Steve Thanks for the citation. That was then, but this is now. Read FCC Part 17, section 17.6 which is the current regulation involving tower deficiencies. It comes down to this: the tower owner has the primary responsibility for both making himself aware of any tower deficiency(s) and correcting them. The site manager, if there is one, has secondary responsibility. The site users, aka permittees, are not charged with actively examining the tower for compliance. Indeed in most current contexts, most permittees are not allowed anywhere near the tower. However, if one or more permittees in fact becomes aware of some non-compliance, such as the failure of lights etc, under 17.6, they have tertiary responsibility, not for clearing the deficiency, but fonly or notifying the site owner, the site manager and the FCC of the deficient condition. Only if the FCC so instructs the permittees, are they required to correct the condition and the permittees have the alternative of pulling out their equipment and vacating the premises. However, if the permittees elect to remain, and the site owner and/or manager is unable or unwilling to make the corrections, the permittees could be subject to monetary forfeitures for their failure to collectively correct the condition. Interestingly, nothing in Part 17 indicates who has to pay for the corrections effected by the permittees if so instructed by the FCC. If it did come to such an impasse, that would probably have to be resolved with litigation by the permittees. So the answer is yes, ultimately, site users could be subjected to fines for owner malfeasance, but only after a long and convoluted process in which they are duly notified by the FCC they have been given the burden of correcting the problem themselves. Bottom line: it may have counted historically, but 17.6 was drafted specifically to prevent a site owner from casually shifting the responsibility for correcting tower deficiencies on the site users who presumably are paying site fees. If the site users have any business connection involving the site other than as renters of vault and tower space, then it becomes an entirely different story. Rgds Bruce K7IJ In a message dated 6/17/2007 12:37:20 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Don't know if this counts or not. _http://findarticleshttp://findartichttp://fihttp://findhttp://find_ (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3457/is_n21_v10/ai_12712168) Personally, I do not know. Steve NU5D ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
