Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-48
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
T-Mobile USA Inc.
Objection to Proposed Wireless Tower 
Syracuse, New York
)
)
)
)
)
)
 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
 Adopted:  March 28, 2007  Released: April 11, 2007
By the Commission:
1. The Commission has before it an Application for Review (Application), filed on November 25, 
2004,1 by the South East University Neighborhood Association (SEUNA).2 SEUNA seeks review of a 
final action taken by the Wireless Telecommunication Bureau’s Spectrum and Competition Policy Division 
(Division) denying an informal complaint3 against the proposed construction of a wireless facility (facility) 
by T- Mobile USA Inc. (T-Mobile) in Syracuse, New York.4  By this order, we affirm the action taken by 
the Division and deny SEUNA’s application for review.
2.  In January 2004, T-Mobile filed documentation5 with the New York State Historic Preservation 
Office (NYSHPO) in accordance with Commission’s rules6 implementing Section 106 of the National 
  
1 See Application for Review (Application), filed by SEUNA on Nov. 25, 2004.  See also Opposition to the 
Application for Review (Opposition), filed Dec. 6, 2004, by T-Mobile USA, Inc.
2  Mr. John Oldfield and SEUNA filed an informal complaint on November 30, 2003. See Letter from John 
Oldfield to Dan Abeyta, Esq., Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, dated November 30, 2003 (informal 
complaint).   Mr. Oldfield also communicated with the Division by letter, personal e-mail, and telephone.  See,
e.g., Letter from John Oldfield to Dan Abeyta, Esq., Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, dated June 4, 
2004.  We note that the Application for Review is signed by Mr. Harry B. Lewis, President of SEUNA.  Because 
we deny the application for review on its merits, it is unnecessary for us to determine the relationship between Mr. 
Oldfield and SEUNA.  
3  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(c).
4 See Letter from Dan Abeyta, Esq., Assistant Chief, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, to Mr. John 
Oldfield, dated October 26, 2004 (Division Letter).  Although the Division Letter states that the informal 
complaint was dismissed, the Division’s action was in fact a denial on the merits.
5  See Opposition at 1-3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-48
2
Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)7 and the rules of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(Advisory Council)8 for a proposed 80-foot stealth flagpole tower to be located at 1001 Comstock Avenue, 
Syracuse, New York.9 T-Mobile then entered discussions with the NYSHPO, the Syracuse Landmark 
Preservation Board, and the Syracuse Board of Zoning Appeals (Zoning Board) to address the effects of 
the facility on historic preservation.10  The Zoning Board also held a public hearing on T-Mobile’s 
application for the proposed facility.11  As a result of this process, T-Mobile agreed to reduce the height 
from 80 feet to 60 feet, paint the tower, relocate the tower behind a 19th century crematorium, and not
install a flag or a light on the pole.12 Based on T-Mobile’s agreement to modify the proposed facility and 
the NYSHPO’s review of the Section 106 documentation and comments received from the public, including 
SEUNA, the NYSHPO recommended to the Commission on March 16, 2004, that the proposed facility, as 
modified, would have no adverse effect on properties, listed or eligible for listing on the National Register 
of Historic Places (historic properties).13  
3. On November 30, 2003, Mr. Oldfield and SEUNA filed an informal complaint with the 
Division, asserting that the proposed facility would have an adverse effect on the Morningside cemetery and 
its mausoleum/crematorium.14  On June 4, 2004, Mr. Oldfield filed a letter affirming that the proposal as 
modified would continue to have an adverse effect.15  On October 26, 2004, after reviewing the NYSHPO’s
recommendation and the record, the Division issued a letter denying the informal complaint and concurring
with the NYSHPO that that the proposed tower would have no adverse effect on historic properties.16 T-
Mobile constructed the facility after the Division denied the informal complaint.
(Continued from previous page)    
6 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a)(4).
7  See 16 U.S.C. § 470f.  
8 36 C.F.R. Part 800.  
9  See Opposition at 1-2.  We note that effective March 7, 2005, the Commission amended Section 1.1307(a)(4) of 
its rules to incorporate a Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (NPA) governing Section 106 review.  See
Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review 
Process, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 1073 (2004).  Because this tower was reviewed by the NYSHPO prior to 
the NPA, the NPA does not apply to this proceeding.
10  See Opposition at 2-3.
11  Id. 
12  See Opposition at 3. 
13  Id. at 3.
14  See Letter from John Oldfield to Dan Abeyta, Esq., Wireless Telecommunication Bureau, Spectrum and 
Competition Policy Division, dated November 30, 2003.
15  See Letter from John Oldfield to Dan Abeyta, Esq., Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, dated June 4, 
2004.  
16  See Division Letter.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-48
3
4.  The application for review alleges that the Division erred when it concurred with the NYSHPO
that the proposed facility would have no adverse effect on historic properties.17  In addition, SEUNA 
asserts that T-Mobile failed to evaluate alternative sites.18 SEUNA further alleges that T-Mobile is 
required to file an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed facility.19  Finally, SEUNA 
requests that the Commission withdraw its operating permit for this facility.20
5.  In its Opposition, T-Mobile indicates that SEUNA was given consulting party status on 
December 1, 2003, by the NYSHPO, and fully participated in the NYSHPO’s Section 106 review process 
for the proposed facility.21  T-Mobile also describes how it evaluated several alternative locations in the 
siting process.22  Finally, with respect to SEUNA’s argument that T-Mobile was required to file an EIS 
with the Commission, T-Mobile states that neither an Environmental Assessment (EA) nor an EIS was 
required by the Commission’s rules because, as borne out by the NYSHPO’s recommendation, the 
proposed facility would have no adverse effect on historic properties.23  
6.  SEUNA presents no arguments in its Application for Review that would lead us to change the 
Division’s action. SEUNA merely repeats arguments that were addressed and rejected by the Division 
when it concurred with the NYSHPO that there would be no adverse effect to historic properties from the 
proposed T-Mobile tower. We agree with T-Mobile that no EA or EIS was required.  T-Mobile 
constructed the tower in accordance with the Commission’s rules implementing Section 106 of the NHPA 
and the rules of the Advisory Council.  Therefore, we disagree with SEUNA’s argument that the 
Commission should withdraw T-Mobile’s operating permit for this facility.  Accordingly, we agree with the 
Division’s action denying the informal complaint.
7.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Section 5(c)(5) of the Communications Act, 
as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 155(c)(5), and Sections 1.115(g), 1.1306, and 1.1307(a)(4) of the Commission’s 
rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.115(g), 1.1306, and 1.1307(a)(4), that the Application for Review filed by the South 
East University Neighborhood Association IS DENIED.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
  
17  See Application at 2.
18  Id. at 3-4.
19  Id. at 4.  See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1305 (EIS is required for any Commission action deemed to have a significant effect 
on the quality of the human environment).
20  See Application at 5.
21  See Opposition at 4-5;  see also 36 C.F.R. Part 800.2(c).
22  Id. at 2-3.
23  Id. at 4.