The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) updated its policy for ...

aeronautical study to add frequencies to an existing structure already deemed not tp pose an air traffic hazard. The change is largely in line with a voluntary best practices agreement crafted by a coalition of wireless carriers and tower companies, called the Colocation Void Clause Coalition. The group included PCIA and CTIA. The best practices were designed to streamline notification to the FAA for cases in which a proposed tower change wouldn’t affect antenna height. The guidelines proposed that wireless companies not be required to notify the FAA when adding only certain specific frequencies to a structure located beyond one nautical mile radius from an FAA facility. Under past FAA policy, the agency required notice for certain proposed structures that could affect the navigable airspace. The agency has studied these proposed projects to assess whether they would cause harmful interference to air navigation or surveillance facilities. If a person added frequencies that involved collocating antennas on an existing tower for which the FAA had issued a “determination of no hazard to air navigation,” the applicant had to file a “frequency only” notice. If an additional antenna system had to be used to add frequencies, it couldn’t be located on federal or public use landing facilities property, the FAA said. “Also, the antenna system must not be colocated or mounted on an FAA antenna structure without prior coordination with the FAA.” Under the new policy, notice still must be filed with the FAA if a structure’s height is increased. The policy applies to a range of frequencies, including industrial/business specialized mobile radio systems at 800 MHz, cellphone service at 800 MHz, paging bands at 900 MHz and broadband PCS and 1850-1990 MHz. The policy also only applies to current technologies and modulation techniques. “Any future technologies placed into commercial service by wireless service providers, although operating on the frequencies mentioned above, must either coordinate the new technology with the FAA” or must provide notification to the FAA. The coalition had stressed to the FAA in 2002 an immediate need for the agency to take another look at interference regulations that govern tower siting (CD Oct 3/02 p9). The companies said the process at that time had resulted in many unnecessary filings with the FAA and the FCC and engendered inconsistent interpretations. The coalition had asked the FAA to revive a 12-year-old proposal for clear procedures.