[NCC] Ohio Call Letter License Plate Renewal Procedures

[Jim Stahl]

I for one don’t get excited about this. I recently renewed mine, for one year, which simply involved signing the renewal form they sent in the mail, enclosing a copy of my license, and a check. While the online renewal is very convenient for non-ham plates, I did not feel put out by the need to do the ham plates via the US mail.

73  -  Jim  K8MR


On Aug 17, 2016, at 4:39 PM, Hal Offutt <hal at japancorporateresearch.com> wrote:

> This message will only be of interest to members residing in Ohio who have call letter license plates.  Sorry for non-contest content but I thought members might be interested.
> 
> Ohio has recently adopted a new and restrictive policy about renewing amateur radio call letter license plates.  Two years ago, I was able to renew my ham plates on line and for a period of two years.  It was a very simple, painless process.  Now, under the new policy, I cannot renew on line at all and they will only let me renew my plates for a period of one year.  I must either mail in my renewal application with a copy of my FCC license, or visit a BMV office and provide them a copy of my license, and in either case I will get only a one year term.  If I had ordinary non-ham license plates, I could renew my registration for as much as five years on line.
> 
> I have been discussing this with the BMV to find out why this changes was made and to try to convince them that these new rules discriminate against amateurs since amateurs are now treated less favorably than other citizens.  I have also explained that the new policy is unnecessary since FCC license information is public and that anyone can access a copy of any US amateur license on the FCC website, and also that license renewal is free and simple to do. I also pointed out that a ham who chose not to renew his license is unlikely to want to keep ham call plates when he has to pay an extra $10 per year for them.
> 
> The BMV officials explained to me that these changes result not from any changes in the statute but rather from their realization that for ten years they have not been properly enforcing the existing law (ORC 4503.14, effective 8-21-97).  According to them, they never should have allowed on line or multiple year renewals in the first place.  This seems very specious to me and I find it hard to believe that such an agency could have failed to enforce a law for such a long time.  This article in question is just a paragraph long and I don't read it as requiring them to demand a copy of a ham's license every year.  I can't understand why they have taken this discriminatory approach unless they are trying to discourage hams from applying for or renewing call letter plates. As a matter of fact, I am considering giving up mine and getting a regular license plate so that I can renew for multiple years on line, so if that is their objective it may be working.  But I doubt that the Ohio legislature when it authorized call letter plates back in 1952 or revised the statute it in 1997 intended to put obstacles in the way of hams at renewal time.
> 
> 
> I explained to officials at the BMV how these new rules discriminate against hams in two ways - not being able to renew on line and only being able to renew for one year.  They really didn't have a good reason for the former - just that there is no provision for attaching a license copy to an on line application. Regarding the latter, they argue that a one year renewal is necessary because of the possibility of license expiration or revocation by the FCC.  I explained that my license expires in 2026 (I just renewed it) and that there is no reason on earth why I should not be able to renew for two or more years.  If I can only renew for one year this time, I will be submitting a copy of the exact same license for the next nine years at renewal time. How much sense does this make?  Then they brought up the possibility of FCC license revocation as their justification for not allowing a multiple year renewal.  I pointed out that revocations of ham licenses are extremely rare and that, in the worst case, even if someone did continue to drive with ham plates after a license had been revoked, no harm to anyone would result from this.   Later, I checked with N1ND at the ARRL and he said that in his 10+ years in the regulatory department, he can't recall a single license revocation.  So this is another specious reason.
> 
> Is anyone else annoyed enough about this to try to do something? I'm willing to write letters, sign petitions, etc., but only if others feel the same way.  Let me know if you feel like trying to change this discriminatory situation.
> 
> 73, Hal W1NN
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> NCC mailing list
> NCC at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/ncc