FCC Seeks Guidance on Rules for Installing New Lights on Towers
The FCC is considering lighting requirements -- on existing as well as new towers -- designed to keep birds from flying into communications towers, according to the text of the notice of proposed rulemaking released by the Commission Tues. The NPRM also clarifies that the FCC is considering imposing limits on the use of guy wires by tower companies, since many environmentalists believe those also kill birds.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The FCC approved an NPRM last week that tentatively concludes medium intensity white strobe lights are preferable for tower lighting (CD Nov 6 p7), but at the time released only a 2-page press release. The NPRM makes clear that many questions remain about how this conclusion will affect tower operations. Many towers use steady red lights, the industry norm. “Considering the costs and benefits and the need for the FAA to approve changes, if we were to take any action regarding existing towers, how should such a requirement be implemented?” the NPRM asks. “Should we require medium intensity white strobe lights when the red obstruction lights burn out and need to be replaced?” Or should the FCC demand all towers are changed “within a specific time frame, such as five years,” the Commission asks.
Another touchy point is whether the FCC should prohibit or limit the use of guy wires. Environmental groups maintain that many birds are killed when they fly into the wires used to steady towers. Tower companies could limit the use of guy wires in new towers but would have to sink towers deeper into the ground and use more concrete in construction - which would add to the costs. The FCC said it’s still exploring whether the scientific record “supports limiting the use of guy wires” and looking into how conclusive past studies are. The cost of limiting guy wires also must be explored, the NPRM said.
“Is there a height threshold above which guy wires are generally necessary, and if so, what is that height?” the FCC asks. “Does the calculus vary depending on soil conditions or other factors? To what extent are towers utilizing guy wires necessary to the provision of various licensed services, and what economic factors may affect the decision whether to use guy wires?”
The NPRM also asks questions about tower height and its effect on bird kills. FCC noted that a study it had commissioned by Avatar Environmental found in general that taller, lighted towers are more dangerous to birds than shorter, unlit towers. “Would limitations on tower height hinder the deployment of certain types of services, including public safety communications?” the NPRM asks. “Would such requirements adversely affect the availability of service in certain geographic locations, such as rural areas? Would requirements governing tower height lead to a greater number of towers, and if so, to what extent would this impact historic properties, wetlands, endangered species, or other environmental values?”
On some critical issues, environmental groups and tower companies may be nearing compromise. Groups on both sides have been discussing areas of common ground, sources said.
Darin Schroeder, deputy dir.-conservation advocacy for the American Bird Conservancy, told us his group hasn’t advocated major changes in towers built using guy wires. “We understand that that would be very prohibitive,” he said. “But we do believe its fair and necessary going forward to encourage the non-use of guy wires…We have said the same thing for lighting. Certainly new towers should be equipped with lighting that is bird friendly… although we do believe existing towers should be relamped at some point.”