PRB-1
E N D
Presentation Transcript
PRB-1 What the Law Requires of Municipalities Presented By Trent A. Davis, Sr. N2WKL
FCC • Reasonably Accommodate Communications • No unusual setbacks, fees, costs, height regulations. • Minimum Practicable Regulation. • Minimum necessary fees, costs, height regulations • If a municipality wishes to become more restrictive: • What is the problem not addressed? • Why is the new element needed?
47 CFR §97.15(b) • Are Height and Dimensions Sufficient to accommodate amateur radio?
DA 99-2569 • Balancing of interests forbidden Regulations must not “impinge on the needs of amateur operators”
COURT DECISIONS • An open mind. Bodony v. Sands Point (NY) • No fixed and unvarying height. Bodony (NY), Izzo (NJ), Howard (CA), Brower (FL - max of 70’ void), Pentel (MN). • Specifics of the application; from the ham applicant’s perspective. Marchand (NH), Snook (TX). • An attempt to negotiate a satisfactory compromise. Howard (CA), Pentel (MN)
NO RFI REGULATION • Broyde v. Gotham Tower (FL) SW Bell v. Johnson County (KS) Freeman v. Burlington Broadcasters (VT) • Palmer v. Saratoga Springs (NY): requesting info is “unreasonable on (its) face”
ANSWERS MUST BE YES • Reasonably accommodate amateur communications? • Minimum practicable regulation? Each application approached with an open mind? • Considered from the amateur’s perspective?
ANSWERS MUST BE NO • Balancing of interests? • Impinge on needs of amateur? • Fixed or unvarying height limit? • Consider RFI?