<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;"><!-- P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr">
<div id="divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<p>In summary of below, the TAC for the FCC has extended the period for public comment on the noise floor problem until 10/21/2016 due to lack of response from key interest groups. The ARRL has responded but perhaps AMRAD would like to independently.</p>
<br>
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<hr tabindex="-1" style="display:inline-block; width:98%">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" color="#000000" style="font-size:11pt"><b>From:</b> sara-list@googlegroups.com <sara-list@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Whitham Reeve <whitreeve@gmail.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, September 23, 2016 1:36 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [SARA] Update on FCC Noise Floor Technical Inquiry</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal">On 15 June 2016, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued the following:
<i style="">FCC’s OFFICE OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY ANNOUNCES TECHNOLOGICAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (TAC) NOISE FLOOR TECHNICAL INQUIRY, OET 16-191</i>. The announcement was issued under DA16-676A1 with responses due 11 August.
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">FCC received 93 submissions from 73 people and entities. Broadcast, GPS, lighting and cellular industries were well represented in the responses. The ARRL also responded in the context of amateur radio. Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers
(SARA) did not respond and neither did government agencies, the satellite industry nor university research organizations. To see all responses, go to FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System, ECFS, and in the “<i style="">Specify Proceeding</i>” field enter
“<i style="">16-191</i>”: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search-proceedings" id="LPlnk710256" previewremoved="true">
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/search-proceedings</a>. </p>
<br>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) met on 20 September and the Spectrum and Receiver Performance Working Group presented a summary of the above proceeding and responses. A PDF file of their presentation can be downloaded here:
<a href="http://www.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/meeting92016/TAC-Presentations9-20-16.pdf" id="LPlnk816409" previewremoved="true">
http://www.fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/meeting92016/TAC-Presentations9-20-16.pdf</a>. Also, there is a video of the meeting here, which provides additional detail:
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2016/09/technological-advisory-council-meeting-september-20th-2016" id="LPlnk737216" previewremoved="true">
https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/events/2016/09/technological-advisory-council-meeting-september-20th-2016</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Because no responses were received from the important entities noted above, the TAC decided to extend the public comment period to 21 October 2016. All responses will be compiled and a complete report will be presented at the 7 December
2016 TAC meeting. SARA members can monitor this website for meeting announcements:
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/general/technological-advisory-council" id="LPlnk748418" previewremoved="true">
https://www.fcc.gov/general/technological-advisory-council</a></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This is an ideal time for SARA to become actively involved in reducing radio frequency interference nationwide. RFI is probably the single most significant impediment to making meaningful radio observations by its members.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<u><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">REMEMBER THIS</span></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">: If amateur radio astronomers do not actively participate, the FCC will have the impression that
everything is fine and there is no problem with RFI.</span></div>
<p></p>
-- <br>
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google<br>
Groups "Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers" group.<br>
To post to this group, send email to sara-list@googlegroups.com<br>
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to<br>
sara-list-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<br>
For more options, visit this group at<br>
<a href="http://groups.google.com/group/sara-list?hl=en" id="LPlnk998628" previewremoved="true">http://groups.google.com/group/sara-list?hl=en</a><br>
<br>
--- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
<a href="mailto:sara-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">sara-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/optout">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>