HAM Radio 1/HamRadio.cdr/news/haminfo/ham6.txt

Text File | 1991-06-29 | 40KB | 786 lines

----------------------------------------------------------------------
       90-55 FCC  Amateur Radio  No Code Licence Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                        Washington, D. C. 20554

                        PR Docket No. 90-55

In the matter of

Amendment of Part 97 of the             RM-6984 RM-6985
Commission's Rules Concerning           RM-6986 RM-6987
the Establishment of a Codeless         RM-6988 RM-6989
Class of Amateur Operator License       RM-6990 RM-6991
                                        RM-6992 RM-6993
                                        RM-6994 RM-6995

                        REPORT AND ORDER

Adopted: December 13, 1990; Released: December 27, 1990

By the Commission:


1. On February 8, 1990, we adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making
(Notice) [1] in the above-captioned proceeding. In the Notice, we
proposed to establish a new class of amateur operator license (codeless
class) that would not require applicants to prove that they can send
and receive texts in Morse Code telegraphy signals. [2]

2. In response to the Notice, we received over 1,100 comments and 12
reply comments from individuals and organizations. The comments are
generally supportive of an entry level codeless class. They differ
widely, however, in support for the proposed license requirements,
operator privileges, and license class structure. This Report and Order
adopts the rules for a new codeless class license as proposed in the
Notice with the changes discussed below.

                        II. BACKGROUND

3. The International Radio Regulations require that persons seeking a
license to operate an amateur station prove that they have the ability
to send correctly by hand and to receive correctly by ear text in Morse
code telegraphy signals. [1] Although this requirement may be waived
for an operator of a station transmitting exclusively on frequencies
above 30 MHz, [4] each of the five classes of operator licenses
currently issued by the Commission requires the applicant to pass an
examination in the international Morse Code. [5]

4. Over the years, we have received many requests from persons who
argue that proficiency in telegraphy is an unreasonable barrier to
obtaining an amateur operator license. When we proposed codeless
classes previously, [6] nevertheless, the amateur community strongly
objected. Lately, however, the sentiment of the amateur community
appears to favor at least an entry level codeless license class. As a
result, our Notice proposed to reprogram resources from processing
applications for new Novice and Technician Class licenses to processing
applications for licenses for a new entry level codeless class.

5. In the Notice, we stated the three fundamental objectives that we
have with respect to the proposed codeless class. Our first objective
is to offer an entry level operator license opportunity to otherwise
qualified persons who find the telegraphy requirement a barrier to
pursuing the purpose of the amateur service. [7] Our second objective
is to establish a type of license that can be implemented promptly. Our
third objective is to avoid negative effects upon current licensees,
upon the work of the volunteer examiners (VEs), or upon the
Commission's workload and resources.

6. In the Notice, we proposed to add a new entry level codeless
"Communicator Class" operator license in lieu of the existing Novice
and Technician Classes of licenses. We also proposed to grandfather
current Novice and Technician Class operator licenses indefinitely.
The operator privileges proposed included all authorized emission
types, a maximum transmitter power of 200 watts peak envelope power,
and authorization to transmit on amateur service frequency bands above
30 MHz with the exception of the 2 meter and 6 meter bands.

                        III. DISCUSSION

7. Approximately seventy percent of the comments to this proceeding
favor at least an entry level codeless license. Some of these comments,
however, advance proposals that go beyond establishing a single codeless
class. [8]  Other supporting comments suggest alternatives that would
have undesirable effects upon present licensees. [9] Still other
supporting comments suggest alternatives that would have unacceptable
effects upon the VEs and the Commission's workloads. [10] The remaining
thirty percent of the comments object to any form of codeless license.
[11] In the paragraphs below, we address in detail the issues raised in
the Notice and comments.

A. Need for codeless class

8. Proposal. Our Notice was issued in response to twelve petitions for
rule making calling for codeless license classes. We observed that a
significant segment of the amateur community appeared to have a new view
of the role of telegraphy in the future of the amateur service. [12] We
also stated that this was a propitious time to propose the
establishment of an entry level codeless class, given the advances in
electronic communications in the past few years. [13]

9. Comments. Among those affirming the need for a codeless class is the
Quarter Century Wireless Association (QCWA) whose comments state that
"[m]any QCWA members have a lifetime history of operating with, and a
sentimental attachment to, use of the Morse code. It is understandable
that some may not be overly enthusiastic in endorsing changes in
licensing procedures which would delete the requirement of proficiency
in this traditional mode of communication. Nonetheless, after
consideration of the facts associated with licensing trends, we have
concluded that the blanket code proficiency requirement may be a major
cause of decline in the entry of many people into the Amateur Radio
Service. Given this conclusion and in recognition of our responsibility
to the public interest, we are agreed that a blanket Morse code
requirement for entry into the Amateur Radio Service can no longer be
justified." [14]

10. The American Radio Relay League, Inc. (ARRL) states that our
objectives in this proceeding are basically sound and are consistent
with its own rationale for the creation of a codeless class. [15] An
ARRL study committee has concluded that the perception of the Morse
telegraphy requirement filtered out too many desirable and technically
qualified operators who have not recognized the value of manual
telegraphy as a means of practical communication. [16]

11. The National Conference of Volunteer Examiner Coordinators (NCVEC)
states that it found ample evidence that the Morse telegraphy
requirement is no longer essential to an entry level amateur operator
license. [17] The Amateur Radio Industry Group (ARIG), another codeless
class supporter, states that "[a]mateur radio has evolved from a hobby
of tinkerers and telegraphers into a service of communicators... [T]he
Morse code requirement at the entry level is a carryover from the origins
of amateur radio which today may be preventing many interested and
otherwise qualified persons from entering the Amateur Radio Service."
[18]

12. The opposing comments hold that telegraphy skill is absolutely
required for any participation in the amateur service. Their arguments
are generally based upon claims for telegraphy as a superior
communications medium and for telegraphers as model radio operators.
Representative comments are as follows: "Morse code is the most
effective means of communicating and the only one which can be used
under the most adverse conditions." [19] "All hams must be prepared to
use code in an emergency situation." [20] "We do not desire to have
individuals join our ranks that would have us lower our standards."
[21] Another argument is based on the need to maintain tradition. "I
had to take the code when I got my ticket, so why should someone else
pass the code up?" [22] "I believe everyone should be blessed with the
glory of learning code before operating in the amateur frequency
spectrum." [23]

13. Discussion. The comments clearly confirm that the amateur community
is undergoing a dramatic shift in sentiment concerning the value of
Morse Code as an entry level license requirement. For the amateur
service to achieve its purpose it must have the participation of as
many qualified persons as possible who desire to pursue that purpose.
Modern commercial and military electronic systems require engineers to
design them, technicians to install and maintain them, and a
technologically literate citizenry that can use them. The amateur
service should, as it has in the past, attract technically inclined
persons, particularly the youth of our country, and encourage them to
learn and to prepare themselves where the United States needs
expertise. We do not foresee that telegraphers will be in as great
demand by future systems as will electronics and communications
experts.

14. Telegraphy skill has been required for each person who has ever
been issued an amateur operator license in the United States, including
the current 493,000 licensees. Mastering the Morse Code was an arduous
task for many of these licensees, and by developing their telegraphy
skills they expressed their intense desire to become amateur operators.
It is understandable, therefore, that there are licensees who are
reluctant to share the amateur service frequencies with new licensees
who have not made a similar effort to master the Morse code. We
conclude, however, that telegraphy skill is not so essential to proper
operation of a station that transmits exclusively above 30 MHz such as
to justify turning away otherwise qualified persons who do not possess
the skill. The Notice, furthermore, did not propose to delete the
telegraphy skill requirement for a licensee to be the control operator
of a station transmitting below 30 MHz where telegraphy communications
take place extensively and worldwide communications are possible. The
sharing of frequencies between codeless class licensees and other
licensees can take place on frequency bands above 30 MHz where
telegraphy operation is minimal and where the transmission of the more
modern emission types such as data, image, phone, pulse, RTTY, and
spread spectrum, predominate. [24]

15. We do not concur with the comments alleging that the passing of a
telegraphy examination is an indication of the examinee's good
character, high intelligence, cooperative demeanor, or willingness to
comply with our rules. [25] These traits are also found in individuals
who have not passed a telegraphy examination rather than being
exclusive to those who have passed such a test. For regulatory
purposes, passing a telegraphy examination is no more and no less than
proof of the examinee's ability to send and receive texts in Morse code
at some specified rate. With respect to comments that make claims for
the superiority of telegraphy over other types of communications, we do
not consider these arguments as germane to this proceeding. The Notice
did not propose to discontinue the authorization of telegraphy CW
emission types on any amateur service frequency. The amateur service in
the future, as it has in the past, can provide to those who personally
desire to do so the opportunity to communicate by telegraphy.

16. We are adopting rules, therefore, that implement the codeless
license option provided in the international Radio Regulations. These
new rules offer a codeless class of license that authorizes control
operator privileges at stations which transmit exclusively above 30
MHz. This satisfies our objective of providing an entry level
opportunity to otherwise qualified persons who find telegraphy a
barrier to pursuing the purposes of the amateur service.

B. Operator License structure

17. Proposal. Our Notice proposed to add a new codeless class in a
simplified license structure containing four ascending steps, new
codeless Communicator, General, Advanced, and Amateur Extra Classes.
There would also be, in effect, a "Communicator Plus CSCE" [26]
operator class which recognized that some Communicator Class licensees
hold a CSCE showing the licensee has passed an international Morse code
test but which would not require additional license processing
resources. The codeless class would be the first step in the license
structure instead of the Novice Class. We stated that this structure
could be rapidly implemented because the present license processing
system and application form would continue to be used.  Our Notice,
however, particularly asked the amateur community to consider carefully
the alternative of preserving the existing five-step ladder by simply
eliminating the telegraphy examination requirement from the Novice
Class license.

18. Comments. In general, the comments object to the proposal to
discontinue issuing new Novice and Technician Class licenses. The
NCVEC, in particular, stresses that the volunteer-examiner coordinators
(VECs) desire that the existing license structure should be preserved
to the maximum extent possible. It proposes the addition of a sixth
class of license, although "[t]he VECs recognize that [this] position
is not resource neutral ... This does not mean, however, the VECs would
be any less in favor of a codeless license if the Communicator Class
could only be implemented in place of one or more other classes." [27]

19. The QCWA states that another operator license class is unnecessary.
It contends that the codeless class can be best implemented by simply
removing the telegraphy requirement from the Technician Class operator
license and modifying its privileges to comply with the International
Radio Regulations. [28] The ARRL maintains, however, that there should
be two paths of initial entry into the amateur service, (a) the current
code-required Novice Class and (b) a new codeless class. The ARRL
acknowledges, however, that the resulting "six classes of amateur
license are, for the long term, perhaps an overly complex scheme, (but)
the matter can be revisited in the future, after the Amateur Radio
Service has had some experience with, and becomes adjusted to, the now
new concept of a codeless license class." [29]

20. Our inquiry concerning the desirability of conversion of the Novice
Class into a codeless class was not supported generally. The ARRL
states that a codeless class would not be a suitable substitute for
the Novice Class as an entry level license. It adds that closing off
the telegraphy "route of entry for the Service would in fact stifle a
large percentage of the newcomers to the Service." [30] The NCVEC
reports that a survey of VEs shows that "[m]any newcomers would still
prefer to obtain a Novice Class license, which is also the least
expensive path into amateur radio." [31] The QCWA "also urges that the
Novice Class license ... be continued ... [as] a route for the person
who finds little difficulty with a Morse code requirement but lacks
the extensive skills and technical knowledge required by the Technician
Class examination." [32]

21. Discussion. The addition of a sixth class of license to an already
intricate license structure is neither desirable nor achievable without
unacceptable effects upon our workload. Even if there were no increase
in the number of new licensees, adding a sixth license class would
result in an increased demand for license application processing; most
newcomers to the amateur service initially obtain the lowest class of
license and those who subsequently advance to the higher license
classes usually do so one class at a time.

22. The disadvantages of a sixth license class are further compounded
by the nature of our computer-aided application processing system. On
further investigation, we have determined that our present computer
system will not support six classes of licenses without new and
significant expenditures of resources.  The additional work to modify
the system to have the capability of supporting the processing for a
sixth class of license is inconsistent with our objective of limiting
impact on our workload and resources.  A new Communicator Class of
license, consequently, is not a viable solution. The codeless class,
therefore, must be incorporated into the present license structure.

23. Because it requires the least difficult written examination, the
option of converting the Novice Class to a codeless class is not a
solution generally supported by the commenters. The Novice Class,
moreover, has very limited privileges above 30 MHz. [33] The Technician
Class, however, has a more difficult written examination and
authorizes all privileges above 30 MHz. The conversion of the
Technician Class to a codeless class, as allowed by the international
Radio Regulations and as recommended by QCWA and other commenters, [34]
therefore, is the logical choice. Approximately ten percent of new
licensees already enter the service at the Technician Class level. [35]
The 126,543 current Technician Class licensees, however, are also
authorized the same limited privileges as Novice Class operators below
30 MHz on the basis of having passed a telegraphy examination. To
achieve our goal of avoiding any negative effects upon current
licensees, therefore, we can make provisions in the rules for these
licensees to retain all of their current privileges. [36]

24. We are, accordingly, establishing the Technician Class as the
codeless class of license that includes all amateur privileges above 30
MHz. We are amending Section 97.301(c), however, to grandfather
frequency privileges below 30 MHz to current Technician Class licensees
as well as to authorize these privileges to those holding a Technician
Class license issued on or after February 14, 1991, who pass a
telegraphy examination. [37]  This satisfies our objectives of
establishing a type of codeless class of license that can be
implemented promptly and avoiding negative effects upon the work of the
VEs or upon our workload and resources.

C. License requirements

25. Proposal. The Notice proposed to require applicants for the
codeless class of license to pass a sixty question written examination.
Thirty questions would be drawn from the current Element 2 question
pool, twenty-five questions would be drawn from the current Element
3(A) question pool, [38] and five questions would be drawn from a new
pool. In effect, applicants for the new codeless class would be
required for the current Technician Class license, plus five additional
questions.

26. Comments. The ARRL comments support our proposal and state that the
five additional questions should concern operating practices. [39]
Other comments call for even more written questions. [40] Sill others
recommend fewer written questions. [41] The NCVEC, however, points out
that the only purpose of testing is to assure that the licensees are
qualified to operate amateur stations on the frequencies authorized for
the class of license held. [42]  It recommends that the codeless class
license requirement by the passing of the existing Element 2 and 3(A)
examinations. [43]

27. Discussion. As pointed out by NCVEC, the written examination is
administered solely to determine of the examinee possesses the
operational and technical qualifications required by a station operator
to perform properly the duties associated with the privileges of the
license sought. [44] Our rules require that each examination question
set administered to an examinee must use questions taken from the
applicable question pool [45] and each pool must contain at least ten
times the number of questions for a single examination. [46] The
question pools for Elements 2 and 3(A), therefore, should already
contain questions that test whether an examinee has the requisite
qualifications to perform properly the operator duties at an amateur
station transmitting exclusively above 30 MHz. We are not convinced
that the addition of five questions is needed to establish the
operational and technical qualifications of examinees for licenses
having these privileges.

28. Each examinee is responsible for knowing the answers to the entire
body of questions in the question pool. In the interest of practical
examination administration, however, the VEs ask the examinee only a
sample number of questions from the pool and they require a passing
grade of approximately 74 percent. [47] When technological
advancements, operating trends, or rule amendments alter the duties of
a particular class of amateur operator license, the effect of our rules
is to require that the VECs revise the question pools accordingly. The
deletion of privileges below 30 MHz does not call for an increase in
the number of questions posed in the written examination for a
Technician Class license. Preparing and administering additional
examination questions, moreover, would increase the workload of the VEs
and VECs. We decline, therefore, to change the number of questions in
the written examination elements required for the Technician Class
license.

D. Technician Plus Certificate of Successful Completion of Examination

29. Proposal. The Notice proposed that upon passing a telegraphy
examination, a codeless class licensee would be authorized Technician
Class privileges below 30 MHz. To avoid an increased license processing
burden, our proposal was that the documentation of the passing of the
telegraphy examination be indefinitely evidenced by the Certificate of
Successful Completion of Examination (CSCE), rather than by the
issuance of another license document. [48]  Each VEC would be required
to provide paper or magnetic listings to the Commission for codeless
class licensees who had been issued a CSCE for passing a telegraphy
examination.

30. Comments. The NCVEC advises that the VECs could permanently
document whether an examinee has passed a telegraphy examination that
was administered by VEs, but that use of a CSCE for this purpose would
result in enforcement difficulties and would create a record keeping
burden. [49] The ARRL adds that use of a CSCE for indefinitely
documenting that a licensee has passed a telegraphy examination would
be unwieldy. [50]

31. Discussion. The comments of NCVEC and ARRL, in effect, recommend
that the documentation showing that a codeless licensee has later
passed a telegraphy examination be accomplished by the Commission
issuing a sixth class of operator license. The sole purpose of this
sixth class would be to distinguish those codeless Technician Class
licensees who subsequently pass the five words per minute telegraphy
examination from those who have not. In paragraphs 21 and 22, we
discussed why the addition of a sixth class of license is impractical.

32. We do not agree that use of the CSCE to indefinitely document the
passing of a telegraphy examination would have any significant negative
effects in this instance. The VEs and VECs already perform the
necessary work. The VEs now issue a CSCE to each successful examinee.
The VECs receive from the VEs the application forms and test results
for every examination session. The VECs are required to make their
examination records available to the Commission. [51]

33. We do not foresee, moreover, that there will be any increase in
enforcement difficulty resulting from using the CSCE to document the
p[assing of a telegraphy examination for an indefinite period. Our
rules already authorize a licensee holding a CSCE to exercise the
rights and privileges of the higher operator class for a period of up to
365 days. [52] This provision has not resulted in any increased
enforcement burden. Section 97.301(e) is amended, therefore, to
implement our proposal to use the CSCE to document indefinitely the
passing of a telegraphy examination for the purpose of authorizing to
codeless Technician Class licensees privileges below 30 MHz. We will
confer with the VECs to establish a schedule for reporting the call
signs and names of "Technician Plus CSCE Class" operators. [53]

E. Novice Class

34. Proposal. The Notice proposed to discontinue issuing new Novice
Class operator licenses and to grandfather existing licensees. We
particularly invited instructors, VEs and VECs to submit factual
information on the time and effort that would be required for persons
to prepare for the codeless class written examination as compared to
that required for the Novice Class license written and telegraphy
examinations.

35. Comments. The few comments that addressed our question generally
predict that, given the choice between a five words per minute
telegraphy examination or an additional written examination, the
numbers of newcomers choosing one over the other would be evenly
divided. [54] The other prediction was that most newcomers would find
additional questions easier to master. [55] The ARRL states that a
codeless class would not substitute for the Novice Class, and that
discontinuation of the Novice Class license would stifle a large
percentage of the newcomers to the service. [56]

36. Discussion. The comments reveal that the amateur community, while
it supports the establishment of a codeless class, is uncomfortable
with the prospect of discontinuation of the Novice Class. The Novice
Class is generally intended for beginning amateur radio telegraphers to
gain actual experience in sending and receiving telegraphy messages.
The comments indicate that the amateur community desires to retain the
Novice Class license as an entry level for persons who do not have the
knowledge to pass the written examination for the Technician Class
license, but who can pass a telegraphy examination.

37. The keystone of our proposal was to reprogram resources currently
expended in processing new Novice Class licenses annually to processing
the new codeless class licenses. Retention of the Novice Class,
however, precludes reprogramming all of those processing resources for
the new codeless Technician class. We estimate, however, that with our
current resources we should be able to process the applications for
new Novice and codeless Technician Class licenses. [57] The Rules we are
adopting, therefore, retain the Novice Class license.

F. Other matters

38. We are persuaded by the comments [58] that our proposal to use the
two-letter station identification indicator system [59] to distinguish
stations having Technician Plus CSCE control operators is inconsistent
with the call sign assignment policy. It would, in effect, cause the
stations of codeless Technician Class operators to be identified with
shorter call signs than those having Technician Plus CSCE operators.
Shorter station call signs, however, generally are reserved for the
more accomplished higher class operators. Further, in three of the
frequency bands below 30 MHz that are authorized to Technician Class
operators, only a CW emission type using the international Morse code
is authorized. [60] The comments that addressed this situation
confirmed our belief that it is improbable that a person who cannot
pass at least the very slow speed 5 wpm Morse code examination would
even attempt to communicate with other amateur stations by telegraphy.
[61] In this situation, therefore, any need to distinguish between
stations having Technician Class or Technician Plus Class control
operators is subordinate to the need for an efficient identification
procedure. We are, therefore, not adopting our proposal. We are,
however, editorially revising Section 97.119(e) to clarify the station
identification procedure.

                                IV. CONCLUSION

39. In summary, we have decided to provide a codeless class of
operator license by eliminating the telegraphy requirement for the
Technician Class. Our objective is to provide an entry level codeless
operator license opportunity to persons who desire to pursue the
purpose of the amateur service and who can demonstrate they are
qualified to operate amateur stations that transmit exclusively above
30 MHz. In view of the comments received, we have also decided to
retain the Novice Class operator license in order to provide an
alternate entry level operator license opportunity to persons who
desire to pursue the purpose of the amateur service and who can pass a
telegraphy requirement in place of the more comprehensive written
examination requirement for the codeless Technician Class operator
license.

                        V. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

40. The rules adopted herein have been analyzed with respect to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44 USC 3501-3520, and found to contain
no new or modified form, information collection and/or record keeping,
labeling, disclosure, or record retention requirements; and will not
increase or decrease burden hours imposed on the public.

                        VI. ORDERING CLAUSES

41. For the reasons stated above, IT IS ORDERED that effective February
14, 1991, Part 97 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR Part 97, IS AMENDED
as set forth in the Appendix. Authority for this action is found in
Sections 4(i) and 303(c) and (r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended. 47 USC 154(i) and 303(c) and (r).

42. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding IS TERMINATED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Donna R. Searcy
Secretary

                        APPENDIX

Part 97 of Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

1. The authority citation for Part 97 continues to read as follows:

Authority citation: 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 USC 154, 303.
Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 USC
151-155, 301-609, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 97.119(e) is revised to read as follows:

97.119 Station identification.

                        * * * * *

(e) When the control operator is a person who is exercising the rights and
privileges authorized by 97.9(b) of this Part, an indicator must be included
after the call sign as follows:

(1) For a control operator who has requested a license modification from
Novice Class to Technician Class: KT;

(2) For a control operator who has requested a license modification from
Novice Class or Technician Class to General Class: AG;

(1) For a control operator who has requested a license modification from
Novice, Technician, or General Class operator to Advanced Class: AA; or

(1) For a control operator who has requested a license modification from
Novice, Technician, General, or Advanced Class operator to Amateur
Extra Class: AE.

                        * * * * *

3. Section 97.301(e) is amended by revising the introductory text
preceding the table to read as follows:

97.301 Authorized frequency bands.

                        * * * * *

(e) For a station having a control operator holding a Novice Class
operator license, or a Technician Class operator license plus a CSCE
indicating that the person passed element 1(A), 1(B) or 1(C), or a
Technician Class operator license issued before February 14, 1991:

                        * * * * *

4. Section 97.501 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (d) to read as follows:

97.501 Qualifying for an amateur operator license.

An applicant must pass an examination for the issuance of a new amateur
operator license and for each change in operator class. Each applicant
for the class of operator license specified below must pass, or
otherwise receive examination credit for, the following examination
elements:

                        * * * * *

(d) Technician Class operator: Elements 2 and 3(A).

                        * * * * *

                        FOOTNOTES

1. 5 FCC Red 880 (1990).

2. Morse code telegraphy emission types are commonly referred to as
"CW," the telegraphic abbreviation of the phrase "continuous wave." See
Section 97.3(c)(1) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 97.3(c)(1), for a
listing of the CW emission types.

3. See No. 2735 of the ITU Radio Regulations (Geneva, 1979) (hereafter
international Radio Regulations).

4. Id

5. The license classes are, in ascending steps, Novice, Technician,
General, Advanced, and Amateur Extra. The examinations cover three
levels of telegraphy skill. They are 5, 13, and 20 words per minute
(wpm). The examinee must also pass written examination elements,
depending upon the operator license class sought. See sections 97.501
and 97.503 of the Commission's Rules 47 C.F.R. 97.501 and 97.503.

6. See Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Docket No. 20282, 39 Fed. Reg.
44042 (1974) and Notice of Proposed Rule Making, PR Docket No. 83-28,
48 Fed. Reg. 1855 (1983).

7. Section 97.1 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 97.1, expresses the
fundamental purpose of the amateur service in the United States in five
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; (b) Continuation and extension of the amateur's proven
ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art; (c)
Encouragement and improvement of the amateur service through rules
which provide for advancing skills in both the communication and
technical phases of the art; (d) Expansion of the existing reservoir
within the amateur service of trained operators, technicians, and
electronic experts; (e) Continuation and extension of the amateur's
unique ability to enhance international goodwill.

8. For example, see comments of Edward P. Murphy at 1, Janet V.  Whitney at
6, Gary Worthington at 1.

9. For example, see comments of Jack Bitzer at 3-4, Gordon Girton at 2-3.

10. For example, see comments of John A. Carroll at 1-9, Scott B.  Laughlin
at 1, and Gordon Girton at 2.

11. For example see comments of O. D. Williams at 1, Michael Barry at 1,
Joint Comment of Thomas A. Geis, Georgann M. Geis, and Frederick R.  Geis at
1.

12. Notice at para. 5.

13. Id. at para. 15.

14. QCWA comments at 3.

15. ARRL comments at 6.

16. Id. at 2.

17. Comments of NCVEC at 4.

18. Comment of ARIG at 5.

19. Comment of Alan Kaiser at 1.

20. Comment of Michael C. Migliaccio at 1.

21. Comment of Patrick D. Bouldin at 2.

22. Comment of Joel Dunn at 1.

23. Comment of Donald J. Ray at 1.

24. See Section 97..3(c) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 97.3(c), for a
description of and the emission types associated with each of these terms.

25. See para 12, supra.

26. The CSCE (certificate of successful completion of an examination) is a
document issued by the VEs to an examinee. It indicates which examination
element(s) the examinee has passed. See Sections 97.505(a) and 97.9(b) of
the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 97.505(a) and 97.9(b).

27. NCVEC comments at 9.

28. QCWA comments at 1.

29. ARRL comments at 11.

30. ARRL comments at 8.

31. NCVEC comments at 6.

32. Comments of QCWA at 6. To qualify for a Novice Class operator license,
an examinee must pass a 5 wpm telegraphy examination and a thirty question
written examination. To obtain a Technician Class operator license, an
examinee must pass the Novice Class examination elements and an additional
written test of twenty-five questions.

33. Above 30 MHz, Novice Class licensees are authorized privileges on the
222.10-223.91 MHz segment of the 1.25 meter band and the entire 23
centimeter band.

34. For example, see comments of QCWA at 8, Phillip David Howard at 3,
Conrad Ekstrom at 1, Jay W. Underdown at 3, and Michael R. Burgin at 1.

35. During fiscal year 1990, of the 26,134 persons who entered the amateur
service, 2,617 persons did so by obtaining the Technician Class license.

36. Existing Technician Class licensees are authorized all possible
privileges above 30 MHz. Below 30 MHz, these licensees are authorized CW
emission privileges in portions of the 80, 40, 15 and 10 meter bands, RTTY
and data emissions in the frequency segment 28.100-28.300 MHz, and phone
emissions in the frequency segment 28.300-28.500 MHz.

37. For convenience, holders of a Technician Class license issued prior to
February 14, 1991, and holders of both a Technician Class license and a CSCE
for passing a telegraphy examination are referred to hereafter as
"Technician Plus CSCE Class" operators to distinguish them from holders of
the codeless Technician Class license only.

38. Element 2 is the fundamental written examination required for every
class of amateur operator license. Element 3(A) is a written examination
concerning the additional privileges of the Technician Class operator
license. See Section 97.503(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.
97.503(b).

39. ARRL comments at 13. The ARRL proposed that the current twenty-five
question Element 3(A) written examination be expanded by five questions and
that the current thirty question Element 2 written examination continue as
is.

40. For example, see comments of Thomas I. Geiger at 6, William I. Glover at
1, and John C. Thomas at 1.

41. For example, see comments of ARIG at 7, Interstate Repeater Society,
Inc., at 3, Michael V. Morrelli at 1, and QCWA at 4.

42. NCVEC comments at 11.

43. NCVEC comments at 8. The current Element 2, 30 question written
examination would be reduced by 5 questions and the current Element 3(A), 25
question written examination would be used as in in NCVEC's proposal.

44. See Section 97.503(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 97.503(b) and
Section 303(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC 303(1).
See also No. 2736 of the international Radio Regulations.

45. See Section 97.507(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 97.507(b).

46. See Section 97.523 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 97.523.

47. See Section 97.503(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 97.503(b).

48. Notice at para. 22.

49. Comments of NCVEC at 6.

50. ARRL comments at 13.

51. See Section 97.519 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 97.519.

52. See Section 97.9(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 97.9(b). In the
case of a codeless Technician Class licensee who holds a CSCE for only a
telegraphy element, the 365 day limitation on operator privileges would not
apply because the CSCE does not indicate that the licensee has passed the
necessary examinations for a higher class operator license.

53. The data base for codeless Technician Class licensees who subsequently
pass a telegraphy examination will be incorporated into the amateur service
licensee data base when the necessary capability becomes available.

54. Comment of Mark Forbes at 2.

55. Comments of Elvin D. Lytle at 1, National Amateur Radio Association at
5, Douglas N. Stracener at 3.

56. Comments of ARRL, at 8.

57. In fiscal year 1990, the Commission issued 20,704 Novice Class licenses,
each of which required the processing of a license application. The
Commission also processed 15,468 applications from Novice Class licensees
that upgraded to Technician Class, and 2,617 applications from individuals
who entered the amateur service by obtaining a Technician Class license.

58. Comments of National Amateur Radio Association at 7.

59. See Section 97.119(e) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 97.119(e),
for details of the indicator system.

60. See Section 97.307(f)(9) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.
97.307(f)(9).

61. For example, see comments of Thomas I. Geiger at 6.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------