WASHINGTON-Attempts by the wireless industry to reach a collocation agreement with a historic preservation group hit a few bumps last week when members of the historic preservation community questioned language in a document intended to allow collocation on most existing towers.
While industry representatives believe the concerns expressed at the meeting were not indicative of a real problem with the agreement, historic preservation representatives were not as convinced their community was on board with the agreement.
The agreement would allow collocation on towers built before a specific date (the draft reads Aug. 31, 2000, but this date will change until the document is completed) that are not in historic areas, are not subject to a current investigation by the Federal Communications Commission and when the collocation would not substantially alter the property to be grandfathered-even if a historic preservation review had not been previously done on the property.
A historic preservation review comes under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Section 106 rules require the FCC to sign off on any wireless facility located on a historic site. Unlike other federal agencies, which communicate directly with state historic preservation officers (SHPOs) when they want to undertake a federal project, the FCC has delegated this authority to the tower licensee. A recent memo from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to the FCC, SHPOs and the Tribal Historic Preservation Officers clarified this.
The collocation agreement is meant as an interim step while the industry, the FCC and the ACHP work out details on how to handle Section 106. Such an agreement could take years, thus the need for the interim step.
The FCC still expects to be involved when a complaint is filed that claims a wireless facility would have an adverse impact on a historic property, but the agency hopes the final agreement will keep it from going back and working with the ACHP on each tower, which may not have been reviewed at the time it was sited.
The historic preservation community worries that some adverse properties will slip through the cracks. Some historic preservation representatives said it would be helpful for the wireless industry to provide a list of all wireless facilities so they can assess the properties. However, that would seem to negate the purpose of the grandfathering clause.
SHPOs are concerned about the proposed agreement.
“The Arizona [SHPO] is concerned about wireless communications equipment (e.g. cell tower and antenna) that were licensed by the [FCC] without complying with Section 106. … We highly recommend that noncompliant towers be brought into compliance as soon as possible. One way that we plan to achieve this goal is by requesting a complete review of undertakings that involve collocations, because they frequently entail noncompliant towers or other installations. Thus, we strongly disagree with the industry’s proposal to exclude collocations on towers built prior to Aug. 31, 2000, from SHPO consultations,” said Matthew H. Bilsbarrow, compliance specialist/archaeologist for the Arizona SHPO.
Bilsbarrow participated in the meeting by conference call.
Arizona does not want to preclude collocation, and Bilsbarrow later agreed with John Clark, outside counsel to the Personal Communications Industry Association, who commented it would be better to collocate on an existing structure rather than to have the industry build additional structures in sensitive areas.
Bilsbarrow told RCR Wireless News that Arizona would like to go one step more and encourage antenna sitings on historic properties.
“We are afraid the wireless industry will draw a red-line around historic buildings. If the historic buildings can serve the needs, then the revenue would be positive,” said Bilsbarrow, noting that revenue from a wireless facility probably saved one historic building.
After nearly five hours, the meeting suspended without an agreement. Another meeting is planned for later this month.
