WASHINGTON-Western Wireless Corp. on June 13 strongly objected to the Federal Communications Commission’s proposed fine for operating a tower in a historic area without proper authorization.
The FCC wants to fine Western Wireless Corp. $200,000 for constructing and continuing to operate a 180-foot tower in Medora, N.D., on a ridge overlooking a historic area. The proposed fine-known as a notice of apparent liability-is the first time the FCC has enforced its historic preservation environmental rules.
“The only possible actual or theoretical significant effects to historic properties from the Medora tower are visual effects. Visual effects are by definition aesthetic effects, and the FCC has a long-standing express policy of not automatically requiring [environmental assessments] for aesthetic effects for its licensed facilities. In this case, Western had undertaken an extensive consultation process with local officials to address these aesthetic effects. The FCC’s express policy is, and should be in this case, to give great weight to the local zoning commission’s action. Therefore, under FCC rules and policy, no EA was required prior to construction of the Medora tower,” said Western.
In addition to the proposed monetary fine, the FCC also warned Western that it must either stop operating the tower or bring the tower into compliance within 30 days. Finally, Western must file an environmental assessment.
Instead, Western answered by saying that the entire ordeal has gone against FCC precedent.
The tower in question is a “visual intrusion” on the Chateau de Mores State Historic Site, the de Mores Packing Plant State Historic Site, the Theodore Roosevelt Maltese Cross Cabin and the Peaceful Valley Ranch, Michael Simonson told the FCC in 1999. Simonson is the review and compliance coordinator for the State Historical Society of North Dakota. Western responded with its own expert who claims there is no historical impact. It also said that Simonson should have made his concerns known before the tower was constructed.
In other siting news, Virginia Beach, Va.’s city council earlier this month voted to allow T-Mobile USA Inc. to build two stealth monopoles in the same neighborhood where it had successfully fought against an AT&T Wireless Services Inc. tower in the 1990s.
“This was a significant zoning win that reflects how things have changed since 1998,” said Tim Fincham, T-Mobile’s director of engineering and operation in Virginia.
Virginia Beach successfully required AT&T Wireless to remove a tower in 1998, but after working with the community, T-Mobile was able to gain approval for its poles, which will resemble light poles and be located at a swim and tennis facility.
Also, Nevada’s governor recently signed a new siting ordinance that allows collocated facilitates to be approved at the staff level. It also prohibits rejection of a tower based on radio-frequency emissions if the facility meets FCC guidelines.
The Communications Act currently prohibits localities from rejecting towers based on RF emissions, but the Vermont delegation in Congress is expected to reintroduce legislation after Labor Day that would allow local officials to deny antenna-siting applications for health reasons.
In a separate issue, OmniPoint was barred from building a tower in Pennsylvania when a court there upheld a previous ruling that there was not a “significant gap” in coverage because seven other carriers have coverage in the disputed area.
“We merely hold that a fact finder determining the existence of a significant gap should examine whether other providers already serve the area,” explained the court. “The fact that one applicant may have coverage problems is not determinative of whether there is a significant gap.”
RCR Wireless News Washington Bureau Chief Jeff Silva contributed to this report, and some information was compiled from various news outlets.
