# FCC-05-176: Clarification of Procedures for Participation of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations Under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (10/06/05): Clarification of Procedures for Participation of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations Under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement

> Federal · Rulings · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_FCC_05_176

## Section

- **Citation:** FCC-05-176: Clarification of Procedures for Participation of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations Under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (10/06/05)
- **Heading:** Clarification of Procedures for Participation of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations Under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement
- **Jurisdiction:** Federal
- **Kind:** Rulings
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** FCC Declaratory Rulings / Clarification of Procedures for Participation of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations Under the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement

## 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.
2.
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.'®
6
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
M,
§ 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
5/18/2005
5/19/2005
5/19/2005
5/18/2005
5/18/2005
5/18/2005
5/18/2005
5/11/2005
5/9/2005
5/18/2005
5/9/2005
5/9/2005
5/18/2005
5/9/2005
6/8/2005
6/8/2005
6/8/2005
4/28/2005
4/28/2005
4/28/2005
4/28/2005
4/28/2005
4/28/2005
5/9/2005
5/18/2005
5/18/2005
5/18/2005
6/20/2005
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
6/7/2005
5/9/2005
5/9/2005
5/9/2005
5/9/2005
Cave City
Eau Claire
Lancaster Co.
Chester 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
5/9/2005
6/30/2005
5/9/2005
5/23/2005
6/30/2005
5/20/2005
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
7/26/2005
8/18/2005
6/1/2005
6/30/2005
7/1/2005
7/1/2005
7/1/2005
7/25/2005
7/8/2005
6/7/2005
8/19/2005
5/16/2005
5/16/2005
7/29/2005
7/29/2005
7/29/2005
5/11/2005
5/26/2005
7/15/2005
6/16/2005
5/11/2005
5/11/2005
5/11/2005
5/11/2005
5/11/2005
6/30/2005
6/30/2005
6/30/2005
7/7/2005
Washington Co.
New Castle County
New Castle County
Sherwood
New Castle County
San Diego Co.
Little Rock
San Diego Co.
Holtville
Dan Diego Co.
Laddonia (Audrain)
San Diego Co.
San 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
Brinkley
Waynesboro
Paris
McKinney
Lake City
Wilcox Co.
Dodge Co.
Lamb Co.
Parmer Co.
Parmer Co.
Lackawanna Co.
San Diego Co.
Birmingham
Water Valley
Wanblee
Armour
Lennox
Bryant
Eureka
Little Rock
Little Rock
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
Brinkley
Waynesboro
Paris
McKinney
Lake City
Wilcox Co.
Dodge Co.
Lamb Co.
Parmer Co.
Parmer Co.
Lackawanna Co.
San Diego Co.
Birmingham
Water Valley
Wanblee
Armour
Lennox
Bryant
Eureka
Little Rock
Little Rock
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
6/16/2005
8/31/2005
6/13/2005
6/21/2005
6/13/2005
7/1/2005
7/1/2005
7/1/2005
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
8/11/2005
8/11/2005
8/11/2005
8/11/2005
9/6/2005
8/15/2005
9/6/2005
8/15/2005
8/11/2005
8/16/2005
8/11/2005
8/11/2005
8/11/2005
Qty or County
Lakeland
Arcadia
Redwood City
Lakeland
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
6/22/2005
6/24/2005
7/1/2005
6/21/2005
6/22/2005
6/21/2005
6/22/2005
8/22/2005
5/19/2005
5/19/2005
5/26/2005
6/10/2005
7/5/2005
7/12/2005
7/12/2005
7/12/2005
7/12/2005
7/12/2005
7/5/2005
7/26/2005
7/29/2005
5/27/2005
6/24/2005
7/29/2005
7/13/2005
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
7/1/2005
7/15/2005
7/15/2005
6/10/2005
5/17/2005
8/11/2005
7/5/2005
6/13/2005
6/13/2005
6/13/2005
8/17/2005
7/5/2005
City or County
Lee Co.
Hurley
Hurley
Silver City
Welch
Chicago
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
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
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
7/6/2005
7/6/2005
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
7/13/2005
7/19/2005
9/6/2005
9/8/2005
5/27/2005
6/16/2005
6/16/2005
6/30/2005
6/30/2005
7/5/2005
7/5/2005
6/30/2005
6/30/2005
6/30/2005
6/27/2005
8/22/2005
7/1/2005
8/25/2005
8/25/2005
8/24/2005
8/25/2005
6/30/2005
8/16/2005
8/11/2005
8/11/2005
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.
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
7/5/2005
7/5/2005
7/5/2005
8/25/2005
8/25/2005
7/15/2005
7/5/2005
7/5/2005
7/15/2005
7/15/2005
6/1/2005
7/26/2005
6/1/2005
5/27/2005
7/14/2005
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
7/6/2005
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
6/30/2005
7/26/2005
6/1/2005
7/26/2005
8/10/2005
7/6/2005
7/6/2005
6/7/2005
; Ot}^ or County
'

^
^
-l ,
Libertyville
Duncan
Waterville
Kennesaw
Dumas
Hillsboro
Union City
Lancaster
P
/27/2005
7/14/2005
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
7/6/2005
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
6/30/2005
7/26/2005
6/1/2005
7/26/2005
8/10/2005
7/6/2005
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
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
7/12/2005
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
7/22/2005
6/14/2005
7/28/2005
7/25/2005
7/12/2005
7/12/2005
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
7/22/2005
7/22/2005
7/22/2005
8/11/2005
7/22/2005
7/11/2005
7/8/2005
7/18/2005
7/22/2005
7/22/2005
7/22/2005
6/23/2005
6/23/2005
9/8/2005
9/6/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
, CityorCoun^
Hempstead
Waldo
Potts boro
Allen
Nocona
Las Vegas
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
9/7/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/7/2005
8/31/2005
8/31/2005
8/31/2005
8/31/2005
8/31/2005
8/31/2005
9/6/2005
6/30/2005
6/30/2005
7/15/2005
6/8/2005
6/8/2005
6/8/2005
7/11/2005
7/11/2005
7/11/2005
7/11/2005
7/14/2005
7/11/2005
6/10/2005
6/10/2005
6/10/2005
6/23/2005
8/31/2005
7/7/2005
6/21/2005
7/14/2005
7/14/2005
7/21/2005
7/14/2005
7/21/2005
7/22/2005
7/21/2005
7/21/2005
7/7/2005
7/5/2005
7/5/2005
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
Little Rock
North Little Rock
Mclntrye
Sparta
Sandersville
Brinson
La Quinta
Sandiego
Elk Grove Village
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
San Clemente
Newport Beach
San Diego
San Diego
Escondido
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
Little Rock
North Little Rock
Mclntrye
Sparta
Sandersville
Brinson
La Quinta
Sandiego
Elk Grove Village
Newport Beach
Newport Beach
San Clemente
Newport Beach
San Diego
San Diego
Escondido
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
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
7/26/2005
8/29/2005
8/8/2005
9/6/2005
7/26/2005
7/26/2005
7/12/2005
7/5/2005
7/5/2005
7/5/2005
7/5/2005
7/14/2005
6/10/2005
8/1/2005
6/28/2005
7/5/2005
7/5/2005
7/26/2005
6/14/2005
6/14/2005
8/11/2005
6/14/2005
7/5/2005
7/26/2005
7/5/2005
7/5/2005
7/25/2005
9/8/2005
9/6/2005
. OtyorCounfy
1
'
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
8/16/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/8/2005
7/5/2005
6/15/2005
9/6/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
6/20/2005
6/21/2005
7/5/2005
7/26/2005
9/1/2005
8/16/2005
8/16/2005
8/10/2005
8/25/2005
7/14/2005
7/29/2005
7/29/2005
7/29/2005
6/20/2005
8/5/2005
8/5/2005
8/5/2005
7/29/2005
8/31/2005
8/18/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
,
City or County
•
State
Atlanta
GA
Fort Jackson
SC
Ontario
CA
Philadelphia
FA
Dingmans Ferry
PA
Plumsteadville
PA
Sharon Hill
PA
Oxn
8/16/2005
8/10/2005
8/25/2005
7/14/2005
7/29/2005
7/29/2005
7/29/2005
6/20/2005
8/5/2005
8/5/2005
8/5/2005
7/29/2005
8/31/2005
8/18/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
7/20/2005
,
City or County
•
State
Atlanta
GA
Fort Jackson
SC
Ontario
CA
Philadelphia
FA
Dingmans Ferry
PA
Plumsteadville
PA
Sharon Hill
PA
Oxnard
CA
Los Angeles
CA
Los Angeles
CA
Los Angeles
CA
Atwater
CA
Sacramento
CA
Atlanta
GA
Lake Elsinore
CA
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.
Laramie Co.
Laramie Co.
Laramie Co.
Platte Co.
Platte Co.
Platte Co.
Cook Co.
Johnson Co.
Campbell Co.
Campbell 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
D
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
D
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
8/15/2005
8/15/2005
8/15/2005
8/15/2005
7/26/2005
7/25/2005
7/25/2005
7/25/2005
7/25/2005
7/25/2005
7/26/2005
7/26/2005
7/26/2005
7/26/2005
7/26/2005
7/26/2005
7/26/2005
9/1/2005
8/2/2005
8/23/2005
9/8/2005
8/8/2005
8/15/2005
8/15/2005
8/15/2005
7/8/2005
8/4/2005
7/12/2005
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
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
9/6/2005
8/26/2005
9/2/2005
7/26/2005
7/21/2005
7/21/2005
7/21/2005
8/8/2005
8/16/2005
7/21/2005
7/21/2005
7/21/2005
7/21/2005
8/17/2005
9/2/2005
8/12/2005
8/15/2005
7/11/2005
7/11/2005
9/2/2005
9/8/2005
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
Eatanton
St. Cloud
Bakersfield
Fresno
Palmdale
Wellshoro
Gary
Littleton
Talbotton
Las Vegas
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
Eatanton
St. Cloud
Bakersfield
Fresno
Palmdale
Wellshoro
Gary
Littleton
Talbotton
Las Vegas
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
FL
8/24/2005
Layton
UT
9/2/2005
Miramar
FL
9/8/2005
Harrison County .
IN
8/2/2005
Santa Barbara Co.
CA
7/26/2005
Bottineau
ND
8/22/2005
Kenosha
WI
7/14/2005
Cleveland
OA
9/6/2005
Hillsboro
MO
8/22/2005
Pleasant Prairie
WI
9/1/2005
Jenson Beach
FL
9/7/2005
Santa Barbara
CA
9/6/2005
Roseville
CA
8/10/2005
East Stroudsburg
PA
8/2/2005
Peyton
CO
8/5/2005
Colorado Springs
CO
9/1/2005
McDonough
OA
9/2/2005
Brandon
OR
8/24/2005
Port Orford
OR
8/25/2005
Clark
OR
8/23/2005
Winchester
MA
7/26/2005
Fairfield
ND
7/26/2005
Hettinger
ND
9/2/2005
Chandler
AZ
7/14/2005
Russellville
AL
9/2/2005
Trophy Club
TX
7/26/2005
Velva
ND
9/6/2005
Visalia
CA
7/29/2005
Stonington
IL
7/26/2005
Cackle
ND
7/29/2005
Oconee
IL
7/29/2005
Findlay
IL
7/29/2005
Dundee
IL
7/26/2005
Dickinson
ND
7/26/2005
Moorhead
MN
7/26/2005
Arenzville
IL
7/26/2005
Palmyra
IL
7/29/2005
Elk Grove Village
IL
8/17/2005
Las Vegas
NV
7/26/2005
Power
MT
7/14/2005
Colbert
OA
7/26/2005
Hills Co.
MT
9/1/2005
Aztec
NM
9/1/2005
Carrizozo
NM
9/1/2005
Moriarty
NM
9/8/2005
Oxnard
CA
8/8/2005
Fresno
CA
8/8/2005
Fresno
CA
8/29/2005
Fallbrook
CA
5
Oconee
IL
7/29/2005
Findlay
IL
7/29/2005
Dundee
IL
7/26/2005
Dickinson
ND
7/26/2005
Moorhead
MN
7/26/2005
Arenzville
IL
7/26/2005
Palmyra
IL
7/29/2005
Elk Grove Village
IL
8/17/2005
Las Vegas
NV
7/26/2005
Power
MT
7/14/2005
Colbert
OA
7/26/2005
Hills Co.
MT
9/1/2005
Aztec
NM
9/1/2005
Carrizozo
NM
9/1/2005
Moriarty
NM
9/8/2005
Oxnard
CA
8/8/2005
Fresno
CA
8/8/2005
Fresno
CA
8/29/2005
Fallbrook
CA

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
8/10/2005
8/10/2005
8/10/2005
8/26/2005
8/15/2005
7/29/2005
9/7/2005
9/9/2005
8/29/2005
8/29/2005
8/24/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
8/15/2005
8/26/2005
8/26/2005
9/8/2005
7/25/2005
9/1/2005
8/25/2005
9/9/2005
8/15/2005
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
8/23/2005
9/7/2005
8/2/2005
8/19/2005
8/26/2005
8/26/2005
8/5/2005
8/5/2005
8/5/2005
8/1/2005
8/16/2005
i City or County,
Irving
El Cajon
Jamestown
Stockton
Lakeland
Atlanta
Las Vegas
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
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
8/24/2005
8/25/2005
8/25/2005
8/15/2005
8/15/2005
8/15/2005
8/15/2005
8/19/2005
8/26/2005
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
8/15/2005
8/17/2005
9/7/2005
9/1/2005
8/19/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
8/26/2005
8/8/2005
9/7/2005
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
9/7/2005
9/9/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
Termal
Indio
Olds
Moab
Provo
Draper
Spanish Fork
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Antlers
Buckman
Amery
Hamden
Las Vegas
Las Vegas
Val
05
8/5/2005
8/15/2005
8/15/2005
8/17/2005
9/7/2005
9/1/2005
8/19/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
8/26/2005
8/8/2005
9/7/2005
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
9/7/2005
9/9/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
Termal
Indio
Olds
Moab
Provo
Draper
Spanish Fork
Salt Lake City
Salt Lake City
Antlers
Buckman
Amery
Hamden
Las Vegas
Las Vegas
Valley Center
West Haven
Sedalia
Washington
Kankakee
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
Riverside County
San Bernardino
Bakersfield
Sacramento
Fresno
16116

Federal Communications Commission
FCC 05-176
City or County
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
8/31/2005
8/2/2005
8/2/2005
8/1/2005
8/4/2005
8/4/2005
8/2/2005
8/1/2005
8/1/2005
8/1/2005
8/1/2005
8/10/2005
8/17/2005
8/24/2005
9/7/2005
9/6/2005
9/6/2005
9/6/2005
8/15/2005
8/15/2005
8/15/2005
8/15/2005
8/15/2005
9/2/2005
9/2/2005
8/11/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/6/2005
8/30/2005
8/11/2005
8/31/2005
8/31/2005
8/31/2005
8/31/2005
8/31/2005
9/7/2005
8/31/2005
8/29/2005
8/29/2005
8/31/2005
8/30/2005
8/30/2005
9/7/2005
Fresno
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
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
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
8/31/2005
9/8/2005
8/11/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
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
9/1/2005
9/1/2005
9/1/2005
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
8/31/2005
9/7/2005
9/1/2005
8/24/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/9/2005
9/8/2005
9/9/2005
9/9/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
8/5/2005
City or County
Glenwood Springs
Fruita
Rock Hill
Lake Nebagamon
Rockingham
Durham
Casper
Fayetteville
Durham
Grantville
Las Vegas
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
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
9/6/2005
9/7/2005
8/29/2005
8/25/2005
8/25/2005
8/19/2005
8/19/2005
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
8/24/2005
8/24/2005
8/19/2005
9/6/2005
9/6/2005
8/25/2005
9/9/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
6/16/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
8/23/2005
8/23/2005
9/6/2005
8/23/2005
8/24/2005
8/24/2005
8/24/2005
8/24/2005
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
Henderson
Washington
Marietta
Valliant
Las Vegas
Stockton
Marshfield
Henderson/Clark County
Orla
25/2005
9/9/2005
9/8/2005
9/8/2005
6/16/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
9/7/2005
8/23/2005
8/23/2005
9/6/2005
8/23/2005
8/24/2005
8/24/2005
8/24/2005
8/24/2005
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
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
WI
5161
8/22/2005
Chilton
WI
5176
9/2/2005
Hillsboro
OR
5177
9/6/2005
Coupeville
WA
5178
9/6/2005
Sagle
ID
5179
9/6/2005
Redmond
WA
5186
8/24/2005
Ousted
MI
5236
8/24/2005
Lake Elsinore
CA
5239
8/24/2005
Ionia
MI
5242
8/26/2005
Las Vegas
NV
5269
8/29/2005
Sparks
NV
5292
8/26/2005
Las Vegas
NV
5298
8/29/2005
Kansas City
KS
5369
9/8/2005
Harris
TX
5370
8/29/2005
San Jose
CA
5372
8/29/2005
Cupertino
Ca
5373
8/29/2005
Mountain View
CA
5375
9/8/2005
Williamson County
TX
5418
8/29/2005
Henderson
NV
5424
8/29/2005
Wichita
KS
5481
8/29/2005
Las Vegas
NV
5485
9/2/2005
Lake Elsinor
CA
5492
9/9/2005
Gillette
WY
5503
8/31/2005
Plum City
WI
5504
9/1/2005
Chicago
IL
5507
9/1/2005
Kilkenny
MN
5521
9/9/2005
Houston
TX
5549
9/2/2005
East Lansing
MI
5550
9/2/2005
East Lansing
MI
5596
9/6/2005
Sequin
TX
5683
9/1/2005
Fillmore
CA
5685
9/1/2005
Sherman Oaks
CA
5688
9/1/2005
Chino Hills
CA
5720
8/26/2005
Eutaw
AL
5722
8/26/2005
Tutwiler
MS
5728
8/31/2005
Clarksdale
MS
5729
8/31/2005
Caohoma
MS
5777
8/26/2005
Homer
Ga
5781
9/2/2005
Rice Lake
WI
5785
9/2/2005
Lena
WI
5799
8/26/2005
Atlanta
GA
5800
8/26/2005
Tyrone
GA
5817
9/2/2005
Newman
CA
5847
9/2/2005
Greenfield
CA
5877
9/9/2005
Nueces County
TX
NTl
6/23/2005
Ridgeway
lA
NTIO
5/1
/1/2005
Sherman Oaks
CA
5688
9/1/2005
Chino Hills
CA
5720
8/26/2005
Eutaw
AL
5722
8/26/2005
Tutwiler
MS
5728
8/31/2005
Clarksdale
MS
5729
8/31/2005
Caohoma
MS
5777
8/26/2005
Homer
Ga
5781
9/2/2005
Rice Lake
WI
5785
9/2/2005
Lena
WI
5799
8/26/2005
Atlanta
GA
5800
8/26/2005
Tyrone
GA
5817
9/2/2005
Newman
CA
5847
9/2/2005
Greenfield
CA
5877
9/9/2005
Nueces County
TX
NTl
6/23/2005
Ridgeway
lA
NTIO
5/12/2005
DeKalb Co.
GA
NTl 02
9/7/2005
Kenosha
WI
NT104
9/8/2005
Laramie County
WY

Federal Communications Commission
FCC 05-176
TCNS#
Rec(dve
State
NT105
9/7/2005
Menomonee Falls
WI
NTH
6/23/2005
Minneapolis
MN
NT12
6/23/2005
Granada
MN
NT13
6/23/2005
Minneapolis
MN
NT14
6/23/2005
Minneapolis
MN
NT15
6/23/2005
Bellevue
NE
NT16
6/23/2005
St. Paul
MN
NT17
4/26/2005
Bastonville
GA
NT18
6/24/2005
Corcoran
MN
NT19
7/14/2005
Cypress
TX
NT2
7/14/2005
Bell County
TX
NT21
7/14/2005
San Antonio
TX
NT22
7/19/2005
Copperas Cove
TX
NT23
7/20/2005
Outagamie Co.
WI
NT24
7/20/2005
Shawano Co.
WI
NT25
7/25/2005
Greenville
WI
NT26
7/29/2005
Town of Heartland
WI
NT27
8/12/2005
Bonduel
WI
NT28
7/14/2005
Houston
TX
NT3
7/14/2005
Cypress
TX
NT4
7/14/2005
Houston
TX
NTS
7/14/2005
Houston
TX
NT6
7/14/2005
Bell County
TX
NT7
7/5/2005
Colfax
WI
NTS
7/14/2005
Spring
TX
NT9
6/24/2005
Cokato
MN
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
WI
NT27
8/12/2005
Bonduel
WI
NT28
7/14/2005
Houston
TX
NT3
7/14/2005
Cypress
TX
NT4
7/14/2005
Houston
TX
NTS
7/14/2005
Houston
TX
NT6
7/14/2005
Bell County
TX
NT7
7/5/2005
Colfax
WI
NTS
7/14/2005
Spring
TX
NT9
6/24/2005
Cokato
MN
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

## Nearby sections

- [DA-00-1341: A&E Television Networks For Declaratory Ruling (06/20/00) A&E Television Networks For Declaratory Ruling](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_00_1341.md)
- [DA-01-2234: Request for Declaratory Ruling Removing the Commission's Minimum Carrier Tone Requirement for OFDM Modulation in the Multipoint Distribution and Instructional Television Fixed Services (09/26/01) Request for Declaratory Ruling Removing the Commission's Minimum Carrier Tone Requirement for OFDM Modulation in the Multipoint Distribution and Instructional Television Fixed Services](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_01_2234.md)
- [DA-01-2871: Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan (12/11/01) Multi-Association Group (MAG) Plan](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_01_2871.md)
- [DA-02-765: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS AND ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL TELEVISION STATIONS' EMERGENCY PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OR CLARIFICATION OF BROADCAST CARRIAGE RULES FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS, 47 C.F.R. SECTION 76.66 (04/04/02) NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS AND ASSOCIATION OF LOCAL TELEVISION STATIONS' EMERGENCY PETITION FOR MODIFICATION OR CLARIFICATION OF BROADCAST CARRIAGE RULES FOR SATELLITE CARRIERS, 47 C.F.R. SECTION 76.66](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_02_765.md)
- [DA-02-2078: Time-Telepictures Television (08/26/02) Time-Telepictures Television](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_02_2078.md)
- [DA-03-2865: INFINITY BROADCASTING OPERATIONS INC (09/09/03) INFINITY BROADCASTING OPERATIONS INC](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_03_2865.md)
- [DA-03-4108: Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., Petition for Declaratory Ruling Petition for Revocation of Certification Request for Expedited Consideration (01/06/04) Comcast Cable Communications, Inc., Petition for Declaratory Ruling Petition for Revocation of Certification Request for Expedited Consideration](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_03_4108.md)
- [DA-04-970: List of Foreign Telecommunications Carriers that Are Presumed to Possess Market Power in Foreign Telecommunications Markets (04/08/04) List of Foreign Telecommunications Carriers that Are Presumed to Possess Market Power in Foreign Telecommunications Markets](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_04_970.md)
- [DA-04-3201: Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies (10/06/04) Amendment of the Commission's Space Station Licensing Rules and Policies](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_04_3201.md)
- [DA-04-3576: Thrifty Call, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning BellSouth Tariff F.C.C. No. 1 (11/12/04) Thrifty Call, Inc. Petition for Declaratory Ruling Concerning BellSouth Tariff F.C.C. No. 1](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_04_3576.md)
- [DA-05-140: Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities (01/26/05) Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_140.md)
- [DA-05-148: CLARIFICATION OF RECONSIDERATION PERIOD AND EFFECTIVE DATE FOR TERMINATIONS OF WIRELESS RADIO SERVICE AUTHORIZATIONS (01/21/05) CLARIFICATION OF RECONSIDERATION PERIOD AND EFFECTIVE DATE FOR TERMINATIONS OF WIRELESS RADIO SERVICE AUTHORIZATIONS](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_148.md)
- [DA-05-1618: Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (06/09/05) Implementation of the Subscriber Carrier Selection Changes Provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_1618.md)
- [DA-05-1667: Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (06/15/05) Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_DA_05_1667.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/FCC_FCC_05_176. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.