¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io
  1. K-Bar-A
  2. Topics

USFS proposal to charge for repeater sites.

 

Hello Everyone,

It appears that the United States Forest Service (USFS) is?proposing to?implement?a?statutorily required?annual fee for our local repeater sites.? I would recommend that everyone that likes to communicate using one of the local repeaters pen a letter and send it to the USFS.? The address is listed?below (way below).? Now not all of the local repeaters are under the privilege?of the USFS.? However some of them are.? Particularly?the ones in Lake county such as Grizzly peak, Drake peak and Dead Indian Mountain.? These repeaters are very important to us.? All Lake County repeaters are owned by Rob, KE7QP who has been generous enough?to fund the repeaters and the sites.? KBARA has been helping?with maintaining?them as all three repeaters are a great asset to Klamath County.? ?The proposed number I heard from Rob was $1400 per site per year.? Currently Rob said he pays about $100 per site per year which seems reasonable to me.? To me the $1400 number would be too excessive for most repeater associations and clubs to endure.? There are a lot of benefits from the local hams having repeaters.? I will not enumerate them here as I would certainly?miss several.

Here is what I got from the ARRL:??

ARRL to Oppose Forest Service Administrative Fees for Amateur
Facilities

The US Forest Service is proposing to implement a statutorily required
annual fee for new and existing communications use authorizations to
cover the costs of administering its authorization program. ARRL plans
to vigorously oppose the imposition of the proposed fees on Amateur
Radio.

The Forest Service proposal results from requirements set forth in the
Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (aka ¡°the Farm Bill¡±).
Specifically, section 8705(c)(3)(b) of the Farm Bill directs the Forest
Service to issue regulations that require fees for issuing
communications use authorizations based on the cost to the Agency for
maintenance or other activities to be performed by the Agency ¡°as a
result of the location or modification of a communications facility.¡±

The Forest Service is responsible for managing Federal lands and
authorizes the use and occupancy of National Forest System (NFS) lands
for communications facilities that provide communications services for
adjacent rural and urban communities. The Agency said in its proposal
that it administers more than 3,700 special use authorizations on NFS
lands for infrastructure that supports more than 10,000 wireless
communications uses at 1,367 communications sites.

According to the Forest Service Notice published in the December 22,
2021 issue of the Federal Register, revenues from the proposed fee,
¡°would provide the funds necessary to support a more modernized,
efficient, and enhanced communications use program,¡± and will ¡°cover
the costs of administering the Agency¡¯s communications use program.¡±
Costs, as laid out in section 8705(f)(4) of the Farm Bill, may include
expenditures for such things as ¡°on-site reviews of communications
sites, developing communications site management plans, hiring and
training personnel for the communications use program, conducting
internal and external outreach for and national oversight of the
communications use program, and obtaining or improving access to
communications sites on NFS lands.¡±

ARRL encourages Amateur Radio licensees to file comments opposing the
imposition of the proposed administrative fee on Amateur Radio users.
Comments must be received in writing by no later than February 22, 2022.
?Comments may be submitted online at the Federal Rulemaking Portal or
via USPS mail to Director, Lands & Realty Management Staff, 201 14th
Street SW, Washington, DC 20250-1124, and must include the identifier
¡°RIN 0596-AD44.¡±
 

I appreciate you posting this, Jim.

The $1,400 fee would be indexed for inflation based on CPI-U.? I think the estimated cost provided by the Forest Service should 1) be reduced dramatically and 2) separate the 3,715 wireless group of use authorizations so that non-profit organization or individuals FBO of non-profit organization and charge a lower fee.? The table below comes from the proposed rules.

I have submitted my comment online today at https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/FS_FRDOC_0001-3605.

Cyndi | KK7AZD

 

Hi?Cynthia,

Welcome to the wild world of ham radio!? I really hate this political side of the hobby.? However it is more than a hobby and is really defined as an Amateur Radio SERVICE.? As such I think the USFS has no business to take a NON-for profit SERVICE to cleaners to strip their very limited funds when they are using a mountain top that they ALREADY (as a collective) own.

So going forward would you please forward me the text of the response that you made to the USFS.? Mostly I would possibly like to use it as a template for our club members to use as a starting point to respond to the USFS.? The Idea is for each member to personalize it a bit then send it on.? The last thing the USFS would consider is a pile of emails that all look alike.? BTW you can send it to my personal email at WO7V@...

Again, welcome to the adventure of ham radio and thank you very much for your response?to my email blast.??

73,

Jim WO7V



On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 12:31 PM Cynthia W Albro, KK7AZD <KK7AZD@...> wrote:
I appreciate you posting this, Jim.

The $1,400 fee would be indexed for inflation based on CPI-U.? I think the estimated cost provided by the Forest Service should 1) be reduced dramatically and 2) separate the 3,715 wireless group of use authorizations so that non-profit organization or individuals FBO of non-profit organization and charge a lower fee.? The table below comes from the proposed rules.

I have submitted my comment online today at .

Cyndi | KK7AZD

Daniel J Mattingly, N0FQN
 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

Hi Jim;

??? ??? ?? My two cents from the soap box. Trying to explain to hams that what they have applied for is, indeed, a service is next to impossible. Many still believe it to just a hobby and nothing more. If they read the FCC rules completely they would see it is service. If they dig deeper they will see what the government is allowed to do under this agreement. When you apply for a ham license and pass the testing you placing yourself and, any equipment you procure, in servitude to the government. In actuality, if the government were to ever choose to do so, they could confiscate your equipment. This would be under very rare and extremely severe conditions but, possible. We are a service, period. Anyone applying for a license to broadcast, in any way, shape or form, is subject to this. Having worked in broadcast radio, I talked extensively with several FCC field agents. After some prodding they admitted that this, in fact, is true. We are bound to work with FEMA, Homeland Security and other agencies of the government(s). IMHO this is the political side of the story. I'm fully in agreement with you that it is an uncomfortable position to be in but, a necessary evil, so to speak. Looking at the USFS they are a typical government entity. Wasting money is one of the prime requirements. Thus, the need for more. FCC is proposing a fee for our license, anyone? I've never seen a governmental department use common sense yet, have you?

73 Dan N0FQN

On 12/28/2021 4:15 PM, Jim English, WO7V wrote:

Hi?Cynthia,

Welcome to the wild world of ham radio!? I really hate this political side of the hobby.? However it is more than a hobby and is really defined as an Amateur Radio SERVICE.? As such I think the USFS has no business to take a NON-for profit SERVICE to cleaners to strip their very limited funds when they are using a mountain top that they ALREADY (as a collective) own.

So going forward would you please forward me the text of the response that you made to the USFS.? Mostly I would possibly like to use it as a template for our club members to use as a starting point to respond to the USFS.? The Idea is for each member to personalize it a bit then send it on.? The last thing the USFS would consider is a pile of emails that all look alike.? BTW you can send it to my personal email at WO7V@...

Again, welcome to the adventure of ham radio and thank you very much for your response?to my email blast.??

73,

Jim WO7V



On Mon, Dec 27, 2021 at 12:31 PM Cynthia W Albro, KK7AZD <KK7AZD@...> wrote:
I appreciate you posting this, Jim.

The $1,400 fee would be indexed for inflation based on CPI-U.? I think the estimated cost provided by the Forest Service should 1) be reduced dramatically and 2) separate the 3,715 wireless group of use authorizations so that non-profit organization or individuals FBO of non-profit organization and charge a lower fee.? The table below comes from the proposed rules.

I have submitted my comment online today at .

Cyndi | KK7AZD

1 - 4 of 4