Here - Keller Heckman

BEFORE THE 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

2004 and 2006 Biennial Regulatory Reviews - - ) WT Docket No. 10-88 

Streamlining and Other Revisions of Parts 1 and ) 

17 of the Commission’s Rules Governing ) 

Construction, Marking and Lighting of Antenna ) 

Structures ) 

) 

Amendments to Modernize and Clarify Part 17 of ) RM 11349 

the Commission’s Rules Concerning Construction, ) 

Marking and Lighting of Antenna Structures ) 

To: The Commission 

COMMENTS 

OF THE 

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE 

The Telecommunications Subcommittee of the American Petroleum Institute (“API”) 

submits these Comments regarding the Commission’s above-captioned proceeding seeking 

feedback on proposed revisions to Part 17 of the rules governing the construction, marking, and 

lighting of antenna structures. 1 

API appreciates the Commission’s continued efforts to update 

and streamline its regulatory requirements and supports a number of the proposed changes. 

I. Background 

API is a national trade association representing more than 400 companies involved in all 

phases of the petroleum and natural gas industries, including exploration, production, refining, 

marketing and transportation of petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas. Among its many 

activities, API acts on behalf of its members before federal and state regulatory agencies. The 

1 See Amendments to Modernize and Clarify Part 17 of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Construction Marking 

and Lighting of Antenna Structures, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, RM 11349 (Rel. Apr. 20, 2010) (“NPRM”).

API Telecommunications Subcommittee evaluates and develops responses to state and federal 

proposals affecting telecommunications facilities used in the oil and gas industries. 

API is supported and sustained by companies that make use of a wide variety of wireline, 

wireless and satellite communications services on both a private and commercial basis. API 

member companies are authorized by the Commission to operate facilities in the Private Land 

Mobile Radio (“PLMR”) service and Private Operational-Fixed Microwave Services (“POFS”), 

among other telecommunications systems. 

API’s members utilize PLMR systems, for example, to support the search for and 

production of oil and natural gas, to ensure the safe pipeline transmission of natural gas, crude oil 

and refined petroleum products, to process and refine these energy sources and to facilitate their 

ultimate delivery to industrial, commercial and residential customers. POFS is used for 

communications with remote oil and gas exploration and production sites for voice and data 

applications, communications with refineries, the extension of circuits to remote pipeline pump 

and compressor stations, and supervisory control and data acquisition systems (“SCADA”) that 

remotely monitor and control oil and gas wells, pipeline operations and other facilities. 

API member companies own thousands of communications towers and similar structures 

used for supporting radio antennas throughout the United States. The Commission’s proposed 

revision of Part 17 is of keen concern to API and its members. 

II. Comments Regarding Specific Proposals 

A. Codified Reference to Advisory Circular 

The Commission proposes to delete any reference to FAA Advisory Circulars as 

unnecessary and potentially confusing. 2 In the Commission’s view, “[s]uch references also may 

2 NPRM at para 12. 

2

cause confusion if the FAA updates the relevant circulars more frequently than the Commission 

amends its Part 17 rules.” 3 

Instead, the Commission proposes that structure owners be informed 

of lighting and marking requirements through the FAA and FCC registration processes. PCIA - 

The Wireless Infrastructure Association (“PCIA”) states that the FCC should clarify that lighting 

and marking requirements do not change unless the FAA recommends new specifications for 

particular structures. 4 

API supports the FCC’s proposal as modified by PCIA. API agrees that identifying a 

specific Advisory Circular in the rules could lead to confusion each time the FAA issues a new 

edition and also may result in an otherwise avoidable expenditure of Commission resources to 

update the codified reference in light of each new Advisory Circular. PCIA also is correct that 

confusion regarding the treatment of existing structures may result unless the Commission 

clarifies that a revised FAA Circular, by itself, does not impose new obligations upon alreadyapproved 

antenna structures. 

API disagrees that the Commission should apply new FAA marking and lighting 

standards retroactively to existing towers outside of the rulemaking process. 5 

At this point, the 

Commission can only speculate on the nature of any changes the FAA may make to its standards 

in the future. Without a specific proposal from the FAA, there is no information available to the 

Commission or the public regarding the scope or scale of future changes. The impact of such 

changes on previously existing towers is necessarily unknown. The Commission should rely on 

the rulemaking process in the event it seeks to apply standards retroactively to existing towers. 

3 Id. 


5 Id. 

3

B. ASR Accuracy Requirements 

The Commission seeks comment on whether to amend its rules to require that the height 

information provided on FCC Form 854 be accurate within one foot and the coordinates 

provided in FCC Form 854 be accurate within one second of one degree longitude and latitude. 6 

The Commission also seeks comment on whether to require that antenna structure owners must 

use the most accurate data available when reporting height information and site coordinates, and 

whether a particular survey method should be specified. 7 

API supports the Commission’s proposal with respect to horizontal accuracy 

requirements of one second of one degree longitude and latitude. Regarding vertical accuracy, 

API recommends that the Commission allow for accuracy of 1 meter, instead of 1 foot. 

Accuracy to 1 foot is likely unnecessary and would be difficult to guarantee. In practice, even 

minor changes to a structure, such as the need to install a thicker concrete pad than anticipated 

during tower construction, could result in a change of one foot. Accuracy of 1 meter would be a 

more reasonable figure. 8 

API also recommends that the FCC not require any specific survey method. 9 

Specifying 

minimum accuracy standards will compel structure owners to use only those methods that can 

achieve the required level of accuracy. Specifying particular survey methods themselves would 

be duplicative and potentially restrictive as new, more advanced measurement technologies and 

practices are developed. 


7 Id. 

8 Also, the Commission should clarify that height accuracy refers to height of the structure, not to ground elevation. 

Even the FAA’s 2A survey, which is rarely required, calls for a vertical accuracy of only 1 meter. Less stringent 

requirements typically used call for an accuracy of 6 meters or more. 


4

C. Lighting Inspection Requirements 

The Commission proposes to delete the lighting inspection requirements in Section 17.47 

of the rules, or, alternatively, amend Section 17.47(b) to exempt certain systems using NOC 

center-based monitoring technologies from the requirement to inspect quarterly all automatic or 

mechanical systems associated with antenna structure lighting. 10 

API supports the Commission’s proposal to exempt certain systems using NOC centerbased 

monitoring technologies from the requirement to quarterly inspect all automatic or 

mechanical systems associated with antenna structure lighting. Technology has advanced to the 

point where such systems are often more effective than traditional visual inspection. Eliminating 

visual inspection for such systems will reduce the burden on tower owners and encourage tower 

owners to adopt state-of-the-art systems that will promote safe air navigation. 

D. Timeframe for Lighting Replacement 

The Commission proposes to require that antenna structure owners renew NOTAM 

submissions with the FAA in the event that lighting outages have not been corrected. 11 

This 

proposal is consistent with the FAA’s current requirement, and API supports the rule change. 

API strongly opposes, however, any modification to the rules to include timeframes for 

replacing or repairing extinguished lights notwithstanding the issuance of a NOTAM and urges 

the Commission to retain the requirement to repair lighting “as soon as practicable” as currently 

specified in Section 17.56. 12 

Tower lighting repair timeframes often depend on the accessibility 

of a tower to climbing crews. Weather conditions and seasonality are significant factors. In the 

rural and remote areas in which API’s members operate, towers may be inaccessible for several 




5

weeks or more during the winter months. In the same vein, the availability of personnel 

qualified to climb and repair towers also is sometimes uncertain. An arbitrary timeframe for 

tower lighting repair will not serve to promote rapid tower repair above the requirement to 

replace lighting “as soon as practicable”. 13 

E. Record Retention Requirements 

The Commission proposes to amend Section 17.49 of its rules by requiring structure 

owners to maintain for two years and to provide to the Commission upon request records of 

observed or otherwise known extinguishments or improper functioning of structure lights. 14 

API 

supports the codification of a retention period and record production requirement but 

recommends that the retention period be limited to one year from the date that the lighting 

extinguishment or improper functioning structure lights was corrected. The FCC’s statute of 

limitations for purposes of imposing a forfeiture for violation of rules regarding lighting outages 

is one-year from the date the violation occurred. 15 There is no compliance benefit to require 

record keeping beyond the statute of limitations period to justify the additional record keeping 

burden on structure owners. 

F. Treatment of Voluntarily Registered Structures 

The Commission notes that some antenna structure owners have voluntarily registered 

their structures with the Commission, even though registration is not required because of height 

and/or location. 16 

The Commission seeks comments on whether 1) the rules concerning antenna 

structures should be enforced against such voluntarily registered structures, 2) owners of antenna 

13 The burden of renewing a NOTAM every 15 days during a light outage also serves as an incentive to remedy an 

issue as soon as practicable. 


15 47 U.S.C. § 503. 


6

structures that do not require registration should be prohibited from registering their towers, and 

3) antenna structure owners who have voluntarily registered structures should be required to 

withdraw their registrations from the Commission’s antenna structure database. 

API strongly opposes these changes. Voluntary tower registration results in a more 

complete database and is useful for structure owners, licensees and third parties. Voluntary 

tower registration can be used to supplement internal record keeping. Parties interested in 

leasing tower space also frequently use the ASR database to identify suitable structures. 

Wireless licensees and applicants use the ASR database to confirm coordinate and other tower 

information. Requiring or otherwise incentivizing the removal of voluntarily registered 

structures by threat of FCC enforcement in a way “punish” those who sought in good faith to 

provide additional information to the Commission and would be contrary to the public interest. 

The FCC’s suggestion that that the elimination of voluntarily registrations could reduce 

confusion concerning the regulatory status of these structures is misplaced. The regulatory status 

of a tower can be readily determined from the FAA aeronautical study number listed with each 

ASR. 

G. ASR Posting Requirements 

Currently, Section 17.4(g) of the Commission’s rules provides that an ASR number 

“must be displayed in a conspicuous place so that it is readily visible near the base of the antenna 

structure.” The Commission proposes to modify this rule to require that antenna structure 

owners display the ASR number so that it would be visible to a member of the general public 

who reaches the closest publicly accessible location near the base of the antenna. 17 

API supports this proposed rule change. Currently, Section 17.4(g) leads to confusion 

among tower owners in that it is not always possible to post an ASR number so that it is both 


7

“readily visible” and “near the base” of the tower. The Commission has tried to alleviate this 

confusion by issuing “Posting Guidelines” that, among other scenarios, address towers that are 

located behind locked fences or on rooftops. API agrees that the proposed rule change will 

alleviate confusion and be beneficial to structure owners. 

III. CONCLUSION 

API supports the Commission’s efforts to update its antenna structure and lighting 

requirements and supports the adoption of rules consistent with the above comments. 

Respectfully submitted, 

THE AMERICAN PETROLEUM 

INSTITUTE 

By: 

__/s/ Jack Richards_______ 

Jack Richards 

C. Douglas Jarrett 

Gregory E. Kunkle 

Keller and Heckman LLP 

1001 G Street NW 

Suite 500 West 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

(202) 434-4100 

Its Attorneys 

Date: July 20, 2010 

8

Here - Keller Heckman

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?