Hi, 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 -----
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>>