Options paper, Section 97.113Hi, Dave. Thanks for circulating the Options document prepared by Dan and Chris, and thanks to them both for taking the time to prepare it. I have one possible expansion of the pro / con discussion of Primary Option B in which it is stated that, . . . it would not address weekly nets (or similar activities) involving employees of entities sponsoring the event, or testing of equipment on a regular basis." I have heard third-hand reports (OK, they came from Gordon West WB6NOA after visits to New York and Dayton) of local Emcomm nets closing down due to possibly exaggerated concerns over 97.113-related enforcement action. Frankly, I think this could be the result of some fear-mongering by a few of those wishing to drum up additional support for a rule change (that may already be supportable for other reasons). There are many Emcomm nets which focus on safety of the community at large and have nothing to do with the operations of any business or government entity. I see nothing in the current rules or interpretations thereof that would prevent an Amateur licensee / employee from particpating in such nets. If these nets pass the "Who benefits?" test articulated in QST and elsewhere recently, it should be permissable for a ham-employee to participate - from work or home - under the current rules. Such participation, especially on a regular basis, could serve to exercise both the equipment and the operator(s) without the need to participate in employer-sponsored events. A statement to that effect might serve to alleviate the popular concern described above. Separately, I see a question arising from the use of the "non-profit" descriptor in the suggested rollback version of 97.113(a)(3) offered under Primary Option C. Does this mean that employees of a hospital classified as a public charity under IRC 501(c)(3) could participate but emloyees of other hospitals could not? Some might consider that difference of little importance so long as the operative words "which has a primary purpose of emergency response or disaster relief" are present. I look forward to hearing the discussion of this high-visibililty issue at the January Board meeting. Meanwhile, I wish you all a safe and Happy New Year. 73, Marty N6VI ----- Original Message ----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ To: arrl-odv Sent: Monday, December 28, 2009 1:18 PM Subject: [arrl-odv:18367] Options paper, Section 97.113 Item 10.d. on the draft agenda for next month's Board meeting is the development of the ARRL position on possible amendment of the FCC rules concerning pecuniary interest and communications on behalf of one's employer (Section 97.113). To assist the Board in its deliberations the Executive Committee requested that an options paper be prepared. General Counsel Imlay and Regulatory Information Manager Henderson developed an excellent paper, which is attached for your review. There will be ample opportunity for discussion of the issues addressed in this paper at the meeting, but of course any consideration that you can give to them in advance of the meeting will facilitate the Board's work. 73, David Sumner, K1ZZ Secretary <<97.113 Options FINAL.doc>>