[BC] The things licensees get away with...

[Cowboy]

On Sunday 26 February 2012 01:13:31 pm wpio-fm wrote:
> Cowboy is one of the last ones I'd want to lock horns with here

 You're not.

> but I  
> don't get the hoop-la about keeping the CO agreement out of the public 
> file and attached to the license.

 It's a required posting, but is not required to be in the PF, and *I* would
 never put anything in any legally required file or log that is not specifically
 enumerated in the rules.

 The license is ( last I checked ) required to be posted at the control point.
 In a folder at the control point has been accepted as "posted" in a subsequent
 declaratory ruling at some point in years past.
 The CO designation would go in that folder.
 I've never seen a copy of the license in that folder questioned, but the way
 I read the rule, it should be the original.

>  All it is is a signed statement (dated too) of 
> who the CO is and who the alternates are (also named, signed and dated)

 Actually, you only need the alternate when the CO is unavailable.
 Not having a designated alternate if the CO *is* available, is not a violation.

> I've had multiple inspections over three States...both alternate and 
> regular.  The CO agreement has always been a folder in the public file 
> and it has never been questioned.

 And probably never will be.
 There is no prohibition against adding into the file, or a log, things that
 are not required to be there. But once so added, do become a part of,
 and therefore may not be removed.


-- 
Cowboy