Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Friends of the Earth, Inc. and Forest 
Conservation Council, Inc. 
Various Objections and Petitions to Deny 
against Applications to Register Antenna 
Structures (FCC Form 854) with 
Environmental Assessments 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
  Various File Nos.
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
   	Adopted:  January 4, 2002 	Released: January 4, 2002
By the Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Order, we dismiss twenty-nine (29) Objections/Petitions to Deny (Petitions) jointly filed 
by two organizations, the Friends of Earth (FoE) and the Forest Conservation Council (Forest) 
(collectively, the Petitioners), against 29 Applications for Antenna Structure Registrations - FCC Form 854 
(Applications). The applications included Environmental Assessments (EAs), filed pursuant to the 
Commissions rules implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).   We dismiss these 
Petitions because FoE and Forest do not demonstrate standing to file these Petitions.  Accordingly, we do 
not reach the merits of the Petitions.  Pursuant to our customary procedure, we direct the Licensing and 
Technical Analysis Branch, Commercial Wireless Division (Division) to review and resolve each EA in 
accordance with the Commissions rules.
II. BACKGROUND
 
2.  Under Part 17 of the Commissions rules, all antenna structures of more than 200 feet in height 
or within the flight path of an airport must be registered with the Commission prior to construction.   If the 
antenna structure may have a significant environmental effect, as defined by Section 1.1307 of the 
Commissions rules,  the applicant must file an EA as part of its registration application.   Several 
companies filed a total of 40 applications to register antenna structures in accordance with Section 17.4(c) 
of the Commissions rules.   In accordance with our usual practice, the applications were collected and 
placed on weekly public notices as accepted for filing. FoE and Forest timely filed their Petitions against 
every application appearing on each weekly public notice for seven consecutive weeks between February 
23, 2001, and April 6, 2001, as well as two other applications that appeared on subsequent public notices. 
3. Forest states that it has "over 2,000 individual and business members throughout the United 
States, including communities affected by the proposed antenna structures as well as associated facilities 
and infrastructure.   FoE states that some unspecified number of its 2,000 members are impacted by the 
proposed antenna structures as well as the associated facilities, infrastructure and other consequences 
associated with these structures, including harm they cause directly and indirectly to a wide range of 
mammals, birds, insects and plants.   The Petitions do not contain affidavits or letters from any 
individuals who reside in or visit the communities where any of the proposed towers are to be located.
4. FoE and Forest make general allegations that all of the EA filings are deficient and lack 
sufficient documentation for the Commission to make a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).   The 
Petitioners allege that the Commissions rules do not adequately implement the requirements of NEPA, do 
not consider the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and are inadequate to comply with the Endangered 
Species Act (ESA).  Issues are also raised concerning the potential cumulative environmental effects of 
antenna structures.  The Petitioners further argue that the Commission should perform a series of 
nationwide studies, reports and consultations with other federal agencies to determine the effect of towers 
on migratory birds.  In addition, the Petitioners argue that the Commission should prepare an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for its antenna structure program. The Petitioners do not make 
any particularized statements regarding 26 of the 40 applications for antenna structure registrations listed 
in the Appendices.  The Petitions make only conclusory statements regarding the other applications.       
5. Most of the applicants filed Oppositions to the Petitions.  The applicants argue that the 
Petitioners do not have standing to file their Petitions and that the Petitions are vague and contain only 
general allegations.  Each applicant also argues that its application complies with the requirements of the 
Commissions environmental rules, among other things.  The Petitioners filed Replies to the Oppositions. 
Attached to their Replies are affidavits from John Talberth, Vice President of Forest, Dr. Brent 
Blackwelder, President of FoE, and Bryan Bird, a biologist.     
III. DISCUSSION
6. In order to establish standing, we have required that parties challenging an application allege 
sufficient facts to demonstrate that grant of the application would cause the petitioner to suffer a direct 
injury.    Under this standard, the petitioner must demonstrate a causal link between the claimed injury and 
the challenged action.  To demonstrate a causal link, a petitioner must establish that: (a) the injury fairly 
can be traced to the challenged action; and (b) the injury would be prevented or redressed by the relief 
requested.  
7. A demonstration of standing in the context of petitions to deny antenna structure registrations 
and other applications is important to the efficient and orderly conduct of the Commissions business.  
Specifically, demonstrating that standing elements are present helps protect the Commission from having to 
address generalized and speculative petitions that will slow the processing of applications.  Both Congress 
and the courts have recognized that the petition to deny process is not intended to facilitate disruption of the 
Commission's proceedings by individuals or groups who cannot show a particularized interest in those 
proceedings.    
8. The Commission processes thousands of antenna structure registrations each year.  Of these 
registrations, hundreds of applications include environmental assessments.  Hundreds of additional EAs are 
filed annually with license applications or in other contexts. To the extent a party raises specific substantive 
allegations against an EA, those allegations must be fully considered.  In order that we may process these 
applications efficiently and with full consideration of the merits, however, a petitioner must demonstrate 
with specificity how the grant of the application would affect its interests, aggrieve or injure the petitioner.  
Given the substantial time and Commission resources these matters entail, it is only appropriate that we 
direct and limit our attention to those petitions that make specific allegations and specify parties that would 
actually be harmed by the proposed antenna structure. 
9. In the instant cases, the Petitioners have not alleged sufficient facts to demonstrate that the 
proposed applications would cause them to suffer an injury.  Rather, the Petitioners have filed global 
Petitions against every application that appeared on consecutive public notices for seven weeks.  The 
Petitioners use the same cover letter for each Petition while merely changing the applicants names and file 
numbers.  The Petitions contain virtually the same general allegations except for a few statements specific 
to only a few applications on each public notice.  Upon reviewing the Petitions, we have not found any 
allegations, other than these general arguments, with respect to many of the applications.
10. In place of specific facts about each antenna structure, the Petitions rely on speculative, general 
allegations and argue that antenna structures kill migratory birds.  However, the Petitioners do not show 
any traceable injury or provide the Commission with any documentation demonstrating that the 
construction of the individual antenna structures will result in damage.  Furthermore, the Petitioners do not 
show a direct link between the individual antenna structures and how the organization or its members will 
be aggrieved by the antenna structure.
11. The Petitioners do make statements that are specific to 14 of the applications.  However, FoE 
and Forest do not show how either organization, its members, or any individuals would be harmed or 
affected by any of these proposed structures.  Rather, Petitioners simply allege in conclusory fashion that 
the application is deficient in some respect, without attempting to show any nexus to any injury. For 
example, in Application File No. A0183825,  the Petitioners allege that the applicants statement that 
structures built within the 100-year old floodplain will be constructed at an elevation one foot above the 
flood plain does not provide sufficient information or analysis.   The Petitioners do not even attempt to 
show how they would be affected by the structures construction in the flood plain.  In Application File No. 
A0180818,  the Petitioners allege that the application is insufficient because the proposed structure will 
not protect migratory birds.  In this application, the applicant attached a letter from the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service, which states that no federally listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitats 
are known to occur within the project area of the proposed structure.   The Petitioners merely cite 
boilerplate language regarding migratory birds in this letter to allege a deficiency in the application without 
showing how this proposed structure will harm migratory birds or cause injury to the organization or its 
members. In each instance when the Petitioners raise an allegation about a specific application, they fail to 
show any injury to a person.  As noted above, the Division will evaluate each EA pursuant to the Divisions 
normal procedures and the Commissions rules.
12.   We note that in prior cases where an EA has been challenged, the petitioner has been a member 
of the community and has demonstrated how the proposed antenna structure may affect or injure the 
petitioner. For example, in SCANA Communications, the petitioner was a member of the community who 
challenged the proposed towers effect on a historic district in Georgetown, South Carolina.   Similarly, in 
numerous license renewal proceedings involving TV or radio stations, petitions filed by organizations like 
FoE and Forest regularly include a joint filing by a person who resides within the listening audience of the 
petitioned station.   Here, the Petitions do not contain any affidavits or letters from any person who would 
be affected by the registration or construction of the tower.  We note that the Petitioners did submit 
affidavits in their Replies.  However, those affidavits are from officers of the respective organizations, 
including Forests vice president and FoEs president, as well as a biologist. The affidavits contain general 
allegations and do not identify any residents of the community or other persons who would be injured.  
13. We recognize that allegations of environmental harm are necessarily somewhat generalized, and 
that principles of standing must be applied in the context of the harm that the underlying statute seeks to 
address.  We further recognize that judicial principles of standing need not apply before the Commission.  
Nonetheless, it is instructive that the courts have consistently denied standing on facts similar to those 
presented here.  For example, in Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation,  the U.S. Supreme Court found 
that an environmental group did not demonstrate standing to challenge 1,250 permits issued by the U.S. 
Bureau of Land Management based on the organizations characterization of the grants as part of a land 
withdrawal program,  various claimed injuries to recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment, and other 
general allegations.  The Court determined that the organizations interest, based on the affidavits 
presented, was insufficient to show an injury because the respondents could not show they were actually 
affected by the permit decisions.   Similarly, in Florida Audubon Society v. Bentsen,  the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the organization did not have standing to challenge 
a government program for credits to grow corn for ethanol based merely on speculation that wildlife areas 
would be at risk, without demonstrating that the program would reduce the wildlife areas for bird watching 
by the organization or its members. We believe the policies reflected in these decisions support our denial 
of standing in the matters before us.
14. Finally, we note that many of the Petitioners arguments are directed not at the approval of any 
EA under the Commissions existing rules, but at the rules themselves.  Thus, the Petitioners argue that the 
Commissions rules do not comply with NEPA and the ESA, and challenge the Commissions alleged 
failure to include effects on migratory birds among the factors that require an EA under Section 1.1307(a) 
of the Commissions rules.  The Petitioners also make allegations about and question the adequacy of an  
antenna structure program.   These arguments are properly the focus of a rulemaking proceeding, rather 
than objections to individual applications. 
IV. CONCLUSION
15. We find that the Petitioners have not demonstrated standing to file their Petitions because the 
Petitions are speculative and do not show how the construction of these towers would affect the interests of 
any identified person.  The Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch will evaluate the pending EAs and 
either grant or deny the applications or request supplemental information as set forth in Section 1.1308(b) 
of the Commissions rules.  
V. ORDERING CLAUSE
16. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), and section 1.1313 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.1313, the 29 
Objections/Petitions to Deny, jointly filed by the Friends of Earth and the Forest Conservation Council 
against 29 Applications for Antenna Structure Registrations, ARE DISMISSED.
					Jeffrey S. Steinberg
					Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division
					Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
   47 C.F.R.  1.1301-1.1319. 
   47 C.F.R.  17.7(a) (.of more than 60.96 meters (200 feet) in height above ground level.). 
   47 C.F.R.  1.1307.
   See 47 C.F.R.  1.1308; see also In the Matter of Streamlining the Commissions Antenna Structure Clearance 
Procedure, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 4272, 4289,  41 (1995).
   The applicants, file numbers, dates of public notice and pleadings for each of the 29 applications addressed in 
this Memorandum Opinion and Order are listed in Appendix A.  The petitioners have withdrawn their objections 
against five applications.  The Division has approved the withdrawals and granted these applications as indicated 
in Appendix B. In addition, six applications have been withdrawn by the applicants, and we have previously 
dismissed the petitions filed against these applications as moot.  These applications are listed in Appendix C.
   See Appendices A, B and C.
   See Objections and Petition to Deny Antenna Tower Registration Applications against applications by Crown 
Communications, Inc., A0182506; American Tower Limited Partnership, A0181954; American Tower, L.P., 
A0183735; GeoNet Towers, Inc., A0183825; and Crown Communications Inc., A0160814, dated April 30, 2001.  
Each of the Petitions makes the same general arguments, which are then accompanied by allegations particular to 
some of the applications. 
   Id.
   A FONSI is a finding that the proposed structure will not have a significant impact because the applicant has 
mitigated the potential environmental effect under Section 1.1307.  Each FONSI is supported by the underlying 
Environmental Assessment.  For example, in the case of an antenna structure that may have an adverse effect on a 
property listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the applicant and the Commission 
may have entered into a Memorandum of Agreement specifying mitigation measures with a State Historic 
Preservation Officer.
   See Affidavits of John Talberth, Vice President of Forest, dated June 1, 2001 (Talberth Affidavit), Dr. Brent 
Blackwelder, President of FoE, dated June 1, 2001 (Blackwelder Affidavit), and Bryan Bird, dated June 1, 2001.
   In the Matter of Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd. 
4601, 4604 (WTB/CWD, 1998).
   Id.
   In the Matter of Formulation of Policies And Rules Relating to Broadcast Renewal Applicants, Competing 
Applicants, and Other Participants to the Comparative Renewal Process and to the Prevention of Abuses of the 
Renewal Process, Second Further Notice of Inquiry and Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 3 FCC Rcd. 5179, 5184 
( 31) (1988) (citing Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 779 F.2d 702, 709-710 
(D.C. Cir. 1985)).
   See Application File No. A0183825, GeoNet Towers, Inc., Public Notice, dated April 6, 2001.
   See Petition filed April 30, 2001 at p. 3.
   See Application File No. A0180818, American Tower, L.P., Public Notice, dated March 30, 2001.
   See Petition filed April 24, 2001 at p. 8.
   See In the Matter of SCANA Communications, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd. 9203, 9204 ( 
3) (WTB/CWD 2000); see also In the Matter of Mid-Missouri Communications, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 13 FCC Rcd. 15390 (WTB/CWD 1998).
   See In Re Application of KGET(TV), Inc. for Renewal of License of Station KGET(TV), Bakersfield, CA, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd. 4168, 4169 (1996). 
   See, e.g., Affidavit of Dr. Brent Blackwelder, President, Friends of the Earth, dated June 1, 2001 (stating 
generally that the mission of FOE is to protect the planet from environmental degradation and that its members 
would be harmed by adverse effects on wildlife, including bird watching, among other things). 
   See 5 U.S.C.  702.  (A party filing suit under the Administrative Procedure Act must show that the action by 
the federal government causes him or her to be adversely affected or aggrieved.).
   Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 (1990) (Lujan I). 
   Id. at 890.  The land withdrawal program was a name self-styled by the organization. 
   Id.; see also Lujan v. Defenders of National Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1991) (Lujan II) (the Court found that 
complainant, an environmental organization, did not demonstrate standing under the Endangered Species Act 
because the complaint was purely speculative); Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 U.S. 
59, 80 (1978) (the Court declined to grant standing where the harm asserted amounted only to a generalized 
grievance shared by a large number of citizens in a substantially equal measure). 
   Florida Audubon Society v. Bentsen, 94 F.3d 658 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
   The antenna structure program is a name self-styled by the Petitioners.  See Lujan I, supra at  13 and note 
23.  No program exists in the Commissions rules.  The Commission registers towers that are required to comply 
with the painting and lighting restrictions of the Federal Aviation Administration.  47 C.F.R.  17.23.
   47 C.F.R.  1.1308(b).
 
(Continued from previous page)   
(continued.)
 
 
	Federal Communications Commission	    DA 02-5
6
	Federal Communications Commission 	DA 02-5