WIRELESS, BROADCAST INDUSTRIES CRITICIZE TOWER GUIDELINES
With scientific data inadequate to support federal Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) voluntary guidelines on communications tower siting, PCIA said, some states already were using them “as a precedent.” A PCIA spokesman said that while the guidelines were “not official… some states have taken them as being a gospel, and we don’t like that.”
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
PCIA and other industry representatives strongly criticized the guidelines in reply comments to the FCC late last week. They cited inconsistencies that they said precluded the guidelines’ adoption as rules. The replies were filed in response to a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) earlier this year (CD Aug 21 p5) after FCC Chmn. Powell in May outlined an agency effort for a more “pro-active approach” to environmental and historic preservation issues on tower siting.
The FWS guidelines don’t take into account practical tower siting considerations and are “inconsistent” and “unworkable,” PCIA said in its reply comments: “Not only would it be difficult -- if not impossible -- for tower owners to comply with all of the guidelines, but it would also lead to absurd results.” For example, it said, guideline 1, which encouraged colocation of 6-10 providers on a single tower, wasn’t consistent with guideline 2, which recommended that no tower exceed 199 ft.: “It would be very difficult for 6 to 10 different providers to colocate on a tower less than 200 feet” due to mandatory separation requirements.
PCIA said locating towers in clusters recommended by the guideline 4 would concentrate all signals into a discrete subdivision, leaving the rest of the geographic area without coverage. It said the 4th guideline’s recommendation to keep site towers away from wetlands “completely [ignored] the fact that, in certain portions of the country, wetlands and adverse weather patterns are the norm. Mandatory application of these guidelines would mean that Americans in these markets would effectively be cut off from wireless services.”
The NAB expressed concern that reduction in tower height could “severely inhibit a licensee’s ability to reach much of its community of license, thereby depriving large segments of the population of news, weather, entertainment, educational programming and emergency information.” It said the Commission should recognize that all communications structures would require eventual replacement, and that many new towers could be required to complete the digital TV transition.
NAB said the guidelines themselves could “inadvertently contribute to an increase in avian mortality by indirectly promoting a proliferation of shorter towers.” It said because the current scientific research had been “biased to examine primarily tall, lit and guyed towers, the effects of short towers, unlit and/or unguyed towers on avian populations remain wholly unknown.”
CTIA said the FCC couldn’t adopt the guidelines because of the lack of substantial evidence. It said the guidelines were developed without public participation, scrutiny of its underlying factual basis or opportunities for judicial review: “The government cannot do an end run around the basic requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act to develop a factual record, respond to comments and engage in reasoned decision making by merely ‘adopting’ a guideline developed for another purpose.” CTIA also criticized environmental groups seeking immediate action by the FCC on towers, saying they misunderstood “relevant principles of environmental or administrative law.” It said “no further action or change in the FCC’s regulation [was] appropriate at this time” because it was “a basic tenet of administrative law that government may not regulate arbitrarily without a sound factual basis.”
In a separate filing, the Assn. of Public-Safety Communications Officials International (APCO) said it was concerned that the inquiry “not lead to significant restrictions on the placement of communications facilities.” It said public safety agencies’ dependence on ubiquitous, reliable radio communications systems required that “there be sufficient quantity, size and location of transmission towers.” APCO said as public safety systems continued to move into the 800 MHz and 700 MHz bands, “towers will become even more important to provide adequate in-building coverage and service to isolated locations.” It urged the Commission to “take into consideration the vital role of communications towers in the protection of life, health and property,” saying the accuracy of provision Enhanced 911 service by wireless carriers was “often a function of the number and location of cell sites.” Cingular Wireless and SBC said “in their zeal to protect migratory birds,” advocates of immediate rule change “would jeopardize the health, safety and economic well-being of the American people.”