[BC] to light or not to light

[Bailey, Scott]

Wayne,
  I no expert when it comes to this, but as you know, when the little
old lady's cell phone is not working, she will think twice about that
tower!

Scott

-----Original Message-----
From: broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net
[mailto:broadcast-bounces at radiolists.net] On Behalf Of Wayne
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 10:05 PM
To: Broadcasters' Mailing List
Subject: Re: [BC] to light or not to light

Since you quoted me as being a prevaricator I need to answer:  I am not
anti 
tower, and I am not a NIMBY,  I am a retired radio engineer by trade,
and an 
active pilot for a hobby.  I understand both sides of the equation to
enable 
towers to be sited within small communities.  Our little berg was
recently 
inundated by the "Cricket" people who needed to site a tower in an area 
which the planning commission deemed unacceptable.  We requested that
the 
tower be moved to the other side of the freeway from where they had it 
pinpointed.  They were also requesting a height of 125 feet which was
50' 
beyond the limit set in the industrial area desired.  Cricket responded
with 
a batch of Lawyers and so called Engineers with dubious coverage
printouts, 
and out and out threats.  They scared the hell out of the city council
who 
has the last say in the matter and the original site was approved.  The 
Cricket folks wasted no time in constructing the antenna and it was 
completed in a matter of weeks.

I have gone before planning commissions and Airport commissions in the
past 
in order to enable the construction of a particular tower, and if some 
little old lady came to the meeting and objected to the tower siting
because 
the birds might hit it if  it didn't have a red light, now tell me; what

would you do?

Even if you have a fistful of government documents and you don't have a 
building permit, you aren't going to be building a tower, it is up to
the 
builder or the contractor to satisfy all parties involved in the 
construction of any attached real property within a Cities Limits.

I suggest working with the so called NIMBY's and various commissions in 
order to find who it was that required the lights to be attached to the 
tower in the first place.

The Cellular people have made a lot of small communities gun shy
whenever a 
tower is mentioned.  The pictures on TV of towers falling don't seem to
help 
much either.

Flame off

Wayne Woollard
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Ray Boyer" <drboyer at centralcom.com>
To: <broadcast at radiolists.net>
Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2006 7:01 PM
Subject: [BC] to light or not to light


> Regarding painting and lighting of towers and other structures....
>
> It is up to the Airspace Evaluation Division of your respective
Federal 
> Aviation Administration Regional Office to determine
> the painting and lighting requirements of any proposed tower (or other

> structure) before the start of its construction.  This not only
includes 
> towers, but also includes buildings, smokestacks and other tall 
> structures.
> If a proposed tower supports the antenna for any non Federal
Governmental 
> transmitting facility, such as a AM or FM radio station
> or even your local police department Part 90's transmitter, when the
FCC 
> grants the station authorization - they become a second
> Federal Governmental entity that has jurisdiction in the matter.
> Included as a part of your FCC station authorization is the SAME
painting 
> and lighting requirements as was mandated by the Airspace Evaluation
that 
> was performed by the FAA for your tower.  As far as painting and
lighting, 
> your FCC license authorization will say the same thing as your
approved 
> 7460 form does from the FAA.
> Effectively after the FCC license grant, the FCC performs the
enforcement 
> of the painting and lighting requirements for the FAA.
> If a tower does not have a transmitting facility licensed to it (ie: 
> receive only site), the FCC does not regulate such sites.
>
> The FCC does not regulate receive only sites, except for certain
licensed 
> satellite receive sites.
> However, in the case of a tall tower that supports a receive only
site, 
> you still to make sure that you are compliant with the painting and 
> lighting mandates by the FAA for the structure.
> Any local requirements that a local governmental planning department
may 
> "mandate" for a particular lighting or painting arrangement
> other than specified by the FAA (and is printed on your FCC station 
> authorization) holds absolutely no water.  If a local government
entity 
> wants to have suggestions or other input into painting and lighting 
> requirements, they must make their comments known
> to the FAA during the 7460 Comment Period.
> Just paint or light differently than what the FCC has printed on your 
> license and wait for the FCC inspector to come by.
> In the meantime, you had better be putting any profits that you might
be 
> making into an interest bearing "trust account", so that you can pay
the 
> FCC NAL when it is issued by the FCC Field Inspector.
> In the above cases, the mandates by the Federal Government entities 
> certainly supersede anything that local governmental entities
> may desire.
> Danny Ray Boyer
>
>
>
>>As a small town Planning Commissioner I can attest to the fact that
there 
>>may be Local regulations attached to the building permit or planning 
>>documentation released with the initial construction.  I know most
folks 
>>think the federal supercedes the local, but not in all cases.
>
>>Wayne Woollard
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> This is the BROADCAST mailing list
> To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
> For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists: 
> http://www.radiolists.net/
> 


_______________________________________________
This is the BROADCAST mailing list
To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
http://www.radiolists.net/