• ARLB034 NCVEC advances revised Morse testing standards
• Bill's Emergency Supplies List for ARES members

  ---

Bill Sprague  K4BW - RACES Officer - Accomack County

SB QST ARL ARLB034
ARLB034 NCVEC advances revised Morse testing standards

The National Conference of Volunteer Examiner Coordinators has voted
to set up revised standards for the administration of Morse code
examinations in the US.

Under the revised standards, examinees would have to show 25
character-count solid copy on test sheets or successfully answer
seven out of ten questions of a fill-in-the-blank quiz on the sent
text. The plan would bar multiple choice tests for Morse code
testing.

Morse examinations would specify use of a Farnsworth  ''character
speed'' in the range of 13 to 15 WPM.  Morse code audio pitch would
have to be between 700 and 1000 Hz. Standard 5 WPM tests with 5 WPM
character speed could be administered only as a special
accommodation.

The new Morse testing standards are to be in effect by next July 1,
but VECs may implement them sooner.

The NCVEC vote came July 21 during a meeting of VECs in Gettysburg,
Pennsylvania.
NNNN
/EX

Bernie Fuller N3EFN, Atlantic Division Director
Bill Edgar N3LLR, Atlantic Division Vice Director
SB QST @ ARL $ARLB003

ZCZC AG03
QST de W1AW
ARRL Bulletin 3  ARLB003
>From ARRL Headquarters
Newington CT  January 14, 2000
To all radio amateurs

SB QST ARL ARLB003
ARLB003 Question Pool Committee Eyes February 1 Release Date

A revised Amateur Radio question pool that reflects the April 15,
2000, restructuring rules could be out by February 1. Chairman Ray
Adams, W4CPA, of the National Conference of Volunteer Examiner
Coordinators' Question Pool Committee says workable question pools
for the new Technician, General and Amateur Extra written exams will
be made public by February 1 or ''very shortly thereafter.''

Adams says that a Technician class syllabus already has been drafted
and approved. The various QPC members have been keeping in touch by
telephone and e-mail since the FCC announced the restructuring rules
December 30.

Adams says that the QPC plans to further refine and update the newly
configured pools in the future, after it has an opportunity to meet
and formulate a plan. He said the revised question pools will follow
the established format.

After April 15, 2000, the FCC will only issue Technician, General,
and Amateur Extra class licenses. Novice and Advanced licensees will
retain current operating privileges and may renew indefinitely.
Applicants desiring HF privileges will only have to pass a 5 WPM
Morse code test. Current Amateur Radio study materials remain valid
at least until the new rules become effective in April.

There are four examination elements in the new licensing system.
Element 1 is the 5 WPM Morse code test; Element 2 is a 35-question
Technician test; Element 3 is a 35-question General test, and
Element 4 is a 50-question Amateur Extra test.

Frequently Asked Questions and other information on restructuring is
available on the ARRL Web site.

RACES could be activated for hours or days, so
adapt this list to suit your situation and develop a "Ready
Kit" which is always accessible! 

EQUIPMENT: 
     •    Transceiver(s) (Identified with your call sign)
     •    Headphones or earphone
     •    Extra battery packs or external gel cell battery
     •    Cigarette lighter power adapter
     •    AC power supply and cord
     •    50' coax with connectors (including adapters)
     •    Portable ground plane antenna
     •    Flashlight and batteries
     •    Small tool bag (tools, soldering iron, wire)
     •    ARRL ARES Field Resource Manual
     •    County  RACES operations manual or plan 
     •    NTS Message forms
     •    50' 1/8" nylon cord
     •    Spare fuses
     •    Repeater directory
     •    Duct/electrical tape
     •    RACES ID card
     •    FCC license copy
     •    Credit cards/cash/coins/calling card
     •    Pens/pencils/steno pad
     •    7-1/2 minute series USGS area topo maps
     •    RACES Frequency Reference Card

PERSONAL ITEMS:
Aspirin, laxative, anti-diarrheal medicine, deodorant,
toothbrush, toothpaste, antacids, sunscreen, comb,
razor, shave cream, soap, "cold water" laundry soap,
towel and washcloth, travel alarm, pocket knife,
roll of toilet paper in a ziplock bag, first aid kit, ear
plugs (noisy shelters).

CLOTHING: (no nylon or polyester on fire assignments,
use cotton or wool)  Boots, jacket, sweatshirt, seasonal 
underwear (2), pair socks (2), hat, extra long sleeve shirt 
(plus the one on your back), rain wear, long pants,
handkerchiefs. 

FOOD /SHELTER:  Canned stew, dry soup, instant
coffee/tea/cocoa, 1 gallon water per man/day, salt/pepper
packets, sugar subs, creamer packets, instant oatmeal,
granola bars, throat lozenges, knife/fork/spoon, cup,
sleeping bag, cot, tent, Sterno stove, small pot, bucket for
laundry.

As anyone who is familiar with radio knows, an antenna is “necessary apparatus.” An antenna
is essential for both radio reception and transmission. A radio without an antenna is as useless
as a car without wheels, as pointless as having a boat with no way to get it into the water.

The Communications Act requires that radio stations be licensed, authorizes the FCC to grant
such licenses, and requires that the FCC “generally encourage the larger and more effective use
of radio in the public interest.” It only stands to reason that the FCC must have an interest in
ensuring that the stations it licenses include antennas that are appropriate for the service they
are expected to provide. In the case of the Amateur Radio Service, that interest was formally
expressed in 1985 by means of an FCC declaration of limited preemption of state and local
regulation commonly known as “PRB-1.”

PRB-l has assisted many amateurs, including the undersigned, in their negotiations with local
land use authorities. It is an enormous help, but is not a panacea. Some courts have
misinterpreted PRB-l. Some local authorities have tried various ways to thwart its clear intent. A
large and growing group of radio amateurs is beyond the pale of its protection; those who must
live in areas with restrictive covenants.

Based on more than a decade of experience with PRB- (,in 1996 the ARRL requested some
clarifications and fine-tuning of the FCC?s preemption policy. Nearly four years later, in
November 1999, the Commission finally got around to saying no—that PRB-l is fine just the way
it is.

In one major respect, we agree that PRB-l couldn?t be clearer. In our clarification request we
had asked that the FCC emphasize that the local authority must not engage in a balancing of its
interests against those of the federal licensee. Our reason for making this request was not that
the FCC itself had been unclear or ambiguous the first time, Rather, it was that some federal
courts have misinterpreted PRB-l and have held that it is sufficient if local authorities engage in
such a balancing of interests. The correct conclusion was reached in a 1994 case, Pentel v. City
of Mendota Heights, Minnesota, in which the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals held that the FCC
had done the balancing itself and that it was the absolute obligation of the municipality to make
reasonable accommodation for the amateur communications.

On this point, at least, the FCC?s Order dismissing our clarification request offers some
assistance. The Order states in part; “We do not believe a clarification is necessary because the
PRB-1 decision precisely stated the principle of ‘reasonable accommodation.? In PRB-1, the
Commission stated; ‘Nevertheless, local regulations which involve placement, screening, or
height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to
accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practi-

cable regulation to accomplish the local authority?s legitimate purpose.? Given this express
Commission language, it is clear that a ‘balancing of interests? approach is not appropriate
in this context.” (Emphasis added.)

Coincidentally, a Florida case was at just the right stage to offer an opportunity to use this new
tool. ARRL member Lenard J. Persin, WB4HZQ, applied to the Seminole County Board of
Adjustment for a special exception to a 35-foot height limitation so he could erect an 80-foot
tower on a treed, Js-acre residential lot. Initially his request was granted, but a neighbor
appealed and on appeal his application was denied. He then sought relief in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida. ARRL Volunteer Counsel Eric Ludin, N2EL, handled the
case; ARRL submitted a brief amicus curiae prepared by General Counsel Chris Imlay, W3KD.

To make a long story short, on November 2, 1999, the Court granted summary judgment in
favor of the County “because the undisputed evidence shows that the County properly balanced
Mr. Persin?s interests with the needs of the community.” As it happens, this is precisely the
erroneous “balancing of interests” approach that the FCC said “is not appropriate in this context.”
Thus, an appeal of the Court?s decision offers an extremely timely opportunity not only to correct
this particular decision, but to use the FCC?s “non-clarification” to extend the earlier favorable
decision in Pentel to another part of the country. At its December 4 meeting, the ARRL Executive
Committee voted to authorize funding of the appeal.

In two other important respects, PRB- 1 does require extension or clarification.

One has already been mentioned: recognition that the FCC?s interest in effective amateur
communication extends to those amateurs who must live in homes that are subject to restrictive
covenants. In 1985 the FCC went out of its way to exclude these amateurs from PRB-l protection
because it believed it did not have any jurisdiction to preempt private land use regulations. Since
that time, however, it has become clear that the FCC does have such jurisdiction if necessary to
further an important federal interest.

The second is that some local land use regulations or authorities impose unreasonable costs,
either in the form of excessive fees or overly burdensome requirements for screening or other
mitigation of the visual impact of an antenna, Guidelines have been developed to control such
costs in other services and should also be available to the Amateur Radio Service.

On each of these two points, the ARRL is seeking reconsideration of the Commission?s denial.
PRB-1 Is a good tool. All we are asking is that what has been learned since 1985 be used to
make it even better—David Sumner, KIZZ ~