CF-Tower No. 1-CS 201027 Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Implementation of State and Local Governments’
Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility
Modification Requests Under Section 6409(a) of
the Spectrum Act of 2012
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 19-250
RM-11849
REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted: October 27, 2020 Released: November 3, 2020
By the Commission: Chairman Pai and Commissioners O’Rielly and Carr issuing separate statements;
Commissioners Rosenworcel and Starks dissenting and issuing separate statements.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 3
III. DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................................................ 8
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ................................................................................................................ 41
V. ORDERING CLAUSES ....................................................................................................................... 44
APPENDIX A—List of Comments and Replies
APPENDIX B—Final Rules
APPENDIX C—Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Report and Order, we continue our efforts to reduce regulatory barriers to wireless
infrastructure deployment by further streamlining the state and local government review process for
modifications to existing wireless infrastructure under section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012.1 The
development of wireless infrastructure is critical to the deployment of 5G and other advanced wireless
networks, which will enable economic opportunities across the nation. To achieve this goal, existing
infrastructure can be used where it is an efficient alternative to the construction of new infrastructure. In
particular, additional antennas and other equipment will need to be placed on existing infrastructure to
keep pace with continually increasing consumer demand and to enable advanced services.2 These
1 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112 -96, Title VI (Spectrum Act of 2012),
§ 6409(a), 126 Stat. 156, 232-33 (Feb. 22, 2012) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)).
2 Crown Castle Comments at 5-8; WIA Comments at 5-6; Comments of the Wireless Infrastructure Association, WT
Docket No. 19-250, RM-11849, WC Docket No. 17-84, at 6-7 (Oct. 29, 2019); Reply Comments of the Wireless
Infrastructure Association, WT Docket No. 19-250, RM-11849, WC Docket No. 17-84, at 14-15 (Nov. 20, 2019);
Petition of Wireless Infrastructure Association for Rulemaking, File No. RM -11849, at 8 (filed Aug. 27, 2019).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
2
collocations will allow providers to take advantage of 5G’s low latency through, for example, cloud
computing capabilities at the edge of the mobile network. In addition, these collocations will enable
providers to offer more reliable service, including to first responders, as well as to meet governments’
policy goals of ensuring network resiliency. To facilitate the collocation of antennas and associated
ground equipment, while recognizing the role of state and local governments in land use decisions, we
revise our section 6409(a) rules to provide that excavation or deployment in a limited area beyond site
boundaries would not disqualify the modification of an existing tower from streamlined state and local
review on that basis.
2. This change is consistent with the recent amendment to the Nationwide Programmatic
Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, which now provides that, in certain circumstances,
excavation or deployment within the same limited area beyond a site boundary does not warrant federal
historic preservation review of a collocation.3 In addition, we revise the definition of “site” in our section
6409(a) rules in a manner that will ensure that the site boundaries from which limited expansion is
measured appropriately reflect prior state or local government review and approval. Our actions today
carefully balance the acceleration of the deployment of advanced wireless services, particularly through
the use of existing infrastructure where efficient to do so, with the preservation of states’ and localities’
ability to manage and protect local land-use interests.
II. BACKGROUND
3. To advance “Congress’s goal of facilitating rapid deployment [of wireless broadband
service]”4 and to provide clarity to the industry, the Commission in 2014 adopted rules to implement
section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012.5 Section 6409(a) provides, in relevant part, that
“[n]otwithstanding [47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)] or any other provision of law, a State or local government may
not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower
or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.”6
Among other matters, the 2014 Infrastructure Order established a 60-day period in which a state or local
government must approve an “eligible facilities request.”7 The Commission’s rules define “eligible
facilities request” as “any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that does not
substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station, involving: (i) Collocation of
new transmission equipment; (ii) Removal of transmission equipment; or (iii) Replacement of
transmission equipment.”8
3 Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Execution of Second Amendment to the Nationwide
Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, Public Notice, Attach. Second Amendment to
the Collocation Agreement at § I.E.4, 2020 WL 4187354 (WTB 2020) (codified at 47 CFR part 1, Appx. B)
(Amended Collocation NPA).
4 Acceleration of Broadband Deployment By Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, Acceleration of
Broadband Deployment: Expanding the Reach and Reducing the Cost of Broadband Deployment by Improving
Policies Regarding Public Rights of Way and Wireless Facilities Siting 2012 Biennial Review of
Telecommunications Regulations, WT Docket Nos. 13-238, 11-59, 13-32, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 12865,
12872, para. 15 (2014) (2014 Infrastructure Order), aff’d, Montgomery County, Md. v. FCC, 811 F.3d 121 (4th Cir.
2015).
5 See 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd 12865, 12922-66, paras. 135-242; see also 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a); 47
CFR § 1.6100.
6 Spectrum Act of 2012 § 6409(a)(1) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)).
7 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(3); 47 CFR § 1.6100(c); 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12952, 12955-57, paras.
206, 211-12, 215.
8 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(3). The statutory definition of “eligible facilities request” is slightly different. See 47 U.S.C.
§ 1455(a). Our use of the term eligible facilities request in this Report and Order relies on the definition set forth in
the rule. See also 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12944-45, 12955, paras. 188, 211.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
3
4. The 2014 Infrastructure Order adopted objective standards for determining when a
proposed modification would “substantially change the physical dimensions” of an existing tower or base
station.9 Among other standards, the Commission determined “that a modification is a substantial change
if it entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site of the tower or base station.”10 The
Commission defined “site” for towers not located in the public rights-of-way as “the current boundaries
of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently
related to the site,” and it defined “site” for other eligible support structures as being “further restricted to
that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the
ground.”11
5. In adopting the standard for excavation and deployment that would be considered a
substantial change under section 6409(a), the Commission looked to analogous concerns about impacts
on historic properties reflected in implementation of the National Historic Preservation Act and primarily
relied on similar language in the Collocation NPA.12 At that time, the Commission considered, but
declined to adopt,13 a proposal to exclude from the scope of “substantial change” any excavation or
deployment of up to 30 feet in any direction of a site, a proposal that was consistent with an exclusion
from Section 106 review for replacement towers in the Wireless Facilities NPA.14 In reconciling different
standards for potentially analogous deployments in the NPAs, the Commission reasoned that the activities
covered under section 6409(a) “are more nearly analogous to those covered under the Collocation [NPA]
than under the replacement towers exclusion in the [Wireless Facilities] NPA,” but the Commission did
not explore the reasoning for the discrepancy between the NPAs, nor did it further explain why it chose to
borrow from the older NPA instead of the more modern one.15 In addition, the Commission did not make
a determination that it would be unreasonable to use 30 feet as a touchstone for defining what types of
excavations would “substantially change the physical dimensions of [an existing] tower or base station.”16
Rather, the Commission established a reasonable, objective, and concrete set of criteria to eliminate the
need for protracted local zoning review, in furtherance of the goals of the statute, by drawing guidance
from the consensus represented by the approach taken in the Collocation NPA. That same Collocation
9 See 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12944-45, para. 188 (determining that a change is substantial if it
exceeds defined limits on increases in the height or girth of the structure, exceeds the number of associated
equipment cabinets, involves excavation or deployment on ground outside a structure’s current site, defeats the
concealment elements of the preexisting structure, or violates conditions previously imposed by the local zoning
authority); see also 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(7).
10 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12949, para. 198.
11 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(6).
12 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12949, paras. 198-99; Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the
Collocation of Wireless Antennas, 66 Fed. Reg. 17554-57 (2001) (Collocation NPA); 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(6), (7).
The Collocation NPA stated that, among other factors, a collocation would not be excluded from Section 106 review
if 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.” Collocation NPA, § I.C.4.
13 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12949, para. 199.
14 Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review
Process, 47 CFR pt. 1, App. C (Wireless Facilities NPA). The Wireless Facilities NPA excludes certain activities
from Section 106 review, including “construction of a replacement for an existing communications tower and any
associated excavation that . . . does not expand the boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the
tower by more than 30 feet in any direction or involve excavation outside these expanded boundaries or outside any
existing access or utility easement related to the site.” Id. at § III.B.
15 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12949, para. 199.
16 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
4
NPA, however, was recently amended to reflect an updated consensus on what might be best regarded as
a substantial increase in the size of an existing tower, as it excludes a collocation from Section 106 review
if it involves excavation within 30 feet outside the boundaries of the tower site.17
6. On August 27, 2019, WIA filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling requesting that the
Commission clarify that, for towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, the “current site” for
purposes of section 1.6100(b)(7)(iv) is the property leased or owned by the applicant at the time it submits
a section 6409(a) application and not the initial site boundaries.18 On the same day, WIA also filed a
Petition for Rulemaking requesting that the Commission amend its rules to establish that a modification
would not cause a “substantial change” if it entails excavation or deployments at locations of up to 30 feet
in any direction outside the boundaries of a tower compound.19
7. On June 10, 2020, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that sought
comment on two issues regarding the scope of the streamlined application process under section 6409(a):
(i) the definition of “site” under section 1.6100(b)(6); and (ii) the scope of modifications under section
1.6100(b)(7)(iv).20 The Commission proposed to revise the definition of site “to make clear that ‘site’
refers to the boundary of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility
easements currently related to the site as of the date that the facility was last reviewed and approved by a
locality.”21 The Commission also proposed “to amend section 1.6100(b)(7)(iv) so that modification of an
existing facility that entails ground excavation or deployment of up to 30 feet in any direction outside the
facility’s site will be eligible for streamlined processing under section 6409(a).”22 The Notice asked, in
the alternative, whether the Commission “should revise the definition of site in section 1.6100(b)(6), as
proposed above, without making the proposed change to section 1.6100(b)(7)(iv) for excavation or
deployment of up to 30 feet outside the site.”23 In addition, the Notice asked “whether to define site in
section 1.6100(b)(6) as the boundary of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any
access or utility easements related to the site as of the date an applicant submits a modification request.”24
Finally, the Notice asked about alternatives to the proposals, costs, and benefits.25
III. DISCUSSION
8. After reviewing the record in this proceeding, we make targeted revisions to sections
1.6100(b)(7)(iv) and 1.6100(b)(6) of our rules to broaden the scope of wireless facility modifications that
are eligible for streamlined review under section 6409(a). The Commission has considered collocation a
17 Amended Collocation NPA, § I.E.4.
18 Petition of Wireless Infrastructure Association for Declaratory Ruling, WT Docket No. 19-250, at 18 (filed Aug.
27, 2019).
19 Petition of Wireless Infrastructure Association for Rulemaking, File No. RM -11849, at 9-10 (filed Aug. 27, 2019).
20 See Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility
Modification Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012, WT Docket No. 19-250, RM-11849,
Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 5977, 6003 -04, paras. 51-56 (2020) (Notice).
The Declaratory Ruling clarified “the meaning of our rules implementing Congress’ decisions in section 6409(a) of
the Spectrum Act of 2012.” Id. at 5979, para. 3 (citing Spectrum Act of 2012, § 6409(a)).
21 Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 6004, para. 55.
22 Id. at 6004, para. 55.
23 Id. at 6004, para. 56.
24 Id. at 6004, para. 56 (emphasis in original).
25 Id. at 6004, para. 56.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
5
tool for advancing wireless services’ deployment for over three decades.26 As the Commission noted in
the 2014 Infrastructure Order, collocation “is often the most efficient and economical solution for mobile
wireless service providers that need new cell sites to expand their existing coverage area, increase their
capacity, or deploy new advanced services.”27 The actions we take today will further streamline the
approval process for using existing infrastructure to expedite wireless connectivity efforts nationwide
while preserving localities’ ability to manage local zoning.
9. First, we amend section 1.6100(b)(7)(iv) to provide that, for towers not located in the
public rights-of-way, a modification of an existing site that entails ground excavation or deployment of
transmission equipment of up to 30 feet in any direction outside a tower’s site will not be disqualified
from streamlined processing under section 6409(a) on that basis.28 In general, section 1.6100(b)(7)
describes when an eligible facilities request will “substantially change the physical dimensions” of a
facility under section 6409(a).29 Because the statutory term “substantially change” is ambiguous,30
section 1.6100(b)(7) elaborates on the phrase by providing numerical and objective criteria for
determining when a proposed expansion will “substantially change” the dimensions of a facility. For the
reasons explained more fully below, we conclude that proposed ground excavation or deployment of up to
30 feet in any direction outside a tower’s site is sufficiently modest so as not to “substantially change the
physical dimensions” of a tower or base station, and that this amendment to our rules thus represents a
permissible construction of section 6409(a).31
10. In promulgating the initial rules to implement section 6409(a), the Commission
determined that “an objective definition” of what constitutes a substantial change “will provide an
appropriate balance between municipal flexibility and the rapid deployment of covered facilities.”32 With
respect to excavation and deployment in association with modifications to existing structures, the
Commission found that the appropriate standard for what constitutes a substantial change was any
excavation or deployment outside of the site boundaries. Here, we conclude that a revision to this
standard is warranted by certain changes since our initial determination: the recent recognition by the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation
Officers of 30 feet as an appropriate threshold in the context of federal historic preservation review of
collocations; and the ongoing evolution of wireless networks that rely on an increasing number of
26 See, e.g., Amendment of the Commission’s Environmental Rules, Order, 3 FCC Rcd 4986, para. 7 (1988) (“The
Commission has long held that the mounting of antennas on existing buildings or antenna towers is environmentally
preferable to the construction of a new facility . . . .”).
27 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12925, para. 142; see also Crown Castle Comments at 5-6 (arguing
that collocation on existing structures is faster, more cost-effective, and less disruptive to the surrounding
environment than construction of new towers); Coleman Bazelon and Pallavi Seth, REIT Supported Wireless
Infrastructure: Foundation of the Mobile Economy at 14-15 (May 23, 2017), https://brattlefiles.blob.core.windows.
net/files/7344_reit_supported_wireless_infrastructure_foundation_of_the_mobile_economy.pdf (“Carriers have
significant economic incentives to choose a collocation model, where they lease space from the tower company and
share the infrastructure with another tenant, rather than build their own site.”).
28 We do not amend section 1.6100(b)(7)(iv) with respect to towers in the public rights-of-way or non-tower
structures.
29 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(7) (providing that “[a] modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of
an eligible support structure if it meets any of the following criteria”) (emphasis added); see also Spectrum Act of
2012 § 6409(a)(1) (providing that a state or local government may not deny certain eligible facility requests that do
not “substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station”) (emphasis added).
30 Montgomery County, Md. v. FCC, 811 F.3d at 129-30 (“[W]e review Petitioners’ challenge to the manner in
which the FCC has defined the two terms referenced earlier: ‘substantially change’ and ‘base station.’”).
31 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a).
32 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12945, para. 189.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
6
collocations, where they are an efficient alternative to new tower construction, to meet the rising demand
for advanced wireless services. In light of these changes, we conclude that it is reasonable to adjust the
line drawn by the Commission in 2014 for streamlined treatment of excavations or deployments
associated with collocations, and in doing so we continue to believe that it is appropriate to consider in
this context the analogous line drawn in the federal historic preservation context as a relevant benchmark.
11. As an initial matter, we recognize that the Commission relied on the Wireless Facilities
NPA and Collocation NPA to inform its adoption of initial rules implementing section 6409(a). In
particular, the Commission stated that “the objective test for ‘substantial increase in size’ under the
Collocation [NPA] should inform our consideration of the factors to consider when assessing a
‘substantial change in physical dimensions,’” and that this approach “reflects our general determination
that definitions in the Collocation [NPA] and [Wireless Facilities] NPA should inform our interpretation
of similar terms in [s]ection 6409(a).”33 With respect to excavation and deployment associated with a
modification of an existing structure, the Commission relied on a provision in the Collocation NPA and
determined that “a modification is a substantial change if it entails any excavation or deployment outside
the current site of the tower or base station.”34 Further, the Commission considered, but declined to
adopt,35 a proposal to exclude from the scope of “substantial change” any excavation or deployment of up
to 30 feet in any direction from a site’s boundaries, which would have been consistent with an exclusion
from Section 106 review for replacement towers in the Wireless Facilities NPA.36 Importantly, the
Commission did not characterize the 30-foot standard in the Wireless Facilities NPA to be an
unreasonable choice. The Commission elected to follow the language in the Collocation NPA given
commonalities between the types of deployments referred to in section 6409 and the types of deployments
covered under the Collocation NPA, as well as input from industry and localities.
12. The Collocation NPA was recently amended,37 however, to align with the Wireless
Facilities NPA, reflecting a recognition that, in the context of federal historic preservation review,
permitting a limited expansion beyond the site boundaries to proceed without substantial review
encourages collocations without significantly affecting historic preservation interests. Specifically, on
July 10, 2020, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Chief (on delegated authority from the
Commission), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the National Conference of State
Historic Preservation Officers executed the Amended Collocation NPA to eliminate an inconsistency
between the Collocation NPA and the Wireless Facilities NPA.38
13. The Amended Collocation NPA now provides that, for the purpose of determining
whether a collocation may be excluded from Section 106 review, a collocation is a substantial increase in
33 Id. at 12945, para. 190; see also id. (“the Commission has previously relied on the Collocation [NPA]’s test in
comparable circumstances, concluding in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling that collocation applications are subject to a
shorter shot clock under Section 332(c)(7) to the extent that they do not constitute a ‘substantial increase in size of
the underlying structure.’”) (citation omitted).
34 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(7)(iv) (stating that a “modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of an
eligible support structure if it . . . entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site.”); see also 2014
Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12949, para. 198; Collocation NPA § I.C.
35 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12949, para. 199.
36 Wireless Facilities NPA § III.B.
37 Amended Collocation NPA.
38 Id. (stating that the Collocation NPA “provides that a collocation on an existing tower is excluded from Section
106 review unless it involves one of the enumerated circumstances, which include a substantial increase in the size
of the tower. Prior to the amendment, a ‘substantial increase in the size of the tower’ was defined to include, among
other factors, any excavation outside the current tower site”, while the Wireless Facilities NPA “excludes from
Section 106 review the replacement of a tower that involves deployment and excavation by no more than 30 feet in
any direction outside the boundaries of an existing tower site.”). 47 CFR part 1, Appx. B.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
7
the size of the tower if it “would expand the boundaries of the current tower site by more than 30 feet in
any direction or involve excavation outside these expanded boundaries.”39 In adopting that change, the
Amended Collocation NPA stated that, among other reasons, the parties “developed this second
amendment to the Collocation Agreement to allow project proponents the same review efficiency
[applicable to tower replacements in the Wireless Facilities NPA] in regard to limited excavation beyond
the tower site boundaries for collocation, thereby encouraging project proponents to conduct more
collocation activities instead of constructing new towers . . . .”40 The parties therefore recognized the
limited effect that an up to 30-foot compound expansion would impose on the site, which is also
consistent with the Commission’s rationale in adopting the replacement tower exclusion in the Wireless
Facilities NPA. Indeed, in the 2004 Report and Order implementing the Wireless Facilities NPA, the
Commission concluded that a 30-foot standard was “reasonable and appropriate,” and reasoned that
“construction and excavation to within 30 feet of the existing leased or owned property means that only a
minimal amount of previously undisturbed ground, if any, would be turned, and that would be very close
to the existing construction.”41 Our decision to permit an eligible facilities request to include limited
excavation and deployment of up to 30 feet in any direction harmonizes the Commission’s rules under
section 6409(a) with permitted compound expansions for exclusion from Section 106 review for
replacement towers under the Wireless Facilities NPA and collocations under the Collocation NPA.
14. In that regard, we disagree with the localities’ argument that the Collocation NPA “has
no bearing on [this] matter.”42 The definition of “substantial increase in size of the tower” in the
Collocation NPA was a primary basis for the Commission’s decision in the 2014 Infrastructure Order to
define a substantial change as any excavation or deployment outside the boundaries of a tower site.43
Accordingly, the amendment to the Collocation NPA to provide that excavations of up to 30 feet of the
boundaries of a site is not a substantial increase in size provides support for our decision in this Report
and Order to once again make the section 6409(a) rules consistent with the Collocation NPA. Retaining
the existing definition despite the amendment to the Collocation NPA could create confusion and invite
uncertainty.44
15. In addition, we find that the revised 30-foot standard is supported by the current trends
toward collocations and technological changes that the record evidences while preserving localities’
zoning authority. Collocations necessarily include installing transmission equipment that supports the
tower antenna on a site.45 Industry commenters claim that “[t]he majority of existing towers were built
39 Amended Collocation NPA, § I.E.4.
40Id., Preamble.
41 National Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Review Process ,
WT Docket No. 03-128, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 1073, 1090, para. 45 (2004).
42 Local Government Reply Comments at 9; see also Western Communities Coalition Comments at 12-13. Notably,
localities do not argue that a different objective standard of “substantial change” is necessary —they reject any
revision of the standard.
43 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12949, para. 199; see also id. at 12945, para. 190 (“We further find
that the objective test for ‘substantial increase in size’ under the Collocation Agreement should inform our
consideration of the factors to consider when assessing a ‘substantial change in physical dimensions.’ This reflects
our general determination that definitions in the Collocation [NPA] and [Wireless Facilities] NPA should inform our
interpretation of similar terms in [s]ection 6409(a).”).
44 Crown Castle Comment at 18 (“[G]iven the heavy reliance the agency placed on the 2001 Collocation NPA in its
2014 decision, it would likely be arbitrary and capricious for the Commission to retain the 2014 definition in light of
the amendment to the Collocation NPA.”) (emphasis in original).
45 See 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12932, para. 160 (defining transmission equipment as “any
equipment that facilitates transmission for any Commission-licensed or authorized wireless communication service,
including, but not limited to, radio transceivers, antennas and other relevant equipment associated with and
necessary to their operation . . . .”) (emphasis added); see also Crown Castle Comments at 5 (stating that collocation
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
8
many years ago and were intended to support the operations of a single carrier.”46 Following the 2014
Infrastructure Order’s promotion of collocations, more towers now house several operators’ antennas and
other transmission equipment, and industry commenters assert that, in many cases, any space that was
once available at those tower sites has been used.47 As a result, there is less space at tower sites for
additional collocations without minor modifications to sites to accommodate the expansion of equipment
serving existing operators at the sites and the addition of new equipment serving new operators at the
sites.48 As NTCA states, “[l]ike other wireless providers, NTCA members often find that colocations on
towers require the additional installation of . . . facilities necessary to support transmission equipment.
This has become increasingly difficult as towers built to hold one carrier’s facilities may be used to
support those utilized by multiple wireless providers.”49 Further, additional space is generally necessary
to add the latest technologies enabling 5G services, such as multi-access edge computing, which requires
more space than other collocation infrastructure.50 Given the need for more space on the ground to
(Continued from previous page)
“also requires the use of ground space near the tower for the installation of associated equipment”); Letter from
Joshua Turner, Counsel to Crown Castle, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 19 -250, at 1 (filed
Oct. 20, 2020) (Crown Castle Oct. 20 Ex Parte Letter) (“[T]he continued development of new technologies means
that collocations at, and modifications of, existing wireless sites often require the placement of additional equipment
associated with, but not directly on, the wireless tower. Thi s includes the type of ground-mounted equipment such
as switches, wiring, cabling, power sources, or cabinets that is covered in the Collocation [NPA].”).
46 Crown Castle Comments at 5; see also WIA Comments at 5 (“[T]he record demonstrates that many existing
towers were built with the intention of supporting only the operations of a single carrier.”); CTIA Comments at 3
(“Many towers and tower sites were initially designed years or even decades ago to hold a single wireless provider’s
antennas and supporting ground equipment.”).
47 See, e.g., Crown Castle Comments at 5 (“[A]s a result of successful collocation policies by the Commission as
well as state and local governments, available space surrounding a tower for ground-mounted equipment has been
used or diminished. As a result, existing sites are often not well-suited to meet current network needs and thus
cannot support collocation.”) (citations omitted); WIA Comments at 5 -6 (“As collocations increased, minimizing the
need for new tower construction, many towers now support antennas from multiple wireless carriers. However, the
potential for additional collocations on such towers is limited because equipment cabinets or shelters originally built
at the sites often are full. In many cases, space no longe r exists at the original sites to support the installation of
additional equipment cabinets or shelters that a new tenant-carrier would require.”); American Tower Corp.
Comments at 5 (“[A]dding new carrier equipment to existing towers often requires adding additional ground
equipment inside the compound, which can require slight expansion of the tower site to accommodate the ground
installation.”); Letter from Sarah Leggin, CTIA, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 19 -250, at 2
(filed Oct. 16, 2020) (“As CTIA and others explained in the record in this proceeding, many of today’s towers
already house multiple operators’ antennas and other transmission equipment, and in many cases, the ground space
that was once available at those tower sites has been filled.”).
48 CTIA Comments at 3-4 (“[H]osting multiple service providers at one tower site requires the addition of more
equipment at that site, including additional equipment shelters, equipment cabinets, base station equipment, HVAC,
and more. That, in turn, requires more land around the base of the tower to locate equipment. Even basic customer
equipment and backup power require some additional space. In addition, the transition of networks to newer
generations means that more than one generation of equipment may be located at a site as providers phase out older
equipment.”); American Tower Corp. Comments at 5 (“The lack of available space, and associated hurdles related to
permitting new ground space, may deter operators from deploying backup power solutions in advance of events that
may cause network outages.”).
49 NTCA Comments at 3.
50 See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 4 (“5G networks use Multi-access Edge Computing (‘MEC’) equipment, which
needs to be located closer to end users rather tha n at network hubs. As a practical matter, this requires installing
MEC equipment at antenna sites. Again, however, there can be insufficient ground space to install MEC equipment.
As 5G networks continue to be deployed, more sites will need additional space for ME C equipment or other
technologies.”) (footnote omitted); WIA Reply Comments at 10-11 (“The proposed rule changes will promote []
technological advances and better service because . . . many tower sites no longer have the physical space to
accommodate these MECs.”). Multi-access edge computing, whose proximity to the end users provides low latency
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
9
accommodate a growing number of facility modifications, we find that streamlined treatment of limited
compound expansions is essential to achieve the degree of accelerated advanced wireless network
deployment that will best serve the public interest.51 Indeed, WIA states that the 30-foot standard
“appropriately provides a reasonable and realistic degree of flexibility.”52 Further, in light of these
developments and the recognition of a new compound expansion standard in the context of historic
preservation review of collocations, we find it reasonable to adjust the line drawn by the Commission in
2014 for determining whether limited compound expansion is a substantial change that disqualifies a
modification from eligibility for streamlined treatment.53
16. We also find that streamlined treatment of limited compound expansions will promote
public safety and network resiliency. For example, we note that Crown Castle states that more than 40
percent of its site expansions in the past 18 months were solely for “adding backup emergency generators
to add resiliency to the network.”54 And WIA states that, “in many cases, the need for a limited expansion
of the compound is being driven by public safety demands and the desire to improve network
resiliency.”55 Our rule change will also promote public safety in another context—industry commenters
state that the proposed rule changes will ensure expeditious and effective deployment of FirstNet’s
network, which Congress directed to leverage collocation on existing infrastructure “to the maximum
extent economically desirable.”56 AT&T, for example, states that “many collocations on existing towers
being performed to build a public safety broadband network for [FirstNet] entail site expansions to add
generators as well as Band 14 equipment.”57 We therefore agree with commenters that these changes will
promote public safety.
(Continued from previous page)
for data-intensive applications, will further enable faster and more reliable wireless connectivity. See, e.g., Monica
Alleven, Verizon’s MEC Gear Gives it an ‘Edge’ in Latency, Fierce Wireless (Feb. 4, 2019), https://
www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/verizon-s-mec-gear-gives-it-edge-latency (describing how Verizon achieved
“significantly better” latency with MEC equipment than what it could have done otherwise); Scott Fulton III, 5G
Reinvented: The Longer, Rougher Road towards Ubiquity, ZDNet (July 3, 2020), https://www.zdnet.com/
article/5g-reinvented-the-longer-rougher-road-toward-ubiquity/ (describing how MEC is the “key 5G portfolio
technology for bringing about” 5G deployment).
51 Letter from Colleen Thompson, AT&T Services, Inc., to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 19 -
250, at 1 (filed Oct. 16, 2020) (stating that the Report and Order will remove potential delays for minor equipment
additions).
52 Letter from John Howes, WIA, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 19 -250, at 2 (filed Oct. 19,
2020) (WIA Oct. 19 Ex Parte Letter).
53 See Crown Castle Oct. 20 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (stating that harmonization of the Collocation NPA and compound
expansion rules will increase operators’ deployment efficiency).
54 Crown Castle Comments at 7; see also Letter from Steven Vondran, American Tower Corp., to Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 19-250, at 1.
55 WIA Comments at 6 (footnote omitted); see also American Tower Corp. Comments at 5-6 (“Allowing the limited
compound expansion proposed in this [Notice] would serve the public interest by helping to streamline siting of
backup power equipment to create more resilient infrastructure.”); see also WIA Oct. 19 Ex Parte Letter at 2
(explaining that providers are using ground equipment to support “carrier collocation and generators for backup
power”).
56 47 U.S.C. § 1426(b)(1) (“[FirstNet] shall . . . take all actions necessary to ensure the building, deployment, and
operation of the nationwide public safety broadband network,” “including by, at a minimum . . . issuing open,
transparent, and competitive requests for proposals to private sector entities for the purposes of building, operating,
and maintaining the network” and “encouraging that such requests leverage, to the maximum extent economically
desirable, existing commercial wireless infrastructure to speed deployment of the network . . . .”).
57 AT&T Reply Comments at 5; see also WIA Reply Comments at 13-14 (“Allowing limited compound expansions
to be included as a beneficiary of [s]ection 6409 relief will help FirstNet and other public safety services to upgrade
their operations. First responders are increasingly using mobile applications for search and rescue operations,
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
10
17. We conclude that 30 feet is an appropriate threshold.58 The objective standard we adopt
today is consistent with the current collocation marketplace and with the threshold adopted in the
Wireless Facilities NPA and recently included in the Amended Collocation NPA. In affirming the 2014
Infrastructure Order, the Fourth Circuit stated that the order “provide[d] objective and numerical
standards to establish when an eligible facilities request would ‘substantially change the physical
dimensions’” of a site.59 Here, we extend those objective and numerical standards in a manner that
reflects the recent recognition of 30 feet as an appropriate standard in the federal historic preservation
context and the changes in the collocation marketplace, which is lacking space for collocations.
18. We believe that our actions today, which reflect the Amended Collocation NPA and
collocation marketplace changes since the Commission’s determination in 2014, “will provide an
appropriate balance between municipal flexibility and the rapid deployment of covered facilities.”60
Indeed, the record reflects that the deployment of transmission equipment within the expanded 30-foot
area will be limited, buttressing our view that 30 feet is a reasonable limit to expansion that does not
constitute a substantial change and therefore should be subject to streamlined review under Section 6409
and our implementing regulations. Crown Castle states that the 30-foot standard “will be sufficient to
accommodate the types of minor equipment additions that Crown Castle must often make as part of a
collocation or other site modification.”61 Crown Castle presents several representative examples of
proposed minor site expansions, which include “additional equipment, equipment upgrades, new
collocations, and back-up generator installations.”62 These examples demonstrate that compound
expansions occur as close to the tower as possible, as “customers typically require their equipment to be
in close proximity to the tower, their other equipment, power sources, available fiber, and any back-up
power supply.”63 These examples also demonstrate that construction within a 30-foot perimeter of an
existing site would not result in what could be considered substantial changes to the physical footprint of
existing sites, especially when considered in conjunction with other limitations in our rules that we are not
altering.
19. Localities generally oppose any revision to the Commission’s existing “substantial
change” definition that would enable streamlined treatment of modifications involving compound
expansion outside of a site,64 but request that, if such changes nonetheless are made, they should be
(Continued from previous page)
personnel and asset tracking, drones, mapping and location accuracy, weather tracking, and real -time analytics that
all require high capacity, low latency connections. By allowing for more space at the tower site, FirstNet an d other
public safety services can put in place the additional equipment to process the data necessary for their mission -
critical operations.”)
58 We thus disagree with the Virginia Localities, which claim that “neither the [Notice] nor any commenter has
explained why 30 feet is the appropriate distance for meeting the stated needs of the wireless industry in this
context.” Virginia Localities at 14. And we disagree with the Western Communities Coalition, which claims that
“the record contains no evidence that ties the 30 -foot compound expansion to the size needed to accommodate a
collocation,” and that the “industry’s broad claims that space at existing sites is running out cannot be enough to
conclude that 30 feet is the right number.” Western Communities Coalition at 7 (footnote omitted).
59 Montgomery County, Md. v. FCC, 811 F.3d at 130; see also id. at 131 n.8 (recognizing that the Commission based
its standards on the two NPAs).
60 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12945, para. 189.
61 Crown Castle Oct. 20 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (citing Crown Castle Reply Comments, Exhibit A).
62 Crown Castle Reply Comments at 5-6 & Exhibit A.
63 Id. at 8.
64 See, e.g., Local Government Comments at 13 (“Local Governments ha ve made clear that the Commission lacks
the delegated authority to expand the site and moreover, the proposal further fails to meet the substantiality test of
the statute.”); NATOA Reply Comments at 12 (“Whatever superficial appeal there might be to a ‘sim ple’ expansion
up to thirty feet outside the site, the on-the-ground realities are far more complex and not amenable to the
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
11
limited in certain ways. First, NATOA and Local Governments express concern that the rule change with
respect to compound expansion could be interpreted to permit the deployment of new towers within the
expanded area, and they request that the Commission limit the permissible deployment within the
expanded area to transmission equipment.65 We agree that the deployments referenced in section
1.6100(b)(7)(iv) are deployments of transmission equipment. Under our current rules, any eligible
facilities request—a request that is eligible for section 6409(a) treatment—must involve the collocation,
replacement, or removal of transmission equipment.66 Accordingly, any deployment outside the site
boundary that is eligible for section 6409(a) treatment under section 1.6100(b)(7)(iv), including
deployments within 30 feet of the site boundary for a tower outside the public rights-of-way, would be
limited to the deployment of transmission equipment, not new towers.
20. Second, NATOA and Local Governments propose that the site boundary from which a
compound expansion will be measured should exclude easements related to that site.67 We agree. The
definition of “site” in our current rules, for towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, is “the
current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility
easements currently related to the site.”68 We find, though, that providing a 30-foot expansion for
excavation or deployment along an easement related to the site is not necessary to meet the goal of
facilitating wireless infrastructure deployment, because it is more likely that additional equipment will
need to be placed in a limited area outside the leased or owned property rather than outside the easement
related to the site. Further, excavation or deployment in an area 30 feet outside an easement, which could
be miles in length, could result in a substantial change that would not be entitled to streamlined treatment
under section 6409(a).
21. Third, NATOA and Local Governments request that we restrict the size of transmission
equipment deployed outside the site.69 We find that, given the limited types of transmission equipment
deployed for collocations, such a restriction is not necessary to consider excavation or deployment within
the 30-foot expansion area to be outside the scope of a substantial change. Additionally, size restrictions
based on current equipment may unnecessarily restrict the deployment of future technology, which may
(Continued from previous page)
streamlined and rigid [s]ection 6409(a) process.”); Western Communities Coalition Comments at 15 (“[T]he
Commission lacks both the statutory authority and a basis in the record to adopt the proposed change to [s]ection
1.6100(b)(7)(iv).”). To the extent that the localities’ opposition to our decision rests on the notion that an expansion
is only permitted if it involves deployment on the existing tower as opposed to within the site around the tower, we
reject that argument. The 2014 rules already permit streamlined treatment of deployments around the tower as long
as such deployments stay within the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and
any access or utility easements currently related to the site. See, e.g., 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at
12949, para. 198; 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(6). As discussed below, the permissible modifications under our new rules
would relate only to equipment that “facilitates transmission for any Commission -licensed or authorized wireless
communication service” from the existing tower, consistent with the statute and definitions in Section 1.6100. See
47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(8) (defining “transmission equipment”). Accordingly, the deployment of such equipment
would clearly impact the equipment touching that structure. It is thus more than reasonable for the Commission to
rely on its statutory authority to classify such deployment as a modification of that tower and to expand the
surrounding area to accommodate such deployment.
65 Letter from Nancy Werner, NATOA, to Marlene Dortch, S ecretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 19-250, at 2 (filed Oct.
19, 2020) (NATOA Oct. 19 Ex Parte Letter).
66 See 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(3) (defining eligible facilities request); 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(8) (defining transmission
equipment).
67 NATOA Oct. 19 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
68 See 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(6).
69 NATOA Oct. 19 Ex Parte Letter at 2 (requesting that the transmission equipment in the compound expansion “is
no larger in height or volume than the largest ground -mounted transmission equipment and the equipment cabinet in
which it is enclosed located on the current site”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
12
include larger transmission equipment than currently deployed or available. Finally, the other substantial
change limitations in section 1.6100(b)(7) continue to apply to modifications under section 6409(a).70
22. Fourth, NATOA and Local Governments assert that setting a 30-foot limit on excavation
or deployment outside site boundaries, without regard to the size of the existing tower site, could permit
substantial changes to qualify for streamlined treatment.71 In particular, NATOA and Local Governments
propose that, to the extent we revise our “substantial change” definition, the compound expansion
standard should be “the lesser of the following distance[s] from the current site (not including easements
related to the site): a. 20% of the length or width of the current site measured as a longitudinal or
latitudinal line from the current site to the excavation or deployment; or b. 30 feet.”72 We decline to adopt
this proposal because, on balance, the potential problems it could create outweigh the potential benefits it
could achieve. A standard of “20% of the length or width of the current site” would be difficult to
administer, given that a site boundary is not necessarily a symmetrical shape. In addition, while the
record supports the determination that a 30-foot expansion would be sufficient to accommodate minor
equipment additions, the record does not provide support for the determination that the “20%” standard
would accomplish this goal. Moreover, adopting the “20%” proposal would provide limited additional
benefit in addressing the concern raised by NATOA and Local Governments. Because a small tower site
typically is associated with a small tower that has limited space for additional antennas, it is unlikely that
operators would need to place a significant amount of additional qualifying transmission equipment in an
area outside the site boundaries.73 In addition, any modification to an existing tower that involves
excavation or deployment within the 30-foot expanded area will be subject to the other criteria in our
rules for determining whether there is a substantial change that does not warrant streamlined treatment
under section 6409(a). Those criteria, which we do not alter today, provide further limitation on the size
or scope of a modification that involves excavation or deployment within 30 feet of the site boundaries.
For example, those criteria limit the modifications that would qualify for streamlined treatment by the
number of additional equipment cabinets and by the increase in height and girth of the tower.
23. Our limited adjustment to the definition of substantial change in the context of
excavations or deployments is further supported by land-use laws in several states. In particular, we
observe that at least “eight states have passed laws that expressly permit compound expansion within
certain limits . . . under an exempt or expedited review process.”74 Most of these laws allow expansion
beyond 30 feet from the approved site.75 As Crown Castle states, “these state laws are a benefit to both
the wireless industry and local officials. They permit the wireless industry to meet the burgeoning
network demands while also providing certainty and clarity to all involved.”76
24. We find that the standard we adopt today continues to be a reasonable line drawing
exercise in defining “substantial change,” and it reflects a more appropriate balancing of the promotion of
“rapid wireless facility deployment and preserving states’ and localities’ ability to manage and protect
70 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(7).
71 NATOA Oct. 19 Ex Parte Letter at 1.
72 NATOA Oct. 19 Ex Parte Letter at 2.
73 See, e.g., Crown Castle Reply Comments, Exhibit A (illustrating that proposed deployments will occupy only a
portion of the permitted compound expansion).
74 Comments of Crown Castle International Corp., WT Docket No. 19 -250, RM-11849, WC Docket No. 17-84, at
32-33 (Oct. 29, 2019) (Crown Castle Oct. 2019 Comments); see also Crown Castle Comments at 17, n.58 (noting
that “eight different states have passed laws exempting minor compound expansions from local zoning and
permitting requirements”).
75 Crown Castle Oct. 2019 Comments at 32-33 n.76 (showing that at least six of these eight state laws’ standards
exceed 30 feet, with some states exempting compound expansions within a n area as large as 2,500 square feet).
76 Id. at 33.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
13
local land-use interests”77 than the Commission articulated in 2014. In that regard, we find that it is in the
public interest to modify the Commission’s prior decision on what constitutes substantial change within
the context of excavation or deployment.
25. In addition to amending section 1.6100(b)(7)(iv), we revise section 1.6100(b)(6) of the
Commission’s rules to define the current boundaries of the “site” of a tower outside of public rights-of-
way in a manner relative to the prior approval required by the state or local government. In conjunction
with section 1.6100(b)(7), section 1.6100(b)(6) informs when excavation or deployment associated with a
modification will “substantially change the physical dimensions” of a facility under section 6409(a).78
While the word “site” does not itself appear in section 6409, section 1.6100(b)(7)(iv) uses the term in
describing when excavation or deployment might be so distant from an existing structure that such
modifications would “substantially change the physical dimensions” of the facility.79 In amending our
current definition, we supply a temporal baseline against which to measure whether a proposed
modification would “substantially” change the facility. For the reasons explained more fully below, we
think that this amendment represents a reasonable construction of the ambiguous statutory language;
ascertaining whether a modification “substantially changes” an existing structure requires establishing a
baseline against which to measure the proposed change. Here, because the statutory language involves
streamlined approval of modifications to existing facilities, it is reasonable, based on the statutory
language, to measure the boundaries of a site by reference to when a state or local government last had the
opportunity to review or approve the structure that the applicant seeks to modify, if such approval
occurred prior to section 6409 or otherwise outside of the section 6409(a) process. After all, the objective
of the statute is to streamline approval of additions to structures that were already approved.
26. Because our actions today permit streamlined processing for modifications that entail
ground excavation or deployment up to 30 feet outside a current site, we find it necessary to clarify and
provide greater certainty to applicants and localities about the appropriate temporal baseline for
evaluating changes to a site. While the Commission did not have reason to elaborate on the meaning of a
current site in the 2014 Infrastructure Order, because it defined any excavation or deployment outside a
site as a substantial change,80 the Commission did establish other temporal reference points for evaluating
other substantial change criteria, including height increases and concealment elements.81 We therefore
base our revision to the definition of “site” on the terminology and reasoning articulated by the
Commission in those related contexts, which have been upheld as a permissible construction of an
ambiguous statutory provision.82
77 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12946, para. 190.
78 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(7) (providing that “[a] modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of
an eligible support structure if it meets any of the following criteria”) (emphasis added); Spectrum Act of 2012 §
6409(a)(1) (providing that a state or local government may not deny certain eligible facility requests that do not
“substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station”) (emphasis added); 47 C.F.R. §
1.6100(b)(6) (defining “site” as “[f]or towers other than towers in the public rights -of-way, the current boundaries of
the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easem ents currently related to the site,
and, for other eligible support structures, further restricted to that area in proximity to the structure and to other
transmission equipment already deployed on the ground.”)
79 See Spectrum Act of 2012 § 6409(a)(1) (pro viding that a State or local government may not deny certain eligible
facility requests that do not “substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station”); 47 C.F.R.
§ 1.6100(b)(7) (providing that “a modification substantially change s the physical dimensions of an eligible support
structure if . . . [i]t entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site.”).
80 See 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12949, para. 198.
81 See id. at 12948-49, paras. 196-197; 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(7)(i)(A); Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 5995, para. 37.
82 Montgomery County, Md. v. FCC, 811 F.3d at 130-32.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
14
27. Specifically, in the 2014 Infrastructure Order, the Commission found that, in the context
of height increases, “whether a modification constitutes a substantial change must be determined by
measuring the change in height from the dimensions of the ‘tower or base station’ as originally approved
or as of the most recent modification that received local zoning or similar regulatory approval prior to the
passage of the Spectrum Act, whichever is greater.”83 In adopting that standard, the Commission noted
that “since the Spectrum Act became law, approval of covered requests has been mandatory and
therefore, approved changes after that time may not establish an appropriate baseline because they may
not reflect a siting authority’s judgment that the modified structure is consistent with local land use
values.”84 Similarly, in the Commission’s recent Declaratory Ruling, we clarified that “existing”
concealment elements “must have been part of the facility that was considered by the locality at the
original approval of the tower or at the modification to the original tower, if the approval of the
modification occurred prior to the Spectrum Act or lawfully outside of the section 6409(a) process (for
instance, an approval for a modification that did not qualify for streamlined section 6409(a) treatment).”85
28. We find that it is in the public interest to use similar text and reasoning in adopting the
revised definition of “site” in this Report and Order. Here, we similarly are defining what would
constitute a substantial change to infrastructure that was previously approved by localities under
applicable local law—in this case, in the context of excavation or deployment relative to the boundaries
of a site. We revise the definition of “site” to provide that the current boundaries of a site are the
boundaries that existed as of the date that the original support structure or a modification to that structure
was last reviewed and approved by a state or local government, if the approval of the modification
occurred prior to the Spectrum Act or otherwise outside of the section 6409(a) process. Localities assert
that the definition of “site” should ensure that the “facility was last reviewed and approved by a locality
with full discretion” and not as an eligible facilities request.86 We agree with commenters that a site’s
boundaries should not be measured—for purposes of setting the 30-foot distance in a request for
modification under section 6409(a)—from the expanded boundary points that were established by any
approvals granted or deemed granted pursuant to an “eligible facilities request” under section 6409(a).87
We do not agree, however, with localities’ framing of the definition of “site” in terms of the broad
concept of discretion. First, a standard that relies on whether the locality has “full discretion” to make a
decision would create uncertainty in determining whether a particular approval meets that standard.
Second, non-discretionary approvals could include instances where a locality’s review is limited by state
law rather than by section 6409(a), and we do not find it appropriate for the Commission to engage in line
drawing under section 6409(a) based on potential interaction between state and local law.
29. We decline to adopt the industry’s “hybrid” definition of “site.” Specifically, Crown
Castle claims that the industry has interpreted and relied on the definition of “site” to mean the boundaries
83 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12948, para. 196; see also 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(7)(i)(A) (“Changes in
height should be measured from the original support structure in cases where deployments are or will be separated
horizontally, such as on buildings’ rooftops; in other circumstances, changes in height should be measured from the
dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that
were approved prior to the passage of the Spectrum Act.”).
84 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12948, para. 197.
85 Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 5996, para. 37.
86 Local Governments Comments at 15-16; see also Western Communities Coalition Comments at 11 (“The
proposed definition would also allow the applicant to unilaterally alter the benchmark set by the last discretionary
approval.”); NATOA Comments at 3-5 (“[T]o avoid any ambiguity, it should be clear that the phrase ‘last reviewed
and approved’ does not apply to an EFR application or other non -discretionary review process.”).
87 See, e.g., Local Governments Comments at 15-16; Western Communities Coalition Comments at 11; NATOA
Comments at 3-5; Crown Castle Oct. 20 Ex Parte Letter at 3 (requesting clarification to reflect cases for which
section 6409(a) treatment is invoked but that “later are resolved through alternative proceedings”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
15
of the leased or owned property as of the date an applicant files an application with the locality.88 The
industry therefore proposes a hybrid approach, which urges us to define site as of “the later of (a) [the
date that the Commission issues a new rule under the [Notice]]; or (b) the date of the last review and
approval related to said tower by a state or local government issued outside of the framework of 47
U.S.C. § 1455(a) and these regulations promulgated thereunder.”89 Adopting that proposal would risk
permitting a tower owner to file an eligible facilities request even if it may have substantially increased
the size of a tower site prior to the adoption of this Report and Order and without any necessary approval
from a locality. Indeed, several localities caution against the industry’s proposal.90 They raise concerns
that adopting the industry’s proposed definition would create “unending accretion of [a] site by repeated
applications for expansion.”91 We share those concerns, and find that our revision addresses them by
ensuring that a locality has reviewed and approved the eligible support structure that is the subject of the
eligible facilities request outside of the section 6409(a) process, while recognizing that the boundaries
may have changed since the locality initially approved the eligible support structure.92 Further, we
maintain the 2014 Infrastructure Order’s approach that a locality “is not obligated to grant a collocation
application under [s]ection 6409(a)” if “a tower or base station was constructed or deployed without
proper review, was not required to undergo siting review, or does not support transmission equipment that
received another form of affirmative State or local regulatory approval[.]”93
88 Crown Castle Comments at 9-10 (“The Commission did not define ‘current’ for purposes of the 2014 Order and
for years, the industry, including Crown Castle, has relied upon the definition of ‘current site’ using the plain
meaning rule – namely, that ‘current’ should be given its ordinary meaning of ‘occurring in or ex isting at the present
time.’ Accordingly, the industry has relied upon – and in countless jurisdictions has requested and received
approval of modifications as eligible facilities requests – with the understanding of the ‘current site’ as the
boundaries of the leased or owned property at the time of the submission of the eligible facilities request.”) (citations
omitted); see also WIA Reply Comments at 14, n.56.
89 Crown Castle Comments at 2-4; see also CTIA Reply Comments at 3-4; AT&T Reply Comments at 2. WIA
initially suggested their own revisions to the definition of “site,” see WIA Comments at 9, but it has since aligned
with Crown Castle’s proposed revised definitions. See WIA Reply Comments at 14.
90 See, e.g., Western Communities Coalition Reply Comments at 1-2 (“Crown Castle’s proposal would capture all
expansions—whether approved or not—that occurred prior to a Commission order from this [Notice]”); NATOA
Reply Comments at 16 (arguing that Crown Castle’s proposed definition “would seem to set esta blish [sic] multiple
site boundaries for the same tower; apparently each lease or other property interest could establish its own site
boundary for the tower, provided they did so before the date of the new rule.”); Virginia Localities Reply Comments
at 12 (“[Crown Castle’s] proposal merely gives the industry what it wants most: immediate expansion at every site
in the country. Future expansion would apply the correct, lawful standard, but the immediate effect would be
unlawful because Section 6409 does not give the Commission the power to override local zoning and other
regulatory concerns at locations that have not been already reviewed by a zoning authority and deemed suitable for
the placement of wireless facilities.”).
91 Local Government Comments at 16; see also NATOA Reply Comments at 18 (“Allowing the leased or other
property area, rather than the reviewed and approved boundaries, to dictate the ‘site’—even if (or perhaps especially
if) it is limited to expansions prior to the new rule—is incompatible with Section 6409(a) and wholly arbitrary.”);
Western Communities Coalition Comments at 10 (arguing that the industry’s proposal “would remove any
reasonable limit on applications that mandate local approval and likely lead to disputes and delays.”); Vir ginia
Localities Reply Comments at 12 (“Nothing in Section 6409 suggests that Congress anticipated that carriers would
be able to use that statute to override local concerns in the event of actual expansion of the boundaries of a site, as
opposed to changes in equipment.”).
92 See NATE Comments at 2 (arguing that if the site “was previously subject to the appropriate federal and local
reviews . . . it is immaterial when the boundary was defined, just as long as it was defined. There is no need to
reinvent the wheel by imposing repetitive reviews; the fact remains that the site by definition was determined by the
previous local review and approval regardless of when a modification request is submitted.”).
93 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12937, para. 174.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
16
30. Crown Castle also proposes that, to the extent that we revise the definition of “site” as
proposed in the Notice, we should revise the language to provide that the site boundaries are determined
as of the date a locality “last reviewed and issued a permit,” rather than as of the date the locality last
reviewed and approved the site.94 Crown Castle claims that, contrary to an approval, a “permit . . . applies
to a wide variety of processes, and represents a tangible and unambiguous event[.]”95 We decline to adopt
Crown Castle’s proposal, as the mere issuance of a permit (e.g., an electrical permit) does not necessarily
involve a locality’s review of the eligible support structure, and thus would not necessarily provide an
opportunity for the locality to take into account an increase in the size of the site associated with that
structure.96
31. Accordingly, we revise section 1.6100(b)(6) as follows:
Site. For towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, the current boundaries of the
leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently
related to the site, and, for other eligible support structures, further restricted to that area in
proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground.
The current boundaries of a site are the boundaries that existed as of the date that the original
support structure or a modification to that structure was last reviewed and approved by a State or
local government, if the approval of the modification occurred prior to the Spectrum Act or
otherwise outside of the Section 6409(a) process.97
32. We emphasize that our revisions to the compound expansion provision in section
1.6100(b)(7)(iv) and to the definition of “site” in section 1.6100(b)(6) do not apply to towers in the public
rights-of-way. The 2014 Infrastructure Order provided for streamlined review in more narrowly targeted
circumstances with respect to towers in the public rights-of-way, and we leave those distinctions
unchanged.98 The Commission has recognized that activities in public rights-of-way “are more likely to
raise aesthetic, safety, and other issues,” and that “towers in the public rights-of-way should be subject to
the more restrictive . . . criteria applicable to non-tower structures rather than the criteria applicable to
other towers.”99 The record reflects agreement by both industry and locality commenters that our rule
change to provide for compound expansion should not apply to towers in the public rights-of-way.100 Our
94 Letter from Joshua Turner, Counsel to Crown Castle, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 19 -250,
at 1 (filed Aug. 27, 2020) (Crown Castle Aug. 27 Ex Parte).
95 Id. at 1-2; see also Letter from John Howes, WIA, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 19-250, at
2 (filed Sept. 9, 2020) (expressing agreement with Crown Castle’s latest proposal).
96 Crown Castle’s proposal would also introduce more uncertainty than it purports to cure. A locality may issue
building, electrical, or other permits for a site without reviewing the eligible support structure on that site. A permit
may therefore not constitute a “proper review” of a site. See 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12937, para.
174. Review and approval of the eligible support structure, on the other hand, provides an opportunity for the
locality to take into account an increase in the size of the site.
97 See infra, App. B. The 2014 Infrastructure Order defined site as, “for towers other than towers in the public
rights-of-way, the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or
utility easements currently related to the site, and, for other eligible support structures, further restricted to that area
in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground.” 2014
Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12990, App. B; see also 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(6).
98 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12949, para. 198 (“For other towers and all base station s, we further
restrict the site to that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the
ground”).
99 Id. at 12948, para. 195.
100 See WIA Comments at 8 (“[T]he [proposed] rule change would not authorize provider s to extend into public
rights-of-way without local approval.”); American Tower Corp. Reply Comments at 4 (“WIA and other commenters
have made it clear that any compound expansion rule adopted by the Commission should only apply outside of the
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
17
revised compound expansion rule also does not apply to non-tower structures (e.g., base stations), which
“use very different support structures and equipment configurations” than towers.101
33. We also emphasize that our actions here are not intended to affect any setback
requirements that may apply to a site,102 and that we preserve localities’ authority to impose requirements
on local-government property. Further, the expansion of up to 30 feet in any direction is subject to any
land-use requirements or permissions that a local authority may have imposed or granted within the
allowed expansion (e.g., storm drain easement) at the time of the last review by a locality. We also
clarify that the revised definition of “site” does not restrict a locality from issuing building permits (e.g.,
electrical) or approving easements within the expanded boundaries (e.g., a sewer or storm drain easement;
a road; or a bike path).103 We further clarify, however, that changes in zoning regulations since the last
local government review would not disqualify from section 6409(a) treatment those compound
expansions that otherwise would be permitted under our revisions.104
34. While localities raise health and safety concerns with modifying the scope of substantial
change,105 we observe that the modifications we make today do not affect localities’ ability to address
those concerns. The Commission previously has clarified that neither the statute nor our rules preempt
localities’ health and safety requirements or their procedures for reviewing and enforcing compliance
with such requirements,106 and we reaffirm this conclusion today. We emphasize that section 6409(a)
“does not preclude States and localities from continuing to require compliance with generally applicable
health and safety requirements on the placement and operation of backup power sources, including noise
control ordinances if any.”107 We find that our revision strikes the appropriate balance between promoting
rapid wireless facility deployment while preserving localities’ local-use authority.
(Continued from previous page)
right-of-way.”); NCTA Reply Comments at 2 (“To the extent the Commission moves ahead with this proposal, it
should limit this clarification to towers not located in public rights -of-way . . . .”); Local Governments Comments at
ii, 12-14 (“Should the Commission choose to move forward with its proposed rule, it should clarify . . . that a site is
limited to areas outside the public rights-of-way.”); NATOA Comments at 4 (“[T]he proposal only makes sense if it
is applied solely to towers outside the rights of way.”); Western Communities Coalition at 8 (arguing that the
Commission’s modifications “should be limited to ‘towers outside the public rights-of-way’ . . . .”).
101 Western Communities Coalition Comments at 16.
102 Both industry and locality commenters urge us to clarify that the action we might take here not affect any setback
requirements that apply to a site. See, e.g., American Tower Corp. Reply Comments at 5 (requesting that any
compound expansion should be subject to generally applicable setbacks for an underlying municipal zone for the
improvement proposed in the new space); Western Communities Coalition Comments at 17 (requesting that by -right
expansions remain subject to generally applicable setback require ments).
103 Certain localities have raised concerns regarding easements. See Local Governments Comments at 7 (requesting
that the Commission clarify whether “the right to deploy and make excavations cover the whole area including the
utility easement”); NATOA Comments at 5 (“[T]he Commission should make clear that, although the definition
includes ‘easements related to the site,’ any limits included in those easements at time of last approval continue to
apply and cannot be undermined by an EFR.”).
104 See 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12950-51, para. 201 (stating that “legal, non-conforming
structures should be available for modification under Section 6409(a), as long as the modification itself does not
‘substantially change’ the physical dimensions of the supporting structure,” and rejecting a proposal that would
enable changes to local zoning codes to render existing structures unavailable for collocation); see also Crown
Castle Oct. 20 Ex Parte Letter at 4 (requesting that we affirm this point from the 2014 Infrastructure Order).
105 See, e.g., Illinois Municipal League Ex Parte at 2 (claiming that narrowing the substantial change definition to
exclude activities of up to 30 feet would endanger the public health and welfare of communities, as localities would
lose the opportunity to review activities and study their impact).
106 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12951, 12956, paras. 202, 214 n.595.
107 Id. at 12951, para. 202.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
18
35. Finally, we disagree with the contentions of some localities that the Commission lacks
the legal authority to adopt some or all of the rule changes that we promulgate today, or that the
Administrative Procedure Act108 otherwise precludes such action. Localities allege several infirmities.
First, Virginia Localities argue that Congress limited the Commission’s authority to changes to the
dimensions of towers and base stations only, and not to the underlying site.109 We disagree with that
artificial distinction. A tower cannot exist without a site.110 And “[t]here is no question that [certain]
terms of the Spectrum Act . . . are ambiguous,”111 including what constitutes substantial change to a
site.112 The Fourth Circuit determined that the Commission can “establish[] objective criteria for
determining when a proposed modification ‘substantially changes the physical dimensions’” of an eligible
support structure.113 The Report and Order’s revisions to the terms “site” and “substantial change” ensure
that wireless deployments will continue while preserving localities’ site review and approval process.
36. Second, some localities argue that the Commission failed to provide the specific rule
language in the Notice and that the Notice contains several ambiguities. Virginia Localities claims that it
would be “very difficult to assess the potential practical effects of the proposed amendment to the EFR
Rule without language to evaluate.”114 Local Governments claim that, among other issues, the Notice is
ambiguous on the operative date of the approval, the operative boundaries of the proposed expansion, and
whether the definition of “site” will provide for other eligible support structures.115 Western Communities
Coalition claims that the Notice “appears to suggest that various rule changes might be limited to ‘macro
tower compounds.’”116
37. These arguments lack merit. The APA requires that an agency’s notice of proposed
rulemaking must include “either the terms or substance of the proposed rule or a description of the
subjects and issues involved.”117 The D.C. Circuit has held that a notice of proposed rulemaking meets
the requirements of administrative law if it “provide[s] sufficient factual detail and rationale for the rule to
permit interested parties to comment meaningfully.”118 The Notice in this proceeding did just that. Not
108 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq. (APA).
109 Virginia Localities Reply Comments at 5-6 (“The issue is actually whether Congress intended to preempt local
authority to review changes to the physical dimensions of the underlying site, as opposed to physical dimensions of
a tower or base station . . . Congress clearly limited the scope of the preemption to changes to the dimensions of
towers and base stations.”).
110 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(9) (defining “tower” as “[a]ny structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting
any Commission-licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities . . . and the associated site.”)
(emphasis added).
111 Montgomery County, Md. v. FCC, 811 F.3d at 129; id. at 130 (“[W]e review Petitioners’ challenge to the manner
in which the FCC has defined the two terms referenced earlier: ‘substantially change’ and ‘base station.’”).
112 Id. at 129 n.5 (“Petitioners do not dispute that the term ‘substantial’ is ambiguous.”).
113 Id. at 127; see id. at 130 (“It was not unreasonable for the FCC to supply a strictly numerical definition of
substantiality in this context, because the physical dimensions of objects are, by their very nature, suitable for
regulation through quantifiable standards.”).
114 Virginia Localities Reply Comments at 16; see also Local Governments Comments at 4 (claiming that the
Commission’s failure to provide either a proposed rule or an unambiguous description of the proposed rule changes
fails to pass muster of the APA requirements); NATOA Comments at 3 n.13 (expressing concern with the absence
of proposed rule language).
115 Local Governments Comments at 5-8.
116 Western Communities Coalition Comments at 5.
117 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3) (emphasis added).
118 Honeywell International, Inc. v. EPA, 372 F.3d 441, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted);
Agape Church, Inc. v. FCC, 738 F.3d 397, 411 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (holding that an agency’s final rule “need not be the
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
19
only did the Commission include the substance of the proposed rule and describe the subjects and issues
involved,119 it also clearly proposed specific language for the definition of “site” and the revision to
“substantial change,”120 and it offered specific alternatives and sought comment on other possible
options.121 The actions we take today reflect commenters’ responses to the Notice. For example, in
response to our proposed definition of “site,”122 we establish site boundaries as those that existed as of the
date that the original support structure or a modification to that structure was last reviewed and approved
by a state or local government, if the approval of the modification occurred prior to the Spectrum Act or
otherwise outside of the Section 6409(a) process. Furthermore, various changes we are making to the
proposed language are reasonably foreseeable modifications designed to prevent any confusion that the
proposed language might have caused based on concerns that commenters raised. For example, in
defining “site,” we substitute the term “eligible support structure,” a defined term, for the proposed use of
the word “facility,” which is not defined in section 1.6100 of our rules. Further, the Notice also proposed
specific alternatives.123 All localities that allege ambiguities raised meaningful comments and opined on
the specific rule changes that we adopt today.124
38. Third, Local Governments claim that any collocation policy modification should be
achieved through 47 U.S.C. § 332.125 We disagree. Congress has directed the Commission to “encourage
the rapid deployment of telecommunications services,”126 including with section 6409(a), in which
Congress specifically addressed modifications of an existing tower or base station “[n]otwithstanding”
Section 332.127 And the Commission has relied on section 6409(a) to require a streamlined review
process for modifications of existing towers or base stations.128 Similar to our actions in the 2014
(Continued from previous page)
one proposed in the NPRM,” but rather “‘need only be a logical outgrowth of its notice’”) (quoting Covad
Communications Co. v. FCC, 450 F.3d 528, 548 (D.C. Cir. 2006)).
119 Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 6003-04, paras. 51-54.
120 Id. at 6004, para. 55 (“[W]e propose to revise the definition of ‘site’ in section 1.6100(b)(6) to make clear that
‘site’ refers to the boundary of the leased or owned property surroun ding the tower and any access or utility
easements currently related to the site as of the date that the facility was last reviewed and approved by a locality.
We further propose to amend section 1.6100(b)(7)(iv) so that modification of an existing facility that entails ground
excavation or deployment of up to 30 feet in any direction outside the facility’s site will be eligible for streamlined
processing under section 6409(a).”).
121 Id. at 6004, para. 56 (“Alternatively, we seek comment on whether we should revise the definition of site in
section 1.6100(b)(6), as proposed above, without making the proposed change to section 1.6100(b)(7)(iv) for
excavation or deployment of up to 30 feet outside the site. As another option, we seek comment on whether to
define site in section 1.6100(b)(6) as the boundary of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any
access or utility easements related to the site as of the date an applicant submits a modification request.”); see also
Horsehead Res. Dev. Co., Inc. v. Browner, 16 F.3d 1246, 1268 (D.C.Cir.1994) (holding that a notice “must describe
the range of alternatives being considered with reasonable specificity. Otherwise, interested parties will not know
what to comment on, and notice will not lead to better-informed agency decision-making.’”) (internal citations
omitted).
122 Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 6004, paras. 54, 56.
123 Notice, 35 FCC Rcd at 6004, para. 56.
124 See, e.g., Local Governments Comments at 12-15; NATOA Comments at 3-5; Western Communities Coalition
Comments at 8-17; Virginia Localities Reply Comments at 19-22.
125 See Local Governments Reply Comments at 3-5.
126 Preamble, Telecommunications Act of 1996, P.L. 104-104, 100 Stat. 56 (1996).
127 See 2014 Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12872, para. 15 (“We accordingly adopt rules that clarify [section
6409(a)’s] terms and enforce their requirements, thus advancing Congress’ goal of facilitating rapid deployment.”).
128 See id. at 12872, para. 15 (“By requiring timely
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
20
Infrastructure Order, the rules we promulgate today “will serve the public interest by providing guidance
to all stakeholders on their rights and responsibilities under the provision, reducing delays in the review
process for wireless infrastructure modifications, and facilitating the rapid deployment of wireless
infrastructure, thereby promoting advanced wireless broadband services.”129
39. Finally, Western Communities Coalition argues that the comment cycle is unusually
short.130 The Administrative Procedure Act and the Commission’s rules require only that commenters be
afforded reasonable notice of the proposed rulemaking.131 Western Communities Coalition provides no
basis for its view that more than the 30-day time period following Federal Register publication (20 days
for comments and 10 days for reply comments), was inadequate here, given that the Notice raised a
narrow set of issues that had been subject to prior public input in response to WIA’s petition for
declaratory ruling and petition for rulemaking. And no commenter argues that it was prejudiced by the
comment cycle’s length. Indeed, several commenters, including the Western Communities Coalition,
have been considering these issues on the record since at least October 2019.132 Claims that the Notice is
vague or that commenters have had insufficient time to comment are therefore contradicted by the record.
40. Accordingly, we revise the compound expansion provision in section 1.6100(b)(7)(iv)
and the definition of “site” in section 1.6100(b)(6). We find that the revisions we adopt today will
streamline the use of existing infrastructure for the deployment of 5G and other advanced wireless
networks while preserving localities’ ability to review and approve an eligible support structure.
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
41. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA),133 requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and
comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”134 Accordingly, the Commission
has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact of the rule
changes contained in this Report and Order on small entities. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix C.
42. Paperwork Reduction Act. This Report and Order does not contain information
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any new or modified 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).
43. Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of
the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs that this
rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. § 804(2). The Commission will send a
(Continued from previous page)
approval of eligible requests, Congress intended to advance wireless broadband service for both public
safety and commercial users.”).
129 Id. at 12872, para. 15.
130 Western Communities Coalitions Comments at 4.
131 Omnipoint Corp. v. FCC, 78 F.3d 620 (D.C. Cir. 1996); 47 C.F.R. § 1.415(b).
132 See, e.g., Joint Comments of City of San Diego, Cal., et al., WT Docket Nos. 19-250, 17-79, 17-84, RM-11849,
at 48-55 (Oct. 29, 2019) (responding to WIA’s petitions requesting to clarify the definition of “site” and modify the
definition of “substantial change”).
133 See 5 U.S.C. § 604. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601–612, was amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104 -121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
134 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
21
copy of this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5
U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
44. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i)-(j), 7, 201, 253, 301, 303,
309, 319, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and section 6409 of the Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i)-(j), 157, 201, 253, 301,
303, 309, 319, 332, 1455, that this Report and Order IS hereby ADOPTED.
45. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Report and Order SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 30
days after publication in the Federal Register.
46. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order, including the
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
47. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Report and Order SHALL BE sent to Congress
and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. §
801(a)(1)(A).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
APPENDIX A
List of Comments and Replies
Comments
American Tower Corporation
Cities of Portland, Oregon; Boston, Mass.; Brookhaven, Georgia; Los Angeles, Cal.; Culver City, Cal.;
Piedmont, Cal.; Gaithersburg, Maryl.; Rockville, Maryl.; Gig Harbor, Wash.; Kirkland, Wash.;
Lincoln, Nebr.; Plano, Tex.; The Town of Hillsborough, Cal.; Howard County, Maryl.; Clarke
County, Nev.; The Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues; The Texas Municipal League; The
Michigan Municipal League; and Protec: The Michigan Coalition to Protect Public Rights-of-
Way (Local Governments)
City of Coconut Creek, Florida
City of Gaithersburg, Maryland
City of San Diego, Cal.; City of Beaverton, Or.; City of Boulder, Colo.; Town of Breckenridge, Colo.;
City of Carlsbad, Cal.; City of Cerritos, Cal.; Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance;
City of Coronado, Cal.; Town of Danville, Cal.; City of Encinitas, Cal.; City of Glendora, Cal.;
King County, Wash.; City of Lacey, Wash.; City of La Mesa, Cal.; City of Lawndale, Cal.;
League of Oregon Cities; League of California Cities; City of Napa, Cal.; City of Olympia,
Wash.; City of Oxnard, Cal.; City of Pleasanton, Cal.; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Cal.; City of
Richmond, Cal.; Town of San Anselmo, Cal.; City of San Marcos, Cal.; City of San Ramon, Cal.;
City of Santa Cruz, Cal.; City of Santa Monica, Cal.; City of Solana Beach, Cal.; City of South
Lake Tahoe, Cal.; City of Tacoma, Wash.; City of Thousand Oaks, Cal.; Thurston County,
Wash.; City of Tumwater, Wash. (Western Communities Coalition)
Crown Castle International Corp.
CTIA
Illinois Municipal League
NATE: The Communications Infrastructure Contractors Association
NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association
The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors; The United States
Conference of Mayors; and The National Association of Counties (NATOA)
WIA–The Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA)
Reply Comments
American Tower Corporation
Arlington County, Virg.; The City of Alexandria, Virg.; The City of Fairfax, Virg. (Virginia Localities)
AT&T Services, Inc.
Cities of Portland, Oregon; Boston, Mass.; Brookhaven, Georgia; Los Angeles, Cal.; Culver City, Cal.;
Piedmont, Cal.; Gaithersburg, Maryl.; Rockville, Maryl.; Gig Harbor, Wash.; Kirkland, Wash.;
Lincoln, Nebr.; Plano, Tex.; The Town of Hillsborough, Cal.; Howard County, Maryl.; Clarke
County, Nev.; The Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues; The Texas Municipal League; The
Michigan Municipal League; and Protec: The Michigan Coalition to Protect Public Rights-of-
Way (Local Governments)
City of San Diego, Cal.; City of Beaverton, Or.; City of Boulder, Colo.; Town of Breckenridge, Colo.;
City of Carlsbad, Cal.; City of Cerritos, Cal.; Colorado Communications and Utility Alliance;
City of Coronado, Cal.; Town of Danville, Cal.; City of Encinitas, Cal.; City of Glendora, Cal.;
King County, Wash.; City of Lacey, Wash.; City of La Mesa, Cal.; City of Lawndale, Cal.;
League of Oregon Cities; League of California Cities; City of Napa, Cal.; City of Olympia,
Wash.; City of Oxnard, Cal.; City of Pleasanton, Cal.; City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Cal.; City of
Richmond, Cal.; Town of San Anselmo, Cal.; City of San Marcos, Cal.; City of San Ramon, Cal.;
City of Santa Cruz, Cal.; City of Santa Monica, Cal.; City of Solana Beach, Cal.; City of South
Lake Tahoe, Cal.; City of Tacoma, Wash.; City of Thousand Oaks, Cal.; Thurston County,
Wash.; City of Tumwater, Wash. (Western Communities Coalition)
County of Marin
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
23
Crown Castle International Corp.
CTIA
NCTA - The Internet & Television Association
The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors; The United States
Conference of Mayors; and The National Association of Counties (NATOA)
WIA–The Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
APPENDIX B
Final Rules
Subpart U - State and Local Government Regulation of the Placement, Construction, and Modification of
Personal Wireless Service Facilities
1. The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows:
AUTHORITY: [[To be inserted.]]
2. Section 1.6100 is revised by amending subparagraphs 6 and 7 of paragraph b to read as follows:
§ 1.6100 Wireless Facility Modifications.
* * * * *
(b) Definitions. Terms used in this section have the following meanings:
* * * * *
(6) Site. For towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, the current boundaries of the
leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to
the site, and, for other eligible support structures, further restricted to that area in proximity to the
structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground. The current boundaries of
a site are the boundaries that existed as of the date that the original support structure or a modification to
that structure was last reviewed and approved by a State or local government, if the approval of the
modification occurred prior to the Spectrum Act or otherwise outside of the Section 6409(a) process.
(7) Substantial change. A modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of an
eligible support structure if it meets any of the following criteria:
(i) * * *
(ii) * * *
(iii) * * *
(iv) It entails any excavation or deployment outside of the current site, except that, for towers
other than towers in the public rights-of-way, it entails any excavation or deployment of transmission
equipment outside of the current site by more than 30 feet in any direction. The site boundary from which
the 30 feet is measured excludes any access or utility easements currently related to the site.
* * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
25
APPENDIX C
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice)
released in June 2020.2 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Notice,
including comment on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This present Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.3
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
2. In the Report and Order, the Commission continues its efforts to reduce regulatory
barriers to infrastructure deployment by further streamlining the state and local government review
process for modifications to existing wireless towers or base stations under section 6409(a) of the
Spectrum Act of 2012.4 The Commission’s decision will encourage the use of existing infrastructure,
where efficient, to accelerate deployment of 5G and other advanced networks, which will enable
economic opportunities across the nation. More specifically, the Report and Order revises the
Commission’s rules to provide that the modification of an existing tower outside the public rights-of-way
that entails ground excavation or deployment of transmission equipment up to 30 feet in any direction
outside the site will be eligible for streamlined processing under section 6409(a) review.5 The Report and
Order clarifies that the site boundary from which the 30 feet is measured excludes any access or utility
easements currently related to the site.6 It also revises the Commission’s rules to clarify that a site’s
current boundaries are the boundaries that existed as of the date that the original support structure or a
modification to that structure was last reviewed and approved by a state or local government, if the
approval of the modification occurred prior to the Spectrum Act or otherwise outside of the section
6409(a) process.7
3. Our rule revisions reflect the recent recognition of 30 feet as an appropriate standard in
the federal historic preservation context and the changes in the collocation marketplace, which is lacking
space for collocations. This standard is consistent with the current collocation marketplace and with the
threshold adopted in the Wireless Facilities NPA and recently included in the Amended Collocation NPA.
Further, at least “eight states have passed laws that expressly permit compound expansion within certain
limits . . . under an exempt or expedited review process.” 8 Most of these laws allow expansion beyond 30
feet from the approved site.9
1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. §§ 601 – 612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2 Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification
Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012, WT Docket No. 19-250, RM-11849, Declaratory
Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 5977 (2020) (Notice).
3 See 5 U.S.C. § 604.
4 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112 -96, Title VI (Spectrum Act of 2012),
§ 6409(a), 126 Stat. 156, 232-33 (Feb. 22, 2012) (codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)).
5 See 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(7)(iv).
6 See id.
7 See 47 CFR § 1.6100(b)(6).
8 Comments of Crown Castle International Corp., WT Docket No. 19 -250, RM-11849, WC Docket No. 17-84, at
32-33 (Oct. 29, 2019).
9 Comments of Crown Castle International Corp., WT Docket No. 19 -250, RM-11849, WC Docket No. 17-84, at
32-33 n.76 (Oct. 29, 2019).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
26
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
4. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the proposed rules and policies
presented in the IRFA.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration
5. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the
Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the
proposed rules as a result of those comments.10
6. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this
proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will
Apply
7. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of
the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules and adopted herein.11 The RFA generally
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”12 In addition, the term “small business” has the
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.13 A “small business
concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.14
8. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions,
over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here,
at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein.15 First, while
there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility
analysis, according to data from the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in
general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.16 These types of
small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 30.7 million
businesses.17
9. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-
for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”18 The
10 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).
11 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(4).
12 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
13 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small -business concern” in the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
14 15 U.S.C. § 632.
15 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)-(6).
16 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “What’s New With Small Business?”, https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2019/09/23172859/Whats-New-With-Small-Business-2019.pdf (Sept 2019).
17 Id.
18 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
27
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual
electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations.19 Nationwide, for tax year 2018, there
were approximately 571,709 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less
according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.20
10. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined
generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”21 U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census
of Governments22 indicate that there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States.23 Of this number there were
36,931 general purpose governments (county24, municipal and town or township25) with populations of
less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments - independent school districts26 with enrollment
19 The IRS benchmark is similar to the population of less than 50,000 benchmark in 5 U.S.C § 601(5) that is used to
define a small governmental jurisdiction. Therefore, the IRS benchmark has been used to estimate the number small
organizations in this small entity description. See Annual Electronic Filing Requirement for Small Exempt
Organizations — Form 990-N (e-Postcard), “Who must file,” https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/annual-
electronic-filing-requirement-for-small-exempt-organizations-form-990-n-e-postcard. We note that the IRS data
does not provide information on whether a small exempt organization is independently owned a nd operated or
dominant in its field.
20 See Exempt Organizations Business Master File Extract (EO BMF), “CSV Files by Region,”
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/exempt-organizations-business-master-file-extract-eo-bmf. The IRS
Exempt Organization Business Master File (EO BMF) Extract provides information on all registered tax-
exempt/non-profit organizations. The data utilized for purposes of this description was extracted from the IRS EO
BMF data for Region 1-Northeast Area (76,886), Region 2-Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Areas (221,121), and
Region 3-Gulf Coast and Pacific Coast Areas (273,702) which includes the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii.
This data does not include information for Puerto Rico.
21 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
22 See 13 U.S.C. § 161. The Census of Governments survey is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for
years ending with “2” and “7.” See also Census of Governments, https://www.census.gov/programs-
surveys/cog/about.html.
23 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments – Organization Table 2. Local Governments by Type and
State: 2017 [CG1700ORG02]. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html. Local
governmental jurisdictions are made up of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township)
and special purpose governments (special districts and independent school districts). See also Table 2.
CG1700ORG02 Table Notes_Local Governments by Type and State_2017.
24 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments - Organization, Table 5. County Governments by
Population-Size Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG05]. https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-
governments.html. There were 2,105 county governments with populations less than 50,000. This category does
not include subcounty (municipal and township) governments.
25 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments - Organization, Table 6. Subcounty General-Purpose
Governments by Population-Size Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG06]. https://www.census.gov/
data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html. There were 18,729 municipal and 16,097 town and town ship
governments with populations less than 50,000.
26 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Census of Governments - Organization, Table 10. Elementary and Secondary
School Systems by Enrollment-Size Group and State: 2017 [CG1700ORG10]. https://www.census.gov/
data/tables/2017/econ/gus/2017-governments.html. There were 12,040 independent school districts with enrollment
populations less than 50,000. See also Table 4. Special-Purpose Local Governments by State Census Years 1942 to
2017 [CG1700ORG04], CG1700ORG04 Table Notes_Special Purpose Local Governments by State_Census Years
1942 to 2017.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
28
populations of less than 50,000.27 Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we
estimate that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”28
11. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide
communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide
services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and
wireless video services.29 The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small
if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.30 For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there
were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.31 Of this total, 955 firms employed fewer than 1,000
employees and 12 firms employed of 1000 employees or more.32 Thus under this category and the
associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite) are small entities.
12. The Commission’s own data—available in its Universal Licensing System—indicate that,
as of August 31, 2018 there are 265 Cellular licensees that will be affected by our actions.33 The
Commission does not know how many of these licensees are small, as the Commission does not collect
that information for these types of entities. Similarly, according to internally developed Commission
data, 413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including
cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
Telephony services.34 Of this total, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 152 have more
than 1,500 employees.35 Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be
considered small.
13. All Other Telecommunications. The “All Other Telecommunications” category is
comprised of establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services,
27 While the special purpose governments category also includes local special district gov ernments, the 2017 Census
of Governments data does not provide data aggregated based on population size for the speci al purpose governments
category. Therefore, only data from independent school districts is included in the special purpose governments
category.
28 This total is derived from the sum of the number of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or
township) with populations of less than 50,000 (36,931) and the number of special purpose governments -
independent school districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000 (12,040), from the 2017 Census of
Governments - Organizations Tables 5, 6, and 10.
29 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite)”, https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517312&search=2017%20NAICS%20Search .
30 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (previously 517210).
31 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table ID: EC1251SSSZ5, Information:
Subject Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 , NAICS Code 517210,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?text=EC1251SSSZ5&n=517210&tid=ECNSIZE2012.EC1251SSSZ5&hidePrev
iew=false&vintage=2012.
32 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that
meet the SBA size standard.
33 See http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls. For the purposes of this FRFA, consistent with Commission practice for wireless
services, the Commission estimates the number of licensees based on the number of unique FCC Registration
Numbers.
34 See Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology
Division, Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3 (Sept. 2010) (Trends in Telephone Service),
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf.
35 See id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
29
such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation.36 This industry also
includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and
receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.37 Establishments providing Internet services or
voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also
included in this industry.38 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for “All Other
Telecommunications”, which consists of all such firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less.39 For
this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the
entire year.40 Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual receipts less than $25 million and 15 firms had
annual receipts of $25 million to $49, 999,999.41 Thus, the Commission estimates that the majority of
“All Other Telecommunications” firms potentially affected by our action can be considered small.
14. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common carrier,42 private-
operational fixed,43 and broadcast auxiliary radio services.44 They also include the Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service,45 Millimeter Wave Service,46 Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS),47 the
Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS),48 and the 24 GHz Service,49 where licensees can choose
between common carrier and non-common carrier status.50 There are approximately 66,680 common
carrier fixed licensees, 69,360 private and public safety operational-fixed licensees, 20,150 broadcast
auxiliary radio licensees, 411 LMDS licenses, 33 24 GHz DEMS licenses, 777 39 GHz licenses, and five
24 GHz licenses, and 467 Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services.51 The Commission has
not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services. The closest applicable SBA
36 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517919 All Other Telecommunications”,
https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=517919&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017 .
37 Id.
38 Id.
39 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517919.
40 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table ID: EC1251SSSZ4, Information:
Subject Series - Estab and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012, NAICS Code 517919,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?text=EC1251SSSZ4&n=517919&tid=ECNSIZE2012.EC1251SSSZ4&hidePrev
iew=false.
41 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that
meet the SBA size standard.
42 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subparts C and I.
43 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subparts C and H.
44 Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47 of the Commission’s Rules. See 47 CFR Part 74.
Available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network entiti es, broadcast auxiliary
microwave stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or between
two points such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio. The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which relay
signals from a remote location back to the studio.
45 See 47 CFR Part 30.
46 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart Q.
47 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart L.
48 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart G.
49 See id.
50 See 47 CFR §§ 101.533, 101.1017.
51 These statistics are based on a review of the Universal Licensing System on September 22, 2015.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
30
category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)52 and the appropriate size standard
for this category under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.53
For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the
entire year.54 Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had
employment of 1000 employees or more.55 Thus under this SBA category and the associated size
standard, the Commission estimates that a majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be
considered small.
15. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have
more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number
of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA’s
small business size standard. Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are up to 36,708
common carrier fixed licensees and up to 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast
auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by the rules
and policies discussed herein. We note, however, that the microwave fixed licensee category includes
some large entities.
16. FM Translator Stations and Low Power FM Stations. FM translators and Low Power
FM Stations are classified in the category of Radio Stations and are assigned the same NAICs Code as
licensees of radio stations.56 This U.S. industry, Radio Stations, comprises establishments primarily
engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public.57 Programming may originate in their own
studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.58 The SBA has established a small business
size standard which consists of all radio stations whose annual receipts are $41.5 million dollars or less.59
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 2,849 radio station firms operated during that year.60 Of
that number, 2,806 operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million per year, 17 with annual receipts
between $25 million and $49,999,999 million and 26 with annual receipts of $50 million or more.61
Therefore, based on the SBA’s size standard we conclude that the majority of FM Translator Stations and
Low Power FM Stations are small.
52 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite)”, https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517312&search=2017%20NAICS%20Search .
53 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (previously 517210).
54 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table ID: EC1251SSSZ5, Information:
Subject Series, Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012, NAICS Code 517210,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?text=EC1251SSSZ5&n=517210&tid=ECNSIZE2012.EC1251SSSZ5&hidePrev
iew=false&vintage=2012.
55 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that
meet the SBA size standard.
56 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “515112 Radio Stations”, https://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=515112&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017.
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 515112.
60 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table ID: EC1251SSSZ4, Information:
Subject Series – Estab and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the U.S.:2012, NAICS Code 515112,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?text=EC1251SSSZ4&n=515112&tid=ECNSIZE2012.EC1251SSSZ4&hidePrev
iew=false.
61 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that
meet the SBA size standard.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
31
17. Location and Monitoring Service (LMS). LMS systems use non-voice radio techniques
to determine the location and status of mobile radio units. For purposes of auctioning LMS licenses, the
Commission has defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with controlling interests and
affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million.62 A
“very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has
average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed $3 million.63 These definitions
have been approved by the SBA.64 An auction for LMS licenses commenced on February 23, 1999 and
closed on March 5, 1999. Of the 528 licenses auctioned, 289 licenses were sold to four small businesses.
18. Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS). MVDDS is a terrestrial
fixed microwave service operating in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. The Commission adopted criteria for
defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special
provisions such as bidding credits. It defined a very small business as an entity with average annual gross
revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years; a small business as an entity with
average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years; and an
entrepreneur as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding
three years.65 These definitions were approved by the SBA.66 On January 27, 2004, the Commission
completed an auction of 214 MVDDS licenses (Auction No. 53). In this auction, ten winning bidders
won a total of 192 MVDDS licenses.67 Eight of the ten winning bidders claimed small business status
and won 144 of the licenses. The Commission also held an auction of MVDDS licenses on December 7,
2005 (Auction 63). Of the three winning bidders who won 22 licenses, two winning bidders, winning 21
of the licenses, claimed small business status.68
19. Multiple Address Systems. Entities using Multiple Address Systems (MAS) spectrum, in
general, fall into two categories: (1) those using the spectrum for profit-based uses, and (2) those using
the spectrum for private internal uses. With respect to the first category, Profit-based Spectrum use, the
size standards established by the Commission define “small entity” for MAS licensees as an entity that
has average annual gross revenues of less than $15 million over the three previous calendar years.69 A
“Very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average annual gross
62 Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Adopt Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring
Systems, PR Docket No. 93-61, Second Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15182, 15192 para. 20 (1998); see also 47
CFR § 90.1103.
63 Id.
64 See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration to Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Feb. 22, 1999).
65 Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co -
Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency Range; Amendment of the Commission’s
Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the 12.2 –12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite Licensees
and their Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC Broadband Corporation, and Satellite Receivers,
Ltd. to Provide A Fixed Service in the 12.2–12.7 GHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report
and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614, 9711, para. 252 (2002).
66 See Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, to Mar garet W. Wiener,
Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Feb. 13, 2002).
67 See “Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Spectrum Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced ,”
Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 1834 (2004).
68 See “Auction of Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced
for Auction No. 63,” Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 19807 (2005).
69 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, Report and Order, 15 FCC
Rcd 11956, 12008, para. 123 (2000).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
32
revenues of not more than $3 million over the preceding three calendar years.70 The SBA has approved
these definitions.71 The majority of MAS operators are licensed in bands where the Commission has
implemented a geographic area licensing approach that requires the use of competitive bidding
procedures to resolve mutually exclusive applications.
20. The Commission’s licensing database indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, there were a
total of 11,653 site-based MAS station authorizations. Of these, 58 authorizations were associated with
common carrier service. In addition, the Commission’s licensing database indicates that, as of April 16,
2010, there were a total of 3,330 Economic Area market area MAS authorizations. The Commission’s
licensing database also indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, of the 11,653 total MAS station
authorizations, 10,773 authorizations were for private radio service. In 2001, an auction for 5,104 MAS
licenses in 176 EAs was conducted.72 Seven winning bidders claimed status as small or very small
businesses and won 611 licenses. In 2005, the Commission completed an auction (Auction 59) of 4,226
MAS licenses in the Fixed Microwave Services from the 928/959 and 932/941 MHz bands. Twenty-six
winning bidders won a total of 2,323 licenses. Of the 26 winning bidders in this auction, five claimed
small business status and won 1,891 licenses.
21. With respect to the second category, Internal Private Spectrum use consists of entities
that use, or seek to use, MAS spectrum to accommodate their own internal communications needs, MAS
serves an essential role in a range of industrial, safety, business, and land transportation activities. MAS
radios are used by companies of all sizes, operating in virtually all U.S. business categories, and by all
types of public safety entities. For the majority of private internal users, the definition developed by the
SBA would be more appropriate than the Commission’s definition. The closest applicable definition of a
small entity is the “Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)” definition under the SBA
size standards.73 The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has
1,500 or fewer employees.74 For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were
967 firms that operated for the entire year.75 Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.76 Thus under this category and the
associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of firms that may be
affected by our action can be considered small.
22. Non-Licensee Owners of Towers and Other Infrastructure. Although at one time most
communications towers were owned by the licensee using the tower to provide communications service,
many towers are now owned by third-party businesses that do not provide communications services
themselves but lease space on their towers to other companies that provide communications services. The
Commission’s rules require that any entity, including a non-licensee, proposing to construct a tower over
200 feet in height or within the glide slope of an airport must register the tower with the Commission’s
70 Id.
71 See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (June 4, 1999).
72 See “Multiple Address Systems Spectrum Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21011 (2001).
73 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (formerly 517210).
74 Id.
75 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table ID: EC1251SSSZ5, Information:
Subject Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012, NAICS Code 517210,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?text=EC1251SSSZ5&n=517210&tid=ECNSIZE2012.EC1251SSSZ5&hidePrev
iew=false&vintage=2012.
76 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that
meet the SBA size standard.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
33
Antenna Structure Registration (“ASR”) system and comply with applicable rules regarding review for
impact on the environment and historic properties.
23. As of March 1, 2017, the ASR database includes approximately 122,157 registration
records reflecting a “Constructed” status and 13,987 registration records reflecting a “Granted, Not
Constructed” status. These figures include both towers registered to licensees and towers registered to
non-licensee tower owners. The Commission does not keep information from which we can easily
determine how many of these towers are registered to non-licensees or how many non-licensees have
registered towers.77 Regarding towers that do not require ASR registration, we do not collect information
as to the number of such towers in use and therefore cannot estimate the number of tower owners that
would be subject to the rules on which we seek comment. Moreover, the SBA has not developed a size
standard for small businesses in the category “Tower Owners.” Therefore, we are unable to determine the
number of non-licensee tower owners that are small entities. We believe, however, that when all entities
owning 10 or fewer towers and leasing space for collocation are included, non-licensee tower owners
number in the thousands. In addition, there may be other non-licensee owners of other wireless
infrastructure, including Distributed Antenna Systems (DAS) and small cells that might be affected by the
measures on which we seek comment. We do not have any basis for estimating the number of such non-
licensee owners that are small entities.
24. The closest applicable SBA category is All Other Telecommunications,78 and the
appropriate size standard consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $38 million or less.79 For
this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the
entire year.80 Of these firms, a total of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of less than $25 million and 15
firms had annual receipts of $25 million to $49, 999,999.81 Thus, under this SBA size standard a majority
of the firms potentially affected by our action can be considered small.
25. Personal Radio Services. Personal radio services provide short-range, low-power radio
for personal communications, radio signaling, and business communications not provided for in other
services. Personal radio services include services operating in spectrum licensed under Part 95 of our
rules.82 These services include Citizen Band Radio Service, General Mobile Radio Service, Radio
Control Radio Service, Family Radio Service, Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, Medical Implant
Communications Service, Low Power Radio Service, and Multi-Use Radio Service.83 There are a variety
of methods used to license the spectrum in these rule parts, from licensing by rule, to conditioning
77 We note, however, that approximately 13,000 towers are registered to 10 cellular carriers with 1,000 or more
employees.
78 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517919 All Other Telecommunications”,
https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=517919&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017.
79 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517919.
80 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table ID: EC1251SSSZ4, Information:
Subject Series - Estab and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012, NAICS Code 517919,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?text=EC1251SSSZ4&n=517919&tid=ECNSIZE2012.EC1251SSSZ4&hidePrev
iew=false.
81 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that
meet the SBA size standard.
82 47 CFR Part 90.
83 The Citizens Band Radio Service, General Mobile Radio Service, Radio Control Radio Service, Family Radio
Service, Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, Medical Implant Communications Service, Low Power Radio
Service, and Multi-Use Radio Service are governed by subpart D, subpart A, subpart C, subpart B, subpart H,
subpart I, subpart G, and subpart J, respectively, of Part 95 of the Commission’s rules. See generally 47 CFR
Part 95.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
34
operation on successful completion of a required test, to site-based licensing, to geographic area licensing.
All such entities in this category are wireless, therefore we apply the definition of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),84 pursuant to which the SBA’s small entity size standard
is defined as those entities employing 1,500 or fewer persons.85 For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau
data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.86 Of this total, 955 firms
had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.87 Thus
under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of firms
can be considered small. We note however, that many of the licensees in this category are individuals and
not small entities. In addition, due to the mostly unlicensed and shared nature of the spectrum utilized in
many of these services, the Commission lacks direct information upon which to base an estimation of the
number of small entities that may be affected by our actions in this proceeding.
26. Private Land Mobile Radio Licensees. Private land mobile radio (PLMR) systems serve
an essential role in a vast range of industrial, business, land transportation, and public safety activities.
Companies of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories use these radios. Because of the vast
array of PLMR users, the Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically
applicable to PLMR users. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses business entities engaged in radiotelephone
communications.88 The appropriate size standard for this category under SBA rules is that such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.89 For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show
that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.90 Of this total, 955 firms had employment of
999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.91 Thus under this category
and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of PLMR Licensees are
small entities.
27. According to the Commission’s records, a total of approximately 400,622 licenses
comprise PLMR users.92 There are a total of approximately 3,577 PLMR licenses in the 4.9 GHz band93;
84 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite)”, https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517312&search=2017%20NAICS%20Search .
85 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (previously 517210).
86 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table ID: EC1251SSSZ5, Information:
Subject Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012, NAICS Code 517210,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?text=EC1251SSSZ5&n=517210&tid=ECNSIZE2012.EC1251SSSZ5&hidePrev
iew=false&vintage=2012.
87 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of f irms that
meet the SBA size standard.
88 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite)”, https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517312&search=2017%20NAICS%20Search .
89 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (formerly 517210).
90 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table ID: EC1251SSSZ5, Information:
Subject Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012, NAICS Code 517210,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?text=EC1251SSSZ5&n=517210&tid=ECNSIZE2012.EC1251SSSZ5&hidePrev
iew=false&vintage=2012.
91 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that
meet the SBA size standard.
92 This figure was derived from Commission licensing records as of September 19, 2016. Licensin g numbers
change on a daily basis. This does not indicate the number of licensees, as licensees may hold multiple licenses.
There is no information currently available about the number of PLMR licensees that have fewer than 1,500
employees.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
35
19,359 PLMR licenses in the 800 MHz band94; and 3,374 licenses in the frequencies range 173.225 MHz
to 173.375 MHz.95 The Commission does not require PLMR licensees to disclose information about
number of employees, and does not have information that could be used to determine how many PLMR
licensees constitute small entities under this definition. The Commission however believes that a
substantial number of PLMR licensees may be small entities despite the lack of specific information.
28. Public Safety Radio Licensees. As a general matter, Public Safety Radio Pool licensees
include police, fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency
medical services.96 Because of the vast array of public safety licensees, the Commission has not
developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to public safety licensees. The closest
applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses
business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications.97 The appropriate size standard for this
category under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.98 For this
industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.99 Of
this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000
employees or more.100 Thus under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission
estimates that the majority of firms can be considered small. With respect to local governments, in
particular, since many governmental entities comprise the licensees for these services, we include under
public safety services the number of government entities affected. According to Commission records,
(Continued from previous page)
93 Based on an FCC Universal Licensing System search of September 18, 2020. Search parameters: Radio Service =
PA – Public Safety 4940-4990 MHz Band; Authorization Type = Regular; Status = Active.
94 Based on an FCC Universal Licensing System search of September 18, 2020. Search parameters: Radio Service =
GB, GE, GF, GJ, GM, GO, GP, YB, YE, YF, YJ, YM, YO, YP, YX; Authorization Type = Regular; Status =
Active.
95 This figure was derived from Commission licensing records as of August 16, 2013. Licensing numbers change
daily. We do not expect this number to be significantly smaller today. This does not indicate the number of
licensees, as licensees may hold multiple licenses. There is no information currently available about the number of
licensees that have fewer than 1,500 employees.
96 See subparts A and B of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR §§ 90.1 -90.22. Police licensees serve state,
county, and municipal enforcement through telephony (voice), telegraphy (code), and teletype and facsimile (printed
material). Fire licensees are comprised of private volunteer or professional fire companies, as well as units under
governmental control. Public Safety Radio Pool licensees also include state, county, or municipal entities that use
radio for official purposes. State departments of c onservation and private forest organizations comprise forestry
service licensees that set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground crews. State and local
governments are highway maintenance licensees that provide emergency and routi ne communications to aid other
public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular traffic. Emergency medical licensees use these channels
for emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of emergency medical treatment. Addit ional
licensees include medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, persons with disabilities, disaster relief
organizations, school buses, beach patrols, establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities, and
emergency repair of public communications facilities.
97 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517312 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite)”, https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517312&search=2017%20NAICS%20Search .
98 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312 (formerly 517210).
99 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table ID: EC1251SSSZ5, Information:
Subject Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012, NAICS Code 517210,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?text=EC1251SSSZ5&n=517210&tid=ECNSIZE2012.EC1251SSSZ5&hidePrev
iew=false&vintage=2012.
100 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms th at
meet the SBA size standard.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
36
there are a total of approximately 133,870 licenses within these services.101 There are 3,577 licenses in
the 4.9 GHz band, based on an FCC Universal Licensing System search of September 18, 2020.102 We
estimate that fewer than 2,442 public safety radio licensees hold these licenses because certain entities
may have multiple licenses.
29. Radio Stations. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily
engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own
studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.”103 The SBA has established a small
business size standard for this category as firms having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts.104 U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 2,849 radio station firms operated during that year.105 Of that
number, 2,806 firms operated with annual receipts of less than $25 million per year and 17 with annual
receipts between $25 million and $49,999,999 million.106 Therefore, based on the SBA’s size standard
the majority of such entities are small entities.
30. According to Commission staff review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC’s Media Access Pro
Radio Database as of January 2018, about 11,261 (or about 99.9 percent) of 11,383 commercial radio
stations had revenues of $38.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA
definition.107 The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial AM radio stations to be
4,580 stations and the number of commercial FM radio stations to be 6,726, for a total number of
11,306.108 We note the Commission has also estimated the number of licensed noncommercial (NCE)
FM radio stations to be 4,172.109 Nevertheless, the Commission does not compile and otherwise does not
have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many
such stations would qualify as small entities.
31. We also note, that in assessing whether a business entity qualifies as small under the
above definition, business control affiliations must be included.110 The Commission’s estimate therefore
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by its action, because the revenue
figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition,
101 This figure was derived from Commission licensing records as of June 27, 2008. Licensing numbers change on a
daily basis. We do not expect this number to be significantly smaller today. This does not indicate the number of
licensees, as licensees may hold multiple licenses. There is no information currently available about the number of
public safety licensees that have less than 1,500 employees.
102Based on an FCC Universal Licensing System search of September 18, 2020. Search parameters: Radio Service =
PA – Public Safety 4940-4990 MHz Band; Authorization Type = Regular; Status = Active.
103 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “515112 Radio Stations”, https://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=515112&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017.
104 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 515112.
105 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table ID: EC1251SSSZ4, Information:
Subject Series – Estab and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012, NAICS Code 515112,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?text=EC1251SSSZ4&n=515112&tid=ECNSIZE2012.EC1251SSSZ4&hidePrev
iew=false.
106 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that
meet the SBA size standard.
107 BIA/Kelsey, MEDIA Access Pro Database (viewed Jan. 26, 2018).
108 Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2020, Press Release (MB April 6, 2020) (March 31, 2020 Broadcast
Station Totals), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-363515A1.pdf.
109 Id.
110 “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other,
or a third party or parties controls or has power to control both.” 13 CFR § 121.103(a)(1).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
37
to be determined a “small business,” an entity may not be dominant in its field of operation.111 We further
note, that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the estimate of
small businesses to which these rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of
a small business on these basis, thus our estimate of small businesses may therefore be over-inclusive.
Also, as noted above, an additional element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be
independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these
criteria in the context of media entities and the estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be
over-inclusive to this extent.
32. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms “primarily engaged in
providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or
reselling satellite telecommunications.”112 Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite
and earth station operators. The category has a small business size standard of $35 million or less in
average annual receipts, under SBA rules.113 For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show
that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year.114 Of this total, 299 firms had annual
receipts of less than $25 million.115 Consequently, we estimate that the majority of satellite
telecommunications providers are small entities.
33. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments
primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.”116 These establishments operate
television broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the
public.117 These establishments also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast
television stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule.
Programming may originate in their own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.
The SBA has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: those having $41.5
million or less in annual receipts.118 The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category
operated in that year.119 Of that number, 656 had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or less, and 25 had
annual receipts between $25,000,000 and $49,999,999.120 Based on this data we therefore estimate that
111 13 CFR § 121.102(b).
112 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications”,
https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=517410&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017 .
113 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517410.
114 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table ID: EC1251SSSZ4, Information:
Subject Series - Estab and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012, NAICS Code 517410,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?text=EC1251SSSZ4&n=517410&tid=ECNSIZE2012.EC1251SSSZ4&hidePrev
iew=false&vintage=2012.
115 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that
meet the SBA size standard.
116 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “515120 Television Broadcasting”,
https://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=515120&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017.
117 Id.
118 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 515120.
119 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table ID: EC1251SSSZ4, Information:
Subject Series – Estab and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012, NAICS Code 515120,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?text=EC1251SSSZ4&n=515120&tid=ECNSIZE2012.E C1251SSSZ4&hidePrev
iew=false.
120 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of f irms that
meet the SBA size standard.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
38
the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities under the applicable SBA size
standard.
34. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to
be 1,377.121 Of this total, 1,258 stations (or about 91 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less,
according to Commission staff review of the BIA/Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database
(BIA) on November 16, 2017, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA
definition. In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational
television stations to be 384.122 Notwithstanding, the Commission does not compile and otherwise does
not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how
many such stations would qualify as small entities. There are also 2,300 low power television stations,
including Class A stations (LPTV) and 3,681 TV translator stations.123 Given the nature of these services,
we will presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business
size standard.
35. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small”
under the above definition, business (control) affiliations124 must be included. Our estimate, therefore,
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our action, because the revenue
figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition,
another element of the definition of “small business” requires that an entity not be dominant in its field of
operation. We are unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a
specific television broadcast station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of
small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a
small business on this basis and is therefore possibly over-inclusive. Also, as noted above, an additional
element of the definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated.
The Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities
and its estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
36. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Broadband Radio
Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel
Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video programming to
subscribers and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the
Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to as the
Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)).125
37. BRS - In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission established a small
business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more than $40 million in
the previous three calendar years.126 The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining
licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the
definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At
this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business
121 Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 2018, Press Release (MB, rel. Jul. 3, 2018) (June 30, 2018 Broadcast
Station Totals Press Release), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-352168A1.pdf.
122 Id.
123 Id.
124 “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other
or a third party or parties controls or has the power to control both.” 13 CFR § 21.103(a)(1).
125 Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint
Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9593, para. 7 (1995).
126 47 CFR § 21.961(b)(1).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
39
licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately 86
incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities (18 incumbent BRS licensees do not meet the
small business size standard).127 After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the
number of incumbent licensees not already counted, there are currently approximately 133 BRS licensees
that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission’s rules.
38. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS
areas.128 The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) a bidder with attributed average
annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three
years (small business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed
average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding
three years (very small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with
attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years
(entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid.129 Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with
the sale of 61 licenses.130 Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won
4 licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that
claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
39. EBS - Educational Broadband Service has been included within the broad economic
census category and SBA size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers since 2007. Wired
Telecommunications Carriers are comprised of establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or
providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.”131 The
SBA’s small business size standard for this category is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees.132
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year.133 Of this
total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 employees.134 Thus, under this size standard, the majority of
firms in this industry can be considered small. In addition to U.S. Census Bureau data, the Commission’s
Universal Licensing System indicates that as of October 2014, there are 2,206 active EBS licenses. The
127 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of
Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). For these pre-auction licenses, the
applicable standard is SBA’s small business size standard of 1500 or fewer employees.
128 Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Licenses , Scheduled for October 27, 2009, Notice and Filing
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 86, Public Notice, 24
FCC Rcd 8277 (2009).
129 Id. at 8296 para. 73.
130 Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 86, Down
Payments Due November 23, 2009, Final Payments Due December 8, 2009, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period,
Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13572 (2009).
131 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definition, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers” (partial
definition), http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517311&search=2017.
132 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517311 (previously 517110).
133 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table ID: EC1251SSSZ5, Information:
Subject Series - Estab & Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012, NAICS Code 517110,
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?text=EC1251SSSZ5&n=517110&tid=ECNSIZE2012.EC1251SSSZ5&hidePrev
iew=false.
134 Id. The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that
meet the SBA size standard.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
40
Commission estimates that of these 2,206 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational
institutions and school districts, which are by statute defined as small businesses.135
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
40. The excavation or deployment boundaries of an eligible facilities request pose significant
policy implications associated with the Commission’s rules implementing section 6409(a) of the
Spectrum Act of 2012.136 The Commission believes that the rule changes in the Report and Order
provide certainty for providers, state and local governments (collectively, localities), and other entities
interpreting these rules. We do not believe that our resolution of these matters will create any new
reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small entities that will be impacted by our
decision.
41. More specifically, the amendment of section 1.6100(b)(7)(iv) to allow a modification of
an existing site that entails ground excavation or deployment of up to 30 feet in any direction outside a
tower’s site does not create any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small
entities. Rather, it permits an entity submitting an eligible facilities request to undertake limited
excavation and deployment of up to 30 feet in any direction. While the Commission cannot quantify the
cost of compliance with the changes adopted in the Report and Order, small entities should not have to
hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other professionals to in order to comply. Similarly, the revised
definition of “site” adopted in the Report and Order addresses localities’ concerns of “unending accretion
of [a] site by repeated applications for expansion” by ensuring that a locality has reviewed and approved
the site that is the subject of the eligible facilities request, and recognizes that the site may have changed
since the locality initially approved it. This action does not create any new reporting, recordkeeping, or
other compliance requirements for small entities. Instead, it prevents entities from having to file, and
localities from having to receive and review, repeated applications for site excavation or deployments.
Further, our actions providing clarity on the definitions of site and substantial change pursuant to the
Commission's rules implementing section 6409(a) requirements should benefit all entities involved in the
wireless facility modification process.
F. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
42. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business,
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) t he clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for such small
entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of
the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.137
43. In the Report and Order, the Commission clarifies and amends its rules associated with
wireless infrastructure deployment to provide more certainty to relevant parties and enable small entities
and others to more effectively navigate state and local application processes for eligible facilities requests.
These changes, which broaden the scope wireless facility modifications that are eligible for streamlined
review by localities under the Commission’s rules implementing section 6409(a), should reduce the
economic impact on small entities that deploy wireless infrastructure by reducing the costs and delay
135 The term “small entity” within SBREFA applies to small organizations (non -profits) and to small governmental
jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with populations of
less than 50,000). 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4)-(6).
136 Spectrum Act of 2012 § 6409(a).
137 See 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(6).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
41
associated with the deployment of such infrastructure. The Commission’s efforts to reduce regulatory
barriers to infrastructure deployment by further streamlining the review process by localities for
modifications to existing wireless towers or base stations under section 6409(a) should also reduce the
economic impact on small localities by reducing the administrative costs associated with the review
process.
44. The Commission considered but declined to adopt the industry’s “hybrid” definition of
“site.”138 Adopting that proposal would risk permitting a tower owner to file an eligible facilities request
even if it may have substantially increased the size of a tower site prior to the adoption of this Report and
Order and without any necessary approval from a locality. It agreed with localities’ concerns on the
industry’s proposed definition, and found that our revision addresses them by ensuring that a locality has
reviewed and approved the eligible support structure that is the subject of the eligible facilities request
outside of the section 6409(a) process, while recognizing that the boundaries may have changed since the
locality initially approved the eligible support structure. It also considered and rejected a proposal that
would risk creating a loophole whereby a tower owner could use the issuance of a permit—which does
not necessarily involve a locality’s review of the eligible support structure, and thus would not necessarily
provide an opportunity for the locality to take into account an increase in the size of the site associated
with that structure—to justify expansion of the site without proper local approval.139 On balance, the
Commission believes the revisions adopted in the Report and Order best achieve the Commission’s goals
while at the same time minimize or further reduce the economic impact on small entities, including small
state and local government jurisdictions.
45. The Commission also considered, but declined to adopt, NATOA and Local
Governments proposal that, to the extent the Commission revises it “substantial change” definition, the
compound expansion standard should be “the lesser of the following distance[s] from the current site (not
including easements related to the site): a. 20% of the length or width of the current site measured as a
longitudinal or latitudinal line from the current site to the excavation or deployment; or b. 30 feet.”140 The
Commission declined to adopt this proposal because it concluded that, on balance, the potential problems
it could create outweigh the potential benefits it could achieve. The Commission reasoned that the
standard of “20% of the length or width of the current site” would be difficult to administer, given that a
site boundary is not necessarily a symmetrical shape. In addition, while the record supports the
determination that a 30-foot expansion would be sufficient to accommodate minor equipment additions,
the record does not provide support for the determination that the “20%” standard would accomplish this
goal. Moreover, adopting the “20%” proposal would provide limited additional benefit in addressing the
concern raised by NATOA and Local Governments. Because a small tower site typically is associated
with a small tower that has limited space for additional antennas, it is unlikely that operators would need
to place a significant amount of additional equipment in an area outside the site boundaries.141 In
addition, any modification to an existing tower that involves excavation or deployment within the 30-foot
138 See Crown Castle Comments at 2-4; see also CTIA Reply Comments at 3-4; AT&T Reply Comments at 2. WIA
initially suggested their own revisions to the definition of “site,” see WIA Comments at 9, but it has since aligned
with Crown Castle’s proposed revised definitions. See WIA Reply Comments at 14
139 See Letter from Joshua Turner, Counsel to Crown Castle, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No.
19-250, at 1 (filed Aug. 27, 2020). Crown Castle’s proposal would also introduce more uncertainty than it purports
to cure. A locality may issue building, electrical, or other permits for a site without reviewing the eligible support
structure on that site. A permit may therefore not constitute a “proper review” of a site. See 2014 Infrastructure
Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12937, para. 174. Review and approval of the eligible support structure, on the other hand,
provides an opportunity for the locality to take into account an increase in the size of the site.
140 Letter from Nancy Werner, NATOA, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 19 -250, at 2 (filed Oct.
19, 2020).
141 See, e.g., Crown Castle Reply Comments, Exhibit A (illustrating that proposed deployments will occupy only a
portion of the permitted compound expansion).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
42
expanded area will be subject to the other criteria in the Commission’s rules for determining whether
there is a substantial change that does not warrant streamlined treatment under section 6409(a). Those
criteria, which the Commission does not alter today, provide further limitation on the size or scope of a
modification that involves excavation or deployment within 30 feet of the site boundaries.
Report to Congress
46. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a
report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.142 In addition, the Commission will send a
copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A
copy of the Report and Order, and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal
Register.143
142 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
143 See 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
43
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN AJIT PAI
Re: Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless
Facility Modification Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012, WT Docket
No. 19-250, RM-11849
A critical part of the FCC’s 5G FAST plan is promoting the deployment of wireless
infrastructure. Consumer demand for mobile broadband is increasing at a steady clip, and installing
equipment on existing structures can accommodate that demand without the time delays and costs
involved in constructing new towers. And collocating antennas and other wireless equipment on existing
infrastructure is usually less disruptive to the environment than constructing new sites. But many towers
were originally designed for use only by a single carrier, meaning that modifications may be necessary to
accommodate additional transmission equipment on those towers.
Congress recognized the importance of infrastructure to the expansion and advancement of
wireless broadband services when a supermajority in each House of Congress passed the Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (known in relevant part as the Spectrum Act). Specifically,
section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act requires state and local governments to approve requests for
collocation, removal, or replacement of transmission equipment that do not substantially change the
physical dimensions of a tower or base station. The Commission adopted rules implementing section
6409(a) in 2014, based largely on provisions included in the Commission’s Nationwide Programmatic
Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas (Collocation NPA), which we entered into with the
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation. That agreement governs the evaluation of potential impacts on historical properties
associated with collocations.
Earlier this year, the parties amended that agreement to provide that certain collocation-related
excavations or deployments up to 30 feet beyond a site boundary generally do not warrant federal historic
preservation review. It is logical that this same threshold should apply as a benchmark for exempting
expansions from substantial review by state and local government pursuant to section 6409(a). So today,
consistent with the amended Collocation NPA, we update our rules to provide that ground excavation or
deployment up to 30 feet beyond the site boundary of a tower outside of a public right-of-way does not by
itself disqualify the modification from a streamlined review by a state or local government under section
6409(a).
Our decision streamlines the processing of more modifications that don’t substantially change the
physical dimensions of a tower. And given the increasing reliance upon collocations as the most
economical and environmentally friendly method for expanding 5G wireless networks, our Order today
advances the Commission’s goal of facilitating the rapid development of 5G wireless infrastructure
without infringing upon local land-use interests.
Our actions also promote public safety connectivity and network resiliency. For example,
Congress directed that FirstNet, the nationwide public safety broadband network, should take advantage
of existing infrastructure “to the maximum extent economically desirable.” Accordingly, FirstNet will be
among the beneficiaries of expedited deployment opportunities resulting from our Order. And with
respect to network resiliency, many site expansions involve the installation of backup generators. A
limited expansion beyond a site boundary to this point could in many cases be subject to an unnecessarily
lengthy review that would harm public safety. Not any more.
In this Order, we also provide greater certainty to applicants and localities about the appropriate
timeline for evaluating boundaries of a site for purposes of determining eligibility for streamlined review.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
44
We revise our definition of the term “site” to be the boundaries of an eligible support structure at the time
the original support structure was built or, alternatively, the boundaries that were most recently reviewed
and approved by the state or local government (provided that the most recent approval was granted prior
to the passage of the Spectrum Act or was granted outside of a section 6409(a) streamlined review
process). With this proviso, the Commission provides a reasonable limiting factor to protect against an
overexpansion of a site boundary and ensures greater protection for local land-use interests.
This decision doesn’t come in isolation. Indeed, this Commission has worked hard over the past
few years to encourage the deployment of wireless infrastructure. We’ve adopted new rules to reduce
regulatory impediments to deploying small cells needed for 5G. We’ve also implemented reforms to
speed up state and local review of small cell deployments and to limit unreasonable fees placed on such
deployments. These decisions have yielded significant results. In the United States, fewer than 7,000 cell
sites were deployed from 2013 to 2016. But deployment picked up starting in 2017, with more than
46,000 sites added in 2019 alone. Today’s action is just the latest step toward encouraging buildout of
communications infrastructure, expediting the expansion of 5G across our nation, and advancing
America’s global leadership position in 5G.
I’d like to thank Commission staff for their work in preparing this Report and Order. From the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: Paul D’Ari, Garnet Hanly, Kari Hicks, Georgios Leris, Belinda
Nixon, Dana Shaffer, Don Stockdale, Cecilia Sulhoff, and Joel Taubenblatt; from the Office of General
Counsel: Mike Carlson, David Horowitz, Bill Richardson, and Anjali Singh; from the Office of
Economics and Analytics: Kate Matraves and Patrick Sun; from the Wireline Competition Bureau: Adam
Copeland and Michael Ray; from the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau: Gregory Cooke,
Barbara Esbin, and Aliza Katz; from the Enforcement Bureau: Leslie Barnes, Kathy Harvey, Chris
Killion, Shannon Lipp, Neal McNeil, Janet Moran, and Axel Rodriguez; and from the Office of
Communications Business Opportunities: Chana Wilkerson.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
45
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re: Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless
Facility Modification Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012, WT Docket
No. 19-250, RM-11849
From my earliest days at the Commission, I have met with tower companies, wireless providers,
and their trade associations to start an open dialogue about needed improvements to the regulatory
structure that is ensnaring infrastructure siting. Unfortunately, in numerous meetings, these entities cited
a myriad of legitimate examples of local governments, historic preservation boards, and Tribal nations
continuously placing unnecessary barriers in the way of Americans receiving higher quality services and
the latest wireless innovations. Sometimes, there was even a reluctance to share their experiences given
the potential for negative blowback, but the stories and details made clear to me that Commission action
was needed.
Such prohibitions and delays are even more egregious when they affect wireless providers’ ability
to collocate on existing towers. Everyone would naturally assume that staunch tower opponents would
support efforts to use existing towers instead of building additional ones, which some find unsightly. Yet,
despite this logical presumption and even Congressional action to facilitate collocations, the wireless
industry still faced, and continues to face, ridiculous hurdles.
The lists of obstacles were quite extensive early on, and the Commission has tackled many of
these issues already. But, one of the problems repeatedly highlighted was obtaining approvals for the
compound expansion needed when a provider wanted to collocate on a tower. Whether it be for
equipment cabinets or generators for backup power, long approval processes were being required to
expand compounds on land already zoned for this very use. It amazes me how some can argue against
today’s action while repeatedly calling for – and sometimes criticizing – the need for greater resiliency,
expansion of networks, and the deployment of FirstNet’s system. Not to mention, most recognize that the
deployment of 5G will require more equipment to be placed within these compounds.
Although today’s action could have been done earlier, I am pleased that we are finally eliminating
the barriers unjustly restricting compound expansion. After having given many speeches on this topic, I
appreciate that this item was brought to conclusion before I depart.
While this particular issue comes to a close, we unfortunately have failed to resolve the
infrastructure-related issue that has been on the top of my list the longest: twilight towers. Almost 5000
towers, some of which have been in existence for almost two decades, are available for collocations. The
Commission has a plan to resolve issues that arose because the Commission’s rules were unclear, which
prevented collocations on these towers. It is hard to believe that some would take an action that would
hinder network deployment, especially at a time when everyone is relying on telecommunications
services to keep in touch with loved ones, attend school, visit their doctors, and do their jobs. There is
plenty of leadership blame to go around on this issue, but let’s be clear: the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation must reverse its nonsensical decision on this matter immediately.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
46
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER BRENDAN CARR
Re: Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless
Facility Modification Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012, WT Docket
No. 19-250, RM-11849
If you’ve ever driven out Arlington Boulevard to where it meets D.C.’s Beltway, chances are that
your phone has checked in with a wireless tower located on Gallows Road. You might not have noticed it
as you drove by because the tower was made to be about the same height and have the same brown trunk
and green branches as the trees around it.
Loaded on that trunk and hidden between those branches is radio equipment for two wireless
providers, and there are discussions about a third provider collocating soon. At the base of that monopine
are the fiber, computing equipment, and power supply for the wireless providers—and even the local
cable company, to boot.
Think about all of the work that that single tower does. For example, it serves the Inova Fairfax
Hospital, about a mile away. With an urgent buzz of pagers, that tower summons surgeons to the ER to
save lives; it delivers texts home that say someone’s going to be OK. It’s positioned even closer to two
public elementary schools. Before the pandemic, there’s no doubt the tower carried communications
between teachers and their students’ families. Now, one of the schools is an Election Day center. If a
voting machine breaks down, the lines are too long, or there’s any other barrier to ensuring that citizens’
right to vote is secured on Tuesday, poll workers will rely on that tower to find solutions quickly.
The point is that we don’t realize how much we depend on our local wireless tower—until it stops
working and we yell at our cell phone company. And even if we do pause for a moment to ponder and
appreciate how much wireless is integrated into our daily lives, almost none of us see the discoveries,
planning, investment, and regular effort required to keep us connected.
One person who is deeply aware of those efforts is Tam Murray. The company he founded,
Community Wireless Structures, builds and operates towers in northern Virginia, including the one on
Gallows Road. It’s a place where exurbs have grown into suburbs and suburbs have grown into cities in
their own right. With that growth have come an increased demand for data and an expectation that people
who live in the suburbs, exurbs, and rural communities will enjoy the same reliability that city people
enjoy.
Tam has been planning to upgrade the Gallows Road tower to meet his customers’ needs. When I
visited the tower with him last week, Tam showed me where he wants to expand his fence to make room
for backup power. Trees cover that area, and it’s notoriously difficult to keep the power on during
storms. While a house without power might be a manageable inconvenience for some, a tower without
power can cut off wireless service for miles around. That’s unacceptable, especially in an emergency.
FirstNet, the government authority charged with building a first responders’ network, has contracted for
new backup power at cell sites across the country. In fact, the California Public Utilities Commission this
year mandated 72 hours of backup power at sites statewide.
Tam also needs some more space to expand capacity. Wireless providers are adding more
equipment to towers to light up the massive amounts of spectrum this Commission has brought to market
over the last four years. 5G’s hallmark speed—gigabits through the air—requires lots of spectrum, and
often lots of equipment to use each band. And 5G’s low latency—network response in milliseconds—can
be advanced by computing power located at tower sites. To provide these robust 5G capabilities, Tam’s
site needs a modest expansion.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
47
In 2012, Congress anticipated problems of this sort. Back then, the wireless providers were
finishing a massive upgrade to 4G LTE, ushering in the era of mobile broadband. Tower upgrades
seemed like no-brainers: they directly benefited communities with fast service while requiring only minor
equipment changes to towers that already had been built. Yet many communities were being left behind
because of the long delays and high costs that some municipal governments imposed on straightforward
tower work. Congress stepped in with Section 6409, which mandated that municipal governments
approve tower upgrades that do not substantially change the physical dimensions of the tower.
Two years later, the FCC wrote rules implementing Section 6409. One of our tasks then was to
define what would and wouldn’t count as a substantial change so that tower owners could have some
certainty about which upgrades would qualify for expedited approval. To complete that task, the
Commission turned to two agreements that we reached with the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP) and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO).
These agreements cover tower replacements and collocations, which are when equipment is
changed on an existing structure. The agreements allow replacements and collocations to proceed
without going through protracted historic preservation or environmental reviews, in some circumstances.
We noted that Congress was aware of the agreements when it enacted Section 6409, and Congress
explicitly referenced our ongoing historic preservation and environmental obligations within the statute’s
text. Because of this, we reasoned that the modest tower changes allowed under the agreements would be
a good starting point for understanding the tower changes Section 6409 would allow. As a policy matter,
it makes sense that updates to towers that are minor enough to exclude from our other reviews may be
minor enough to exclude from municipal approvals. And if there’s consistency between our
environmental, historic preservation, and local approval rules, it would simplify and expedite tower
upgrades—exactly the purpose of Section 6409.
There was one discrepancy between the two agreements, which forms the crux of what we’re
doing today. The 2001 agreement, which covers collocations, didn’t allow for any excavation or
deployment beyond the limits of a tower site at the time of the collocation. In contrast, the 2005
agreement, which covers tower replacements, allowed a tower site to be expanded by 30 feet. When the
Commission wrote its rules for Section 6409, it looked at the two agreements that had nearly identical
terms except for site expansion. On that question, the Commission picked the older agreement, although
without much discussion or reasoning.
The discrepancy between the 2001 and 2005 agreements didn’t make much sense in the first
place. From an environmental and historic preservation perspective, the point of the agreements was to
encourage reuse of tower sites instead of building duplicative ones. If evolving technology and
circumstances by 2005 showed that an additional 30 feet were needed to revitalize tower sites and, on
balance, were better for environmental and historic preservation interests than building new sites, then
that reasoning would seem to apply with equal force to the 2001 agreement.
In July of this year, ACHP, NCSHPO, and the FCC corrected the discrepancy between the
agreements. We jointly amended the 2001 agreement to allow for tower site expansion when collocating,
which brought the 2001 agreement into conformance with the 2005 agreement. That leaves us with the
Commission’s Section 6409 rules as the sole remaining outlier. Today’s order finishes our work to sync
the site expansion rules between the agreements and Section 6409. We now will allow 30 feet of site
expansion consistently across our environmental, historic preservation, and local approval rules.
From the NPRM to the published draft and from the draft to today’s version, we made a number
of changes that we thought resolved outstanding issues and were true to the balance Congress struck in
Section 6409. Our definition of “site” reaffirms local zoning authority by marking site boundaries as
those last reviewed and approved by a local government outside of the Section 6409 process. Per
municipal governments’ request, we emphasize that the equipment to be deployed in the expanded site
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
48
space is specifically “transmission equipment.” We clarify that the municipal governments retain their
usual easement power, and we state that site expansion is to be measured from the current site and not
from existing easements. We appreciate municipal governments’, industry’s, and all commenters’
assistance in refining our rules over the last few months. The final work product benefited from your
contributions.
This action marks another significant step in our broader effort to modernize wireless
infrastructure. Over the last three years, we have set limits on fees and shot clocks for environmental and
historic preservation review of small cells. We put in place guardrails around municipal government
review of and fees on that same technology. We streamlined the process for swapping out utility poles to
add wireless equipment. We created an expedited approval process for tower builds during COVID-19.
We accelerated next-gen networks through our 5G Upgrade Order. And now we pave the way for more
resilient and capable sites through this action. Those are, of course, on top of the Commission’s bold
moves on spectrum and workforce development.
America is home to the strongest 5G platform in the world. And at least some of the credit for
that accomplishment should go to our Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and its infrastructure team.
So I’d like to acknowledge the members of that team who had a hand in today’s item and so many of the
others we have approved: Paul D’Ari, Garnet Hanly, Kari Hicks, George Leris, Belinda Nixon, Dana
Shaffer, Donald Stockdale, and Joel Taubenblatt.
To the tremendously talented staff, I thank you again for your service to the Commission and the
country. Your work and this order have my support.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
49
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL,
DISSENTING
Re: Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless
Facility Modification Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012, WT Docket
No. 19-250, RM-11849
As telecommunications laws go, Section 6409 of the 2012 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act is simple and straightforward. It forbids localities from exercising their traditional zoning
authority to deny applications to modify wireless towers or base stations if—and only if—the application
does not “substantially change the physical dimensions” of the existing facility. Congress enacted this
law because it made sense to speed up routine approvals for wireless deployments that almost always
have no impact on state or local interests. But Congress also took care to bar applications from this
process that would result in substantial changes to existing towers.
I’m familiar with this section of the law. As congressional staff, I was in the proverbial room
where it happened and helped write it. But being there is hardly necessary. The law is clear on its face.
It’s also clear that the decision we make today is inconsistent with the statute and that if we continue
down this road we risk thwarting the very partnerships with local interests we need if we want to see
smart cities technology truly develop.
Let me explain.
First, you can’t square the plain language of Section 6409 with today’s decision. It stretches
credulity to suggest that excavation or deployment of up to 30 feet outside the boundaries of a tower
compound does not “substantially change the physical dimensions” of that site. Thirty feet is five
refrigerators laid out one after the other. It’s half the size of a bowling lane. It’s about one-fifth of the
size of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. You can’t tell me that construction of this size does not “substantially
change the physical dimensions” of a site. The Federal Communications Commission used to
acknowledge this, too. When the agency first interpreted Section 6409 in 2014, it concluded that
excavation outside the current site of a tower was a substantial change. That didn’t mean that a wireless
provider could not expand an existing site—it simply meant that those applications would be approved in
the normal course, subject to regular state and local review.
Our rationale for changing direction today doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The agency
acknowledges that in its decision in 2014 it drew guidance from similar language in the Nationwide
Programmatic Agreement of the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, or the Collocation NPA. It then relies
on the fact that the Collocation NPA was amended recently to exclude excavations of up to 30 feet from
the definition of “substantial change” to suggest that the FCC could do the same here. But this is
comparing apples to oranges. The Collocation NPA addresses the review process under Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act. It says nothing about Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax
Relief and Job Creation Act. Whatever changes have been made to the Collocation NPA, the FCC cannot
expand the scope of Section 6409 without authority from Congress to do so.
Second, when we proceed like this, we create genuinely unhelpful friction between state and local
interests who have filed en masse in this proceeding to protest how this agency is diminishing their
authority. By doing so, we reduce the opportunity to foster the kind of partnerships between providers
and state and local authorities that can help build smart cities—where connectivity will help improve the
quality of life. That can mean everything from adaptive traffic signals to increased energy efficiency to
improved waste management to more data-driven problem solving in real time. But we won’t get there
anytime soon if this agency keeps reading the statute in a way that leaves state and local authorities
aggrieved that they lack a say in what is built in their own backyards. We need a way forward that speeds
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
50
the review of essential facilities and makes cities and states partners and not adversaries in this process. I
think we are creative enough to develop one. But this isn’t it. I dissent.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 20-153
51
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER GEOFFREY STARKS,
DISSENTING
Re: Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless
Facility Modification Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012, WT Docket
No. 19-250, RM-11849
It has been well over seven months since COVID-19 first hit the United States. Even as more
than 225,000 people have died from the pandemic and unemployment has hit record highs, state and local
governments have been on the front lines running healthcare systems and schools. They’ve done so
despite tight budgets that are only getting more limited.
Today’s Report and Order adds to these already considerable challenges by requiring these
governments to provide streamlined processing to requests for ground excavations or deployments of
transmission equipment up to 30 feet in any direction outside a macro cell tower site. On its face, t his
decision is inconsistent with the plain language of section 6409, which mandates streamlined processing
only for modifications of “existing wireless towers.” By its own terms, the provision does not extend its
requirements beyond the wireless tower itself, yet this decision will allow applicants to obtain streamlined
processing for work well outside the facility. Moreover, this decision could encourage applicants to
evade local zoning regulations by seeking initial approval for less space than they actually need and then
obtaining streamlined processing for expansions beyond that area. Such expansions could lead to serious
public safety issues.
I also take issue with the Report & Order’s decision to define the current boundaries of the “site”
of a tower based on the most recent review and approval by the state or local government. This definition
is too broad. “Site” should only refer to the area surrounding the tower that was identified as the tower
site in the relevant application that last received discretionary approval from the applicable authority. It
should not be based upon non-discretionary approvals lacking any substantive review. This definition of
“site” could lead to expansions to areas that the state or local government never had the opportunity to
consider on the merits.
As the country continues to grapple with COVID-19, state and local governments are working
overtime to respond to the crisis and continue their daily operations. This decision will add yet another
problem to their plates: expansions that may create public safety hazards in the communities they are
already working tirelessly to protect. While streamlining rules and flexibility can be helpful and
sometimes necessary, we must not do so at the expense of state and local governments that are already
overburdened. For these reasons, I dissent.