**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WT Docket No. 05-235         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Amendment of Part 97 of the      | ) | RM-10781, RM-10782,          |
| Commission's Rules               | * | RM-10783,                    |
|                                  | * |                              |
| To Implement WRC-03 Regulations  |   | RM-10784, RM-10785,          |
| Applicable to Requirements for   | * | RM-10786,                    |
| Operator Licenses in the Amateur | * |                              |
| Radio Service                    | ) | RM-10787, RM-10805,          |
|                                  | * | RM-10806,                    |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   | RM-10807, RM-10808,          |
|                                  | * | RM-10809,                    |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) | RM-10810, RM-10811,          |
|                                  | * | RM-10867,                    |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   | RM-10868, RM-10869, RM-10870 |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING AND ORDER**

**Adopted**: July 15, 2005 **Released**: July 19, 2005

**Comment Date: 60 days after publication in the Federal Register**

**Reply Comment Date: 75 days after publication in the Federal
Register**

By the Commission:

Table of Contents

Heading Paragraph \#

I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

II\. BACKGROUND 4

III\. DIsCUSSION 8

A. Amateur Radio Operator Licensing Requirements 8

B. Operating Privileges 21

C. Number of Amateur Radio Operator License Classes 25

D. Other Requested Rule Changes 33

1\. Written Examination Content 33

2\. Repeating Failed Examination Elements 40

3\. Certifying Volunteer Examiners (VEs) 43

IV\. Conclusion 47

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 48

VI\. ORDERING CLAUSES 60

Appendix: Proposed Rules

# INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.  In this *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* *and Order* (*NPRM*), we
    address eighteen petitions for rulemaking.[^1] The petitioners
    request that we amend the Commission's amateur radio service
    rules[^2] to implement revised international *Radio Regulations*
    that were adopted at the 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference
    (WRC‑03).[^3] Most of the petitioners request that we entirely or
    partially eliminate the requirement that an individual must pass an
    international Morse code[^4] telegraphy examination[^5] in order to
    qualify for certain classes of amateur radio operator licenses.[^6]
    Others request that we either maintain the current requirement or
    increase the speed in telegraphy that an individual must demonstrate
    in order to qualify for certain classes of amateur radio operator
    licenses. In addition, some petitioners request that we establish a
    new class of operator license in the amateur service, or otherwise
    modify the license structure or associated operating privileges.

2.  In response to the petitions, over 6,200 comments were filed.
    Because some of the petitions have presented sufficient evidence to
    warrant proposing changing our rules, and in the interest of
    administrative efficiency, we have consolidated our treatment of
    these petitions in this *NPRM*.

3.  Based upon the petitions and comments, we propose to amend our
    amateur service rules to eliminate the requirement that individuals
    pass a telegraphy examination in order to qualify for any amateur
    radio operator license. We believe that this proposal, if adopted,
    would (1) encourage individuals who are interested in communications
    technology, or who are able to contribute to the advancement of the
    radio art, to become amateur radio operators; (2) eliminate a
    requirement that we believe is now unnecessary and that may
    discourage amateur service licensees from advancing their skills in
    the communications and technical phases of amateur radio; and (3)
    promote more efficient use of the radio spectrum currently allocated
    to the amateur radio service. We solicit comments on our tentative
    conclusions. We decline to propose any other changes to amateur
    radio service licensing or operating privileges in this
    proceeding.[^7]

# BACKGROUND

4.  The Commission\'s Rules define the amateur service as a
    radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training,
    intercommunication, and technical investigations by amateur radio
    operators.[^8] This definition reflects the principles that express
    the fundamental purpose of the amateur service in the United
    States.[^9] An amateur radio operator is a person named in an
    amateur operator/primary license station grant on our Universal
    Licensing System consolidated licensee database,[^10] who is
    interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without
    pecuniary interest,[^11] and who may engage in voluntary,
    noncommercial communications with other amateur radio operators
    located in the United States and in foreign countries.[^12] Millions
    of amateur radio operators throughout the world communicate directly
    with each other by exchanging voice, teleprinting, telegraphy,
    digital packet, facsimile, and television messages. Amateur radio
    operators on a voluntary basis also may provide communications to
    meet essential needs and facilitate relief actions when normal
    communications systems are overloaded, damaged, or disrupted.[^13]

5.  The *Radio Regulations* require that operators of amateur service
    stations be licensed.[^14] Prior to July 2003, the *Radio
    Regulations* generally required that any person seeking a license to
    operate the apparatus of an amateur station prove that he or she is
    able to correctly send and receive texts in Morse code, but
    countries were allowed to waive this requirement for persons
    operating amateur stations using only frequencies above 30 MHz.[^15]
    Thus, countries could issue \"no code\" amateur service operator
    licenses, *i.e.,* amateur service operator licenses that did not
    require the licensee to pass a telegraphy test, for stations using
    only amateur service frequencies above 30 MHz, while requiring
    demonstration of Morse code proficiency by persons holding an
    amateur operator license that authorized transmitting privileges on
    frequencies below 30 MHz.[^16]

6.  The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), under the auspices
    of the United Nations, convened the WRC-03 from June 9 to July 4,
    2003, in Geneva, Switzerland. The actions taken at the WRC-03 were
    published as the *WRC-03 Final Acts*, and are codified in the ITU
    *Radio Regulations*.[^17] At the WRC-03, the international
    regulations applicable to the amateur service were revised in a
    comprehensive manner, resulting in more streamlined, updated
    regulations that reflect modern amateur radio communication
    techniques and technologies.[^18] Among other things, the *WRC-03
    Final Acts* amended Article 25 of the *Radio Regulations* to allow a
    country to determine whether it would require a person seeking an
    amateur radio operator license to demonstrate the ability to send
    and receive texts in Morse code signals.[^19] The effect of this
    revision to Article 25 was to eliminate the international
    requirement that a person demonstrate Morse code proficiency in
    order to qualify for an amateur radio operator license with
    transmitting privileges on frequencies below 30 MHz.

7.  Our rules currently require an examinee to pass a Morse code
    telegraphy test for certain classes of amateur radio operator
    licenses. The petitions before us represent efforts of individual
    amateur radio operators and their organizations to revise our
    amateur service rules and license structure to reflect the *Radio
    Regulation* revisions adopted at WRC-03. On the basis of the changes
    in the *Radio Regulations* and the petitions before us, we conclude
    that the issue of the appropriate requirements for an individual to
    obtain an amateur radio operator license is ripe for consideration.

# DIsCUSSION

## Amateur Radio Operator Licensing Requirements

8.  *Background.* The last major restructuring of our amateur service
    operator licensing and examination system rules took place in
    2000.[^20] The current structure of operator license classes, and
    the requirements for obtaining these licenses, were developed to
    reflect the shared view of many in the amateur service community
    that the Commission should simplify the license structure for the
    amateur radio service while maintaining additional frequency
    privileges as an incentive for amateur radio operators to advance
    their communication and technical skills.[^21] Presently,
    individuals may qualify for three classes of operator licenses: the
    Technician, General, and Amateur Extra Class licenses.[^22] In
    addition, holders of three discontinued classes of operator licenses
    \-- the Novice, Technician Plus, and Advanced Class operator
    licenses -- are grandfathered, and retain their operating
    privileges.[^23] As a licensee advances or \"upgrades\" to a higher
    class operator license, the licensee earns more frequency
    privileges.[^24] To qualify for a Technician Class operator license,
    an applicant must pass a thirty-five question written examination
    concerning the privileges of this license (Element 2).[^25] To
    qualify for a General Class operator license, an applicant must pass
    an additional[^26] thirty-five question written examination
    concerning the privileges of the General Class operator license
    (Element 3), and a five words-per-minute (wpm)[^27] telegraphy
    examination.[^28] To qualify for an Amateur Extra Class operator
    license, an applicant must pass the examination elements required
    for a General Class operator license and an additional fifty
    question written examination concerning the privileges of the
    Amateur Extra Class operator license (Element 4).[^29]

9.  *Petitions.* The largest group of petitioners requests that we
    eliminate all telegraphy proficiency testing requirements from the
    Commission\'s amateur radio operator license examination rules.[^30]
    Some argue that the requirement no longer serves any valid
    regulatory purpose, in light of the WRC-03 changes to the *Radio
    Regulations*. For example, the Ward Petition notes that that no
    clear rationale for using Morse code proficiency as a \"gatekeeper\"
    licensing requirement has emerged from the thousands of public
    comments filed in past Commission proceedings that considered this
    issue,[^31] and that the Commission's rules cannot and do not
    attempt to require amateur radio operators to communicate using
    Morse code.[^32] The No Code International (NCI) Petition states
    that communication by Morse telegraphy is a recreational activity
    that reflects operator choice and preference, rather than
    necessity.[^33] The NCI Petition also claims that the Commission has
    previously determined that telegraphy proficiency, as a licensing
    requirement, does not comport with the basis and purpose of the
    amateur service,[^34] and argues that compliance with the prior
    *Radio Regulations* was the reason that the Commission did not
    eliminate the telegraphy requirement earlier.[^35] The Coppola
    Petition argues that removing the telegraphy examination requirement
    would further enhance the value of the amateur service to the public
    as a voluntary non-commercial service,[^36] and result in expanding
    the existing reservoir of trained operators, technicians, and
    electronic experts within the amateur radio service,[^37] while
    doing nothing to prevent use of telegraphy on the air or otherwise
    prevent those interested in pursuing telegraphy proficiency from
    doing so.[^38]

10. Others argue that the requirement is out-of-date. The first National
    Conference of Volunteer Examiner Coordinators (NCVEC) Petition notes
    that use of Morse code has become obsolete in practically all other
    contemporary communications systems due to the emergence of
    satellite and digital communication technologies.[^39] NCVEC argues
    that Morse code testing is an unnecessary burden on applicants
    because most applicants who pass the code examination never use code
    for communications on the airwaves,[^40] and on volunteer examiners
    (VEs) and VE coordinators (VECs) because these examinations require
    extensive preparation and special equipment to administer
    properly.[^41] NCVEC also argues that Morse code testing should be
    ended because the amateur radio operator examination process does
    not require a practical demonstration in the ability to use any
    other mode of communication.[^42] The Holliday Petition argues that
    although a Morse code proficiency requirement was reasonable fifty
    years ago, continuing the Morse code examination requirement serves
    no useful purpose in the twenty-first century,[^43] and that the
    Morse code examination requirement limits the number of people,
    especially those who are handicapped,[^44] who can take advantage of
    amateur radio as a hobby.[^45]

11. Two petitions advocate eliminating telegraphy proficiency as a
    licensing prerequisite, but maintaining a role for it in the
    examination process. The Speroni Petition proposes that we retain
    the requirement only for licensees desiring to communicate using
    Morse code.[^46] The Rightsell-Kholer Petition suggests that Morse
    code proficiency be integrated into amateur radio testing by
    allowing those who demonstrate Morse code proficiency to receive
    credit toward the minimum passing score for their license
    examination(s).[^47]

12. Other petitioners request that we amend our rules to require Morse
    code testing only for the Amateur Extra Class operator license.[^48]
    The Reich Petition argues that this requirement is needed for the
    most advanced and highest class of amateur radio operator license to
    \"protect the future of CW^\[^[^49]^\]^ and other future digital
    modes used in amateur radio.\"[^50] Reich also notes that removing
    the telegraphy examination only from the General Class examination
    requirements would not require significant changes in current
    amateur radio written examinations or examination study guides,
    thereby protecting publishers of amateur radio-related study
    material and textbooks.[^51] PRARL argues that Amateur Extra Class
    licensees should at least be able to communicate in Morse code at a
    reasonable speed during an emergency situation when other modes of
    communication are not effective, and that requiring a proficiency of
    five wpm would ensure a basic knowledge of Morse code, which is a
    stepping stone toward further practice and high speed
    proficiency.[^52] ARRL argues that \"a demonstration of capability
    in Morse telegraphy is an element of communications operating skill
    that should be included in the portfolio of operating skills
    demonstrated by the most accomplished radio amateurs,\" *i.e.*, the
    Amateur Extra Class licensees.[^53] The Roux Petition agrees that
    the Morse code requirement should apply only to Amateur Extra Class
    operator licenses.[^54] In addition, Roux requests that the
    Commission amend the rules to increase this requirement from five
    wpm to fifteen wpm.[^55]

13. Two other petitioners request that we increase the Amateur Extra
    Class operator license requirement for Morse code proficiency.[^56]
    They also ask that we that we maintain the present Morse code
    examination requirement for the General Class operator license.[^57]
    In support of these requests, FISTS states that communicating using
    Morse code is the second-most popular operating activity in amateur
    radio and that Morse code is used by many amateur stations in
    numerous operating activities.[^58] FISTS also argues that
    possessing the skill to send and receive Morse code at a higher
    speed is imperative if an operator is to communicate effectively
    during an emergency situation[^59] because Morse-code skilled
    amateur radio operators can communicate using the code even when
    voice modes of communications fail,[^60] and that proficiency in
    Morse code assists in developing technical skills, and encourages
    construction and design of communications equipment.[^61] Similarly,
    the Lowrance Petition asserts that Morse code proficiency should be
    retained as a licensing requirement because this proficiency \"is a
    key component of communication for our amateur service
    responsibilities under and within \[the\] Department of Homeland
    Security\" and because \"during difficult communication conditions,
    especially when voice and digital communication fail, Morse code
    will be key as a back-up communication mode for brief secure-coded
    and non-secure messages.\"[^62]

14. Napurano requests that we retain and preserve permanently the
    present Morse code proficiency requirements for individuals to
    obtain amateur radio licenses that authorize privileges below 30
    MHz.[^63] In support of this request, the petition states that Morse
    code is the most accurate, reliable, and economical form of radio
    communications; it is efficient in terms of bandwidth occupancy and
    frequency utilization; and is the only form of modulation able to
    communicate information under conditions of poor propagation.[^64]
    He argues that to thousands of American amateur radio operators, the
    ability to communicate using Morse code \"is the very essence of
    amateur radio and without it, amateur radio does not exist.\"[^65]

15. *Discussion.* The *Radio Regulations* contain certain requirements
    that a country's administration[^66] must satisfy before granting an
    applicant an amateur radio license. Specifically, Article 25.6
    requires that administrations verify the operational and technical
    qualifications of any person wishing to operate an amateur
    station.[^67] We believe that Article 25.6 is satisfied by requiring
    applicants for an amateur radio operator license to pass written
    examinations covering relevant subject matter. Because the *Radio
    Regulations* no longer mandate a telegraphy requirement,[^68] each
    country's administration must decide whether to require telegraphy
    proficiency for an amateur radio license.

16. In the *Restructure Report and Order*, the Commission concluded that
    the public interest would be served best by reducing the telegraphy
    examination requirement for an amateur radio operator license to the
    minimum standard that would satisfy the *Radio Regulations,* namely,
    the requirement that a control operator of a station prove that he
    or she can ensure the proper operation of that station.[^69]
    Consequently, the Commission eliminated as licensing requirements
    the thirteen wpm and twenty wpm telegraphy examinations, and
    retained only the minimum telegraphy requirement of five wpm.[^70]
    As a number of petitioners note, the Commission could not have
    eliminated the five wpm examination in the *Restructure Report and
    Order,* due to the then-effective *Radio Regulations*
    requirement*.*[^71]

17. As discussed previously, one of the fundamental purposes underlying
    Part 97 of the Commission's rules is to accommodate the amateur
    radio operator\'s proven ability to contribute to the advancement of
    the radio art.[^72] Our review of the petitions and comments in the
    present proceeding finds that the majority agree with the
    Commission's observation in the *Restructure Report and Order* that
    an individual\'s ability to demonstrate increased Morse code
    proficiency is not necessarily indicative of his or her ability to
    contribute to the advancement of the radio art.[^73] The record
    before us shows that the amateur service community generally
    supports removing the telegraphy requirement as one of the
    requirements for General Class operator privileges.[^74]
    Accordingly, we propose to revise Section 97.501[^75] to remove the
    five wpm telegraphy examination from the requirements for a General
    Class operator license.

18. As discussed above, some petitioners that support eliminating the
    telegraphy requirement for a General Class operator license
    nonetheless advocate retaining a telegraphy requirement for the
    Amateur Extra Class operator license.[^76] We note that numerous
    commenters disagree, arguing that the requirement serves no
    purpose,[^77] is not essential to the safe and effective operation
    of an amateur station,[^78] and discourages individuals from
    becoming amateur radio operators.[^79] Others state that telegraphy
    deserves no greater emphasis in the examination system than any
    other mode of communication.[^80] As discussed below, we tentatively
    conclude that, given the changes in the *Radio Regulations*,
    maintaining a telegraphy requirement for the Amateur Extra Class
    license would not be in the public interest. Therefore, we propose
    to remove the telegraphy examination requirement as one of the
    requirements for the Amateur Extra Class operator license.[^81]

19. We do not find persuasive ARRL's argument that Morse telegraphy
    capability must be included in the operating skills demonstrated by
    Amateur Extra Class licensees. While ARRL describes the five-wpm
    telegraphy examination as "reflecting a rudimentary ability to
    utilize Morse telegraphy,"[^82] we are not persuaded that it is in
    the public interest to require examinees to demonstrate an ability
    to exchange messages in one particular communications technology
    when the amateur service rules do not require operators to use this
    technology and when the trend in amateur communications is to use
    voice and digital technologies for exchanging messages. Rather, we
    believe that because the international requirement for telegraphy
    proficiency has been eliminated, we should treat Morse code
    telegraphy as a communications technique with the same standing as
    other modulation techniques in the amateur service licensing
    requirements. Moreover, given that there is no requirement that a
    licensee who has passed a telegraphy examination actually use
    telegraphy for communications or otherwise maintain proficiency,
    successful completion of a one-time telegraphy examination offers no
    guarantee of future proficiency.

20. Likewise, we are not persuaded by PRARL's argument that telegraphy
    proficiency should be required for the Amateur Extra Class operator
    license because amateur stations may provide or assist with
    emergency communications.[^83] In this regard, we note that the
    Commission previously addressed this argument, and concluded that
    most emergency communication today is performed using voice, data,
    or video modes, and that most amateur radio operators who choose to
    provide emergency communication do so using voice or digital modes
    of communication, because information can be exchanged much faster
    using modes of communication other than telegraphy.[^84]
    Additionally, we note that although many amateur radio operators
    choose to use their communications ability to assist the public by
    providing communications during an emergency, and we continue[^85]
    to encourage such activity, there is no requirement that they do so.

## Operating Privileges

21. *Background*. Prior to 2000, our rules provided for a six-class
    amateur service operator license structure in which an individual
    advanced by passing examinations that demonstrate increased
    telegraphy proficiency and/or technical expertise.[^86] In the
    *Restructure* proceeding, the majority of commenters requested that
    the Commission streamline and simplify the amateur service license
    structure.[^87] The Commission agreed, and concluded that a
    three-class license structure would provide an incentive for
    licensees to continue the educational opportunities offered by
    amateur radio and to advance their communication and technical
    skills, and would provide a sufficient number of license classes so
    that the fundamental purposes underlying the amateur service rules
    would not be compromised.[^88] Therefore, the Commission adopted, on
    a going-forward basis, a three-class operator license structure
    consisting of the Technician, General, and Amateur Extra Class
    operator licenses.[^89] Novice, Technician Plus, and Amateur Extra
    Class licensees retained their operating privileges.[^90]

22. Currently, the Novice Class license authorizes limited operating
    privileges in segments of four HF amateur service bands and segments
    of two amateur service bands above 30 MHz.[^91] The Technician Class
    license authorizes all operating privileges available to amateur
    radio operators on all amateur service frequencies above 30
    MHz.[^92] An individual who holds a Technician Class license and,
    additionally, has passed a five wpm telegraphy examination is
    authorized Technician Class privileges plus the Novice Class
    licensee HF privileges.[^93] The General Class operator license
    authorizes all privileges of the Technician Class license plus
    frequency privileges in one medium frequency (MF) and eight HF bands
    that are authorized to amateur stations.[^94] An Advanced Class
    operator license authorizes General Class privileges plus additional
    frequency segments that are primarily used for voice
    communications.[^95] An Amateur Extra Class license authorizes the
    use of all spectrum allocated to the amateur service.[^96]

23. *Petitions.* Several petitioners request that we authorize
    additional operating privileges to certain existing license classes,
    particularly the Technician Class license. FISTS proposes that we
    authorize Technician Class licensees to transmit digital
    communications on the frequency segments of the HF bands currently
    authorized to Novice and Technician Plus Class licensees.[^97] FISTS
    argues that allowing Technician Class licensees these HF privileges
    would allow them to participate in the explosive growth in digital
    applications occurring on the HF bands.[^98] Coppola proposes that
    the rules be amended to authorize Technician Class licensees
    privileges on the segment of the 10 meter (m) amateur service band
    currently authorized to Technician Plus Class licensees.[^99] The
    Rightsell-Kholer Petition proposes that we authorize Novice,
    Technician, and Technician Plus Class licensees data communication
    and telegraphy frequency privileges in the 80, 40, 15, and 10 m
    amateur service bands, and an expanded frequency segment for voice
    communications in the 10 m amateur service band, in addition to the
    privileges currently authorized Technician Plus Class licensees in
    the HF amateur service bands.[^100] In support of this request,
    petitioners argue that their proposal would provide encouragement to
    all amateur service licensees to take advantage of educational
    opportunities and individual experimentation, thus further enhancing
    their ability to contribute to the radio art.[^101] The RAF Petition
    proposes that we amend the rules to allow Technician Class licensees
    restricted HF telephony, data, image, and telegraphy
    privileges.[^102] Specifically, RAF requests that we authorize
    Technician Class licensees restricted power narrowband data and
    telegraphy privileges on segments of the 80, 40, 15, and 10 m
    amateur service bands, voice and image privileges on the 10 and 15 m
    amateur service bands, and radioteletype, data, telegraphy, voice
    and image privileges on the 1900-2000 kHz segment of the 160 m
    band.[^103] RAF argues that amending the rules in this manner would
    motivate licensees to take on the task of self-training and
    improvement needed to upgrade to the General Class operator
    license.[^104] Other petitioners more generally request that we
    eliminate the difference between the Technician Class and Technician
    Plus Class licenses by authorizing Technician Class licensees the HF
    privileges now authorized to Technician Plus Class licensees, as a
    logical reflection of the elimination of the international
    requirement of Morse code proficiency.[^105]

24. *Discussion.* As discussed above, the current structure of operator
    license classes and their associated operating privileges was
    developed so that additional frequency privileges are a significant
    incentive for amateur radio operators to advance their communication
    and technical skills.[^106] Requests that we authorize additional
    operating privileges to Novice and Technician Plus Class licensees
    we believe are inconsistent with this incentive licensing structure
    because the requests, if granted, would lessen the additional
    privileges a licensee would receive when they upgraded. In this
    regard, we note that the additional privileges the petitions request
    we authorize these licensees, specifically the additional frequency
    bands and emission types in the MF and HF bands, are currently
    authorized to General Class licensees, and that Novice and
    Technician Plus Class licensees can earn these privileges by passing
    only one or two written examinations. We also note that the
    petitions assume that specific narrow frequency segments in certain
    HF bands will remain authorized to Novice and Technician Class
    licensees. In the *Phone Band Expansion NPRM*, however, the
    Commission proposed to eliminate the Novice and Technician Plus
    Class telegraphy sub-bands and, in their place, authorize Novice and
    Technician Plus Class licensees to control an amateur station
    transmitting in any portion of the 80, 40 and 15 m amateur service
    bands that provide for telegraphy operation by General Class
    licensees.[^107] We note that the combined effect of the requests in
    the aforementioned petitions and the *Phone Band Expansion NPRM*, if
    adopted, would be to authorize Technician Class licensees
    significantly more spectrum in the HF bands than the petitioners
    request. In that additional frequency privileges and the authority
    to transmit messages using additional emission types are major
    incentives for licensees to upgrade to a higher class of operator
    license, and we do not want to diminish this incentive, we conclude
    that it would not be in the public interest to propose authorizing
    additional HF frequency privileges to Technician Class licensees.
    Accordingly, we deny these requests.

## Number of Amateur Radio Operator License Classes

25. *Background*. To transition to the three-class license structure,
    the Commission grandfathered Novice, Technician Plus, and Advanced
    Class licensees.[^108] Specifically, no new Novice or Advanced Class
    licenses would be issued, but these licensees would continue to
    receive examination credit for the telegraphy element, thereby
    providing an incentive for them to upgrade to the General or Amateur
    Extra Class operator licenses.[^109] The Commission also decided to
    renew Technician Plus Class licenses as Technician Class
    licenses.[^110] The Commission rejected requests that Novice and
    Technician Plus Class licensees be automatically upgraded to General
    Class licensees or that Advance Class licensees be automatically
    upgraded to the Amateur Extra Class operator license.[^111] Rather,
    the Commission accepted the argument that licensees should not
    receive additional privileges without passing the required
    examinations.[^112] Subsequently, the Commission denied a request
    that it authorize additional telegraphy and phone privileges to
    Novice and Technician Plus Class amateur service licensees, noting,
    among other things, that these licensees can obtain access to
    significantly more spectrum by upgrading to the General or Amateur
    Extra Class.[^113] We note that since the *Restructure Report and
    Order* became effective, the number of Novice Class licensees indeed
    has declined by almost 22,000[^114] and that the number of Advanced
    Class licensees has declined by almost 27,000 licensees, while the
    number of Amateur Extra Class licensees has increased by over
    32,000.[^115]

26. *Petitions.* Two petitioners request that we change the number of
    operator license classes in the amateur service license
    structure.[^116] The Young Petition requests that we add a fourth
    operator license, the Technician Plus Class license, to the present
    license structure,[^117] with Technician Plus Class licensees being
    required to pass only the General Class operator license written
    examinations.[^118] Young argues that such a change would provide
    limited relief from the Morse code examination requirement for one
    class of operator license.[^119] The Roux Petition requests that we
    establish a two-class amateur operator license structure, consisting
    of the General and Amateur Extra Class operator licenses,[^120]
    arguing that such a license structure would be easier to understand;
    require less paperwork for the Commission, VEs and VECs;[^121] and
    increase the number of amateur service licensees.[^122]

27. Two petitioners request that we maintain a three-license structure,
    but replace the Technician Class license with a new introductory
    operator license.[^123] Both argue that the Technician Class license
    should be replaced because the examination is overly comprehensive,
    and acts as a deterrent to newcomers.[^124] The NCVEC Petition II
    proposes that we establish a new "Communicator Class" license as the
    new introductory amateur service operator license.[^125] NCVEC
    claims that what attracts individuals to amateur radio appears to
    have changed over the years, as a consequence of which the current
    license system does not correlate particularly well with the present
    needs of licensees,[^126] and it argues that a new introductory
    license would allow individuals who presently are not licensees
    access to amateur radio in a meaningful way and with enough
    privileges so that they can experience a reasonable cross-section of
    the various facets of amateur radio.[^127] Similarly, the ARRL
    Petition proposes that we establish a new entry-level \"Novice\"
    Class operator license that would include VHF and UHF privileges,
    and limited HF telegraphy, data, and voice privileges without
    requiring a Morse code test.[^128] In support of this request, the
    ARRL argues that the Technician Class license leaves newcomers to
    the amateur service in an isolated position because it allows them
    to conduct only local, rather than worldwide, communications, thus
    not providing many licensees the opportunity to pursue an active,
    progressive interest in amateur radio.[^129]

28. The Rightsell-Kholer and RAF Petitions propose that we consolidate
    all licensees into three license classes by automatically upgrading
    Novice Class licensees to Technician Class licensees, and Advanced
    Class licensees to Amateur Extra Class.[^130] In support of this
    request, the Rightsell-Kholer Petition argues that merging the
    Novice and Advanced Class operator licenses as proposed would
    simplify Commission recordkeeping and bring licensees in these two
    \"orphaned\" license classes back into the \"mainstream of the
    amateur community.\"[^131] RAF argues that Novice Class licensees
    should be upgraded to Technician Class licensees because expanded
    operating privileges \"could result in many inactive Novices
    returning to the amateur service with a renewed interest,\" and
    Advanced Class licensees should be upgraded to the Amateur Extra
    Class because technically the examination elements for these two
    license classes are \"perceived as minimally different.\"[^132]

29. *Discussion.* As noted above, in the 1999 *Restructure Report and
    Order*, the Commission concluded that the public interest would best
    be served by adopting three classes of operator licenses in the
    amateur service.[^133] That most of the petitioners in this
    proceeding request, either implicitly or explicitly, that the
    license structure retain three classes of operator licenses
    evidences strong support in the amateur service community for a
    three-class license structure. In addition, the Commission
    specifically considered and rejected a two-class or four-class
    operator license structure in the *Restructure Report and
    Order*.[^134] The Commission concluded that a two-class license
    structure would not contain a sufficient number of license classes
    to provide an incentive for licensees to advance their skills in
    meaningful ways.[^135] It also noted that a two- or four-class
    operator license structure was not supported by the amateur service
    community.[^136] Moreover, we note that the petitions proposing
    these structures differentiate between license classes on the basis
    of passing a telegraphy examination, which we propose to eliminate
    for all operator licenses. For these reasons, and because neither
    the Roux Petition nor the Young Petition has shown that the current
    three-class license structure does not meet the needs of the amateur
    service community or otherwise does not serve the public interest,
    we do not believe it appropriate to alter the current number of
    amateur service operator license classes. Accordingly, we deny the
    Roux and Young petitions, to the extent they ask that we modify the
    number of license classes.

30. Regarding requests that we establish a new introductory class of
    operator license, we note that the requested license would authorize
    significantly greater HF privileges than the current Novice or
    Technician Plus Class license authorizes,[^137] but significantly
    less than the General Class license currently authorizes.[^138] We
    do not believe that such a new type of license is necessary because,
    as the Commission observed in the *Phone Band Expansion NPRM,*
    Novice and Technician Plus Class licensees can easily upgrade to the
    General Class, thereby obtaining access to significantly more
    spectrum than the requested new introductory class of operator
    license would authorize.[^139] We also note that, if our proposal to
    eliminate telegraphy testing in the amateur service is adopted, a
    person who is not a licensee will be able to qualify for a General
    Class operator license by passing two written examinations, and that
    a person who is a Technician Class licensee will be able to qualify
    for a General Class operator license by passing one written
    examination.[^140] We do not believe that these requirements are
    unreasonable, given the amount of spectrum available to General
    Class licensees. Accordingly, we deny the requests.

31. Nor are we persuaded by the proposals to automatically upgrade
    licensees to higher classes of operator licenses. As noted above, in
    the *Restructure Report and Order* proceeding, many commenters
    opposed licensees receiving additional privileges without passing
    the examination requirements,[^141] and commenters have expressed
    the same view in this proceeding.[^142] With regard to Technician
    and Technician Plus Class licensees licensed after 1987,[^143] the
    questions on these examinations were oriented toward VHF and UHF
    operating activities, such as repeater operation and auxiliary
    station operation,[^144] because the Technician Class license
    authorized privileges primarily above 30 MHz.[^145] The General
    Class written examination, however, tested primarily on HF
    operations because HF privileges primarily are the additional
    authorized privileges of the General Class license.[^146] For this
    reason and contrary to the claim of the ARRL,[^147] we believe that
    differences between the Technician and Technician Plus examinations
    were far greater than simply the Morse code test and that, due to
    these differences, Technician and Technician Plus Class licensees
    licensed after 1987 have not shown that they are qualified for
    General Class operator privileges. We do not believe that
    automatically upgrading Technician and Technician Plus Class
    licensees to General Class operator privileges would be in the
    public interest, and accordingly, we deny this request.

32. Regarding requests that we automatically upgrade Advanced Class
    licensees to the Amateur Extra Class, we note that an Advanced Class
    licensee need answer correctly only thirty-seven questions on a
    fifty question written examination in order to upgrade to an Amateur
    Extra Class operator license.[^148] We do not believe this is an
    unreasonable requirement, given the additional privileges afforded,
    including additional spectrum and exclusive frequency segments
    authorized for use by Amateur Extra Class licensees. As noted above,
    tens of thousands of Advanced Class licensees have upgraded to the
    Amateur Extra Class license since the twenty wpm telegraphy
    requirement was eliminated.[^149] We believe that this amount of
    upgrading activity confirms the conclusion reached in the
    *Restructure Report and Order* that the primary deterrent to
    upgrading the Amateur Extra Class was the formerly required twenty
    wpm telegraphy examination.[^150] As with the Novice and Technician
    Plus Class operator licenses, we note that as Advanced Class
    operator licenses either expire and the licensees fail to renew
    their license, or these licensees upgrade to the Amateur Extra Class
    operator license, the number of licensees remaining in the Advanced
    Class will continue to decline until this class is no longer a
    distinct class of operator license. We do not believe the public
    interest would be served by automatically upgrading Advanced Class
    licensees to an Amateur Extra Class license status. Accordingly, we
    deny the request.

## Other Requested Rule Changes 

### Written Examination Content 

33. *Background*. As noted above, each license class requires an
    applicant to pass one or more written examination elements.[^151]
    Prior to 2000, our rules required that each written examination be
    composed of a specific number of questions on specific topics.[^152]
    The topics in the pre-2000 examinations were the topics the
    Commission used prior to 1983 when it prepared and administered
    amateur radio operator examinations.[^153] In the *Restructure
    Report and Order*, the Commission agreed that the Question Pool
    Committee (QPC) of the NCVEC should specify topics and organize
    questions by topic, if this function was necessary, in order to
    allow material included on amateur radio operator examinations to be
    revised in a much more timely fashion than could be accomplished by
    a rulemaking procedural process.[^154] Accordingly, since 2000, the
    Commission has allowed the QPC to specify examination topics.[^155]
    Additionally, the Commission revised Section 97.503 of our Rules to
    remove the specific topics and algorithms that VEs were required to
    use in preparing written examinations.[^156]

34. *Petitions.* PRARL and FISTS propose that we require that improved
    technical and operating skills be demonstrated in the written
    examinations for the Technician and General Class operator
    licenses.[^157] FISTS states that the Amateur Extra Class written
    examination was once considered the most rigorous of all amateur or
    commercial operator written examinations, but is no longer.[^158] It
    argues that the Commission\'s decision to delegate the content of
    the written examinations to the amateur service community has
    resulted in simplified, less technical written examinations that
    threaten to turn the amateur service \"into a group of non-technical
    consumers, rather than a service peopled by skilled radio operators,
    experimenters and technically oriented volunteers.\"[^159]

35. PRARL and FISTS also request that we again regulate the content of
    examinations prepared by VECs or VEs.[^160] PRARL notes that under
    the present rules, as compared to the former rules, a VE could
    prepare an examination that contained thirty-five questions on one
    topic, and no questions on any other topic.[^161] It also argues
    that the NCVEC was not established to decide the content of
    examinations.[^162]

36. The Speroni Petition proposes that we change the license examination
    rules to require that licensees demonstrate proficiency in the
    type(s) of communication they wish to utilize.[^163] Specifically,
    the petition proposes that the Technician Class written examination
    be reduced to twenty questions, the General Class written
    examination be increased to forty questions, and the Amateur Extra
    Class written examination remain fifty questions, with all questions
    relating only to voice communications.[^164] The petitioner also
    requests that we require a licensee to pass an additional
    examination for specific operating activities, or modes of
    communication.[^165] In support of this request, the petition argues
    that requiring licensees to demonstrate knowledge only of the
    type(s) of communication they wish to utilize will lower entry
    barriers, and facilitate the growth of the amateur service.[^166]

37. *Discussion*. With respect to the requests that we require that
    improved technical and operating skills be demonstrated in the
    written examinations, we believe that the requests are either too
    vague or request use of the examinations for purposes other than
    determining whether a licensee can properly operate an amateur
    station.[^167] Requests that written examinations be revised[^168]
    to test \"improved technical and operating skills\" or increased
    \"technical level\" are vague because there is no objective means to
    measure technical and operating skills. Also, the purpose of the
    written examinations, under our rules, is not to determine whether a
    person has achieved a particular level of skill, but rather to
    determine whether an individual can properly operate an amateur
    station.[^169] The record does not demonstrate that the current
    question pools or examinations are inadequate for this purpose. For
    these reasons, we deny these requests. To the extent that
    petitioners wish to see particular questions included in the pools
    of questions from which examinations are formed, they should direct
    their concerns and suggested questions to the QPC of the
    NCVEC.[^170]

38. We also deny the requests that we more closely regulate the content
    of written examinations. In this regard, we note that determining
    what questions should be included in the question pools is a
    function that has been performed by the VECs,[^171] thereby allowing
    those who prepare license examinations to revise examination
    questions in a much more timely fashion then if the Commission
    prepared questions for inclusion on the examinations. We also note
    that in the *Restructure Report and Order*, the Commission
    eliminated from its rules the requirement that each examination
    element be composed of specific topics and a specific number of
    questions on each topic, thereby allowing VEs to prepare more
    relevant written examinations.[^172] The petitions have not shown
    any changed circumstances meriting reconsideration of these
    decisions, or that examinations are not being prepared that
    meaningfully test the knowledge an examinee needs to properly
    operate an amateur station.

39. Finally, we conclude that it is not necessary to require new
    examinations for "mode privileges," as proposed by Speroni. In this
    regard, we note that under the current rules, the QPC may revise the
    question pools to include questions about particular operating
    activities, if such questions are deemed necessary.[^173]
    Additionally, we believe that requiring VEs to prepare additional
    examination elements and maintain additional question pools for
    various operating activities would impose an unreasonable and
    unnecessary burden on VEs and overly complicate the examination
    system. For these reasons, we deny this request in the Speroni
    Petition.

### Repeating Failed Examination Elements

40. *Background.* At an examination session, VEs administer examination
    elements to examinees who desire to obtain an amateur radio operator
    license or who desire to advance to a higher class of operator
    license.[^174] Section 97.509(h) of the Commission's Rules requires
    that, upon completion of each examination element, the administering
    VEs must immediately grade an examinee\'s answers.[^175] When an
    examinee does not qualify for an operator license or a higher class
    of operator license, the administering VEs must return the
    application document to the examinee and inform the examinee of the
    grade on the examination element.[^176] The rules do not prohibit
    VEs from allowing an examinee who has failed an examination element
    a second attempt to pass that examination element. To the contrary,
    an examinee that fails an examination element must at some time
    re-take and pass that examination element to qualify for the desired
    class of operator license.[^177] The rules do not bar re-testing
    examinees during the same examination session, subject to the
    limitation in Section 97.509(f) that the same question set may not
    be re-administered to an examinee.[^178] These requirements are
    intended to promote the flexibility of VEs to accommodate examinees,
    and do not address many specific situations that may occur in the
    course of administering license examinations. To our knowledge, the
    VEs have reasonably accommodated examinees to the extent
    practicable. For example, we understand that if a different version
    of the examination is available at the time, and there is enough
    time left in the same session to allow an examinee to complete the
    second examination, generally the VEs will allow an examinee a
    second opportunity to pass the examination. Alternatively, the VEs
    may make arrangements with examinees who have failed an examination
    for a second examination opportunity.

41. The PRARL Petition proposes that we prohibit re-testing of examinees
    at the same examination session.[^179] The petition argues that a
    person who fails an examination should be allowed a second
    opportunity to take the examination, but only after further study
    and at another examination session.[^180] The FISTS Petition also
    proposes that we not allow an applicant who has failed a written or
    telegraphy examination to be re-tested by the VEs at the same
    examination session,[^181] arguing that re-testing detracts from the
    purpose of testing,[^182] and that prohibiting re-testing at the
    same session would substantially reduce the workload of the VEs and
    result in shorter test sessions.[^183]

42. *Discussion.* The issue of whether the Commission should amend its
    rules to prohibit examinees from repeating failed examinations
    during the same examination session was considered in the
    *Restructure Memorandum Opinion and Order*.[^184] In that decision,
    the Commission stated that matters concerning the mechanics of
    examination administration generally reside with the administering
    VEs, and that whether to allow an examinee a "second chance" during
    the same examination session is a decision within the discretion of
    those VEs.[^185] We continue to believe such discretion is
    appropriate, and we believe that any rules that would regulate the
    details of examination administration could unintentionally limit
    the flexibility of the VE system to meet the needs of
    examinees.[^186] In this regard, we note that because examination
    opportunities in some geographical areas are available only at
    events that occur infrequently in those areas, such as amateur
    radio-related conventions or radio club meetings, any rules
    prohibiting the re-testing of examinees during the same examination
    session could have the effect of unduly limiting examination
    opportunities.[^187] Because we believe the requested rule amendment
    is inconsistent with the purpose of the VE system, we deny this
    request.

### Certifying Volunteer Examiners (VEs)

43. *Background.* In the VEC system, a VE that administers an
    examination must be accredited by the VEC that coordinates that
    examination session.[^188] Section 97.525(a) requires, among other
    things, that no VEC may accredit as a VE any person whom the VEC
    determines is not competent to perform the VE functions, or if the
    VEC otherwise determines that there are sufficient questions raised
    as to the person\'s integrity or honesty that could compromise the
    examinations.[^189] The process by which a VEC recruits VEs is not
    specified by our rules but, rather, is left to the discretion of
    each VEC. In this regard, we note that some VECs offer an on-line
    application that potential VEs may use to apply for
    accreditation,[^190] and other VECs use a mail-in form.[^191]

44. The PRARL Petition proposes that we require VECs to adequately
    monitor and audit VEs in their organizations.[^192] It notes that
    some VECs certify VEs after receiving an on-line request to be
    certified, and it believes that no \"real investigation\" effort is
    made to ensure that the applicants meet minimum statutory
    requirements.[^193] The petitioner also requests that we hold a VEC
    responsible when one of the VE teams it has accredited compromises
    license examination testing in some way.[^194]

45. *Discussion.* We are not persuaded that the PRARL Petition has
    presented sufficient reason to justify the requested rule amendment.
    In this regard, it is not clear from the petition what PRARL
    believes would constitute a \"real investigation\" into whether
    applicants meet minimum statutory requirements to be a VE, or that
    receiving an on-line request to certify a licensee as a VE
    compromises the system of accrediting VEs. We note that VECs may use
    a variety of methods and sources of data, such as publicly available
    information or our licensing data and other Commission records, to
    determine if a person meets the standards to be accredited as a VE.

46. With regard to the PRARL Petition\'s proposal that we hold VECs
    responsible for the actions of VEs that they have certified but who
    have compromised testing, we note that our rules presently require
    that when examination irregularities occur, the coordinating VECs
    must resolve all discrepancies that occurred during the examination
    session.[^195] We also note that as a result of its investigation to
    resolve discrepancies, a VEC may take any necessary action,
    including decertification of a VE, if it determines that its
    accredited VE has compromised testing. If the VEC does not resolve
    discrepancies or continues to use VEs that compromise testing, we
    can terminate our VEC agreement with the organization.[^196] We
    find, therefore, that the current rules already hold VECs
    responsible for VEs whom they have certified and whom compromise
    testing. For this reason, we believe PRARL\'s request is
    unnecessary.

#  Conclusion

47. In summary, we believe that the public interest will be served by
    revising the amateur service rules to eliminate the telegraphy
    testing requirement. We also believe that these proposed rule
    changes will allow amateur service licensees to better fulfill the
    purpose of the amateur service and will enhance the usefulness of
    the amateur service to the public and licensees. We therefore seek
    comment on these proposed rule changes. We conclude that some rule
    changes proposed by some petitioners are unnecessary, or are already
    being considered in the ongoing *Phone Band Expansion NPRM*
    proceeding.

#  PROCEDURAL MATTERS

48. *Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification.* The Regulatory
    Flexibility Act[^197] requires an initial regulatory flexibility
    analysis to be prepared for notice and comment rulemaking
    proceedings, unless the agency certifies that "the rule will not, if
    promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial
    number of small entities."[^198] The RFA generally defines the term
    "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
    business," "small organization," and "small governmental
    jurisdiction."[^199] In addition, the term "small business" has the
    same meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small
    Business Act.[^200] A "small business concern" is one which: (1) is
    independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field
    of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established
    by the Small Business Administration (SBA).[^201]

49. In this *NPRM*, we propose to amend the amateur service rules that
    presently require a person to demonstrate his or her ability to send
    and receive correctly a Morse code telegraphy message in order to
    qualify for certain amateur service operator licenses.[^202] Because
    "small entities," as defined in the RFA, are not persons eligible
    for licensing in the amateur service, this proposed rule does not
    apply to "small entities." Rather, it applies exclusively to
    individuals who are taking an examination for an amateur radio
    operator license. Such amendment would be in the public interest
    because we believe that the present requirement is unnecessary and
    that eliminating the requirement would make the amateur service more
    attractive to individuals with a non-pecuniary interest in radio.

50. In addition, the rules proposed in this *NPRM* potentially could
    affect publishers of amateur radio examination study material. Based
    on past inquiries and advertisements in communication-related
    magazines from these publishers, we estimate that there are between
    five and ten such publishers. The proposed rule changes, if adopted,
    would apply to individuals rather than publishers and would not
    result in a mandatory change in products offered by publishers of
    examination study material. (Because use of Morse code for amateur
    service communications would still be permitted even if the testing
    requirement is eliminated, a market would still exist for Morse code
    training material.) Therefore, we certify that the proposals in this
    *NPRM*, if adopted, will not have a significant economic impact on a
    substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a
    copy of the *NPRM*, including a copy of this Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
    SBA.[^203] This initial certification will also be published in the
    Federal Register.[^204]

51. *Paperwork Reduction Analysis*. This *NPRM* does not contain
    proposed information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork
    Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it
    does not contain any new or modified "information collection burden
    for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees," pursuant
    to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
    107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C. § 3506(c)(4).

52. *Ex Parte Rules Presentations.* This is a permit-but-disclose notice
    and comment rulemaking proceeding. *Ex parte* presentations are
    permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they
    are disclosed as provided in the Commission's Rules. *See generally*
    47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206(a).

53. *Alternative formats.* To request materials in alternative formats
    for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
    files, audio format), send an e-mail to \<<FCC504@fcc.gov>\> or call
    the Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
    (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This *NPRM* also may be downloaded
    from the Commission's web site at \<<http://www.fcc.gov/>\>.

54. *Comment Dates.* Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
    Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties
    may file comments on or before \[**60 days after publication in the
    Federal Register**\] and reply comments on or before \[**75 days
    after publication in the Federal Register**\].

55. Commenters may file comments electronically using the Commission's
    Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), the Federal Government\'s
    eRulemaking Portal, or by filing paper copies.[^205] Commenters
    filing through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the
    Internet to \<<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html>\>. If multiple
    docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this
    proceeding, filers must transmit one electronic copy for each docket
    or rulemaking number referenced in the caption. In completing the
    transmittal screen, commenters should include their full name, U.S.
    Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or
    rulemaking number. Commenters may also submit an electronic comment
    by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for e-mail comments,
    commenters should send an e-mail to <ecfs@fcc.gov>, and should
    include the following words in the body of the message, "get form."
    Commenters will receive a sample form and directions in reply.
    Commenters filing through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
    \<[http://www.regulations.gov](http://www.regulations.gov/)\>,
    should follow the instructions provided on the website for
    submitting comments.

56. Commenters who chose to file paper comments must file an original
    and four copies of each comment. If more than one docket or
    rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
    must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
    rulemaking number. All filings must be sent to the Commission's
    Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
    Commission, 445 12^th^ Street, SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, D.C.
    20554.

57. Commenters may send filings by hand or messenger delivery, by
    commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
    Postal Service mail. The Commission's contractor will receive
    hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
    Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 110,
    Washington, D.C. 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8:00
    a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Commenters must bind all hand deliveries together
    with rubber bands or fasteners and must dispose of any envelopes
    before entering the building. This facility is the only location
    where the Commission's Secretary will accept hand-delivered or
    messenger-delivered paper filings. Commenters must send commercial
    overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and
    Priority Mail) to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
    MD 20743. Commenters should address U.S. Postal Service first-class
    mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail to 445 12^th^ Street, SW,
    Washington, DC 20554.

58. Interested parties may view documents filed in this proceeding on
    the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) using the
    following steps: (1) access ECFS at
    <http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs>. (2) In the introductory screen, click
    on "Search for Filed Comments." (3) In the "Proceeding" box, enter
    the [numerals]{.underline} in the docket number. (4) Click on the
    box marked "Retrieve Document List\". A link to each document is
    provided in the document list. Filings and comments are also
    available for public inspection and copying during regular business
    hours at the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12^th^ Street,
    SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. Filings and comments also
    may be purchased from the Commission\'s duplicating contractor, Best
    Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12^th^ Street, SW, Room
    CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-378-3160, or via
    e-mail [www.bcpiweb.com](http://WWW.BCPIWEB.COM/).

59. For further information, contact William T. Cross, Public Safety and
    Critical Infrastructure Division, Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau, (202) 418-0680 or TTY (202) 418-7233.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

60. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303(r) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i),
    154(j), and 303(r), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the proposed amendment
    to Part 97 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 97, as
    described above, and that COMMENT IS SOUGHT on these proposals.

61. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition for Rulemaking,
    RM-10781, submitted by Peter M. Beauregard on July 15, 2003, IS
    DENIED.

62. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition for Rulemaking,
    RM-10782, submitted by P.V. Coppola *et. al.* on July 18, 2003, IS
    GRANTED to the extent indicated herein.

63. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition for Rulemaking,
    RM-10783, submitted by Kiernan K. Holliday on July 21, 2003, IS
    GRANTED to the extent indicated herein.

64. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition for Rulemaking,
    RM-10784, submitted by Dale E. Reich on July 28, 2003, IS GRANTED to
    the extent indicated herein.

65. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition for Rulemaking,
    RM-10785, submitted by Eric R. Ward on July 30, 2003, IS GRANTED to
    the extent indicated herein.

66. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition for Rulemaking,
    RM-10786, submitted by No Code International on August 13, 2003, IS
    GRANTED to the extent indicated herein.

67. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition for Rulemaking,
    RM-10787, submitted by the National Conference of Volunteer Examiner
    Coordinators on August 1, 2003, IS GRANTED to the extent indicated
    herein.

68. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition for Rule Making,
    RM-10805, submitted by Charles L. Young, Jr., on September 5, 2003,
    IS DENIED.

69. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition, RM-10806,
    submitted by Frank W. Napurano on August 14, 2003, IS DENIED.

70. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition for Rule Making,
    RM-10807, submitted by Robert G. Rightsell and Harry A.M. Kholer on
    September 5, 2003, IS DENIED.

71. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition for Rule Making,
    RM-10808, submitted by Joe Speroni on September 8, 2003, IS DENIED.

72. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition for Rulemaking,
    RM-10809, submitted by the Puerto Rico Amateur Radio League on
    September 11, 2003, IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein.

73. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition for Rule Making,
    RM-10810, submitted by James Roux on September 11, 2003, IS GRANTED
    to the extent indicated herein.

74. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition for Rulemaking,
    RM-10811, submitted by the FISTS CW Club on September 2, 2003, IS
    DENIED.

75. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition for Rulemaking,
    RM-10867, submitted by the American Radio Relay League, Inc., on
    March 18, 2004, IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein.

76. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition for Rule Making,
    RM-10868, submitted by the Radio Amateur Foundation on February 20,
    2004, IS DENIED.

77. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition for Rulemaking,
    RM-10869, submitted by Ronald D. Lowrance on September 8, 2003, IS
    DENIED.

78. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.407 of the
    Commission\'s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.407, the Petition for Rulemaking,
    RM-10870, submitted by the National Conference of Volunteer Examiner
    Coordinators on March 4, 2004, IS GRANTED to the extent indicated
    herein.

79. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING AND ORDER,
    including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Certification, to the
    Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**PROPOSED RULES**

Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to
be amended as follows:

Part 97 - Amateur Radio Service

The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:

**AUTHORITY: 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47 U.S.C.
151-155, 301-609, unless otherwise noted.**

1\. Section 97.501 is amended by revising paragraph (a) and (b) to read
as follows:

**§ 97.501 Qualifying for an amateur operator license.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(a\) Amateur Extra Class operator: Elements 2, 3, and 4;

\(b\) General Class operator: Elements 2 and 3;

\* \* \* \* \*

2\. Section 97.503 is amended to remove paragraph (a), redesignate
paragraph (b) as an undesignated introductory paragraph, and redesignate
paragraphs (b)(1)-(3) as paragraphs (a)-(c), respectively.

3\. Section 97.505 is amended by removing paragraphs (a)(5) and
(a)(7)-(9), redesignating paragraph (a)(6) as (a)(5), and revising
paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) to read as follows:

**§ 97.505 Element credit.**

\(a\) \* \* \* \* \*

\(1\) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for renewal)
FCC-granted Advanced Class operator license grant: Elements 2 and 3.

\(2\) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for renewal)
FCC-granted General Class operator license grant: Elements 2 and 3.

\(3\) An unexpired (or expired but within the grace period for renewal)
FCC-granted Technician or Technician Plus Class operator (including a
Technician Class operator license granted before February 14, 1991)
license grant: Element 2.

\(4\) An expired FCC-issued Technician Class operator license document
granted before March 21, 1987: Element 3.

\* \* \* \* \*

4\. Section 97.507 is amended by removing paragraph (d) and revising
paragraphs (a) and (c) to read as follows:

**§ 97.507 Preparing an examination.**

\(a\) Each written question set administered to an examinee must be
prepared by a VE holding an Amateur

Extra Class operator license. A written question set may also be
prepared for the following elements by a VE holding an operator license
of the class indicated:

\(1\) Element 3: Advanced Class operator.

\(2\) Element 2: Advanced, General, or Technician Plus Class operators.

\(b\) \*\*\*\*\*

\(c\) Each written question set administered to an examinee for an
amateur operator license must be

prepared, or obtained from a supplier, by the administering VEs
according to instructions from the coordinating VEC.

5\. Section 97.509 is amended by removing paragraph (g), redesignating
paragraphs (h)-(m) as paragraphs (g)-(l) respectively, and revising
paragraph (f) to read as follows:

**§ 97.509 Administering VE requirements.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(f\) No examination that has been compromised shall be administered to
any examinee. The same question set may not be re-administered to the
same examinee.

\* \* \* \* \*

[^1]: *See* RM-10781, Peter M. Beauregard, Petition for Rulemaking
    (filed July 15, 2003) (Beauregard Petition); RM-10782, P.V. Coppola
    *et. al.*, Petition for Rulemaking (filed July 18, 2003) (Coppola
    Petition); RM-10783, Kiernan K. Holliday, Petition for Rulemaking
    (filed July 21, 2003) (Holliday Petition); RM-10784, Dale E. Reich,
    Petition for Rulemaking (filed July 28, 2003) (Reich Petition);
    RM-10785, Eric R. Ward, Petition for Rulemaking (filed July 30,
    2003) (Ward Petition); RM-10786, No Code International (NCI),
    Petition for Rulemaking (filed August 13, 2003) (NCI Petition);
    RM-10787, National Conference of Volunteer Examiner Coordinators
    (NCVEC), Petition for Rulemaking (filed August 1, 2003) (NCVEC
    Petition I); RM-10805, Charles L. Young, Jr., Petition for Rule
    Making (filed September 5, 2003) (Young Petition); RM-10806, Frank
    W. Napurano, Petition (filed August 14, 2003) (Napurano Petition);
    RM-10807, Robert G. Rightsell and Harry A.M. Kholer, Petition for
    Rulemaking (filed September 5, 2003) (Rightsell-Kholer Petition);
    RM-10808, Joseph Speroni, Petition for Rulemaking (filed September
    8, 2003) (Speroni Petition); RM-10809, Puerto Rico Amateur Radio
    League, Petition for Rulemaking (filed September 11, 2003) (PRARL
    Petition); RM-10810, James Roux, Petition for Rule Making (filed
    September 11, 2003) (Roux Petition); RM-10811, FISTS CW Club,
    Petition for Rulemaking (filed September 2, 2003) (FISTS Petition);
    RM-10867, American Radio Relay League, Inc. (ARRL), Petition for
    Rulemaking (filed March 18, 2004) (ARRL Petition); RM-10868, Radio
    Amateur Foundation (RAF), Petition for Rule Making (filed February
    20, 2004) (RAF Petition); RM-10869, Ronald D. Lowrance, Petition
    (filed September 8, 2003) (Lowrance Petition); and RM-10870, NCVEC,
    Petition for Rulemaking (filed March 4, 2004) (NCVEC Petition II).

[^2]: 47 C.F.R Part 97, hereafter referred to as amateur radio service
    rules or amateur service rules.

[^3]: *See* *World Radiocommunication Conference Final Acts (Geneva,
    2003)* (*WRC-03 Final Acts*), Article 25. The *WRC‑03 Final Acts*
    applicable to the amateur service became effective on July 5, 2003.
    *See WRC‑03 Final Acts*, Annex.

[^4]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 97.3(a)(27), 97.503(a). The international Morse
    code is defined in ITU-T Recommendation F.1 (March, 1998), Division
    B, I. Morse code. It consists of alphanumeric characters represented
    by dots, dashes, or some combination thereof.

[^5]: The telegraphy examination requires an examinee to listen to an
    audio recording of a message that is typically exchanged between two
    amateur stations and demonstrate, either by transcribing the message
    text or answering a series of questions based on the content of
    message, that he or she has the ability to receive correctly Morse
    code texts at not less than five words per minute (wpm). The message
    is prepared in such a way that it uses all of the letters of the
    alphabet, the numerals 0-9, certain punctuation marks, and three
    prosigns (symbols formed by combining together two letters into one
    without the inter-letter space). *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 97.503(a),
    97.507(d). Whether the examinee passes the telegraphy examination is
    based on the examinee\'s transcription of the text or answers to the
    questions. For purposes of this *NPRM*, phrases such as \"Morse code
    test,\" \"telegraphy examination,\" and \"telegraphy examination in
    the international Morse code" are used interchangeably.

[^6]: *See* para. 8, *infra.*

[^7]: However, we note that, in a separate proceeding, the Commission
    already has sought comment on proposed rule changes regarding some
    of the other issues raised by petitioners in this proceeding. *See*
    Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's Rules Governing the Amateur
    Radio Services, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* WT Docket No.
    04-140, 19 FCC Rcd 7293, 7300 ¶ 11 (2004) (*Phone Band Expansion
    NPRM*).

[^8]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.1(c), 97.3(a)(4).

[^9]: The Commission's regulation of the amateur service is based on the
    following principles: recognition and enhancement of the value of
    the amateur service to the public as a voluntary noncommercial
    communications service; continuation and extension of the amateur's
    proven ability to contribute to the advancement of the radio art;
    encouragement and improvement of the service through rules which
    provide for advancing skills in both the communication and technical
    phases of the radio art; expansion of the existing reservoir of
    trained operators, technicians, and electronic experts; and
    continuation and extension of the amateur's unique ability to
    enhance international goodwill. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.1(a)-(e).

[^10]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.3(a)(1).

[^11]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 153(2); 47 C.F.R. § 97.3(a)(4).

[^12]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.111(a)(1).

[^13]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.401(a).

[^14]: *See WRC‑03 Final Acts,* Article 25.6.

[^15]: *See Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference
    (WRC-97),* Geneva, Switzerland, 1997, and *Final Acts of the World
    Radiocommunication Conference, (WRC-00),* Istanbul, 2000, *Radio
    Regulation* S25.5. This *Radio Regulation* stated, "Any person
    seeking a license to operate the apparatus of an amateur station
    shall prove that he is able to send correctly by hand and to receive
    correctly by ear texts in Morse code signals. The administration
    concerned may, however, waive this requirement in the case of
    stations making use exclusively of frequencies above 30 MHz."

[^16]: Individual administrations were permitted to waive the Morse code
    requirement for stations making use only of frequencies above 30 MHz
    because transmissions in this part of the radio spectrum are
    generally used for shorter distance communications, rather than
    international communications. The segment of the radio spectrum
    between 3 and 30 MHz is commonly referred to as the High Frequency
    (HF) band. The segment of the radio spectrum between 300 kHz and 3
    MHz is the Medium Frequency (MF) band. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.101.

[^17]: *See* ITU *Radio Regulations*, Edition of 2004 (ITU *Radio
    Regulations*).

[^18]: *See* *WRC‑03 Final Acts*, Article 25; *see also* ARRL Petition
    at 2-5.

[^19]: This regulation states, "Administrations shall determine whether
    or not a person seeking a license to operate an amateur station
    shall demonstrate the ability to send and receive texts in Morse
    code signals." *WRC‑03 Final Acts*, Article 25.5.

[^20]: *See* 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review \-- Amendment of Part 97 of
    the Commission\'s Amateur Service Rules, *Report and Order,* WT
    Docket No. 98-143, 15 FCC Rcd 315 (1999) (*Restructure Report and
    Order*); *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 8076 (2001)
    (*Restructure Memorandum Opinion and Order*).

[^21]: *Restructure Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 322 ¶¶ 12-13.

[^22]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 97.501.

[^23]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.9(a).

[^24]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.301. In the amateur service license
    structure, an individual advances to a higher class of operator
    license by passing an examination that demonstrates increased
    telegraphy proficiency and/or more technical expertise than what the
    individual's present license class requires. There are four
    examination elements: the three written examinations required for
    the three operator licenses, and the telegraphy examination. *See*
    47 C.F.R. § 97.503. An examinee passes different combinations of
    examination elements to qualify for the various operator licenses.

[^25]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.503(b)(1). The written examinations consist
    of multiple-choice questions. *See* 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review
    -- Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's Amateur Service Rules,
    *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, WT Docket No. 98-143, 13 FCC Rcd
    15798, 15807 ¶ 26 (1998).

[^26]: Licensees who previously have passed an examination required for
    a higher class of operator license receive examination credit for
    the previously-passed examination. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.505.

[^27]: A \"word\" consists of five letters of the alphabet. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 97.507(d).

[^28]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.503(b)(3).

[^29]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.501(a).

[^30]: *See* Coppola Petition at 1; Holliday Petition at 1; Ward
    Petition at 1; NCI Petition at 1; NCVEC Petition I at 1; Speroni
    Petition at 1, 4; Rightsell-Kholer Petition at 8. The Speroni and
    Rightsell-Kholer petitions were placed on public notice on October
    7, 2003. *See* *Public Notice*, Report No. 2634 (rel. Oct. 7,
    2003)*.* The other petitions were placed on public notice on August
    29, 2003. *See* *Public Notice*, Report No. 2625 (rel. Aug. 29,
    2003).

[^31]: Ward Petition at 2 (citing Amendment of Part 97 of the
    Commission\'s Rules Concerning the Establishment of a Codeless Class
    of Amateur Operator License, *Report and Order*, PR Docket No.
    90-55, 5 FCC Rcd 7631 (1990); 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review \--
    Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission\'s Amateur Service Rules,
    *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, WT Docket No. 98-143, 13 FCC Rcd
    15798 (1998)).

[^32]: *Id.*

[^33]: NCI Petition at 3, 6.

[^34]: *Id.* at 7 (citing *Restructure Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at
    333 ¶ 30).

[^35]: *Id.* at 3, 10.

[^36]: *See* Coppola Petition at 2.

[^37]: *Id.*

[^38]: *Id.* at 3.

[^39]: *See* NCVEC Petition I at 2.

[^40]: *Id.* at 3.

[^41]: *Id.* at 4. In this regard, NCVEC notes that it is a difficult
    task for VEs and VECs to prepare a series of messages sufficient to
    comply with our rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 97.503(a), 97.507(d).

[^42]: NCVEC Petition I at 3.

[^43]: *See* Holliday Petition at 2.

[^44]: *Id.* The petitioner does not explain how or why a Morse code
    tests limits a handicapped individual\'s ability to obtain an
    amateur radio license. Moreover, we note that our rules address
    testing of individuals with disabilities, by requiring appropriate
    accommodations. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.509(k).

[^45]: *See* Holliday Petition at 2.

[^46]: *See* Speroni Petition at 1, 4. The Speroni Petition was placed
    on public notice on October 7, 2003. *See* *Public Notice*, Report
    No. 2634 (rel. Oct. 7, 2003).

[^47]: *See* Rightsell-Kholer Petition at 8.

[^48]: *See* Reich Petition at 1; PRARL Petition at 1-2; Roux Petition
    at 1; ARRL Petition at 2. The Reich Petition was placed on public
    notice on August 29, 2003. *See* *Public Notice*, Report No. 2625
    (rel. Aug. 29, 2003). The PRARL and Roux petitions were placed on
    public notice on October 7, 2003. *See* *Public Notice*, Report No.
    2634 (rel. Oct. 7, 2003). The ARRL Petition was placed on public
    notice on March 24, 2004. *See* *Public Notice*, Report No. 2651
    (rel. Mar. 24, 2004).

[^49]: The term 'CW' refers to International Morse code telegraphy
    emissions having certain emission designators. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    97.3(c)(1). The abbreviation stands for continuous wave. Continuous
    wave signals are unmodulated carrier frequencies by which
    information is transmitted by turning the carrier on or off in
    recognized patterns. *See* Amendment of Parts 2 and 97 of the
    Commission's Rules to Create a Low Frequency Allocation for the
    Amateur Radio Service, *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, ET Docket
    No. 02-98, 17 FCC Rcd 8954, 8957 n.17 (2002).

[^50]: *See* Reich Petition at 1.

[^51]: *Id.*

[^52]: *See* PRARL Petition at 2.

[^53]: *See* ARRL Petition at 20.

[^54]: *See* Roux Petition at 1.

[^55]: *Id.* The petition does not provide any explanation regarding why
    the Morse code proficiency for an Amateur Extra Class operator
    license should be increased to fifteen wpm.

[^56]: *See* FISTS Petition at 2, 14 (advocating increasing the
    licensing requirement to twelve wpm); Lowrance Petition at 2
    (advocating increasing this requirement to thirteen wpm). The FISTS
    Petition was placed on public notice on October 7, 2003. *See*
    *Public Notice*, Report No. 2634 (rel. Oct. 7, 2003). The Lowrance
    Petition was placed on public notice on March 24, 2004. *See*
    *Public Notice*, Report No. 2651 (rel. Mar. 24, 2004).

[^57]: *See* FISTS Petition at 8; Lowrance Petition at 2. Other
    petitions request that we maintain the present Morse code
    examination requirement for the General and Amateur Extra Class
    operator license, but eliminate the telegraphy proficiency
    requirement with respect to the additional privileges a Technician
    Class licensee obtains upon passing the Morse code examination
    (*see* note 109, *infra*). *See* Beauregard Petition at 1 (arguing
    that allowing Technician Class licensees operating privileges in
    certain HF bands will \"provide an incentive more powerful than that
    of the current VHF and above privileges\" for these licensees to
    learn Morse code and upgrade to a General or Amateur Extra Class
    operator license) (placed on public notice on August 29, 2003, *see*
    *Public Notice*, Report No. 2625 (rel. Aug. 29, 2003)); RAF Petition
    at 6 (arguing that changing the telegraphy requirement for the
    General or Amateur Extra Class operator licenses \"creates a high
    risk of corrupting the integrity of the amateur service, and
    disenfranchising those very radio amateurs who have long contributed
    to the service\") (placed on public notice on March 24, 2004, *see*
    *Public Notice*, Report No. 2651 (rel. Mar. 24, 2004)); Young
    Petition at 2 (placed on public notice on October 7, 2003, *see*
    *Public Notice*, Report No. 2634 (rel. Oct. 7, 2003)).

[^58]: *See* FISTS Petition at 4.

[^59]: *Id.* at 9.

[^60]: *Id.* at 5.

[^61]: *Id.* at 6-7. In this regard, FISTS notes that stations capable
    of transmitting Morse code can be built with simple circuitry, basic
    tools, and affordable test equipment. *Id.* at 6.

[^62]: *See* Lowrance Petition at 1-2. The petition does not provide any
    support for the contention that the amateur service has Department
    of Homeland Security responsibilities.

[^63]: *See* Napurano Petition at 1. The Napurano Petition was placed on
    public notice on October 7, 2003. *See* *Public Notice*, Report No.
    2634 (rel. Oct. 7, 2003).

[^64]: *See* Napurano Petition at 2.

[^65]: *Id.* at 3.

[^66]: An administration is any governmental department or service
    responsible for discharging obligations under the *Radio
    Regulations. See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.1.

[^67]: *See* WRC-03 Final Acts, Article 25.6.

[^68]: *See* WRC-03 Final Acts, Article 25.5.

[^69]: *See Restructure Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 329-30 ¶ 25
    (stating that greater telegraphy proficiency is not necessarily
    indicative of an individual's ability to contribute to the
    advancement of the radio art).

[^70]: *Id.*

[^71]: *See, e.g.,* ARRL Petition at 5; NCI Petition at 3; NCVEC
    Petition I at 6.

[^72]: *See* 47 C.F.R § 97.1(b).

[^73]: *See Restructure Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 329 ¶ 25.

[^74]: *See, e.g.,* David P. Johnson Comments RM-10867 at 1; Michael
    Polia Comments RM-10867 at 1; Members of the Dial Radio Club,
    Middletown, OH Comments RM-10867 at 1; Ernest W. Howard, Jr.,
    Comments RM-10867 at 1.

[^75]: 47 C.F.R. § 97.501.

[^76]: *See, e.g.,* ARRL Petition at 2; PRARL Petition at 1-2; Reich
    Petition at 1; Beauregard Petition at 1.

[^77]: *See, e.g.,* Kipling Reynolds Comments RM-10867 at 1; Marty Kubis
    Comments RM-10867 at 1; Robert Wagner Comments RM-10867 at 1; Bob
    Stuart Comments RM-10867 at 1; W6AG Comments RM-10809 at 1; Sammy
    Smith Comments RM-10809 at 1; James B. Wiley KL7CC Comments RM-10809
    at 1.

[^78]: *See, e.g.,* Patrick W. Tice Comments RM-10867 at 1; Robert Y.
    Felt Comments RM-10867 at 1; Scott Moore Comments RM-10867 at 1.

[^79]: *See* James K. White Comments RM-10867 at 1; Richard L. Tannehill
    Comments RM-10867 at 1-3.

[^80]: *See, e.g.,* Peter F. Trotter Comments RM-10867 at 1; Brian
    Fletcher Comments RM-10867 at 1; William H. Simmons Comments
    RM-10867 at 1; Randy Moore Comments RM-10809 at 1.

[^81]: Given that we are proposing to eliminate the telegraphy
    requirement for the Amateur Extra Class operator license, we deny
    the requests of FISTS, Lowrance, and Roux to raise the required
    proficiency level.

[^82]: ARRL Petition at 20; *see also* Reich Petition at 1; Roux
    Petition at 1.

[^83]: *See* PRARL Petition at 2.

[^84]: *See Restructure Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd at 334 ¶ 31.

[^85]: *See*, *e.g.*, Allocation of the 219-220 MHz Band for Use by the
    Amateur Radio Service, *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, ET Docket
    No. 93-40, 8 FCC Rcd 2352, 2353 ¶ 7 (1993).

[^86]: *See Restructure Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 322 ¶ 13; *see
    also* 47 C.F.R. § 97.9(a) (1999).

[^87]: *See Restructure Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 324 ¶ 16.

[^88]: *Id.* at 324 ¶ 16.

[^89]: *Id.* at 322 ¶ 13.

[^90]: *Id.* at 323 ¶ 15, 326-27 ¶¶ 20-21.

[^91]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.301(e). These privileges include, among
    others, authority to control a station transmitting telegraphy
    emission types in the 80, 40, 15, and 10 meter (m) amateur bands,
    and data and phone (voice) emission types in the 10 m band.

[^92]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 97.301(a).

[^93]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.301(a), (e).

[^94]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.301(d).

[^95]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.301(c).

[^96]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.301(b). Amateur Extra Class licensees are
    authorized 450 kHz more spectrum in the HF bands than General Class
    licensees.

[^97]: *See* FISTS Petition at 8.

[^98]: *Id*. at 8.

[^99]: *See* Coppola Petition at 5. We note this frequency segment also
    is authorized to Novice Class licensees.

[^100]: *See* Rightsell-Kholer Petition at 5-6.

[^101]: *Id.* at 2.

[^102]: *See* RAF Petition at 2.

[^103]: *Id*. at 7-8.

[^104]: *Id*. at 6.

[^105]: *See* Beauregard Petition at 1 (requesting telegraphy (commonly
    referred to as \"CW\") privileges in the 3675-3725 kHz, 7100-7150
    kHz and 21100-21200 kHz frequency segments; CW, radioteletype
    (RTTY), and data privileges in the 28100-28300 kHz frequency
    segment; CW, phone, and image privileges in the 3850-3900 kHz and
    7225-7300 kHz frequency segments; and CW and single sideband (SSB)
    privileges in the 28300-28500 kHz frequency segment. We note that
    some of these emission types and frequency segments currently are
    not authorized to Technician or Technician Plus Class licensees.);
    NCI Petition at 16; NCI Petition at 16; PRARL Petition at 1.

[^106]: *Restructure Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 322 ¶¶ 12-13.

[^107]: *See* Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's Rules Governing
    the Amateur Radio Services, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* WT
    Docket No. 04-140, 19 FCC Rcd 7293, 7300 ¶ 11 (2004) *(Phone Band
    Expansion NPRM)*.

[^108]: *Id.* at 327 ¶ 21.

[^109]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.505(a)(5).

[^110]: *Restructure Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 326 ¶ 20. Because
    Technician Plus Class licensee privileges included the privileges
    authorized Novice Class licensees, Technician Class licensees that
    have passed a telegraphy examination (including, but not limited to,
    Technician Plus Class licensees) also receive the privileges
    formerly authorized Novice Class licensees, so that no licensee lost
    any operating privileges as a result of the Commission's decision.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.301(a), (e).

[^111]: *Restructure Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 323 ¶ 15.

[^112]: *Id.*

[^113]: *See* *Phone Band Expansion NPRM*, 19 FCC Rcd at 7300 ¶¶ 12-14.

[^114]: *See* <http://ah0a.org/FCC/Licenses.html> for licensing
    statistics. The amateur service database shows that as of May 31,
    2005, a total of 28,384 amateur service licensees hold Novice Class
    operator licenses. The number of Novice Class licensees appears to
    be declining by about 3,000 licensees per year.

[^115]: *See id.* The amateur service database shows that the number of
    Advanced Class licensees has declined from 103,048 on March 30, 2000
    to 76,128 on May 31, 2005. The amateur service database also shows
    that the number of Amateur Extra Class licensees has increased from
    75,985 on March 30, 2000 to 106,693 on May 31, 2005.

[^116]: *See* Young Petition; Roux Petition.

[^117]: *See* Young Petition at 3.

[^118]: *Id.* at 4. Currently, an examinee must pass examination
    Elements 2 and 3 to qualify for a General Class operator license.

[^119]: *Id.* at 1.

[^120]: *See* Roux Petition at 1. The petition does not address how
    existing operator license classes would be integrated into the
    proposed license structure.

[^121]: *Id.*

[^122]: *Id.* Amateur Extra Class licensees would be authorized to use
    the current Amateur Extra Class-only Morse code sub-bands in this
    two-class license structure.

[^123]: *See* NCVEC II Petition; ARRL Petition.

[^124]: *See* NCVEC II Petition at 4; ARRL Petition at 9; *see also*
    Speroni Petition at 1, 4 (proposing to require an examinee to pass a
    test on the type or mode of communications that the licensee desires
    to use, on the grounds that the Technician Class operator license
    requires individuals to have knowledge of too many technologies,
    including technologies often of no interest to entry-level
    licensees).

[^125]: *See* NCVEC Petition II at 4-6. The NCVEC Petition II was placed
    on public notice on March 24, 2004. *See* *Public Notice*, Report
    No. 2651 (rel. Mar. 24, 2004).

[^126]: *Id.* at 2.

[^127]: *Id.* at 6.

[^128]: *See* ARRL Petition at 2, 16-18.

[^129]: *Id.* at 9-10, 13.

[^130]: *See* Rightsell-Kholer Petition at 5; RAF Petition 2-3.

[^131]: Rightsell-Kholer Petition at 2, 5.

[^132]: RAF Petition at 27, 29.

[^133]: *See Restructure Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 322 ¶¶ 12-13.

[^134]: *Id.* at 322 ¶ 13.

[^135]: *Id.*

[^136]: *Id.*

[^137]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.301(e).

[^138]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.301(d).

[^139]: *See Phone Band Expansion NPRM*, 19 FCC Rcd at 7301 ¶ 14.

[^140]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.501.

[^141]: *Restructure Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 323 ¶ 15.

[^142]: *See, e.g.,* the following comments in RM-10867: John Mihalko
    Comments at 1; Charles Edmonson Comments at 1; Richard Esakow
    Comments at 1; Alan J. Wormser Comments at 1-2; Joseph Speroni
    Comments at 2; H. Hans Brakob Comments at 1; James P. Miccolis
    Comments at 1-2.

[^143]: Amending our rules to authorize General Class operator
    privileges to Technician and Technician Plus Class licensees who
    were licensed before 1987 is not necessary, because these licensees
    do not need to take an examination to upgrade to a General Class
    operator license. Rather, Technician and Technician Plus Class
    licensees licensed before 1987 may, under the current rules, receive
    credit for all examinations necessary to receive a General Class
    operator license by showing documentation of pre-1987 licensure.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.505(a).

[^144]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 97.201, 97.205.

[^145]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.301(a).

[^146]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.301(d).

[^147]: *See* ARRL Petition at 19.

[^148]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.503(b).

[^149]: *See* para. 25, *supra.*

[^150]: 47 C.F.R § 97.501(a) (1999).

[^151]: *See* para. 8, *supra.*

[^152]: 47 C.F.R. § 97.503(c) (1999). These topics are referred to in
    some petitions as \"sub-elements.\"

[^153]: *Restructure Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 339 ¶ 41.

[^154]: *Id.* at 339 ¶ 42.

[^155]: *Id.*

[^156]: *Id.*

[^157]: *See* PRARL Petition at 1-2; FISTS Petition at 8. Specifically,
    FISTS requests that the Technician Class examination include
    questions concerning digital communications; the technical level of
    the General Class written examination be increased to that of the
    pre-2000 Advanced Class written examination; and the written
    examination for the Amateur Extra Class operator license require
    knowledge of circuit design, information theory, digital methods and
    encoding schemes, software-defined radios, and a more through
    knowledge of propagation and geophysics than is currently required.
    FISTS Petition at 8.

[^158]: *See* FISTS Petition at 9.

[^159]: *Id.* at 10.

[^160]: *See* PRARL Petition at 1-2; FISTS Petition at 9-10; *see also*
    Rightsell-Kholer Petition at 8.

[^161]: *See* PRARL Petition at 3.

[^162]: *Id.*

[^163]: *See* Speroni Petition at 1.

[^164]: *Id.* at 4.

[^165]: *Id.*

[^166]: *Id.*

[^167]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.503(b). The purpose of a written
    examination is to allow the applicant to demonstrate that he or she
    possesses the operational and technical qualifications required to
    properly operate an amateur station.

[^168]: The question pool database is periodically revised by the
    NCVEC's QPC in order to reflect the then-current operational and
    technical knowledge a licensee requires to operate an amateur
    station. The database is arranged into three sections, each of which
    contains questions applicable to the privileges of one of the three
    classes of amateur radio operator licenses we issue.

[^169]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.503(a); *see also Restructure Report and
    Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 341 ¶ 44 (noting that an extensive technical
    understanding is not always necessary to properly operate
    commercially manufactured equipment). We also note that the amateur
    community self-administers programs such as the A-1 Operator Club;
    publishes the results of on-the-air operating events such as
    contests; and offers licensees numerous operating awards,
    certificates, and plaques to recognize superior operating skills.

[^170]: For example, questions about digital communications, knowledge
    of circuit design, information theory, digital methods and encoding
    schemes, software-defined radios, and a more through knowledge of
    propagation and geo-physics, should be submitted to the QPC for
    inclusion in the applicable question pool.

[^171]: *See* Permitting Volunteer-Examiner Coordinators to Maintain
    Pools of Questions for Amateur Operator Examinations, PR Docket No.
    85-196, *Report and Order,* 1 Fed. Reg. 30645 (Aug. 28, 1986),
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 2 FCC Rcd 2815 (1987).

[^172]: *See* *Restructure Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 339 ¶ 42.

[^173]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.507(b).

[^174]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 97.17(b); 97.21(a)(2).

[^175]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.509(h).

[^176]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.509(j).

[^177]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.501.

[^178]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.509(f).

[^179]: *See* PRARL Petition at 3.

[^180]: *Id.*

[^181]: *See* FISTS Petition at 9.

[^182]: *Id.*

[^183]: *Id.*

[^184]: *See Restructure Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd at
    8086 ¶¶ 22-23.

[^185]: *Id.* at 8086 ¶ 23.

[^186]: *See* Use of Volunteers to Prepare and Administer Operator
    Examinations in the Amateur Radio Service, *Report and Order,* PR
    Docket No. 83-27, 95 FCC 2d 14 (1983), as amended by Errata, 48 Fed.
    Reg. 49244 (1983), 49 Fed. Reg. 1375 (1984), and modified by
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, FCC 84-324, 49 Fed. Reg. 30310
    (1984).

[^187]: *See also* James B. Wiley KL7CC Comments RM-10809 at 2.

[^188]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 97.509(b), 97.525(a). To be certified as a
    VE, a person must, among other things, be at least eighteen years of
    age, hold a specified class of amateur operator license, never have
    had an amateur station license revoked or suspended, and not be a
    person whose voluntary and uncompensated services the FCC does not
    accept.

[^189]: 47 C.F.R. § 97.525(a).

[^190]: *See*, *e.g.*, <https://www.w5yi.org/ssl/ve_application.php>.

[^191]: *See*, *e.g.*, <http://www.arrl.org/arrlvec/#arrlve>.

[^192]: *See* PRARL Petition at 2.

[^193]: *Id.*

[^194]: *Id.*

[^195]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.519.

[^196]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 97.521.

[^197]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601-- 612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^198]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^199]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^200]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the
    definition of "small business concern" in the Small Business Act, 15
    U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory
    definition of a small business applies "unless an agency, after
    consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes
    one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the
    activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the
    Federal Register."

[^201]: *See* 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^202]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 97.17, 97.501.

[^203]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

[^204]: *See id.*

[^205]: *See* Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
    *Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).