[BC] Maximum Tower Height

[Mike McCarthy]

I agree with the previously issued ASRN and CP having already passed 
through and granted not needing anything more done. And any new 
applications on the same unmodified structure also by-passes the NEPA 
and NHPA EA requirements as the two statutes apply only to 
towers/stuctures. Modifications which don't change the height or require 
new FAA/ASRN work, such as adding guy line anchors or stiffening are 
also exempt. This is not grandfathering. It's prescriptive exemptions.

Any modification of the structure to the point it needs a new ASRN and 
FAA clearance, regardless of when it was constructed,will need to enter 
and pass through the EA process in some manner.  It may not require as 
complete a process as a new structure would, but would need to pass 
through none the less. This is what I meant by sites are not 
grandfathered just becuase they're already built.

I receommend building at the current site as a new complete process to 
pass through all the steps, including the local zoning, for a new tower 
would likely exceed the duration of the CP lest they apply for an 
extension by way of a new 301.  Especially if the CP is more than a few 
months old.

MM

On 7/28/2014 7:33 PM, Mike Vanhooser novaelec at sbcglobal.net.INVALID wrote:
> If the original site already has a CP and ASRN, it was granted before the rule and is ready to build, which is what I referred to as "grandfathered".  If the original site has the same restriction, then it will be the same time and money at either site.  Not enough information was provided to know which situation applied when I wrote that.
>
> From: Mike McCarthy <towers at mre.com>
>
> There is no grandfathering of sites.