BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 867
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON BUSINESS, PROFESSIONS AND CONSUMER
PROTECTION
Richard S. Gordon, Chair
AB 867 (Yamada) - As Amended: April 15, 2013
SUBJECT : Aeronautics: meteorological towers: markings.
SUMMARY : Requires meteorological towers (MTs) located outside
the boundaries of an incorporated city, or on or within one mile
of prime agricultural land, to be marked, as specified, by
January 1, 2015. Specifically, this bill :
1)Requires MTs located outside the boundaries of an incorporated
city to be marked as follows:
a) The full length of the MT shall be painted in seven
equal, alternating bands of aviation orange and white, as
specified;
b) Two or more high visibility spherical marker balls that
are aviation orange, to be attached to each outside guy
wire connected to a MT;
c) One or more seven-foot high visibility safety sleeve
shall be placed at each anchor point, along the guy wire,
as specified; and,
d) A flashing light visible to the naked eye in clear
weather conditions from a distance of 2,000 feet and at
night with night vision equipment, to be placed at a MT's
highest point.
2)Requires MTs to comply with all marking requirements by
January 1, 2015 or when the MT is lowered and then raised for
maintenance purposes, whichever is sooner. The compliance
schedule is as follows:
a) Requires a MT erected before January 1, 2013, to comply
with all MT marking requirements by January 1, 2015 or when
the MT is lowered and then raised for maintenance purposes,
whichever is sooner;
b) Requires a MT located on or within one mile of prime
AB 867
Page 2
agricultural land, erected between January 1, 2013 and
December 31, 2013, to have the option of affixing a light
for MTs, but must affix a flashing light by January 1, 2015
or when the MT is lowered and then raised for maintenance
purposes, whichever is sooner; and,
c) Requires a MT located outside an incorporated city,
erected between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2013, to
comply with all MT marking requirements by January 1, 2015
or when the MT is lowered and then raised for maintenance
purposes, whichever is sooner.
3)Clarifies that the term "meteorological tower" applies to
towers between 50 and 200 feet in height.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Specifies that the following MT marking requirements shall
apply to MTs between 50 and 200 feet in height and located on
or within one mile of prime agricultural land and erected
after January 1, 2013:
a) The full length of the MT shall be painted in seven
equal, alternating bands of aviation orange and white, as
specified;
b) Two or more high visibility spherical marker balls that
are aviation orange, to be attached to each outside guy
wire connected to a MT; and,
c) At least one seven-foot safety sleeve shall be placed at
each anchor point, along the guy wire, as specified.
(Public Utilities Code [PUC] Section 21417(b))
2)Authorizes a light to be affixed to the highest point on the
MT. (PUC 21417(c))
3)Authorizes local agencies to incorporate any of the MT marking
requirements into local land use permits and specifies that
nothing shall be construed to allow a local agency to require
a new permit that applies to MTs. (PUC 21417(d))
4)Sunset the MT marking requirements on January 1, 2018. (PUC
21417(e))
AB 867
Page 3
5)Specify that if MT marking requirements conflict with local
permitting requirements, that existing statutes supersede.
(PUC 21417(d))
6)Defines the following:
a) "Meteorological tower" to mean a structure, including
all guy wires and accessory facilities, on which an
anemometer is mounted for the purposes of documenting
whether a site has wind resources sufficient for the
operation of a wind turbine generator;
b) "Meteorological instrument" to mean an instrument for
measuring and recording the speed of wind; and,
c) "Prime agricultural land" to mean land that satisfies
any of the following:
i) All land that qualifies for rating as class I or
class II in the Natural Resource Conservation Service
land use capability classifications;
ii) Land which qualifies for rating 80 through 100 in
the Storie Index Rating; or,
iii) Land planted with fruit- or nut-bearing trees,
vines, bushes, or crops which have a nonbearing period of
less than five years and which will normally return
during the commercial bearing period on an annual basis
from the production of unprocessed agricultural plant
production not less than $200 per acre. (PUC 21417(a))
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Purpose of this bill . This bill would expand existing MT
marking requirements to apply to MTs located outside of an
incorporated city, and would require nearly all MTs to be
affixed with a high-visibility flashing light. While there
have been no accidents involving a MT tower reported since MT
marking requirements went into effect on January 1, 2013,
after the passage of AB 511 (Yamada), Chapter 187, Statutes of
2012, the author contends that these additional requirements
would allow emergency responders servicing those areas to fly
AB 867
Page 4
more safely during the day and night, and thereby prevent
injuries and fatalities. This bill is sponsored by the
California Air Medical Services Association (CAMSA).
2)Author's statement . According to the author, "The
requirements created by AB 511 and modeled after the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) recommendations leave gaps in
protection for certain pilots conducting low-level flight
operations. Pilots flying low outside agricultural land, like
those conducting mosquito vector control or air ambulance
operations, do not benefit from the current marking
requirements under the law. Also, the lack of lighting
requirements leaves any low-flying pilot essentially blind
during night operations?
"AB 867 addresses the remaining gaps in marking requirements
by expanding them to all MTs outside the limits of an
incorporated city, requiring lights [to be] affixed to the top
of the MTs, and requiring previously erected MTs to comply by
January 1, 2015 or at the next maintenance that requires the
lowering of a MT."
3)MTs and visibility requirements . FAA has jurisdiction over
the use of air space and regulates structures over 200 feet
high. The majority of MTs are usually 195 feet long and fall
underneath the height limit that triggers FAA notification
requirements and regulatory oversight.
The increased presence of MTs is due to the growing interest
in renewable energy and wind turbines. The towers are used as
sensors for wind turbine operations, and are portable,
temporary, often set up within hours, supported by guy wires
and constructed from galvanized material that may make it
difficult to see. The unmarked, unlit MTs are erected on
short notice and can pose a safety hazard to low-flying
pilots.
While AB 511 addressed the safety impact to low-level
agricultural pilots flying on or within a mile of prime
agricultural land, other low-flying aircraft pilots have
different concerns, including law enforcement, military,
emergency and medical personnel, and firefighters. The law
enforcement and emergency pilots fly during the day and night,
and would rely on lit markers on the towers at night.
AB 867
Page 5
AB 511 required MTs between 50 and 200 feet in height located
on or within one mile of prime agricultural land and erected
after January 1, 2013, to be marked as specified. AB 511
arose from a 2011 fatality involving an agricultural pilot and
an unmarked MT during an aerial application during the day.
While the provisions of AB 511 have only been in effect for
four months, this bill attempts to expand MT marking
requirements to require flashing lights and include MTs
located outside incorporated cities, where emergency
responders may fly helicopters during the day and night. The
sponsors contend that MT lighting is important because a pilot
is unable to account for the locations of MTs in a flight plan
because there are no requirements for a MT owner to disclose
the location of a temporary MT below 200 feet.
Because MTs are below 200 feet in height, FAA does not track
or count MTs, although FAA has received complaints about the
safety concern that MTs create. Currently, local
municipalities and zoning administrators may, and do, issue
common land use permits and track MTs at their discretion,
although there is no uniform requirement for counties to issue
such permits.
4)Arguments in support . According to the sponsor, CAMSA, "This
bill is necessary to protect emergency medical aircraft and
the people onboard the aircraft, which includes the pilot,
medical personnel, and possibly a patient [in critical
condition], from a significant flight hazard? The goal of
this bill is to prevent an accident that could injure or kill
the pilot and crew of any low-flying aircraft. AB 511 is a
good bill, but does not go far enough for our emergency and
law enforcement personnel who fly in all regions of California
and at night."
According to REACH Air Medical Services, "This bill is
necessary to protect our emergency aircraft, the flight crew,
and our colleagues on the ground from a significant flight
hazard, which is MTs. The increase of MTs in California is
due to the increased interest in renewable energy and wind
turbines. Unfortunately, these MTs are below the FAA 200-feet
requirement for marking and lighting, and therefore have
created a safety hazard to low-flying aircraft used by
emergency medical services, law enforcement, and firefighting.
AB 867
Page 6
"Legislation passed last year, [AB 511], only pertained to
those MTs located in a dense agricultural area and only
required them to be marked, not lighted."
5)Arguments in opposition . According to the California Wind
Energy Association and the Independent Energy Producers
Association, "[AB 511] established MT marking requirements for
MTs located in agricultural areas. This measure (AB 867)
seeks to expand on that carefully crafted agreement, which has
been in effect for all of four months, despite the fact that
nothing new has transpired? AB 867 attempts to reintroduce
issues [that the author] agreed to strike during the AB 511
negotiations, despite the fact that nothing new has
transpired. Specifically:
"Retroactivity - AB 867 applies to all existing MTs, despite
the fact that in most cases, MTs are associated with existing
wind farms which are already FAA compliant? Retrofitting MTs
poses a number of significant cost and logistical issues,
including the possibility that local governments and
interveners may object to the changes on the basis that they
are inconsistent with the original permit.
"Red Lights - AB 867 provides that MTs must be affixed with
red flashing obstruction lights. Because MTs are often
located in remote areas, few have access to power supplies and
as such, affixing this type of light is infeasible. While
there are solar units available, these products are expensive
(rivaling the cost of the tower itself), may require
additional permitting, can interfere with instrumentation used
to measure wind speed and direction, and there is no practical
way to ensure that the products are functioning properly due
to the remote nature of the facilities (e.g., solar units are
often subject to theft). Red light provisions were
specifically removed from AB 511.
"Applicability - The provisions in AB 511 explicitly applied
only to those towers near prime agricultural land because it
was determined that those had the highest likelihood of
accidents, recognizing that there have been three collisions
with meteorological towers in the entire United States since
2000. Further, it was acknowledged that aviation traffic in
other areas, such as the high desert, was far less prevalent
than aviation traffic near prime agricultural land. In
addition, the sponsors of AB 867, who acknowledged that they
AB 867
Page 7
simply monitored AB 511, have admitted that there has never
been an accident involving one of their pilots and a MT in
California. It is also worth noting that like AB 511, this
measure excludes utility lines which have accounted for almost
70% of all collisions since 2000.
6)Previous Legislation . AB 511 (Yamada), Chapter 187, Statutes
of 2012, requires MTs between 50 and 200 feet in height
located on or within one mile of prime agricultural land and
erected after January 1, 2013, to be marked as specified.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
California Air Medical Services Association (sponsor)
Air Medical Operators Association
Air Methods
Airborne Law Enforcement Association
Association of Air Medical Services
California Association for Health Services at Home
CALSTAR
Helicopter Association International
Helicopters, Inc.
REACH Air Medical Services
PHI Air Medical LLC
20 private individuals
Opposition
California Wind Energy Association
Independent Energy Producers Association
Analysis Prepared by : Joanna Gin / B.,P. & C.P. / (916)
319-3301