears to be an unnecessary overlap between the Novice, Technician and Technician Plus license classes. The Novice Class was established in 1951, at a time when telegraphy was still a common mode of radio communication in commercial, military, and marine services and applications.[15] Currently, there are very few individuals who take the examination for the Novice Class operator license. For example, in 1997, we received only 961 applications for the Novice Class. By comparison, we received 21,416 applications for the no-code Technician Class operator license.[16] We believe that the no-code Technician Class operator license has replaced the Novice Class operator license as the entry-level license class of choice. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that the Novice Class operator license no longer serves a significant, useful purpose and should be phased out,[17] with the current holders of Novice Class operator licenses being grandfathered. No new Novice Class licenses would be granted, but anyone currently holding licenses would be permitted to modify or renew their licenses. In addition, Novice Class operators would be eligible for examination credit for the telegraphy requirement for any license class. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on disposition of the designated Novice bands. Currently, other class licensees can operate within the Novice bands, but only at reduced power. Given the small number of new Novice licenses now being issued, if we were to discontinue licensing new Novices, would it be appropriate to delete the frequency limitations on Novices and the power limitations on other classes of operators using the Novice frequencies, so that Novices would continue to be limited to 200 watts output power but could operate using the Morse code anywhere within the 80, 40, 15 and 10 meter bands?
13. The only difference between the Technician and Technician Plus Classes is that a Technician Plus operator has passed a five words [18] per minute (wpm) telegraphy examination while a Technician Class operator has not.[19] Both Technician and Technician Plus Class licensees predominantly use FM voice and digital packet technologies on the amateur VHF and UHF bands. Yet, the VEs are burdened with preparing and administering telegraphy examinations, and the Commission is burdened with processing the resulting applications and revising the data base. We therefore propose that the Technician Plus Class be phased out. Holders of an FCC-issued Technician Class operator license granted before March 21, 1987, have previously passed the written examination required to qualify for a General Class operator license.[20] Other Technician Plus Class operators could qualify for a General Class operator license by passing written examination Element 3(B) which consists of thirty questions on the additional privileges of a General Class operator license and the 13 or 20 wpm telegraphy examination. We seek comments on this proposal.
B. Greater Volunteer Examiner Opportunities
14. Currently, an Advanced Class operator cannot prepare or administer a telegraphy examination for an examinee for a General Class license. Only an Amateur Extra Class licensee can administer that examination.[21] The ARRL requested in RM-9148 that the Amateur Radio Service rules be amended to permit Advanced Class operators who are VEs to prepare and administer examinations for a General Class operator license.[22] The ARRL argues that this is consistent with the Communications Act [23] and will help fulfill the need for more volunteer examiners.[24] We agree, and therefore propose to authorize Advanced Class operators to prepare and administer examinations for the General Class operator license. In addition, on our own motion, we propose to permit General Class operator licensees to prepare and administer examinations for Technician Class operator licenses. In all cases, examiners will be administering only elements which they themselves have received credit for. These proposals will benefit potential amateur service licensees by having additional volunteer examiners available for the examinations. We seek comment on these proposals.
C. RACES Station Licenses
15. The Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service (RACES) is a radio service using amateur stations for civil defense communications during periods of local, regional or national civil emergencies.[25] No new RACES station licenses have been granted since July 14, 1980.[26] We discontinued issuing new RACES licenses in order to conserve Commission manpower and resources. At the time of that action, there were 611 RACES licenses. Currently, there are only 249 RACES licenses.
16. We propose to phase out RACES station licenses by not renewing them. In addition, we propose to continue the status quo by not issuing any new RACES station licenses. By eliminating the RACES licenses, the Commission is taking a step which not only will conserve the Commission's financial resources, but will also eliminate licensing duplication. It should be emphasized that the same emergency communications that are now transmitted by RACES stations can continue to be transmitted by primary, club or military recreation stations. Our rules permit two types of stations to operate as part of RACES: (1) a licensed RACES station, and (2) any amateur station that has been properly registered with a civil defense organization.[27] Thus, to engage in RACES communications, it is not necessary to have a RACES license with a separate and distinct call sign. We invite comments on this proposal.
D. Privatization of Certain Enforcement Procedures
17. Pursuant to the Communications Act, the Amateur Auxiliary is composed of amateur operators who are recruited and trained by the Commission for the purpose of detecting, on a voluntary and uncompensated basis, improper radio transmissions, conveying such information to the Commission, and issuing advisory notices to persons who apparently have violated provisions of the Communications Act relating to amateur radio or who have violated any of the rules that govern the amateur radio service.[28] In rule making petition RM-9150, the ARRL states that amateur operators in the Amateur Auxiliary could be used to a greater advantage.[29] ARRL proposes rule changes to establish a private sector complaint procedure that would permit the volunteers to bring complaints of malicious interference directly to the Chief Administrative Law Judge (CALJ).[30] Upon receiving the complaint, the CALJ would determine whether the evidence submitted establishes a prima facie case of malicious interference. If no such case is made, the information submitted would be returned to the volunteer observer and no further action would be taken. If a prima facie case is made, the matter would be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for further proceedings, after issuance of an Order to Show Cause by the CALJ or an ALJ.[31] The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) would be made a party and have responsibility for prosecuting the case. In support of its petition, ARRL states that the procedure it advocates would improve and increase the quantity and quality of enforcement of the amateur rules and also expedite the handling of malicious interference cases.[32]
18. We applaud the ARRL for its creative thinking about ways to improve the Commission's enforcement processes. Its specific proposal, however, appears to be inconsistent with the statutory provisions governing the role of administrative law judges. Specifically, the assignment of duties to ALJs must be consistent with their duties and responsibilities as they relate to conducting formal hearing proceedings.[33] Accordingly, while we do not seek comment on ARRL's specific proposal, we do seek comment, consistent with the ARRL's underlying concerns, on other ideas for improving our enforcement processes as they relate to amateur radio. One possibility, for example, would be to encourage or require persons bringing complaints of interference to the Commission to include a draft order to show cause to initiate a revocation or cease and desist hearing proceeding. We also request additional comments and suggestions on how we could better utilize the services of the Amateur Auxiliary, consistent with its statutory basis.
E. Telegraphy Examination Requirements
19. Currently, three telegraphy examination elements are prepared and administered by a team of three VEs [34] to examinees intending to obtain from the Commission an amateur operator license.[35] The elements an examinee passes determines the class of operator license granted. In a telegraphy examination, the VEs determine the examinee's level of skill in sending and receiving text in the international Morse code. Our rules delineate three levels of skill in telegraphy, based upon the rate at which an examinee correctly receives a telegraphy message: five, thirteen and twenty words-per-minute (wpm).[36]
20. In the early days of amateur radio, radiotelegraphy was the primary communication mode of all radio operators, including amateurs. Testing for knowledge of Morse code telegraphy was necessary to ensure that amateurs could recognize and stay away from Government and commercial stations as well as stay clear of maritime distress messages. Today, radiotelegraphy is just one facet of many diverse modes of radiocommunication that require a technologically literate licensee.[37] In 1990, in response to the sentiment of the amateur community, we established a codeless Technician Class operator license.[38] In so doing, we stated that the amateur service should attract technically inclined persons.[39] We also stated that we believed that telegraphers would be in less demand than electronics and communications experts.[40] Therefore, we provided an entry level opportunity to otherwise qualified persons who found that telegraphy was a barrier to pursuing the purposes of the amateur service.[41] Those purposes include encouragement and improvement of the amateur service by providing opportunities for advancing both communication and technical skills, and the expansion of the existing reservoir within the amateur radio service of trained operators, technicians and electronics experts.[42]
21. The decreasing role of telegraphy as a communications mode also is demonstrated in our implementation of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS).[43] In permitting GMDSS to replace the mandatory Morse code equipment and operator, we recognized industry movement to newer and better technology for distress situations. The GMDSS relies on satellite and automated terrestrial communications systems for distress and safety communications. The Commission noted that by incorporating these advanced communications techniques into the safety system, GMDSS would significantly improve safety of life and property at sea throughout the world.[44]
22. The international Radio Regulations (Radio Regulations) that apply to the Amateur Radio Service require that all amateurs licensed to operate below 30 MHz demonstrate their ability "to send correctly by hand and to receive correctly by ear, texts in Morse code signals." The Radio Regulations do not specify any particular speed. We note that the 1995 World Radiocommunications Conference (WRC-95) resolved that Article S25, which includes the international amateur code requirement, be considered at the 1999 WRC. Subsequently, this consideration was delayed to the WRC scheduled to be held in 2001.[45]
23. In preparation for consideration of the code requirement at a future WRC, the ARRL surveyed amateur licensees, both members and non-members, to determine their attitudes on the Morse code requirement. Some 63 percent of ARRL members agreed that "[f]or the foreseeable future, it is important to retain the Morse code requirement in the international regulations," while 30 percent agreed that "[t]he Morse code requirement for amateur radio licensing is no longer relevant, in the international regulations." Among all amateurs, members and non-members, 57 percent favored retaining the Morse code requirement, while 35 percent regarded it as not relevant. Among ARRL members that addressed what the code speed requirement should be for full amateur privileges (Amateur Extra Class), 41 percent favored a requirement in the 10-13 wpm range, versus a minority of 32 percent who favored the current 20 wpm requirement.[46] Based in part on these survey results, an ARRL committee proposed to reduce the General Class code speed requirement from 13 to 10 wpm, and for all code examinations to specify one out of five minutes of copy.[47]
24. In view of changes in the technologies that amateurs use to communicate generally, and views with regard to the Morse code requirement specifically, we seek comment on all aspects of the Morse code standards used in our examinations. Do the three levels of 5, 13, and 20 wpm remain relevant to today's communications practices? Should we continue to have three different levels, or should these be reduced to one or two -- and, if so, what should be the required speeds? Were we to reduce the required Morse code elements, should we add elements to the written examination to ensure a working knowledge of the newer digital technologies which, in part, are replacing the Morse code? Or, should we consider specifying the method of examining for Morse code proficiency, such as requiring fill-in-the-blank or copying one out of five minutes sent, instead of allowing VEs to determine how to test for code speed? We request comment on these and any other issues related to our code speed requirements.
25. Additionally, in RM-9196, the ARRL requests amendment of the amateur rules which allow telegraphy examination credit for the higher telegraphy speeds to examinees with a disability.[48] Specifically, the ARRL requests that the examinee be required to attempt the higher-speed telegraphy examination before examination credit is given pursuant to a doctor's certification. In addition, the ARRL requests that volunteer-examiner coordinators (VECs) be authorized to request medical information from the certifying physician pertaining to the examinee's disability. It should be noted that these issues only remain relevant if we retain the higher telegraphy speeds requirement, since if the requirement were eliminated, a person with a disability would not have to apply for examination credit. We tentatively conclude that, if we do maintain the requirement, neither of these proposals is an appropriate means to address potential abuses of the physician certification requirement. We believe that these proposals place an unfair burden on examinees with disabilities, and raise serious privacy and confidentiality concerns. We seek comment on ARRL's proposal and our tentative conclusion.
F. Written Examinations
26. In addition, a written examination is prepared and administered to each applicant for an amateur operator license in order to demonstrate to the Commission that the examinee possesses the operational and technical qualifications required to perform properly the duties of an amateur service operator licensee.[49] The written examination for each license class currently specifies ten general topics [50] and the number of questions for each topic that must be asked in an examination. A uniform national database of multiple-choice questions and answers is approved by the National Conference of VECs and is periodically updated on a regular basis so that all publishers and applicants have access to current materials. This is accomplished on a purely voluntary basis, without formal Commission involvement. Determining the components of written examinations was carried over into the VE system from those components used when the Commission previously prepared and administered the examinations.[51] In light of the fact that written examinations now have been prepared and administered under the VE system for over a decade, we seek comment on whether the written examination requirements should be modified to provide VEs and VECs additional flexibility in determining the specific contents of written examinations, on the specifics of what such flexibility should entail, and on the advantages and disadvantages to providing such flexibility.
27. Specifically, we ask commenters to address whether the general topics set forth in Section 97.503 of the Commission's Rules adequately cover the significant categories of information relevant to determining whether an applicant has the requisite operational and technical qualifications to become an amateur licensee. For example, does the current list of topics adequately cover current technology and contemporary amateur operating practices? For those commenters who suggest addition or deletion of general topics, we ask them to include the rationale underlying such proposals. In addition, we ask commenters to discuss whether the required number of questions from each general topic should continue to be established by rule. For those commenters who suggest altering the number of questions, we ask that they discuss alternative numbers or percentages and the reasons therefor. We are particularly interested in comments from VEs and VECs regarding any changes they would recommend, either individually or collectively, in the written examination requirements on the amateur community generally, as well as on the amateur examination process specifically, including how, if at all, they will affect the integrity of the examination and licensing process. For instance, we seek specific comment from VEs and VECs regarding how modifications to the written examination requirements would affect their ability to conduct examinations in an effective, efficient and expeditious manner.
G. Disposition of Rule Making Petitions
28. We have also received petitions for rule making filed by various individuals, summarized below, requesting changes to the amateur rules. The petitions concern matters on which the Commission has already taken action. In the interest of administrative efficiency, we have included such petitions in this proceeding because in all cases they do not warrant the issuance of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making and the commencement of a separate proceeding. Therefore, no rule making (RM) numbers will be assigned to these petitions. The petitioners in these cases have not presented sufficient evidence to justify altering the current operator privileges, requirements or structure of the Amateur Radio Service.
29. Mr. Spencer Ritchie petitioned for a change in frequency privileges in the 75 and 80 meter sub-bands for Amateur Extra Class licensees.[52] In his petition, Mr. Howard Kraus requested that Q-signal suffixes, such as QRP and QST, be made available to amateur stations.[53] His particular interest was to use a Q-signal that indicated a decrease in transmitter power so as to publicize the fact that a certain radio club promoted low-power operation. A petition filed by Mr. Henry Ruh requested that the current examination system for an amateur radio license be changed from one that is based on memorization of questions and answers to one that is based on experiential operation of an actual amateur station.[54]
30. A petition for rule change, filed by Mr. William Houlne, called for the creation of sub-bands in the 160 meter band between 1.9 MHz and 2.0 MHz, and in the 80 meter band between 3.6 MHz and 3.7 MHz for use by holders of Technician Plus licenses.[55] A petition filed by Mr. Rod Wheeler requested that the rules be amended to include new standards that repeaters would be required to meet and that these standards be used by frequency coordinators.[56]
31. All of the petitions discussed in the foregoing paragraphs concern licensing requirements, operator frequency privileges or seek a restructuring of the amateur license classes. The current operator frequency privileges, structure of the license classes and the requirements for obtaining an amateur license were developed in accordance with the expressed desires of the amateur community to provide motivation for amateur operators to advance their communication and technical skills. We do not believe that sufficient evidence has been presented to justify altering the current requirements which are in accordance with the basis and purpose of the Amateur Radio Service in the United States. Therefore, we will dismiss these repetitive petitions.