Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 1215 

for ammonia as a precursor to PM2.5 in 

PM2.5 nonattainment areas. Accordingly, 

as authorized by section 110(k)(4) of the 

Act, the EPA proposes to conditionally 

approve the NA–NSR component of 

ADEQ’s April 2017 NSR submittal 

solely with respect to ammonia as a 

PM2.5 precursor. While we cannot grant 

full approval of the submittal at this 

time with respect to this issue, ADEQ 

has satisfactorily committed to address 

this deficiency by providing the EPA 

with a SIP submittal by March 31, 2019, 

or within one year from the date on 

which the EPA takes final action on the 

April 2017 NSR submittal, whichever is 

earlier. 

As noted previously, on June 1, 2017, 

we proposed full approval of all other 

aspects of ADEQ’s April 2017 NSR 

submittal, including but not limited to 

revisions to ADEQ’s NA–NSR program 

and the regulation of PM2.5 precursors 

other than ammonia in accordance with 

section 189(e) of the Act. Today’s action 

does not modify the findings we made 

in that proposed action, and through 

this supplemental proposal, we are not 

reopening or otherwise seeking public 

comment on any other issues or findings 

in that June 1, 2017 proposed action. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this supplemental proposal 

until February 9, 2018. 

IV. Incorporation by Reference 

This action supplements our prior 

proposed rule where the EPA has 

proposed to include in a final EPA rule 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. This action 

does not propose additional material for 

incorporation by reference. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the EPA 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, the EPA’s role is to 

approve state choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011); 

• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 

FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory 

action because SIP approvals are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866; 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide the EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved to 

apply on any Indian reservation land or 

in any other area where the EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: December 20, 2017. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00036 Filed 1–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[WT Docket No. 17–79; FCC 17–165] 

Comment Sought on Draft Program 

Comment for the FCC’s Review of 

Collocations on Certain Towers 

Constructed Without Documentation of 

Section 106 Review 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) seeks comment on a draft 

Program Comment that would exclude 

from historic preservation review the 

collocation of wireless communications 

facilities on towers that either did not 

complete such review or cannot be 

documented to have completed such 

review. 

DATES: Comments are due on February 

9, 2018; reply comments are due on 

February 26, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by WT Docket No. 17–79, by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal Communications 

Commission’s website: http://

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs//. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• People with Disabilities: Contact the 

FCC to request reasonable 

accommodations (accessible format 

documents, sign language interpreters, 

CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov 

or phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 888– 

835–5322. 

For detailed instructions for 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information on this proceeding, 

contact Daniel J. Margolis, Competition 

and Infrastructure Policy Division, 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

at daniel.margolis@fcc.gov or (202) 418– 

1377. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s 

document, FCC 17–165, adopted and 

released on December 14, 2017. The full 

text of this document is available for 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
1216 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

1The Commission promulgated 47 CFR 1.1320 in 

an order released on November 17, 2017, and 

published in the Federal Register on December 14, 

2017. See Accelerating Wireless Broadband 

Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure 

Investment, Report and Order, FCC 17–153, WT 

Docket No. 17–79; see also 82 FR 58749, December 

14, 2017. The rule will take effect on January 16, 

2018. 

public inspection and copying during 

regular business hours in the FCC 

Reference Center, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

Street SW, Room CY–A257, 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text of this document will also be 

available via ECFS at https://

www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seekscomment-plan-ease-collocationstwilight-towers-0. Documents will be 

available electronically in ASCII, 

Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

Alternative formats are available for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), by 

sending an Email to fcc504@fcc.gov or 

calling the Commission’s Consumer and 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 

418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432 

(TTY). 

Synopsis 

1. In this document, the Commission 

takes another step towards promoting 

the deployment of wireless 

infrastructure. In particular, the 

Commission sets out a definitive 

solution for so-called ‘‘Twilight 

Towers,’’ which, if adopted, would 

create a new exclusion from routine 

historic preservation review under 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. 

306108, and its implementing 

regulations, 36 CFR part 800. This 

action would open up potentially 

thousands of existing towers for 

collocations without the need for either 

the collocation or the underlying tower 

to complete an individual historic 

review, thus ensuring that these towers 

are generally treated the same as older 

towers that are already excluded from 

the historic review process. Facilitating 

collocations on these towers will make 

additional infrastructure available for 

wireless deployments, reduce the need 

for new towers, and decrease the need 

for new construction. After more than a 

decade of debate over the best approach 

for Twilight Towers, the Commission 

welcomes the chance to advance this 

concrete path forward. 

2. Twilight Towers are towers whose 

construction commenced between 

March 16, 2001, and March 7, 2005, that 

either did not complete section 106 

review or cannot be documented to have 

completed such review. Sections 

1.1307(a)(4) and 1.1320(a) 1 of the 

Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.1307(a)(4), 1.1320(a), direct licensees 

and applicants, when determining 

whether a proposed action may affect 

historic properties, to follow the 

procedures in the rules of the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) or an applicable program 

alternative, including the Nationwide 

Programmatic Agreement for the 

Collocation of Wireless Antennas (2001 

Collocation NPA), 47 CFR part 1, app. 

B, and the Nationwide Programmatic 

Agreement for Review of Effects on 

Historic Properties for Certain 

Undertakings Approved by the Federal 

Communications Commission (2005 

Wireless Facilities NPA), 47 CFR part 1, 

app. C. Under section III of the 2001 

Collocation NPA, collocations on towers 

whose construction commenced on or 

before March 16, 2001, are generally 

excluded from routine historic 

preservation review, regardless of 

whether the underlying tower has 

undergone section 106 review. See 47 

CFR part 1, app. B, section III. By 

contrast, section IV of the 2001 

Collocation NPA provides that 

collocations on towers whose 

construction commenced on or after 

March 16, 2001, are excluded from 

historic preservation review only if the 

Section 106 review process for the 

underlying tower and any associated 

environmental reviews has been 

completed. See 47 CFR part 1, app. B, 

section IV. The 2005 Wireless Facilities 

NPA, which became effective on March 

7, 2005, establishes detailed procedures 

for reviewing the effects of 

communications towers on historic 

properties. 47 CFR part 1, app. C. 

3. As indicated above, there are a 

large number of towers that were built 

between the adoption of the 2001 

Collocation NPA and the effective date 

of the 2005 Wireless Facilities NPA that 

either did not complete section 106 

review or for which documentation of 

section 106 review is unavailable. 

Although during this time the 

Commission’s environmental rules, 47 

CFR 1.1307(a)(4), required licensees and 

applicants to evaluate whether proposed 

facilities may affect historic properties, 

the text of the rule did not at that time 

require parties to perform this 

evaluation by following the ACHP’s 

rules or any other particular process. 

Thus, some in the industry have argued 

that, prior to the 2005 Wireless 

Facilities NPA, it was unclear whether 

the Commission’s rules required 

consultation with the relevant State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) 

and/or Tribal Historic Preservation 

Officer (THPO), Tribal engagement, or 

any other procedures, and that this 

uncertainty was the reason why many 

towers built during this period did not 

go through the clearance process. 

Because the successful completion of 

the section 106 process is a predicate to 

the exclusion from review of 

collocations on towers completed after 

March 16, 2001, licensees cannot 

collocate on these Twilight Towers 

unless either each collocation completes 

section 106 review or the underlying 

tower goes through an individual postconstruction review process. 

4. By this document, the Commission 

finally identifies a path forward for 

these Twilight Towers. In particular, the 

Commission seeks public comment on 

the attached draft Program Comment 

addressing the historic preservation 

review requirements for collocating 

communications equipment on Twilight 

Towers. If adopted by the ACHP, the 

draft Program Comment would establish 

procedures for permitting collocations 

on Twilight Towers. 

5. The ACHP’s rules contain general 

procedures for considering effects on 

historic properties, but they also 

provide a means of establishing 

customized or streamlined alternative 

review procedures called ‘‘program 

alternatives.’’ See 36 CFR 800.14. Where 

the ACHP determines that a defined 

program or activity has minimal 

potential to affect or adversely affect 

historic properties, a program 

alternative may reduce the scope of or 

entirely eliminate the review process. 

One type of program alternative is the 

Program Comment. See 36 CFR 

800.14(e). 

6. The Commission states that, given 

the record, a Program Comment is a 

suitable vehicle for specifying how 

Twilight Towers can be appropriately 

made available to facilitate broadband 

deployment. Therefore, the Commission 

seeks comment on the attached draft 

consistent with the ACHP’s process for 

developing and issuing a Program 

Comment. After considering input from 

all interested parties, the Commission 

will revise the draft Program Comment 

as appropriate, summarize the 

comments for the ACHP pursuant to 36 

CFR 800.14(e)(1) and (f)(2), and formally 

request that the ACHP issue the Program 

Comment. Section 800.14(e)(5) of the 

ACHP’s rules, 36 CFR 800.14(e)(5), 

specifies that it will then decide 

whether to issue the Program Comment 

within 45 days, and the Commission 

will publish notice of any Program 

Comment that the ACHP provides in the 

Federal Register. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 1217 

7. This draft Program Comment is 

informed by comments received in 

response to the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking in this proceeding, See 

Accelerating Wireless Broadband 

Deployment by Removing Barriers to 

Infrastructure Deployment, 32 FCC Rcd 

3330 (2017) (Wireless Infrastructure 

NPRM); see also Proposed rule, 82 FR 

21761, May 10, 2017, as well as several 

years of engagement with affected 

parties, including Tribal Nations, Native 

Hawaiian Organizations (NHOs), 

SHPOs, and industry, by conducting 

government-to-government consultation 

with Tribal Nations, holding face-to-face 

meetings, sponsoring webinars and 

workshops, participating in conferences, 

and distributing written materials. In 

addition, since the release of the 

Wireless Infrastructure NPRM, the 

Commission has met with Tribal 

representatives numerous times with a 

focus on issues related to section 106 

review, including meetings with the 

Chairman and commissioners, as well as 

conference calls and meetings between 

staff and SHPOs, Tribal representatives, 

and others. 

8. Commenters on the Wireless 

Infrastructure NPRM generally concur 

that the Commission should take 

affirmative steps to develop a regime 

governing the circumstances and 

procedures under which collocations 

will be permitted on Twilight Towers. 

In general, industry commenters assert 

that the Commission should 

grandfather, exempt, or exclude these 

towers from any historic preservation 

review, arguing that the towers are 

unlikely to have adverse effects on 

historic properties that have not been 

detected, that current ambiguities in the 

process are preventing widespread 

collocations, that there was no clear 

process for historic preservation review 

of proposed towers prior to 2005, and 

that many of the towers are no longer in 

the possession of their original owners. 

Other commenters, including SHPOs 

and Tribal Nations and their 

associations, advocate requiring a 

review process and mitigation of 

adverse effects before collocations on 

these towers can be permitted, 

contending that failure to perform 

section 106 review for these towers 

should not be forgiven retroactively, 

that collocations on existing towers can 

increase any adverse effects of the 

towers, that removal should be 

considered for towers with particularly 

egregious adverse effects, and that 

collocations that involve any ground 

disturbance must be subject to section 

106 review before the Commission can 

allow collocations. The Commission 

seeks comment on the extent to which 

the draft Program Comment, as 

described below, effectively addresses 

these concerns. 

9. In the Wireless Infrastructure 

NPRM, the Commission stated that it 

does not anticipate taking any 

enforcement action or imposing any 

penalties based on good faith 

deployment during the Twilight Tower 

period. The Commission states that, in 

light of the additional comments it has 

received on this issue, and its 

recognition that the Commission did not 

provide specific guidance regarding the 

procedures for conducting historic 

preservation review, the Commission 

now makes clear that it will not take 

enforcement action relating to the 

construction of Twilight Towers based 

on the failure to follow any particular 

method of considering historic 

preservation issues or otherwise based 

on the good faith deployment of 

Twilight Towers. To the extent the 

owner of any Twilight Tower is shown 

to have intentionally adversely affected 

a historic property with intent to avoid 

the requirements of section 106, section 

110(k) of the NHPA would continue to 

apply. See 54 U.S.C. 306113. 

10. As established in the Wireless 

Infrastructure NPRM, this is a ‘‘permitbut-disclose’’ proceeding in accordance 

with the Commission’s ex parte rules, 

but with a limited modification in light 

of the Commission’s trust relationship 

with Tribal Nations and NHOs. Ex parte 

presentations involving elected and 

appointed leaders and duly appointed 

representatives of federally-recognized 

Tribal Nations and NHOs are exempt 

from the disclosure requirements in 

permit-but-disclose proceedings, as well 

as the prohibitions during the Sunshine 

Agenda period. Nevertheless, Tribal 

Nations and NHOs, like other interested 

parties, should file comments, reply 

comments, and ex parte presentations in 

the record in order to put facts and 

arguments before the Commission in a 

manner such that they may be relied 

upon in the decision-making process. 

11. The Commission notes that some 

commenters urge the Commission to 

hold additional meetings with Tribal 

Nations regarding Twilight Towers 

before moving forward. The 

Commission welcomes additional 

meetings with Tribal Nations, Native 

Hawaiian Organizations, SHPOs, and 

industry during this comment period. 

The commission notes that it received 

ex parte comments filed between the 

public release of the draft text of this 

document on November 22, 2017, and 

its adoption by the Commission on 

December 14, 2017. To the extent that 

they have not been addressed here, 

these comments will be considered 

along with any comments filed in 

response to this document. 

12. The following is the text of the 

Draft Program Comment: 

Draft Program Comment for the Federal 

Communications Commission’s Review 

of Collocations on Certain Towers 

Constructed Without Documentation of 

Section 106 Review 

This Program Comment was issued by 

the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (Advisory Council) on 

[date to be inserted later], pursuant to 36 

CFR 800.14(e), and went into effect on 

that date. It provides the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC or 

Commission) with an alternative way to 

comply with its responsibilities under 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA), 54 U.S.C. 

306108, and its implementing 

regulations, 36 CFR part 800 (section 

106), as supplemented by two 

nationwide programmatic agreements. 

In particular, this Program Comment 

excludes from section 106 review the 

collocation of wireless communications 

facilities on ‘‘Twilight Towers’’ (i.e., 

certain communications towers for 

which construction commenced after 

March 16, 2001, and before March 7, 

2005), provided that these collocations 

satisfy the conditions specified below. 

I. Background 

To fulfill its obligations under the 

NHPA, the FCC imposes certain 

compliance requirements on its 

applicants and licensees, but the 

ultimate responsibility for compliance 

with the NHPA remains with the FCC. 

In particular, section 1.1320 of the 

FCC’s rules (47 CFR 1.1320) directs 

licensees and applicants, when 

determining whether a proposed action 

may affect historic properties, to comply 

with the Advisory Council’s rules, 36 

CFR part 800, or an applicable program 

alternative, including the Nationwide 

Programmatic Agreement for the 

Collocation of Wireless Antennas 

(Collocation NPA), 47 CFR part 1, app. 

B, and the Nationwide Programmatic 

Agreement for Review of Effects on 

Historic Properties for Certain 

Undertakings Approved by the Federal 

Communications Commission (Wireless 

Facilities NPA), 47 CFR part 1, app. C. 

These programmatic agreements, which 

were executed pursuant to section 

800.14(b) of the Advisory Council’s 

rules, substitute for the procedures that 

Federal agencies ordinarily must follow 

in performing their historic preservation 

reviews. See 36 CFR 800.14(b)(2). 

Section III of the Collocation NPA, 

adopted and effective on March 16, 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
1218 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

2The Collocation NPA was amended in 2016 to 

establish further exclusions from review for small 

antennas. See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau 

Announces Execution of First Amendment to the 

Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the 

Collocation of Wireless Antennas, Public Notice, 31 

FCC Rcd 4617 (WTB 2016). 

3The Collocation Agreement defines ‘‘tower’’ as 

‘‘any structure built for the sole or primary purpose 

of supporting FCC-licensed antennas and their 

associated facilities.’’ Collocation NPA, section I.E. 

2001,2 provides that collocations on 

towers 3 constructed on or before the 

effective date of that agreement are 

excluded from routine historic 

preservation review regardless of 

whether the underlying tower has 

undergone section 106 review provided 

that they satisfy the specified 

conditions. See 47 CFR part 1, app. B, 

section III. By contrast, section IV of the 

Collocation NPA provides that 

collocations on towers whose 

construction commenced after March 

16, 2001, are excluded from historic 

preservation review only if the proposed 

collocation meets specified conditions 

and the section 106 review process for 

the underlying tower and any associated 

environmental reviews has been 

completed. See 47 CFR part 1, app. B, 

section IV. Through the Wireless 

Facilities NPA, which was incorporated 

into the FCC’s rules effective on March 

7, 2005, the FCC adopted and codified 

for the first time detailed procedures for 

reviewing the effects on historic 

properties of communications towers 

and those collocations that are subject to 

review. See 47 CFR part 1, app. C. 

Prior to the adoption of the Wireless 

Facilities NPA, the FCC’s rules did not 

require its licensees and applicants to 

follow the ACHP’s rules or any other 

specified process when evaluating 

whether their proposed facilities might 

affect historic properties as mandated 

under section 106. Accordingly, a large 

number of towers constructed during 

the period between the effective dates of 

the two NPAs—that is, those for which 

construction began after March 16, 

2001, and before March 7, 2005—do not 

have documentation demonstrating 

compliance with the section 106 review 

process (an issue exacerbated by the 

limitations of State Historic Preservation 

Officers’ (SHPOs’) record-keeping as 

well as subsequent changes in tower 

ownership). These towers are referred to 

as ‘‘Twilight Towers.’’ And because 

collocation on towers whose 

construction began after the effective 

date of the Collocation NPA is excluded 

from section 106 review only if the 

tower was itself subject to review, 

licensees or applicants cannot currently 

collocate on these Twilight Towers 

unless each collocation completes a 

separate section 106 review or the 

underlying tower completes an 

individual post-construction review 

process. 

To develop a Program Comment, the 

rules of the Advisory Council require 

Federal agencies to arrange for public 

participation appropriate to the subject 

matter and the scope of the category of 

covered undertakings and in accordance 

with the standards set forth in the 

Advisory Council’s rules. See 36 CFR 

800.14(e)(2). Over the past several years, 

the FCC has engaged with Tribal 

Nations, Native Hawaiian Organizations 

(NHOs), SHPOs, and industry, by 

holding many face-to-face meetings, 

sponsoring webinars and workshops, 

participating in conferences, and 

distributing written materials. In 2014, 

FCC staff began consultations with 

relevant parties to discuss possible 

solutions to make Twilight Towers 

broadly available for collocations in a 

manner consistent with the 

requirements of and policies underlying 

the NHPA. In October 2015, the FCC 

circulated a discussion document to 

SHPOs, Tribal Nations, NHOs and 

industry associations, and in January 

2016, the FCC facilitated a summit in 

Isleta Pueblo, New Mexico, devoted to 

discussion of Twilight Towers. Industry, 

Tribal, and SHPO representatives 

participated in this meeting. Following 

the meeting, the FCC sought written 

comments from the summit 

participants. In August 2016, the FCC 

circulated to industry associations, 

SHPOs, and Tribal/NHO contacts a 

discussion draft term sheet developed as 

a result of those consultations. Follow 

up calls with Tribal and SHPO 

representatives and other interested 

parties, including the Advisory Council 

staff, were held throughout 2016. 

Further, in the Wireless Infrastructure 

NPRM, adopted in April 2017, the FCC 

sought public comment on how to 

resolve remaining section 106 issues 

associated with collocation on Twilight 

Towers, and it received numerous 

comments on these issues. See 

Accelerating Wireless Broadband 

Deployment by Removing Barriers to 

Infrastructure Deployment, 32 FCC Rcd 

3330, 3358–3361, paras. 78–86 (2017) 

(Wireless Infrastructure NPRM); see also 

Proposed Rule, 82 FR 21761, May 10, 

2017. Finally, the FCC facilitated 

consultations with Tribal 

representatives on the Rosebud Sioux 

Reservation on June 8, 2017; at the 

annual meeting of the National 

Conference of American Indians on June 

14, 2017; on the Navajo Reservation on 

August 22, 2017; and in Washington, DC 

on October 4, 2017. FCC staff have also 

continued to meet in person and by 

phone with SHPOs and Tribal 

representatives since release of the 

Wireless Infrastructure NPRM. 

II. Need for Program Comment To 

Address Twilight Towers 

This Program Comment adopts an 

exclusion under section 106 for certain 

collocations on Twilight Towers. This 

exclusion is warranted due to a number 

of unique factors associated with towers 

whose construction commenced during 

the period from March 17, 2001 through 

March 6, 2005, including: (1) The 

limited reliability of section 106 review 

documentation from that time period; 

(2) the lack of specificity in the FCC’s 

rules regarding section 106 review at the 

time the Twilight Towers were 

constructed; (3) the limited likelihood 

that section 106 review could identify 

adverse effects from these towers that 

are not yet known after 12 years or 

more; and (4) the significant public 

interest in making these towers readily 

available for collocation. 

Although during the time between the 

Collocation NPA and the Wireless 

Facilities NPA the FCC’s environmental 

rules required licensees and applicants 

to evaluate whether proposed facilities 

may affect historic properties, the rules 

did not then state that parties must 

perform this evaluation by following the 

Advisory Council’s rules or any other 

specific process. Thus, prior to the 

effective date of the Wireless Facilities 

NPA, it was unclear whether the FCC’s 

rules required consultation with the 

relevant SHPO and/or Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer (THPO), 

engagement with Tribal Nations to 

identify historic properties off Tribal 

land (including government-togovernment consultation), or any other 

particular procedures, and this lack of 

clarity may explain why many towers 

built during this period apparently did 

not obtain required clearance. 

Routine section 106 review of 

Twilight Towers is likely to provide 

little benefit in preserving historic 

properties. Twilight Towers have been 

in place for 12 to 16 years. In the vast 

majority of cases, no adverse effects 

from these towers have been brought to 

the FCC’s attention. While the lack of 

objections filed with the FCC does not 

guarantee that none of the Twilight 

Towers have caused, or continue to 

cause, adverse effects on historic 

properties, such cases are likely few 

given the passage of time and absence 

of objections. In addition, any effects on 

historic properties that may have 

occurred during construction may be 

difficult to demonstrate so many years 

after the fact. 

Further, an exclusion for collocations 

on Twilight Towers under the 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 1219 

4The members of two major industry associations 

have collectively reported owning 4,298 towers that 

could be classified as Twilight Towers. Letter from 

Brian Josef, Assistant Vice President, Regulatory 

Affairs, CTIA—The Wireless Association, and D. 

Zachary Champ, Assistant Vice President, 

Regulatory Affairs, PCIA—The Wireless 

Infrastructure Association, to Chad Breckinridge 

Associate Chief, WTB, FCC (dated June 4, 2015). 

There may be more Twilight Towers owned by 

entities that are not members of these associations 

or that did not participate in their survey. 

5See 47 U.S.C. 1426(c)(3) (providing that ‘‘the 

First Responder Network Authority shall enter into 

agreements to utilize, to the maximum extent 

economically desirable, existing (A) commercial or 

other communications infrastructure; and (B) 

Federal, state, tribal, or local infrastructure’’). 

conditions specified below is in the 

public interest. The exclusion will 

rapidly make available thousands of 

existing towers 4 to support wireless 

broadband deployment, including the 

FirstNet public safety broadband 

network,5 without causing adverse 

impacts. Importantly, facilitating 

collocations on existing towers will 

reduce the need for new towers, thereby 

avoiding the impact of new tower 

construction on the environment and on 

locations with historical and cultural 

significance. 

A Program Comment is necessary to 

facilitate collocation on Twilight 

Towers. While the Wireless Facilities 

NPA contemplates a process for review 

of proposed collocations on towers that 

were built without required review, 

review of each collocation only satisfies 

the section 106 requirement for that 

collocation; it does not clear the tower 

for future collocations. Given the large 

number of Twilight Towers and 

potential collocations that could be 

installed on those towers, the existing 

review process imposes burdens on all 

participants that, in the context of the 

other considerations discussed herein, 

are not commensurate with its historic 

preservation benefits. 

Accordingly, an approach different 

from the standard section 106 review 

process is warranted to make Twilight 

Towers readily available for 

collocations. Given the significant 

public benefits to be realized by making 

these facilities available for collocation, 

together with the other considerations 

discussed above, requiring each licensee 

or applicant to review each tower 

individually before collocating is not an 

effective or efficient means for the FCC 

to comply with its obligations under 

section 106. This Program Comment is 

responsive to the unusual set of factors 

surrounding the use of these Twilight 

Towers for the limited purpose of 

collocation. 

III. Exemption From Duplicate Review 

of Effects of Collocations by Other 

Federal Agencies 

Other Federal agencies are not 

required to comply with section 106 

with regard to the effects of collocations 

on Twilight Towers that are excluded 

from review under this Program 

Comment. When other Federal agencies 

have broader undertakings that include 

collocations on Twilight Towers, they 

must, however, comply with section 106 

in accordance with the process set forth 

at 36 CFR 800.3 through 800.7, or 

800.8(c), or another applicable program 

alternative under 36 CFR 800.14 for 

aspects of the undertaking not involving 

the collocations. 

IV. Exclusion for Twilight Towers 

In August 2000, the Advisory Council 

established a Telecommunications 

Working Group to provide a forum for 

the FCC, industry representatives, 

SHPOs, THPOs, other Tribal 

representatives, and the Advisory 

Council to discuss improved 

coordination of section 106 compliance 

regarding wireless communications 

facilities affecting historic properties. 

The Advisory Council and the Working 

Group developed the Collocation NPA, 

which recognized that the effects on 

historic properties of collocations on 

buildings, towers, and other structures 

are likely to be minimal and not adverse 

provided that certain premises and 

procedures are taken into consideration, 

including limitations on the extent of 

new construction and excavation. 

Further, the Collocation NPA stated that 

its terms should be ‘‘interpreted and 

implemented wherever possible in ways 

that encourage collocation.’’ Consistent 

with that directive, this Program 

Comment serves to resolve a long 

standing impediment to collocation on 

Twilight Towers within the broader 

protective framework established by the 

Collocation NPA. 

We intend the exclusion here to 

mirror the exclusion in the Collocation 

NPA that applies to collocations on 

towers for which construction 

commenced on or before March 16, 

2001. And so, pursuant to the exclusion 

adopted here, an antenna may be 

mounted on an existing tower for which 

construction commenced between 

March 16, 2001, and March 7, 2005, 

without such collocation being 

reviewed through the section 106 

process set forth in the Wireless 

Facilities NPA, unless: 

1. The mounting of the proposed 

antenna on the tower would increase 

the existing height of the tower by more 

than 10%, or by the height of one 

additional antenna array with 

separation from the nearest existing 

antenna not to exceed twenty feet, 

whichever is greater, except that the 

mounting of the proposed antenna may 

exceed the size limits set forth in this 

paragraph if necessary to avoid 

interference with existing antennas; or 

2. The mounting of the proposed 

antenna would involve the installation 

of more than the standard number of 

new equipment cabinets for the 

technology involved, not to exceed four, 

or more than one new equipment 

shelter; or 

3. The mounting of the proposed 

antenna would involve adding an 

appurtenance to the body of the tower 

that would protrude from the edge of 

the tower more than twenty feet or more 

than the width of the tower structure at 

the level of the appurtenance, 

whichever is greater, except that the 

mounting of the proposed antenna may 

exceed the size limits set forth in this 

paragraph if necessary to shelter the 

antenna from inclement weather or to 

connect the antenna to the tower via 

cable; or 

4. The mounting of the proposed 

antenna would involve excavation 

outside the current tower site, defined 

as the current boundaries of the leased 

or owned property surrounding the 

tower and any access or utility 

easements currently related to the site; 

or 

5. The tower has been determined by 

the FCC to have an adverse effect on one 

or more historic properties, where such 

effect has not been avoided or mitigated 

through a conditional no adverse effect 

determination, a Memorandum of 

Agreement, a programmatic agreement, 

or a finding of compliance with section 

106 and the Wireless Facilities NPA; or 

6. The tower is the subject of a 

pending environmental review or 

related proceeding before the FCC 

involving compliance with section 106 

of the NHPA; or 

7. The collocation licensee or the 

owner of the tower has received written 

or electronic notification that the FCC is 

in receipt of a complaint from a member 

of the public, a Tribal Nation or NHO, 

a SHPO, or the Advisory Council that 

the collocation has an adverse effect on 

one or more historic properties. Any 

such complaint must be in writing and 

supported by substantial evidence 

describing how the effect from the 

collocation is adverse to the attributes 

that qualify any affected historic 

property for eligibility or potential 

eligibility for the National Register. 

In the event that a proposed 

collocation on a Twilight Tower does 

not meet the conditions specified above 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
1220 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 7 / Wednesday, January 10, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

for this exclusion, the collocation must 

undergo historic preservation review as 

required by the rules of the Advisory 

Council as revised or supplemented by 

the Wireless Facilities NPA and the 

Collocation NPA. As provided in the 

Wireless Facilities NPA, such review is 

limited to effects from the collocation 

and shall not include consideration of 

effects on historic properties from the 

underlying tower. 

V. Additional Provisions Relating to 

Tribal Nations 

This Program Comment does not 

apply on Tribal lands unless the 

relevant Tribal Nation has provided the 

FCC with a written notice agreeing to its 

application on Tribal lands. 

A Tribal Nation may request direct 

government-to-government consultation 

with the FCC at any time with respect 

to a Twilight Tower or any collocation 

thereon. The FCC will respond to any 

such request in a manner consistent 

with its responsibility toward Tribal 

Nations. When indicated by the 

circumstances, and if the request is in 

writing and supported by substantial 

evidence as described in paragraph 

IV.7., the FCC shall treat a request for 

consultation as a complaint against the 

proposed collocation and shall notify 

the tower owner accordingly. 

A Tribal Nation may provide 

confidential supporting evidence or 

other relevant information relating to a 

historic property of religious or cultural 

significance. The FCC shall protect all 

confidential information consistent with 

section IV.I of the Wireless Facilities 

NPA. 

VI. Administrative Provisions 

A. Definitions. Unless otherwise 

defined in this Program Comment, the 

terms used here shall have the meanings 

ascribed to them under 36 CFR part 800 

as modified or supplemented by the 

Collocation NPA or Wireless Facilities 

NPA. 

B. Duration. This Program Comment 

shall remain in force unless terminated 

or otherwise superseded by a 

comprehensive Programmatic 

Agreement or the Advisory Council 

provides written notice of its intention 

to withdraw the Program Comment 

pursuant to section VI.B.1, below, or the 

FCC provides written notice of its 

intention not to continue to utilize this 

Program Comment pursuant to section 

VI.B.2, below. 

1. If the Advisory Council determines 

that the consideration of historic 

properties is not being carried out in a 

manner consistent with section 106, the 

Advisory Council may withdraw this 

Program Comment after consulting with 

the FCC, the National Conference on 

State Historic Preservation Officers, and 

the National Association of Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officers, and 

thereafter providing them with written 

notice of the withdrawal. 

2. In the event the FCC determines 

that this Program Comment is not 

operating as intended, or is no longer 

necessary, the FCC, after consultation 

with the parties identified in section 

VI.B.1 above, shall send written notice 

to the Advisory Council of its intent to 

withdraw. 

C. Periodic Meetings. Throughout the 

duration of this Program Comment, the 

Advisory Council and the FCC shall 

meet annually on or about the 

anniversary of the effective date of this 

Program Comment. The FCC and the 

Advisory Council will discuss the 

effectiveness of this Program Comment, 

including any issues related to improper 

implementation, and will discuss any 

potential amendments that would 

improve its effectiveness. 

Complaints Regarding 

Implementation of This Program 

Comment. Members of the public may 

refer any complaints regarding the 

implementation of this Program 

Comment to the FCC. The FCC will 

handle those complaints consistent with 

section XI of the Wireless Facilities 

NPA. 

13. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments and reply comments on or 

before the dates indicated on the first 

page of this document. Comments may 

be filed using the Commission’s 

Electronic Comment Filing System 

(ECFS). Electronic Filing of Documents 

in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 

24121 (1998). 

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be 

filed electronically using the internet by 

accessing the ECFS: http://apps.fcc.gov/ 

ecfs/. 

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to 

file by paper must 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 

must submit two additional copies for 

each additional docket or rulemaking 

number. 

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. 

• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered 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. 

• Commercial overnight mail (other 

than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail 

and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 

Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, 

Annapolis, MD 20701. 

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, 

Express, and Priority mail must be 

addressed to 445 12th Street SW, 

Washington, DC 20554. 

People with Disabilities. To request 

materials in accessible formats for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format), 

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). 

14. This document does not contain 

proposed information collection 

requirements subject to the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104– 

13. In addition, therefore, it does not 

contain any proposed information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 employees, 

pursuant to the Small Business 

Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public 

Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4). 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, Office of the Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00292 Filed 1–9–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 395 

[Docket No. FMCSA–2017–0372] 

Hours of Service of Drivers: 

Application for Exemption; Towing and 

Recovery Association of America, Inc. 

(TRAA) 

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration (FMCSA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of application for 

exemption; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces that the 

Towing and Recovery Association of 

America, Inc. (TRAA) has requested an 

exemption from the requirement that a 

motor carrier install and require each of 

its drivers to use an electronic logging 

device (ELD) to record the driver’s 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with PROPOSALS