# Notice of Publication of Final Procedures and Guidance for the Siting of Telecommunication Antenna Sites in Units of the National Park Service > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-22121 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Notice - **Published:** August 18, 1998 - **Citation:** 63 FR 44274 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A98-22121. Public record. Not legal advice.