Report On the National Antenna Tower Policy Review

Industry Canada Registration Number 54220B
Submitted: December 6, 2004
The views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of Industry Canada or the Government of Canada.

This study was performed pursuant to Contract for Services No. 5007559 between Industry Canada and the University of New Brunswick (UNB).

Principal Investigator: 
David A. Townsend
Faculty of Law
UNB

Foreword

This project was undertaken at the request of Industry Canada. Mr. Rob Cepella was the departmental project officer for the study. The report addresses six policy questions - five of which were developed by Industry Canada and one by the author, David A. Townsend. These questions were developed as the framework to conduct a thorough study and public consultation on the current environment related to Canada's authorization processes for radiocommunication antennas and their supporting structures.

During the data collection phase of this project a number of sources were utilized: A bilingual e-town hall website was developed and mounted for public access, interaction and input. In-person and teleconference meetings were held with citizens and citizen groups wishing to have input into this consultation, with the major radiocommunication stakeholders in Canada, with companies peripherally related to antenna tower structures, with government officials at every level and with environmental advocates. Formal Written Submissions were made by numerous interested parties and hundreds of informal email and telephone comments were received from across the country. Many of these were mounted on the website to allow comment and discussion amongst the relevant parties. Finally, extensive independent research was conducted over the contract period.

Monthly teleconference meetings were held with the National Antenna Tower Review Advisory Committee - a panel of experts appointed by Industry Canada from across the country whose mandate was "to support and assist the consultation and research activities undertaken by the contractor." This group met in Ottawa in late June in order to offer feedback and input for the writing of the final report.

The conclusions and recommendations of this report reflect the judgment of the researcher and are solely his responsibility. The gracious cooperation of all the individuals and organizations who provided input is gratefully acknowledged.

Principal Investigator
David A. Townsend
Faculty of Law
University of New Brunswick
Fredericton, New Brunswick
November 2004

Acknowledgments

Members of the University of New Brunswick Project Team, including Keith Culver, Paul Howe, Stephen Grant, and Mark Gallagher of xwave Solutions Inc., an Aliant Company, were essential to the successful completion of the project. Another essential team member, Veronica McGinn of the Centre for Property Studies at UNB, handled many of the administrative and organizational details of this contract. The Centre for Property Studies was particularly instrumental during the organizational stages for this project. [For more information on the members of the UNB team and their role see Section B.]

The members of the National Antenna Tower Review Advisory Committee have been generous with their time and expertise in providing advice and feedback during the course of this research. Committee members are: Rod Dobell, Mary McBride, Frank Leonard, Nick Makale, Roger Poirier, Christine Racine and Bill Rowat. For more information on the members of this committee and their role see Section B.

Over the course of this contract, I have had numerous communications with Rob Cepella of Industry Canada. He has always been helpful and supportive. As well, Michelle Beaupré provided administrative and support services to the National Advisory Committee and helped on many occasions with other project details.

I am deeply indebted to Kirsten Drake-McKnight, UNB law student, for her invaluable assistance in the research and writing of this report. As well, a number of other UNB students have contributed their expertise and assistance to this project. They are: Greg Crowell, Hillary Flaherty, Jackie Gallant, Emily Head, Toby Stoddart, Anita Connolly, and Shirley Von Sychowski.

Section A - Executive Summary

Background

On March 28, 2003, the Honourable Allan Rock, (then) Minister of Industry, announced the establishment of a National Antenna Tower Policy Review. After careful review of project proposals, a Policy Review Team - a group from the University of New Brunswick - was selected. This review team was mandated to consult with citizens, with communities and with relevant companies regarding improvements to the policy and siting procedures for antenna tower placement. In addition to the review team, a committee of Canadian experts was assembled, to be known as the National Antenna Tower Advisory Committee. This committee advised the policy review team throughout the course of its consultation and research activities.

Professor David A. Townsend of the Faculty of Law at the University of New Brunswick was selected to head both the policy review team and the national advisory panel of experts. The UNB Policy Review Team provided research and support services for the policy review. Members of this team include: From UNB - Keith Culver, Paul Howe, Stephen Grant, Veronica McGinn, Mark Doucette; and Mark Gallagher of xwave Solutions Inc. an Aliant company. The National Antenna Tower Advisory Committee met by teleconference on a monthly basis, and provided expert advice for the on-going policy review. The committee consisted of eight municipal, industry, health and academic representatives: Rod Dobell, Mary McBride, Frank Leonard, Nick Makale, Roger Poirier, Christine Racine, William (Bill) Rowat, and David A. Townsend.

Six Policy Questions

This report contains research information and general policy recommendations for improvement to Canada's antenna authorization processes, and in particular, provides answers and recommendations related to the following six policy questions: 

Data Collection

Over the course of this contract period numerous methods of data collection were utilized in order to optimize opportunities for consultation with, and input from, all relevant and interested constituencies. The methods of data collection included an interactive "e-Town hall" website, survey questionnaire, in-person and telephone interviews, electronic communications, Formal Written Submissions, informal submissions, telephone discussions, and in-person and teleconference meetings. The views and recommendations of individual citizens, citizen groups, government departments at all levels, commercial and public safety radio users, radio amateurs, radiocommunication associations, peripheral businesses and organizations, and environmental groups were received and incorporated in the analysis of data. Every opportunity was taken in order to make this an independent national public consultation.

Principal Recommendations

The recommendations of this policy review are: 

Question 1(a):  How can the local consultation process regarding the siting of a specific tower be improved?

Recommendation 1:  That the legislative authority to regulate the siting of radiocommunication antennas and their supporting structures should remain exclusively with the Government of Canada.

Recommendation 2:  That Industry Canada should ensure that the proponents of significant antenna structures be required to consult directly with the citizens who may be the most directly impacted by the establishment or modification of the structures.

Recommendation 3:  That the policy framework involving Client Procedure Circular 2-0-03, Environmental Process, Radiofrequency Fields and Land-Use Consultation (CPC 2-0-03) and the other licensing and policy documents that describe differing land-use consultation requirements for particular types of radio stations should be examined. The consultation requirements for various categories of radio stations may be too different to be described within a single policy circular.

Recommendation 4:  That Industry Canada should examine the practical implications of using the requirement for a site-specific radio authorization ("Type 1" and "Type 2" radio stations) as a means of streaming radio station approvals into the structured or the flexible land-use consultation model.

Recommendation 5:  That more policy guidance must be provided by Industry Canada to radio users, land-use authorities and the public as to the policy criteria that will make a land-use consultation mandatory for antenna proponents.

Recommendation 6:  That radiocommunication policy addressing local consultations should specify the issues that may and may not be discussed. Also, land-use authorities should be informed about the nature and extent to which they may legitimately request siting-related accommodations from antenna proponents.

Recommendation 7:  That policy documents addressing land-use consultation issues should offer a protocol for the expression of concurrence/approval by land-use authorities. Such a protocol will provide more certainty for land-use authorities, antenna proponents and Industry Canada. The protocol should make clear that the issuance of a local building permit is not evidence of land-use approval.

Recommendation 8:  That all land-use consultation policies should provide a framework for a dispute resolution process. In particular, the land-use authority should be given the opportunity to reply to the submission tendered to Industry Canada by the antenna proponent. Any new consultation policies should give Industry Canada a more formal and active role in circumstances where local consultations reach an impasse.

Recommendation 9:  That Industry Canada should create a counterpart document to CPC-2-0-03 for use by land-use authorities and citizens. This document should explain antenna-siting issues and Industry Canada's consultation processes from a local perspective.

Recommendation 10:  That Industry Canada personnel should take a more active role in the local consultations that occur between antenna proponents, land-use authorities and the public.

Recommendation 11:  That land-use authorities and members of the public should be fully informed about the site and tower sharing obligations or policy expectations set by Industry Canada for antenna proponents. The department should regard local consultations as activities strategic to the implementation of its policy objectives for antenna co-location.

Recommendation 12:  That land-use authorities, members of the public and antenna proponents should be fully informed about the compliance and enforcement activities available to Industry Canada, should antenna proponents fail to meet policy requirements for local consultations.

Recommendation 13:  That land-use consultation materials prepared by Industry Canada should contain very basic information about electromagnetic interference (EMI), about obligations to resolve EMI problems and about Industry Canada's respective role.

Recommendation 14:  That Industry Canada should implement maximum field strength criteria for the resolution of immunity complaints involving the fundamental emissions from broadcasting undertakings. While it may not be appropriate to extend the application of the field strength criteria of EMCAB-2 to broadcasters, a similar approach is warranted.

Recommendation 15:  That Industry Canada should ensure that the proponents of all significant antennas and antenna supporting structures be required to perform a preliminary environmental assessment of their respective antenna installation. This assessment should be required even if the radio system is licence-exempt.

Recommendation 16:  That when CPC-2-0-03 is next revised those required to fill out the attestation should be asked to consider the detrimental impact that an antenna structure or associated guy wires may have upon the flight of migratory birds. Industry Canada and Environment Canada should collaborate to perform an up-to-date literature review on the issue of bird collisions with antenna facilities so that the extent of this problem and possible remedial options may be better understood.

Question 1(b):  What are the most appropriate time frames for the processes of approving and resolving debates surrounding specific tower placements?

Recommendation   17:  That the current time frames of two consecutive 60 day periods for land-use consultations applicable to the antenna installations of Type 1 radio stations should be maintained. The discretion accorded to Industry Canada to extend the time frames when such might lead to a negotiated resolution of an antenna dispute also should be maintained.

Recommendation 18:  That the land-use consultation processes applicable to Type 1 antenna installations require a more structured policy framework. The process should be divided into distinct stages such as: pre-application, initiation, consultation and impasse.

Recommendation 19:  That Industry Canada should ensure that a flexible and expeditious land-use consultation model is available for the establishment and operation of radio stations (such as amateur stations) likely to have only a modest and localized impact upon their surroundings. This model should set out both the rights and obligations of antenna proponents seeking antenna approvals from land-use authorities.

Question 2: What information would most benefit concerned members of the public and how should it be provided?

Recommendation 20:  That Industry Canada should create a national risk communication strategy to respond to public questions and concerns about the health effects to humans from exposure to radiofrequency fields.

Recommendation 21:  That Canada's broadcasters and cellular/PCS carriers should adopt their own risk communication strategies. Those strategies should include risk communication training for staff members who engage in antenna site acquisition or local consultation activities.

Recommendation  22:  That Industry Canada and Health Canada should jointly fund a biennial review of the state-of-the-science for Safety Code 6 to be conducted by an independent panel of experts such as those associated with the R. Samuel McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment or the Royal Society of Canada.

Recommendation 23:  That Health Canada should implement a policy mechanism that will feed the results of an independent review of the state-of-the-science on guidelines for human exposure to RF fields back into Health Canada's guidance creation process for Safety Code 6. If, as a consequence of an independent review, the existing standard is endorsed unchanged, a notation should be added to the preamble of the Code that informs of the review, the expert panel, its findings and the date of the review.

Recommendation 24:  That when Industry Canada imposes notice obligations upon antenna proponents, as a first step to land-use or public consultations, that the antenna proponent be required to provide basic details within the notice about the plans for the marking and lighting of the antenna tower or other supporting structure.

Question 3: What means are available to readily identify whether proposed installations may create radiofrequency fields in excess of established exposure limits in areas where people live and work?

The answer offered to policy Question 3 discusses various means to identify excessive radiofrequency fields but no policy recommendations were warranted.

Question 4:  Can protocols be arranged between local land-use authorities and antenna proponents regarding the planning and siting of antenna structures, visual guidelines and dispute resolution mechanisms?

Recommendation 25:  That in all cases where consultations between antenna proponents and land-use authorities are required, a structured dispute resolution mechanism should be made available to the parties.

Recommendation 26:  That the negotiation of antenna siting protocols between wireless carriers and local land-use authorities should be endorsed by Industry Canada because they supplement current radio regulatory policy in important ways.

Recommendation 27:  That federal policies related to the siting of antennas and their supporting structures for wireless phones be supplemented with general antenna siting principles or an industry code of conduct to be negotiated by a committee with suitable representation from local land-use authorities, the wireless industry and Industry Canada.

Question 5:  How and to what extent can tower sharing be utilized in order to reduce the total number of towers?

Recommendation 28:  That Industry Canada implement new and more explicit policies designed to stimulate the sharing of antenna towers and other supporting structures for the mounting of radio antennas.

Recommendation 29:  That Industry Canada explore policy options to stimulate the co-location of the antennas at common terrestrial or rooftop sites and to increase the incidence of the co-location of antennas with other (urban) infrastructure which society might regard as unsightly, or otherwise objectionable.

Recommendation 30:  That land-use planners work with wireless network service providers to establish local planning policies that identify and designate local areas suitable for the siting of multiple antenna facilities and adopt planning policies (such as fast-track approvals) that provide incentives for service providers to locate there.

Recommendation 31:  That policy options be considered by Industry Canada to stimulate the co-location of cellular and PCS antenna facilities in non-urban areas of the country.

Recommendation 32:  That Industry Canada examine the site banking and site acquisition arrangements being used within the cellular/PCS service sector to determine their impact upon co-location activities within the sector and as between this sector and other commercial radio service categories. If these arrangements are found to inhibit antenna site co-location activities, Industry Canada should explore policy options to reduce those activities and work with the wireless industry to find alternative means to protect the legitimate competitive interests of the cellular/PCS carriers.

Recommendation 33:  That Industry Canada consider the ways in which roaming and resale regulations and conditions may lead to a reduction in the total number of cell sites in small urban and rural areas whenever the department has such policies under examination.

Question 6: What evidence exists that property values are impacted by the placement of antenna towers?

Recommendation 34:  That the impact (positive or negative) that an proposed antenna installation may have upon the property values of particular parcels of land should not be the subject of an antenna consultation.

 Report a problem
Date modified: