Greetings, Grant. Thanks (from my perspective) for the well-expressed thoughts on the 97.113 NPRM from FCC. To provide some background, your thoughts echo many of those stated during what was a very long and productive discussion at the last Board meeting in January on this topic. We were pretty well-aware at that time of what was going to be in this NPRM from some reports received from FCC staff, and the Board adopted on this subject a very specific policy that, following the Board meeting, Dave Sumner and I aggressively advocated at FCC, including meeting with staff members of all five FCC Commissioners and the Chief and Deputy Chief of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. While there is of course time for the Board to re-evaluate its position on Section 97.113 (as stated in the Board minutes for the January meeting) the Board's position is quite specific, so we can't go very far afield in responding to this NPRM. To bring you up to speed on what has gone before on this since the January Board meeting, attached is a copy of the briefing paper that we prepared and used at FCC following the January Board meeting, which reflects the Board's adopted policy on 97.113. While many individual Board members felt differently about this subject (and probably still do) in the end, the Board adopted what really is a rather balanced approach to Section 97.113(a)(3) and the protection of the Amateur Service against commercialism. 73, Chris W3KD Christopher D. Imlay Booth, Freret, Imlay & Tepper. P.C. 14356 Cape May Road Silver Spring, Maryland 20904-6011 (301) 384-5525 telephone (301) 384-6384 facsimile W3KD@ARRL.ORG -----Original Message----- From: Grant Hopper <ghopper@eskimo.com> To: arrl-odv <arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org> Sent: Wed, Mar 24, 2010 5:07 pm Subject: [arrl-odv:18729] RE: [arrl-odv:18727] FCC Releases NPRM on Government Disaster Drills I had noticed that request in the NPRM and my lawyer brain immediately started thinking about some past instances where entities (governmental and non-governmental) have sought to use amateur radio to 'supplement' their regular communications tools, outside of an established, defined exercise. I have concern about the huge amount of weasel room this could (and would) create, especially on the non-governmental side. I'm sort of just spit balling here and this is really more of a musing, with some obvious holes in my arguments, but I do think that the 'request' has potential for problems if they act on it. Most of the non-governmental organizations that are involved with emergency work try hard to respect the spirit and letter of the law. However, I have seen (as I'm sure all of you have) well meaning, over enthusiastic, 'get the job done' sorts of people (and the organizations) say "damn the rules, this is more important than following them." That includes using amateur radio on a day-to-day basis. Yes, I know there are tools for dealing with this, but as I tell my clients "it's far, far better to prevent the problem, and far more costly to deal with it once it develops." Just look at the growing problem with 'dumb' trackers on APRS and you know what I mean about how hard it is to solve a problem once the habit is entrenched. The challenge this 'new interpretation' created (in making the issue more visible) was that many government employees that interface to the volunteer EmComm/amateur radio world are the connection between the two sides or entities (or in some cases, the volunteer Radio Officer becomes a part time employee in order to get paid to take care of the paperwork associated with the EmComm program and comes under the rule that way.) These folks got stuck on two points: first was the pecuniary interest aspect. Second was the FSLA issue of not being allowed to be a volunteer if your volunteer activity has a connection to your paid job. The results are obvious. In an emergency management program, there would be virtually no way to get away from that definition making you ineligible to volunteer with your own entity. As a result, you can't work with your own volunteers (on the radio) until the disaster strikes. I didn't see a similar problem on the 'non-government side. I think that there are tools available to non-governmental entities (including both for profit companies (such as Boeing) and non-profits (such as ARC or '(insert name) animal rescue')) to allow them to stay within the letter and spirit of the law that aren't available to the government. The biggest one is the employee-volunteer distinction. As a result, I don't see this as so much of a problem, and would advocate for the position that the exemption should be/stay limited to government sponsored drills. 73, Grant Grant Hopper, KB7WSD ARRL Northwest Division, Vice Director -----Original Message----- From: Sumner, Dave, K1ZZ [mailto:dsumner@arrl.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 9:17 AM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:18727] FCC Releases NPRM on Government Disaster Drills As Chris Imlay predicted, the FCC’s NPRM proposing the amendment of 97.113(a)(3) (just released, attached) limits the exception to government-sponsored drills. However, in paragraph 7 comments are sought “on whether [the FCC] should permit employee operation of amateur stations during non-government-sponsored emergency drills, if the purpose of the drill is to assess communications capabilities, including amateur radio, in order to improve emergency preparedness and response.” Also note Footnote 15, which specifically raises the hospital issue. Also note the short fuse: the comment deadline is 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Dave <<FCC-10-45A1.pdf>>