Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) signed agreement...

for colocating antennas on existing towers under Sec. 106 of National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). State and tribal historic preservation officers had discussed procedural changes with communications industry following flood of new applications as result of recent growth in wireless communications towers. Wireless industry had sought changes as way to help relieve administrative backlogs that were delaying tower construction. Agreement is product of 7 months of industry and federal, state and tribal govt. negotiations. Under pact, most colocations on existing towers will be exempt from ACHP siting review procedures. Sec. 106 requires federal agencies to consider effects of their undertakings on historic properties. Agreement acknowledges that effect on historic properties of antenna colocations on towers is “likely to be minimal and not adverse.” FCC said Fri. that national agreement was designed to relieve “unnecessary administrative burdens” on agency licensees, tower companies, state historic preservation officers and Commission “while protecting the goals of the NHPA.” Agreement allows antenna to be mounted on tower built on or before March 16, 2001, unless it: (1) Will increase substantially in size, based on factors such as raising height by more than 10%. (2) Has been determined by FCC to have impact on one or more historic properties unless there’s “no adverse effect” finding. (3) Is under pending environmental review or FCC proceeding involving Sec. 106 compliance. Additional caveat includes cases where licensee or tower owner has received notification that FCC has received complaint about adverse effect. Colocation on towers constructed after March 16 also is covered with similar caveats. “This agreement provides for flexibility now for carriers and tower companies to move forward,” PCIA Senior Vp-Govt. Relations Robert Hoggarth said. “The fundamental advantage of this agreement is simply that it allows historical preservation officials to focus on the small percentage of towers that do have an impact.” FCC signed off on agreement last week after it had allowed additional time earlier this year for comments on draft from tribal representatives. “Tribal concerns need to be addressed in this process,” Hoggarth said. “The programmatic agreement is the beginning as opposed to the end,” he said, noting PCIA was meeting with representatives of southern and eastern tribes today (Mon.) to begin identifying model siting agreement. Still, FCC Comr. Tristani expressed concerns that agreement fell short of agency’s commitment to facilitate tribal consultation in agency regulatory processes. Commission received nearly 20 comments from tribal govts. on draft, she said. “The overwhelming majority told us our approach is not working,” Tristani said. “This response is prima facie evidence that our understanding of tribal consultation is misguided.”