This is often the case when an ordinance not pertaining to RF
emissions is applied in a way which impermissibly interferes with federal
peremption in the area because of the matter in which it is applied.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Hopengarten" <k1vr@juno.com>
To: <tubbyjoe@pacbell.net>; <towertalk@contesting.com>
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 6:07 AM
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)
>
> On Thu, 15 May 2003 17:11:21 -0700 "Timothy-Allen Albertson-KG6IRH"
> <tubbyjoe@pacbell.net> writes:
>
> > Such idiocy on the part of local
> > authorities is one of the reasons I believe Congress saw fit to
> > vest
> > exclusive jurisdiction on this issue in the FCC. You can file a
> > petition
> > for declaratory relief on this matter with the FCC if you wish.
>
> For non-lawyer readers of this reflector, it may be important to
> elaborate on the above statement. While it is true that the FCC appears
> to have exclusive federal jurisdiction, the FCC had not preempted local
> regulations. An amateur could file a petition for declaratory relief on
> this matter with the FCC, asking the FCC to preempt a particular local
> regulation, or decision.
>
>
> 5. Preemption of State and Local RF Regulations
>
> <snip>
>
>
> 88. Decision. Based upon the current record in this
> proceeding, we find that there is insufficient evidence at this time to
> warrant our preempting state and local actions that are based on concerns
> over RF emissions for services other than those defined by Congress as
> "personal wireless services."[1] We note that on May 30, 1997, the
> National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Association of Maximum
> Service Television (MSTV) (jointly NAB/MSTV) filed a Petition for Further
> Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, urging preemption of certain state and
> local government restrictions on the siting of broadcast transmission
> facilities, based on petitioner's claims that unreasonable state and
> local regulations have frustrated the siting of broadcast facilities and
> could impede the Commission's scheduled conversion to the new digital
> television service. The NAB/MSTV petition, which raises additional
> preemption issues for broadcasting, will be addressed in a subsequent
> Commission action.
>
>
>
>
> [1] See 47 CFR 1.1307(e), as amended.
>
>
> Source: FCC 97-303 [12 FCC Rcd 13494 (1997); 62 FR 47960 (Sept 12,
> 1997)]
> http://ftp.fcc.gov/oet/dockets/et93-62/#2
>
> K1VR Note: The FCC has never acted upon the 1997 NAB/MSTV petition.
> Fred Hopengarten K1VR hopengarten@post.harvard.edu
> Six Willarch Road * Lincoln, MA 01773-5105
> 781/259-0088 *eFax 419/858-2421
>
> ----------------------------30-------------------
> _______________________________________________
>
> See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with any
questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|