At 03:58 PM 11/21/97 -0800, Jim Pratt wrote:
>(My apologies to non-US readers of this reflector:)
>
>Those of you who are hopeful of FCC action to possibly preempt local
>zoning ordinances for ham antenna siting may want to look at:
>
>www.nh.ultranet.com/~appell/antennas/
>
>This site discusses Senate Bill S1350, introduced by Sen. Leahy of
>Vermont. This bill seeks to overturn the provisions of the
>Communications Act regarding federal preemption of antenna siting
>regulations. This bill is on a "fast track" in the Senate and could make
>ham-friendly rules in the future somewhat difficult.
>
>I am curious if the ARRL is involved in any lobbying efforts regarding
>this bill?
In any case, the FCC has only pre-empted local restrictions on wireless
communications towers (PCS and cellular, chiefly) based on RFI or RF
exposure considerations ... while this may offer some reassurance for those
who are worried about the local effects of the new ham RF exposure limits,
the FCC has clearly said it does not affect localities' ability to restrict
siting for aesthetic or physical safety reasons.
It's worth noting as well that an awful lot of things get through the
Senate that never even get started in the House, and that the wireless
communications industry has petitioned the FCC to extend its pre-emption
even further, so we have some pretty powerful allies.
73, Pete Smith N4ZR
n4zr@contesting.com
"That's WEST Virginia. Thanks and 73"
--
FAQ on WWW: http://www.contesting.com/towertalkfaq.html
Submissions: towertalk@contesting.com
Administrative requests: towertalk-REQUEST@contesting.com
Problems: owner-towertalk@contesting.com
Search: http://www.contesting.com/km9p/search
|