I've just been reading about the new FCC rules regarding RF safety that go
into effect Jan. 1, 1997.
The ARRL doesn't like 'em.
They may not be alone. The EME guys might have a bunch to worry about.
One thing that strikes me as very interesting is that the ARRL, in their
formal complaint to the FCC, ties these new rules together with antenna
restrictions in making a valid point. The ARRL essentially argues that many
hams with severe antenna restrictions have indoor antennas or at least
antennas in close proximity to living quarters. This is exactly the kind of
situation that the new "RF Safety" rules say might cause problems. So the
ARRL says that for these hams, you've basically revoked their license. (I'm
paraphrasing a bit here).
I also seem to recall the ARRL recently requesting that the FCC upgrade the
now famous (or is that infamous) PRB-1 Federal Preemption to exclude
municipalities from regulating anything below 60 or 70 feet.
They mentioned PRB-1 needing an update in this new complaint about the RF
rules too, noting that the update is "past due".
All well and fine. The ARRL is trying to kill two birds with one stone. What
I'm wondering about is what is not printed. i.e. the inside story.
Does the ARRL know that we can use this new RF Safety nonsense to get some
real antenna restriction reform? I'm hoping that's the case, and I assume
they wouldn't be structuring their arguments this way if they didn't think
this were possible.
Of course, there is another rather nasty interpretation: Does the ARRL
actually see the end of amateur radio, especially for amateurs in the
scenarios they cite in their complaint? Are they just desperately grabbing at
straws?
Is there a light at the end of the tunnel, or an oncoming train?
There are pros and cons to the new RF safety rules. I just received the
November issue of CQ magazine and both the "Washington Readout" and "VHF"
columns are dedicated to the issue.
Any thoughts on which direction this whole thing is going, and where we will
all end up? Being optimistic, I'd like to think that the ARRL has already
"got feelers" on the PRB-1 update issue, and is using this new RF Safety rule
to push the FCC into a new preemption. Perhaps the FCC included the amateur
service in this new RF safety measure for that purpose as well.
Am I naive to think that the FCC may have our interests in mind? Just who IS
on our side?
I don't know any EME guys, but they have to come into this equation pretty
quickly I would think. Also, anyone doing any kind of VHF/UHF weak signal
work has to start thinking about compliance. Since this RF Safety measure is
so broad in scope, I hope that bringing it up on this reflector is
appropriate.
Best Regards,
Joe Spinosa
KF6CWX
Concord, CA
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: K7LXC@contesting.com
Sponsored by Akorn Access, Inc & KM9P
|