International Amateur Radio Union Region 1 Europe, Middle East, Africa and Northern Asia Founded 1950
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.