WASHINGTON-Carriers and tower owners wishing to build out their networks by siting more antennas are running into regulatory roadblocks that often delay buildout.
“The pressure is building on carriers and tower owners because there are just too many conflicting regulations coming from agencies and these agencies are just not talking to one another,” said John Clark, outside counsel to the Personal Communications Industry Association.
Historical sites
Regulations for sitings in areas of historical importance can be particularly burdensome.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation adopted rules last year that require the Federal Communications Commission to sign off on all proposed sites. The ACHP rejected a proposal that would let licensees determine whether a site will harm a historical area. As it stands today, historical considerations can pop up after a site has been approved at the local level, said Brian Fontes, senior vice president for policy and administration for the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association.
Carriers wanting to colocate on existing structures also are running into trouble.
With consolidation in the tower industry, towers have come under new ownership. But when a carrier attempts to colocate, state historical preservation groups say the tower has not been approved. Rather than going after tower owners or managers, the FCC-which enforces historical preservation regulations-goes after carriers.
It’s confusing when regulators don’t act with one voice, said many in industry. While one FCC staff member tries to reach an agreement with ACHP to streamline the process, another FCC employee is sending out warning letters.
The FCC says carriers have to obey the rules. “While the FCC is trying to facilitate this process by developing a programmatic agreement with the advisory council, carriers and antenna-structure owners must continue to comply with the FCC’s environmental rules and the regulations of the advisory council,” said an FCC spokeswoman.
“We would like the FCC to have a little bit of bravado” and tell the state groups that when it is a historically designated area, they have the right to participate in the proceeding at the local level and should be involved at that stage, said Fontes.
Once an application is filed with a state preservation group, the process can be unwielding. This process recently increased from seven steps to 32, according to a paper recently published by Clark and fellow attorney Steven Hultberg.
For this reason, PCIA is preparing to ask the FCC to provide guidance to tower owners, managers and carriers about how to comply with historical preservation regulations.
Migratory birds
Carriers that want to use towers located in the flight paths of migratory birds also face trouble.
Whether it is an attraction to light or the height of the tower, bird kills near communication towers have been recorded for at least the last half-century.
To combat the problem, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is drafting its own siting guidelines. These guidelines have been sent out to regional offices for comment and are not yet considered official. That has not stopped some regional directors from enforcing the guidelines, which can further delay or derail a proposed tower.
“There is an interpretation issue and the memo that will come from the director will say that [guidelines] are voluntary,” said Al Manville, wildlife biologist in the FWS’ Office of Migratory Bird Management.
PCIA expects to review the memo before it is sent out.
“We are still expecting to have an opportunity to look at the memo. That memo is not going to go out until we have a chance to look at it,” said Sheldon R. Moss, PCIA director of government relations for wireless infrastructure.
The guidelines promote colocation and monopoles.
Colocation, however may be difficult if-like in the historical area context-a tower has not been approved in an area, said Moss.
“PCIA is concerned about the uncertain status of existing towers that have not gone through proper environmental processing. Can carriers colocate on them without triggering a requirement for an environmental assessment on the entire structure? If the answer is no, then there is a disincentive to colocate,” said Moss.
Fish and Wildlife also is working with industry to determine the impact of towers on birds and what can be done to mitigate the problem. The Communication Tower Working Group began meeting last year and will meet later this month to look at these issues.
“The task of the working group is to develop and implement a nationwide research protocol intended to determine what causes birds to collide with towers, and what can be done to avoid these collisions,” said Manville, who chairs the group.
The FWS also asked the FCC to conduct an environmental impact assessment on birds and towers, but the FCC said it first needs scientific proof that towers harm birds.
“At this juncture, as you know, there is very little study and research, and thus no consensus within the scientific community on the issue of what impact communications towers have on the migratory bird population and what, if any, mitigation measures could be effective … Until the necessary research and study is undertaken and some consensus is reached by the expert government agencies and scientific entities to determine the circumstances in which communications towers pose a risk to migratory birds, we do not believe it appropriate for the FCC to undertake the expensive, generic, EIS effort you describe,” said FCC Chairman William Kennard in a March letter to FWS Director Jamie Rappaport Clark.
