**Before the**

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Wireless Properties, LLC         | ) |                              |
| Petition for Declaratory Ruling  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Proposed Tower, Missionary       |   |                              |
| Ridge, Chattanooga, Tennessee    | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

ORDER

**Adopted:** May 23, 2007 **Released:** May 24, 2007

By the Deputy Chief, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  The Spectrum and Competition Policy Division ("Division") of the
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has before it a Petition for
    Expedited Declaratory Ruling ("Petition") filed by Wireless
    Properties, LLC ("Wireless Properties").[^1] The Petition seeks a
    determination that the National Historic Preservation Act ("NHPA")
    Section 106 review[^2] for a proposed communications tower in
    Chattanooga, Tennessee, has been completed. Based upon a thorough
    review of the record in this proceeding, including comments and
    correspondence received both before and after the Petition was
    filed, we conclude that a valid Section 106 review has not been
    completed for this project. We therefore deny the Petition and
    reopen this matter for processing in accordance with the Nationwide
    Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic
    Preservation Act Review Process ("NPA") and Section 106.

# BACKGROUND

2.  Wireless Properties proposes to construct a 150-foot monopole for
    the use of wireless licensees in Chattanooga, Tennessee. The tower
    would be located within 1,000 feet of the boundary of the Bragg
    Reservation, a unit of the Chickamauga and Chattanooga National
    Military Park ("National Park"), which is listed on the National
    Register of Historic Places ("National Register").[^3] In addition
    to the National Park, two other National Register-listed properties,
    the Missionary Ridge Historic District ("Historic District") and the
    Founder's Home at the McCallie School ("McCallie School"), are also
    located, in whole or in part, within one-half mile of the tower
    site. [^4]

3.  Under the Commission's rules, entities that propose to construct
    communications tower facilities must, prior to construction,
    determine whether the proposed tower construction would affect
    properties that are listed or eligible for listing in the National
    Register ("historic properties").[^5] The process for making this
    determination is governed by the NPA.[^6]

4.  In March 2006, pursuant to the process required under the NPA,[^7]
    Wireless Properties filed FCC Form 620 with the Tennessee Historical
    Commission, which is the Tennessee State Historic Preservation
    Officer ("Tennessee SHPO"). The Form 620 and the accompanying
    Submission Packet indicated that a 180-foot monopole at the proposed
    location would have no adverse effect on historic properties.[^8] In
    an attachment to the Form 620, Wireless Properties listed the
    Historic District and the McCallie School as historic properties
    within the project's half-mile APE, but did not list the Bragg
    Reservation.[^9] Wireless Properties also attached a letter from a
    local historic preservation planner which concluded that the
    proposed tower would not adversely affect historic properties, but
    which did not list the Bragg Reservation among the historic
    properties within the APE.[^10] On March 29, 2006, the Tennessee
    SHPO sent Wireless Properties a brief letter concurring with the
    determination of no adverse effect.[^11]

5.  By letter dated March 21, 2006, Wireless Properties informed the
    National Park Service ("NPS") of its proposed construction and
    requested comments within 30 days.[^12] NPS did not respond to this
    letter.[^13]

6.  On April 18, 2006, Wireless Properties informed the local historic
    preservation planner that it planned to modify its project to take
    the form of a 150-foot monopole with standard-mounted antennas, and
    it requested his concurrence that the project as modified would not
    have an adverse effect on historic properties.[^14] On May 9, 2006,
    the local historic preservation planner sent a brief letter agreeing
    that there would be no adverse effect. This letter did not identify
    specific historic properties within the APE.[^15] On May 26, 2006,
    Wireless Properties forwarded this letter to the Tennessee
    SHPO,[^16] and on June 12, 2006, the Tennessee SHPO again summarily
    concurred that the tower would have no adverse effect on historic
    properties.[^17]

7.  On December 11, 2006, during the course of local zoning proceedings
    on the proposed tower, the local historic preservation planner sent
    letters to the Tennessee SHPO and to the Special Use and Permit
    Exceptions Board retracting his earlier "no adverse effect"
    determination, stating that the tower would adversely affect the
    Bragg Reservation and the Historic District, and recommending that
    an alternative site be found.[^18] The planner stated that a
    representative of the Missionary Ridge Neighborhood Association
    ("Neighborhood Association") had demonstrated to him the proposed
    tower's adverse effects, and he attributed his earlier contrary
    conclusion to his inexperience as a new resident of the area.[^19]
    On December 14, 2006, the Tennessee SHPO wrote Wireless Properties,
    advising Wireless Properties that it was now recommending the
    project would have an adverse effect on historic properties.[^20]
    Without conceding the Tennessee SHPO's authority to reverse its
    recommendation, Wireless Properties agreed to conduct a balloon test
    attended by the interested parties in order to assess the effect the
    proposed tower would have on the National Park.[^21] The Tennessee
    SHPO then requested additional comment until February 8, 2007,
    regarding the tower's potential impact on historic properties.[^22]
    Comments opposing the tower were filed by NPS, the Neighborhood
    Association, Friends of Chickamauga & Chattanooga National Military
    Park ("Friends of the Park"), the National Trust for Historic
    Preservation ("National Trust"), and Cornerstones, Inc. [^23]

8.  In early February 2007, Wireless Properties informally requested by
    telephone that the Division inform the Tennessee SHPO that it had no
    authority to reopen its review of this matter. After speaking with
    representatives of the Tennessee SHPO and NPS, the Division on
    February 22, 2007, sent Wireless Properties a letter, requesting
    Wireless Properties provide information regarding its compliance
    with procedures to assess the visual impact on the National
    Park.[^24] While reserving its challenge to the Commission's
    authority,[^25] over the next two months Wireless Properties
    participated in discussions in an unsuccessful effort to resolve the
    issues surrounding this tower. On March 12, 2007, NPS wrote to
    explain its position that the tower would have an adverse effect on
    the Bragg Reservation, and to request the Commission's assistance in
    ensuring that this asserted adverse effect would be considered.[^26]
    During this period, we also received several communications from the
    Neighborhood Association and the Friends of the Park asserting that
    the tower would have an adverse effect on the Bragg Reservation and
    the Historic District, questioning aspects of the Section 106
    review, and requesting that the Commission not permit the tower to
    be constructed as proposed.[^27]

9.  On April 24, 2007, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
    ("Advisory Council") advised the Commission that "unresolved
    procedural issues" had been brought to its attention regarding the
    Section 106 review in this matter. The Advisory Council specifically
    referenced, among other things, concerns about the content of the
    Form 620 that had been submitted to the Tennessee SHPO. The Advisory
    Council further opined that the tower would adversely affect the
    Bragg Reservation, and it reserved a determination whether it would
    formally participate in consultation pending further
    developments.[^28]

10. On April 25, 2007, Wireless Properties filed the instant petition
    seeking a declaratory ruling that the NHPA Section 106 review for
    this project is complete as a matter of law and cannot be reopened.
    Wireless Properties argues that it filed a complete Form 620 and
    followed all of the processes required under the NPA, and that
    therefore the Tennessee SHPO's determination of no adverse effect is
    final under the NPA and under fundamental principles of fairness and
    due process.[^29] Wireless Properties further argues that even if
    the process could be reopened, the tower would have no adverse
    effect on historic properties because it would only place an
    additional structure in a vista that already features several modern
    intrusions.[^30] On the same day, Wireless Properties also filed a
    response to the Advisory Council Letter, arguing that the concerns
    it cited were misguided and were founded on misrepresentations by
    local opponents of the tower.[^31]

11. Also on April 25, the Neighborhood Association and Friends of the
    Park filed a letter asking the Commission to overturn the Tennessee
    SHPO's determination of no adverse effect due to a "significant
    procedural defect."[^32] In particular, these groups argue that the
    Section 106 review did not satisfy the NPA because Wireless
    Properties' Submission Packet did not identify the Bragg Reservation
    as a historic resource.[^33] They also argue that Wireless
    Properties did not provide appropriate notice of the project to the
    Neighborhood Association.[^34] On May 15, 2007, the National Trust
    asked the Commission to reopen the review due to the discovery of an
    unanticipated effect on a historic property, consistent with Section
    XI of the NPA and Section 800.13(b) of the Advisory Council's
    rules.[^35]

# DISCUSSION

12. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Section 106
    review for Wireless Properties' proposed tower has not been
    completed in accordance with the requirements of the NPA.
    Accordingly, we deny the Petition and direct that the review process
    be resumed consistent with the NPA's provisions. In doing so, we
    also address the concerns that have been separately raised by other
    interested parties.

13. Under the procedures set forth in the NPA, a SHPO's concurrence with
    an applicant's determination of no adverse effect is conclusive and
    completes the Section 106 process.[^36] Similarly, the NPA is clear
    that the SHPO's period to review a Submission Packet is generally
    limited to 30 days from receipt,[^37] and that during this period
    the SHPO may request additional information if it determines that
    the Submission Packet is inadequate.[^38] Accordingly, a completed
    Section 106 review is not subject to reopening because the SHPO
    changes its view of the evidence or decides that based on the
    original Submission Packet it should have requested more
    information. Indeed, as Wireless Properties argues correctly in its
    Petition, the NPA is designed to achieve finality in the
    determination of an undertaking's effect within identified and
    specific time frames. Wireless Properties is incorrect, however, in
    arguing that the objective of achieving certainty and finality
    precludes reopening the Section 106 process -- in its view --
    seemingly under any circumstances.[^39]

14. While it is true that the NPA, through provisions such as Section
    VII.C.1, demands that the SHPO's verdict be authoritative and
    identifies steps and time frames to afford certainty and finality,
    that finality is predicated upon the applicant having complied with
    the foundational steps of the review process. In this regard,
    Section VI.A. specifies that "\[i\]n preparing the Submission Packet
    for the SHPO/THPO. . .the Applicant shall: (2) identify Historic
    Properties within the APE. . . .The standards and procedures
    described below shall be used by the Applicant in preparing the
    Submission Packet."[^40] Section VI.D.1.a, governing the
    Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties within the APE
    for Visual Effects, specifies that the applicant shall review
    properties listed in the National Register in identifying historic
    properties within the APE for visual effects.[^41] Thus, the NPA
    affords finality only for those who have complied with its
    prerequisites.

15. In this instance, however, Wireless Properties failed to comply with
    these basic requirements because it did not identify all historic
    properties within the APE when it prepared the Submission Packet for
    the Tennessee SHPO. Specifically, in listing historic properties
    within the APE, Wireless Properties failed to include the Bragg
    Reservation.[^42] It is uncontested that the Bragg Reservation, as a
    unit of the National Park, is listed in the National Register.[^43]
    The NPA requires that, in identifying historic properties within the
    APE for visual effects, an applicant include listed or eligible
    properties that can be found in several specific sources, including
    the National Register.[^44] In addition, the instructions for Form
    620 require that Attachment 8 to the Submission Packet include,
    among other things, the name and address of each property in the APE
    for visual effects that is listed in the National Register.[^45]
    There was nothing on the face of the Submission Packet that would
    have alerted the Tennessee SHPO to the existence of the undisclosed
    property. Thus, in reviewing the Submission Packet, it was
    reasonable for the Tennessee SHPO to assume that the applicant had
    followed the requirements of Form 620 and to rely on Attachment 8 as
    a complete roster of listed or eligible properties that are
    identifiable from the specified sources. A submission, such as the
    one at issue, that omits listed or eligible properties in a manner
    that is not facially obvious is fundamentally incomplete and does
    not support a valid SHPO review.

16. The NPA does not contemplate that a SHPO's concurrence in an
    applicant's determination would automatically be effective in the
    face of such a material omission. To the contrary, Section XI of the
    NPA permits members of the public to notify the Commission of
    concerns regarding the NPA's application "to the review of
    individual undertakings," and provides that the Commission will
    "take appropriate actions" in response to such comments. Thus,
    Section XI grants the Commission discretion to take appropriate
    action where an applicant's submission was inconsistent with the
    requirements of the NPA in a manner that precluded the SHPO's
    effective review.[^46] In exercising this discretion, we also note
    that Section 800.13(b) of the Advisory Council's rules generally
    directs a federal agency to make reasonable efforts to avoid,
    minimize, or mitigate adverse effects when unanticipated effects on
    historic properties are found after review, and specifically to
    resume consultation if construction has not yet commenced.[^47] The
    protective principle embodied in this rule informs our determination
    of appropriate action where a SHPO effectively has been precluded
    from evaluating effects on a historic property because the applicant
    failed to identify the property as required.

17. Wireless Properties argues that it did identify the Bragg
    Reservation as a historic property because it is shown on a map that
    was attached to the Form 620 and provided to the local preservation
    planner.[^48] The map in question is a U.S. Geological Survey
    topographical map that shows a "Monument" at the location of the
    Bragg Reservation. On top of this printed material, Wireless
    Properties added graphics locating the tower site and several
    historic properties, but not the Bragg Reservation.[^49] Not only
    was the Bragg Reservation absent from the Attachment 8 list and
    excluded from the text discussion, but it was not even identified by
    name or as a historic property on the map Wireless Properties relies
    on to support its position. In no way did this map meaningfully
    indicate that the Bragg Reservation existed within the APE, much
    less that it may be impacted by this tower.

18. Wireless Properties also argues that the local historic preservation
    planner and the Tennessee SHPO were in fact aware during their
    initial reviews that the Bragg Reservation fell within the APE,
    citing the local planner's December 11, 2006 letter and a
    teleconference to which the Tennessee SHPO was a party.[^50] The
    local historic preservation planner's letter at the time of his
    initial review, however, does not list the Bragg Reservation among
    the historic properties in the APE.[^51] As a whole, the record is
    not clear with respect to when the local historic preservation
    planner or the SHPO were made aware of the presence of the Bragg
    Reservation in the APE or if any such information, when provided,
    allowed for a proper review. This uncertainty demonstrates why it is
    imperative that applicants file complete and accurate information
    in, and along with, the Form 620.

19. Because the Submission Packet that Wireless Properties previously
    provided to the Tennessee SHPO materially failed to comply with the
    NPA, there has been no valid Section 106 review of this proposed
    tower. Accordingly, in order to complete the required review,
    Wireless Properties should now submit to the Tennessee SHPO a Form
    620 and Submission Packet that properly assesses the effects of the
    proposed tower on the Bragg Reservation and other historic
    properties in compliance with the NPA.[^52] The Submission Packet
    should discuss the historic context, development, and relevant
    design elements of each of the historic properties within the APE,
    and should specifically assess the effect of the proposed tower on
    the characteristics that qualify each of these properties for
    listing in the National Register. The Tennessee SHPO should then
    review the Submission Packet in accordance with the NPA, including
    providing a short and concise explanation of its reasons for any
    disagreement with Wireless Properties' determination.[^53] In the
    event any dispute regarding effects remains after this review, we
    will address it upon request in accordance with the NPA.[^54]

20. Wireless Properties argues that its proposed tower would not have an
    adverse effect on the Bragg Reservation because, given the many
    intrusions already present in the viewshed, the tower would not
    compromise visitors' ability to understand the events that occurred
    on Missionary Ridge during the Civil War.[^55] Wireless Properties
    further argues that many of the objections to the tower are based on
    aesthetic concerns that are not properly part of the historic
    preservation review process.[^56] We expect that the Tennessee SHPO
    will address these arguments during the course of its review.

# conclusion

21. The proper functioning of the Section 106 historic preservation
    review process for communications facilities requires that all
    parties, including the applicant, the SHPO, and other consulting
    parties, exercise reasonable diligence in performing the roles set
    forth for them in the NPA. Accordingly, where a properly constituted
    Submission Packet is provided to the SHPO and the required
    procedures have been followed, we will not lightly invalidate the
    review due to minor errors or omissions. In this instance, however,
    Wireless Properties' failure to identify in the Submission Packet a
    significant historic property within the APE, in violation of the
    NPA and contrary to the Form 620 instructions, effectively precluded
    the Tennessee SHPO from performing a proper review. We therefore
    deny the Petition.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

22. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r),
    Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
    amended, 16 U.S.C. § 470f, 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 the
    Petition for Expedited Declaratory Ruling filed by Wireless
    Properties, LLC, is DENIED.

23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Section 106 review shall proceed as
    described herein.

24. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections
    0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131,
    0.331.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Jeffrey S. Steinberg

    Deputy Chief

    Spectrum and Competition Policy Division

    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau

[^1]: *See* *Wireless Properties, LLC Petition for Expedited Declaratory
    Ruling,* dated April 25, 2007 ("Petition").

[^2]: 16 U.S.C. § 470f.

[^3]: Petition at 7; *see also* letter from James P. Szyjkowski, Acting
    Superintendent, Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park,
    to Dan Abeyta, Assistant Chief, Spectrum and Competition Policy
    Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, dated March 12, 2007
    ("NPS Letter") at 1.

[^4]: Under the NPA, the Area of Potential Effects ("APE") for visual
    effects for a tower 200 feet or less in height is presumed to be a
    circle with a half-mile radius unless otherwise established through
    consultation. NPA, § VI.A.4.a.

[^5]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a)(4). In the event a proposed facility
    may have such an effect, the applicant must file an environmental
    assessment and await Commission processing. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a).

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. Part 1, App. C; *see* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a)(4).

[^7]: NPA, § VII.A.1.

[^8]: *See* FCC Form 620, dated March 13, 2006 (Exhibit A to the
    Petition). There is some dispute in the record as to whether Form
    620 was actually included in the documentation submitted to the
    Tennessee SHPO. *Compare* Petition at 6 (Form 620 packet was
    submitted to the local historic preservation planner and
    subsequently to the Tennessee SHPO) *with* e-mail from Dwayne Smith,
    Missionary Ridge Neighborhood Association, to Jeffrey Steinberg,
    Deputy Chief, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, dated May 16, 2007 (attaching e-mail from
    Patrick McIntyre, Tennessee Historical Commission, to Dwayne Smith,
    Missionary Ridge Neighborhood Association, dated May 7, 2007
    (stating that Tennessee SHPO did not recall receiving Form 620 with
    the original documentation)).

[^9]: *See* A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed I-24
    Ridgecut Telecommunications Tower in Chattanooga, Hamilton County,
    Tennessee ("Cultural Resources Assessment") at 3 (unpaginated).

[^10]: Letter from Paul Archambault, Historic Preservation Planner,
    Chattanooga Area Regional Council of Governments, Southeast
    Tennessee Development District, to Marla Spry, MRS Consultants, LLC,
    dated Feb. 16, 2006 ("Feb. 16 Archambault Letter") (Exhibit C to the
    Petition). As a matter of practice, the Tennessee SHPO looks to the
    local historic preservation planner, who represents the local
    council of governments, for advice and local knowledge in performing
    Section 106 review. However, the responsibility for reviewing
    proposed undertakings remains with the SHPO under Section 106 and
    the NPA.

[^11]: Letter from Herbert L. Harper, Executive Director and Deputy
    State Historic Preservation Officer, Tennessee Historical
    Commission, to Henry Fisher, Environmental Engineers, dated March
    29, 2006 (Exhibit G to the Petition).

[^12]: Letter from Henry A. Fisher, Engineer, Environmental Engineers,
    Inc., to Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, dated
    March 21, 2006 (Exhibit F to the Petition). The letter is dated
    March 21, but was attached to the Form 620 dated March 13. The
    record does not explain this discrepancy.

[^13]: Petition at 7-8.

[^14]: Letter from Henry A. Fisher, Engineer, Environmental Engineers,
    Inc., to Paul Archambault, Historic Preservation Planner,
    Chattanooga Area Regional Council of Governments, Southeast
    Tennessee Development District, dated April 18, 2006.

[^15]: Letter from Paul Archambault, Historic Preservation Planner,
    Chattanooga Area Regional Council of Governments, Southeast
    Tennessee Development District, to Henry Fisher, Engineer,
    Environmental Engineers, Inc., dated May 9, 2006 (Exhibit D to the
    Petition).

[^16]: Letter from Henry A. Fisher, Engineer, Environmental Engineers,
    Inc., to Dr. Joseph Garrison, Tennessee Historical Commission, dated
    May 26, 2006.

[^17]: Letter from Herbert L. Harper, Executive Director and Deputy
    State Historic Preservation Officer, Tennessee Historical
    Commission, to Henry A. Fisher, Environmental Engineers, Inc., dated
    June 12, 2006 ("June 12 SHPO Letter"). Prior to the Tennessee SHPO's
    issuing this concurrence, there was an exchange of correspondence
    pursuant to which Wireless Properties apparently provided the
    Tennessee SHPO with maps, photographs, and other materials. *See*
    letter from Herbert L. Harper, Executive Director and Deputy State
    Historic Preservation Officer, Tennessee Historical Commission, to
    Henry A. Fisher, Environmental Engineers, Inc., dated June 2, 2006
    (requesting additional materials); June 12 SHPO Letter at 1
    (referring to materials received from Wireless Properties on June
    9). Although this submission is not in the record, there is no
    suggestion that it contains any content that was not part of the
    original Submission Packet.

[^18]: Letter from Paul Archambault, Historic Preservation Planner,
    Chattanooga Area Regional Council of Governments, Southeast
    Tennessee Development District, to Joseph Y. Garrison, Review and
    Compliance Coordinator, Tennessee Historical Commission, dated Dec.
    11, 2006; Letter from Paul Archambault, Historic Preservation
    Planner, Chattanooga Area Regional Council of Governments, Southeast
    Tennessee Development District, to Special Use and Permits Exception
    Board, dated Dec. 11, 2006 ("Dec. 11 Archambault Zoning Letter")
    (Exhibit H to the Petition).

[^19]: Dec. 11 Archambault Zoning Letter at 1-2.

[^20]: Letter from Richard G. Tune, Deputy State Historic Preservation
    Officer, Tennessee Historical Commission, to James A. Duncan,
    Terracon, dated Dec. 14, 2006 (Exhibit I to the Petition).

[^21]: Petition at 10. During a balloon test, a balloon is floated to
    the height of the tower at the proposed site and observed from
    various locations.

[^22]: *Id.*

[^23]: *See* letter from Lora Peppers, Acting Superintendent,
    Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, to Dr. Joe
    Garrison, Review and Compliance Coordinator, Tennessee Historical
    Commission, dated February 1, 2007; letter from Dwayne Smith,
    Missionary Ridge Neighborhood Association, to Dr. Joe Garrison,
    Review and Compliance Coordinator, Tennessee Historical Commission,
    dated January 30, 2006 \[*sic*\]; letter from John Hillbrandt,
    President, and Kay Parish, Executive Director, Friends of
    Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park, to Dr. Joe
    Garrison, Review and Compliance Coordinator, Tennessee Historical
    Commission, dated January 25, 2007; letter from Kay Parish,
    Executive Director, Friends of Chickamauga and Chattanooga National
    Military Park, to Dr. Joe Garrison, Review and Compliance
    Coordinator, Tennessee Historical Commission, dated January 29,
    2007; letter from John B. Hildreth, Director, Southern Office,
    National Trust for Historic Preservation, to Dr. Joe Garrison,
    Review and Compliance Coordinator, Tennessee Historical Commission,
    dated February 6, 2007; letter from Cornerstones, Inc. to Dr. Joe
    Garrison, Review and Compliance Coordinator, Tennessee Historical
    Commission, dated January 30, 2007.

[^24]: *See* letter from Dan Abeyta, Assistant Chief, Spectrum and
    Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, to
    Fred R. Wagner, Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., dated Feb. 22, 2007.

[^25]: *See* letter from Fred R. Wagner, Beveridge & Diamond, P.C., to
    Dan Abeyta, Assistant Chief, Spectrum and Competition Policy
    Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, dated Feb. 23, 2007.

[^26]: NPS Letter.

[^27]: *See, e.g.,* letter from Dwayne Smith, Missionary Ridge
    Neighborhood Association, to Dan Abeyta, Assistant Chief, Spectrum
    and Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
    dated March 8, 2007 ("March 8 Neighborhood Association Letter");
    e-mail from Dwayne Smith, Missionary Ridge Neighborhood Association,
    to Stephen DelSordo, Cultural Resources Specialist, Spectrum and
    Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
    dated April 18, 2007.

[^28]: Letter from Charlene Dwin Vaughn, Assistant Director, Federal
    Permitting, Licensing, and Assistance Section, Office of Federal
    Agency Programs, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, to
    Jeffrey Steinberg, Deputy Chief, Spectrum and Competition Policy
    Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, dated April 24, 2007
    ("Advisory Council Letter"). The Advisory Council asserted authority
    under 36 C.F.R. § 800.2(b)(1), which provides that the Advisory
    Council, among other things, consults with and comments to agency
    officials on individual undertakings.

[^29]: Petition at 11-19.

[^30]: *Id.* at 19-22.

[^31]: Letter from Fred Wagner, Beveridge & Diamond PC, to Dan Abeyta,
    Assistant Chief, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, dated April 25, 2007 ("April 25 Wireless
    Properties Letter").

[^32]: Letter from Sam D. Elliott, Gearhiser, Peters, Lockaby, Cavett &
    Elliott, PLLC, to Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, Federal Communications
    Commission, dated April 25, 2007 ("April 25 Local Organizations
    Letter") at 1.

[^33]: *Id.* at 1-2.

[^34]: *Id.* at 2-3.

[^35]: Letter from Elizabeth S. Merritt, Deputy General Counsel,
    National Trust for Historic Preservation, to Jeffrey Steinberg,
    Deputy Chief, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, Wireless
    Telecommunications Bureau, dated May 15, 2007; *see* 36 C.F.R. §
    800.13(b)(1) (if unanticipated effects on historic properties are
    found after the Section 106 process is completed and before
    construction has commenced, agency shall consult to resolve the
    adverse effects).

[^36]: *See* NPA, § VII.C.1 ("If the SHPO/THPO concurs in writing with
    the Applicant's determination of no adverse effect, the Facility is
    deemed to have no adverse effect on Historic Properties. The Section
    106 process is then complete and the Applicant may proceed with the
    project, unless further processing for reasons other than Section
    106 is required.").

[^37]: *Id.*, § VII.A.2. This period may be extended by up to five days
    when comments are received during the final five days of the review
    period. *Id.*, § VII.A.3.

[^38]: *Id.*, § VII.A.4.

[^39]: Petition at 15-17.

[^40]: NPA, § VI.A.

[^41]: *Id*., § VI.D.1a.

[^42]: Cultural Resources Assessment at 3; *see* April 25 Local
    Organizations Letter at 1-2.

[^43]: Petition at 13, 20; April 25 Local Organizations Letter at 2;
    *see*
    [http://www.nr.nps.gov/Red%20Books/66000274.red.pdf](http://www.nr.nps.gov/Red Books/66000274.red.pdf),
    visited May 22, 2007; *see also*
    <http://www.nr.nps.gov/iwisapi/explorer.dll?IWS_SCHEMA=NRIS1&IWS_LOGIN=1&IWS_REPORT=100000058>Enter
    four letter park code CHCH, visited May 22, 2007.

[^44]: NPA, § VI.D.1.a.i. (to identify historic properties within the
    APE for visual effects, applicants are required to review properties
    listed in the National Register).

[^45]: FCC Form 620, Instructions, Attachment 8.a.

[^46]: We note that in this case several parties have notified us of
    concerns regarding the Section 106 review, including the omission of
    the Bragg Reservation from the information provided to the Tennessee
    SHPO and the local historic preservation planner. *See, e.g.,* March
    8 Neighborhood Association Letter; NPS Letter; April 25 Local
    Organizations Letter; National Trust Letter (expressly invoking
    Section XI); *see also* Advisory Council Letter.

[^47]: 36 C.F.R. § 800.13(b).

[^48]: Petition at 6, 12; April 25 Wireless Properties Letter at 2.

[^49]: *See* Cultural Resources Assessment, Figure 2; Petition, Exhibit
    B.

[^50]: Petition at 3, 7, 13; April 25 Wireless Properties Letter at 2.
    *See* December 11 Archambault Zoning Letter at 1 (indicating that
    potentially affected properties considered in his February 2006
    review included the National Park).

[^51]: *See* February 16 Archambault Letter.

[^52]: We note that in addition to the content of the Submission Packet,
    parties have raised concerns about various aspects of the process
    that Wireless Properties followed. *See, e.g.,* Advisory Council
    Letter at 1 (noting that concerns have been raised about, among
    other things, the involvement of federally recognized Indian tribes,
    consulting parties, and the public); April 25 Local Organizations
    Letter at 2-3 (asserting that the Neighborhood Association was not
    given adequate notice and opportunity to participate). The current
    record does not support a finding of shortcomings in these respects.

[^53]: *See* NPA, § VII.C.3.

[^54]: *See id.*, § VII.C.4.

[^55]: Petition at 20-22.

[^56]: *Id.* at 22.