[TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers

[David Robbins]

It sounds more like trying to get cell towers in undeveloped areas marked and cataloged.    I think the biggest question is what 'adjacent' means.  And secondarily what is 'undeveloped'.  

It specifically gives existing structures 1 year to get compliant, so no grandfathering in this one.

David Robbins K1TTT
e-mail: mailto:k1ttt at arrl.net
web: http://wiki.k1ttt.net
AR-Cluster node: 145.69MHz or telnet://k1ttt.net:7373



-----Original Message-----
From: TowerTalk [mailto:towertalk-bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of StellarCAT
Sent: Sunday, July 17, 2016 11:56
To: Don W7WLL; Towertalk
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers

an exclusion is an exclusion I'd think - if it has a home on it would mean its excluded independent of whether or not its in an undeveloped area of the county. At least I hope that is correct. It sounds like this is a direct attempt to exclude amateur radio towers without specifically using the term just to be sure to cover any other similar tower.

It will be several months before I finish my 147' ... sure don't want MORE costs involved and definitely no additional maintenance. Also I'd have to believe this could not be retroactive - all existing towers would be grand fathered in I'd hope.

g.



-----Original Message----- 
From: Don W7WLL
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 7:22 PM
To: Towertalk
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers

Tempest in a teapotl. If you live in a house on with towers nearby that are
from 50 to 200 feet it is reasonable that you are in a developed area by
most zoning standards. A question might exist if your tower is on acreage
deemed or considered 'undeveloped' under local zoning regulations. I'd bet
99.9 % of us are still only subject to the existing marking and height
requirements relative to your proximity to any airports. Unlikely my garden
will be considered as used for agricultural purposes. Here is a cut of the
area of concern in that laws.

Don W7WLL

"The term “covered tower” means a structure that—
(I)is self-standing or supported by guy wires and ground anchors;

(II)is 10 feet or less in diameter at the above-ground base, excluding
concrete footing;

(III)at the highest point of the structure is at least 50 feet above ground
level;

(IV)at the highest point of the structure is not more than 200 feet above
ground level;

(V)has accessory facilities on which an antenna, sensor, camera,
meteorological instrument, or other equipment is mounted; and

(VI)is located—
(aa)outside the boundaries of an incorporated city or town; or

(bb)on land that is—
(AA)undeveloped; or

(BB)used for agricultural purposes.

(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;

(II)is within the curtilage of a farmstead;

(III)supports electric utility transmission or distribution lines;

(IV)is a wind-powered electrical generator with a rotor blade radius that
exceeds 6 feet; or

(V)is a street light erected or maintained by a Federal, State, local, or
tribal entity.

(B)Undeveloped.—

The term “undeveloped” means a defined geographic area where the
Administrator determines low-flying aircraft are operated on a routine
basis, such as low-lying forested areas with predominant tree cover under
200 feet and pasture and range land."

-----Original Message----- 
From: Ed via TowerTalk
Sent: Saturday, July 16, 2016 1:29 PM
To: Richard Solomon
Cc: towertalk at contesting.com
Subject: Re: [TowerTalk] New FAA regulations affecting towers

I imagine this won't affect crank-up towers, correct?

> On Jul 16, 2016, at 11:49, Richard Solomon <dickw1ksz at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> There is an "exclusion" ... any
> "covered" tower "adjacent" to a
> house is excluded.
>
> Couldn't find a definition for
> "adjacent" in the Bill.
>
> 73, Dick, W1KSZ
>
>> On Sat, Jul 16, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Mitch <mskobier at charter.net> wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>>                I haven't seen anything on the reflector yet in regards to
>> the newly signed into law aviation bill HR-636.  H.R.636 - Federal 
>> Aviation
>> Administration Reauthorization Act of 2016, which was signed into law by
>> the
>> President on July 15 2016 has some new language that affects towers over
>> 50ft and less than 200ft in height. Looks like some of us (possibly many)
>> may have to come into compliance with the new regulations (when they are
>> developed) in regards to marking our towers. I'm in the process of 
>> erecting
>> my 75ft crankup, and the new law may well have a negative impact on me. 
>> At
>> this point, I think I am exempt, but not sure. Anyway, I have included a
>> link to the bill for you to read for yourself. Just for a work search on
>> the
>> document for the word "tower" to take you to the pertinent section.
>>
>>
>>
>> https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/636/text?format=txt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Mitch KJ7JA
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> TowerTalk mailing list
>> TowerTalk at contesting.com
>> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TowerTalk mailing list
> TowerTalk at contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk

_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk



_______________________________________________



_______________________________________________
TowerTalk mailing list
TowerTalk at contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/towertalk