|
PRB-1 (Continued from Page 2)
The next topic addressed by the the FCC in the 2000 Reconsideration was to do with the meaning of "reasonable accommodation" of amateur radio antenna facilities by local zoning agencies.
We take this opportunity to amplify upon the meaning of 'reasonable
accommodation' of amateur communications in the context of local land
use and zoning regulations. The Commission adopted a limited preemption
policy for amateur communications because there is a strong federal
interest in promoting amateur communications. We do not believe that a
zoning regulation that provides extreme or excessive prohibition of
amateur communications could be deemed to be a reasonable
accommodation. For example, we believe that a regulation that would
restrict amateur communications using small dish antennas, antennas
that do not present any safety or health hazard, or antennas that are
similar to those normally permitted for viewing television, either
locally or by satellite, is not a reasonable accommodation or the
minimum practicable regulation. On the other hand, we recognize that a
local community that wants to preserve residential areas as livable
neighborhoods may adopt zoning regulations that forbid the construction
and installation in a residential neighborhood of the type of antenna
that is commonly and universally associated with those that one finds
in a factory area or an industrialized complex. Although such a
regulation could constrain amateur communications, we do not view it as
failing to provide reasonable accommodation to amateur communications. (PRB-1 [2000] @ 8)
Continued next column
|
A different petitioner made reference to the FCC's RF safety rules [see our RF Safety Page], and a claimed inconsistency between them and PRB-1.
The FCC recognized a potential conflict between PRB-1 and its RF safety rules, and concluded
[W]hile we appreciate that the two considerations discussed above, that is, safety requirements vis-…-vis zoning regulations, might present a challenge to the amateur operator, we do not believe that the safety of individuals should be compromised to address such challenge. Moreover, we continue to believe that we should not specify precise height limitations below which a community may not regulate, given the varying circumstances that may occur, as a response to this challenge. (PRB-1 [2000] @ 9)
PRB-1 (2001) Fast forward to December 2001 for our next visit to PRB-1. Once more, the ARRL was a petitioner for reconsideration of the PRB-1 rules, specifically related to the Commission refusal to preempt CC&Rs. This was a further reconsideration under RM 8763.
Specifically, ARRL requests that we expand the Commission’s limited preemption policy for antennas and antenna support structures used in the Amateur Radio Service to include covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&Rs) contained in deeds, bylaws of homeowner associations (HOA) or regulations of an architectural control committee (ACC). Based on the record in this proceeding, we find no basis to reverse the Bureau’s decision. Accordingly, ARRL’s Application for Review is denied. (PRB-1 [2001] @ 1]
While the FCC made it clear from the very first paragraph that it was not going to touch CC&Rs, it did take the opportunity to further distinguish amateur radio antennas from Over-the-air Reception Devices ("OTARD"; see our site for a review of OTARD).
Continued on page 4 (click here)
|
