September 2009 - arrl-odv - reflector.arrl.org

[arrl-odv:18070] Re: Septemebr QST Editorial Question
by k5uz＠suddenlink.net 03 Sep '09

03 Sep '09

That's pretty much how I see it Dick! Which way is up? 73 DE K5UZ ---- "Richard J. Norton" <richardjnorton(a)gmail.com> wrote: > The September QST Editorial made reference to an FCC staff > interpretation about prohibiting hospital employees using Amateur > Radio on behalf of the hospital while on duty. > > This seems to somewhat conflict with a paragraph in recent FCC R&O > 04-140, which is reproduced below. > > The 04-140 paragraph seems to be missing from ARRL consideration. Has > this paragraph been somehow been superseded? Or, is there some fine > line between facilitating relief and working on behalf of the > hospital? In other words, would it be acceptable for a hospital > employee to request a flashlight for use in the emergency room using > ham radio, but not OK to request a flashlight for use in the payroll > department? > > Thanks. > > 73, > > Dick Norton, N6AA > > 52. Mr. DiGennaro also requests that we amend Section 97.113 > our Rules, which prohibits “[ c] ommunications for hire or > for material compensation, direct or indirect, paid or > promised,” by amateur stations, 227 to clarify that amateur > licensees who, by virtue of their employment, are directly > involved in facilitating relief and recovery in times of > disaster are not prohibited from effecting emergency > communications using amateur radio. 228 We conclude that the > proposed rule change is not necessary, however, because > Section 97.113 does not prohibit > amateur radio operators who are emergency personnel engaged > in disaster relief from using the amateur service bands while > in a paid duty status. 229 These individuals are not > receiving compensation for transmitting amateur service > communications; rather, they are receiving compensation for > services related to their disaster relief duties and in their > capacities as emergency personnel. >

1 0

Jim Weaver's daughter Ruthann, WD8BMK, SK
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 02 Sep '09

02 Sep '09

It is with great sorrow that I pass along this news: Ruthann E. *Ruthie" Stambaugh WD8BMK, nee Todd died of a heart attack in her home in Deltona, FL at the age of 51. She was the daughter of Jim K8JE and Janice Weaver. Funeral arrangements are through Shorten & Ryan Funeral Home, Mason, OH. Funeral Mass at St. Susanna Church, Mason, OH at 11 AM Tuesday, September 9. The family will receive guests at the Church beginning at 10 AM. Burial will follow Mass at the Gate of Heaven Cemetery, I-275 & Montgomery Rd. (US 22). Jim says that Ruthann was very active, especially in ARES/RACES, at one time but had been inactive in Amateur Radio in recent years. She had one daughter who lives in the Dayton area. Jim appreciates the condolences that Janice and he have received. Dave Sumner, K1ZZ

1 0

[arrl-odv:18067] RE: [arrl-odv:18066] Septemebr QST Editorial Question
by Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ 02 Sep '09

02 Sep '09

Dick, that paragraph from the 04-140 R&O (which essentially reiterated the 1999 explanation of why RM-9114 was unnecessary) has not been overlooked. The editorial quotes substantially from it in the paragraph preceding the quote from Roger Noel's letter. I don't want to speak for the Executive Committee, but I think it's safe to say that the EC is pretty close to sharing a slightly edited version of the Ad Hoc Committee's report with the Board. Dave K1ZZ -----Original Message----- From: Richard J. Norton [mailto:richardjnorton@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 1:45 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18066] Septemebr QST Editorial Question The September QST Editorial made reference to an FCC staff interpretation about prohibiting hospital employees using Amateur Radio on behalf of the hospital while on duty. This seems to somewhat conflict with a paragraph in recent FCC R&O 04-140, which is reproduced below. The 04-140 paragraph seems to be missing from ARRL consideration. Has this paragraph been somehow been superseded? Or, is there some fine line between facilitating relief and working on behalf of the hospital? In other words, would it be acceptable for a hospital employee to request a flashlight for use in the emergency room using ham radio, but not OK to request a flashlight for use in the payroll department? Thanks. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA 52. Mr. DiGennaro also requests that we amend Section 97.113 our Rules, which prohibits “[ c] ommunications for hire or for material compensation, direct or indirect, paid or promised,” by amateur stations, 227 to clarify that amateur licensees who, by virtue of their employment, are directly involved in facilitating relief and recovery in times of disaster are not prohibited from effecting emergency communications using amateur radio. 228 We conclude that the proposed rule change is not necessary, however, because Section 97.113 does not prohibit amateur radio operators who are emergency personnel engaged in disaster relief from using the amateur service bands while in a paid duty status. 229 These individuals are not receiving compensation for transmitting amateur service communications; rather, they are receiving compensation for services related to their disaster relief duties and in their capacities as emergency personnel.

1 0

[arrl-odv:18066] Septemebr QST Editorial Question
by Richard J. Norton 02 Sep '09

02 Sep '09

The September QST Editorial made reference to an FCC staff interpretation about prohibiting hospital employees using Amateur Radio on behalf of the hospital while on duty. This seems to somewhat conflict with a paragraph in recent FCC R&O 04-140, which is reproduced below. The 04-140 paragraph seems to be missing from ARRL consideration. Has this paragraph been somehow been superseded? Or, is there some fine line between facilitating relief and working on behalf of the hospital? In other words, would it be acceptable for a hospital employee to request a flashlight for use in the emergency room using ham radio, but not OK to request a flashlight for use in the payroll department? Thanks. 73, Dick Norton, N6AA 52. Mr. DiGennaro also requests that we amend Section 97.113 our Rules, which prohibits “[ c] ommunications for hire or for material compensation, direct or indirect, paid or promised,” by amateur stations, 227 to clarify that amateur licensees who, by virtue of their employment, are directly involved in facilitating relief and recovery in times of disaster are not prohibited from effecting emergency communications using amateur radio. 228 We conclude that the proposed rule change is not necessary, however, because Section 97.113 does not prohibit amateur radio operators who are emergency personnel engaged in disaster relief from using the amateur service bands while in a paid duty status. 229 These individuals are not receiving compensation for transmitting amateur service communications; rather, they are receiving compensation for services related to their disaster relief duties and in their capacities as emergency personnel.

1 0