From an FAA perspective, purposefully so. In 2004, they tried a massive power play to take authority from the FCC through Rule change that would have required licensees and applicants to get prior FAA approval for any change or addition to a previously cleared tower. Industry raised hell, and in 2007 FAA issued this Co-location Policy:
https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/downloads/external/content/CVCC_FR_2007.pdf <https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/downloads/external/content/CVCC_FR_2007.pdf> Funtimes! > On Oct 28, 2019, at 11:03 PM, Ken Hohhof <[email protected]> wrote: > > “structure will emit frequencies” seems pretty vague. > > > From: AF <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Lewis Bergman > Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 8:30 PM > To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tower lawyer > > Good points. I would suppose that an existing tower is unlikely to have been > built without it but you never know. > But since the whole discussion started with legal issues that is likely the > biggest one. It wasn't brought up until later that a 350' tower was close by. > As you said, the FAA site has a criteria tool that tells you if you have to > file. Nice catch. > > > On Mon, Oct 28, 2019, 8:22 PM Tim Hardy <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> Lewis, >> >> I don’t have a comment on the NEPA side of this, but it should be pointed >> out that towers under 200’ can still require an ASR. The 200’ requirement >> is one of many and the only way to know for sure is to run the FAA Notice >> Criteria tool here: >> https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action=showNoNoticeRequiredToolForm >> >> <https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/gisTools/gisAction.jsp?action=showNoNoticeRequiredToolForm> >> >> Here are some other instances where towers of any height can require an ASR: >> >> You must file with the FAA at least 45 days prior to construction if: >> your structure will exceed 200ft above ground level >> your structure will be in proximity to an airport and will exceed the slope >> ratio >> your structure involves construction of a traverseway (i.e. highway, >> railroad, waterway etc...) and once adjusted upward with the appropriate >> vertical distance would exceed a standard of 77.9(a) or (b) >> your structure will emit frequencies, and does not meet the conditions of >> the FAA Co-location Policy >> <https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/downloads/external/content/CVCC_FR_2007.pdf> >> your structure will be in an instrument approach area and might exceed part >> 77 Subpart C >> your proposed structure will be in proximity to a navigation facility and >> may impact the assurance of navigation signal reception >> your structure will be on an airport or heliport >> filing has been requested by the FAA >> Thanks, >> Tim >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> >>> On Oct 28, 2019, at 4:45 PM, Lewis Bergman <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> Well, First, an ASR isn't required on anything 200 foot or under. So is it >>> over 200 foot? If yes and you don't plan on renting space out to someone >>> else you technically don't need an ASR. You can get an ASR for almost any >>> structure regardless of height. ASR's make some things easier, like getting >>> licensed PTP links and letting people find the tower that might want to >>> rent it for instance. If it is over 200 foot or already has an ASR, >>> >>> I won't bore you with the story but the fact it has no NEPA will likely >>> only matter to a carrier. You can actually get an ASR and self certify that >>> a NEPA isn't required in about 15 minutes if you have all the info in front >>> of you and know what you are doing. The only reason you need a NEPA anyway >>> is that the Feds say you need one to get an ASR, which is a Fed thing. No >>> ASR needed, no NEPA required. NEPA can be frustrating. I spent months doing >>> the work, hiring experts, etc, etc. all to come to the conclusion that no >>> NEPA was required. It seems cyclical but the bottom line is you can do all >>> the studies and if they come back clean the only place it is recorded is in >>> the E-106 study, not the ASR.I'll show you an example of what I mean. The >>> tower below had a full NEPA/NHPA >>> ASR 1302897 >>> <https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/AsrSearch/asrRegistration.jsp?regKey=2702592> >>> Here is the Enviro section. As you can see, it says " Environmental >>> Notification is complete and an Environmental Assessment is not required. " >>> You don't know it isn't required until you do it, but the effect of doing >>> is the same as if you just clicked the box that it isn't required, one >>> isn't needed. You can't submit an assessment if one isn't required, at >>> least not the last time I did one. Kind of Catch 22 but if you tell the FCC >>> that they can't even underatand why you would say that. >>> Environmental Compliance >>> Does the applicant request a Waiver of the Commission's rules for >>> environmental notice? >>> Is the applicant submitting an Environmental Assessment? >>> No >>> No >>> Is another Federal Agency taking responsibility for environmental review? >>> Does the applicant certify to No Significant Environmental Effect pursuant >>> to Section >>> No >>> Yes >>> Reason for another Federal Agency taking responsibility for environmental >>> review >>> Basis for Certification >>> >>> Environmental Notification is complete and an Environmental Assessment is >>> not required. >>> Name of Federal Agency >>> Local Notice Date >>> >>> 05/25/2017 >>> National Notice Date >>> 05/30/2017 >>> >>> Anyway, up to you for what its worth. The bottom line, you are not required >>> to do anything if you don't want an ASR. If you do, you have to start >>> playing the Feds games. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 2:30 PM Roland Houin <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>> My concern is that there are rumors that this site may not have been >>>> compliant with fcc requirements. >>>> Tower installed after 2000, no nepa? >>>> Want to make sure that there aren’t any suprises… >>>> Thanks for the advice.. >>>> >>>> Roland >>>> >>>> From: AF <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> On >>>> Behalf Of [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 3:13 PM >>>> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tower lawyer >>>> >>>> Funny, when I saw the original post my first thought was: “do whatever >>>> Lewis says to do” >>>> >>>> From: Lewis Bergman >>>> Sent: Monday, October 28, 2019 6:11 PM >>>> To: AnimalFarm Microwave Users Group >>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Tower lawyer >>>> >>>> In my experience, lawyers are really good at screwing up deals. But, if >>>> you are buying an asset, there aren't a lot of legal issues that follow >>>> assets other than sales taxes. I'm not saying you don't need a lawyer, >>>> just that a lot of lawyers gum up the negotiations so bad you can't get a >>>> deal done. To save money and time you should a very well defined idea of >>>> what the lawyer is going to do for you and communicate that. They aren't >>>> experts in everything and they charge you for the time it takes them to >>>> learn stuff. >>>> >>>> The last tower I bought from Crown Castle all I got was a bill of sale. No >>>> contract, no nothing. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 11:08 AM Roland Houin <[email protected] >>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >>>>> Does anyone have recommendation for a lawyer etc to handle tower issued. >>>>> I’m thinking of purchasing a tower, & want to make sure it’s compliant >>>>> with todays legal issues. >>>>> >>>>> Roland >>>>> -- >>>>> AF mailing list >>>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>>> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Lewis Bergman >>>> 325-439-0533 Cell >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Lewis Bergman >>> 325-439-0533 Cell >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> <http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com>-- > AF mailing list > [email protected] > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list [email protected] http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
