Dec 232017
 
Text file that contains information on the new HAM license. Entry level license does not require Morse Code test.
File NOCODE.ZIP from The Programmer’s Corner in
Category Science and Education
Text file that contains information on the new HAM license. Entry level license does not require Morse Code test.
File Name File Size Zip Size Zip Type
NOCODE.TXT 42668 12634 deflated

Download File NOCODE.ZIP Here

Contents of the NOCODE.TXT file



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:

I. INTRODUCTION

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,

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,

(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.
[0;40;37mRead what bulletin(s), [1;40;36mL[0;40;37m)ist, [1;40;36mS[0;40;37m)ince, [1;40;36mN[0;40;37m)ews ([1;41;37m[ENTER][0;40;37m = none)?


 December 23, 2017  Add comments

Leave a Reply