https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action=showNoNoticeRequiredToolForm
-----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
[mailto:pulsarxp%40embarqmail.com]> wrote:
>
> FYI
> Lee, w0vt
>
>
> http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/Text.aspx?LegSess=84R&Bill=HB946
[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 [mailto:TowerTalk%40contesting.com]
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
[http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk]
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com [mailto:TowerTalk%40contesting.com]
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
[http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk]
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
|