Comment Sought on Scoping Document Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 51174-51180 [2015-20698]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 163 (Monday, August 24, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51174-51180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-20698]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[WT Docket No. 15-180; DA 15-865]


Comment Sought on Scoping Document Under Section 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission's 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) releases a Scoping Document 
and seeks public comment on a proposed Program Alternative to improve 
and facilitate the review process for deployments of small wireless 
communications facilities, including Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) 
and small cell facilities, under section 106 of the National Historic 
Preservation Act.

DATES: Comments are due September 28, 2015.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by DA No. 15-865; WT 
Docket No. 15-180, by any of the following methods:
    [ssquf] Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically 
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment 
Filing System (ECFS): https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
    [ssquf] Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper should 
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket 
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers 
should submit two additional copies for each additional docket or 
rulemaking number.
    [ssquf] Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by 
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. 
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's 
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
    [cir] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for 
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 
8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with 
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of 
before entering the building.
    [ssquf] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service 
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton 
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
    [ssquf] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail 
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen DelSordo, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, 202-418-1986, email 
Stephen.Delsordo@fcc.gov; Paul D'Ari, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, (202) 418-1550, email Paul.DAri@fcc.gov; Mania Baghdadi, 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-2133, email 
Mania.Baghdadi@fcc.gov; or Brenda Boykin, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, (202) 418-2062, email Brenda.Boykin@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Bureau's Public 
Notice, DA No. 15-865; WT Docket No 15-180, released July 28, 2015. The 
full text of this document is available for inspection and copying 
during business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals 
II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Also, it 
may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor at 
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; 
the contractor's Web site, https://www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800) 
378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or email FCC@BCPIWEB.com. Copies of 
the Public Notice also may be obtained via ECFS by entering the docket 
number WT Docket 15-180; DA No. 15-865. Additionally, the complete item 
is available on the Federal Communications Commission's Web site at 
https://www.fcc.gov.
    By this Public Notice, the Bureau releases a scoping document (the 
section 106 Scoping Document) and invites input on a new program 
alternative to improve and facilitate the review process for 
deployments of small wireless communications facilities, including 
Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and small cell facilities, under 
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. 
306108. In particular, the attached section 106 Scoping Document 
describes options and seeks public input on potentially amending the 
Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless 
Antennas (Collocation Agreement), 47 CFR part 1, App. B, to address the 
historic preservation review of deployments of small wireless 
communications facilities under section 106. Copies of the section 106 
Scoping Document are also being sent to State Historic Preservation 
Officers (SHPOs), Tribal and Native Hawaiian cultural preservation 
officials (including Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs)), 
and other stakeholders. By this Public Notice, the Bureau also 
initiates and invites government-to-government consultation with 
Federally-recognized Tribal Nations.
    As described more fully in the section 106 Scoping Document, new 
and additional infrastructure deployments are necessary to meet the 
increasing demand for advanced wireless services and greater wireless 
bandwidth. Many wireless providers are deploying new infrastructure 
technologies, particularly DAS and small cells, in order to increase 
coverage and capacity in indoor and outdoor environments. Because DAS 
networks and small cell facilities use radio spectrum licensed by the 
Commission, the installation of these facilities on utility poles, 
buildings, and other existing structures is acknowledged as a 
Commission undertaking under section 106 of the NHPA. The Commission's 
rules require applicants to follow the regulations of the Advisory 
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), as modified by two Nationwide 
Programmatic Agreements (NPAs) executed by the Commission with the ACHP 
and the National Conference of State Historic

[[Page 51175]]

Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) (47 CFR part 1, Apps. B and C), in order 
to determine whether undertakings will affect historic properties. Such 
historic preservation reviews serve important local and national 
interests, and the NPAs tailor the Commission's processes to maximize 
efficiency by eliminating unnecessary procedures and establishing 
exclusions for proposed facilities that do not have the potential to 
adversely affect historic properties.
    In the Infrastructure Report and Order, 80 FR 1238, Jan. 8, 2015, 
the Commission recognized that DAS networks and small cell facilities 
use components that are a fraction of the size of traditional cell 
tower deployments and can often be installed on utility poles, 
buildings, and other existing structures with no potential to cause 
effects on historic properties. The Infrastructure Report and Order 
established targeted exceptions from historic preservation review 
requirements under Section 106 in such cases. The Commission stressed 
that there is room for additional improvement to its process in this 
area, but added that any more comprehensive measures would require 
additional consideration and consultation and are more appropriately 
addressed and developed through the program alternative process.
    The Commission made a commitment to work with ACHP and other 
stakeholders to develop a program alternative to appropriately promote 
additional efficiencies in the historic preservation review of DAS and 
small-cell deployments. An amendment to the Collocation Agreement would 
be considered a program alternative that falls under the process 
outlined in the ACHP regulations.
    This Public Notice and the accompanying section 106 Scoping 
Document formally initiate the process of amending the Collocation 
Agreement to more comprehensively define and limit section 106 review 
for small wireless communications facility deployments that are 
unlikely to have adverse effects on historic properties. Pursuant to 
the Commission's commitment in the Infrastructure Report and Order, the 
attached section 106 Scoping Document seeks specific comment on a 
number of options for such an amendment that would further tailor the 
section 106 process to the specific circumstances posed by the 
deployment of small wireless communications facilities. The Bureau 
notes that any amendment to the Collocation Agreement would affect only 
the Commission's review process under section 106 of the NHPA, and 
would not limit State and local governments' authority to enforce their 
own historic preservation requirements consistent with Section 
332(c)(7) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)), and section 
6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 
U.S.C. 1455(a).
    The Collocation Agreement provides that most collocations of 
antennas on existing buildings and structures are excluded from section 
106 review, with a few defined exceptions to address potentially 
problematic situations. The Commission's goal is to amend the 
Collocation Agreement by adopting provisions specific to the review of 
small wireless communications facility deployments that meet specified 
criteria. The exclusions and other provisions adopted pursuant to an 
amendment to the Collocation Agreement would supplement the two 
targeted exclusions from section 106 review that the Commission adopted 
in the Infrastructure Report and Order for DAS and small cell 
deployments, as well as the exclusions set forth in the Collocation 
Agreement. In developing an amendment to the Collocation Agreement, the 
Commission is required to arrange for public participation appropriate 
to the subject matter and the scope of the category of covered 
undertakings in accordance with the standards set forth in the ACHP's 
rules. This Public Notice and the accompanying section 106 Scoping 
Document fulfill this requirement.
    Comments are due on or before September 28, 2015. The Commission is 
not requesting Reply Comments.
    This proceeding will be treated as exempt under the Commission's ex 
parte rules. The Commission finds that treating this proceeding as 
exempt is in the public interest because: (1) The ACHP's program 
alternative procedures require the Commission to gather facts, views, 
and information from multiple parties through consultation, including 
government-to-government consultation with Tribal Nations; (2) 
requiring ex parte filings for each conversation in the development of 
the program alternative would be cumbersome, would potentially inhibit 
the consultation process, and would likely delay its development; and 
(3) once developed, the Commission will submit the proposed amendment 
to the Collocation Agreement to the ACHP and will publish notice of the 
availability of the proposed program alternative in the Federal 
Register as required by ACHP regulations, thus giving all stakeholders 
an opportunity to comment on the record at the decisional stage.
    Availability of Documents: Comments will be available for public 
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, 
Washington, DC 20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. 
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/Documents will be available 
electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
    Accessibility information: To request information in accessible 
formats (computer diskettes large print, audio recording, and Braille), 
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the FCC's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 
(TTY). This document can also be downloaded in Word and Portable 
Document Format (PDF) at www.fcc.gov.

Program Alternative for Small Wireless Comunications Facility 
Deployments Potential Amendments to the Nationwide Programmatic 
Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas

Section 106 Scoping Document

July 28, 2015
    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites 
the participation of State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), 
Federally-recognized Tribal Nations, the historic preservation 
community, and other stakeholders in developing a proposed program 
alternative pursuant to Section 800.14(b) of the rules of the Advisory 
Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), 36 CFR part 800, to improve 
and facilitate the review process under Section 106 of the National 
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. 306108, for deployments of 
Distributed Antenna System (DAS) networks and small cell facilities 
that constitute FCC undertakings. The Commission's process for 
developing this program alternative includes government-to-government 
consultation with Federally-recognized Tribal Nations in accordance 
with section 800.14(b)(2) and (f) of the ACHP rules and in accordance 
with the trust relationship the Commission shares with sovereign Tribal 
Nations, as outlined in the FCC's Statement of Policy on Establishing a 
Government-to-Government Relationship with Indian Tribes, 65 FR 41668, 
July 6, 2000.
    To develop this program alternative, the FCC proposes to negotiate 
an amendment to the 2001 Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the 
Collocation of Wireless Antennas

[[Page 51176]]

(Collocation Agreement), 47 CFR part 1, App. B. The Collocation 
Agreement provides that most collocations of antennas on existing 
structures are excluded from historic preservation review, with a few 
defined exceptions to address potentially problematic situations. The 
FCC proposes to amend the Collocation Agreement to better account for 
the limited potential of small wireless communications facility 
collocations that meet specified criteria, including DAS and small cell 
deployments, to affect historic properties. The FCC is considering 
revisions that would augment the two targeted exclusions from Section 
106 review that the Commission adopted in the Infrastructure Report and 
Order, 80 FR 1238, Jan. 8, 2015, as well as the exclusions set forth in 
the Collocation Agreement.
    The FCC specifically seeks comment on the following potential 
additional exclusions for small wireless communications facility 
collocations:
     An exclusion for small facility deployments on structures 
more than 45 years of age where the deployments meet specified volume 
limits, involve no new ground disturbance, and are not on historic 
properties or in or near a historic district.
     An exclusion for small facility deployments located on 
historic properties or in or near a historic district if they: Meet 
specified size or volume limits; cause no new ground disturbance; meet 
visibility restrictions; comply in their installation with the 
Secretary of the Interior's standards and guidelines for historic 
preservation (Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment 
of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, 
Restoring and Restructuring Historic Buildings, available at https://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/standguide/index.htm); and 
comply with all conditions on any existing deployment, located within 
the same vicinity on the same property, that were imposed pursuant to 
any regulatory or Section 106 review in order to directly mitigate or 
prevent the facility's effects.
     Additional exclusions for small facility deployments on 
historic properties or in or near a historic district, regardless of 
visibility limitations, in certain limited circumstances such as: 
Deployments of small facilities on utility poles, light posts, and 
traffic lights; deployments of small facilities in certain locations, 
such as utility or communications rights-of-way; and replacements or 
modifications of existing small facilities where the replacements meet 
specified volume/size limits.
    The FCC also invites ideas regarding any other potential measures 
to improve the Section 106 process for small wireless communications 
facilities.
    The purpose of this section 106 Scoping Document is to inform and 
engage all stakeholders in this important process, and also to initiate 
formal consultation on the development of the proposed program 
alternative with Federally-recognized Tribal Nations. This document 
provides a statement of purpose, an overview of DAS and small cell 
infrastructure, an explanation of compliance with section 106 for DAS 
and small cell infrastructure, a discussion of ideas for the proposed 
program alternative, and a description of next steps.

I. Purpose

    The FCC seeks to develop alternative review processes under section 
106 of the NHPA that are appropriate for new wireless technologies that 
use smaller antennas and compact radio equipment. These facilities, 
including those used in DAS and small cell systems, are a fraction of 
the size of traditional cell tower deployments and can be installed on 
utility poles, buildings, and other existing structures. Further 
tailoring the Section 106 review process for small wireless 
communications facilities would foster efficient deployment of 
infrastructure and equipment that could deliver greater spectrum 
capacity in more locations and fill in coverage gaps, while also taking 
into account historic preservation requirements and respecting the 
vital roles of State, local and Tribal governments.
    The Commission's environmental rules, including its historic 
preservation rules, generally addressed the deployment of traditional 
``macrocells'' on towers, buildings and non-tower structures. For 
decades, the Commission's rules have excluded most collocations of 
antennas from regulatory review, recognizing the benefits to the 
environment and historic properties that accrue from using existing 
support structures rather than building new structures. The current 
trend towards small wireless facility deployments has compelled the 
Commission to update and expand these exclusions to address and account 
for the smaller infrastructure associated with new technology. Among 
other things, eliminating the review of deployments with minimal 
potential to affect historic properties will allow the valuable and 
scarce administrative resources supporting Section 106 reviews to be 
focused on more problematic undertakings, thereby serving the 
preservation values these review processes were intended to protect.
    In the Infrastructure Report and Order, the Commission eliminated 
unnecessary reviews of proposed deployments of small wireless 
communications facilities by adopting two targeted exclusions from 
section 106 review for certain small facility collocations on utility 
structures and on buildings and other non-tower structures, provided 
that they meet certain specified criteria. The Infrastructure Report 
and Order also noted that Commission staff was working with the ACHP 
and other stakeholders to develop a program alternative to promote 
additional efficiencies in the section 106 review of DAS and small-cell 
deployments. The Commission stated that it expected that the process 
for developing a program alternative would conclude between 18 and 24 
months after the release of the Infrastructure Report and Order.
    In accordance with the commitment made in the Infrastructure Report 
and Order to develop a program alternative for small facilities, this 
section 106 Scoping Document seeks comment on potential options to 
further update the Commission's historic preservation process under 
section 106 by amending the Collocation Agreement to account for the 
specific characteristics of DAS and small cell facilities. The 
Commission has observed that in most cases, the deployment of small 
wireless communications facilities such as DAS and small cells has 
minimal effects, if any, on historic properties and can deliver more 
broadband service to more communities, while reducing the need for new 
construction that is potentially more intrusive. The goal of this 
Scoping Document is to identify additional exclusions and/or 
alternative processes that would facilitate greater efficiencies and 
therefore expedite section 106 reviews and reduce burdens on all 
parties to the section 106 process, while ensuring that deployments 
with significant potential to affect historic properties will continue 
to receive appropriate scrutiny.

II. DAS and Small Cell Infrastructure

    Small cells are low-powered wireless base stations that function 
like cells in a mobile wireless network. They typically cover targeted 
indoor or localized outdoor areas ranging in size from homes and 
offices to stadiums, shopping malls, hospitals, and metropolitan 
outdoor spaces. Wireless service providers often use small cells to 
provide connectivity to their subscribers in areas that present 
capacity and

[[Page 51177]]

coverage challenges to traditional wide-area macrocell networks, such 
as coverage gaps created by buildings, tower siting difficulties, and 
challenging terrain. These cells cover significantly less area than 
traditional macrocells, so networks that incorporate small-cell 
technology can make greater reuse of scarce wireless frequencies. This 
greatly increases spectral efficiency and data capacity within the 
network footprint.
    DAS networks distribute RF signals from transceivers at a central 
hub to a specific service area where the signals are needed because of 
poor coverage or inadequate capacity. The network typically consists of 
a number of remote communications nodes deployed throughout the desired 
coverage area (each with at least one antenna for transmission and 
reception), a high capacity signal transport medium that connects each 
node to a central communications hub site, and radio transceivers at 
the hub site to process or control the communications signals 
transmitted and received through the antennas. DAS deployments offer 
robust and broad coverage without the visual and physical impacts of 
multiple macrocells. In contrast to small cells, which usually are 
operator-managed and support only a single wireless service provider, 
DAS networks often can accommodate multiple providers using different 
frequencies and/or wireless air interfaces.
    Small wireless technologies have a number of advantages over 
traditional macrocells. The facilities deployed at each node are much 
smaller than macrocell antennas and associated equipment and do not 
require the same elevation, so they can be placed on light stanchions, 
utility poles, building walls, rooftops and other small structures 
either privately owned or in the public rights-of-way. As a result, 
providers can deploy these technologies in areas where traditional 
towers are not feasible or in areas where wireless traffic demands 
would require an unrealistic number of macrocells. DAS and small cells 
can also be deployed in indoor environments to improve interior 
wireless services. The facilities are smaller and less visible than 
macrocells, so providers can more easily deploy them with stealth 
measures such as concealment enclosures. One of the challenges of these 
technologies, though, is that providers must often deploy a substantial 
number of nodes to achieve the seamless coverage of a single macrocell.
    DAS and small-cell deployments are a comparatively cost-effective 
way of addressing ever increasing demand for wireless broadband 
services, and, accordingly, providers are rapidly increasing their use 
of these technologies. There are estimates that more than 37 million 
small cells will be deployed by 2017 and that 16 million DAS nodes will 
be deployed by 2018. One study projects that aggregate small-cell 
capacity will overtake macrocell capacity by 2016-2017.

III. Compliance With Section 106 for DAS and Small Cell Infrastructure

    The FCC is committed to protecting historic properties under the 
NHPA, including properties that have religious and cultural 
significance to Tribal Nations and Native Hawaiian Organizations 
(NHOs). The FCC's rules require that applicants follow the ACHP's 
Section 106 regulations, as modified by two Nationwide Programmatic 
Agreements executed by the Commission with the ACHP and the National 
Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO), to 
ascertain whether proposed facilities may affect historic properties. 
(47 CFR 1.1307(a)(4); 47 CFR part 1, Apps B and C.) Among other things, 
the FCC maintains an electronic system, the Tower Construction 
Notification System (TCNS), to ensure that Federally-recognized Tribal 
Nations and NHOs receive timely notice of projects proposed in their 
geographic areas of concern and to ensure their opportunity to 
participate in the review. The FCC also maintains a companion system, 
E106, which may be used to transmit the required documentation to the 
SHPOs and other interested parties.
    The Collocation Agreement excludes from section 106 review most 
collocations on towers that either have completed section 106 review or 
were built before March 16, 2001, as well as on buildings and other 
non-tower structures, unless: (1) The non-tower structure is over 45 
years old; (2) the non-tower structure is inside the boundary of a 
historic district or is within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic 
district and the antenna is visible from ground level within the 
historic district; (3) the non-tower structure is a designated National 
Historic Landmark or is listed on or eligible for listing on the 
National Register; or (4) the proposed collocation is the subject of a 
pending complaint alleging an adverse effect on historic properties. 
(Collocation Agreement sections III, IV, V.)
    The Infrastructure Report and Order adopted revisions to the 
section 106 review process for DAS and other small facilities. These 
revisions include two new targeted exclusions from section 106 review 
when small facilities are being deployed--one for collocations on 
utility structures and another for collocations on other non-tower 
structures. These exclusions apply to collocations that were not 
previously excluded from review under the Collocation Agreement because 
the underlying structures are more than 45 years old.
     Utility Structures. Small facilities on utility structures 
over 45 years old are excluded from section 106 review where they meet 
both of the following conditions:
    [cir] Size Limitation. Covered antenna enclosures may be no more 
than three cubic feet in volume per enclosure, or exposed antennas must 
fit within imaginary enclosures of no more than three cubic feet in 
volume per imaginary enclosure, up to an aggregate maximum of six cubic 
feet; and all other equipment enclosures (or imaginary enclosures) 
associated with the collocation on any single structure must be limited 
cumulatively to seventeen cubic feet in volume (certain enumerated 
equipment does not count towards this limit).
    [cir] No New Ground Disturbance. Deployment may not involve new 
ground disturbance.
     Buildings and Non-Tower Structures. Small facilities on 
buildings or other non-tower structures over 45 years old are excluded 
from section 106 review provided that:
    [cir] Pre-existing Antenna. There is an existing antenna on the 
building or structure.
    [cir] Proximity, Visibility, Size. The new antenna meets 
requirements of proximity to existing antenna(s), depending on the 
visibility and size of the new deployment.
    [cir] No New Ground Disturbance. Deployment may not involve new 
ground disturbance.
    [cir] Zoning and Historic Preservation Conditions. The new 
deployment complies with all zoning conditions and historic 
preservation conditions applicable to existing antennas in the same 
vicinity on the structure that would directly mitigate or prevent 
effects, such as camouflage, concealment, or painting requirements.
     Both Categories--Utility Structures and other Non-tower 
Structures. With respect to both of these categories--utility 
structures and other non-tower structures--the exclusion extends only 
to small facility deployments that are not: (1) Inside the boundary of 
a historic district or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic 
district; (2) located on a structure that is a designated National 
Historic Landmark or is listed on or eligible for listing on

[[Page 51178]]

the National Register of Historic Places (National Register); or (3) 
the subject of a pending complaint alleging an adverse effect on 
historic properties. Section VIII of the Collocation Agreement provides 
the signatories with an opportunity to propose amendments to the 
agreement, to be executed upon the written concurrence of all parties. 
In the Infrastructure Report and Order, the Commission stated that 
additional exclusions for DAS networks and other small facilities may 
well be appropriate in light of their minimal potential to cause 
effects on historic properties. The FCC finds it appropriate to 
consider excluding additional categories of DAS and small cell 
deployments from Section 106 review within the framework of an 
amendment to the Collocation Agreement. The amendment would require the 
concurrence of the original signatories to the Collocation Agreement, 
including ACHP, NCSHPO, and the FCC, and it would fall within the FCC's 
general obligation to consult with Federally-recognized Tribal Nations 
under the Section 106 process.

IV. Potential Amendments to the Collocation Agreement

    The FCC has identified several areas in which an amendment to the 
Collocation Agreement might further tailor the section 106 process for 
DAS and small cell deployments by excluding deployments that meet 
criteria designed to ensure that there is minimal potential for adverse 
effects on historic properties. Any new exclusions from the section 106 
process for small wireless communications facilities adopted pursuant 
to an amendment to the Collocation Agreement would be in addition to 
the two exclusions that the Commission adopted in the Infrastructure 
Report and Order, as well as the exclusions that are included in the 
Collocation Agreement. Like the existing exclusions in the Collocation 
Agreement as well as those adopted in the Infrastructure Report and 
Order, the FCC anticipates that these would be complete exclusions from 
routine Section 106 processing, including any notification to SHPOs, 
Tribal Nations, and NHOs. Further, any amendment to the Collocation 
Agreement would affect only the Commission's review process under 
Section 106 of the NHPA, and would not limit State and local 
governments' authority to enforce their own historic preservation 
requirements consistent with Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications 
Act, 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7), and section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax 
Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. 1455(a).
    Three approaches are set forth below for the potential expansion of 
exclusions from the section 106 process for small facility 
collocations. These approaches, which are not mutually exclusive, are 
offered to facilitate a productive dialogue with stakeholders on issues 
and options at a pre-decisional point. The FCC invites stakeholders' 
views on these and any other possible alternatives to improve the 
section 106 process for small facility deployments.
    Small Deployments Not on Historic Properties or in or near Historic 
Districts. The first option would be to amend the Collocation Agreement 
to exclude from section 106 review small wireless communications 
facility deployments on any building or structure (such as bridges, 
water towers, silos, etc.) where review is required only because the 
building or structure is over 45 years old, provided that the antenna 
and associated equipment meet specified volume limitations and the 
deployment involves no new ground disturbance. This exclusion would not 
be available for deployments on historic properties or in or near 
historic districts. Accordingly, the exclusion would not apply if the 
deployment is (1) on a structure designated as a National Historic 
Landmark or listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register; 
(2) located in a historic district or within 250 feet of a historic 
district; or (3) subject to a complaint filed against the deployment 
alleging a potential for adverse effects on historic properties. The 
Commission considered this proposal in the Infrastructure Report and 
Order but declined to adopt it, stating that it would be addressed in 
the program alternative process.
    The FCC seeks input on the criteria that should apply under this 
option. The collocation exclusion for small wireless facilities on 
utility structures adopted in the Infrastructure Report and Order 
includes a volumetric limit of no more than three cubic feet for each 
antenna enclosure and six cubic feet for all antennas on the structure, 
as well as a requirement that all other wireless equipment associated 
with the structure not exceed 17 cubic feet (47 CFR 
1.1307(a)(4)(ii)(A)(1) & (2)). The FCC proposes the same volumetric 
limits for this proposed exclusion and seeks input on this proposal. 
The FCC also seeks input on what equipment should be subject to the 
volumetric limits. The collocation exclusion for small wireless 
facilities on utility structures adopted in the Infrastructure Report 
and Order provides that the 17-cubic-foot limit applies to ``all other 
wireless equipment associated with the structure'' but does not apply 
to vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services, 
ancillary equipment installed by other entities that is outside of the 
applicant's ownership or control, and comparable equipment from pre-
existing deployments on the structure (47 CFR 
1.1307(a)(4)(ii)(A)(2)(i)-(iii)). Should the exclusion contemplated 
under this option include a similar provision? The collocation 
exclusions adopted in the Infrastructure Report and Order provide that 
a deployment causes no new ground disturbance when the depth and width 
of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth and 
width by at least two feet (47 CFR 1.1307(a)(4)(ii), Note to paragraph 
(a)(4)(ii)). The FCC seeks input on whether the same measure of ground 
disturbance should be used if this proposed exclusion is adopted.
    Both of the collocation exclusions adopted in the Infrastructure 
Report and Order do not apply if the deployment is inside a historic 
district or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district; 
located on a building or structure that is a National Historic Landmark 
or listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register; or the 
subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic 
properties. The FCC seeks input on whether to limit this exclusion in 
the same manner.
    Minimally Visible Small Deployments on Historic Properties and in 
or near Historic Districts. The FCC seeks input as to whether the 
Collocation Agreement should be amended to exclude from section 106 
review small wireless communications facility collocations on historic 
properties or in or near historic districts, subject to visibility 
limits and reasonable safeguards on the method of installation. The FCC 
expects that such an exclusion, if adopted, would include restrictions 
to minimize the potential for adverse effects on historic properties, 
including size or volume limits on antennas and associated equipment, a 
requirement that there be no new ground disturbance, and restrictions 
on the visibility of collocations from public streets or spaces. The 
FCC solicits input on whether such an exclusion should also include a 
requirement that the installation of facilities complies with the 
Secretary of the Interior's Standards, as well as a requirement that 
these facilities comply with any conditions applicable to any pre-
existing antennas in the vicinity of the new collocation that were 
imposed to directly mitigate or prevent the facility's effects.
    The exclusion for collocation of small wireless facilities on 
utility structures adopted in the Infrastructure Report and Order 
includes a volumetric limit of no

[[Page 51179]]

more than three cubic feet for each antenna enclosure and six cubic 
feet for all antennas on the structure, as well as a requirement that 
all other wireless equipment associated with the structure not exceed 
17 cubic feet (47 CFR 1.1307(a)(4)(ii)(A)(1) & (2)). The FCC believes 
the same volumetric limits may be appropriate for any exclusion 
applicable on historic properties or in or near historic districts and 
invites input on these limits. The FCC similarly seeks input on whether 
the wireless equipment to be included for purposes of meeting the 17-
cubic-foot limit should be consistent with the list of equipment 
specified in the Infrastructure Report and Order for utility 
structures.
    The FCC solicits input on the visibility restrictions that should 
be adopted for any exclusion for small facility deployments on historic 
properties or in or near historic districts. In addition, the FCC 
believes that any exclusion for deployments on historic properties or 
in or near historic districts should apply only if the deployment 
involves no new ground disturbance as defined in the collocation 
exclusions adopted in the Infrastructure Report and Order (47 CFR 
1.1307(a)(4)(ii), Note to paragraph (a)(4)(ii)). The FCC suggests that 
the Secretary of the Interior's Standards apply to any installation of 
facilities on historic properties under this exclusion. The FCC 
solicits input on whether there are any other guidelines that should 
apply. Should this exclusion include a requirement that any 
installation of equipment on historic properties not harm original 
historic materials or their replacements-in-kind? Should it prohibit 
any anchoring of antennas or associated equipment on the historic 
materials of the property or their replacements-in-kind? The FCC 
solicits input as to whether it should consider any other provisions to 
minimize the potential for adverse effects on historic properties for 
the purpose of this proposed exclusion.
    Additional Deployments on Historic Properties or in or near 
Historic Districts. The FCC solicits input on whether to amend the 
Collocation Agreement to exclude from Section 106 review the deployment 
of small facilities even where they are visible and on historic 
properties or in or near historic districts, in limited circumstances 
and subject to specified criteria. To minimize the potential for 
adverse effects on historic properties, the FCC anticipates that any 
such exclusion would be limited to deployments on certain structures 
(such as utility poles, non-historic light posts, and traffic lights), 
deployments in certain locations (such as utility or communications 
rights-of-way), or replacement facilities that meet size limits.
    The FCC seeks input on whether small facilities collocated on 
certain structures, including utility poles, light posts, street lamps, 
and traffic lights, located in or near historic districts should be 
excluded from section 106 review. Should such exclusion be limited to 
utility poles as defined in the Infrastructure Report and Order? That 
order defines utility pole as a pole that is in active use by a 
``utility'' as defined in section 224 of the Communications Act, but 
not including light poles, lamp posts, and other structures whose 
primary purpose is to provide public lighting. The FCC seeks input as 
to whether light posts and street lamps located in historic districts 
should also be excluded from section 106 review under certain 
conditions. The FCC recognizes that an exclusion for light posts and 
street lamps in historic districts may be of concern in cases where 
they are integral to the character of the historic district or are 
themselves considered historic properties or eligible to be historic 
properties. Are there conditions under which deployments on light posts 
or street lamps might appropriately be excluded even when located in or 
near historic districts? If so, can these be clearly enough defined so 
that project proponents can objectively and accurately determine their 
applicability? What about traffic lights? What considerations affect 
the potential to exclude collocations on traffic lights in or near 
historic districts?
    The FCC solicits input as to whether historic districts contain 
certain locations within which small facility deployments should always 
be excluded, such as utility or communications rights-of-way. The FCC 
seeks input as to how rights-of-way should be defined. Should the 
Commission incorporate the NPA requirements that: (1) The right-of-way 
must be designated by a federal, State, local, or Tribal government for 
communications towers, above-ground utility transmission or 
distribution lines, or any associated structures and equipment; (2) the 
right-of-way is in active use for such designated purposes; and (3) the 
facility will not constitute a substantial increase in size over 
existing support structures that are located in the right-of-way within 
the vicinity of the proposed construction? Should the FCC require that 
the collocation be within the boundaries of the right-of-way, or should 
the FCC include collocations that are within a stated distance of a 
right-of-way? For example, Section III.E of the NPA provides an 
exclusion from Section 106 review for construction of a facility in or 
within 50 feet of a communications or utility right-of-way.
    The FCC solicits input as to whether replacements of facilities in 
historic districts should be excluded from section 106 review, and if 
so, how the FCC should define replacement facilities. Would this be 
limited to replacement ``in kind'' or would it be sufficient to require 
that such replacement facilities not constitute a substantial increase 
in size, as set forth in the Collocation Agreement? Under these 
criteria, a deployment would result in a substantial increase in size 
if it would: (1) Exceed the height of existing support structures that 
are located in the right-of-way within the vicinity of the proposed 
construction by more than 10% or twenty feet, whichever is greater; (2) 
involve the installation of more than four new equipment cabinets or 
more than one new equipment shelter; (3) add an appurtenance to the 
body of the structure that would protrude from the edge of the 
structure more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the 
structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater 
(except that the deployment may exceed this size limit if necessary to 
shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to 
the tower via cable); or (4) involve excavation outside the current 
site, defined as the area that is within the boundaries of the leased 
or owned property surrounding the deployment or that is in proximity to 
the structure and within the boundaries of the utility easement on 
which the facility is to be deployed, whichever is more restrictive. 
The FCC invites input on whether these criteria (or some of them) 
should apply to the potential exclusion of replacement facilities for 
small deployments. The FCC also seeks input on any other criteria that 
should apply to this exclusion.

V. Next Steps and Contact Information

    The FCC staff will follow-up with information regarding meetings, 
webinars, or other structured opportunities for dialogue on the 
proposed Program Alternative. Following the public comment period and 
consideration of the comments, as well as other input in the coming 
months, the FCC will release the text of a proposed amendment to the 
Collocation Agreement and seek comment on the proposal. In addition, 
throughout this process, FCC staff will engage in ongoing consultation 
with Federally-recognized Tribal Nations under the Section 106 process. 
The final

[[Page 51180]]

step in the process of adopting an amendment will be the concurrence of 
the original signatories to the Collocation Agreement--ACHP, NCSHPO, 
and the FCC staff. In the meantime, the FCC welcomes ideas from all 
interested parties and is happy to meet or talk with you. Please 
contact the following FCC officials:
     Jeffrey Steinberg, Deputy Chief of the Competition and 
Infrastructure Policy Division, at Jeffrey.Steinberg@fcc.gov or 202-
418-0896;
     Paul D'Ari, Special Counsel, Competition and 
Infrastructure Policy Division, at Paul.Dari@fcc.gov or 202-418-1550;
     Steve DelSordo, Federal Preservation Officer, at 
Stephen.Delsordo@fcc.gov or 202-418-1986;
     Mania Baghdadi, Competition and Infrastructure Policy 
Division, at Mania.Baghdadi@fcc.gov or 202-418-2133;
     Brenda Boykin, Competition and Infrastructure Policy 
Division, at Brenda.Boykin@fcc.gov or 202-418-2062;
     Geoffrey Blackwell, Chief of the FCC's Office of Native 
Affairs and Policy, at Geoffrey.Blackwell@fcc.gov or 202-418-3629;
     Irene Flannery, Deputy Chief of the FCC's Office of Native 
Affairs and Policy, at Irene.Flannery@fcc.gov or 202-418-1307.

Federal Communications Commission.

Brian Regan,
Chief of Staff, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2015-20698 Filed 8-21-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6712-01-P