Industry Groups Alarmed by FCC Approach on Antenna Rules
A wireless industry coalition warned that the FCC could be on the wrong track as it moves forward on its Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) of the Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) process. CTIA, NAB, PCIA and the National Association of Tower Erectors said the FCC appears to being giving too much weight to a study by Travis Longcore of the Urban Wildlands Group in Los Angeles and other scientists who want quick action imposing new rules for tower construction.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The FCC is examining its tower siting rules in response to a February 2008 remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (CD Feb 20/08 p2). In January, environmental groups submitted the Longcore studies to the FCC (CD Jan 18 p8). Longcore asserted that a significant number of members of species that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified as birds of conservation concern are being killed as they fly into communications towers.
Comments made at an April workshop by URS, a consultant being used by the FCC, “made it clear that two manuscripts by Travis Longcore et al. concerning avian mortality and avian species composition would play an important role in the Commission’s PEA decisionmaking process,” the industry coalition said in a filing in dockets 08-61 and 03-187. The papers “contain mistakes, misinterpretations and omissions that render them unusable for this purpose,” the filing said.
The industry coalition filed a paper by consultant Environmental Resources Management (ERM) disputing Longcore papers. The papers “draw conclusions about communications towers’ effects on avian mortality in general based on an analysis of data that has been collected, in large part, under non-representative conditions,” ERM concluded. The Longcore studies rely on “extreme events at specific communications tower structures (e.g., poor weather conditions during migration and towers with historic known bird strike problems),” ERM said. “Data collection was often conducted in relation to specific weather conditions known to influence bird strike rates and the presence of high concentrations of migrating birds and so are not likely representative of most structures, locations, or conditions."
The industry filing said the papers appear designed to find high mortality rates from collisions with towers. “Projecting avian mortality rates under average conditions from such data would be a bit like projecting auto accident rates by studying only zero-visibility multi-car collisions,” the filing said.
"We acknowledge the tower industry’s in-kind contribution to our research by paying for an external peer review of our manuscripts,” Longcore said in response. If the report’s authors “have made any legitimate critiques, they will be addressed by our international team of bird mortality experts as these manuscripts make their way through the publication process.” A spokesman for the American Bird Conservancy declined to comment.