PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12 th St., S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500 Internet: http://www.fcc.gov TTY: 1-888-835-5322 DA 12-1165 Released: July 19, 2012 OFFICE OF NATIVE AFFAIRS AND POLICY, WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU, AND WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU ISSUE FURTHER GUIDANCE ON TRIBAL GOVERNMENT ENGAGEMENT OBLIGATION PROVISIONS OF THE CONNECT AMERICA FUND WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 07-135, 05-337, 03-109 CC Docket Nos. 01-92, 96-45 WT Docket No. 10-208 GN Docket No. 09-51 I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1. By this Public Notice, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC or Commission) Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP), in coordination with the Wireless Telecommunications and Wireline Competition Bureaus (the Bureaus), provides further guidance on the Tribal engagement obligation adopted in the USF/ICC Transformation Order. 1 This document is intended to facilitate the required discussions between Tribal government officials and communications providers either currently providing or seeking to provide service on Tribal lands with the use of Universal Service Fund (USF) support. 2 2. The broad goal of the guidance provided today, and future efforts to establish best practices, is to ensure the effective exchange of information that will lead to a common understanding between Tribal governments and communications providers receiving USF support, on the deployment and improvement of communications services on Tribal lands. The Tribal engagement obligation is intended to benefit Tribal government leaders, service providers, and consumers living on Tribal lands, ultimately providing greater connectivity to 21 st century economic opportunities, education, health care, and public safety. This obligation is related to the very essence of universal service – facilitating and supporting connectivity to and from the most remote areas of our nation inures to the benefit of all. Requiring Tribal engagement is intended to begin and, in some cases, to strengthen, the dialogue between communications providers and Tribal governments. We anticipate that genuine dialogue and common understandings will ultimately lead to improvement of communications services on Tribal lands. 1 See Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC 17663 at 17868-69, para. 637 (2011) (USF/ICC Transformation Order); pets. for review pending sub nom. In re: FCC 11-161, No. 11-9900 (10th Cir. filed Dec. 18, 2011). 2 See id. In the context of the USF/ICC Transformation Order, “Tribal lands” is defined as “any federally recognized Indian tribe’s reservation, pueblo or colony, including former reservations in Oklahoma, Alaska Native regions established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlements [sic] Act (85 Stat. 688), and Indian Allotments, see 47 C.F.R. § 54.400(e), as well as Hawaiian Home Lands—areas held in trust for native Hawaiians by the state of Hawaii, pursuant to the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act, 1920, Act July 9, 1921, 42 Stat. 108, et seq., as amended.” Id. at para. 125, n.197. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1165 3. Good guidance, by definition, must include assistance on how to undertake an endeavor with an aim towards success. Any attempt at actual and meaningful dialogue must be predicated on the genuineness of the intent on both sides. This engagement cannot be viewed as simply another “check the box” requirement by either party. In many places, we expect that there are good and productive relationships between communications providers and Tribal Nations. To the extent that there might be existing differences, however, the parties should put aside those differences for the purposes of this engagement. This engagement process should not be approached as an adversarial undertaking. Instead, Tribal governments and carriers should take advantage of the engagement to improve communications and foster a greater common understanding of the factors necessary to deploy and sustain services on Tribal lands, as well as an honest dialogue to learn from one another what factors would lead to success in those endeavors. In all cases, a high degree of receptivity and responsiveness is necessary to achieve meaningful dialogue, as well as confidence in the reliability of information exchanged. Candid and sincere dialogue on both sides will minimize the possibility that unreasonable expectations by either party will derail common understandings and genuine solutions. 4. Creating a substantive, meaningful dialogue is an iterative process, one which, in certain regions, is at its earliest stages of development. In a similar sense, the further guidance contained in this Public Notice represents the first step in the Commission’s implementation of the Tribal engagement obligation. We recognize that priorities and plans of individual Tribal governments and individual service providers can vary greatly, as do the existing relationships between Tribal governments and carriers currently serving Tribal lands. Therefore, there is no one size fits all guidance that can be provided that will be universally applicable. As a result, the guidance provided herein is somewhat general in nature at this stage, but we anticipate that our guidance, as well as the development of best practices, will evolve over time based on initial implementation experiences and the feedback of both Tribal governments and communications providers. 5. ONAP, in coordination with the Bureaus, will track and monitor this feedback and will develop further guidance in the form of best practices based on actual experiences. 3 In an effort to further facilitate engagement efforts at this initial stage, ONAP will employ training and industry meeting opportunities, as well as its coordination events with Tribal Nations. These efforts will include, for example, working with national and regional communications industry associations and national and regional inter-Tribal government associations and organizations. 4 ONAP will focus particular efforts -- for example, by identifying commonalities, increasing efficiencies, building upon current working relationships, and engaging all regional stakeholders, as appropriate -- to foster engagement in states and regions in which Tribes and providers are particularly remote and in which Tribes are particularly numerous. 5 ONAP, in coordination with the Bureaus, will continue to serve as a resource for Tribal governments and communications providers and is always available for individually tailored assistance. 3 See id. at para. 637, n.1054 (directing ONAP, in coordination with the Bureaus, to develop best practices). 4 See Letter from the Hon. Mark Begich, United States Senator, State of Alaska; the Hon. Lisa Murkowski, United States Senator, State of Alaska; and the Hon. Don Young, United States Congressman, State of Alaska, to the Hon. Julius Genachowski , Chairman, FCC, dated Feb. 22, 2012 (“[W]e request that you work with the tribal groups, carriers and the State of Alaska to clarify the tribal consultation requirements included in the reform order”). See also Letter of Becky Hultberg, Commissioner, Department of Administration, State of Alaska, to the Hon. Julius Genachowski, Chairman, FCC, dated February 17, 2012. 5 For example, there are 229 federally recognized Tribes in Alaska, 108 in California, 38 in Oklahoma, 23 in New Mexico, and 21 in Arizona. See Federal Register Notice – Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs, 75 Fed. Reg. 60,810 (Oct. 1, 2010). See also Supplemental Federal Register Notice – Indian Entities 1 Page Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the United State Bureau of Indian Affairs, 75 Fed. Reg. 66,124 (Oct. 27, 2010). Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1165 II. BACKGROUND 6. In the USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission adopted a Tribal engagement requirement for all eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs) either currently serving or seeking to serve Tribal lands. 6 The Commission agreed with commenters that engagement between Tribal governments and communications providers is vitally important to the successful deployment of and provision of service on Tribal lands. 7 7. The Commission therefore required, at a minimum, that ETCs demonstrate on an annual basis that they have meaningfully engaged with Tribal governments in their universal service supported areas. 8 At a minimum, the USF/ICC Order stated that such discussions must include: (1) a needs assessment and deployment planning with a focus on Tribal community anchor institutions; (2) feasibility and sustainability planning; (3) marketing services in a culturally sensitive manner; (4) rights of way processes, land use permitting, facilities siting, environmental and cultural preservation review processes; and (5) compliance with Tribal business and licensing requirements. 9 Failure to satisfy the Tribal engagement obligation will subject ETCs to financial consequences, including potential reduction in universal service support should they fail to fulfill their engagement obligations. 10 8. In requiring Tribal engagement, the Commission did not intend to supplant its own ongoing obligation to consult with Tribes on a government-to-government basis, but instead recognized the important role that all parties play in expediting communications service to Tribal lands throughout the nation, including in Alaska and Hawaii. 11 ETCs will be required to submit to the Commission and appropriate Tribal government officials an annual certification and summary of their compliance with the Tribal government engagement obligation as part of the new Connect America Fund reporting requirements. 12 The Commission defined appropriate Tribal government officials as elected or duly authorized government officials of federally recognized American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages. 13 For Hawaiian Home Lands, this engagement must occur with the State of Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs. 14 The Commission delegated to ONAP, in coordination with the Bureaus, the authority to develop specific procedures regarding the Tribal 6 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17868-69, para. 637. 7 Id. Mobility Fund and Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I winning bidders will be required to comply with this Tribal engagement obligation at the long-form application stage, in annual reports, and prior to any disbursement of support. Id. at para. 489. We note, however, that any such engagement must be done consistent with our auction rules prohibiting certain communications during the competitive bidding process. Id. at para. 810. In the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed to apply the same Tribal engagement obligation to Phase II of the general and Tribal Mobility Funds and sought comment on that proposal. Id. at para. 1166. 8 Id. at para. 637. See also 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.313(a)(9), 54.1004(d), 54.1009. 9 Id. 10 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17868-69, para. 637. 11 Id. 12 Id. See also id. at para. 575 (“Under this uniform framework, ETCs will provide annual reports and certifications regarding specific aspects of their compliance with public interest obligations to the Commission, USAC [the Universal Service Administrative Company], and the relevant state commission, relevant authority in a U.S. Territory, or Tribal government, as appropriate by April 1 of each year.”) See generally id. at paras. 576-606 (articulating specific reporting requirements). See also Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Order, 27 FCC Rcd 2142 at 2144-47, paras. 4-14 (2012) (USF/ICC Clarification Order) (revising and clarifying certain reporting obligations for recipients of Connect America Fund support). 13 USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17869, para. 637, n.1053. 14 Id. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1165 engagement process, as necessary. 15 The Commission also directed ONAP, in coordination with the Bureaus, to develop best practices regarding the Tribal engagement process to help facilitate these discussions. 16 III. FURTHER GUIDANCE ON THE TRIBAL GOVERNMENT ENGAGEMENT OBLIGATION A. Overview/General Guidance 9. As stated above, the purpose of this guidance is to ensure the effective exchange of information between Tribal governments and communications providers concerning the deployment and improvement of communications services on Tribal lands throughout the nation, including in Alaska and Hawaii. This exchange of information should foster new opportunities for genuine dialogue that could achieve an alignment of interests and goals. Between certain carriers and Tribal governments, this will be an opportunity for introduction and dialogue in the first instance. In other parts of the country, this will be an opportunity for a new depth of dialogue and more meaningful interaction. An important goal of this guidance is the achievement of a level of engagement between principals on both sides that represents collaborative discussions and actual live conversation. 17 We encourage stakeholders to go beyond merely perfunctory exchanges of basic documents, simplistic sales or marketing presentations, or one- dimensional lists of demands. 10. It is imperative that this dialogue be undertaken at a level within communications providers and Tribal governments that is commensurate with this important engagement requirement. The discourse should be between decision-makers on both sides. While it may be necessary to include administrative staff on both sides to administer and maintain the continuity of relations, this engagement cannot be merely between sales and marketing individuals on one side and administrative staff or advisors on the other. The perspectives on needs, expectations, priorities, and abilities that would formulate meaningful exchange often can come only from those with the requisite authority to make decisions. 11. On the Tribal government side, there are certain actions that should be taken to best prepare for this valuable engagement. It is important for Tribal leaders to recognize and act upon this opportunity to become organized, maintain continuity, and provide for certainty in conveying their communications needs and priorities. The Commission has long recognized the right of sovereign Tribal governments “to set their own communications priorities and goals for the welfare of their membership.” 18 This is a critical time for Tribal Nations to update and make comprehensive their communications priorities and goals. Tribal governments should consider all community needs that would be supported by communications services. These might include, but are not limited to, anchor institutions, economic development, education, healthcare, and public safety. Each Tribal Nation has unique elements to its communications needs and priorities, but effectively articulating those needs is a critical first step in addressing them. 12. As Tribal government administrations change and develop, this is an important opportunity to demonstrate, both to communications providers and to the Commission, their continuity in communications priorities and goals. Certain Tribal governments have created their own governmental 15 Id. Although our focus here is on providing guidance, the Commission thus will consider the need for further guidance, or to clarify the existing rules regarding Tribal engagement or pursue new rules with specific procedures, if warranted in the future based on actual experiences and outcomes resulting from this guidance. 16 Id. at n.1054. 17 For example, engagement may occur when necessary by phone or video conference where extreme weather conditions and/or extreme remoteness are present. 18 Statement of Policy on Establishing a Government-to-Government Relationship with Indian Tribes, 16 FCC Rcd 4078, 4080-81 (2000) (Tribal Policy Statement). Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1165 offices and commissions to interact with the FCC and communications providers. Others have designated key members of their Tribal Councils to lead their communications prerogatives for their governments, in effect creating communications committees on their Councils. Other Tribes have yet to organize their governmental or administrative systems with respect to communications services. This engagement obligation necessitates a level of organization within the Tribal government that can convey both a high degree of certainty in the communications priorities of the Tribal Nation and maintain the continuity of those priorities to the greatest extent possible in a governmental environment that, by definition, changes over time. Updating Tribal communications priorities and goals, and ensuring the establishment of effective organizational structures concerning communications issues, are important first steps. However, ETCs must begin the Tribal engagement process this year to be able to report on meaningful engagement by July 1, 2013. 19 Therefore, Tribal governments may need to take interim measures in the short term as they consider establishing new or modified communications goals and priorities. 13. Tribal Nations also should immediately begin preparations to receive, record, and process this engagement dialogue and any related correspondence. Specific efforts should be made to chronicle details of engagement dialogue sessions. Recordkeeping should be established for documentation of the initial contact, any follow-up communications, and the resulting annual certification documentation. Records should include, for example, a summary of all verbal interactions as well as copies of all electronic and hard copy communications. 20 14. Similarly, communications providers should take immediate steps to prepare for and initiate engagement with the Tribal governments whose lands they serve. Certifications articulating the steps taken to comply with the annual Tribal engagement obligation in 2012 are due on July 1, 2013 and each year thereafter. 21 That is, the Tribal engagement obligation must be fulfilled by the end of each calendar year. Communications providers should, for example, take immediate steps to establish a lead and/or a team within their companies and to identify the appropriate Tribal government leaders with whom they will initiate the engagement process. The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) 22 maintains a routinely updated and comprehensive directory of American Indian Tribal and Alaska Native Village government leaders, addresses, and telephone numbers. The NCAI Tribal directory can be sorted by geographical area and can be found at http://www.ncai.org/tribal-directory. 23 Where needed, ONAP also will serve as a resource for communications providers and Tribal governments. 15. In addition, communications providers should retain copies of all communications with Tribal leaders they would need in order to demonstrate compliance with their annual certification requirement. In the event that a Tribal government does not respond to repeated efforts to engage, the provider should document all attempts at engagement and certify to that effect. As with the entire engagement process, reasonableness should prevail. As a general matter, we expect that a provider would not be penalized for a failure to respond on the part of a Tribal Nation, if the provider can demonstrate repeated good faith efforts to meaningfully engage with the Tribal government. 19 See Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Third Order on Reconsideration, FCC 12-52 at para. 10 (rel. May 14, 2012) (Third Reconsideration Order) (changing the filing deadline from April 1 to July 1). 20 For example, all ETCs receiving high-cost are now subject to a 10-year document retention requirement. See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17864, para. 620. See also Third Reconsideration Order, FCC 12- 52 at para. 14. 21 See Third Reconsideration Order, FCC 12-52 at para. 10. See also 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.313, 54.1009.. 22 NCAI is the nation’s oldest, largest, and most representative inter-Tribal government and communities organization, representing American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages. 23 For a listing of all federally recognized American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages, see www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xofa/documents/document/idc012038.pdf. ONAP, in coordination with the Bureaus, will endeavor to provide additional resources to Tribal governments and carriers to help facilitate this engagement, including the possibility of using the Commission’s website as a repository of information. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1165 B. Needs Assessment and Deployment Planning 16. Tribal governments play a vital role in identifying and serving the needs and interests of their local communities, often in remote, insular, cyclically impoverished communities with a historic lack of critical infrastructure. Tribal government leaders are intimately acquainted with their members’ needs and have valuable insight into how to meet them. “Tribal-centric” business models – those that actively engage the Tribe, its core community institutions, and members in deployment and adoption planning – have a greater chance of establishing sustainable services on Tribal lands. 24 Communications providers also have experience and a valuable perspective on the challenges, economics, and other realities of providing service to remote, low-income, and underserved regions of the country, including certain Tribal lands. 17. The Tribal engagement obligation provides Tribal governments and communications providers alike with a new opportunity – the opportunity to have a genuine conversation about communications needs and deployment planning on Tribal lands. When telephone service was originally deployed, there was no such obligation and, as a result, in many instances, Tribal needs and carrier deployment efforts were not aligned. The Tribal engagement obligation affords both Tribal governments and communications providers the opportunity to move forward with a shared vision. This will only occur, however, if Tribal governments and communications providers alike take advantage of this historic opportunity to improve the communications landscape on Tribal lands. 18. To that end, Tribal governments should come to the table with a serious, well-thought out assessment of the Tribes’ communications needs. Issues that Tribal governments should consider include, for example, the Tribe’s communications goals, needs, and priorities, as well as what the Tribe intends to do with communications services (e.g., provide connectivity to those living on Tribal lands, encourage economic opportunity). Tribal governments should also assess what core community or anchor institutions are central to deployment, and what in the nature and operations of these institutions is relevant to the need for communications services. In addition, Tribal governments should consider whether there are economic factors and possibly Tribally-driven opportunities that will assist in making the business case for deployment on Tribal lands, as well as opportunities where Tribal governments and communications providers can partner. In analyzing and discussing communications goals, needs, and priorities, Tribal governments should note that recipients of Connect America Fund (CAF) support, including the Mobility Fund, are subject to public interest obligations, as established in the USF/ICC Transformation Order. 25 19. Similarly, communications providers should come to the table ready to articulate their deployment priorities, the process by which they arrived at these priorities, and their initial plans for deployment on Tribal lands. Issues that communications providers should be prepared to discuss include, for example, the services they currently deploy, and what services they intend to deploy, on Tribal lands. Providers should also be prepared to discuss their timelines for the provision of services not currently available on Tribal lands, as well as their priorities in terms of service and the factors that led them to prioritize deployment to particular areas. Communications providers should also identify any opportunities they envision to partner with Tribal governments. C. Feasibility and Sustainability Planning 20. Feasibility and sustainability planning for communications services on Tribal lands presents issues of concern for both Tribal governments and communications providers. Tribal governments generally want services rapidly deployed for their members to support the economic, educational, public safety, and health care opportunities that communications services afford. Communications providers 24 See Improving Communications Services for Native Nations, CG Docket No. 11-41, Notice of Inquiry, 26 FCC Rcd 2672, 2679-80, para. 12 (2011) (Native Nations NOI). 25 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17691-17709, paras. 74-114. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1165 generally want business models that will be practical in terms of build out, and viable in terms of revenue flow and quality of service. While some commonalities likely exist, we believe there are many differences from one provider to another and from one Tribal government to another. The Tribal engagement obligation affords both parties the opportunity to share specific perspectives and information and to begin charting a path forward to address feasibility and sustainability in coordination with one another. 21. Tribal lands nationwide face some of the greatest challenges to the feasibility and sustainability of a 21 st century communications infrastructure, including rugged and remote terrain and often endemic levels of poverty. Therefore, communications build out plans based purely on population density or proximity to other robust networks can face major cost benefit analysis challenges. Tribal government leaders, who are largely responsible for managing a wide array of government services and economic opportunities for their communities, are uniquely situated to advise communications providers of the specific challenges associated with deploying and sustaining a communications network on their lands. The Tribal engagement obligation will facilitate discussion between Tribal government leaders and communications providers, affording providers an important opportunity to draw upon the knowledge gained to inform and coordinate their feasibility and sustainability planning. 22. Tribal Nations should be prepared to discuss any additional resources they may bring to bear in feasibility and sustainability planning for communications services, because many federal grant or loan programs provide direct access to, or particular standing for, Tribal Nations and their entities. That is, there are federal government programs that support infrastructure deployment and support the economic, health, safety, and welfare missions in Native communities—the very same priorities for the deployment of robust communications networks on Tribal lands. For example, Tribes may be considering business ventures that would benefit from coordination on communications planning at the outset. Together, providers and Tribal Nations have the opportunity to discuss how to coordinate in planning, providing, and meeting the expenses for communications services on Tribal lands. 23. When addressing the issues of sustainability on Tribal lands, one must also calibrate expectations and develop an awareness of the unique nature of Tribal communities. Issues such as cyclical poverty, remoteness, and deployment priorities all inform the potential sustainability and ultimate profitability of a particular communications model on Tribal lands. That is, it can take a longer period of time to develop a sustainable enterprise on many Tribal lands. Increased coordination between Tribal governments and communications providers on specific elements of feasibility will heighten the chances of ultimate sustainability for communications business models on Tribal lands. D. Marketing Services in a Culturally Sensitive Manner 24. As noted above, for the purposes of the USF/ICC proceeding and, therefore, the Tribal engagement obligation, Tribal lands are comprised of the lands of the approximately 566 federally recognized American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Villages, as well as Hawaiian Home Lands. 26 Tribal lands represent a rich and diverse array of cultural heritage, history, practices, and pride. Outside the context of Tribally owned and operated providers, however, seldom have these cultural factors been fully considered in the marketing and deployment of communications services on Tribal lands. The Tribal engagement obligation provides Tribal governments and communications providers with the opportunity to discuss and explore ways in which they can coordinate or partner to ensure that services are marketed in a manner that will relate directly to the community, resonate with consumers, and stimulate increased adoption of services on Tribal lands. 25. Issues that Tribal governments and communications providers may wish to discuss include the tailoring of service offerings to the community through, for example, the feasibility of a local presence in the community. For example, locating a retail presence within a Tribal community and employing 26 See supra n.2. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1165 members of that community may increase awareness of and sensitivity to local cultural and communications needs. Providers and Tribal governments also may wish to discuss whether developing materials, separately or jointly, specific to the Tribal community would be beneficial to either the provider or consumers on Tribal lands. In addition, providers and Tribal governments also may wish to discuss what other elements of their respective organizations may need to be engaged. For Tribal governments, this may mean administrative planning, community service, and other governmental offices. For providers, this may mean customer service, technical assistance, and commercial business divisions. Through a heightened mutual understanding of one another’s needs, we anticipate that Tribal governments and communications providers may discover opportunities for working together that will yield benefits to all. Studies indicate that these efforts present genuine opportunities for success, because where Native Nations and their community members have access to broadband, their rates of Internet use are on par with, if not higher than, national averages. 27 E. Rights of Way and Other Permitting and Review Processes 26. There are numerous regulatory processes with which service providers must comply in order to provide communications services on Tribal lands, including rights of way, land use permitting, facilities siting, and environmental and cultural review processes. 28 Certain of these processes involve other federal agencies, such as the Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and failure to comply with these processes may result in a finding of trespass. Given the widely varying circumstances on different Tribal lands, a one size fits all approach is not appropriate here. Instead, in the context of the Tribal engagement obligation, the common goal for Tribal governments and communications providers should be one of greater mutual understanding about the relevant rights of way and other permitting and review processes on Tribal lands and a plan for informing communications providers of procedures in a helpful and instructive manner, designed to bring companies into compliance, where applicable. 27. To that end, Tribal governments and communications providers should come to the table prepared to discuss the relevant rights of way and other permitting and review processes, as well as the challenges associated with these processes. For example, with respect to the BIA’s appraisal process for rights of way, dialogue that prioritizes early notification might expedite Tribal governments’ consultations with BIA and consent. 29 Tribal governments should have a comprehensive list of all processes with which communications providers serving their Tribal lands are required to comply, such as rights of way, land use permitting, facilities siting, and environmental and cultural review processes. Communications providers should have documentation of any and all processes with which they currently comply. All of this information will provide the foundation for a substantive discussion of all requirements and steps for moving forward together. F. Compliance with Tribal Business and Licensing Requirements 28. As sovereign institutions, Tribal governments have the authority to impose Tribal business and licensing requirements on all entities doing business on their lands. While the type and form of requirements may vary greatly from one Tribal land to another, Tribal business and licensing requirements include business practice licenses that Tribal and non-Tribal business entities, whether located on or off Tribal lands, must obtain upon application to the relevant Tribal government office or division to conduct any business or trade, or deliver any goods or services, to the Tribe, Tribal members, or Tribal lands. The form of these licenses vary greatly, including certificates of public convenience and necessity, Tribal business licenses, master licenses, and other related forms of Tribal government 27 See Traci L. Morris Ph.D., Native Public Media and Sascha D. Meinrath, New America Foundation, NEW MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY AND INDIAN USE IN INDIAN COUNTRY: QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ANALYSES (Nov. 19, 2009) (NPM/NAF New Media Study). 28 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17868-69, para. 637. 29 See generally 25 C.F.R. Part 169 – Rights-of-Way Over Indian Lands. Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1165 licensure. 30 29. As part of the Tribal engagement obligation, Tribal governments and communications providers should come to the table prepared to discuss in detail the relevant Tribal business and licensing requirements. Tribal governments should have a comprehensive list of any such requirements applicable to the provision of communications services. They should be prepared to provide an explanation of precisely what all such requirements entail, including specific application procedures and timeframes, as well as the governmental offices involved in the licensing process. Communications providers should be prepared to provide evidence of compliance with any Tribal business practice licenses with which they currently comply for that Tribe. Consistent with the discussion above regarding rights of way and other permitting and review processes, the common goal here should be one of greater mutual understanding about the relevant Tribal business licensing requirements and a plan for bringing companies into compliance, where applicable. IV. CONCLUSION 30. In conclusion, the Tribal engagement obligation represents an opportunity for Tribal governments and communications providers to coordinate on many issues critical to the deployment and adoption of communications technologies on Tribal lands. As discussed in the introduction, this guidance represents the first step in an iterative process. That is, this guidance will evolve over time based on initial experiences and feedback from Tribal governments and communications providers. In an effort to identify commonalities, increase efficiencies, and build upon current working relationships, ONAP will engage all regional stakeholders, as appropriate, and will respond to needs articulated by communications providers and Tribal governments. V. CONTACTS 31. For further information concerning this guidance, contact the offices listed below: Office of Native Affairs and Policy Geoffrey Blackwell at (202) 418-3629 Irene Flannery at (202) 418-1307 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Sue McNeil at (202) 418-7619 Wireline Competition Bureau Joseph Cavender at (202) 418-1548 - FCC - 30 See USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17868-69, para. 637, n.1052.