Named to the FCC Intergovernmental Advisory Committee: Denise Bode, Okla. Corporation Commission; Carlito Caliboso, Hawaii PUC; Jim Dailey, Little Rock, Ark.; Steven Grey, Navajo National Telecom Regulatory Commission; Jenny Hansen, Mont. Dept. of Administration; Merita Hopkins, city of Boston; David Jones, Spartanburg (S.C.) County govt.; Dean Kruithof, Ft. Smith, Ark.; Frank LaGrotta, Pa. House of Representatives; Timothy Lowenstein, Buffalo County, Neb.; Patrick McCrory, Charlotte, N.C., mayor; Gary Resnick, Wilton Manors, Fla., city council; Sylvester Sahme, Ore. Telecom Coordinating Council; Randolph Townsend, Nev. State Senate; J.D. Williams, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Telephone Authority… Steve Hawkins, ex-British Telecom, named British vice consul-investment, N.Y.C… NAB Vp-Human Resource Development Dwight Ellis resigns Feb. 1… Karen Black, ex- Symantec, appointed senior vp-engineering, Boingo Wireless… Promoted to Cox vp-regional mgrs: Janet Barnard, middle America; Dave Bialis, Okla.; Greg Bicket, New Orleans; Leo Brennan, Orange County; Frank Bowers, Hampton Roads; Paul Cronin, New England; Kimberly Edmunds, Kan.; Bill Geppert, San Diego; Mark Lipford, Las Vegas; Gary McCollum, northern Va.; Steve Rizley, Ariz.
Crown Castle told the FCC it had concerns with part of a draft national program agreement designed to streamline the review process for sites under the National Historic Preservation Act. The draft agreement would streamline the process for communications facilities under Sec. 106 of the act. A similar agreement in 2001 had focused on colocation on existing towers, while the draft would cover new sites. Crown Castle raised concerns over an exclusion in the draft agreement that said that a tower modification that didn’t involve a colocation and didn’t substantially increase the size of the tower was an undertaking that would be excluded from Sec. 106 review. Crown Castle said it agreed with the proposed exclusion but said such actions weren’t properly deemed “undertakings” because they didn’t require a federal permit, license or approval. Such changes, which could involve replacing a fence around a tower site, could otherwise become subject to tribal consultation, Crown Castle said. That would be the case if language proposed by the Navajo Nation were included in the final agreement, the company said. Improperly classifying such activities as undertakings would “be an improper extension of the FCC’s authority and would thus be subject to judicial challenge,” it said. Without changing the language using “undertaking,” Crown Castle said the proposed exclusion could have unintended consequences: “The notion of what ‘is’ and ‘is not’ an undertaking will be blurred. As a result, the overall scope of the FCC’s Section 106 and other environmental obligations may expand as other types of ‘modifications’… that are not related directly to the issuance of an FCC license are considered to be undertakings that are subject to direct FCC authority.”
House Resources Committee Chmn. Pombo (R-Cal.) exhorted the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to curb the expanded reach it had given to part of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), citing the impact on wireless towers. His concerns centered on ACHP rules that make federal agencies weigh the impact of an “undertaking” such as tower construction on historic properties. If the ACHP doesn’t address this, Pombo said: “Please know that we will not hesitate to take actions to restore Section 106 to the carefully defined scope originally intended by Congress.”
Legislation to modify the universal service fund (USF) received Native American endorsements. The National Indian Telecom Institute (NITI) and the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), expressed support for S-1380 in separate letters to Senate Commerce Committee Chmn. McCain (R-Ariz.). S-1380, introduced by Sen. Smith (R-Ore.), would adjust distribution of USF payments to Bells and other large ILECs for rural services. The pot of about $230 million, called the “non-rural” fund because it goes to bigger carriers, is calculated statewide and goes mostly to Ala., Miss. and W. Va. “The FCC’s statewide averaging approach excludes more than 40 states and most tribal lands from eligibility for high-cost support,” NITI said. S-1380, and its House counterpart (HR-1582) from Rep. Terry (R-Neb.), would calculate based on the wire center. “This represents a more equitable approach given that one wire center typically covers a more homogeneous service area and reflects service costs more accurately,” the NITI letter said. NCAI said the legislation was needed, as many Native American communities don’t even have basic telecom services. “In recent years, numerous experts have reported that Native Americans face an urgent situation in which their telecommunications infrastructure is falling far behind the rest of the Unites States,” NCAI said. The bill has 22 co-sponsors, including McCain, but hasn’t been scheduled for hearing or markup. While urging its passage, NITI said it had concerns: (1) A cap on funding to any one state could result in “truly needy wire centers” from receiving funding. (2) The value of phone exchanges could rise as a result of USF funding changes, making it more difficult for tribes to purchase the exchanges in their areas. “This possible side effect does not outweigh the arguments in favor of the bill, as most tribes will be better served by greater service investments by incumbents than by attempting to take over service themselves,” the NITI letter said. “However, for tribes that have determined that purchase of the local exchange is the only way to ensure adequate service to its people, this effect must be considered.”
The FCC adopted new rules to improve the universal service program for rural health care providers and increase participation in it, at its meeting Thurs. The order follows FCC Chmn. Powell’s visit to the U. of Va. Office of Telemedicine (CD Nov 10 p3), where he pushed for greater participation in the program to ensure that “the quality of health care available to Americans is not dependent upon their geographic location.” He expressed concern that while the Commission set aside $400 million annually, in the first 5 years of the 6-year-old program barely $30 million was disbursed to rural facilities. In 2000 and 2001, demand for the program averaged $14 million per year -- only 3.5% of available discounts.
Rural wireless carriers pressed the FCC Thurs. for relief on Enhanced 911 Phase 2 requirements, citing funding and technology dilemmas they faced with current deadlines. They spoke at the 2nd day of a 2-day meeting of the Commission’s E911 Coordination Initiative, stressing problems with the accuracy of some network-based technologies for pinpointing rural subscribers and a lack of commercial volume of location-capable handsets for TDMA and GSM networks.
House members apparently took a recent hearing on E-911 to heart and have adopted some of the changes recommended in that hearing (CD Sept 12 p3). The House Telecom Subcommittee approved a substitute version of an E911 bill (HR-2898) Tues. Several of the witnesses who testified before the subcommittee 2 weeks ago found some flaws with the bill, some of which were corrected in the new version.
The FCC is seeking nominations for membership on its Intergovernmental Advisory Commission (IAC), which provides guidance to the Commission on issues of importance to state, local and tribal governments, as well as to the FCC. The IAC, formerly known as the Local & State Govt. Advisory Committee, was formed in 1997. It’s composed of 15 elected and appointed officials who provide advice on a broad range of issues, including cable and local franchising, public rights-of-way, facilities siting, universal service, broadband access, barriers to competitive entry and public safety communications. FCC Chmn. Powell will appoint 7 local, 5 state and 3 tribal officials. The Commission is particularly interested in applicants from geographic areas not represented in the past, such as Southern states, for example, Fla., Ga., La., S.C. and Tenn., and from Southwestern states such as Ariz., Nev., N.M., and Utah. The FCC also is interested in applicants representing rural areas and people with expertise in homeland security matters, such as emergency response systems, public safety spectrum and interference matters. Applicants should be local, state or tribal officials and be eligible for the intergovernmental exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Nominations should be received by the Commission no later than Sept. 29.
The FCC adopted rules to encourage more representation on the Local & State Government Advisory Committee, which also was renamed the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee. The group is composed of govt. officials. The agency said the rule changes were aimed at: (1) “Increased representation of rural interests and to attract members with expertise in homeland security matters.” (2) Enhanced effectiveness of the group’s operations, for example by limiting the number of meetings held each year “to minimize the burdens on Committee members and enable members to attend meetings themselves, rather than sending a representative in their stead.” (3) Maintenance of the committee’s “governmental nature and qualification as an advisory committee exempt from the requirements of the [Federal Advisory Commitee Act].” (4) Increased tribal representation. (5) Encouragement of a better balance of membership geographically. The Commission said the rules didn’t set out specific numbers of members from different areas of the country but “we will use the application and appointment process to encourage representation from areas that may not have been as well represented… in the past, such as some Southern and some Southwestern states.” Comr. Copps said he was “especially pleased that in this group’s new incarnation as the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee we increase tribal representation.”
Although adoption of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (NPA) to protect historic interest and streamline the review process for telecom facilities in historic areas is a laudable goal, the draft agreement contains flaws that must be corrected, parties said in comments to the FCC. They generally supported the draft NPA by the FCC, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Offices. The agreement would streamline siting decisions under Sec. 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which requires federal agencies to consider the impact of construction and modification of wireless facilities located near historic properties.