Phil Kane wrote:


You do know that letters, e-mails, etc. do not get put into the
Docket Record and therefore are not required to be considered in
reaching a decision unless they are formally filed using the format
and procedures specified in Part 1 of the FCC Rules.


Now if there was a way to find the petition for rule making the NCVEC
sent in, then we
could comment on it. I can't find it at the FCC's web page. Seems if
you don't know the
number, you're screwed.....

"Robert Casey" wrote in message
...
Phil Kane wrote:


You do know that letters, e-mails, etc. do not get put into the
Docket Record and therefore are not required to be considered in
reaching a decision unless they are formally filed using the format
and procedures specified in Part 1 of the FCC Rules.


Now if there was a way to find the petition for rule making the NCVEC
sent in, then we
could comment on it. I can't find it at the FCC's web page. Seems if
you don't know the
number, you're screwed.....

It hasn't been assigned an RM number or put on public notice yet ...

NONE of the Petitions are open for comment yet ... the procedure
is to wait for them to be assigned an RM number and put on public
notice. Comments filed before then probably go into the bit-bucket.

BTW, NCI's Petition was filed Aug. 13 and is available on the
NCI website at http://www.nocode.org under the "Articles" link
as a .pdf download.

73,
--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
NCI-1052
Executive Director, No Code International
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Chair-elect, Wi-Fi Alliance Regulatory Committee
Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee
Member, QCWA (31424)
Member, ARRL
Member, TAPR
Member, The SETI League
------------------------------------------------------
Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
http://www.nocode.org

Thanks for the link to your proposal, Carl.


A question though. I notice that the proposal to drop element one is
there, but why doesn't the proposal rename the other elements so that
they are in sequence?

I've been around enough of these sort of documents to know that sooner
or later it will have to be changed.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Thanks for the link to your proposal, Carl.


A question though. I notice that the proposal to drop element one is
there, but why doesn't the proposal rename the other elements so that
they are in sequence?

I've been around enough of these sort of documents to know that sooner
or later it will have to be changed.

- Mike KB3EIA -

I dunno, Mike. Were you around during the last restructuring? The
NPRM was the most amateurish piece of literature I've ever seen from a
government agency. The R/O was the second most. Left more questions
than answers. Of course, there was a lot of interference from the
ARRL in the process, so...

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...
Thanks for the link to your proposal, Carl.


A question though. I notice that the proposal to drop element one is
there, but why doesn't the proposal rename the other elements so that
they are in sequence?

I've been around enough of these sort of documents to know that sooner
or later it will have to be changed.

- Mike KB3EIA -

I dunno, Mike. Were you around during the last restructuring? The
NPRM was the most amateurish piece of literature I've ever seen from a
government agency. The R/O was the second most. Left more questions
than answers. Of course, there was a lot of interference from the
ARRL in the process, so...

"Interference"...?!?!

So participation in the rulemaking process is
"interference"...?!?! Or is that just the people or organizations you
don't agree with, Brain?

Steve, K4YZ

Brian wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote in message ...

Thanks for the link to your proposal, Carl.


A question though. I notice that the proposal to drop element one is
there, but why doesn't the proposal rename the other elements so that
they are in sequence?

I've been around enough of these sort of documents to know that sooner
or later it will have to be changed.

- Mike KB3EIA -


I dunno, Mike. Were you around during the last restructuring?

nope.

The
NPRM was the most amateurish piece of literature I've ever seen from a
government agency. The R/O was the second most. Left more questions
than answers. Of course, there was a lot of interference from the
ARRL in the process, so...

Hmm, too bad. Hard to imagine having an element 2, 3, and 4, but no
element 1. It would make good joke material, or maybe the start of a
legend. "The ghost of Element 1" 8^)

- Mike KB3EIA -

In article , Mike Coslo writes:

Hard to imagine having an element 2, 3, and 4, but no
element 1.

Not really!

Back before restructuring, we had the following elements (IIRC):

1A - 5 wpm code
1B - 13 wpm code
1C - 20 wpm code
2 - Novice written
3A - Tech written
3B - General written
4A - Advanced written
4B - Extra written

Before March 21, 1987, the Tech and General used the same written, called
Element 3. When they split that into two separate tests, the names were changed
to 3A and 3B. A similar split took place back in 1967 when the Extra written
(Element 4) was split into Advanced and Extra.

Etc.

73 de Jim, N2EY