FAQ

Q. How tall can my antenna be?
A. From a strictly communications standpoint, Section 97.15(b) authorizes you to erect your antenna at a height sufficient to accommodate amateur service communications. The maximum height of the amateur service is 50 kilometers. Above that, it is the domain of our amateur-satellite service. Section 97.5(a).

   W3BE-O-GRAM: Before you start erecting your 31 mile high antenna tower, however, you should understand that the practical height of your antenna depends upon a number of factors, not the least of which are your resources: financial, time, energy and know-how. Then there are restrictions for aviation safety, environmental protection, and locality concerns for safety and appearances. There are also the matters of arrangements that you have made with the owners of the land on which your antenna stands or the entity from whom you obtained the land. So, that 50 km ceiling is the very least of your concerns.

   Q. What are the restrictions that could limit the height of my antenna?
   A. The location of your antenna structure determines whether any of the following apply to its height above ground level:

   1. Section 97.15(b) says that the owner of an antenna structure more than 200 feet above ground level at the site must notify the FAA and register with the FCC.
   2. Section 97.15(b) says that the owner of an antenna structure located near a public use airport must notify the FAA and register with the FCC.
   3. Section 97.13 says there are restrictions that apply to land of environmental importance or significant in American history, architecture or culture, places within a mile of an FCC monitoring facility and places where your station could cause possible harmful human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields. Your antenna is a component of your station.

   Q. What are the aviation safety restrictions on antennas?
   A. Section 97.15(a), in effect, says that unless the antenna is near or at a public use airport, the antenna may be 200 feet above ground level at the site. Otherwise, the Federal Aviation Administration must be notified and the antenna structure must be registered with the FCC. The details are in Part 17. You may have to mark your tower with specified painting and lighting in order to gain the necessary approval.

   Q. How close to the airport can my antenna be before being subject to the restrictions Part 17?
   A. It begins at about four miles from the nearest runway. Section 17.7(b) describes an imaginary surface above which notification and registration are required. It extends outward and upward at one of the following slopes:

   For a large airport (any runway length more than 3,200-feet), the slope is 100 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 20,000-feet from the nearest point on the nearest runway.
   For a small airport (longest runway length no more than 3,200-feet), the slope is 50 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 10,000-feet from the nearest point on the nearest runway.
   For a heliport, the slope is 25:1 for a horizontal distance of 5,000-feet from the nearest landing and takeoff area.

   Q. My neighbor has a landing strip on his property. Must I give notification to the FAA?
   A. Section 17.7(d)(1) says that notification is required where the airport is available for public use and is listed in the Airport Directory of the current Airman's Information Manual or in either the Alaska or Pacific Airman's Guide and Chart Supplement. Even if your neighbor's strip is listed therein, your antenna might come under one of the exemptions described in Section 17.14:

   Q. Can my state or local government limit the height of my antenna?
   A. Yes, your state or local government can regulate the height of your antenna structure. However, Section 97.15(b) says that such regulation must not preclude your amateur service communications. Rather, it must reasonably accommodate such communications and must constitute the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the state or local authority's legitimate purpose. It refers the reader to PRB-1, 101 FCC 2d 952 (1985) for details.

   Q. What is PRB-1?
   A. PRB-1 is the designation for a document containing the landmark declaratory ruling made by the FCC on September 16, 1985, pertaining to our antenna structures. In this document, the FCC granted a Request for Declaratory Ruling on the matter of state and local antenna regulations. A pertinent excerpt follows:

   20. When considering preemption, we must begin with two constitutional provisions. The tenth amendment provides that any powers which the constitution does not delegate to the United States or does not prohibit the states from exercising are reserved to the states. These are the police powers of the states. The Supremacy Clause, however, provides that the constitution and the laws of the United States shall supersede any state law to the contrary. Article III, Section 2. Given these basic premises, state laws may be preempted in three ways: First, Congress may expressly preempt the state law. See Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525 (1977). Or, Congress may indicate its intent to completely occupy a given field so that any state law encompassed within that field would implicitly be preempted. Such intent to preempt could be found in a congressional regulatory scheme that was so pervasive that it would be reasonable to assume that Congress did not intend to permit the states to supplement it. See Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 153 (1982). Finally, preemption may be warranted when state law conflicts with federal law. Such conflicts may occur when "compliance with both Federal and state regulations is a physical impossibility," Florida Lime and Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142, 143 (1963), or when state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress," Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941). Furthermore, federal regulations have the same preemptive effect as federal statutes. Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Association v. de la Cuesta, supra. 

   21. The situation before us requires us to determine the extent to which state and local zoning regulations may conflict with federal policies concerning amateur radio operators.

   22. Few matters coming before us present such a clear dichotomy of viewpoint as does the instant issue. The cities, counties, and local communities and housing associations see an obligation to all of their citizens and try to address their concerns. This is accomplished through regulations, ordinances or covenants oriented toward the health, safety and general welfare of those they regulate. At the opposite pole are the individual amateur operators and their support groups who are troubled by local regulations which may inhibit the use of amateur stations or, in some instances, totally preclude amateur communications. Aligned with the operators are such entities as the Department of Defense, the American Red Cross and local civil defense and emergency organizations who have found in Amateur Radio a pool of skilled radio operators and a readily available backup network. In this situation, we believe it is appropriate to strike a balance between the federal interest in promoting amateur operations and the legitimate interests of local governments in regulating local zoning matters. The cornerstone on which we will predicate our decision is that a reasonable accommodation may be made between the two sides.

   23. Preemption is primarily a function of the extent of the conflict between federal and state and local regulation. Thus, in considering whether our regulations or policies can tolerate a state regulation, we may consider such factors as the severity of the conflict and the reasons underlying the state's regulations. In this regard, we have previously recognized the legitimate and important state interests reflected in local zoning regulations. For example, in Earth Satellite Communications, Inc., 95 FCC 2d 1223 (1983), we recognized that . . . countervailing state interests inhere in the present situation . . . For example, we do not wish to preclude a state or locality from exercising jurisdiction over certain elements of an SMATV operation that properly may fall within its authority, such as zoning or public safety and health, provided the regulation in question is not undertaken as a pretext for the actual purpose of frustrating achievement of the preeminent federal objective and so long as the non-federal regulation is applied in a nondiscriminatory manner.

   24. Similarly, we recognize here that there are certain general state and local interests which may, in their even-handed application, legitimately affect amateur radio facilities. Nonetheless, there is also a strong federal interest in promoting amateur communications. Evidence of this interest may be found in the comprehensive set of rules that the Commission has adopted to regulate the amateur service. Those rules set forth procedures for the licensing of stations and operators, frequency allocations, technical standards which amateur radio equipment must meet and operating practices which amateur operators must follow. We recognize the Amateur radio service as a voluntary, noncommercial communication service, particularly with respect to providing emergency communications. Moreover, the amateur radio service provides a reservoir of trained operators, technicians and electronic experts who can be called on in times of national or local emergencies. By its nature, the Amateur Radio Service also provides the opportunity for individual operators to further international goodwill. Upon weighing these interests, we believe a limited preemption policy is warranted. State and local regulations that operate to preclude amateur communications in their communities are in direct conflict with federal objectives and must be preempted.

   25. Because amateur station communications are only as effective as the antennas employed, antenna height restrictions directly affect the effectiveness of amateur communications. Some amateur antenna configurations require more substantial installations than others if they are to provide the amateur operator with the communications that he/she desires to engage in. For example, an antenna array for International amateur communications will differ from an antenna used to contact other amateur operators at shorter distances. We will not, however, specify any particular height limitation below which a local government may not regulate, nor will we suggest the precise language that must be contained in local ordinances, such as mechanisms for special exceptions, variances, or conditional use permits. Nevertheless, local regulations which involve placement, screening, or height of antennas based on health, safety, or aesthetic considerations must be crafted to accommodate reasonably amateur communications, and to represent the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the local authority's legitimate purpose.

   26. Obviously, we do not have the staff or financial resources to review all state and local laws that affect amateur operations. We are confident, however, that state and local governments will endeavor to legislate in a manner that affords appropriate recognition to the important federal interest at stake here and thereby avoid unnecessary conflict with federal policy, as well as time-consuming and expensive litigation in this area. Amateur operators who believe that local or state governments have been overreaching and thereby have precluded accomplishment of their legitimate communications goals, may, in addition, use this document to bring our policies to the attention of local tribunals and forums.

   Q. What did PRB-1 do?
   A. It established a limited Federal preemption policy, requiring state and local regulations to be crafted such as to reasonably accommodate amateur station antenna structures. Section 97.15(b) says:

   Except as otherwise provided herein, a station antenna structure may be erected at heights and dimensions sufficient to accommodate amateur service communications. (State and local regulation of a station antenna structure must not preclude amateur service communications. Rather, it must reasonably accommodate such communications and must constitute the minimum practicable regulation to accomplish the state or local authority's legitimate purpose.

   Q. What does PRB-1 say about covenants?
   A. It says that the FCC has expressly decided not to extend its limited preemption policy to covenants, conditions and restrictions contained in deeds or bylaws of homeowner and condominium associations.

   Q. What was the reasoning behind that?
   A. It says that such agreements are voluntarily entered into by the buyer or tenant when the agreement is executed and, therefore, do not concern the Commission.

   W3BE-O-GRAM: In 1971, upon relocating to the Maryland suburbs of Washington, DC, I happened to notice a statement in one of the documents associated with the first home I purchased. It mentioned an "architectural control committee." I showed the document to attorney Bob Booth, then W3PS, and asked what the statement meant. "It means that you have to move!" was his assessment. That I did, thank goodness, making certain that there were no such conditions on my second - and current - QTH.

   Q. Is the FCC ever going to extend PRB-1 to our private agreements?
   A. So far, the FCC has turned down such requests. However, in our ever-changing political environment, anything is possible.

   W3BE-O-GRAM: It is unlikely to happen until the Congress instructs the FCC to do so. In the meantime, if you are caught up in a private agreement, you might do well to look into some of the applications for ham radio that do not require high profile antenna structures. An HF station at a distant site can be remotely controlled via a modest UHF station or the Internet. Then there are a growing number of personal computer-based systems such as packet, PSK-31, Echolink, etc.

   Q. What was the reason for the designation "PRB"?
   A. The designation "PRB" stands for the Private Radio Bureau, a former FCC organizational component. Many of the responsibilities of the PRB were folded into the current and much larger Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. PRB-1 marked the beginning, as well as the end, of a unique notice and comment procedure whereby the former Private Radio Bureau could collect information on non-rulemaking issues.

   Q. At a club meeting, someone asked about a "Quiet Zone" near FCC monitoring stations. We all thought there was no such zone. That was not exactly correct. Section 97.13(b) says that a station within 1600 m (1 mile) of an FCC monitoring facility must protect that facility from harmful interference. Where are those facilities?
   A. Section 0.121(b) lists the geographical coordinates of the protected FCC field installations.

Coordinates are referenced to North American Datum 1983 (NAD83):
Allegan, Michigan, 42°36'20.1" N. Latitude, 85°57'20.1" W. Longitude
Belfast, Maine, 44°26'42.3" N. Latitude, 69°04'56.1" W. Longitude
Canandaigua, New York, 42°54'48.2" N. Latitude, 77°15'57.9" W. Longitude
Douglas, Arizona, 31°30'02.3" N. Latitude, 109°39'14.3" W. Longitude
Ferndale, Washington, 48°57'20.4" N. Latitude, 122°33'17.6" W. Longitude
Grand Island, Nebraska, 40°55'21.0" N. Latitude, 98°25'43.2" W. Longitude
Kenai, Alaska, 60°43'26.0" N. Latitude, 151°20'15.0" W. Longitude
Kingsville, Texas, 27°26'30.1" N. Latitude, 97°53'01.0" W. Longitude
Laurel, Maryland, 39°09'54.4" N. Latitude, 76°49'15.9" W. Longitude
Livermore, California, 37°43'29.7" N. Latitude, 121°45'15.8" W. Longitude
Powder Springs, Georgia, 33°51'44.4" N. Latitude, 84°43'25.8" W. Longitude
Santa Isabel, Puerto Rico, 18°00'18.9" N. Latitude, 66°22'30.6" W. Longitude
Vero Beach, Florida, 27°36'22.1" N. Latitude, 80°38'05.2" W. Longitude
Waipahu, Hawaii, 21°22'33.6" N. Latitude, 157°59'44.1" W. Longitude

   Q. If my station is in one of those zones, what must I do?
   A. Contact the appropriate FCC District Director to verify that your station's transmissions do not cause interference to the FCC monitoring. Section 97.13(b) says that failure to protect a FCC monitoring facility from harmful interference could result in imposition of operating restrictions upon the amateur station by a District Director pursuant to Section 97.121, Restricted operation.

   Q. Where are the District Directors?
   A. There are 16 FCC District Offices:

   Atlanta, GA: Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; Columbia, MD; Dallas, TX; Denver, CO; Detroit, MI; Kansas City, MO; Los Angeles, CA; New Orleans, LA; New York, NY; Philadelphia, PA; San Diego, CA; San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; and Tampa, FL.

   Q. What is harmful interference?
   A. Section 97.3(a)(23) defines harmful interference as Interference which endangers the functioning of a radionavigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication service operating in accordance with the Radio Regulations. The reference is to the international Radio Regulations.

   Q. What sort of operating restrictions could the FCC District Director impose on my amateur station?
   A. Section 97.121 says:

January 30, 2011
Supersedes all previous versions