WASHINGTON-Local government officials have lashed out at Federal Communications Commission Chairman Reed Hundt over letters he sent to them questioning antenna siting moratoria they have imposed.
“It is extremely disconcerting that a federal official charged with regulating the communications industry would attempt to interfere in the conduct of municipal government,” wrote back Lillian Clayman, mayor of Hamden, Conn.
Wyman Nelson, a Wright County, Minn., attorney, did not take kindly to the Hundt query, either. The FCC chairman sent out 34 letters in early March.
“Your letter raises serious issues, not because of anything substantive you have to say regarding communications towers, but because of the accusatory tone of the letter,” said Nelson. “Apparently your letter was motivated by unnamed industry sources made through the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association.”
For sure, CTIA and the Personal Communications Industry Association have been pressing the FCC for relief from the nearly 200 moratoria and siting delays their members face throughout the country.
Within weeks, the FCC is expected to propose guidelines to address conflicts between wireless carriers and local zoning boards.
That proposal will accompany an FCC ruling on challenges to the stricter radio frequency radiation exposure guideline adopted last August.
The new standard, which the Environmental Protection Agency helped craft, has been criticized by consumer advocates for being too weak and by manufacturers and the Pentagon for being too harsh.
Debate still swirls over whether the new RF standard offers protection to consumers against long-term exposure to low-level non-ionizing radiation. EPA officials have sent out mixed signals as to the degree of safety the RF standard offers to individuals in and outside of the workplace.
Once the RF standard reconsideration order is issued, the FCC then can finalize its technical bulletin on RF guideline compliance.
The effective date of the new RF standard was extended from Jan. 1, 1997 to September 1, 1997.
The RF health issue has been raised in the antenna siting disputes around the nation. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 forbids localities from blocking a carrier from siting an antenna for health reasons if the carrier adheres with RF exposure guidelines.
The rollout of new personal communications services is expected to require the placement of 100,000 new wireless antennas.
Various local officials, like Little Canada, Minn., City Administrator Joel Hansen, limited their responses to Hundt’s questions in “recognition that future municipal actions-or inaction-could be challenged in court.”
Several local officials also pointed out to Hundt that a federal district court in Sprint Spectrum v. City of Medina (Washington) found that a municipality’s six-month moratorium did not violate the telecommunications act.
Though hostile and acerbic in his reply to Hundt, Wright County’s Nelson nonetheless reflects the general sentiment of U.S. mayors and other local government officials who have spoken on the siting issue.
“From a purely policy perspective,” said Wyman, “the Congress was very wise in not shunting aside local land use ordinances and land use authority.”
