[CQ-Contest] “FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016” to affect towers and masts over 50' in height.

[donovanf at starpower.net]

forwarded from the Topband Reflector 

----- Original Message -----

From: "Donald Chester" <k4kyv at hotmail.com> 
To: topband at contesting.com 
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 8:07:51 PM 
Subject: Topband: “FAA Extension, Safety, and Security Act of 2016” to affect towers and masts over 50' in height. 

It looks like this one was sneaked in over us, but it has the potential of severely affecting amateur radio towers and antennas. I have seen no mention of this from ARRL, and the news just appeared a couple of days ago in discussions on QRZ.com and the Tower Talk reflector. 

New rules would require alternating orange and white paint and obstruction lighting on towers and poles over 50' tall. Apparently meteorological testing towers and cellphone masts have been popping up unexpectedly in rural areas serviced by crop dusters, and this has become a concern not only by crop dusters, but other low-flying air traffic like medical evacuation and news-reporting helicopters. Towers, poles and masts between 50' and 200', below the current minimum height (except near an airport) of 200 feet, out in open fields, have resulted in collisions with the masts or their guy wires. 

As part of new FAA funding legislation, submitted as H.R.636, "In addition to medical reforms, the legislation requires the FAA to develop regulations for marking towers between 50 and 200 feet tall to improve their visibility to low-flying aircraft and help prevent accidents." 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text#toc-H30D0818F111541BFBEF0B8CAE5702C4B 
or 
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr636/text 

This the organisation that has lobbied for the legislation: 
http://www.agaviation.org/Files/policyinitiatives/Advocacy%20Papers/Tower%20Issue%20Paper%20FINAL.pdf 

Here is some of their recent propaganda: 
http://www.agaviation.org/files/policyinitiatives/Tower%20Public%20Outreach/ad2.pdf 
http://www.agaviation.org/files/policyinitiatives/Tower%20Public%20Outreach/ad6.pdf 
http://www.agaviation.org/towerspolicy 

The location definitions and the exclusions MAY let most amateurs out of the requirement, if the tower is located fairly close to the house and associated structures (the farmstead curtilage): (ii) EXCLUSIONS.—The term “covered tower” does not include any structure that— (I) is adjacent to a house, barn, electric utility station, or other building... 

Towers with a shelter (dog-house in broadcast engineering parlance) near the base to house the antenna tuning unit might be excluded. It all depends on how the bureaucrats define "adjacent", "building", "curtilage", etc. 

http://thelawdictionary.org/curtilage/ 
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/curtilage 
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/curtilage 

The motivating concern with this legislation is isolated towers out in the middle of a field on prime farm land that may be serviced by crop sprayers, which explains why the 'curtilage' of a house or farm outbuilding supposedly exempts the tower. The danger we face is the propensity of government agencies to enact 'one-size-fits-all' wording in laws and regulations, so that in fact they are still applicable in situations totally removed and unrelated to the purpose behind the legislation. Typical of the government to use a back hoe where a garden spade would have done the job. 

It would be VERY expensive for most hams to paint their towers and mark them with obstruction lighting, or install obstruction markers on wire antennas. This has the potential of affecting those of us living in rural areas as severely HOAs and zoning ordinances are affecting hams in urban residential areas. It could particularly be a problem for topband operators, since our most effective antennas are likely to exceed 50 feet in height. 

Don k4kyv