If you use public inspection lists for legal research, you should check the contents of the documents against a final official edition of the Federal Register. Only the official editions of the Federal Register provide legal notices to the public and judicial notices to the courts at 44 U.S.C. 1503 & 1507. To learn more, click here. One. This programmatic agreement on national co-location applies only to co-location of antennas in accordance with provisions I.A and I.B above. The FCC, ACHP, and NCSHPO have agreed to amend the collocation NPA to address an inconsistency in the decision whether or not to exclude collocation from the Section 106 review under the NPA from collocation versus the National Programmatic Agreement on the National Historic Preservation Act (“Wireless Facilities NPA”) review process. After the second amendment to the collocation agreement, a collocation is excluded from review under section 106 if it does not “extend the boundaries of the current tower site by more than 30 feet in each direction or involve excavation outside those expanded boundaries,” provided that the collocation meets other exclusion criteria set out in the collocation agreement. The FCC encourages co-location of antennas where technically and economically feasible to reduce the need for new tower construction.
The execution of this national programmatic agreement by the FCC, NCSHPO, and the Commission and the implementation of their terms is evidence that the FCC has given the Commission an opportunity to comment on the co-location of antennas covered by the FCC rules described herein and that the FCC understands the impact of these collocations on historic properties pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementation. has taken into account. Regulations, 36 CFR Part 800. The implementation and implementation of this amendment to the Co-Location Agreement will not prevent the public from filing complaints with the FCC or the Commission regarding the adverse effects of existing towers or activities covered by the terms of this Co-location Agreement on historic properties. 14. Pending Complaints. A co-location proposal will not be eligible for exclusion under this Agreement if Licensee or the owner of the building or structure other than the tower has received written or electronic notice that the FCC has received a complaint from a member of the public, a tribal nation, a SHPO, or the Board that the colocation infringes one or more historic properties. Accordingly, the FCC, the Commission, and the NCSHPO agree that the FCC will fulfill its Section 106 compliance responsibilities for antenna collocation as follows. 10. Paragraph VII.C provides an exclusion in certain circumstances for collocations at traffic lights, street lights, street lights or other structures whose primary purpose is street lighting when the structures are located in or near a historic district. This exclusion is generally only possible on a case-by-case basis, provided that the applicant or licensee determines that the structure is not a contributing or compatible element in the historic district and the SHPO agrees with this conclusion. The collocation must also meet the specified volumetric quality and comply with soil disturbance restrictions.
2. This repetition of sections relating to internal navigation links has no material legal effect. Given that collocations reduce both the construction of new towers and the possibility of adverse effects on historic properties, the Parties agree that the provisions of this Agreement should, to the extent possible, be interpreted and applied in a manner that encourages co-location. Whereas, by letters dated April 17, 2015, July 28, 2015 and July 12, 2015, the FCC in May 2016 and during face-to-face meetings and conference calls, including during the Section 106 Summit in conjunction with the 2015 Annual Conference of the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (NATHPO); invited comments on the terms of this amendment to the co-location agreement; and 1. The collocation CMP, which was completed in 2001 and first amended in 2016, provides that co-location on an existing tower is excluded from review under section 106, except in one of the listed circumstances, which includes a significant expansion of the tower. Prior to the change, a “significant expansion of the tower” was defined, which included, among other things, excavations outside the current tower site. In contrast, the National Programmatic Agreement of the National Historic Preservation Act as part of the Section 106 review process (codified in 47 CFR Part 1, Schedule C) – conducted in 2004 by the FCC, ACHP and NCSHPO after the Collocation NPA – concludes the replacement of a tower that involves deployment and excavation of more than 30 feet in a direction outside the boundaries of an existing tower site. of Article 106.