[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