In July 2015, the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) released a scoping document and invited input from State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), Federally recognized Tribal Nations, the historic preservation community, and other stakeholders on a new program alternative to improve and facilitate the review process for deployments of small wireless communications facilities, including Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and small cell facilities, under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
The FCC’s rules require applicants to follow the regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), as modified by two Nationwide Programmatic Agreements (NPAs) in order to determine whether undertakings will affect historic properties. In May 2016, the FCC released a proposed Amended Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas (Amended Collocation Agreement). The amended NPA is intended to enable swift and responsible deployment of wireless broadband services – including deployments that will support next generation 5G wireless service offerings – while maintain the role that States and Tribal Nations play in reviewing projects with potentially significant effects.
The current Collocation Agreement provides an exclusion for collocations, outside of historic districts, on buildings and non-tower structures that are not over 45 years of age. The proposed amendment to the Collocation Agreement would add new stipulations:
- establishing an exclusion for small wireless antennas and associated equipment mounted on buildings or non-tower structures or in the interior of buildings that are over 45 years of age if they are not historic properties and are outside of historic districts;
- to provide an exclusion from review for a small wireless antenna and associated equipment mounted on a building or non-tower structure (or in the interior of a building) that is a historic property or inside or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district, subject to visibility limits;
- to provide exclusions form the Section 106 process for visible small wireless antennas and associated equipment deployments on historic properties or in historic districts.
In addition, there are a number of other proposed minor amendments to the Collocation Agreement intended to clarify and simplify it, without changing the way the exclusions have worked in practice.
In June 2016, comments were received from 24 participants, including comments from several nationwide associations that were generally in support of the amendments. Additional recommendations include:
The Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA) filed comments commending the FCC’s ongoing effort to improve the review process for deployments of small wireless antennas and associated equipment. Among several recommendations submitted by the WIA were that the FCC should eliminate “proximity” limitations when considering deployments near historic districts, and that the FCC should not impose cumulative volume limits for wireless equipment associated with a building or other large structure.
The Competitive Carriers Association (CCA) welcomed the Amended Collocation Agreement, along with the FCC’s broader efforts to ensure bedrock small wireless antennas, associated equipment, and small cell facility deployment policies conducive to foundational 5G network deployment, as well as increasing coverage and spectral efficiency. CCA approved of the amended Collocation Agreement, subject to targeted modifications including that the FCC should consider amending the 45-years-old gating factor under Stipulation V, by increasing the cutoff for buildings and non-tower structures outside historic districts which do not require a Section 106 review.
The CTIA also supported amendments to the Collocation Agreement as essential steps toward facilitating broadband deployment and 5G wireless services, and suggested some additional exclusions, modifications, and clarifications for the FCC’s consideration. Specifically, the CTIA recommended that the Commission clarify 1) the State Historic Preservation Officers coordination process; 2) clarify that a visible equipment shed meeting a specified volumetric limit may be deployed under Exemption VII; and 3) the Commission should clarify the visibility restrictions under proposed Section VII of the Agreement.
In other comments, the Zayo Group - providers of infrastructure, network-neutral collocation and related telecommunications services - enthusiastically supported the Agreement while recommending that the FCC should consider modifying the cubit feet limitations, stating that these “restrictions place significant practical engineering restraints on the ability of wireless carriers and their infrastructure partners to bring the most effective and efficient wireless solutions to market, and consequently drives up costs and reduces availability of wireless broadband service.”
Review comments submitted by participating parties here.
