Tribal Governments Raise Early Concerns on Proposed Wireless Siting Rules
Groups representing tribal governments urged caution as the FCC considers rules designed to speed up wireless siting. The FCC is to take up a rulemaking notice and notice of inquiry Thursday (see 1703300060). Tribal interests got in comments early, warning of their concerns before either was even considered by commissioners. Comments were filed in docket 17-79.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The National Congress of American Indians, the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund and the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers said the FCC must continue its long history of working with tribal governments. The groups said they recognize the importance of expanding broadband in Indian County, but “deployment must be done without impact to Tribal cultural resources.” The law is clear, the groups said in comments: “We would like to remind the Commission of its trust responsibility and duty to recognize Tribal Nations as sovereigns. This trust responsibility is derived from the United States Constitution, federal statutes, and legal decisions which outline the government-to-government relationship between Tribal Nations and the federal government.” Every administration for the past 50 years has recognized the importance of tribal self-determination, the groups said.
“First and foremost, tribes are governments. The United States relationship with Tribes is constitutionally based and is supported by treaties, federal law, and numerous Supreme Court decisions,” said the Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians in a filing. “The Sault Tribe has a sovereign right to advocate for the preservation and protection of historic and cultural sites through participation in the Section 106 Review Process, a process that we believe has resulted in the preservation and protection of many tribal sacred and cultural sites.”
The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma said it's “deeply concerned with the proposed policy changes” in the draft NPRM. “Not only do these changes have the potential to harm a largely functional and streamlined tribal review process that preserves tribal culture resources, they run counter to the intent of various laws, including the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), The National Environmental Protection [sic] Act (NEPA) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA),” the tribe commented.
Working with tribal governments is critical, said Dawn Hubbs, tribal historic preservation officer (THPO) for the Hualapai Tribe in northwestern Arizona, in a filing at the FCC. If the FCC advances a proposal to revise the review process under Section 106 of the NHPA “we strongly encourage the Commission to engage in meaningful government-to-government consultation with federally recognized Indian tribal governments,” Hubbs wrote. “The Hualapai Tribe is not a wealthy Tribe” and covers the cost of its THPO program by doing outside contract work, the filing said. The tribe should continue to be fairly compensated for doing outside work, Hubbs said.