WASHINGTON-Representatives from the wireless industry and officials from the Federal Communications Commission were blindsided on Thursday by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which said that two negotiated exclusions from the historic-preservation process, which the FCC hopes to include in rules in the coming months, are deal breakers.
“There are some things in here that are deal breakers,” said the ACHP’s Charlene Vaughn. “The bottom line is members of the ACHP’s committee could not embrace those two exclusions.”
Tensions in the room rose with this declaration that could sidetrack-if not derail-a process that has been going on for more than three years between the telecom industry, historic preservationists and government bureaucrats from both the FCC and ACHP.
“Since you are a participant in this process, it would have been useful to have these sorts of comments three months ago or six months ago when we were trying to formulate this document,” said Amos Loveday, cultural resources specialist for the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. “The point I am making is that we are very near the end of the process and we are hearing things that I believe a reasonable person would assume should have been made months ago.”
The exclusions, as proposed earlier this year by the FCC, would allow towers to be built with some exceptions in industrial/commercial areas and along highways without going through the historic-review process.
Vaughn said ACHP now believes the tower industry cannot decide whether a proposed site has historic value without at a minimum hiring a qualified professional to make the determination.
“The staff analysis said that to determine whether it qualifies for an exclusion would require more than an engineer checking a box,” said Vaughn.
On Friday morning, Loveday backed away from his accusations. “I took the comments to refine the exclusions rather than eliminating them,” he told RCR Wireless News.
The industry will now work with ACHP and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers to simplify the exclusionary language, but it is unclear whether the FCC-which must ultimately approve of the language to have it included in the final rule-can participate in these discussions due to the FCC’s ex parte rules that limit contact with parties to a rulemaking proceeding.
The FCC had hoped to adopt final rules at its Feb. 12 open meeting but consideration of the rules has now been put off until the March meeting.
