[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 159 (Tuesday, August 18, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44274-44276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-22121]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Notice of Publication of Final Procedures and Guidance for the
Siting of Telecommunication Antenna Sites in Units of the National Park
Service
AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Public notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) announces finalization and
publication of the guidance and procedures document dealing
specifically with the siting of Telecommunication Antenna Sites in
units of the NPS. This information was
[[Page 44275]]
developed to provide guidance and procedures to all units of the
National Park System who deal with requests for establishing
Telecommunication Antenna sites in compliance with section 704(c) of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104. This document will
appear as and may be found in Exhibit 6 of Appendix 8 of NPS-53, the
NPS Guide-line on Special Park Uses which master document is already
approved finalized and published.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the guidance document will be made available upon
request by writing to National Park Service, Ranger Activities
Division, 184 C St. NW, Suite 7408, Washington, DC 20240, or by calling
202-208-4874. The guidance document is also avail-able electronically
as a downloadable file at the following web site: //www.nps.gov/
refdesk/Dorders/index.htm
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dick Young at 757-898-7846, or 757-
898-3400, ext. 51.
On Monday, March 2, 1998, the NPS published a notice in the Federal
Register (63 FR 10243) requesting public comments on the proposed
guidance and procedures document for the siting of Telecommunication
Antenna Sites in all units of the NPS. The NPS received 10 responses to
that notice. Those comments of significance, and the responses to those
comments are as follows.
Comment: The NPS should interpret its statutory authorities to
recognize that Wireless Telecommunication Facilities (WTF)
presumptively can be sited in parks without impermissibly derogating
park values and purposes.
Response: Siting of WTF on NPS land may be permissible under the
NPS Organic Act, provided that, as specified in the Telecommunications
Act, the use is not in direct conflict with the mission of the NPS. The
NPS recognizes that a WTF may be sited on NPS land without
impermissibly derogating park values and purposes, but declines to
establish a presumption to this effect. The NPS does not believe the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 establishes such a presumption, or
requires the NPS to interpret the term ``derogation'' in the NPS
organic act in a more careful and limiting manner. The
Telecommunications Act requires the establishment of procedures by
which the NPS and other federal agencies may make federal lands
available for WTF sites on a fair, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory
basis, and states that these procedures ``may establish a presumption
that requests for the use of property, rights-of-way, and easements by
duly authorized providers should be granted absent unavoidable direct
conflict with the department or agencies' mission, or the current or
planned use of the property, rights-of-way, and easements in
question.'' The procedures developed by GSA do not establish this
presumption, but rather establish several guiding principles for
federal agencies to follow.
Comment: The NPS guidelines should explain more clearly how siting
of WTF near existing commercial and maintenance facilities in parks can
be excluded categorically from NEPA.
Response: The NPS has provided additional guidance concerning
applications for right-of-way permits (including those for WTF sites)
and the NEPA process in NPS-53. The NPS disagrees that any of the
categorical exclusions in the current NPS NEPA Guidelines (revised June
1998) will apply to all or most proposed WTF sites near existing
commercial and maintenance facilities. Each proposal for a WTF site
must be analyzed individually to determine whether a categorical
exclusion applies. If a categorical exclusion potentially applies, the
action must be analyzed further to determine whether an exception to
the categorical exclusion applies. Placement of a WTF site near
commercial or maintenance facilities does not automatically mean that
there will be no visual intrusion or impacts on historic or cultural
resources generated from the height of the antenna structures.
Moreover, modifications, which may need to be made to accommodate the
proposed WTF site, such as additional access or construction, could
generate additional disturbance and additional impacts.
Comment: The Comprehensive Assessment should be prepared
immediately or be integrated in the Environmental Assessment (EA)
prepared on a WTF site permit application, and not be a decisional
document.
Response: The NPS agrees that the Comprehensive Assessment should
not be a decisional document. It is intended to be a purely optional,
information gathering process, for the information and possible use of
the park manager. Finally, there is not now nor was there ever a
requirement that such a review be completed before an application is
considered.
Comment: The guideline should further specify time frames for the
right-of-way application acceptance process.
Response: The NPS did not originally have a specified deadline for
determining when an application was complete, and feels that the 10
days (first submittal) and 10 days (resubmittal of information for
determination of a complete application) recommended by the commenter
is appropriate.
Comment: Where a WTF right-of-way permit application is eligible
for a categorical exclusion from NEPA the final rule should specify
that the entire permit process ought to take no longer than an
additional 60 days after the initial determination. The final rule also
should create a strong presumption that, for all other WTF right-of-way
applications, the entire permitting process should not exceed one year
from application submission.
Response: The NPS does not feel it is necessary to set forth time
frames for the entire permitting process. Neither the
Telecommunications Act nor the implementing GSA procedures speak to the
entire permitting process, only to the decision whether to allow a WTF
site on federal land. Preliminary decisions on the acceptability of
proposed sites should be rendered as soon as possible but no later than
60 days after receipt of an application.
Comment: The guidelines should require expedited review of a WTF
permit application where serious public safety concerns are present.
Response: The lack of cellular telecommunications equipment does
not constitute a serious public safety concern that would cause us to
expedite a review or otherwise give priority consideration to the
application. The NPS feels that all applications should receive equal
and expedited reviews and that each application presents it's own
public safety concerns. In addition the NPS feels that the 60-day
Initial Determination time period designated by GSA already constitutes
an expedited processing of such applications.
Comment: The guidelines should adopt a presumption in favor of
uniform fee schedules for determining fair market value for
communication rights-of-way''.
Response: The NPS has historically dealt with determining land and/
or facility use fees for utility rights-of-way on a park by park basis
and sees no overriding reason to change that practice. We are, however,
including reference to the USFS fee schedule for possible use by park
managers as a tool to base a comparison on if not actual use.
Comment: Pending WTF permit applications should be grandfathered,
regardless of whether they are deemed ``complete''.
Response: The NPS agrees that the final guidelines should not
constitute a basis for the NPS to review previous
[[Page 44276]]
decisions regarding applications currently under review or received
prior to the finalization of these guidelines. Applications that have
been received will be judged under the rules and laws in effect at the
time they were accepted, and resultant permits issued under the
appropriate guidance. However, it is not the intent of these guidelines
to create new application information and review requirements, but to
provide guidance concerning existing requirements to NPS management for
their consideration.
Comment: WTF permit applicants must have reasonable access to parks
to prepare complete applications.
Response: The NPS agrees, but reserves the right to impose such
conditions as may be needed to protect the resource.
Comment: Right-Of-Way application information requirements must
limit requests for and protect proprietary information, especially
involving ``propagation maps''.
Response: The NPS agrees that the NPS is obligated to keep
confidential certain commercial information and other types of
information, which may be provided by an applicant. Our guidelines will
be modified to remind park Superintendents of the FOIA rules. In
addition, the 15-mile radius will be clarified as a discretionary
limit.
Comment: The proposed provisions for Right-Of-Way termination and
suspension are unreasonable to the wireless telecommunications
industry.
Response: The proposed provisions for termination and suspension of
these right-of-way permits continue to be under consideration by the
Department and will be addressed when final NPS right-of-way
regulations are adopted in 36 CFR Part 14.
Comment: The guidelines should provide an opportunity to discuss
and negotiate any problems with an applicant during the application
review process.
Response: The NPS agrees that the applicant should have the
opportunity to discuss those matters that apply to the application.
This would actually be the second of four such possible meetings to be
described in the procedures: one prior to application; one during the
initial determination period, if needed; one immediately after the
acceptance of an application; and the last prior to signing of the
permit, again if needed.
Comment: NPS should not require reviews regarding electromagnetic
radiation and related communications technology issues.
Response: The NPS is aware of the large volume of research and
investigation in place concerning electromagnetic radiation hazard and
wireless technology applications. We are also aware of the radiation
exposure hazard standards set out by ANSI, and the more recent FCC
proposed new standards for rf exposure. Considering all this, the NPS
must err on the side of caution in concern for public health and safety
by mandating technological review before a WTF site can be approved.
Comment: The transfer of a FCC license is not a basis for
termination of the ROW permit.
Response: The permittee agrees, in the ROW permit conditions, that
the permit is not transferable without the approval of the NPS. In
point of fact, this is not an isolated condition and has occurred with
some regularity in other utility rights-of-way as one-company merges or
buys out another. The routine procedure is to either convert the
existing or issue a new ROW permit to the new company depending on
circumstances. We see no reason to treat WTF ROW permits differently.
Comment: The procedures do not clearly require adequate or
consistent compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and
other relevant statutes.
Response: The NPS accepts the comment and has revised the
procedures accordingly.
Comment: The procedures are silent on wilderness which could infer
that all designated or proposed national park system wilderness lands
are excluded from the scope of the procedures.
Response: The NPS accepts the comment and has revised the
procedures to include a statement in the Guidance section reading:
``Except as specifically provided by law or policy, there will be no
permanent road, structure or installation within any study, proposed,
or designated wilderness area (see Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. 1131). The
NPS will not issue any new right-of-way permits or widen or lengthen
any existing rights-of-way in designated or proposed wilderness areas.
This includes the installation of utilities.''
Comment: Can the NPS write their procedures to include language
requiring permittees to allow co-location.
Response: The decision whether or not to allow co-location must
pass the same tests as the decision to allow a first antenna. The
permit that we issue will have a condition that, if technologically
feasible, we will encourage co-location.
Dated: July 29, 1998.
Robert C. Marriott,
Acting Chief, Ranger Activities Division.
[FR Doc. 98-22121 Filed 8-17-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
