Clarification of Procedures for Participation of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations Under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement

FederalRulings

Ask Donna

How this section applies to your facts.

FCC Declaratory Rulings › Clarification of Procedures for Participation of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations Under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement

This text was captured on Aug 14, 2026. It is a snapshot, not a live feed, so check the official code before relying on it.

Text

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

)

Clarification of Procedures for Participation of

)

Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Native

)

Hawaiian Organizations Under the Nationwide

)

Programmatic Agreement

)

DECLARATORY RULING

Adopted: October 5,2005

Released: October 6,2005

By the Commission: Chairman Martin and Commissioner Abemathy concurring and issuing a joint statement;

and Commissioners Copps and Adelstein issuing separate statements

I. INTRODUCTION

1. By this Order, we interpret and clarify the application of the provisions in the Nationwide

Programmatic Agreement for Review of Effects on Historic Properties for Certain Undertakings Approved by

the Federal Communications Commission ("Nationwide Agreement")' that govern participation of Indian

tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. Specifically, this Order addresses situations where a federally

recognized Indian tribe ("Indian tribe")^ or Native Hawaiian organization ("NHO") has not responded to an

Applicant's^ and the Commission's efforts to determine whether the Indian tribe or NHO has an interest in

participating in the review of proposed construction of communications towers and antermas.

We clarify that once an Applicant has made two good faith efforts over 40 days to obtain a

response as specified in the Nationwide Agreement, the Commission upon notice will communicate by letter

or e-mail with the Indian tribe's or NHO's designated cultural resources representative seeking an indication,

within 20 days, of the Indian tribe's or NHO's interest in participating in review of the proposed construction.

The Indian tribe or NHO thus will have received at least three contacts and will have had a total period of at

least 60 days in which to respond

tice will communicate by letter

or e-mail with the Indian tribe's or NHO's designated cultural resources representative seeking an indication,

within 20 days, of the Indian tribe's or NHO's interest in participating in review of the proposed construction.

The Indian tribe or NHO thus will have received at least three contacts and will have had a total period of at

least 60 days in which to respond. If the Indian tribe or NHO does not respond to either the Commission or the

Applicant within 20 days of the Commission's communication, it will be deemed to have no interest in pre-

construction review, and the Applicant's obligations with respect to that Indian tribe or NHO under Section IV

of the Nationwide Agreement are complete. This process is effective immediately.

47 C.F.R. Part 1, Appendix B.

^ As used herein, the term "Indian tribes" encompasses those Indian tribes, including Alaska Native Villages, recognized

by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994,25 U.S.C. § 479a et

seq. See Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review

Process, WT Docket No. 03-128, Report and Order, 20 FCC Red 1073, 1075 n.3 (2004) {Nationwide Agreement Report

and Order).

^ An "Applicant" is defined as "[a] Commission licensee, permittee, or registration holder, or an applicant or prospective

applicant for a wireless or broadcast license, authorization or antenna structure registration, and the duly authorized

agents, employees, and contractors of any such person or entity." Nationwide Agreement, § II.A.2.

16092

5 n.3 (2004) {Nationwide Agreement Report

and Order).

^ An "Applicant" is defined as "[a] Commission licensee, permittee, or registration holder, or an applicant or prospective

applicant for a wireless or broadcast license, authorization or antenna structure registration, and the duly authorized

agents, employees, and contractors of any such person or entity." Nationwide Agreement, § II.A.2.

16092

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

II. BACKGROUND

3. The Nationwide Agreement implements the Commission's fulfillment of its obligations under

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 ("NHPA")" in a streamlined manner that is

tailored to the construction of communications towers and other Commission undertakings. Section IV of the

Nationwide Agreement governs the participation of Indian tribes and NHOs in undertakings off of tribal lands.

Under the Nationwide Agreement, in order to enable the Commission to fulfill its duty of consultation with

Indian tribes and NHOs, Applicants must make reasonable and good faith efforts to identify, and ensure

contact is made with, Indian tribes and NHOs that may attach religious and cultural significance to historic

properties that may be affected by an undertaking.® To assist Applicants in meeting this requirement, the

Commission has established the Tower Construction Notification System ("TCNS"), an interactive, login and

password-protected system which contains contact information for all Indian tribes and NHOs, and which

automatically forward Applicants' notices of proposed construction to Indian tribes and NHOs

ies that may be affected by an undertaking.® To assist Applicants in meeting this requirement, the

Commission has established the Tower Construction Notification System ("TCNS"), an interactive, login and

password-protected system which contains contact information for all Indian tribes and NHOs, and which

automatically forward Applicants' notices of proposed construction to Indian tribes and NHOs. Because each

Indian tribe and NHO voluntarily provided information to TCNS regarding the geographic areas in which

historic properties of religious and cultural significance to that Indian tribe or NHO may be located, reference

to TCNS constitutes a reasonable and good faith effort at identification with respect to that Indian tribe or

NHO.^ Applicants may fulfill their obligation to ensure that initial contacts are made with potentially affected

Indian tribes and NHOs either by using TCNS, which will automatically make the initial contacts on behalf of

the Commission, or by making contact independently pursuant to a pre-existing relationship.® While

Applicants are not required to use TCNS, they must make reasonable and good faith efforts to identify

potentially affected Indian tribes and NHOs, and they must ensure that these Indian tribes and NHOs are

contacted in an effective manner that is respectful of tribal sovereignty.' Under the Nationwide Agreement,

Applicants must ensure that Indian tribes and NHOs have a reasonable opportunity to respond to

communications, ordinarily 30 days, and should make a reasonable effort to follow up in case an Indian tribe

or NHO fails to respond to an initial communication.'"

4. The purpose of the initial contact with an Indian tribe or NHO is to begin the process of

ascertaining wheAer historic properties of cultural or religious significance to the Indian tribe or NHO may be

affected." Thus, the initial contact does not itself constitute or stand in the place of Section 106 consultation

up in case an Indian tribe

or NHO fails to respond to an initial communication.'"

4. The purpose of the initial contact with an Indian tribe or NHO is to begin the process of

ascertaining wheAer historic properties of cultural or religious significance to the Indian tribe or NHO may be

affected." Thus, the initial contact does not itself constitute or stand in the place of Section 106 consultation.

To the contrary, if an Indian tribe requests govemment-to-govemment consultation in the course of its

16 U.S.C. § 470f.

See Nationwide Agreement Report and Order, 20 FCC Red at 1074-75, para. 1.

® Nationwide Agreement, §§ IV.B, IV.C.

Nationwide Agreement, § IV.B. We note that TCNS contains geographic preferences for all but 21 of the more than

570 federally recognized Indian tribes. For those few Indian tribes and NHOs that have not entered geographic

information into TCNS, the Applicant must make reasonable and good faith efforts at identification and contact using

other sources. See Public Notice, "Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Consumer &

Governmental Affairs

Bureau Announce Enhancement and Provide Clarifications Regarding Use of Tower Construction Notification System,"

20 FCC Red 7546, 7549 (WTB/CGB 2005).

® See Nationwide Agreement, § IV.E; Nationwide Agreement Report and Order, 20 FCC Red at 1107, para. 94.

See Nationwide Agreement, §§ IV.C, IV.E, IV.F. We note that all the major carriers and tower companies are using

TCNS.

'"W.. §§IV.F.4, IV.F.5.

'' Id., § IV.C; see also id., § IV.G ("The purposes of communications between the Applicant and Indian tribes or NHOs

are: (1) to ascertain whether Historic Properties of religious and cultural significance to the Indian tribe or NHO may be

affected by the undertaking and consultation is therefore necessary, and (2) where possible, with the concurrence of the

Indian tribe or NHO,

to reach an agreement on the presence or absence of effects that may obviate the need for

consultation.").

16093

Indian tribes or NHOs

are: (1) to ascertain whether Historic Properties of religious and cultural significance to the Indian tribe or NHO may be

affected by the undertaking and consultation is therefore necessary, and (2) where possible, with the concurrence of the

Indian tribe or NHO,

to reach an agreement on the presence or absence of effects that may obviate the need for

consultation.").

16093

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

communications with an Applicant, the Applicant must promptly refer that request to the Commission.'^ If an

Indian tribe or NHO indicates that a historic property of religious and cultural significance to it may be

affected, the Applicant must invite the Indian tribe or NHO to participate in the Section 106 review as a

consulting party.

Finally, if an Indian tribe or NHO does not respond to an Applicant's inquiries, the

Applicant must seek the Commission's guidance.'^ Hence, the initial contact is not intended directly to elicit a

final statement from an Indian tribe or NHO regarding the effect of proposed construction on historic

properties, but rather to separate undertakings that may have such an effect, and in which the Indian tribe or

NHO therefore has an interest in further participation, from those in which it has no interest.

5. Shortly after completing the Nationwide Agreement, the Commission and the United South and

Eastern Tribes, Inc. ("USET") agreed on Voluntary Best Practices for Expediting the Process of

Communications Tower and Antenna Siting Review Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act ("USET Best Practices"). '

The USET Best Practices are intended to guide Applicants in

review under Section 106 of the intact of communications facilities on historic properties of religious and

cultural significance to USET tribes, consistent with the Nationwide Agreement.'®

cess of

Communications Tower and Antenna Siting Review Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic

Preservation Act ("USET Best Practices"). '

The USET Best Practices are intended to guide Applicants in

review under Section 106 of the intact of communications facilities on historic properties of religious and

cultural significance to USET tribes, consistent with the Nationwide Agreement.'®

6. In order to address delays in facilities construction that have arisen in instances when Indian

Tribes and NHOs have not timely responded to initial contacts fi'om Applicants and the Commission,

representatives of the wireless industry have asked the Commission to clarify what the Nationwide Agreement

requires in these cases.'^ Representatives of Indian tribes have supported the request for clarification." We

therefore issue this Declaratory Ruling on our own motion to resolve uncertainty."

III. DISCUSSION

7. As set forth in the Nationwide Agreement, the initial steps in identifying Indian tribes and NHOs

that may attach cultural and religious significance to potentially affected historic properties and in ensuring

that these Indian tribes and NHOs are contacted must be undertaken by the Applicant. An Applicant's initial

attempts at making these contacts should be undertaken through TCNS or as otherwise authorized under the

Nationwide Agreement.^" Ordinarily, 30 days is a reasonable period of time for an Indian tribe or NHO to

'^W., §IV.G.

Id.. § IV.H.

Id., § IV.G. We note that an Indian tribe or NHO may specify in TCNS that it is not interested in reviewing proposed

construction of certain types or in certain locations, in which case the Applicant need not wait for a response. Id., §

I V.F.4. An Indian tribe or NHO may also specify that if it does not respond to initial notifications within 30 days, its

lack of response may be taken as an indication of no interest, and no follow up is necessary.

See News Release, "Tower Siting Voluntary 'Best Practices' Released" (October 25,2004).

'® USET Best Practices at 1

in which case the Applicant need not wait for a response. Id., §

I V.F.4. An Indian tribe or NHO may also specify that if it does not respond to initial notifications within 30 days, its

lack of response may be taken as an indication of no interest, and no follow up is necessary.

See News Release, "Tower Siting Voluntary 'Best Practices' Released" (October 25,2004).

'® USET Best Practices at 1.

See Letter from Andrea Williams, Assistant General Counsel, CTIA -

The Wireless Association, to Fred Campbell,

Acting Wireless Legal Adviser, Office of Chairman Martin, dated August 26,2005. We note that, of the more than

1500 currently pending tower sites referred to the Commission because one or more Indian tribes or NHOs have not

responded to an Applicant's inquiries whether a historic property of religious and cultural significance may be affected,

more than 1000 sites have been referred since August 1, 2005.

See Letter from James T. Martin, Executive Director, USET, to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, FCC, dated August 26,

2005; Letter from James T. Martin, Executive Director, USET, to Monica Desai, Chief, Consumer and Government

Affairs Bureau, and Catherine Seidel, Acting Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, dated August 15,2005.

"See47C.F.R. § 1.2.

See Nationwide Agreement, §§ IV.B, IV.E.

16094

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

respond to such initial contact.^' If an Indian tribe or NHO does not respond within this time frame, the

Applicant should attempt a second contact in a manner reasonably calculated to elicit a response - for example,

a telephone call or e-mail directed to the Indian tribe's or NHO's designated cultural resources

representative.^^ If an Indian tribe or NHO does not respond to this second contact within 10 calendar days,

we conclude that it is consistent with the NPA for the Applicant to refer the matter to the Commission for

guidance.^^ To facilitate prompt processing of its request, the Applicant may submit its referral to the

Commission by e-mail at TribalTowerExchange

NHO's designated cultural resources

representative.^^ If an Indian tribe or NHO does not respond to this second contact within 10 calendar days,

we conclude that it is consistent with the NPA for the Applicant to refer the matter to the Commission for

guidance.^^ To facilitate prompt processing of its request, the Applicant may submit its referral to the

Commission by e-mail at TribalTowerExchange@fcc.gov.^^

8. By this order, we clarify the process that the Commission will follow, effective immediately, upon

receiving a referral for follow-up contacts where an Indian tribe or NHO has not responded to two reasonable

and good faith contacts initiated by the Applicant. Under current practice, once an Applicant seeks

Commission guidance. Commission staff is making multiple efforts to contact the Indian tribe or NHO by

telephone, e-mail, and/or letter on an ongoing basis and for an indefinite period of time. We now clarify that,

consistent with requirements of the NPA,

for future referrals the Commission staff will promptly contact the

Indian tribe's or NHO's designated cultural resources representative by letter and/or e-mail to respectfully

request that the Indian tribe or NHO inform the Commission and the Applicant within 20 calendar days as to

its interest or lack of interest in participating in the Section 106 review. In addition, staff will attempt to

contact the potentially affected tribes and NHOs by telephone both to alert them that such a letter and/or e-mail

has been sent, and to advise them that they should contact Commission staff if they do not receive our letter

and/or email and should contact the Commission and the Applicant if they wish to express an interest in a

particular site.^' Staff will also inform the Applicant when this letter or e-mail is sent, either by copying it on

the correspondence or by other effective means

letter and/or e-mail

has been sent, and to advise them that they should contact Commission staff if they do not receive our letter

and/or email and should contact the Commission and the Applicant if they wish to express an interest in a

particular site.^' Staff will also inform the Applicant when this letter or e-mail is sent, either by copying it on

the correspondence or by other effective means. If the Indian tribe or NHO does not respond within 20 days of

the date of this letter or e-mail,^^ the Applicant's pre-construction obligations under the Nationwide Agreement

are discharged with respect to that Indian tribe or NHO. If the Indian tribe or NHO responds that it is

interested in participating within the 20-day period, the Applicant must involve it in the review as set forth in

§ IV.F.4.

Id., § IV.F.5.

We note that this process allows the Indian tribe or NHO a longer opportunity to respond than is recommended for

USET's member Tribes under the USET Best Practices. See USET Best Practices, §§ III.B (Tribe should respond to

initial contact within 14 days), III.C (Applicant may ask the Commission to initiate govemment-to-govemment

consultation if Tribe does not respond to second contact within seven days).

Based on staff experience, requests can be processed most efficiently if the subject line includes: a) the words

"Referral to Commission"; b) the TCNS file number, if used; and c) the Applicant's name. It is helpful for the text of

the e-mail to include: a) Applicant's contact name and e-mail address; b) tower street address, city, county, and state; c)

complete and correct names of the federally recognized Indian tribe(s) or NHO(s) that have not responded to the

Applicant's contacts (as found on TCNS); d) date the Applicant first notified each Indian tribe or NHO; and e) dates of

any follow-up inquiries.

If the Indian tribe or NHO has not designated a cultural resources representative to the Commission, this

communication will be sent to the Tribal Leader

nd correct names of the federally recognized Indian tribe(s) or NHO(s) that have not responded to the

Applicant's contacts (as found on TCNS); d) date the Applicant first notified each Indian tribe or NHO; and e) dates of

any follow-up inquiries.

If the Indian tribe or NHO has not designated a cultural resources representative to the Commission, this

communication will be sent to the Tribal Leader. To avoid undue burdens on tribal and NHO representatives and

implement a practical process. Commission staff may aggregate a number of referrals into one communication to the

appropriate representative.

If Commission staff does not successfully contact the designated representative in the telephone call, it will attempt to

phone the central administrative office of the Indian tribe or NHO. If staff has aggregated a number of referrals into one

letter and/or e-mail, it need not make separate calls for each tower referral, but may instead make one call to alert the

Indian tribe or NHO to the communication. An Indian tribe or NHO

is free to indicate to Commission staff that it would

prefer not to receive such phone calls. Staff efforts to contact the Indian tribes and NHOs by phone do not affect the

running of the 20-day period set out in the letter and/or e-mail for an expression of interest in a particular tower site.

If the 20"' day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday, the time period is extended until the next business day.

&e47C.F.R. § 1.4(eXl),a)-

16095

ould

prefer not to receive such phone calls. Staff efforts to contact the Indian tribes and NHOs by phone do not affect the

running of the 20-day period set out in the letter and/or e-mail for an expression of interest in a particular tower site.

If the 20"' day falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or federal holiday, the time period is extended until the next business day.

&e47C.F.R. § 1.4(eXl),a)-

16095

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

the NPA.^®

9. We conclude that this process satisfies the Commission's obligation to make reasonable and good

faith efforts to identify Indian tribes and NHOs that may attach religious and cultural significance to historic

properties that may be affected by an undertaking, as specified under the Nationwide Agreement and as

required under the NHPA and the rules of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.^' At the conclusion

of the process specified herein, the Indian tribe or NHO will have had a total of at least 60 days to respond to

at least two contacts by the Applicant (either directly or through the Commission via TCNS) and one contact

by the Commission staff made to the official whom the Indian tribe or NHO has designated to receive such

contacts. Moreover, in order to respond to these contacts, the Indian tribe or NHO need not evaluate the effect

of the proposed construction on historic properties, but need only indicate whether there is a possibility of an

effect on historic properties of cultural and religious significance to it such that it wishes to participate in the

review. We believe that, in this context, the process as a whole is reasonable and is consistent with our

govemment-to-govemment relationship with federally recognized Indian tribes. Hence, it satisfies the

requirements of the Nationwide Agreement.

10. We recognize that many sites are currently pending in which an Indian tribe's or NHO's failure to

respond to initial contacts has been referred to the Commission for resolution

his context, the process as a whole is reasonable and is consistent with our

govemment-to-govemment relationship with federally recognized Indian tribes. Hence, it satisfies the

requirements of the Nationwide Agreement.

10. We recognize that many sites are currently pending in which an Indian tribe's or NHO's failure to

respond to initial contacts has been referred to the Commission for resolution. While we conclude that the

process set forth above satisfies the requirements of the Nationwide Agreement and will be followed going

forward, it is not the only process that could do so. For those tower sites referred to the Commission by

Applicants before September 10,2005, we find that the public interest would be best served by declaring the

Applicant's obligations with respect to those Indian tribes and/or NHOs under Section IV of the Nationwide

Agreement to be complete. We do so for several reasons. First, virtually all of the initial contacts in the

pending referral cases were made through the Commission's TCNS system. These contacts thus came in the

form of a communication directly fixim the Commission to the Indian tribe or NHO that was sent to the

representative designated by the Indian tribe or NHO,

at the address the representative had selected. Second,

in many instances over the past several months, the Commission's staff has already made efforts to contact

Indian tribes and NHOs. For example, over a period of several weeks, the staff may have made several

attempts by telephone to contact an Indian tribe or NHO and/or sent a letter or e-mail. We also note the large

number of tower site referrals currently pending before us solely because of a lack of response as well as the

impending close of the construction season over much of the country as winter approaches

es and NHOs. For example, over a period of several weeks, the staff may have made several

attempts by telephone to contact an Indian tribe or NHO and/or sent a letter or e-mail. We also note the large

number of tower site referrals currently pending before us solely because of a lack of response as well as the

impending close of the construction season over much of the country as winter approaches. Accordingly, we

find that, for those sites referred to the Commission before September lO"* because of a failure of one or more

Indian tribes and/or NHOs to respond to contacts seeking an expression of interest or lack of interest, and

which remain pending, the necessary actions under Section FV of the Nationwide Agreement have been

completed and the Applicant may proceed.'" For those pending matters that have been referred to the

Commission on or after September 10, 2005, the Bureau shall send forthwith the letter and/or e-mail discussed

in paragraph 8 above.

11. Finally, we emphasize that Section IX of the Nationwide Agreement imposes independent

obligations on an Applicant when a previously unidentified site that may be a historic property, including an

archeological property, is discovered during construction or after the completion of review. In such instances,

the Applicant must cease construction and promptly notify, among others, any potentially affected Indian tribe

In the event an Indian tribe or NHO responds only to the Commission and not to the Applicant, Commission staff will

promptly inform the Applicant of the response. In most cases we expect that staff will inform the Applicant on the same

day the response is received by the Commission. In the event of a slight delay in the Commission's processes, however,

the Applicant must comply with a timely request by the Indian tribe or NHO when it receives notice of that request.

See 16 U.S.C. §§ 470a(dK6); 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(f)(2).

See attached list in Appendix.

16096

In most cases we expect that staff will inform the Applicant on the same

day the response is received by the Commission. In the event of a slight delay in the Commission's processes, however,

the Applicant must comply with a timely request by the Indian tribe or NHO when it receives notice of that request.

See 16 U.S.C. §§ 470a(dK6); 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(f)(2).

See attached list in Appendix.

16096

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

or NHO/' An Indian tribe's or NHO's failure to express interest in participating in pre-construction review of

an undertaking does not necessarily mean it is not interested in archeological properties or human remains that

may inadvertently be discovered during construction. Accordingly, an Applicant is still required to notify tmy

potentially affected Indian tribe or NHO of any such finds pursuant to Section IX or other applicable law.

IV. ORDERING CLAUSE

12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Sections 1.2 and 1.1307(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2,

1.1307(a)(4), that this Declaratory Ruling IS ADOPTED effective immediately.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

Nationwide Agreement, § IX.A.

16097

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

or NHO." An Indian tribe's or NHO's failure to express interest in participating in pre-construction review of

an undertaking does not necessarily mean it is not interested in archeological properties or human remains that

may inadvertently be discovered during construction. Accordingly, an Applicant is still required to notify any

potentially affected Indian tribe or NHO of any such finds pursuant to Section IX or other applicable law.

IV. ORDERING CLAUSE

12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Sections 1.2 and 1.1307(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R

d during construction. Accordingly, an Applicant is still required to notify any

potentially affected Indian tribe or NHO of any such finds pursuant to Section IX or other applicable law.

IV. ORDERING CLAUSE

12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as

amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Sections 1.2 and 1.1307(a)(4) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2,

1.1307(a)(4), that this Declaratory Ruling IS ADOPTED effective immediately.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

Nationwide Agreement, § IX.A.

16097

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

APPENDIX

9/8/2005

8/9/2005

5/9/2005

5/18/2005

5/19/2005

5/18/2005

5/11/2005

5/9/2005

5/18/2005

5/9/2005

5/18/2005

5/9/2005

6/8/2005

4/28/2005

5/9/2005

5/18/2005

6/20/2005

5/18/2005

6/30/2005

5/18/2005

8/18/2005

5/18/2005

5/9/2005

7/5/2005

5/17/2005

6/7/2005

5/9/2005

Cave City

Eau Claire

Lancaster Co.

Chester Co.

Luzeme Co.

Lackawanna Co.

Newark

Chester Co.

Monroe Co.

Sussex Co.

N. Hampton Co.

Montgomery Co.

Sussex Co.

Columbia Co.

Columbia County

Ocean Co.

Chester County

Fort Jackson

Saluda

Fort Jackson

Richland Co.

Darlington

Florence Co.

Richland Co.

Ridgeville

Saluda Co.

Lancaster Co.

Sacramento

Stanislaus Co.

Sonoma Co.

Clint

El Paso

National City

Carlisle

Petaluma

Victor

Carbon Co.

Cumberland City

Watonga

Barren Co.

Felton

East Berlin

New Castle County

Camden County

Bucks County

New Castle County

16098

Co.

Columbia Co.

Columbia County

Ocean Co.

Chester County

Fort Jackson

Saluda

Fort Jackson

Richland Co.

Darlington

Florence Co.

Richland Co.

Ridgeville

Saluda Co.

Lancaster Co.

Sacramento

Stanislaus Co.

Sonoma Co.

Clint

El Paso

National City

Carlisle

Petaluma

Victor

Carbon Co.

Cumberland City

Watonga

Barren Co.

Felton

East Berlin

New Castle County

Camden County

Bucks County

New Castle County

16098

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

5/25/2005

5/9/2005

6/30/2005

5/9/2005

5/23/2005

6/30/2005

5/20/2005

6/6/2005

6/10/2005

5/26/2005

5/20/2005

5/26/2005

6/28/2005

5/20/2005

4/27/2005

5/19/2005

5/23/2005

7/26/2005

8/18/2005

6/1/2005

6/30/2005

7/1/2005

7/25/2005

7/8/2005

6/7/2005

8/19/2005

5/16/2005

7/29/2005

5/11/2005

5/26/2005

7/15/2005

6/16/2005

5/11/2005

6/30/2005

7/7/2005

Washington Co.

New Castle County

Sherwood

New Castle County

San Diego Co.

Little Rock

San Diego Co.

Holtville

Dan Diego Co.

Laddonia (Audrain)

San Diego Co.

Cheyenne Wells

San Diego Co.

Fulton Co.

Placer Co.

Sacramento Co.

Cortland

Jasper

Star

San Diego Co.

North Little Rock

Scott

Brinkley

Waynesboro

Paris

McKinney

Lake City

Wilcox Co.

Dodge Co.

Lamb Co.

Parmer Co.

Lackawanna Co.

San Diego Co.

Birmingham

Water Valley

Wanblee

Armour

Lennox

Bryant

Eureka

Little Rock

Fort Meyers

16099

an Diego Co.

San Diego Co.

Cheyenne Wells

San Diego Co.

Fulton Co.

Placer Co.

Sacramento Co.

Cortland

Jasper

Star

San Diego Co.

North Little Rock

Scott

Brinkley

Waynesboro

Paris

McKinney

Lake City

Wilcox Co.

Dodge Co.

Lamb Co.

Parmer Co.

Lackawanna Co.

San Diego Co.

Birmingham

Water Valley

Wanblee

Armour

Lennox

Bryant

Eureka

Little Rock

Fort Meyers

16099

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

7/1/2005

7/12/2005

7/27/2005

7/5/2005

7/7/2005

7/1/2005

6/16/2005

8/31/2005

6/13/2005

6/21/2005

6/13/2005

7/1/2005

8/23/2005

5/27/2005

5/26/2005

5/11/2005

7/7/2005

7/14/2005

6/14/2005

8/15/2005

9/6/2005

8/11/2005

8/16/2005

9/6/2005

8/11/2005

8/15/2005

8/11/2005

9/6/2005

9/7/2005

5/16/2005

9/6/2005

8/11/2005

9/6/2005

8/15/2005

9/6/2005

8/15/2005

8/11/2005

8/16/2005

8/11/2005

Qty or County

Lakeland

Arcadia

Redwood City

Lakeland

Fort Meade

Bruce

Gore Springs

Milwaukee

Williamstown

Springfield Township

Burlington Township

Aubumdale

Winterhaven

Lake Wells

Bartow

Gracevi lie

Cotton Co.

Sidney

Lancaster County

Provincetown

York

Centreville

Buckley

Clifton

Gilman

La Moille

Hennepin

Ladd

Bureau

Wyanet

Mineral

South Kappa

Early Co.

El Paso

Tonica

Troy Grove

Mendota

Wenona

Minonk

Fairbury

Chatworth

Chenoa

Grand Ridge

Streator

Ransom

Marseilles

Utica

Federal Communications Commission

FCC

05-176

wnship

Burlington Township

Aubumdale

Winterhaven

Lake Wells

Bartow

Gracevi lie

Cotton Co.

Sidney

Lancaster County

Provincetown

York

Centreville

Buckley

Clifton

Gilman

La Moille

Hennepin

Ladd

Bureau

Wyanet

Mineral

South Kappa

Early Co.

El Paso

Tonica

Troy Grove

Mendota

Wenona

Minonk

Fairbury

Chatworth

Chenoa

Grand Ridge

Streator

Ransom

Marseilles

Utica

Federal Communications Commission

FCC

05-176

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

6/8/2005

6/22/2005

6/24/2005

7/1/2005

6/21/2005

6/22/2005

6/21/2005

6/22/2005

8/22/2005

5/19/2005

5/26/2005

6/10/2005

7/5/2005

7/12/2005

7/5/2005

7/26/2005

7/29/2005

5/27/2005

6/24/2005

7/29/2005

7/13/2005

5/16/2005

6/10/2005

7/5/2005

9/6/2005

7/19/2005

7/8/2005

5/27/2005

7/14/2005

7/1/2005

7/15/2005

6/10/2005

5/17/2005

8/11/2005

7/5/2005

6/13/2005

8/17/2005

7/5/2005

City or County

Lee Co.

Hurley

Silver City

Welch

Chicago

Indianapolis

Cave City

Eubank

Luzeme Co.

Cumberland Co.

Montgomery Co.

Plumerville (Conway)

Polk City

LA. 475 Rambin Rd.

Jennings

Evadale

Gibsonton

Beaumont

Lakeland

Chico

Vemon Co.

Tulsa Co.

San Diego

Richmond

Pyland

Calhoun City

Bartow Co.

Newtown Square

Jamestown

South Macomb

Las Vegas

Virginia

Klamath Falls

Yakima

Lizella

Phoenix

Mesa

Jefferson City (Cole)

Tignall

Las Vegas

Monclova

Mullica Hill

Wilmington

Glassboro

New Buffalo

Fresno

Co.

Montgomery Co.

Plumerville (Conway)

Polk City

LA. 475 Rambin Rd.

Jennings

Evadale

Gibsonton

Beaumont

Lakeland

Chico

Vemon Co.

Tulsa Co.

San Diego

Richmond

Pyland

Calhoun City

Bartow Co.

Newtown Square

Jamestown

South Macomb

Las Vegas

Virginia

Klamath Falls

Yakima

Lizella

Phoenix

Mesa

Jefferson City (Cole)

Tignall

Las Vegas

Monclova

Mullica Hill

Wilmington

Glassboro

New Buffalo

Fresno

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

Receive.

Date

V 'i'Cily orCkHinty ,

• • s

. ■:

6/6/2005

Fresno Co.

6/24/2005

Fresno

6/24/2005

Fresno

5/26/2005

Harlin Co.

7/11/2005

Virginville

6/16/2005

White Haven

7/20/2005

Atlanta

7/14/2005

Wenatchee

7/20/2005

Smyrna

8/15/2005

Lake Placid

7/7/2005

Plant City

5/17/2005

Greensboro

5/17/2005

Greensboro

5/26/2005

Elk Grove

7/20/2005

Lithonia

6/30/2005

Little Rock

6/16/2005

Petaluma

6/30/2005

Troy

8/16/2005

Cedar Bluff

7/8/2005

Bethleham

6/24/2005

Hollister

7/1/2005

Camilla

7/25/2005

Quitman

7/25/2005

Citronelle

7/25/2005

Toomsuba

7/21/2005

Las Vegas

7/14/2005

Manson

7/1/2005

Calexico

6/30/2005

Troy

7/22/2005

Rialto

6/22/2005

Lancaster

7/19/2005

Las Vegas

7/15/2005

Buckner

7/15/2005

Lewisville

8/8/2005

Vinton City

7/12/2005

Crawford

7/13/2005

Banner

7/8/2005

Tulsa

8/4/2005

Las Vegas

8/4/2005

Las Vegas

8/16/2005

Valley Mills

8/17/2005

Little Rock

8/16/2005

Franklin Township

6/21/2005

Crystal Springs

6/22/2005

Brookhaven

8/4/2005

Las Vegas

7/8/2005

Las Vegas

7/13/2005

Ash Fork

7/6/2005

Magnolia

7/22/2005

Rialto

6/22/2005

Lancaster

7/19/2005

Las Vegas

7/15/2005

Buckner

7/15/2005

Lewisville

8/8/2005

Vinton City

7/12/2005

Crawford

7/13/2005

Banner

7/8/2005

Tulsa

8/4/2005

Las Vegas

8/4/2005

Las Vegas

8/16/2005

Valley Mills

8/17/2005

Little Rock

8/16/2005

Franklin Township

6/21/2005

Crystal Springs

6/22/2005

Brookhaven

8/4/2005

Las Vegas

7/8/2005

Las Vegas

7/13/2005

Ash Fork

7/6/2005

Magnolia

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

7/6/2005

7/15/2005

8/3/2005

6/8/2005

7/11/2005

7/13/2005

7/25/2005

8/1/2005

7/26/2005

8/17/2005

5/19/2005

5/24/2005

6/6/2005

5/27/2005

7/13/2005

7/19/2005

9/6/2005

9/8/2005

5/27/2005

6/16/2005

6/30/2005

7/5/2005

6/30/2005

6/27/2005

8/22/2005

7/1/2005

8/25/2005

8/24/2005

8/25/2005

6/30/2005

8/16/2005

8/11/2005

8/16/2005

8/11/2005

8/15/2005

8/11/2005

8/16/2005

City or Coonfy

Wesson

Brookhaven

Bodue Chitto

Summit

Brightstar

Las Vegas

Downingtown

Valley Mills

Calhoun City

Archbold

Stryker

Union City

Little Rock

Madison Co.

Franklin Co.

Canden Co.

Louisville

Booneville

Chicago

Long Beach

Springville

Woodland

Howell

Sparks

Fresno

Clovis

San Rafael

Napa

Glen Ellen

Porterville

Carthage

York

Mabelvale

San Diego

Hebo

Curry Co.

Mount Angel

Gresham

Lakeside

Stanford

McLean Co.

Little York

Gladstone

Stronghurst

Elmwood

Biggsville

Joy

Pekin

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

6/10/2005

8/16/2005

7/14/2005

7/20/2005

7/15/2005

7/5/2005

8/25/2005

7/15/2005

7/5/2005

7/15/2005

6/1/2005

7/26/2005

6/1/2005

5/27/2005

7/14/2005

8/22/2005

8/16/2005

7/13/2005

7/20/2005

9/7/2005

7/25/2005

7/12/2005

7/6/2005

7/12/2005

6/30/2005

7/13/2005

6/30/2005

7/20/2005

8/1/2005

6/30/2005

8/4/2005

7/19/2005

6/30/2005

7/26/2005

6/1/2005

7/26/2005

8/10/2005

7/6/2005

6/7/2005

; Ot}^ or County

-l ,

Libertyville

Duncan

Waterville

Kennesaw

Dumas

Hillsboro

Union City

Lancaster

/27/2005

7/14/2005

8/22/2005

8/16/2005

7/13/2005

7/20/2005

9/7/2005

7/25/2005

7/12/2005

7/6/2005

7/12/2005

6/30/2005

7/13/2005

6/30/2005

7/20/2005

8/1/2005

6/30/2005

8/4/2005

7/19/2005

6/30/2005

7/26/2005

6/1/2005

7/26/2005

8/10/2005

7/6/2005

6/7/2005

; Ot}^ or County

-l ,

Libertyville

Duncan

Waterville

Kennesaw

Dumas

Hillsboro

Union City

Lancaster

Powell

Beverton

Hubbard

Texarkana

New Carlisle

Fort Recovery

Ozan

Naples

Trego

Antioch

Fannin Co.

Lackawanna Co.

Alexander

DeValls Bluff

Benton

Lake Texoma

Tuscon

Houston

Bremer County

Tylertown

Duchamp

Canyon Lake

Riverside

Potts boro

Nacogdoches

Riverside

Arlington

North Las Vegas

Norht Las Vegas

Pearsall

Las Vegas

Jefferson City

Crocker

Perry

Heniy Co.

Pine

Anaheim

Canton

Jackson

Baldwin Co.

16105

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

7/29/2005

7/15/2005

7/12/2005

8/4/2005

8/15/2005

8/9/2005

6/6/2005

6/8/2005

6/30/2005

6/16/2005

7/18/2005

7/22/2005

6/14/2005

7/28/2005

7/25/2005

7/12/2005

7/5/2005

7/13/2005

7/26/2005

6/30/2005

7/6/2005

6/14/2005

7/6/2005

7/22/2005

8/11/2005

7/22/2005

7/11/2005

7/8/2005

7/18/2005

7/22/2005

6/23/2005

9/8/2005

9/6/2005

9/8/2005

, CityorCoun^

Hempstead

Waldo

Potts boro

Allen

Nocona

Las Vegas

Columbus

Fannin Co.

Atlanta

Miami

Grayson Co.

Clifton

San Clemente

San Marcos

Plymouth

Alameda

Louin

Ringgold

McKinney

Fort Stockton

Ashville

Vallejo

Manchester

Harvard

Ontario

Nekoosa

Big Bear Lake

Los Angeles

Garden Grove

Mission Viejo

Fountain Valley

Anaheim

Excondido

Greeley

Colorado Springs

Littleton

Torrance

San Pedro

San Marcos

Jakin

Norman Park

Carroll County

Beulah

Bottineau County

Dakota County

Goodhue County

Hennepin County

Pennington County

16106

ente

San Marcos

Plymouth

Alameda

Louin

Ringgold

McKinney

Fort Stockton

Ashville

Vallejo

Manchester

Harvard

Ontario

Nekoosa

Big Bear Lake

Los Angeles

Garden Grove

Mission Viejo

Fountain Valley

Anaheim

Excondido

Greeley

Colorado Springs

Littleton

Torrance

San Pedro

San Marcos

Jakin

Norman Park

Carroll County

Beulah

Bottineau County

Dakota County

Goodhue County

Hennepin County

Pennington County

16106

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

9/8/2005

9/6/2005

9/8/2005

9/7/2005

9/8/2005

9/7/2005

8/31/2005

9/6/2005

6/30/2005

7/15/2005

6/8/2005

7/11/2005

7/14/2005

7/11/2005

6/10/2005

6/23/2005

8/31/2005

7/7/2005

6/21/2005

7/14/2005

7/21/2005

7/14/2005

7/21/2005

7/22/2005

7/21/2005

7/7/2005

7/5/2005

7/6/2005

8/5/2005

7/13/2005

City or County

Pennington County

Sioux Falls

Ipswich

Wayne County

Perry County

Richland

St. Louis

Moniteau County

Sweet Springs

Nelson

Houstonia

Marshall

Higginsville

Hughesville

Sedalia

Locka

Miami

Fallston

Doth an

Delta

Dothan

North Little Rock

Sherwood

North Little Rock

Little Rock

North Little Rock

Mclntrye

Sparta

Sandersville

Brinson

La Quinta

Sandiego

Elk Grove Village

Newport Beach

San Clemente

Newport Beach

San Diego

Escondido

Vista

Marysville

Clevis

Fresno

Morro Bay

Ontario

Clark Summit

arshall

Higginsville

Hughesville

Sedalia

Locka

Miami

Fallston

Doth an

Delta

Dothan

North Little Rock

Sherwood

North Little Rock

Little Rock

North Little Rock

Mclntrye

Sparta

Sandersville

Brinson

La Quinta

Sandiego

Elk Grove Village

Newport Beach

San Clemente

Newport Beach

San Diego

Escondido

Vista

Marysville

Clevis

Fresno

Morro Bay

Ontario

Clark Summit

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

7/13/2005

7/12/2005

7/11/2005

7/8/2005

7/12/2005

8/5/2005

6/28/2005

8/5/2005

7/13/2005

7/25/2005

7/26/2005

7/8/2005

7/29/2005

7/8/2005

7/26/2005

8/18/2005

7/20/2005

8/16/2005

7/26/2005

8/29/2005

8/8/2005

9/6/2005

7/26/2005

7/12/2005

7/5/2005

7/14/2005

6/10/2005

8/1/2005

6/28/2005

7/5/2005

7/26/2005

6/14/2005

8/11/2005

6/14/2005

7/5/2005

7/26/2005

7/5/2005

7/25/2005

9/8/2005

9/6/2005

. OtyorCounfy

Northampton

Haslett

Alexander

Verona

Pittsburg

Salford

Glenn Mills

Coatesville

Bath

Benoit

Cresson

Lewisville

San Diego

Sherwood

Dayton

Midway

Gumming

North Bergen

Keamy

Jersey City

Clay

Kerman

Firth

Willis

Calhoun

Clinton

Crawford

Redding

Reno

Sacramento

Roseville

Davis

Tdscumbia

Madera

Atlanta

Silver Spring

Dayton

Albuquerque

Lesington

Vina

North Little Rock

Weedowee

Bellefontaine

Arlington

East Sparta

Louiseville

Mobile

Nowell

Rialto

16108

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

6/20/2005

6/27/2005

9/9/2005

8/16/2005

7/13/2005

8/16/2005

9/8/2005

9/7/2005

9/8/2005

7/5/2005

6/15/2005

9/6/2005

9/8/2005

6/20/2005

6/21/2005

7/5/2005

7/26/2005

9/1/2005

8/16/2005

8/10/2005

8/25/2005

7/14/2005

7/29/2005

6/20/2005

8/5/2005

7/29/2005

8/31/2005

8/18/2005

7/20/2005

City or County

•

State

Atlanta

Fort Jackson

Ontario

Philadelphia

Dingmans Ferry

Plumsteadville

Sharon Hill

Oxn

8/16/2005

8/10/2005

8/25/2005

7/14/2005

7/29/2005

6/20/2005

8/5/2005

7/29/2005

8/31/2005

8/18/2005

7/20/2005

City or County

•

State

Atlanta

Fort Jackson

Ontario

Philadelphia

Dingmans Ferry

Plumsteadville

Sharon Hill

Oxnard

Los Angeles

Atwater

Sacramento

Atlanta

Lake Elsinore

Dixon

South Lake Tahoe

Hayneville

Clarkston

North Canton

Las Vegas

Senoia

Wellsboro

New Albany

Newark Valley

Somerset/Pulaski County

Escondido

San Diego

Owaneco

Strasburg

Dawsonville

Phoenixville

King of Prussia

Newark

Cassville

Phoenix

Friant

Laramie Co.

Platte Co.

Cook Co.

Johnson Co.

Campbell Co.

16109

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

TONS#

Reodye

Date- H

2882

7/21/2005

2883

7/21/2005

2885

8/1/2005

2891

7/8/2005

2893

9/6/2005

2897

8/17/2005

2903

9/6/2005

2908

8/19/2005

2910

9/6/2005

2913

8/15/2005

2915

8/15/2005

2916

8/15/2005

2920

8/1/2005

2943

9/8/2005

2946

7/8/2005

2948

8/15/2005

2953

8/26/2005

2954

8/26/2005

2963

8/19/2005

2968

8/16/2005

2970

8/16/2005

2982

7/1/2005

2985

7/8/2005

2986

8/16/2005

2987

8/15/2005

2993

8/16/2005

2996

8/1/2005

3005

8/8/2005

3010

9/8/2005

3014

9/8/2005

3020

8/4/2005

3021

7/26/2005

3028

7/25/2005

3029

8/17/2005

3035

8/23/2005

3038

8/23/2005

3040

8/15/2005

3041

8/15/2005

3043

8/15/2005

3044

8/15/2005

3045

8/15/2005

3047

8/23/2005

3050

8/15/2005

3051

8/15/2005

3052

8/15/2005

3055

9/7/2005

3057

9/7/2005

3061

8/15/2005

3062

7/26/2005

Lawrenceville

Gwynedd

Chowchilla

Union

Kansas City

Olympia

Boonville

Depew

Coon Rapids

Nampa

Boise

Kuna

Madera

Black Hawk County

Nashport

Richmond

Oakland

San Jose

Dover

Pitkin Co.

New Raymer

Cumming

Las Vegas

Flatte Co.

Parker

Ellijay

Littleton

Carbon Co

8/15/2005

3045

8/15/2005

3047

8/23/2005

3050

8/15/2005

3051

8/15/2005

3052

8/15/2005

3055

9/7/2005

3057

9/7/2005

3061

8/15/2005

3062

7/26/2005

Lawrenceville

Gwynedd

Chowchilla

Union

Kansas City

Olympia

Boonville

Depew

Coon Rapids

Nampa

Boise

Kuna

Madera

Black Hawk County

Nashport

Richmond

Oakland

San Jose

Dover

Pitkin Co.

New Raymer

Cumming

Las Vegas

Flatte Co.

Parker

Ellijay

Littleton

Carbon Co.

Pittsburg

Stockton

Lewisville

Cookeville

Clarks Summit

Newton

Las Vegas

North Las Vegas

West Valley City

South Jordan

Farmington

Salt Lake City

avis Co.

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

8/15/2005

8/1/2005

8/15/2005

7/26/2005

7/25/2005

7/26/2005

9/1/2005

8/2/2005

8/23/2005

9/8/2005

8/8/2005

8/15/2005

7/8/2005

8/4/2005

7/12/2005

8/4/2005

8/19/2005

9/9/2005

8/19/2005

9/9/2005

7/15/2005

7/14/2005

8/22/2005

7/14/2005

7/11/2005

8/16/2005

8/11/2005

8/3/2005

8/11/2005

9/1/2005

8/15/2005

City or County

Mendon

Swanton

Toquerville

Orem

Sandy

Prove

Providence

New Richland

Sun City

Guadalupe

Sun City

Phoenix

Arizona City

Bellingham

Greenbush

Northwood

Cooperstown

Ellendale

Ashley

Elgin

Angels Camp

San Diego

Far Rockaway

Visalia

Sparks

Smithfield

Springfield

Meridian

Canton

Allentown

College Station

Conroe

Nottingham

Purcell

Oakland

Hugo

Philadelpia

Plantersville

La Crosse

Oconomowoc

Onalaska

Mr. Laurel Township

Oakly

Erie

Fort Carson

Boulder

Alpharetta

Saint Paul

Lake elmo

16112

alupe

Sun City

Phoenix

Arizona City

Bellingham

Greenbush

Northwood

Cooperstown

Ellendale

Ashley

Elgin

Angels Camp

San Diego

Far Rockaway

Visalia

Sparks

Smithfield

Springfield

Meridian

Canton

Allentown

College Station

Conroe

Nottingham

Purcell

Oakland

Hugo

Philadelpia

Plantersville

La Crosse

Oconomowoc

Onalaska

Mr. Laurel Township

Oakly

Erie

Fort Carson

Boulder

Alpharetta

Saint Paul

Lake elmo

16112

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

Date

8/15/2005

9/8/2005

8/3/2005

8/11/2005

8/17/2005

8/4/2005

9/8/2005

8/15/2005

9/8/2005

8/10/2005

8/4/2005

8/11/2005

9/6/2005

7/19/2005

7/21/2005

9/6/2005

8/26/2005

9/2/2005

7/26/2005

7/21/2005

8/8/2005

8/16/2005

7/21/2005

8/17/2005

9/2/2005

8/12/2005

8/15/2005

7/11/2005

9/2/2005

9/8/2005

8/3/2005

8/5/2005

9/1/2005

8/24/2005

7/11/2005

8/25/2005

8/11/2005

7/11/2005

9/2/2005

9/7/2005

Des Plaines

Vacaville

Ft. Carson

Lakewood

North Little Rock

Las Vegas

San Francisco

Nampa

Sanger

Naples

King of Prussia

East Berlin

Wildomar

Easley

Union

Sun City

San Ramon

Santa Clara

Portland

Jenkinsville

Saluda

Jenkinsville

Chappells

St. Louis

Jersey City

Longarm Mountain

Scaly Mountain

Marshall

Highlands

Hazelhurst

Palm Beach Co.

Palo Verde

San Luis Obispo

Eatanton

St. Cloud

Bakersfield

Fresno

Palmdale

Wellshoro

Gary

Littleton

Talbotton

Las Vegas

Gay

Fort Pierce

Chesapeake

Colorado Springs

6113

st Berlin

Wildomar

Easley

Union

Sun City

San Ramon

Santa Clara

Portland

Jenkinsville

Saluda

Jenkinsville

Chappells

St. Louis

Jersey City

Longarm Mountain

Scaly Mountain

Marshall

Highlands

Hazelhurst

Palm Beach Co.

Palo Verde

San Luis Obispo

Eatanton

St. Cloud

Bakersfield

Fresno

Palmdale

Wellshoro

Gary

Littleton

Talbotton

Las Vegas

Gay

Fort Pierce

Chesapeake

Colorado Springs

6113

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

3592

3602

3612

3613

3628

3635

3640

3648

3664

3666

3687

3698

3719

3720

3724

3725

3731

3734

3753

3757

3769

3772

3773

3782

3790

3815

3839

3843

3845

3846

3850

3851

3853

3854

3856

3857

3859

3860

3862

3864

3869

3870

3872

3874

3877

3912

3925

3926

3927

9/2/2005

Pompano Beach

8/24/2005

Layton

9/2/2005

Miramar

9/8/2005

Harrison County .

8/2/2005

Santa Barbara Co.

7/26/2005

Bottineau

8/22/2005

Kenosha

7/14/2005

Cleveland

9/6/2005

Hillsboro

8/22/2005

Pleasant Prairie

9/1/2005

Jenson Beach

9/7/2005

Santa Barbara

9/6/2005

Roseville

8/10/2005

East Stroudsburg

8/2/2005

Peyton

8/5/2005

Colorado Springs

9/1/2005

McDonough

9/2/2005

Brandon

8/24/2005

Port Orford

8/25/2005

Clark

8/23/2005

Winchester

7/26/2005

Fairfield

7/26/2005

Hettinger

9/2/2005

Chandler

7/14/2005

Russellville

9/2/2005

Trophy Club

7/26/2005

Velva

9/6/2005

Visalia

7/29/2005

Stonington

7/26/2005

Cackle

7/29/2005

Oconee

7/29/2005

Findlay

7/29/2005

Dundee

7/26/2005

Dickinson

7/26/2005

Moorhead

7/26/2005

Arenzville

7/26/2005

Palmyra

7/29/2005

Elk Grove Village

8/17/2005

Las Vegas

7/26/2005

Power

7/14/2005

Colbert

7/26/2005

Hills Co.

9/1/2005

Aztec

9/1/2005

Carrizozo

9/1/2005

Moriarty

9/8/2005

Oxnard

8/8/2005

Fresno

8/8/2005

Fresno

8/29/2005

Fallbrook

Oconee

7/29/2005

Findlay

7/29/2005

Dundee

7/26/2005

Dickinson

7/26/2005

Moorhead

7/26/2005

Arenzville

7/26/2005

Palmyra

7/29/2005

Elk Grove Village

8/17/2005

Las Vegas

7/26/2005

Power

7/14/2005

Colbert

7/26/2005

Hills Co.

9/1/2005

Aztec

9/1/2005

Carrizozo

9/1/2005

Moriarty

9/8/2005

Oxnard

8/8/2005

Fresno

8/8/2005

Fresno

8/29/2005

Fallbrook

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

9/7/2005

8/2/2005

8/12/2005

8/8/2005

8/23/2005

9/1/2005

8/10/2005

8/26/2005

8/15/2005

7/29/2005

9/7/2005

9/9/2005

8/29/2005

8/24/2005

9/8/2005

8/15/2005

8/26/2005

9/8/2005

7/25/2005

9/1/2005

8/25/2005

9/9/2005

8/15/2005

8/26/2005

8/31/2005

8/2/2005

8/4/2005

8/25/2005

9/6/2005

8/2/2005

8/23/2005

9/7/2005

8/2/2005

8/19/2005

8/26/2005

8/5/2005

8/1/2005

8/16/2005

i City or County,

Irving

El Cajon

Jamestown

Stockton

Lakeland

Atlanta

Las Vegas

Henderson

Las Vegas

San Leandro

New Lebanon

Temecula

Delphi

Bristol

Sallis

Attala Co.

Freeville

Helm

Modesto

Newport

Mahtomedi

Otsego

Ceres

Florence

Lackawanna

Brookly

Union City

Birchwood Lakes

Allentown

San Jose

Little Rock

Stephens

Roxboro

Las Vegas

Escondido

Midland

North Las Vegas

Las Vegas

Newport

Muskegon

Houstonia

Sacramento

San Jose

Hemet

Bakersfield

Penis

Branswick

Camden

16115

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

Jesup

Corona

8/1/2005

9/7/2005

8/24/2005

8/25/2005

8/15/2005

8/19/2005

8/26/2005

8/10/2005

8/24/2005

8/15/2005

8/29/2005

8/10/2005

9/1/2005

8/5/2005

8/15/2005

8/17/2005

9/7/2005

9/1/2005

8/19/2005

9/7/2005

8/26/2005

8/8/2005

9/7/2005

9/9/2005

9/7/2005

9/9/2005

9/7/2005

9/9/2005

Termal

Indio

Olds

Moab

Provo

Draper

Spanish Fork

Salt Lake City

Antlers

Buckman

Amery

Hamden

Las Vegas

Val

8/5/2005

8/15/2005

8/17/2005

9/7/2005

9/1/2005

8/19/2005

9/7/2005

8/26/2005

8/8/2005

9/7/2005

9/9/2005

9/7/2005

9/9/2005

9/7/2005

9/9/2005

Termal

Indio

Olds

Moab

Provo

Draper

Spanish Fork

Salt Lake City

Antlers

Buckman

Amery

Hamden

Las Vegas

Valley Center

West Haven

Sedalia

Washington

Kankakee

Georgetown

San Bruno

San Marcos

Lewiston

Antelopoe

Shandon

Hammond

Albion

Eaton

Mariposa

Taft

Stockton

Lucerne

Camino

Kern

Visalia

Palm Springs

San Jose

Idyllwild

Cathedral City

Riverside County

San Bernardino

Bakersfield

Sacramento

Fresno

16116

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

City or County

9/9/2005

9/7/2005

8/31/2005

8/2/2005

8/1/2005

8/4/2005

8/2/2005

8/1/2005

8/10/2005

8/17/2005

8/24/2005

9/7/2005

9/6/2005

8/15/2005

9/2/2005

8/11/2005

9/8/2005

9/6/2005

8/30/2005

8/11/2005

8/31/2005

9/7/2005

8/31/2005

8/29/2005

8/31/2005

8/30/2005

9/7/2005

Fresno

Paso Robles

Monterey Park

Moreno Valley

McKinney

Roekford

Rockford

Goodwater

Lafayette

Waverly

Opelika

Midway

Eufaula

Headland

Elba

Kalamazoo

Jonesville

Rapids

Long Beach

Pico Rivera

Los Angeles

Browns Valley

Modesto

Truckee

Shingle Springs

Piedra

Cotati

Fresno

Midland

Orlando

Lakeland

Brentwood

Denver

Truckee

Ramah

LaPorte

Limon

Colorado

Loveland

Archdale

Greeley

Boulder

Loveland

Colorado Springs

Wolcott

Glenwood Springs

Durham

16117

oekford

Rockford

Goodwater

Lafayette

Waverly

Opelika

Midway

Eufaula

Headland

Elba

Kalamazoo

Jonesville

Rapids

Long Beach

Pico Rivera

Los Angeles

Browns Valley

Modesto

Truckee

Shingle Springs

Piedra

Cotati

Fresno

Midland

Orlando

Lakeland

Brentwood

Denver

Truckee

Ramah

LaPorte

Limon

Colorado

Loveland

Archdale

Greeley

Boulder

Loveland

Colorado Springs

Wolcott

Glenwood Springs

Durham

16117

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

8/31/2005

9/8/2005

8/11/2005

9/7/2005

9/9/2005

9/7/2005

9/8/2005

8/12/2005

8/25/2005

8/15/2005

9/7/2005

8/29/2005

9/6/2005

9/1/2005

9/2/2005

9/1/2005

9/7/2005

9/6/2005

9/8/2005

9/7/2005

8/5/2005

8/31/2005

9/7/2005

9/1/2005

8/24/2005

9/8/2005

9/9/2005

9/8/2005

9/9/2005

9/8/2005

8/5/2005

City or County

Glenwood Springs

Fruita

Rock Hill

Lake Nebagamon

Rockingham

Durham

Casper

Fayetteville

Durham

Grantville

Las Vegas

Ferris

San Bernardino

Piano

Sylmar

Paramount

Gardena

Irvine

Florence

Chimacum

West Covina

Sauk City

Brooklyn

Durham

Mebane

Five Points

Culver City

San Bemadino

Ann Arbor

Denison

Cotati

New Rockford

Buffalo

Glendo

Cheyenne

Eddy

Panguitch

Cheyenne

Buffalo

Verona

Grace City

Carrington

Petersburg

Aneta

Epping

Williston

Eatonton

16118

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

9/8/2005

9/6/2005

9/7/2005

8/29/2005

8/25/2005

8/19/2005

8/25/2005

8/29/2005

8/15/2005

8/26/2005

8/9/2005

9/8/2005

9/7/2005

8/24/2005

8/19/2005

9/6/2005

8/25/2005

9/9/2005

9/8/2005

6/16/2005

9/7/2005

8/23/2005

9/6/2005

8/23/2005

8/24/2005

8/23/2005

9/6/2005

9/2/2005

8/12/2005

9/7/2005

Adams

Cedar Falls

Red Wing

Bensonville

Naperville

Richmond

Henderson

Washington

Marietta

Valliant

Las Vegas

Stockton

Marshfield

Henderson/Clark County

Orla

25/2005

9/9/2005

9/8/2005

6/16/2005

9/7/2005

8/23/2005

9/6/2005

8/23/2005

8/24/2005

8/23/2005

9/6/2005

9/2/2005

8/12/2005

9/7/2005

Adams

Cedar Falls

Red Wing

Bensonville

Naperville

Richmond

Henderson

Washington

Marietta

Valliant

Las Vegas

Stockton

Marshfield

Henderson/Clark County

Orlando

Antioch

Manitowoc

Stevens Point

Portage

Parker

Jeanerette

Corpus Christi

Yolo

Hobbs

St. John

Walhalla

Chicago/ Cook County

Woodbridge

Bend

Las Vegas

Phoenix

Wimbledon

Wichita

Onsted

Atascadero

Anza

Rancho Cucamonga

Riverside

Las Vegas

Penis

Tuoiumne

Graham

Black Hawk

16119

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

ttiil

Receive,^

Dale

il"

'* - City or County ,

,3s • '' '

- .

State

5160

8/22/2005

Hilbert

5161

8/22/2005

Chilton

5176

9/2/2005

Hillsboro

5177

9/6/2005

Coupeville

5178

9/6/2005

Sagle

5179

9/6/2005

Redmond

5186

8/24/2005

Ousted

5236

8/24/2005

Lake Elsinore

5239

8/24/2005

Ionia

5242

8/26/2005

Las Vegas

5269

8/29/2005

Sparks

5292

8/26/2005

Las Vegas

5298

8/29/2005

Kansas City

5369

9/8/2005

Harris

5370

8/29/2005

San Jose

5372

8/29/2005

Cupertino

5373

8/29/2005

Mountain View

5375

9/8/2005

Williamson County

5418

8/29/2005

Henderson

5424

8/29/2005

Wichita

5481

8/29/2005

Las Vegas

5485

9/2/2005

Lake Elsinor

5492

9/9/2005

Gillette

5503

8/31/2005

Plum City

5504

9/1/2005

Chicago

5507

9/1/2005

Kilkenny

5521

9/9/2005

Houston

5549

9/2/2005

East Lansing

5550

9/2/2005

East Lansing

5596

9/6/2005

Sequin

5683

9/1/2005

Fillmore

5685

9/1/2005

Sherman Oaks

5688

9/1/2005

Chino Hills

5720

8/26/2005

Eutaw

5722

8/26/2005

Tutwiler

5728

8/31/2005

Clarksdale

5729

8/31/2005

Caohoma

5777

8/26/2005

Homer

5781

9/2/2005

Rice Lake

5785

9/2/2005

Lena

5799

8/26/2005

Atlanta

5800

8/26/2005

Tyrone

5817

9/2/2005

Newman

5847

9/2/2005

Greenfield

5877

9/9/2005

Nueces County

NTl

6/23/2005

Ridgeway

NTIO

5/1

/1/2005

Sherman Oaks

5688

9/1/2005

Chino Hills

5720

8/26/2005

Eutaw

5722

8/26/2005

Tutwiler

5728

8/31/2005

Clarksdale

5729

8/31/2005

Caohoma

5777

8/26/2005

Homer

5781

9/2/2005

Rice Lake

5785

9/2/2005

Lena

5799

8/26/2005

Atlanta

5800

8/26/2005

Tyrone

5817

9/2/2005

Newman

5847

9/2/2005

Greenfield

5877

9/9/2005

Nueces County

NTl

6/23/2005

Ridgeway

NTIO

5/12/2005

DeKalb Co.

NTl 02

9/7/2005

Kenosha

NT104

9/8/2005

Laramie County

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

TCNS#

Rec(dve

State

NT105

9/7/2005

Menomonee Falls

NTH

6/23/2005

Minneapolis

NT12

6/23/2005

Granada

NT13

6/23/2005

Minneapolis

NT14

6/23/2005

Minneapolis

NT15

6/23/2005

Bellevue

NT16

6/23/2005

St. Paul

NT17

4/26/2005

Bastonville

NT18

6/24/2005

Corcoran

NT19

7/14/2005

Cypress

NT2

7/14/2005

Bell County

NT21

7/14/2005

San Antonio

NT22

7/19/2005

Copperas Cove

NT23

7/20/2005

Outagamie Co.

NT24

7/20/2005

Shawano Co.

NT25

7/25/2005

Greenville

NT26

7/29/2005

Town of Heartland

NT27

8/12/2005

Bonduel

NT28

7/14/2005

Houston

NT3

7/14/2005

Cypress

NT4

7/14/2005

Houston

NTS

7/14/2005

Houston

NT6

7/14/2005

Bell County

NT7

7/5/2005

Colfax

NTS

7/14/2005

Spring

NT9

6/24/2005

Cokato

KEY

TCNS # =

Tower Construction

Notlflcation System

Date =

Referral Date

City or

County =

Proposed Tower

Location

NT# =

Referrals to the FCC

not using TCNS

16121

artland

NT27

8/12/2005

Bonduel

NT28

7/14/2005

Houston

NT3

7/14/2005

Cypress

NT4

7/14/2005

Houston

NTS

7/14/2005

Houston

NT6

7/14/2005

Bell County

NT7

7/5/2005

Colfax

NTS

7/14/2005

Spring

NT9

6/24/2005

Cokato

KEY

TCNS # =

Tower Construction

Notlflcation System

Date =

Referral Date

City or

County =

Proposed Tower

Location

NT# =

Referrals to the FCC

not using TCNS

16121

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

JOINT CONCURRING STATEMENT OF

CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN

AND

COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY

Re: Clarification of Procedures for Participation of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and

Native Hawaiian Organizations under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement, Declaratory

Ruling

We support the Commission's goals in this Declaratory Ruling, which interprets and clarifies the

application of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for Review of Effects on Historic Properties for

Certain Undertakings Approved by the Federal Communications Commission (Nationwide Agreement)^^

when a federally recognized Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization (NHO) does not tipiely

respond to the good faith efforts of an "applicant" or the Commission to contact the Indian tribe or NHO

regarding a proposed communications tower or antenna. While we support the goals of this item, we

nevertheless concur in the result.

Since the Nationwide Agreement became effective, a significant backlog of tower referrals has

developed at the Commission. We supported several proposals intended to resolve this backlog. We

continue to believe that siting of towers or antennas is not a federal or federally assisted undertaking,^^

and we would have preferred that the Commission reconsider its decision on that issue. We also would

have preferred an even more streamlined review process that would have allowed construction to proceed

even faster

mission. We supported several proposals intended to resolve this backlog. We

continue to believe that siting of towers or antennas is not a federal or federally assisted undertaking,^^

and we would have preferred that the Commission reconsider its decision on that issue. We also would

have preferred an even more streamlined review process that would have allowed construction to proceed

even faster. Finally, we supported the "three-strikes" process submitted by CTIA, which was endorsed

by industry and the United South and Eastern Tribes,'^ and to which we received no opposition. While

we concur in today's ruling, we worry that this process may still add needless layers of bureaucracy to

the tower siting process and lead to unnecessary delay.

47 C.F.R. Part 1, Appendix B.

See Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act

Review Process, WT Docket No. 03-128, Report and Order, 20 FCC Red 1073, 1230-32 (2004) (Abemathy, K.,

dissRtiting in part, Martin, K., approving in part and dissenting in part).

See Letter from James T. Martin, Executive Director, United South and Eastern Tribes, Inc., to Monica Desai,

Acting Bureau Chief, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, and Catherine Seidel, Acting Bureau Chief,

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (Aug. 15,2005).

16122

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPFS

Re:

Clarification of Procedures for Participation of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Native

Hawaiian Organizations Under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement

I support today's decision first and foremost because it maintains the basic procedures adopted in

Nationwide Programmatic Agreement and continues the vitally important govemment-to-goverranent

relationship that guides FCC interactions with federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian

Organizations (NHOs)

ribes and Native

Hawaiian Organizations Under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement

I support today's decision first and foremost because it maintains the basic procedures adopted in

Nationwide Programmatic Agreement and continues the vitally important govemment-to-goverranent

relationship that guides FCC interactions with federally-recognized Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian

Organizations (NHOs). I also support issuing a clarification of our processes now that we have some

experience with in^lementation of the Agreement. It is not a perfect solution or as rigorous as I would have

preferred, but I am optimistic that the clarification we adopt today will enable the timely deployment of

communications infrastructure while, at the same time, allowing us to protect our valuable historic places.

Nevertheless, the Commission must continue to work hard to implement the Agreement and should

periodically reexamine our processes to ensure that we do not undermine the ability of Indian Tribes and

NHOs to protect places that are culturally or religiously in^rtant.

16123

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 05-176

STATEMENT OF

COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN

Re:

Clarification of Procedures for Participation of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Native

Hawaiian Organizations Under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement

I am very pleased with this Declaratory Ruling because it provides an important clarification to certain

provisions of the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (NPA), a landmark agreement that I fully support.

The Order strikes the right balance between the Commission's consultation obligations to Indian tribes and

Native Hawaiian organizations (NHOs) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

and the need for certainty when Indian tribes and NHOs have not responded in a timely fashion to industry and

Commission contacts

greement (NPA), a landmark agreement that I fully support.

The Order strikes the right balance between the Commission's consultation obligations to Indian tribes and

Native Hawaiian organizations (NHOs) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

and the need for certainty when Indian tribes and NHOs have not responded in a timely fashion to industry and

Commission contacts.

Resolution of this issue is long overdue, given that winter is fast approaching and the construction

season is ending across much of the northern United States. We need to encourage wireless infrastructure

deployment, and not unnecessarily stand in its way. Given the public interest considerations and our

consultation efforts to date, I am pleased that we have agreed to immediately clear the enormous backlog of

tower siting requests.

While I know that there have been challenges for all parties involved in the initial implementation of

the NPA, I am very encouraged by reports from both industry and tribes and NHOs regarding the extent of

consultation that has taken place over the past several months. Indeed, approximately 95% of the 577 federally

recognized tribes have availed themselves of the Tower Construction Notification System (TCNS). These are

very positive developments, and they should not be forgotten in our resolution today of the "lack of response"

issue.

Recognizing the efforts of so many to implement the NPA, I fiilly appreciate the concerns that were

raised regarding the uncertainty created when Indian tribes and NHOs fail to reply to industry and Commission

efforts to obtain a response as specified in the NPA. Once I heard about the extent of these concerns, I was

pleased to work actively with my colleagues and with organizations like the United South and Eastern Tribes,

the National Congress of American Indians, and CTIA to come up with an approach that both addresses the

current application backlog and meets the needs of all concerned parties going forward

to obtain a response as specified in the NPA. Once I heard about the extent of these concerns, I was

pleased to work actively with my colleagues and with organizations like the United South and Eastern Tribes,

the National Congress of American Indians, and CTIA to come up with an approach that both addresses the

current application backlog and meets the needs of all concerned parties going forward. I fully endorse the

level of cooperation and understanding that helped us develop the approach we adopt today and hope it serves

as a model for further collaborative efforts imder the NPA.

The NPA can and will work. We have taken important steps forward in this item, and we should

continue to improve the consultation process through periodic reviews of the notification provisions of the

NPA. Just as with my approach to the issue before us today, I commit to working actively with industry and

Indian tribes and NHOs to ensure that consultation under the NPA works as smoothly as possible in the future.

16124

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.