environmental assessment

Subscribe to environmental assessment

November is a month where there are no regularly scheduled regulatory deadlines.  But the big question for broadcasters may be whether the FCC will continue to function throughout the month. The last-minute continuing resolution passed by Congress on September 30 extended federal government funding through November 17 – which again raises the possibility of a federal government shutdown beginning in late November if Congress does not approve new funding measures for Fiscal Year 2024 by that date.  As we discussed in our previous article regarding October Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters, if a government shutdown does occur, the FCC and other government agencies may have to cease all but critical functions if they do not have any residual funds to continue operations.  In late September, the FCC announced that it had sufficient leftover funds to keep operating for about two weeks after a shutdown.  We do not know if those funds are still available, so we need to be watching to see what happens between now and November 17.

Assuming that there is no shutdown, there are a number of other dates that broadcasters should be watching.  All broadcasters need to remember that November 20 is the deadline to file their ETRS Form Three to provide more detailed information regarding their stations’ performance during the October 4 Nationwide EAS Test.  See our article here regarding this year’s EAS test and broadcasters’ reporting obligations.  This deadline is important for many reasons – not just to avoid potential penalties for missing the filing deadline, but also to demonstrate broadcasters’ commitment to the emergency communications system as broadcasters’ role in that system is the principal reason for Congress to be presently considering the bill to require AM radio in every car.  See our article here for more on the importance of accurate reporting. Continue Reading November Regulatory Dates for Broadcasters – EAS ETRS Form 3, 12.5 GHz Registrations, C-Band Transition Comment Deadline, a Possible Government Shutdown, and More

The FCC has released the comment dates for its draft rules setting out when Environmental Assessments are needed to formally evaluate the environmental impact of the construction and major alteration of communications towers.  We wrote about these draft rules here, and described their history –  growing out of concerns by conservation groups about the effects of communications…

The question of the environmental impact of the construction or significant alteration of a communications tower has been a matter of controversy for quite some time.  Three years ago, when conservation groups challenged the FCC’s procedures on the approval of towers and the consideration of the impact that such towers have on migratory birds, the US Court of Appeals ordered the FCC to include more public participation in the determination of whether those towers required detailed environmental studies ( an "environmental assessment" or an "EA") before they could be built.  This week, the FCC sought comments on their Draft Environmental Notice Requirements and Interim Procedures for its Antenna Registration Program.  These rules propose:

  • That, before an Antenna Structure Registration ("ASR") is issued by the FCC, any applicant must first give public notice of the construction in a local newspaper or other local media source.  The proposal will also be listed on the FCC’s website.  These notices are to allow the public to comment on the proposal.   
  •  If an EA is required, the FCC will process that assessment before the filing of the ASR
  • An EA will preliminarily be required for all requests for an ASR for towers of more than 450 feet to determine its impact on migratory birds, though the FCC may modify this requirement after further study.

This proposal is somewhat tracks the proposed requirements for an EA that were set out in a settlement agreement between many affected parties, including conservation groups, the NAB and CTIA – an agreement about which we wrote here.  That agreement, while conclusively requiring an EA for towers of over 450 feet, stated that towers between 351 and 450 feet would be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and left open the question of whether an EA would be required for towers of 350 feet or less. Continue Reading FCC Requests Comments on Draft Requirements for Environmental Assessments of the Impact of Tower Construction – Including The Effect on Migratory Birds

The FCC today announced that it will be holding a series of three hearings to assess the environmental impact of its Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) program.  The FCC is required by the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") to determine if its programs have any adverse environmental impact.  In a Court decision in 2008, the US Court of Appeals determined that the FCC had not adequately assessed its obligations under NEPA with respect to the impact of communications towers on birds after there were claims that towers killed millions of birds each year.  The hearings are to review the Commission’s ASR process to gather evidence to determine whether a more extensive analysis of the potential environmental impact of tower construction is necessary when towers are constructed or modified.  In addition to the hearing, the FCC is soliciting written public comment on these proceedings. 

After the Court decision, American Bird Conservancy v. FCC, parties representing those involved in tower construction and conservation groups engaged in a series of discussions to attempt to resolve issues raised in the case.  The parties included the NAB, CTIA, PCIA, and the National Association of Tower Erectors.  Conservation groups included the American Bird Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, and The National Audubon Society.  These parties reached an agreement that was submitted to the FCC, setting out three levels of environmental review of tower construction, based on the height of the tower proposed.  As summarized below, the height of a proposed tower would determine if the proposal for construction had to be placed on a Public Notice by the FCC, soliciting public comment about the proposed construction, and whether the tower would need to have an Environmental Assessment ("EA") completed before it was constructed (an EA is a more extensive analysis of the environmental impact of planned construction than the Environmental Impact Statements that most broadcasters include with their current FCC applications).  The parties suggested the following:

  • For New Towers above 450 feet above ground, an Environmental Assessment would need to be conducted, and any proposal would be put on a public notice to solicit public comment
  • For New Towers between 351 and 450 feet, the proposal would be put on a public notice by the FCC and, after comments are filed, the FCC would decide on a case-by-case basis if an Environmental Assessment is necessary
  • For New Towers 350 or less, the parties could not agree as to whether Public Notice would be required.  Resolution of whether Public Notice was required was left to the FCC. 

This proposal has not been adopted by the FCC, so it will no doubt be addressed as part of these hearings. Continue Reading FCC Plans Hearings on Environmental Impact of Tower Registration Program – Follow Up to Court Case on Impact of Communications Towers on Birds

A recent FCC decision shows how important it is for an applicant for a construction permit for a new or modified broadcast station, which entails the construction of a new tower, to take all steps set out on the the environmental worksheets associated with FCC Form 301 before certifying that the tower will not create environmental issues.  In the recent case, the FCC did not find that any actual environmental issues existed with the applicant’s proposed construction of a new tower, but it nevertheless stated that it would have fined the applicant for a false certification if the statute of limitations for the fine had not passed.  Why?  Simply because the applicant had not touched all of the required bases before making its certification that the tower construction posed no threat to the environment.  The applicant had tried to argue that no environmental study was necessary as the site was a de facto tower farm given that there were already two towers nearby, but that claim was rejected by the FCC, finding that nearby towers do not necessarily constitute a tower farm.

The tower farm issue was interesting in that the applicant pointed to the fact that there were two existing towers within a couple hundred feet of his proposed tower, and thus the existence of these towers, plus the word that he received from local authorities that the site was a good one at which to build a site due to the lack of any perceived impacts, was not sufficient either to make the site a "tower farm" exempt from further environmental processing, nor was it sufficient to demonstrate that there was no need for further environmental study.  The FCC’s staff did a thorough review of the cases about what constitutes a tower farm and, while noting that there was no clear definition in the rules, found that the two nearby towers, as they were substantially shorter than the one proposed by the applicant, were not of the same "character" as that proposed by the applicant, and thus the site was not a tower farm.  Apparently, to some degree, the FCC adopted a "we’ll know it when we see it" approach to the definition of a tower farm, and concluded that they did not see it here.Continue Reading When are a Bunch of Towers Really a Tower Farm – Only the FCC Knows for Sure