We have seen these bills all acres the country. Last year, Colorado enacted a
similar bill but carved out most communications towers. Nebraska currently has
a Colorado clone in their legislature. Mississippi, however already has an MET
law on the books and wanted to add *all* towers. It was voted down in
committee. We expect it to be back. Chatham County in Georgia requires sites to
be wrapped in reflective tape, over the objections of the FAA. Lee County in
Florida did much the same.
The Nebraska bill also includes a wrinkle to create a statewide database.
Undoubtedly, they will look to industry to fund this.
The Mississippi bill contemplated forcing all towers to register with the FCC's
ASR program. In the 1995 FCC Order, they specifically changed the rules to only
register towers that triggers an FAA review. Most towers under 200' do not
trigger this process.
Adding to this, now every tower that goes through the ASR process must be
reviewed by the FCC for NEPA compliance. This is a manual process at the FCC -
hence the desire to reduce unnecessary filings. Most towers that actually
require a NEPA review must go on national public notice whereby those opposing
the tower on environmental concerns can comment during the public notice
window.
Currently, all tower projects are subject to State Historical Preservation
Office (SHPO) and Tribal Historical Preservation Office (THPO) review,
regardless of FAA or FCC regulation as a result of the National Pragmatic a
Agreement.
As background, all structures are subject to FAA regulations, regardless of
height. Once an FCC licensed transmitter (and in some cases receivers) is
attached to the structure, the FCC then is the enforcement agency for lighting
and marking compliance, not the FAA. So, MET's are the sole purview of the FAA
while communications towers bring both into play.
We continue to watch the developments in the Texas bill.
tnx
Mike / W5JR
Alpharetta GA
Day Job: AT&T Public Policy
> On Feb 8, 2015, at 9:58 AM, Paul Gilbert <ke5zw@wt.net> wrote:
>
> We had a 35 foot wooden telephone pole at the office in Anauhac. It use to
> have a lowband ant and a VHF DB264 on it. I had to do a FAA determination and
> then circularize it for approve at 45 feet due to the proximity to the local
> airfield.
>
> Even without the antennas, the FAA wanted a "steady burning red light" on it.
>
> We built a tower in Winnie and removed the pole.
>
> However, this bill really has nothing to do with the FAA jurisdiction.
>
> In fact the FAA told the crop dusters, that the towers are legal under their
> rules and nothing else could be done by the FAA
>
> Interesting fact, the tower owners COULD voluntarily paint and light the
> towers.
>
> Mostly what the dusters are after are the meteorology towers located in wind
> farms which are often located in crop fields.
>
> Drive around West Texas, you will see them everywhere.
>
> But if you paint and light voluntarily, from that day on you are required to
> do so just as if you were mandated to do so.
>
> Now this bill proposes to create a state level of mandated marking and
> painting (interesting they did not include lighting, but I guess crop dusters
> do not fly at night) to towers that the FAA will not extend mandated
> marking to.
>
> It seems to me this is overreach by state rule into a federal rule
> area....among other issues.
>
> I also thought crop dusters had certain procedures they had to follow before
> dusting a field....like go look at it for obstructions and have spotters?
>
> Paul,ZW
>
>
>> On 2/8/15 8:50 AM, Joe Jarrett wrote:
>> To further this discussion, even a relatively short tower at a residence
>> could be at an illegal height. It has to do with how close you are to an
>> airport. Do you know how close your nearest airport is? I bet you don't.
>>
>> There is a test available on the Internet called Towair. Google Tow air,
>> enter a lat and long and a tower height and the software will tell you if
>> your tower is legal.
>>
>> For example, I ran a 40 foot tower in Lakeway about 200 yards back into
>> where all the houses are. Towair told me that such a tower would require
>> registration with the FAA and might require lighting. Some of the houses
>> there are close to 40 ft high!
>>
>> Joe Jarrett
>> Texas State APCO Frequency Coordinator
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Mark Stennett
>> To: Kim Elmore ; L L bahr
>> Cc: towertalk@contesting.com
>> Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2015 10:38 PM
>> Subject: [DILLO] Re: [TowerTalk] New Proposed Texas Tower Regulation
>>
>> No tower is exempt from FAA siting requirements, regardless of height. You
>> wouldn't put a 10 foot tower at the base of a runway, would you? All
>> structures, permanent or temporary have to pass a number of FAA tests,
>> including slope. Until recentl, I worked in broadcast radio doing
>> engineering work for the last 30 years, 20 of those on a corporate level. We
>> acquired a radio station once that had a studio microwave tower that was 60
>> foot tall. Even though it was at least 10 feet shorter than the surrounding
>> tree line, it was required to bear an Antenna Structure Registration Number
>> and be top lit due to proximity to a local airport. It did not pass the
>> slope test.
>>
>> This is a very sloppy bill. It would be far easier to leverage the FAA to
>> tighten up the temporary structure rules than to try to make these guys
>> tower experts. The tail is trying to wag the dog here.
>>
>> https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action=showNoNoticeRequiredToolForm
>>
>> 73 de na6m
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Kim Elmore <cw_de_n5op@sbcglobal.net>
>> To: L L bahr <pulsarxp@embarqmail.com>
>> Cc: "towertalk@contesting.com" <towertalk@contesting.com>
>> Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2015 12:30:54 -0600
>> Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New Proposed Texas Tower Regulation
>>
>> This comes directly from wind observing towers for wind farm siting. They
>> are all under 300' tell and do not subject to FAA obstruction marking
>> requirements. These are erected essentially overnight and several aerial
>> applicators have run into them because they have no obstruction lighting or
>> markings.
>>
>> The curtiledge languages essentially exempts almost all of us.
>>
>> Kim N5OP
>>
>> "People that make music together cannot be enemies, at least as long as the
>> music lasts." -- Paul Hindemith
>>
>> > On Feb 7, 2015, at 11:55, "L L bahr " <pulsarxp@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > FYI
>> > Lee, w0vt
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB946
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Please read and pass this to all Amateur Radio Operators who have towers.
>> > This “COULD” be detrimental to all of us. There are things I am not
>> > certain of that I would like answers to or to clarify so that we could
>> > write to our legislature to either kill this bill or more narrowly define
>> > it so that it is not “ALL INCLUSIVE” in nature. It is my understanding
>> > that the Crop Duster Association is behind this because some pilot either
>> > through stupidity or an accident killed himself by flying into an
>> > obstruction. (I have many times pulled off the road and watched these
>> > guys. Several times I have witnessed them doing stupid reckless maneuvers)
>> > While I am an advocate for safety and common sense, I do not think
>> > everyone should “PAY” for the actions of a very small few. If a bill like
>> > this must exist, it should define a specific distance around the “WORK/FLY
>> > ZONE” and not every tower in the state. We should write our
>> > representatives to kill or modify this bill.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > SECTION 1. Subchapter B, Chapter 21, Transportation Code
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Section 21.071 (a) 1, 2, 3 clearly define “MOST” Amateur Radio towers.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Section 21.071 (b) 1, 2 “APPEAR” to exempt many Amateur Radio Towers BUT
>> > does it? What is the State’s legal definition of “curtilage”?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Section 21.071 (e) 2, “APPEARS” to exempt Amateur Radio Operators as “a
>> > facility licensed by the Federal Communications Commission or any
>> > structure with the primary purpose of supporting telecommunications
>> > equipment” but then goes on to specifically define commercial radio
>> > service. The “and” seems to separate the two?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Section 21.071 (f) 1, 2 “REQUIRES” notice and registration. You know FEES
>> > and PERMITS will soon follow.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Section 21.071 (a), (b) appears to make it retroactive after September 1,
>> > 2016.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Are there any lawyers among us who could speak to this and guide us in
>> > writing a proper request to our representatives regarding this?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > What are your thoughts?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Larry Lowry
>> >
>> > Radio System Manager
>> >
>> > (936) 538-3770 Shop
>> >
>> > (936) 538-3711 Direct
>> >
>> > (936) 538-3775 Fax
>> >
>> > imagesWD5CFJ
>> >
>> > qrcode.17489151
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > TowerTalk mailing list
>> > TowerTalk@contesting.com
>> > http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk@contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
>
>
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|