TIMELINE ACCELERATED FOR STREAMLINING TOWER REVIEW PROCESS
Under newly accelerated timeline, govt.-industry group now is aiming to have agreement by late spring or early summer to streamline siting decisions for both wireless and broadcast towers. Telecom working group organized by Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) has been working on streamlining Sec. 106 historic preservation siting requirements by spelling out for both state historic preservation officers and industry what is needed for compliance. Sec. 106 of National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to consider effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Target of first half of this year for crafting prototype program agreement marks acceleration of timelines for groups to put process in place. FCC also has clarified that broadcast facilities -- as well as telecom towers -- were covered by that language. In related development, FCC Wireless and Mass Media Bureaus on Thurs. released long-awaited fact sheet to provide guidance on nationwide program agreement for colocation of wireless and broadcast towers, which had been finalized in March. That agreement streamlines review procedures for colocations of antennas under NHPA, while pending prototype covers new sites.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
“We feel that it’s critical that this agreement get in place as soon as possible in order to maximize the construction season in the spring,” ACHP Program Analyst Charlene Dwin-Vaughn said. “We convened this working group to not last this long,” she said. She said target dates were attempt “to move this along and bring it to closure.” New dates for crafting agreement came up at working group meeting in Dec. and subgroups have been meeting since then on more specific siting issues involved in Sec. 106 compliance, she said. FCC and ACHP will have to sign off on final model and it then will be up to each state to decide whether to use prototype. Agreement will serve as “the template for how communications antennas and related infrastructure are developed to comply with the requirements of Sec. 106 or to take into account historic preservation issues,” Dwin-Vaughn said: “It would have to be tweaked on a state-by-state basis, recognizing the interest of the state historic preservation officer, tribes, local governments and other stakeholders.” Dwin-Vaughn said 15 states had signaled they were ready to develop prototype program agreement once it was in place.
Starting with development of colocation agreement, wireless industry had sought changes as way to help relieve administrative backlogs that were holding up tower construction. State and tribal historic preservation officers also had sought agreement to ensure that tower constructors were complying with Sec. 106. Under agreement, most colocations on existing towers will be exempt from ACHP siting review procedures. Agreement allows antenna to be mounted on tower built on or before March 16, 2001, if certain conditions are met. Without such models for streamlining review process, “all that’s in place is the ACHP’s rules, which are not really designed for this situation,” FCC official said of council’s Sec. 106 requirements. “What this is intended to do is to take the broad principles of the rules and adapt them to this tower situation.”
Subgroups are breaking down siting issues, focusing on identification and evaluation of historic properties, coordination of regulatory reviews, assessments of impacts, resolution of adverse effects and emergency situations.
CTIA and PCIA have been leading drafting of agreements. After colocation agreement was reached last spring, broadcasters sought clarification from FCC that broadcast facilities were part of towers covered under template, said Ann Bobeck, NAB asst. gen. counsel and group’s liaison to ACHP’s working group. Language explicitly covering both wireless and broadcast towers is included in fact sheet on colocation agreement that FCC issued Thurs. While agreement is national in scope, template for Sec. 106 review that covers new sites will serve as model for each state to decide to use in way it tailors it to its needs, Bobeck said. Siting requirements generally have broader impact on wireless carriers, which are building out networks that have specific coverage requirements, Bobeck said. There’s less construction of new broadcast towers, although they are being built for DTV transition and occasionally as stations change hands, she said. Template for siting approval of new towers provides model state and tribal historic preservation officers with “cut-and-paste model by which the industry would know how to submit a proper checklist and the historic preservation officers would have a blueprint and make it a more uniform process.”
Washington attorney John Clark, who has represented tower constructors and PCIA on such siting issues, said: “The industry is very much heartened by the increased level of focus and activities of the telecommunications working group… It seems that there is really now a goal, at least in terms of time.”