Rep. Lauren Boebert Defends County-Level Emergency Services from Encroaching Federal Bureaucracy
Today, Rep. Lauren Boebert led an effort supported by 11 Members of Congress to protect county-level emergency services from encroaching federal bureaucracy by sending a letter to the U.S. Forest Service questioning its proposed regulation to charge users of emergency communication transponders exorbitant fees to continue using preexisting towers they already have access to.
Rep. Lauren Boebert said, “The Forest Service’s proposal to significantly increase fees for communications towers utilized by counties appears to be a top-down, one-size-fits-all mandate drafted by some bureaucrat in Washington that doesn’t understand the West or rural communities. County emergency managers depend on affordable access to their emergency communications towers to assist rural communities when disaster strikes, including helping fight forest fires on Forest Service land. I greatly appreciate Montezuma County Emergency Manager Jim Spratlin for bringing this issue to my attention and the attention of other emergency managers throughout the West. The existing proposal is not well thought-out, needs revised, and the current comment period should be extended as a result.”
Montezuma County Emergency Manager Jim Spratlen said, “Montezuma County has two emergency communications towers that will be affected by the new administrative fees, but we did not know about the proposed changes until after they were published in the Federal Register. This potentially violates the Federal Lands Management Act, which requires prior notification to local and state governments before federal actions are proposed. Additionally, this proposed change disrespects the work we have done to be good neighbors to federal lands. We allow the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service to use our Southwest Towers for free, but now they are thanklessly imposing new fees on us. This regulation’s comment period should be extended by 30 days to give emergency services departments across Colorado time to voice their concerns and to give the Forest Service time to find an amicable solution.”
Background:
Montezuma County Emergency Manager Jim Spratlen notified Rep. Lauren Boebert of the Forest Service’s plan to institute a new fee structure for communications towers that will cost county-level emergency services departments much-needed resources.
The Forest Service’s new fee structure could charge each user a $1,400 administrative fee for using a communications tower. Additionally, it will charge users of fiber optic cable $400. Increasing the regulatory burden for communication services falls out of line with the U.S. Forest Service’s stated goal of linking rural areas to broadband connection and highspeed cellular data.
Beyond posing an unnecessary hurdle to developing telecommunications infrastructure in rural communities, the proposed regulation also targets emergency services departments’ communications equipment. The new fee structure is not tailored to the different users of communications equipment, and it adopts an inflexible one-size-fits-all approach that charges AT&T the same rate for a massive telecommunications transponder as a county government’s emergency rescue transponder. While the Forest Service claims that an annual $1,400 fee is minimal for large corporations, it fails to adequately consider its impact on small county emergency services departments, which often struggle to make ends meet.
Rep. Boebert met with county emergency services managers in Colorado, and they all shared the same concern that this new regulation may pose an undue burden and impact their ability to provide effective emergency response.
The Forest Service proposed its regulatory alteration to previously existing usage agreements right before Christmas, leaving county emergency managers little time to analyze the full impacts of these regulations and submit public comments. In order to ensure their voices are heard and help find a solution that makes sense, Rep. Boebert authored a letter to the Forest Service requesting an extension of the comment period and to consider whether specific entities, like counties providing emergency services, should be excluded or exempted from the proposed administrative fees given existing inter-governmental agreements.
The Montezuma County Board of Commissioners also sent a letter to the U.S. Forest Service detailing their concerns about the proposed regulation and requesting a 30-day extension for the comment period.
Ten other Members of Congress signed Rep. Boebert’s letter, including: Chairman of the Western Caucus Dan Newhouse, Matt Rosendale, Jaime Herrera Beutler, Doug LaMalfa, Diana Harshbarger, Cliff Bentz, Jody Hice, Jack Bergman, Yvette Herrell, and Tom Tiffany.
The full text of the U.S. Forest Service’s proposed regulation is available in the Federal Register.
The full text of Rep. Boebert’s letter is available here and below:
We write to you today regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service’s Proposed Rule Establishing Annual Programmatic Administrative Fees for Communications Use Authorizations published on December 22, 2021.
We believe that the current comment period which closes on February 22, 2022, 11-days from today, is much too short for the entities with current use authorizations and those who may seek such authorizations in the future to fully digest the proposed rule and provide USDA with information on the true impact of the proposed rule. We therefore request an additional 30-day extension of the public comment period.
Though USDA projects insignificant economic impacts, we have heard from a number of small businesses and county managers with existing use authorizations, often for use in responding to emergencies, that do not agree. In fact, your estimate of $3,400 – $4,800 per entity, is only 1/3 of the actual new costs some have calculated the fee will be based on the proposed rule. As you know there were more than 1,400 unique entities and more than 4,000 communications use authorizations in 2019. Many of them qualify as small businesses, small governmental entities, and small organizations.
As you state in the proposed rule the use of communication services on federal lands is essential in rural areas. They already pay user fees and now you propose to add another administrative fee on top. One that may have a more significant impact on these small entities than you estimate. It should also be noted this new administrative fee is to cover the cost of administering the program, that is salaries and expenses, not exactly maintenance of infrastructure.
By its own admission, USDA has crafted a one-size-fits-all administrative fee structure without regard to specific use authorizations, service areas, or ability to pay. We ask for clarification on the specific entities or authorizations that should be excluded or exempted from the proposed administrative fees given existing inter-governmental agreements. Given the potential impacts to small entities, including those who provide emergency services that could occur under the proposed fee structure, it is both reasonable and prudent to ensure the public has sufficient time and opportunity to provide meaningful feedback.
We appreciate your attention and consideration on this matter and look forward to hearing from you soon. As always, we ask that this matter be handled in strict accordance with agency rules, regulations, and guidelines.