At 03:02 PM 12/10/06, Scott Honaker wrote:
>I looked up this docket number and the coment period I see was over by
>January 28, 2005
>references a study in 2003 and I found it discussed by the ARRL in 2004. I
>don't see any recent activity.
>What did I miss?
You missed the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. It's here:
The NPRM's only definite proposal is to modify the illumination rules
in Part 17 (making medium intensity white strobe lights the preferred
system over red obstruction lighting systems).
In the way of background, the ARRL's reply comments to the 2003
Notive of Inquiry on this matter can be found at
Nothing is ever certain, but in the proceeding thus far the concerns
have all been with issues purportedly caused by towers over 200' that
have to be lit. Note however, that the NPRM is still open-ended. It
does request comments whether the FCC should adopt any additional
rules on tower characteristics such as height, location, the use of
guy wires, etc.
Rather than debating the merits or lack thereof of the premise here
on TowerTalk, perhaps those having relevant and cogent comments to
make should note that the FCC Electronic Filing System is located at
<http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/>; and this is WT Docket No. 03-187.
Comments are due on or before January 22, 2007, reply comments are
due on or before February 20, 2007.
Michael Keane K1MK
TowerTalk mailing list