WASHINGTON-The EMR Network-a grassroots organization of people opposed to wireless facilities due to a fear of the impact of radiation-has come out strongly against a recent publication of the National Trust for Historic Preservation that is meant to help in siting stealth antennas and collocations.
“This slick document gives many details on how to mount cell-phone base stations and antennas inside historic buildings-including churches-to gain revenue for the protection of these icons of our history. … We must nip this well meaning, but potentially disastrous effort in the bud!” reads an e-mail sent to the EMR Network and obtained by RCR Wireless News.
The EMR Network is especially upset because its Web site is listed in the reference section of the National Trust’s brochure dealing with the potential for health impacts from towers.
“The EMR Network was not approached about participating in this publication nor told that its Web site would be given as a resource. If the request or notification had come in advance, the EMR Network would have requested that a statement of our position on the potential harm of exposure to radio-frequency radiation at ambient levels coming from wireless telecommunications transmitters be included with the reference to our Web site,” reads the e-mail.
“The National Trust for Historic Preservation listed the EMR Network in Locating Telecommunications Towers in Historic Buildings in a box entitled `Health Consideration,’ which specifically addresses threats to human health. The purpose of the publication is to help readers understand the subject and offer resources to conduct further research, which is why we listed EMR Network’s Web site,” said Patricia O’Connell, assistant director of communications for the National Trust.
Meanwhile, the Federal Communications Commission is finishing a collocation programmatic agreement with the Advisory Commission on Historic Preservation.
The agreement would give amnesty to existing towers if no complaints had been received by the FCC and for towers and collocations on buildings or in areas that are not at least 45 years old. Collocations would be allowed on these structures without going through the historic preservation process. Towers built after a certain date would need to go through a formal historic review process, including consultation with state historic preservation officers.
An historic preservation review comes under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. New rules implementing Section 106 recently increased the number of steps from seven to 32. Section 106 rules require the FCC to sign off on any wireless facility because it allows for the transmission using a federal wireless license.
The FCC put out a public notice requesting comment on a draft programmatic agreement that tracks closely with a document written and negotiated by the wireless industry. Comments are due Jan. 23. The hope is to have a final document ready to be presented at a meeting of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers on Jan. 29 in Providence, R.I.
“I am sure there will be comments filed on the 23rd but our hope is that they will be coming in over the course of the month and will be able to get some work done before the 23rd,” said an FCC official.
The FCC still expects to be involved when a complaint is filed saying a wireless facility has an adverse impact on a historic property, but it hopes the final agreement will keep it from going back and working with the ACHP on each tower that may not have been reviewed when it was built.
The programmatic agreement is the second step in a process that began last August where ACHP staff brought together officials from the historic preservation community, the wireless industry and the FCC to examine what to do with the towers that were built without going through the historic preservation process and new towers and collocations that are yet to be sited. Four meetings of a 35-member telecom users group were convened to look at the issues involved with building wireless facilities.
The first step was a letter from ACHP staff indicating to SHPOs that it was permissible for the FCC to delegate its authority in the historic preservation process to carriers, tower companies and their representatives.
