1. PRB-1 What the Law Requires of Municipalities Presented By Trent A. Davis, Sr. N2WKL

2. 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?

3. 47 CFR §97.15(b)  Are Height and Dimensions Sufficient to accommodate amateur radio?

4. DA 99-2569  Balancing of interests forbidden Regulations must not “impinge on the needs of amateur operators”

5. 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)

6. 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”

7. ANSWERS MUST BE YES  Reasonably accommodate amateur communications?  Minimum practicable regulation? Each application approached with an open mind?  Considered from the amateur’s perspective?

8. ANSWERS MUST BE NO  Balancing of interests?  Impinge on needs of amateur?  Fixed or unvarying height limit?  Consider RFI?

9. The End