|[AMRadio] FAA Reauthorization Act H.R. 636, short tower regulation|
k4kyv at charter.net
Thu Jul 21 13:56:31 EDT 2016
> This definition will depend greatly on the interpretation by the FAA lawyers
> and the Administrator's staff. That is what is frightening.
This legislation apparently was the culmination of a joint lobbying effort by crop dusters and drone aircraft interests; they managed to keep it swept so well under the rug that no-one else even suspected anything was in the works. It was sneaked in as an attachment to a piece of legislation that was assured of passage, a routine annual re-appropriations bill for the FAA. Apparently it caught not only the ARRL, but the cell phone industry by surprise; surely the latter would have lobbied to high hell in congress and made this a major issue if they had known, since it probably affects them more than it does hams or broadcasters. Painting and lighting those 100' monopoles won't be cheap.
Once the PCIA - The Wireless Infrastructure Association - gets its lobbying wheels in motion, the Act will very likely be modified. Wireless has congress' ears at present given they're writing checks to fill the federal deficit. Crop dusters won't realise the 'dust' they have stirred up until they've been blown back to reality. ARRL and NAB need to gear up to fight the guyed tower aspect. This is not the end of it.
We have multiple aspects to be concerned with. (1) the Act itself, (2) eventual FAA rules and (3) FCC rules. It is very unlikely that the FCC will leave it up to the FAA to attend this matter; they will get in on the action as well. Our present regulation of towers near airports and towers over 200' tall lie not only in the FAA rules, but in Part 97 of the FCC rules as well.
More information about the AMRadio mailing list
This page last updated 25 Feb 2018.