International Amateur Radio Union Region 1 Europe, Middle East, Africa and Northern Asia Founded 1950

Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of ) Spectrum Issues In ) NPRM 16-239 Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission’s ) RM-11708 Amateur Radio Service Rules to Permit Greater ) RM-11831 Flexibility in Data Communications ) RM-11759 ) RM-11828 ) March 24, 2021

PETITON FOR DECLARATORY RULING BY CARSON, KOLARIK, MCVEY & WHITE Team Members for the 2019 ARRL Sponsored Negotiations1

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING IN THE MATTER OF: RM-11708, NPRM 16-239, RM-11828, RM-11759, & RM-11831

Regarding Submission of a New HF Band Plan approved by the ARRL Board of Directors to resolve the HF Band Planning issues raised by NPRM 16-239, RM-11759 & RM-11828

TABLE OF CONTENTS A. PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING 1-5 B. GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF HF BAND PLAN DETAILS 6, 7 C. REASONS TO REJECT 30 METER CHANGES 8, 9 D. CONCLUSION AND SIGNATURES 10-15 E. APPENDIX A: PROPOSED ARRL HF BAND PLAN JULY 2020 GRAPHIC 16-19 F. APPENDIX B: PART 97 AMENDMENT SUGGESTED WORDING 20-26 G. APPENDIX C: IARU REGION 1 APRIL 2013 MEETING 27-31

A. PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING

1. This Petition for Declaratory Ruling seeks to move NPRM 16-239 forward from its

“stuck” condition by proposing the Commission adopt an HF Band Plan which closely follows one already approved by the original filer, the ARRL. The Commission could limit comment periods to the minimum necessary to satisfy legal requirements and conclude quickly using an Omnibus Report and

Order. (RM-11708 began this 7 years ago. It is long overdue for resolution.) This PDR does not seek to decouple RM-11828, RM-11831 or the NYU PDR from NPRM 16-239, nor to inhibit the Commission

1 List of participants in ARRL ex parte page 2: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/107150047500607/ARRL%20FCC%2016- 239%20Final%20Report%2007_15_2019.pdf from properly bundling them in an Omnibus Report and Order; rather, it insists on treating them all together, so that there are no unresolved issues. This PDR narrowly refocuses on the one key issue which has been ignored and lost in the peripheral discussions: the need for a lasting, rational, functional HF Band Plan that will serve the amateur community and the public interest. It seeks to reiterate existing FCC “generally accepted standards” which “reduce congestion.”

2. This Petition for Declaratory Ruling proposes that the Commission adopt the ARRL HF

Band Plan only as it applies to Extra, Advanced, and General class licensees into part 97 rules, with the exception of leaving 30 meters as it currently stands. ARRL admits2 "In the specific context of the admixture of data and other modes in the HF and MF bands, reliance solely on voluntary band planning is expecting quite a lot." This PDR provides the specific wording changes to Part 97 to accomplish that goal in an appendix. This PDR satisfies commenters3 who advocated that all wideband and §97.221 automatic and semi-automatic operation be removed from the lower 100 KHz of the major HF bands4. A voluntary band plan is unacceptable. A regulatory band plan is required.

3. However, one year has passed since the last ARRL Ex Parte,5 which continues to cling to the concept of allowing wide band (2.8 KHz ) signals anywhere in the HF RTTY/DATA band segments.

We now have no choice but to advance the ARRL HF Band Plan Proposal ourselves on behalf of the amateur community.

2 ARRL comments Page 14, 15 Item 18: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1011120327463/Comments%20of%20ARRL%20on %20NPRM%2010112016%20FINAL.pdf "In the specific context of the admixture of data and other modes in the HF and MF bands, reliance solely on voluntary band planning is expecting quite a lot." 3 Carson tabulation beginning page 6: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1209265072959/INCONVENIENT%20COMMENTS %203%20%20N3JMM%20edits%201.pdf 4 Rappaport comments: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10806876707999/FCC%20RM%2011708%20Against.docx “I would urge the commission to require all data /RTTY signals to have an emitted RF bandwidth .. no greater than 500 Hz in the lowest 100 KHz of every applicable HF band (e.g. 1800-1900 KHz , 3500-3600 KHz , 7000-7100 KHz , 14000- 14100 KHz , 21000-21100 KHz , and 28000-28100 KHz ” 5 ARRL ex parte 3/27/20: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10329112807209/FCC%20ARRL%20Ex%20Parte %2003_27_2020.pdf 4. Furthermore, the Commission should abandon their proposal of UNLIMITED

BANDWIDTH6 anywhere in the HF CW/RTTY/DATA band segments, and instead adopt a 2.8 KHz bandwidth for digital signals as originally recommended by the ARRL petition. The Commission should employ a “particular sub bands” method to separate incompatible modes7 as suggested in the

NPRM R&O, as a regulatory (not voluntary) band plan. Scrapping existing effective methods and failing to implement a band plan does not “mitigate congestion” and deviates from “generally accepted standards” in the US and elsewhere. With no band plan separating incompatible modes, burdensome costs and consequences are imposed on incumbent users of narrow band data modes. Framing this as a

“risk and cost vs. benefit” argument, please compare the consequences of the two “no band plan” FCC

NPRM 16-239 and the ARRL RM-11708 2.8 KHz everywhere options to this Petition for a

Declaratory Ruling HF Band Plan. The Commission itself offered the solution of “only in particular subbands.” We agree with that. So does the ARRL Board of Directors, Winlink and their partner

Amateur Radio Safety Foundation8, and multitudes of commenters. Isn't the clear solution self-evident?

Why would the Commission let this opportunity for demonstrated consensus and a solid win-win slip through its hands?

5. The ARRL is on record in this filing admitting that “voluntary” band plans are not sufficient9

6 FCC NPRM 16-239 page 6: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/0728122180423/FCC-16-96A1.pdf “13. In summary, we believe that the public interest may be served by revising the amateur service rules to eliminate the current baud rate limitations for data emissions consistent with ARRL's Petition to allow amateur service licensees to use modern digital emissions, thereby furthering the purposes of the amateur service and enhancing the usefulness of the service. We do not, however, propose a bandwidth limitation for data emissions in the MF and HF bands to replace the baud rate limitations,” 7 FCC 16-96 NPRM 16-239 filing instructions page 6: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/0728122180423/FCC-16-96A1.pdf12 “While we tentatively conclude that a specific bandwidth limitation for RTTY and data emissions in the MF/HF bands is not necessary, we nonetheless request comment on whether we should establish emission bandwidth standards for amateur service MF/HF RTTY and data emissions. Commenters favoring such action should address what the maximum bandwidth should be, the basis for the particular limitation the commenter proposes,and whether the limit should apply across the bands or only in particular subbands.” 8 Winlink open letter to ARRL: https://www.winlink.org/tags/arsfi “Your proposed changes will go a long way towards reducing the mode collisions that spread ill will on the bands....Our criticism of the ARRL Board’s minute 31 action combining 97.221(c) <500Hz signals into the same space as signals >500Hz in bandwidth is compensated with wider allocations.” 9 ARRL comments Page 14, 15 Item 18: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1011120327463/Comments%20of%20ARRL%20on %20NPRM%2010112016%20FINAL.pdf "In the specific context of the admixture of data and other modes in the HF and MF bands, reliance solely on voluntary band planning is expecting quite a lot." in the case of RM-11708 & NPRM 16-239. Neither the FCC NPRM 16-239 unlimited bandwidth nor the ARRL 2.8 KHz proposals adequately mitigate the problems arising from their plans. The use of

FCC Part 97 to separate incompatible emissions “only in particular subbands” is NOT NOVEL. RM-

11831 maintains the existing §97.221(b) sub bands and deletes §97.221(c) to separate incompatible modes (attended wide band & automatic vs. narrowband attended), as we have consistently advocated.

There are currently three HF “particular subbands” per typical amateur HF band:

(1) RTTY/DATA; (2) ACDS Automatic Control and greater than 500 Hz bandwidth data as provided in §97.221; (3) VOICE/IMAGE.

6. This PDR employs those existing segments which are current FCC “generally accepted standards”. Forward thinking ARRL Directors and an ARRL HF Band Planning Committee have followed that format in a carefully crafted Proposed HF Band Plan. The ARRL has yet to present it to the Commission via their legal representative. We now do so here to move NPRM 16-239 forward.

7. The ARRL Board of Directors (BOD) at one point directed10 their Counsel to file comments to restrict all ACDS operation (even the less than 500 Hz bandwidth stations of §97.221(c)) to operate in the existing §97.221(b) segments. This was even more restrictive than any HF Band Plans we have seen proposed.

8. The ARRL has subsequently taken up the matter of a HF Band Plan in their Board of

Directors meetings and an ARRL HF Band Planning Committee. The revised Proposed ARRL HF Band

Plan was approved in the July 2020 Board Meeting11. The ARRL HF Band Plan Proposal replaces the 10 ARRL July 19-20, 2019 Board of Directors Minutes: www.arrl.org/files/file/2019%20Board%20of%20Directors/Final %20Minutes%20July%202019.pdf Page 17: “IT IS ACCORDINGLY RESOLVED that the ARRL’s Washington Counsel is instructed to take appropriate steps, including, but not limited to, appropriate filings with the Federal Communications Commission, to obtain the Commission’s approval for the following enumerated changes to Part 97 of the Commission’s Rules:(1) All automatically controlled digital stations (ACDS) below 30 MHz, regardless of bandwidth, are authorized to operate only within the ACDS bands designated in the FCC’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §97.221(b);(2) All digital mode stations that operate with a bandwidth greater than 500 Hz also must operate within the ACDS bands designated in the FCC’s Rules, whether or not automatically controlled;(3) No digital mode station may employ a bandwidth greater than 2.8 KHz in any band below 29 MHz” “A roll call vote being requested the motion to call the previous question passed with 14 AYE votes and 1 NAY votes” 11 ARRL BOD minutes page 16 item 30: http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ODV/Second%20Board%20Meeting%20July %202020/Final%20Minutes%202nd%20Board%20Meeting%202020(1).pdf "It is hereby MOVED:That the ARRL Board of Directors hereby accept the Bandplanning report as submitted at the January Board meeting, with the obsolete 300 baud spec with 2.8 KHz bandwidth at HF, and expands the existing §97.221(b) sub bands and effectively deletes §97.221(c) to separate incompatible modes, as we have consistently advocated.

In that regard, the ARRL Board of Directors (BOD) is in agreement with one of the two key provisions of RM-11831, the deletion of §97.221(c).

9. The ARRL Counsel asserts12 “There has been no observable increase in interference that some commenters allege would occur unless other, unrelated measures are adopted.” No supporting data is offered. However, ARSFI refers to the narrowband semi-automatic emissions (used by their own

Winlink system) permitted by §97.221(c) as “pollution13” that should be kept out of their §97.221(b) segments. If §97.221(b) segments are expanded as the ARRL and this PDR recommends, there will be plenty of space for all Automatic emissions regardless of bandwidth. How is it that these emissions are

“pollution” for their ACDS spectrum, but acceptable accommodation on our part in the RTTY/data segments which are used by us for weak signal and technical experimentation? And once again, the

ARRL Counsel seeks to break apart issues which are essential to treat in an Omnibus Report & Order, as is standard FCC practice when a number of related rule making proceedings are open.

10. We do add a note to §97.221 in this PDR which limits being the control operator of an HF

Automatically Controlled ACDS station to license classes General, Advanced, and Extra. This makes a

Technician ineligible to be the control operator of an HF Automatically Controlled Digital Station

(ACDS per §97.221). If RM-11828 is adopted, this does not preclude a Technician class licensee from connecting to an HF ACDS using his own attended station as its control operator to retrieve or send email for emergency communications applications and such. We also wish to continue the Winlink

Viewer and CW ID, so that Winlink's fine work on this item is required of any ACDS system. To do

associated revised band plans submitted herewith;And that the Committee remain in place, in a standby state, in order to handle any band planning issues as may arise. The motion CARRIED." 12 ARRL 3/2020 Page 3: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10329112807209/FCC%20ARRL%20Ex%20Parte %2003_27_2020.pdf “ 13 ARSFI RM-11831 comments ¶9: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/104190189011279/RM-11831%20ARSFI%20Comment.pdf “9.The proposed deletion of §97.221(c) will displace ACDS signals less than 500 Hz in bandwidth... to operate among signals inside the §97.221(b) subbands. This action… will pollute these frequencies for ourselves.” NOTE: Amateur Radio Safety Foundation is closely associated with Winlink.org. https://arsfi.org/ “Winlink (our primary project) is a worldwide system of volunteer resources supporting email by radio.” otherwise would be unfair and inequitable. See Appendix 2, §97.221 paragraph (c), (d), and (e) amendments for details.

11. There is also evidently a need for the Commission to do a periodic review and update Part

97 as necessary due to the changes in technology, as detailed in previous comments14. Amateur Radio and the public good are not benefited by transmission of Bitcoin15 over amateur radio. (§97.113(a)(3).

B. GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF HF BAND PLAN DETAILS

1. The following graphic representation follows the ARRL HF Band Planning Committee reports verbatim, except as noted for 30 meters. In this PDR, we oppose changes to 30 meters. The

WARC bands are narrow resources, and the existing plan of 30 meters is sufficient, especially given the dramatic expansion in other bands for ACDS operation.

2. We include this graphic presentation (APPENDIX A) since it is easier to visualize than the detailed Part 97 language (APPENDIX B). This graphic is adapted from the final ARRL revised HF

Band Plan16, which added features for operation on 80 and 40 meters in Regions 1 & 3. Note that this

PDR focuses only on General, Advanced, and Extra class. Technician and Novice expansion is covered in RM-11828 and portions of RM-11759, which we17 oppose18, and are therefore not shown since there is no consensus on that matter. The effect of these changes in this Petition for Declaratory Ruling are shown below.

14 Carson comments: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1201221512217/%24%20Inconvenient%20RULES%204%20mjm %20edit.pdf Carson Pizza Rule comments:https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/109261360912077/%24ADDENDUM9_24_19_ARRLreply.pdf 15 https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-coders-send-international-lightning-payment-over-ham-radio 16 ARRL HF Committee Report: http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ODV/Second%20Board%20Meeting%20July%202020/Doc %2025A%20Band%20Plan%20Final-1b.pdf http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ODV/Second%20Board%20Meeting%20July%202020/Doc%2025%20BandPlanning %20Committee%20Report.pdf 17 Carson, Kolarik, White, Marcus & McVey page 30 – 33: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1130561120534/DEC %202019%20RM-11828.pdf which lists General Exam Questions showing Technicians are not qualified to be the control operator of an HF Automatically Controlled station. 18 Carson comments RM-11828: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1130561120534/DEC%202019%20RM-11828.pdf COMPARISON OF TOTAL HF BAND PLAN SPECTRUM DISTRIBUTION

CURRENT BAND PLAN ARRL PROPOSED BAND PLAN AND OUR PDR

KEY:

BLUE = ACDS, WIDEBAND 2.8 KHZ MAXIMUM PER ARRL APPROVED HF BAND PLAN

RED = RTTY/DATA 500 HZ MAXIMUM PER OUR PDR PROPOSAL. C. REASONS TO REJECT 30 METER CHANGES

CURRENT 30 METERS ARRL PROPOSED 30 METERS THIS PDR RETAINS THIS PLAN WE REJECT THIS PLAN KEY: BLUE = ACDS, WIDE BAND 2.8 KHZ RED = RTTY/DATA <500 HZ

1. As noted above, the three WARC bands are narrow resources of similar size and are limited in number of wideband ACDS they can practically support without severely impacting other band users. The expansion of ACDS operation should be carefully considered since the automatic stations rely on the activating station to determine if the channel is occupied before transmission begins, which is a major source of ACDS interference and frustration for other band occupants. If anything the ACDS sub band on 30m should be reduced to match the other WARC bands or ACDS should be eliminated from the WARC bands entirely for the following reasons:

a. 30m is a shared band – hams are not primary users – and should be treated similarly to 60m, no ACDS allowed. There is no way for a primary user to communicate to the automatic station regarding problem operating and there is no possible way an automatic station can recognize a primary user on frequency. Thirty meters is a worldwide band and in some regions digital of any form is only permitted in the upper end of the band, which expanded US ACDS activity will impact adversely.

ACDS activity on 30m has been a concern in IARU Region 1 since at least 2013 when the top end of 30m was overrun by ACDS.19 ARRL has provided no justification for increasing the size of the ACDS sub band on 30m by 50%, fully one third of the band available.

b. The size of the 30m expansion compared to the other two WARC bands of similar size and relative inconsistencies on other bands. 17m and 12m are comparable in the spectrum available for digital modes, but under the ARRL band plan 30m ACDS usage is expanded by 50%, to 30% of the entire band. While ACDS on 17m remains at ~11% of the band and 12m stays at 12.5%. The bands adjacent to 30 meters see ACDS increases of 500% on 40m and ~37% on 20m. ARRL provides no rationale for the huge disparity between 30 meters and the other similar size WARC bands.

c. The reluctance of the ARRL to resolve existing problems with ACDS operations before creating yet more problems. A quote from the ARRL HF Band planning Committee Report, Document

#25, July 202020, describing activity on the ARRL band planning forum illustrates their reluctance:

“There was a lively discussion of automatic interference and frequency use detection as it might affect automated unattended stations. While this will in the long term be important from both technological and regulatory points of view, it was felt by the Committee that things need to develop and mature a bit more before we can productively dive into the topic.”

d. The Commission did recognize interference concerns when it issued PR Docket No. 94-593 on April 27,1995,21 authorizing Part 97.221, and amateurs were tasked with coming up with “novel technical and operational” solutions to interference. In the intervening almost three decades little progress is evident on the part of ACDS operators to address the interference caused to normal human- to-human communications. After almost thirty years the ACDS interference has more than developed

“mature” status.

19 See appendix VIE13-C4-04_NRRL.pdf 20 http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ODV/Second%20Board%20Meeting%20July%202020/Doc%2025%20BandPlanning %20Committee%20Report.pdf 21 PR Docket 94-59 April 27, 1995 ¶ 6 D. CONCLUSION AND SIGNATURES

1. The Commission should abandon its concept of no bandwidth limits anywhere in the HF

RTTY/data spectrum as proposed in NPRM 16-239. The Commission should instead employ a

“particular sub bands” method to separate incompatible modes22 as suggested in the NPRM R&O comment filing instructions, as a regulatory (not voluntary) band plan. Scrapping existing effective methods and failing to implement a band plan does not “mitigate congestion” and deviates from

“generally accepted standards” in the US and elsewhere. The Commission itself offered in NPRM 16-

239 the alternate solution of “only in particular subbands.” We agree with that approach.

2. The current ARRL comments fail for the exact same reasons. It only differs from the

Commission NPRM 16-239 proposal in the bandwidth allowed. The ARRL is on record in this proceeding admitting that “voluntary” band plans are not sufficient.23 For the Commission to allow the

ARRL to usurp its regulatory role in essential bandplanning is an alarming abdication of their role to ensure efficient use of spectrum and protect incumbent users, and sets an dangerous precedent by

22 FCC 16-96 NPRM 16-239 filing instructions page 6: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/0728122180423/FCC-16-96A1.pdf12 “While we tentatively conclude that a specific bandwidth limitation for RTTY and data emissions in the MF/HF bands is not necessary, we nonetheless request comment on whether we should establish emission bandwidth standards for amateur service MF/HF RTTY and data emissions. Commenters favoring such action should address what the maximum bandwidth should be, the basis for the particular limitation the commenter proposes,and whether the limit should apply across the bands or only in particular subbands.” 23 ARRL comments Page 14, 15 Item 18: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1011120327463/Comments%20of%20ARRL%20on %20NPRM%2010112016%20FINAL.pdf "In the specific context of the admixture of data and other modes in the HF and MF bands, reliance solely on voluntary band planning is expecting quite a lot." caving in to outrageous unbalanced demands. Past ARRL behavior24, consistent over a number of years25, does not support confidence in their fair administration in these matters to protect all users of the amateur spectrum in a “voluntary” bandplan to replace the existing FCC regulatory framework. We vehemently disagree with the ARRL position of wide band and automatic operation anywhere in the

RTTY/data segments without an FCC “regulatory” band plan.

3. The use of FCC Part 97 to separate incompatible emissions “only in particular subbands” is

NOT NOVEL. RM-11831 maintains the existing §97.221(b) sub bands and deletes §97.221(c) to separate incompatible modes (attended wide band & automatic vs. narrowband attended ), as we have consistently advocated. There are currently three HF “particular subbands” per typical amateur

HF band: RTTY/DATA, ACDS Automatic Control as provided in §97.221, and VOICE/IMAGE.

The Commission should keep that method of regulating HF spectrum access.

4. The HF Band Plan presented in this Petition for Declaratory Ruling agrees with a multitude of comments from concerned incumbent users requesting the lower 100 KHz prohibit ACDS or wideband emissions26; it also aligns closely with forward looking ARRL directors overwhelming

24 Foy comments in RM-11306: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/6518318878.pdf Which references KH6TY Teller website dissenting recommendation: http://www.zerobeat.net/bandplan-dissent.html “The ARRL hfdigital committee majority recommendation [hfdigital:284] was composed and written jointly by the Winlink author, W5SMM, and the Winlink Network Administrator, K4CJX, and then rubber-stamped, without comment except for typo corrections, by the Winlink supporters on the committee, WA1LOU and K0PFX. All alternative recommendations were totally ignored by the chairman and Winlink supporters. At no time during the committee discussions did WA1LOU or K0PFX submit any independent comments or suggestions except for corrections. The chairman of the committee, who is also the Winlink software author, consistently shut off discussion prematurely and forced a vote, which was naturally won by the Winlink majority, eventually resulting in the resignation of the widely respected Peter Martinez, G3PLX, in protest for having his views silenced.” “It is clear that the majority bandplan submission is really a veiled attempt by Winlink to gain ARRL support for Winlink robot transmitters operating all over the HF bands and therefore should be disregarded.” “Recommendation: Stations using Automatic Control on the HF bands should be confined to the current FCC sub-bands for automatically controlled digital stations and FCC regulation 97.221(c) should be repealed to prevent the robot stations from spreading randomly all over the bands where they can create interference to others trying to use the bands for traditional ham radio activities.” 25 ARRL 2015 BOD minutes page 12: “40. Mr. Abernethy moved, seconded by Mr. Rehman that the HF Band Planning Committee is directed to poll the Amateur community concerning the possible elimination of FCC subband regulations for mode and/or license class on the 80 through 10 meter bands. The possible elimination would align regulation with what is presently done for the USA’s 160-meter band and all Canadian bands. After discussion, a roll call vote being requested, the motion was DEFEATED with Directors Abernethy, Rehman, and Norton voting aye and all other Directors voting nay.” http://www.arrl.org/files/file/About%20ARRL/Board%20Meetings/2015_July_ARRL_Board_Minutes.pdf 26 Carson tabulation beginning page 6: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1209265072959/INCONVENIENT%20COMMENTS %203%20%20N3JMM%20edits%201.pdf majority votes. The ARRL Board of Directors at one point directed27 their Counsel to file comments to restrict all ACDS operation (even the less than 500 Hz bandwidth stations formerly of §97.221(c)) to operate in the existing §97.221(b) segments. This was even more restrictive than any HF Band Plans we have seen proposed. The ARRL has subsequently taken up the matter of a HF Band Plan in their

Board of Directors meetings and an ARRL HF Band Planning Committee. The revised Proposed ARRL

HF Band Plan was approved in the July 2020 Board Meeting28. The ARRL Board of Directors (BOD) is in agreement with one of the two key provisions of RM-11831, the deletion of §97.221(c), and therefore moves that rule making proceeding forward. We also substantially agree with that approved

ARRL BOD vote and plan, except for 30 meters. This Commission should act on this evident consensus.

5. The ARRL RM-11708 petition and the resulting NPRM 16-239 is not primarily about emergency communications. It has been about facilitating “Winlink Global HF Email®”29 for recreational boaters30 and such and their unlicensed31 third party internet users ashore32.

27 ARRL July 19-20, 2019 Board of Directors Minutes: www.arrl.org/files/file/2019%20Board%20of%20Directors/Final %20Minutes%20July%202019.pdf Page 17: “IT IS ACCORDINGLY RESOLVED that the ARRL’s Washington Counsel is instructed to take appropriate steps, including, but not limited to, appropriate filings with the Federal Communications Commission, to obtain the Commission’s approval for the following enumerated changes to Part 97 of the Commission’s Rules:(1) All automatically controlled digital stations (ACDS) below 30 MHz, regardless of bandwidth, are authorized to operate only within the ACDS bands designated in the FCC’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §97.221(b);(2) All digital mode stations that operate with a bandwidth greater than 500 Hz also must operate within the ACDS bands designated in the FCC’s Rules, whether or not automatically controlled;(3) No digital mode station may employ a bandwidth greater than 2.8 kHz in any band below 29 MHz” “A roll call vote being requested the motion to call the previous question passed with 14 AYE votes and 1 NAY votes” 28 ARRL BOD minutes page 16 item 30: http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ODV/Second%20Board%20Meeting%20July %202020/Final%20Minutes%202nd%20Board%20Meeting%202020(1).pdf "It is hereby MOVED:That the ARRL Board of Directors hereby accept the Bandplanning report as submitted at the January Board meeting, with the associated revised band plans submitted herewith;And that the Committee remain in place, in a standby state, in order to handle any band planning issues as may arise. The motion CARRIED." 29 Comments of Randal Evans: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7521315143.pdf 30 Carson comments on Pizza Rule: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/109261360912077/%24ADDENDUM9_24_19_ARRLreply.pdf 31 Incident of unlicensed operation in amateur spectrum in boat race: https://www.sailingscuttlebutt.com/2019/01/21/maintaining-information-barrier/ 32 Carson et al RE: FCC Enforcement Bureau ticket 3184322: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1071958608259/July%2018%2C %202019%20Ex%20Parte%20Filing.pdf Pages 29 - 60 Please do not conflate these activities33, particularly when it disregards34 §97.113. Legitimate

Emergency Communications and Third Party Traffic are treated differently in international treaties and

Part 97. The defined ample expansions preferred by the ARRL Board of Directors HF Band Plan, a multitude of commenters, and us, as presented in this PDR are sufficient for efficient legitimate emergency communication purposes enumerated in §97.1(a)35. We remind the Commission that there are FOUR other paragraphs in §97.1 that enumerate the traditional technical and weak signal experimentation that will be adversely impacted if RM-11708 & NPRM 16-239 as currently proposed is adopted.

6. The Commission has itself stated36 that the amateur service is NOT an emergency service.

Any proposed expansion of Automatic Control spectrum must be justified by logical bases for such use.

It certainly does not justify taking ALL of the RTTY/data spectrum at the expense of the weak signal and experimental users, as ARRL has continued to advocate. Amateur radio has always filled a need when normal communications break down, but robust systems exist37 which are used by professional first responders, using non-amateur spectrum38 and equipment.

33 Marcus comments: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1021527984515/ex%20parte%202%2021.pdf https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/107290463405427/PACTOR%20%20MJM%207%2029%2020%20ex%20parte.pdf https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/107290463405427/Cruising%20World%20on%20satellites.pdf 34 §97.113 Prohibited transmissions. (3) Communications in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, (5) Communications, on a regular basis, which could reasonably be furnished alternatively through other radio services. 35 §97.1 Basis and purpose. The rules and regulations in this part are designed to provide an amateur radio service having a fundamental purpose as expressed in the following principles: (a) Recognition and enhancement of the value of the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications. 36 Ray Baum act page 12, item 34: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-20-184A1.pdf 37 Collins Urgentlink White Paper page 2: https://www.collinsaerospace.com/-/media/project/collinsaerospace/collinsaerospace-website/product- assets/files/public/services-and-support/information-management/arinc-security/urgentlink/arinc-security-urgentlink- white-paper.pdf?rev=3cd0347a818f4a5184ba5126b6aaa784 “Ham radio operators provide a very important service during and after a disaster. Using High Frequency (HF) radios they can communicate long distances without reliance on local infrastructure that may have been damaged or destroyed. Many of the operators are trained in disaster response and generously volunteer their time and equipment to help out. There is a weakness – availability. Ham radios require a skilled and experienced operator. The greatest need for them is typically during the first 24-48 hours after a disaster and it’s during this time that it’s most challenging for people to get around. If the ham radio operator is not on site when the disaster strikes you will not have access to their services. In the case of Hurricane Maria, it took three days for the ham radio operator, supporting the Red Cross, to get to their headquarters.” 38 SHARES: https://www.cisa.gov/shared-resources-shares-high-frequency-hf-radio-program 7. We offer this Petition for Declaratory Ruling as a practical path forward to a lasting solution which is firmly built on the consensus of a large constituency, and urge the Commission adopt it. We recommend a comment period of minimum legal length (as was done with the NYU PDR), if it is necessary for due diligence. The new information presented herein is a detailed practical HF Band Plan, explanatory graphics, and detailed Part 97 proposed amendments to facilitate implementing what the

ARRL Board of Directors itself has approved. It continues to use existing FCC regulatory methods, while ending the obsolete baud rate limitations. A “voluntary” band plan departs from “generally accepted standards” which “reduce congestion.” It is unenforceable, will be freely violated without consequence, and is totally unacceptable.

8. Winlink and their partner Amateur Radio Safety Foundation (ARSFI) appear to concur with limiting 2.8 KHz to the proposed expanded §97.221(b) band segments (ACDS) in the ARRL approved

HF Band Plan and our Petition for Declaratory Ruling. These are quotes from a Winlink/ARSFI open letter39 to the ARRL HF Band Planning Committee:

13 February 2020--The Amateur Radio Safety Foundation Board of Directors today sent their comments to the ARRL Band Planning Committee about their draft recommendations for band changes to promote harmony on the HF bands, particularly between CW and digital operators. The Committee's recommendations can be reviewed here, and their full report here.

Below are the ARSFI comments verbatim.... ------

Dear Band Planning Committee,

The Board of Directors of the Amateur Radio Safety Foundation, Incorporated (ARSFI) applaud and approve the committee’s proposal... Your proposed changes will go a long way towards reducing the mode collisions that spread ill will on the bands.

Our criticism of the ARRL Board’s minute 31 action combining 97.221(c) <500Hz signals into the same space as signals >500Hz in bandwidth is compensated with wider allocations. And the committee is wise to allow users to manage their usage within the new allocations. ARSFI will do all within our abilities and resources to make this work....

We have a serious concern about your proposal for 40M where there is no allocation for users outside of Region 2 to use wideband (>500Hz) modes. We have no objection to ACDS being limited for US

39 https://www.winlink.org/tags/arsfi licensees outside Region 2,......

73, Lor Kutchins, W3QA For the Board of Directors Amateur Radio Safety Foundation, Inc. And the Winlink Development Team

9. Their concern about 40 meters is addressed in the ARRL HF Band Plan which is included in our Petition for Declaratory Ruling. The ARRL HF Band Plan NEW 80 & 40 meter wide band data segments for ITU regions 1 & 3 are NOT in their original RM-11708 petition, which we correct here for them. See Appendix 2 Part 97 amendments for §97.305.

10. Our strong preference is to adopt this Petition for Declaratory Ruling immediately without further delay, and consolidate it with RM-11708, NPRM 16-239, RM-11759, RM-11828, the NYU

PDR (DA 19-1130), RM-11785, RM-11767, and RM-11843 into a single Omnibus Report & Order. We cordially invite the ARRL leadership and its Counsel to finally join its own HF Band Planning

Committee, its own Board of Directors, and Team Members for the 2019 ARRL Sponsored

Negotiations in consensus on their own HF Band Plan Proposal as amending Part 97 as described herein. These proceedings are over 7 years old and ripe for a conclusion. To allow it to continue without resolution invites the solution of declaring the whole issue dormant, without anything to show for all this time and expense (just as it turned out for RM-11306). Please conclude this now.

Respectfully submitted,

/S/

Janis Carson, AB2RA, Ron Kolarik, K0IDT, Lee McVey, W6EM and Dan White, W5DNT

Team Members for the 2019 ARRL Sponsored Negotiations APPENDIX A: PROPOSED ARRL HF BAND PLAN JULY 2020 (DOC 25A)40 INCORPORATING ELEMENTS OF NPRM 16-239 AND RM-11759 WE AGREE TO. NOTE: WE OPPOSE ONLY THE 30 METER EXPANSION.

NOTE: WE OPPOSE RM-11828. NOVICE AND TECHNICIAN ARE NOT SHOWN, SINCE THEY ARE A SEPARATE PROCEEDING WHICH NEEDS A SEPARATE DECISION BY THE FCC, BUT SHOULD BE PART OF A FINAL OMNIBUS R & O.

CURRENT 80 METERS

NEW HF BAND PLAN 80 METERS

40 ARRL HF BAND PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT: http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ODV/Second%20Board %20Meeting%20July%202020/Doc%2025%20BandPlanning%20Committee%20Report.pdf AND http://www.arrl.org/files/file/ODV/Second%20Board%20Meeting%20July%202020/Doc%2025A%20Band%20Plan %20Final-1b.pdf CURRENT 40 METERS

NEW HF BAND PLAN 40 METERS

WE PROPOSE TO KEEP THE CURRENT 30 METERS, (A 5 KHZ DIFFERENCE).

WE OPPOSE ONLY THE 30 METER ARRL HF BAND PLAN OF 5 KHZ EXPANSION SHOWN BELOW, AND RECOMMEND NO CHANGE FOR THIS WARC BAND:

CURRENT 20 METERS

NEW HF BAND PLAN 20 METERS CURRENT 17 METERS

NEW HF BAND PLAN 17 METERS (ARRL REQUESTS NO CHANGE)

CURRENT 15 METERS

NEW HF BAND PLAN 15 METERS

CURRENT 12 METERS

NEW HF BAND PLAN 12 METERS (ARRL REQUESTS NO CHANGE) CURRENT 10 METERS

NEW HF BAND PLAN 10 METERS (ONLY ADDS 29.2 – 29.3) APPENDIX B: PART 97 AMENDMENT SUGGESTED WORDING

1. RM-11708 original proposal (as corrected in their subsequent errata) by ARRL41 is adapted to delete the rules specifying baud rate and substituting wording for 2.8 KHz bandwidth for wideband data. Also included are changes to §97.305 table implementing the ARRL HF Band Plan approved by the ARRL Board of Directors (BOD), with the single exception of 30 meters ACDS segment remaining as it is currently. New 2.8 KHz data and/or Automatic Control is permitted only in the §97.221(b) ACDS segments. 2. RM-11759 provision to expand the 80 meter RTTY, data segment is agreed to and included. 3. The deletion of §97.221(c) approved by the ARRL BOD per the HF Band Plan is included, which contains all ACDS or automatic operation to only the ACDS §97.221(b) segments. Maximum bandwidth in the RTTY/data segments is continued at 500 Hz, with no automatic control permitted outside §97.221(b). 4. No changes to Novice or Technician privileges are included (since we oppose RM-11828 or any changes to their privileges (as in RM-11759), and we are focusing on matters on which we can achieve consensus which are germane to NPRM 16-239.)

*****

[Part 97, Subpart D of the Amateur Service Rules is amended at Subsection §97.305 as indicated below. Changes are noted by bold and a * in wavelength band column, denoted by brackets [ ] in Standards column. For simplicity and brevity, only HF bands are shown.]

§97.305 Authorized emission types.

Wavelength Standards see §97.307(f), Frequencies Emission types authorized band paragraph: HF: 80 m* Entire band RTTY, data (3), (9). [ADD (4)] 80 m* [ADD ENTIRE 3.625-3.650 RTTY, data, Phone, image (1), (2), (9), (11), (3), (4). ROW PER RM-11759] 75 m Entire band Phone, image (1), (2). 40 m 7.000-7.100 MHz RTTY, data (3), (9) [ADD: RTTY, data per (1), (2), (9), (11) [ADD 40 m* 7.075-7.100 MHz ARRL HF Band Plan] (3). (4)] Phone, image 40 m* 7.100-7.125 MHz RTTY, data (3), (9) [ADD (4)] 40 m 7.125-7.300 MHz Phone, image (1), (2) 30 m* Entire band RTTY, data (3), [ADD (4)] 20 m* 14.00-14.15 MHz RTTY, data (3), [ADD (4)] 20 m 14.15-14.35 MHz Phone, image (1), (2).

41 ARRL petition, as corrected in errata page 6: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520959653.pdf 17 m* 18.068-18.110 MHz RTTY, data (3), [ADD (4)] 17 m 18.110-18.168 MHz Phone, image (1), (2). 15 m* 21.0-21.2 MHz RTTY, data (3), (9). [ADD (4)] 15 m 21.20-21.45 MHz Phone, image (1), (2). 12 m* 24.89-24.93 MHz RTTY, data (3), [ADD (4)] 12 m 24.93-24.99 MHz Phone, image (1), (2). 10 m* 28.0-28.3 MHz RTTY, data (4). [ADD (3)] 10 m 28.3-28.5 MHz Phone, image (1), (2), (10). 10 m 28.5-29.0 MHz Phone, image (1), (2). 10m* [ADD ENTIRE ROW PER 29.2-29.3 RTTY, data, Phone, image [(3), (4)] ARRL HF BAND PLAN] 10 m 29.0-29.7 MHz Phone, image (2).

[EXPLANATION FOR §97.307 CHANGES:

Paragraph 3 applies to MF/HF from 80 - 10 meters only ACDS §97.221(b)segments and sets maximum bandwidth there to 2.8 KHz per ARRL. Paragraph 4 applies to MF/HF from 80 - 10 meters and sets a default bandwidth of 500 Hz in RTTY/DATA segments per OUR PDR, rather than deleting it per ARRL. Paragraph 5 applies to VHF, deletes baud rate and substitutes bandwidth per ARRL. Paragraph 6 to 222-225 and 70 cm, deletes baud rate and substitutes bandwidth per ARRL.

NOTE: This PDR adheres to the e-CFR FCC version42 dated March 16, 2021. We insist that below 30 MHz “specified” “disclosed” codes be employed.]

[Part 97, Subpart D of the Amateur Service Rules is amended at Subsection 97.307(f) dealing with technical standards as indicated below. This follows the ARRL errata RM-11708 petition wording 43 , except as noted below.]

97.307 - Emission standards. * * * (f) The following standards and limitations apply to transmissions on the frequencies specified in §97.305(c) of this part * * *

42 Part 97 rules: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx? SID=d4b3c60d2d60000a147f885bdee88264&mc=true&node=pt47.5.97&rgn=div5 43 ARRL RM-11708 petition, as they amended page 6: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/7520959653.pdf (3) Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in § 97.309(a) of this part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not exceed 300 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not exceed 1 kHz. [ADD: A RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in § 97.309(a) of this part may be transmitted only on the frequencies specified in §97.221(b) employing Automatic Control (ACDS). For only §97.221(b) frequencies, the authorized bandwidth is 2.8 KHz .]

(4) [ARRL requested to delete this section 4 applying to 10 meters and subsume it into ⁋4.] Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in § 97.309(a) of this part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not exceed 1200 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not exceed 1 kHz.- [Reserved.] [ADD NEW WORDING44: (4) Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in § 97.309(a) of this part may be transmitted. The authorized bandwidth is 500 Hz. ACDS or Automatic Controlled operation is prohibited below 30 MHz outside the frequencies specified in §97.221(b).]

(5) A RTTY, data or multiplexed emission using a specified digital code listed in § 97.309(a) of this part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not exceed 19.6 kilobauds. A RTTY, data or multiplexed emission using an unspecified digital code under the limitations listed in § 97.309(b) of this part also may be transmitted. The authorized bandwidth is 20 KHz.

(6) A RTTY, data or multiplexed emission using a specified digital code listed in § 97.309(a) of this part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not exceed 56 kilobauds. A RTTY, data or multiplexed emission using an unspecified digital code under the limitations listed in § 97.309(b) of this part also may be transmitted. The authorized bandwidth is 100 kHz.

44 ARRL July 19-20, 2019 Board of Directors Minutes agree with this change: www.arrl.org/files/file/2019%20Board %20of%20Directors/Final%20Minutes%20July%202019.pdf Page 17: “IT IS ACCORDINGLY RESOLVED that the ARRL’s Washington Counsel is instructed to take appropriate steps, including, but not limited to, appropriate filings with the Federal Communications Commission, to obtain the Commission’s approval for the following enumerated changes to Part 97 of the Commission’s Rules:(1) All automatically controlled digital stations (ACDS) below 30 MHz, regardless of bandwidth, are authorized to operate only within the ACDS bands designated in the FCC’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §97.221(b);(2) All digital mode stations that operate with a bandwidth greater than 500 Hz also must operate within the ACDS bands designated in the FCC’s Rules, whether or not automatically controlled;( [Part 97, Subpart D of the Amateur Service Rules is amended at Subsection §97.221 as indicated below. Changes are denoted by bold and brackets [ ] and ADD.]

§97.221 Automatically controlled digital station.

(a) This rule section does not apply to an auxiliary station, a beacon station, a repeater station, an earth station, a space station, or a space telecommand station.

[DELETE: (b) A station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on the 28.120-28.189 MHz, 24.925-24.930 MHz, 21.090- 21.100 MHz, 18.105-18.110 MHz, 14.0950-14.0995 MHz, 14.1005-14.112 MHz, 10.140-10.150 MHz, 7.100-7.105 MHz, or 3.585-3.600 MHz segments.]

[ADD: (b) A station may be automatically controlled (except for channels specified in §97.303(h)) while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on the 6 m or shorter wavelength bands, and on the 28.120-28.189 MHz, 29.2-29.3 MHz, 24.925-24.930 MHz, 21.150-21.200 MHz, 18.105-18.110 MHz, 14.105-14.150, 10.140-10.150 MHz, 7.1-7.125 MHz, 3.6-3.65 MHz segments. A station may not be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission, but it may transmit with a 2.8 KHz bandwidth on 7.075-7.1 MHz and 3.625-3.650 MHz in US territory south of 20°N or west of 135°W.]

[DELETE PER ARRL45: (c) Except for channels specified in §97.303(h), a station may be automatically controlled while transmitting a RTTY or data emission on any other frequency authorized for such emission types provided that: (1) The station is responding to interrogation by a station under local or remote control; and (2) No transmission from the automatically controlled station occupies a bandwidth of more than 500 Hz.]

[ADD NEW PARAGRAPH46: (c) The control operator of an automatically controlled digital station operating below 30 MHz shall hold a license class of General, Advanced, or Extra.]

45 ARRL July 19-20, 2019 Board of Directors Minutes agree with this change: www.arrl.org/files/file/2019%20Board %20of%20Directors/Final%20Minutes%20July%202019.pdf Page 17: “IT IS ACCORDINGLY RESOLVED that the ARRL’s Washington Counsel is instructed to take appropriate steps, including, but not limited to, appropriate filings with the Federal Communications Commission, to obtain the Commission’s approval for the following enumerated changes to Part 97 of the Commission’s Rules:(1) All automatically controlled digital stations (ACDS) below 30 MHz, regardless of bandwidth, are authorized to operate only within the ACDS bands designated in the FCC’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §97.221(b);(2) All digital mode stations that operate with a bandwidth greater than 500 Hz also must operate within the ACDS bands designated in the FCC’s Rules, whether or not automatically controlled;(3) No digital mode station may employ a bandwidth greater than 2.8 KHz in any band below 29 MHz” “A roll call vote being requested the motion to call the previous question passed with 14 AYE votes and 1 NAY votes” 46 Carson reply to Stephens: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10513284335700/RobertStephensARRLreply.pdf Carson, Kolarik, White, Marcus & McVey pages 30 – 33: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1130561120534/DEC %202019%20RM-11828.pdf which lists General Exam Questions demonstrating Technicians are not qualified to be the control operator of an HF Automatically Controlled station below 30 MHz. It is not “burdensome” to pass a General exam. [ADD NEW PARAGRAPH47: (d) An automatically controlled digital station shall identify by a CW emission. The speed must not exceed 20 words per minute.]

[ADD NEW PARAGRAPH48: (e) An automatically controlled digital station shall preserve records of all messages transmitted in the amateur spectrum for a minimum of 90 days, and make them available in a public database49 for inspection50. If requested by ARRL Volunteer Monitors or the FCC, records will be stored until such time as the requesting party rescinds the order.]

47 Winlink already has implemented this. The FCC should require it of all similar ACDS operations. CW ID is legal on all amateur frequencies, and is used even in commercial VHF/UHF land mobile applications. This allows a monitoring station to immediately determine the call sign without multiple trial and error use of a variety of decoding methods to discover the correct digital mode in use. It is not “burdensome”. 48 Winlink already does this, and to be consistent and fair, any other systems should be treated equally. Karn reply to Sollenberger: https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/1218312821626/ka9q-sollenberger-reply.pdf “So how can more spectrum-efficient methods be monitored without impairing the ability of amateurs to use them? ARFSI has already implemented one such scheme: an Internet site open to the public where traffic can be inspected. This is by far the easiest and most effective way to meet the spirit of the rules, especially with a network as large and complex as Winlink with radio links all over the world.” It is “easiest, already implemented,” and therefore not “burdensome”. 49 Winlink Terms of Service: https://winlink.org/terms_conditions “Message Content and Privacy There is no privacy over amateur radio... Messages are available to all licensed amateurs online for inspection.” 50 Certain groups object to the Winlink Viewer. AmRRoN White Paper: https://amrron.com/2019/05/23/amrron- temporarily-suspends-the-use-of-winlink-system-white-paper/ “When the ham community first became aware of this in early May 2019, the history could be searched as far back as three years. One improvement was made by the Winlink team, and that is a limit of only 21 days of viewable history. UPDATE 5/23: After speaking directly with a Winlink representative, we have learned that this is expected to be a temporary move... They assured us they are working on a solution and reiterated they believe this is ONLY TEMPORARY.” We include this link to alert the FCC that Winlink can eliminate this feature at any time. The FCC might want to consider why any group would want to communicate via amateur radio without public monitoring. They specifically reference RM-11831 which resulted in changes to Winlink internal procedures referenced in this PDR. [Part 97, Subpart D of the Amateur Service Rules is amended per ARRL petition RM-11759 at Subsection §97.301 as indicated below. Changes are denoted by bold and brackets [ ] and ADD. Only affected items are shown for brevity and simplicity.]

§97.301 Authorized frequency bands. The following transmitting frequency bands are available to an amateur station located within 50 km of the Earth's surface, within the specified ITU Region, and outside any area where the amateur service is regulated by any authority other than the FCC.

(a) [NO CHANGES]

(b) For a station having a control operator who has been granted an Amateur Extra Class operator license, who holds a CEPT radio amateur license, or who holds a Class 1 IARP license:

Sharing requirements see §97.303 Wavelength band ITU region 1 ITU region 2 ITU region 3 (paragraph) HF MHz MHz MHz 80 m 3.500-3.600 [3.650] 3.500-3.600 [3.650] 3.500-3.600 [3.650] (a) 75 m [3.650] 3.600-3.800 [3.650] 3.600-4.000 [3.650] 3.600-3.900 (a)

Sharing requirements see §97.303 Wavelength band ITU Region 1 ITU Region 2 ITU Region 3 (paragraph) HF MHz MHz MHz 80 m 3.525-3.600 [3.650] 3.525-3.600 [3.650] 3.525-3.600 [3.650] (a)

(d) For a station having a control operator who has been granted an operator license of General Class:

Sharing requirements see §97.303 Wavelength band ITU region 1 ITU region 2 ITU region 3 (paragraph) HF MHz MHz MHz 80 m 3.525-3.600 [3.650] 3.525-3.600 [3.650] 3.525-3.600 [3.650] (a)

(e) For a station having a control operator who has been granted an operator license of Novice Class or Technician Class:

Wavelength band ITU region 1 ITU region 2 ITU region 3 Sharing requirements see §97.303 HF MHz MHz MHz (paragraph) 3.525-3.600 3.525-3.600 3.525-3.600 80 m (a) [3.650] [3.650] [3.650] [We recommend that Part 97, Subpart D of the Amateur Service Rules NOT BE AMENDED per ARRL petition RM-11759 or RM-11828 regarding allowing new digital modes or voice expansion at Subsection §97.307, but remain as it currently is, as shown below, with NO CHANGES.]

§97.307 Emission standards.

(9) A station having a control operator holding a Novice or Technician Class operator license may only transmit a CW emission using the international Morse code.

(10) A station having a control operator holding a Novice Class operator license or a Technician Class operator license may only transmit a CW emission using the international Morse code or phone emissions J3E and R3E.

*****

[We recommend that Part 97, Subpart D of the Amateur Service Rules NOT BE AMENDED per ARRL petition RM-11759 or RM-11828 at Subsection §97.313, but remain as it currently is, as shown below.

NOTE: One change is necessary because we agree with the spectrum component of RM-11759, (2) changes to 3.650 MHz.]

§97.313 Transmitter power standards.

(1) On the 10.10-10.15 MHz segment;

(2) On the 3.525-3.600 [change to 3.650]* MHz, 7.025-7.125 MHz, 21.025-21.20 MHz, and 28.0- 28.5 MHz segment when the control operator is a Novice Class operator or a Technician Class operator; or

(3) The 7.050-7.075 MHz segment when the station is within ITU Regions 1 or 3.

(d) No station may transmit with a transmitter power exceeding 25 W PEP on the VHF 1.25 m band when the control operator is a Novice operator.

(e) No station may transmit with a transmitter power exceeding 5 W PEP on the UHF 23 cm band when the control operator is a Novice operator. APPENDIX C: 1 International Amateur Radio Union Region 1 Europe, Middle East, Africa and Northern Asia Founded 1950

Committee C4 (HF Matters) Interim Meeting 20-21 April 2013 InterCity Hotel, Vienna

SUBJECT The future of the 30 m (10 MHz) band

Society NRRL Country: Norway

Committee: C4 Paper number: VIE13/C4/

Contact: Tom V. Segalstad, LA4LN e-mail: [email protected]

Introduction NRRL invites to a discussion of the future of the 30 m band at the IARU Region 1 Interim Meeting 2013.

Background The 30 m (10 MHz) band was assigned to amateur radio on a secondary basis by WARC-79 (World Allocation Radio Conference 1979). The radio amateurs were permitted to use 50 kHz (10100 - 10150 kHz). The present IARU Region 1 bandplan (as of Sun City, August 2011) is 10100 - 10140 CW with max. bandwidth 200 Hz, and 10140 - 10150 kHz digimodes with max. bandwidth 500 Hz (narrow band modes). 10116 kHz is assigned to CW QRP center of activity.

It should be noted that IARU Region 2 permits 500 Hz maximum bandwidth in 10130 ! 10140 kHz, and 2.7 kHz maximum bandwidth in 10140 - 10150 kHz. IARU Region 3 has no maximum bandwidth specified in the 30 m band. Considerations 30 m is a day + night world-wide propagation band, and will therefore also spread signals internationally, not only domestically.

There is now quite some unattended automated computer use of the 30 m band, where we (radio amateurs) have secondary status, giving many chances of interfering with primary users of the band.

We are concerned about that too many automatic (unattended) amateur radio services are active in the 30 m band, when the band is so narrow (only 50 kHz wide), giving less space for ordinary amateur-to-amateur contacts, when the bandplan is not obeyed by a number of automated digital station users.

We experience that especially the digital activities in the 30 m band are expanding beyond the IARU Region 1 bandplan regulation. This was not intended by IARU Region 1 during bandplanning. The bandplan calls for CW only in the lower 40 kHz of the 30 m band, and that the upper 10 kHz be used for narrow band modes digimodes, with bandwidth less than 500 Hz.

What is the use of fixed frequencies in the 30 m band today within IARU Region 1? Note: The frequencies (in kHz) listed below are USB dial frequencies (and I cannot guarantee that the list is correct or complete).

10135.4 & 10136.9 Pactor PA3DUV 10138.0 & 10139.5 Pactor LZ1PKS 10139.5 & 10141.0 Pactor PA3DUV 10138 WSPR 10140-10142 PSK 10142.5 & 10144.0 Pactor S51SLO 10144.0 & 10145.5 Pactor ON0FS 10144.1 & 10145.6 Pactor EA8RCT 10144.4 & 10145.9 Pactor HB9AK 10144.9 & 10145.9 Pactor-3 LZ1PKS 10145.0 & 10146.5 Pactor OE3XEC 10146.0 & 10147.5 Pactor ON0FS 10146 & 10147 PSKMail http://pskmail.wikispaces.com/PSKmailservers 10147.8 APRS.

Our point is to show that the upper 15 kHz (30%) of our narrow 10100-10150 kHz 30 m band is now completely filled by automatic digital services (plus some manual digital activity frequencies) in IARU Region 1. And that the 10 kHz wide digital segment is so filled, that the automatic digital services now have expanded into the 10100-10140 kHz CW-only portion of the band. We observe that at least one automatic station is using PACTOR-3, which will with its approx. 2.4 kHz wide bandwidth (on two frequencies) be in serious conflict with the IARU Region 1 bandplan call for maximum 500 Hz bandwidth in the 10 kHz narrow digimode segment. (PACTOR and PACTOR-2 have 300 and 450 Hz bandwidth, respectively, and should comply with the IARU Region 1 bandplan's bandwidth for digital modes in the upper 10 kHz of the 30 m band).

There is now no room for the casual RTTY chat in the upper 10 kHz (or even 15 kHz) of the 30 m band. And definitely no room for RTTY DXing, like we now see when DX stations are trying to operate RTTY at 10140 kHz listening for the pile-up in the 10 kHz segment above. Where RTTY stations should operate, according to the IARU Region 1 bandplan. We therefore see that RTTY is now forced to operate below 10135 kHz, making even less space for CW-only communication. Existing recommendations IARU Region 1 recommendation of De Haan 1993 - C4.3: It is recommended that: Transmission modes which are inefficient in their use of spectrum or which have potential to cause serious interference problems to normal HF operations should be strongly discouraged on bands below 30 MHz. Therefore we ask: is it really necessary to have such a high number of automatic computer operated digital mode stations in the 30 m (10 MHz) band, when limiting "normal HF operations"?

We see that the automatic (unattended) computer activities flourish on 30 m. "Automatically controlled data stations" have been assigned special frequency segment in other bands -- but intentionally NOT in the 30 m band. There has until recently been a footnote in the IARU Region 1 bandplan that even news bulletins should not be transmitted in the 30 m band. The present IARU bandplan says in general about unmanned transmitting stations:

IARU member societies are requested to limit this activity on the HF bands. It is recommended that any unmanned transmitting stations on HF shall only be activated under operator control exept for beacons agreed with the IARU Region 1 beacon coordinator, or specially licensed experimental stations. The term “automatically controlled data stations” includes Store and Forward stations.

At the IARU Region 1 Interim Meeting in Friedrichshafen 2006 it was stated by the IARU Region 1 President that we should be careful in using unattended transmissions in the 10 MHz band. With reference to the Resolution DV05 C4 Rec 08, where beacons in the 7 and 10 MHz bands are discouraged. The main reason is that "it was imperative not to cause interference to the primary user" (cited from minutes of the Friedrichshafen 2006 IARU Region 1 Interim Meeting). For the same reason contests are discouraged in the 30 m band (HF Managers' Handbook, Ch. 8.1, Subchapter 8). What to do? 1) Should we discourage all automatic stations in the 30 m band, so that it will again be possible to use its upper 10 kHz narrow-band digital segment for keyboard-tokeyboard digital QSOs?

2) Or is this now a lost case, so that we must modify the IARU Region 1 bandplan to allow for both manual and automatic digital transmissions at different frequency segments?

3) Should we keep the present bandwidths in the IARU Region 1 bandplan (10110 10140 kHz @ 200 Hz CW; 10140 - 10150 @ 500 Hz digital); or should we adopt the IARU Region 2 bandplan for the 30 m band (10110 - 10130 kHz @ 200 Hz CW; 10130 - 10140 kHz @ 500 Hz digital; 10140 - 10150 @ 2.7 kHz digital)?

4) This matters the placement of Winlink/WINMORE in the 30 m band. This technique has shown to be a robust way of communicating emergency messages worldwide. Should its use be restricted to the 10140 - 10150 kHz segment, without using PACTOR-3, to be in compliance with the present IARU Region 1 bandplan? For this to be successful, all other automatic stations should be discouraged in the 30 m band.

NRRL invites to a discussion of the future of the 30 m band at the IARU Region 1 Interim Meeting 2013.

Based on the background, considerations, and recommendations for the 30 m band (cited above), NRRL wants to propose the following recommendation, which can be discussed or modified at the Interim Meeting:

Recommendation All member societies are requested to make actions in order to adhere to the IARU Region 1 bandplan including its notes (especially to limit unmanned transmitting stations) especially in the 30 m band. Automatic Winlink/WINMORE stations are permitted in the digimode segment for emergency use, and should adhere to the IARU Region 1 bandplan also with respect to bandwidth limitations. But then we need to decide if the present 30 m bandplan is good, or if it should be changed?

Appendix G3NRW provides updated usage of the 30 m band on his web pages: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wadei/30m_band_utilization.htm http://homepage.ntlworld.com/wadei/121122_30m_Band_Utilization_ Chart.pdf