The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About42463-Z ��S�FFQt,�cD Town of Southold 7/30/2020 P.O.Box 1179 53095 Main Rd o • �1 Southold,New York 11971 CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY No: 41300 Date: 7/30/2020 THIS CERTIFIES that the building WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS Location of Property: 31775 Route 25, Cutuchogue SCTM#: 473889 Sec/Block/Lot: 97.-5-11 Subdivision: Filed Map No. Lot No. conforms substantially to the Application for Building Permit heretofore filed in this office dated 10/27/2017 pursuant to which Building Permit No. 42463 dated 3/19/2018 was issued, and conforms to all of the requirements of the applicable provisions of the law. The occupancy for which this certificate is issued is: modification to an existing wireless communication facility as applied for. (Verizon) The certificate is issued to New York Telephone Co of the aforesaid building. SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH APPROVAL ELECTRICAL CERTIFICATE NO. 42463 7/2/2020 PLUMBERS CERTIFICATION DATED Au h riz d Signature �SOFEotx TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ,� copy BUILDING DEPARTMENT y TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE o • SOUTHOLD, NY BUILDING PERMIT (THIS PERMIT MUST BE KEPT ON THE PREMISES WITH ONE SET-OF APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS UNTIL FULL COMPLETION OF THE WORK AUTHORIZED) Permit#: 42463 Date: 3/19/2018 Permission is hereby granted to: New York Telephone Co Attn: Verizon PO BOX 2749 Addison, TX 75001 To: modify a wireless communication facility as per site plan approval. At premises located at: 31775 Route 25, Cutuchogue SCTM # 473889 Sec/Block/Lot# 97.-5-11 Pursuant to application dated 10/27/2017 and approved by the Building Inspector. To expire on 9/18/2019. Fees: WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS -MODIFICATIONS $500.00 CO -COMMERCIAL $50.00 Total: $550.00 Buil ing Inspector OF SOUry®� Town Hall Annex ® Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 c Q Sean.devlin town.Southold.n us Southold,NY 11971-0959 @ y BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRICAL COMPLIANCE SITE LOCATION Issued To: New York Telephone Co Address: 31775 Route 25 city Cutchogue st: NY zip: 11935 Building Permit#: 42463 section- 97 Block: 5 Lot: 11 WAS EXAMINED AND FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE Contractor: DBA: Cel Tech Electric License No: 2539 SITE DETAILS Office Use Only Residential Indoor Basement Service X Commerical X Outdoor X 1 st Floor Pool New X Renovation 2nd Floor Hot Tub Addition Survey Attic Generator X INVENTORY Service 1 ph X Heat Duplec Recpt 1 Ceiling Fixtures 1 Bath Exhaust Fan Service 3 ph Hot Water GFCI Recpt 2 Wall Fixtures Smoke Detectors Main Panel 200A A/C Condenser Single Recpt Recessed Fixtures CO2 Detectors Sub Panel A/C Blower Range Recpt Ceiling Fan Combo Smoke/CO Transformer UC Lights Dryer Recpt Emergency FixturesTime Clocks Disconnect 2 Switches 4'LED Exit Fixtures Pump Other Equipment: 200A Meter Main Disconnect, 400A Disconnect/ Manual Transfer Switch, Polar Power 15kW DC Generator, Panel w 8-23013reakers and 3-120 Breakers, Low Voltage Cab. Notes: Cell Tower, New Service and Generator Inspector Signature: 21 Date: July 2, 2020 P g S.Devlin-Cert Electrical Compliance Form.xls CONSENT TO INSPECTION Yor Inc. ,u�U�n behalf of Verikbn xew , tie undersigned, do(es) hereby state: Owner(s) Name(s) That the undersigned (is) (are) the owner(s) of the premises in the Town of Southold, located at 31775 Bain Road, Cutchogm, N,, York which is shown and designated on the Suffolk County Tax Map as District 1000, Section 97 , Block 5 , Lot 11 That the undersigned (has) (have) filed, or cause to be filed, an application in the Southold Town Building Inspector's Office for the following: Installation of a public utility wireless communication facility, as depicted in the drawings submitted herewith and incorporated herein That the undersigned do(es) hereby give consent to the Building Inspectors of the Town of Southold to enter upon the above described property, including any and all buildings located thereon, to conduct such inspections as they may deem necessary with respect to the aforesaid application, including inspections to determine that said premises comply with all of the laws, ordinances, rules and regulations of the Town of Southold. The undersigned, in consenting to such inspections, do(es) so with the knowledge and understanding that any information obtained in the conduct of such inspections may be used in subsequent prosecutions for violations of the laws, ordinances, rules or regulations of the Town of Southold. Verizon w York Inc. , Dated: r (Si�G h� S (Print Name) (Signature) (Print Name) AUTHORIZATION AND CONSENT WHEREAS, New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless"), having a principal place of business located at c/o Amato Law Group, PLLC, 666 Old Country Road, Suite 901, Garden City, New York 11530, desires to install and operate a public utility wireless communication facility (the "Communication Facility") on certain real property located at 31775 Main Road, Cutchogue, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, known and designated as District 1000, Section 97, Block 5, Lot 11 (the "Property"), owned by Verizon New York Inc. (the "Owner"), and WHEREAS, Verizon Wireless, in order to install and operate the Communication Facility, must submit to the Town of Southold (the "Town") certain applications to the Town, which may include zoning, building permit, or site plan applications. WHEREAS, the Owner agrees and consents to Verizon Wireless' submission of all necessary zoning building permit or site plan applications to the Town, as well as any other application required by any federal, state or local entity with jurisdiction thereof, such that the required approvals for the proposed installation and operation of the Communication Facility are necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, the Owner hereby authorizes, consents and agrees to have Verizon Wireless act as its agent, as follows: 1. The Owner hereby consents to the filing of all necessary applications by Verizon Wireless with the Town, and any other necessary federal, state or local agency, with respect to the installation and operation of the proposed Communication Facility on the Property. 2. Verizon Wireless shall have the authority to act as the limited agent for the Owner, thereby permitting Verizon Wireless to execute and complete any necessary documents on behalf of said Owner as may be required in order to obtain the necessary approvals and permits to install and operate the proposed Communication Facility. 3. This authorization shall be limited solely for the purpose of permitting Verizon Wireless to obtain the necessary approvals and permits to install and operate the proposed Communication Facility, and for no other purpose. 4. This authorization shall terminate, and be of no further force and effect, only after Verizon Wireless receives the necessary Town, federal, state and/or local approvals and permits required to install and operate the proposed Communication Facility. VERIZON NEW YORK INC. Name: Title: Swoefore me this ylay of 2017. C L Notary Public WILLIAM D DOODY VNotary Public COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS My Commission`Expires Sgpt*leber 21, 2023 ��OE SOUTyO .i S.-Li -7 ( S P<-4- * # TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPT. 765-1802 INSPECTION . [ ] FOUNDATION 1ST [ ] ROUGH PL13G. [ ] FOUNDATION 2ND [ ] INSULATIOWCAULKING [ ] FRAMING /STRAPPING [ ] FINAL [ ] FIREPLACE & CHIMNEY [ ] FIRE SAFETY INSPECTION [ ] FIRE RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION [ ] FIRE RESISTANT PENETRATION [ ] ELECTRICAL (ROUGH) [ ELECTRICAL" (FINAL) [ ] CODE VIOLATION [ ]�PRE C/O `� � REMARKS: 1�11\f k l E444V� Al, 5EZ:e�-Z- Al - OALI DATE At INSPECTOR rC 7-�, hO�*OE SOUIyo� / # # TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPT. 765-1802 INSPECTION. [ ] FOUNDATION 1ST [ ] ROUGH PLBG. [ ] FOUNDATION 2ND [ ] IN ULATIOWCAULKING [ ] FRAMING /STRAPPING [ FINAL [ ] FIREPLACE &-CHIMNEY [ ]' FIRE-SAFETY INSPECTION [ ] FIRE RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION [ ] FIRE RESISTANT PENETRATION [ . ] ELECTRICAL (ROUGH) [ ] ELECTRICAL (FINAL) [ ] CODE VIOLATION [ ] PRE C/O REMARKS: a/,� DATE INSPECTOR APT ENGINEERLNG April 13, 2020 Town of Southold Building Inspector's Office 54375 NY-25 Southold, NY 11971 Attention: Michael J. Verity, Chief Building Inspector RE: Verizon Cell Site"Cutchogue" 21855 County Road 48 Cutchogue, NY 11935 Section: 96; Block: 1; Lot: 19.1 Permit#: 44042 Dear Inspector Verity, I am a New York State licensed Professional Engineer, retained by Verizon Wireless (VZ) in connection with the captioned matter above. I have reviewed the completed VZ antenna and associated equipment installation at the existing wireless telecommunications facility. It is my opinion that the completed installation substantially_complies with the project plans and specifications, Rev2, dated 6/18/19 as permitted on permit #44042. We trust the foregoing provides the information you have requested. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, OF NE►y r S � APT Engineering yQ.yGptCyAss�9,� 078603 Scott M. Chass6, P.E. A9��ESSIONP� Principal APT ENGINEERING 567 VAUXHAU S]REE'-T EXTENSION SUITE 311 WATERFORD.U06385 PHONE 860=663-1697 OFFICE LOCATION: MAILING ADDRESS: Town Hall Annex P.O.Box 1179 54375 State Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 ' (cor.Main Rd.&Youngs Ave.) �. ..' Southold NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 1 #' wwwsoutholdtownny.gov PLANNING BOARD OFFICE k TOWN OF SOUTHOLD s .MEMORANDUM To: Michael J. Verity, Chief Building Inspector From: Heather M. Lanza, AICP, Planning Director dl ; Date: March 11, 2020 Re: Planning Department Report Verizon Wireless Modifications and Up-grades 31775 NYS Route 25, Cutchogue SCTM#1000-97.-5-11 The Planning Board has found that the requirements of the above-referenced Verizon modifications and up-grades have been completed based on the site inspection made March 5, 2020. The improvements are in compliance with the General Requirements of §280-70 and the Planning Department report dated February 23, 2018; therefore, we recommend a Certificate,of Occupancy be issued for this application. Thank you for your cooperation, MAY 4 2o2o FIELD INSPECTION'REPORT DATE COMMENTS FOUNDATION(1ST) R -------------------------------------- FOUNDATION(2ND) rtaleco) C --2) ROUGH FRAMING& y PLUMBING c INSULATION PER N.Y: H STATE ENERGY CODE FINAL ADDITIONAL CO NTS _ O rn r K �41) y (VUA -fq ator 30� z ,a d TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST BUILDING DEPARTMENT Do you have or need the following,before applying TOWN HALL Board of Health SOUTHOLD,NY 11971 4 sets of Building Plans TEL:(631)765-1802 Planning Board approval FAX:(631)765-9502 Survey Southoldtownny.gov PERMIT NO. Check Septic Form NYSDE.0 Trustees C O Application Flood Permit Examined 120 Single&Separate Truss Identification Form Storm-Water Assessment Form Contact: New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Approved 20 Mail to c/o Amato Law Group, Disapproved a/c 6 S 66 Old Country Road,Suite 901,Garden City,New Phone 516.797.ram Expiration 120 Building Inspector APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date July 14 2017 INSTRUCTIONS a This application MUST be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector with 4 sets of plans,accurate plot plan to scale Fee according to schedule b Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises,relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas,and waterways. c.The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d Upon approval of this application,the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant Such a permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work. e.No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose what so ever until the Building inspector issues a Certificate of Occupancy. f Every building permit shall expire if the work authorized has not commenced within 12 months after the date of issuance or has not been completed within 18 months from such date If no zoning amendments or other regulations affecting the property have been enacted in the interim,the Building Inspector may authorize,in writing,the extension of the permit for an addition six months Thereafter,a new permit shall be required. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold,Suffolk County,New York,and other applicable Laws,Ordinances or Regulations,for the constriction of buildings,additions,or alterations or for removal or demolition as herein described The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws,ordinances,building code,housin code,and regulations,and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. New York S A P ners / eri n ireless ignature o a licant or name,if a corporation) Name John Walden rile: Senior Engineer—Equipment c/ mato Law Group,666 Old Country Road,Suite 901,New York i 1530 (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner,lessee,agent,architect,engineer,general contractor,electrician,plumber or builder LESSEE Name of owner of premises Verizon New York.Inc. (As on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicanvis a corporation,signature of duly authorized officer By. Name: (Name and title of corpQgle officer) Builders License No. Plumbers License No. Electricians License No. Other Trade's License No. 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done: 31775 Main Road Cutchogue Hoose Number Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 97 Block 5 Lot 11 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy Telecommunication facility and offices b. Intended use and occupancy NIC 3. Nature of work(check which applicable):New Building : Addition Alteration x Repair Removal Demolition Other Work (Description) 4. Estimated Cost $ 125,000 Fee (To be paid on tiling this application) 5. if dwelling,number of dwelling units Number of dwelling units on each floor If garage, number of cars 6. If business,commercial or mixed occupancy,specify nature and'extent of each type of use. commerciayofnces 7. Dimensions of existing structures,if any:Front 60.5' Rear 92,6• Depth 62.6• Height 17' Number of Stories 1.5 Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front NIC Rear NIC Depth NIC Height NIC Number of Stories NIC 8. Dimensions of entire new construction:Front 20•-4• Rear. 20'-4^ Depth 32'-6•• Height Number of Stories 1.5 9. Size of lot:Front 200' Rear 205.75 Depth 650.89• 10.Date of Purchase May 7,1965 Name of Former Owner Maiinowski.John 11.Zone or use district in which premises are situated B/General Business 12.Does proposed construction violate any zoning law,ordinance or regulation?YES NO x 13.Will lot be re-graded?YES_NO x Will excess till be removed from premises?YES_NO 14.Names of Owner of premises Verizon New York,Inc. Address (please see plans) Phone No. Name of Architect APT Engineering Address (please see plans) Phone No Name of Contractor Address Phone No. 15 a.Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland or a freshwater wetland?*YES NO x * IF YES, SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES&D.E.C.PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. b.Is this property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland?*YES NO x *IF YES,D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED 16.Provide survey,to scale,with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines. 17.If elevation at any point on property is at 10 feet or below,must provide topographical data on survey. 18.Are there any covenants and restrictions with respect to this property?*YES NO x * IF YES,PROVIDE A COPY. STATE OF NEW YORK) S: COUNTY OF MA John d/b/a Verizon Wireless Walden on behalf of New York SMSA Limited Partnership being duly sworn,deposes and says that(s)he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract)above named, (S)He is the Agent/Lessee (Contractor,Agent,Corporate Officer,etc) of said owner or owners,and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application, that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief:and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. SWotobefore the this day of 20 New York SMted Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless r� �� , By: SA Li otary lublic Signature of Applicant Name: John WaldenTitie: Senior Engineer—Equipment .� A R f VFX 0�A R •.r i Na�AttFtcoo, Is 1'. -Sly ' it co 0 tP ' 1011812"X PUBV\G::A. '4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST BUILDING DEPARTMENT Do you have or need the following,before applying? TOWN HALL Board of Health SOUTHOLD,NY 11971 4 sets of Building Plans TEL:(631)765-1802W-V6 Planning Board approval FAX:(631)765-9502 SurveSoutholdtownny.gov PERMIT NO. Check Septic Form NYSDEC Trustees C 0 Application Flood Permit Examined 20 Single&Separate Truss Identification Form Storm-Water Assessment Form OY Contact New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Approved 20 Mail to c/o Amato Law Group, Disapproved a/c 666 Old Country Road,Suite 901,Garden City,New Y_rk.1�0 Phone's.i a_777-awns Expiration —20 Building Inspector APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date July 14 2017 INSTRUCTIONS a This application MUST be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector with 4 sets of plans,accurate plot plan to scale Fee according to schedule. b Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises,relationship o adjoining premises or public streets or areas,and waterways. c.The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit d.Upon approval of this application,the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant Such a permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work e.No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose what so ever until the Building Inspector issues a Certificate of Occupancy. f Every building permit shall expire if the wo rk authorized has not commenced within 12 months after the date of issuance or has not been completed within 18 months from such date.If no zoning amendments or other regulations affecting the property have been enacted in the interim,the Building Inspector may authorize,in writing,the extension of the permit for an addition six months Thereafter,a new permit shall be required APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold,Suffolk County,New York,and other applicable Laws,Ordinances or Regulations,for the construction of buildings,additions,or alterations or for removal or molition as herein described The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws,ordinances,building code,Ill n ode,and regulations,and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections New York�Zn.r;h' ri less ignature of &cant or name if a po o flog) Name: Olen Idalden rtie:$eniol nganeer–Equipment c/o A ato Law Group,666 Old Country Road,Suite 901,New York (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner,lessee,agent,architect,engineer,general contractor,electrician,plumber or builder LESSEE Name of owner of premises Verizon New York,Inc. (As on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation,signature of duly authorized officer By: Name:(Name and title of coipp.rige officer) Builders License No. Plumbers License No. Electricians License No. Other Trade's License No. 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done: 31775 Main Road Cutchogue House Number Street Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section 97 Block 5 Lot 11 k Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy Telecommunication facility and offices b. Intended use and occupancy NIC Y„ 3. Nature of work(check which applicable):New Building x Addition Alteration x Repair Removal Demolition Other Work (Description) 4. Estimated Cost $ 125,000 Fee (To be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling,number of dwelling units Number of dwelling units on each floor If garage, number of cars 6. If business,commercial or mixed occupancy,specify nature and extent of each type of use. 7. Dimensions of existing structures,if any:Front 60.5 Rear 92.8' Depth 62.6' Height 17' Number of Stories 1-5 Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front NIC Rear N/c Depth N/c Height NIC Number of Stories NIC 8. Dimensions of entire new construction:Front 20'-4^ Rear 20'-4^ Depth 32'-6^ Height Number of Stories 1.5 9. Size of lot:Front -200' Rear 205.75' Depth 650.89' 10.Date of Purchase May 7,1965 Name of Former Owner Malinowski.John 11.Zone or use district in which premises are situated B/General Business 12.Does proposed construction violate any zoning law,ordinance or regulation?YES_NO X 13.Will lot be re-graded?YES_NO x Will excess fill be removed from premises?YES—NO- 14. ES_NO14.Names of Owner of premises Verizon New York,Inc. Address (please see plans) Phone No. Name of Architect APT Engineering Address (please see plans) Phone No Name of Contractor Address Phone No. 15 a.Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland or a freshwater wetland?*YES NO x *IF YES,SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES&D.E.C.PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. b.Is this property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland?*YES NO x *IF YES,D.E.C.PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. 16.Provide survey,to scale,with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines. 17.If elevation at any point on property is at 10 feet or below,must provide topographical data on survey. 18.Are there any covenants and restrictions with respect to this property?*YES NO x *IF YES,PROVIDE A COPY. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS. COUNTY OFNAL John d/b/a Verizon Wireless Walden on behalf of New York SMSA Limited Partnership being duly swom,deposes and says that(s)he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract)above named, (S)He is the Agent/Lessee (Contractor,Agent,Corporate Officer,etc) of said owner or owners,and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application; that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief,and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith Sworn to before me thts New York SMSA invited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless day of 20 1-1V2� _ By: of lic Signature of Applicant Name John Walden Title: Senior Engineer–Equipment I VF 'I,� - o�RQ' .Q�ARY''•�� aV P LK GOV Y = i 10j1a12o % OFFICE LOCATION: MAILING ADDRESS: Town Hall Annex �� f so P.O.P.O. Box 1179 54375 State Route 25 1�® Southold, NY 11971 (cor.Main Rd. &Youngs Ave.) Southold NY Telephone: 631765-1938 www.southoldtownny.gov PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM ® /7L` To: Michael J. Verity, Chief Building Inspector FEB 2 3 2018 From: Brian Cummings, Planner a '� BIELDINO MUM TC*N OF SOI OT ,- -' Date: February 23, 2018 Re: Planning Department Report Verizon Wireless at 31775 NYS Route 25, Cutchogue SCTM#1000-97.-5-11 As an addendum to the attached SPUD, the Planning Department has conducted a review of the proposed modifications pursuant to §280-74 B.(2), and has received a report from our Wireless Technical Consultant, Cityscape, Inc. (see attached report). We have the following recommendations for this application: 1. The proposed Verizon modifications and up-grades are in compliance with the General Requirements of§280-70, therefore, we recommend a Building Permit be issued for this application in accordance with the Structural Analysis Report, dated September 29, 2015. 2. The Building Permit must state the following: a. All feed lines shall be installed inside the monopole structure as approved; b. The facility shall remain secured and protected from unauthorized personnel; c. All feed line access ports shall be sealed to prevent access by any birds or other wildlife; d. Construction activities and site access must be consistent with NYSDEC guidelines with regard to the active Osprey nest on the existing pole. Thank you for your cooperation. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST BUILDING DEPARTMENT Do you have or need the following,before applymg9 TOWN HALL Board of Health SOUTHOLD,NY 11971 4 sets of Building Plans TEL:(631)765-1802 Planning Board approval FAX:(631)765-9502 Survey Southoldtownny.gov PERMIT NO. Check Septic Form NYSDEC Trustees C 0 Application Flood Permit Examined ,20_ Single&Separate Truss Identification Form Storm-Water Assessment Form_ Contact: New York SMSA Limited Partnership dlb/a Venzon Wireless Approved 20_ Marl to c/o Amato Law Group, Disapproved a/c 666 Old Country Road,Suite 901,Garden City,New York 11530 Phone gig-277.saga Expiration .20_ Building Inspector APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date July 14 12017 INSTRUCTIONS a.This application MUST be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector with 4 sets of plans,accurate plot plan to scale Fee according to schedule b.Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildmgs on premises,relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas,and waterways. c The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit. d Upon approval of this application,the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant Such a permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work e No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose what so ever until the Building Inspector issues a Certificate of Occupancy f Every building permit shall expire if the wo rk authorized has not commenced withm 12 months after the date of issuance or has not been completed within 18 months from such date If no zoning amendments or other regulations affecting the property have been enacted in the interum,the Building Inspector may authorize,in writing,the extension of the permit for an addition six months Thereafter,a new permit shall be required APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Budding Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance ofthe Town of Southold,Suffolk County,New York,and other applicable Laws,Ordinances or Regulations,for the construction of buildings,additions,or alterations or for removal or mohhon es herein described The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws,ordinances,building code,housinode,and regulations,and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections New York S A P ers a less fC= ��reof phcant or name if a po o tioNName lialden Title fio..,o� rry�neer—EqupmentcloAaw Group,666 Old Country Road,Suite 901,New York III (Marling address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner,lessee,agent,architect,engineer,general contractor,electrician,plumber or builder LESSEE Name of owner of premises verlwn New York.Inc (As on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation,signature of duly authorized officer By: Name (Name and title of corpPjMte officer) Builders License No Plumbers License No. Electricians License No Other Trade's License No. 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done: 31775 Main Road Cutchogue House Number Street Hamlet County Tax Map No.1000 Section 97 Block s Lot 11 Subdivision Filed Map No Lot 2 State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a Existing use and occupancy Telecommunication facility and offices b. Intended use and occupancy NIC 3. Nature of work(check which applicable)-New Buildmg ■ Addition Alteration x Repair Removal Demolition Other Work (Description) 4 Estimated Cost $ 125,000 Fee (To be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling,number of dwelling units Number of dwelling units on each floor If garage,number of cars 6 If business,commercial or mixed occupancy,specify nature and extent of each type of use a,�ia„ernes 7 Dimensions of existing structures,if any Front 60 5, Rear 928' Depth 92 s• Height 1r Number of Stories f s Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions:Front Nrc Rear NIC Depth NIC Height Nic Number of Stones NIC 8 Dimensions of entire new construction.Front 20.a- Rear 20.4” Depth 32'-S" Height Number of Stones is 9. Size of lot Front Zoe' Rear 205 751 Depth ssp e9' 10 Date of Purchase May 7,19ss Name of Former Owner Maneewski.Tenn 11 Zone or use district in which premises are situated B/General Business 12.Does proposed construction violate any zoning law,ordinance or regulation?YES_NO X 13.Will lot be re-graded?YES_NO x Will excess fill be removed from premises'+YES_NO_ 14 Names of Owner of premises Verizon New York,Inc. Address (Please sea plans) Phone No Name of Architect APT Engineering Address_ (please see planes Phone No Name of Contractor Address Phone No 15 a.Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland or a freshwater wetland?*YES NO x *IF YES,SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES&D.E.C.PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. b.Is this property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland?*YES_NO X *IF YES,D.E C.PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. 16.Provide survey,to scale,with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines. 17.If elevation at any point on property is at 10 feet or below,must provide topographical data on survey. 18.Are there any covenants and restrictions with respect to this property?*YES_NO x *IF YES,PROVIDE A COPY. STATE OF NEW YORK) SS* COUNTY OFA( John d/b/a Verizon wireless Walden on behalf of New York SMSA Limited Partnership being duly swom,deposes and says that(s)he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract)above named, (S)He is the Agent/Lessee (Contractor,Agent,Corporate Officer,etc) of said owner or owners,and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application, that all statements contained in this application are tine to the best ofhis knowledge and belief,and that the work win be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith. Sworn to before me this New York SMS mated Partnership d/b/a Verizon wireless day of 20-1 ay. oL�ry P lac Signature of Applicant Name: John Walden Tide Senior Engineer-Equipment ARy'•:�y� 01 t67•D J tko�AUF1�DdNS'1? Y isUFF°M0.f- •'� tli dir.• PUBS:'� .......... or )Wlttit�` J TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST BUILDING DEPARTMENT Do you have or need the following,before applying? TOWN HALL Board of Health SOUTHOLD,NY 11971 4 sets of Buildmg Plans TEL:(631)765-1802 Planning Board approval FAX:(631)765-9502 Survey Southoldtownny.gov PERMIT NO. Check Septic Form NYSDEC Trustees C O Application Flood Permit Examined 20_ Single&Separate Thus Identification Form Storm-Water Assessment Form Contact: New York SMSA Limited Partnership dibla Verizon Wireless Approved 20_ Mail to c/o Amato law Group, Disapproved a/c 666 Old Country Road,Suite 901,Garden City,New York 11570 Phone gig-"7.sin-, Expiration .20_ Building Inspector APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT Date July 14 2Q17 INSTRUCTIONS a This application MUST be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Budding Inspector with 4 sets of plans,accurate plot plan to scale Fee according to schedule b Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildmgs on premises,relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or areas,and waterways c The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Buddmg Permit. d Upon approval of this application,the Building Inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant Such a permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work e.No budding shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose what so ever until the Buildmg Inspector issues a Certificate of Occupancy. I Every building permit shall expire if the wo rk authorized has not commenced within 12 months after the date of issuance or has not been completed within 18 months from such date If no zoning amendments or other regulations affecting the property have been enacted in the interim,the Building Inspector may authorize,m writing,the extension of the permit for an addition six months Thereafter,a new permit shall be required APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold,Suffolk County,New York,and other applicable Laws,Ordinances or Regulations,for the construction of buildings,additions,or alterations or for removal or demolition as herein described The applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws,ordinances,building code,housin code,and regulations,and to admit authorized inspectors on premises and m building for necessary inspections New Yorks A ers I ed n fireless tgnature Ap6liCant or name,if a corporation) N-- John Walden rue:Senior Engineer—Equipment C/ mato Law Group,666 Old Country Road,Suite 901,New York (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner,lessee,agent,architect,engineer,general contractor,electrician,plumber or builder LESSEE Name of owner of premises Verizon New York,Inc (As on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation,signature of duly authorized officer By. Name.(Name and title of corp flute officer) Builders License No. Plumbers License No Electricians License No. Other Trade's License No 1. Location of land on which proposed work will be done: 31775 Main Road Cutehogue House Number Street Hamlet County Tax Map No.1000 Section 97 Block s Lot 11 Subdivision Filed Map No. Lot 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occupancy of proposed construction: a. Existing use and occupancy Telecommunication facility and offices b. Intended use and occupancy Nrc 3 Nature of work(check which applicable) New Building ; Addition Alteration x Repair Removal Demolition Other Work 4. Estimated Cost a 125,000 Fee (Description) (To be paid on filing this application) 5. If dwelling,number of dwelling units Number of dwelling units on each floor If garage,number of cars 6 If business,commercial or muted occupancy,specify nature and extent of each type of use. a„Prr os 7 Dimensions of existing structures,if any:Front eo 61 Rear 928' Depth 676' Height Ir Number of Stories 113 Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions-Front NIC Rear NIC Depth NIC Height NIC Number of Stories NIC 8. Dimensions of entire new construction Front 20'4” Rear 20.4- Depth az'-6- Height Number of Stories is 9. Size of lot:Front zoo' Rear zos 76' Depth 650.69' 10.Date of Purchase May T,1965 Name of Former Owner Mahnowski_John 11.Zone or use district in which premises are situated B/General Business 12.Does proposed construction violate any zoning law,ordinance or regulation?YES_NO x 13.Will lot be re-graded?YES_NO x Will excess fill be removed from premises?YES_NO_ 14.Names of Owner of premises Verizon New York,Inc. Address (please see plans) Phone No. Name of Architect APT Engineering Address (please see Pians) Phone No Name of Contractor Address Phone No. 15 a.Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland or a freshwater wetland?*YES NO x *IF YES,SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES&D E C.PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. b.Is this property within 300 feet of a tidal wetland?*YES_NO x *IF YES,D.E.0 PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. 16.Provide survey,to scale,with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines. 17.If elevation at any point on property is at 10 feet or below,must provide topographical data on survey. 18.Are there any covenants and restrictions with respect to this property?*YES_NO x *IF YES,PROVIDE A COPY. STATE OF NEW YORK) S COUNTY OF AMA John dWa Verizon wireless Walden on behalf of New York SMSA Llmited Paership being duly sworn,deposes and says that(s)he is the applicant (Name of mdividual signcontract) rtn above named, (S)He is the Ageni/Lessee (Contractor,Agent,Corporate Officer,etc) of said owner or owners,and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this application, that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief,and that the work will be performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith Swop t efore me th1S New York SMSA LI ted Partnership dlbla Verizon wireless day of 20 i1 By. otary ublicSignature ofApplicant Name: J�r Jolty Waldenntle• Senior Engineer-Equipment .X-t A R '9 v .140.0 IfcauNtY pot-K Y= tl)Su o 6120 2�G r0 ��f.,rtrntr• SO�ryolo Town Hall Annex Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road N Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 G • Southold,NY 11971-0959 D BUILDING DEPARTMENT ENOV 1::20:17] D TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Planning Board DATE: November 1, 2017 TO: Heather Lanza, Planning Dept. FROM: Mice Verity, Building Dept. RE: Permit application for an alteration to an existing telecommunications facility located at 31775 Route 25, Cutchogue. S.C.T.M. 1000-97-5-11, for Verizon Wireless for your review. biz AMATO LAW GROUP, PLLC ,, r f+ �b[e- Ir COUNSELORS AT LAW t 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD I 9TH FLOORLG►`I ►I 4057 NGTON AVE GARDEN CITY,NEW YORK 11530 ,(� � 402 MAIN ST. CHRYSLER BLDG,26TH FLR ---- VQiy SUITE 204 NEW YORK,N.Y.10174 TEL.(516)227-6363 � METUCHEN,NJ 08840 TEL.•(212)485-6000 FAX:(516)227-6367 TEL:(732)317-1511 FAX:(212)485-6001 FAX:(732)317-1513 October 27,2017 BYHAND DELIVERY DD Building Department OCT 2 7 2017 Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road B€E-021 ?5"., Southold,New York 11971 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Re: Building Permit Application (the "Application") by New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless") to the Town of Southold in connection with the proposed public utility wireless communication facility (the "Communication Facility")to be collocated at 31775 Main Road,Cutchogue,New York, known and designated as District 1000, Section 97,Block 5,Lot 11 (the"Property") NYSMSA Site Reference:Cutchogue 2/Our File No. 100-0716 Dear Sir/Madam: In connection with Verizon Wireless' Application for the proposed Communication Facility at the Property,enclosed are the following materials: 1. Two(2)Application for Building Permit forms; 2. Survey of the Property; 3. Authorization and Consent,executed by the Property owner; 4. Consent to Inspection form,executed by the Property owner; 5. Structural Analysis Report, prepared, signed and sealed by APT Engineering, dated September 29,2017; 6. Four sets of Zoning Drawings,prepared, signed and sealed by APT Engineering, issued for filing on October 13,2017; 7. Correspondence from the Property owner,Verizon New York Inc.,dated October 18, 2017, regarding the history of the existing monopole on the Property (the "Monopole History Certification"); 8. Copy of 47 U.S.C. 1455(the"Spectrum Act"); 9. Copy of Federal Communications Commission Report and Order No. 14-153 (the"FCC Order");and 10. Application filing fee in the amount of$ Please note that pursuant to our review of the Title Report pertaining to the Property,there are no recorded covenants and restrictions. 7—,_ As you may be aware,the Spectrum Act and the FCC Order mandate an abbreviated, streamlined municipal application process for wireless communication facility applications which qualify as"eligible facilities requests," including a 60-day application review and approval deadline. Verizon Wireless respectfully submits that the Spectrum Act and FCC Order directly apply to its Application and require the Town's approval of the same, without the need for a protracted zoning process or a public hearing. Section 1455(a)(1)of the Spectrum Act provides,in relevant part,that: AMATO LAW GROUP, PLLC [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. Section 1455(a)(2)(A) of the Spectrum Act defines "eligible facilities request" as "[a]ny request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves . . . [the] collocation of new transmission equipment . . . ." Section 178 of the FCC Order defines "collocation" as "the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes." The term "eligible support structure" is defined in the FCC Order as "[a]ny structure that falls within the definitions of"tower" or "base station," . . . ." (Id.) Finally, "tower" is defined under § 166 of the FCC Order as"[a]ny structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any [Federal Communications] Commission-licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities." As depicted on the Zoning Drawings submitted herewith, Verizon Wireless is proposing to collocate antennas and equipment on the existing 90-foot tall Monopole (the "Monopole") located at the Property. Since, as indicated in the Monopole History Certification, the Monopole was built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting antennas and associated facilities licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, Verizon Wireless' Application involves a request for the "collocation of new transmission equipment"pursuant to § 1455(a)(2)(A)of the Spectrum Act. *As further depicted on the Zoning Drawings, such installation would not extend the height of the Monopole or protrude from the Monopole more than 20 feet.Verizon Wireless is also proposing to install additional equipment on the Property adjacent to the Monopole. Therefore, based upon the foregoing, Verizon Wireless' proposed collocation would "not substantially change the physical dimensions" of the Monopole or the base station as defined in the Spectrum Act and clarified in the FCC Order. As a result, the Application constitutes an "eligible facilities request" for a modification to the existing Monopole pursuant to the Spectrum Act and FCC Order that the Town"may not deny, and shall approve." Since approval of the Application is not discretionary under the Spectrum Act, any submission requirements beyond those that establish that the Application pertains to an eligible facilities request, which will not substantially change the physical dimensions of the Monopole, are preempted by the Spectrum Act. Based upon the following, it is respectfully requested that the Town Building Department administratively approve Verizon Wireless' Application without delay. If you should have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your attention to this Application. Very my y urs, Eric I Helman Enclosures cc: Verizon Wireless(via email,without enclosures) ��t)FFOL,tCot BUILDING DEPARTMENT-Electricat IFtSpectOAAR 1 7 2020 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Town Hall Annex- 54375 Main Road - PO Box 11,79, ;r -; Southold, New York 11971-0959,;,; _ Telephone (631) 765-1602-FAX(631) 765-9502 Y roger,richert(-town.southold,ny.us APPLICATION FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTION REQUESTED BY: Date: Company Name: C Name: License No.: email: Address: Phone No.: L G /l5` JOB SITE INFORMATION: (All Information Required) r Name: New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon wireless Address: 31775 Main Road,Cutchogue,New York 11935 Cross Street: Sterling Lane ±325 feet to the South Phone No.: (516)227-6363 Bldg.Permit#: tja k-i (0'3 email: eheiman@amatofirm.com Tax Map District: 1000 Section: 97 Block: 5 Lot: 11 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK(Please Print Clearly) Circle All That Apply: Is job ready for inspection?: YE NO Rough In Fina Do you need a Temp Certificate?: YES t NO Issued On Temp Information: (All Information rr�egquired) Service Size C I P-& 3 Ph Size: /tib A #Meters^� Old Meter# ew S rvice-Fire Reconnect- Flood Reconnect-Service Reconnected -Underground-Overhead #Underground Laterals 2 H Frame Pole Work done on Service? N Additional Information: PAYMENT DUE WITH APPLICATION -4 l�� 82-Request for Inspection FormAs OL O D BUILDING DEPARTMENT- Electrical Inspector 2 8 2020 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ,.� . .. Town Hall Annex- 54375 Main Road - PO Box 1179 • �=� OD Southold, New York 11971-0959 7moLD Telephone (631) 765-1802 - FAX (631) 765-9502 ' � - rogerr(aDsoutholdtownny.Qov sea nd(a�southoldtownny_gov E APPLICATION FOR ELECTRICAL INSPECTION. ELECTRICIAN INFORMATION (All information Required) Date: 7/22/20 Company Name: , Cel Tech Electric, Inc. Name: ward J. L_a_moreaux — License No.: 2539 email: glnagen i ce ec a ec fic.com t Address: _ 289 Hendrickson Ave Lynbrook-NY 1_1-563 Phone No.: 516 551-1213 JOB SITE INFORMATION (All Information Required) - Name: NY SMSA Limited Partnership DBA VerizonWirelss 4 Address: 31775 Main Road Cutchogue NY 11935 Cross Street: Sterling Lane 325 feet to the south Phone No.: Bldg.Permit#: ^ email: eh_elam_n amatofirm.com Tax Map=District:_ 1000 Sectiori: 97 Block: 11 - BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF WORK (Please Print Clearly) _ Electrical inspection on generator Circle All That Apply: Is job ready for inspection?: CjES / NO Rough In Final Do you need a Temp Certificate?: YES klNI Issued,On Temp Information: (All information required) Service Size 1 Ph 3 Ph Size: _ _ __A #Meters . _ Old Meter#New Service- Fire Reconnect- Flood Reconnect-Service Reconnected- Underground - Overhead I ' I #Underground Laterals 1 2 H Frame Pole Work done on Service? Y N AdditlOrialInformation,: „�I_e are requesting an inspection on the generator-as required so that we can close permit._ P_AYMEN_T_D1JE-WIT_H_APPLI-CAT_LON Request for Inspection FormAs R .,,c.�.......-Mu..masse,. - n;.,rRr.. r".-.-.:F,.,.,.�_<,i:,Pc,�.,n..�. •.� _•..,, -,...,,m,.�><->.�n_ .f..tu,. '.. ,,,..nr vW v,m.,,.�w�,»..�...�,�.,n._� .-,s ;��✓ _ _ 'xv, ., >. �.. �- ,V.,a`: >r cro ".., -te I.u.. , .. ,."« ° H ... �_ .. .f r[ .e , r♦ .Y, !; -. , ii'kn� � ,F'ne 5" rL r. tjM+ru y3 ^L...«,.y,.r ,n mn r e .ms_....,,e" _..-.,.._ �n.�.us,..•�,,...w-v:..:., ._ .,..... .....ia,.......,„..,.-”..a., �,.., Y" , t f 1,\' ' n......,i♦r.yRw .. s.as :w" y Js +}' .ea_-v L,:kms„-xn.. �*....° `..-r-n r �•k n,i.. v,", .l4`m.•..ns- ,-r<.,,..... - i -xi,Y F4 -a= T '-3 11<:,". _, - ..xr£.,,w-y�n,.-utcr.-;. ..+4i.*r.,.SR'v a.,.:x...en.4+:q`,jv+'A}ry_.tf��.,a��c •.,,w r rG«..a-•-^�..,.:R•r:.v4!>o->I.t,i,eJ'i _�•urs+e,<-,.t �fir.•.a,...n ,?-mu• .""ns,,.-3M.>r.r »r.n,�F,`u.+- m, *_ P-, a. . xW,.,fi x,«azwd'-r:..r�,e*c _ =X Y_—Y;ov,aa# xeiwrk it,5 To L,^ y " - .�r.F!"-Fia—V '� ,,�,- _�.!P ;}"^ . w....w... ....'a, °- „ •^'a�,f ''eY�Y. `Y,. ...,,-.-,-/-yr/meq .O- r�..�- »..,. ,.... .,.,y.,.«,..,_.-... .n .., _„....,.. ... ........... ..>.._,,.,.--- _' _ ` -" _"_ 5 _ ,'s+ti•. 00 i.,• i E.7k i t,.r%Xfi�'4+M Y;4ar`�r,x-J+*u y aNit`?.%sf.r- e-fCk.✓x:Y":F's,✓u'-�s.�ai-,v, u, eax'tW�tu'Wr"a-. i ,w�„'i'f:.. � , r , „-.,K`e.�_55}nr..r�'F,.,.u.rp�.�.n•r..v,.. -3.:nt....,.».._,r,.,...1 er n ,5 P"`A•;,,^r:,,c<^.� .. ....«»....,_ a ..-+-v.:ri n..,. ...e" a , .r,�r=♦ »....n_ , ,._-.r m+a+.n_.na_ .+ _,e, «v,..,_ ,. yr...,� emxn.-:,.•.w-r+c.w.n.. ...i ,.,.n.. .. .n - .n ....<...,.•rr al-r rn1- =,5:� a.,muNr .,roa',u...Jv+_L.v-a✓�.Y:_.. , ,. _.-..mss,� ._f. ,ar- ,� -, , i.i P. ., ant;a'e- .,"kq n,..r zl,h.:2v .We.=,.,� +,S'^Y-v., .a..:".i,ar-,-".'M..w,,i4�,-•,...X. � .,. , ✓�'ir..:•,...,F`e'3 �,ti 1000-96-3-9 LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF 1z.a PHC REALTY LLC 13.2 13.0 13.83'7 20.2 ' +20.4 ' 17.6 20.1 MONUFOUND T +4•0 N 47'06'20" E 205.75 15° 16.7 _Qt 6.3 +1 3.6 15.8 14.6 MONUMENT +13.8 FOUND --- -- +13.2 I o i U i m 16.4 18. 6,8 14.6 ri 14.1 ro 14. }�778 14.6 ' ' 17.9 15.2 15.0 +14.3 SITUMINous �3 30 13.5 (PAVEMENT 18.3 �i 14.73 15.9 13.78 14.89 WOODED 18.6 i ti 6.8 wL�'''{+f 7.9 14.0 �+ e I 15.0 ®} 13.9 18.6 e o X13.5 +13.6 �t4.5 Vey, M +16.4 i 1 I 16.8 19.5 LEC-EM 0) -+-'6'e CONCRETE CURB co O 3.5 DROP CURB LO IT +13.7 i WALL is 2 1 + I EDGE OF PAVEMENT N I T6 9 OH OVERHEAD WIRES as UU ~m ® STRUCTURE - MANHOLE 141 17'3 ® WATER VALVE � o v N FE3' I 0 d FIRE HYDRANT 10,5'E 12.9 1 }. m J a cSEWER VENT PIPE � 1s.ai m ir M_ +13.9 14.7 16.5 tD1 Z Q SiGN X i1 O Q CATCH BASIN 20.2 h IL t- a Q ® DRAINAGE INLET / STRUCTURE i 0 O `� UTILITY POLE 1 0 3� m I x Z}. c BOLLARD ~m no -x x- CHAIN LiNK FENCE 16.6 14.0 +4.1 +14.9 16.7 Z 16.3+ J Z -o o- IRON FENCE x X 15.3 Q 15.07 ,s.t� CONCRETE TREE LINE i < 4.2 x POL 74 9 < i 1 .6 i4.6 �� GUY WIRE ® MONITORING WELL x 0 U 16.6 14 4 }14J +5° s 7TREE E? I 20 PARKING STALL COUNT N w w I x r7.°+ I ec is:00 TOP/BOTTOM OF CURB IM O +16.00 SPOT ELEVATION to (EN OV of M 1- 1 O U ® x 16.b O O� 11.2 ow t 6.4 75.0 + 17.7 Z(n ,5.5 J C;; + +15.7 ip 76.3 16.6 + X17.3 tim I i O X M 17.2 16.3 16.7 6.8 +16.4 I V l i X 7.2 +17.0 x 16.62 E75 ~ 16.8 O i ,5.7 X 15.9 17.2 ° ,6.36 ° 0 1 OX -.P6.33 wA_ E RIM BITUMINOUS I L/1 _ f 15.60 PAVEMENT .0 V : F) X775 +592 r6.6 16.8 ` ` 1. THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE, AND IS NOT 16.15INTENDED TO BE USED FOR A TRANSFER OF Ti TLE OR ANY FINANCIAL i0-, , 8.5 +15.9 Z 16.46 GATE w +16.0 PURPOSE. x x i N 2. THiS SURVEY WAS PREPARED WITHOUT BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT AND 16.03 srAIR O ROOF ,6.1 00 THEREFORE, THE EXISTENCE OF ANY COVENANTS, RESTRICTIONS, ° N ° o EASEMENTS ANO/OR RIGHTS OF WAY OF RECORD, IF ANY, ARE NOT a SHOWN OR ADDRESSED. 0 0.4' 0.4 F ^� x +15.0 3. PROPERTY CORNER MONUMENTS WERE NOT PLACED AS PART OF THiS 5.2 SURVEY. ~� a c'- 4. SUBSURFACE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS WERE NOT EXAMINED OR 1 e.sr = o +5.s 0 Z CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS SURVEY. I STORY i x RIM ® ° BUILDING 1 0 J O 5. THE OFFSETS OR DIMENSIONS SHOWN FROM THE STRUCTURES TO THE 15.53 GAT F.F. EL.= ,s.s i - M Q PROPERTY LINES ARE FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND USE AND 15 78 POLE 1 Z THEREFORE ARE NOT INTENDED TO GUIDE IN THE ERECTION OF FENCES, + " a o.4 02 RETAINING WALLS, POOLS, PATIOS, PLANTING AREAS, ADDITIONS TO �01oa 2, n c`= 8.4' BUILDINGS OR ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION. r; 2.8' Cn 0:X 75.7 0.4 2,$' 0 J 6. LOT AREA - 134,332 SQ. FT. OR 3.08 ACRES. 1 N � r6.o+ts�so•(gF w4 0. a 16.08 16®s 151st 1 Q Z Z 7. ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON REFER TO N.G.V. DATUM 1988. N ad a a m Q 19.3 T 0- 0 f 5. , ° 60.5 r. 16.10 I Z T5 92 16.10 �_ C7 Q 16.11 Z --1 5.96 RfM2 16.03 �I it _ � ® 16.32 d m O.VALVE .�, UJ o ®. RIM 6.05 i T6.156.36 "_ i O .� 76 3 rZrGti' 4�Li' 1 �•+, I s�i ~m RIM REBAR E 76.22 ®75.71 +5'7 075.1 FOUND FE m + x � .6'E RIM s 16.68 RIM .!6.8 16.4`5 15 90 , 0 OH 1.100To COX LANE T 77.4 T 7. •':• -7 .52 BC Dole By 16.,55 Revision BC 76.55 T 4 �_, ... . .1 8C 16.19 aC 15.42 r , °H CH-•- SUryeyed by: MV Droned by: PR - checkedby: �/y Jg S 49038050" W 8° }4.84 14:48 4. +17.90 +17.55 200 00' SC 14.39 ` - Barrett +16.85 5.41 +, .90 4 AIN ROAD �. (66' MDE) �.� Van Weele, Pc (S-F?. 25) Civil Engineers� 175A Commerce Dr. Surveyors Hauppauge, NY 11788 T 631.435.1 11 1 Planners F 631.435.1022 www.bbvpc.com Tax Map No.: DISTRICT 1000 SECTION 97 BLOCK 5 LOT 11 of the props+1 depicted hereon signify That mitis plat PROPERTY of the propeiy depicted heroon was made In accordance with the et&ng Code of Practice f« land Surveyors adopted by the New York State SITUATE Association of Professional land Surveyors. This cedcalion is only for the ionds depleted hereon and is not amt fiost on of title,zoning«freedom C UTC ,Ve E of encumbrances. Said certifications shall run only to the persons and/or entities listed hereon and are not transferable adadditional persons, entities or subsequent owners. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, N.Y. unauthorized altero0on or addition to this survey Is a violation of Section 7209 of New York TO PO P H I C S U VEY stake Education law Copies of this sunny snap not bearing the land surveyor's embossed seal and signature shop Jo be a true and valid copy 2009 BBV PC VIEW: BNDY-TO BNDYY-TO not be considered tt) PO Date Scale Project No. S eet No. r FEBRUARY 26, 2009 1" = 30' A070815 � T o 1 r1A070815Wwg%A070815.dwg,BNDY-TOPO,3/9/2009 1:09:25 PM,Barrett,Boned&Van Weft P.C.,PAR verizon,/ _ 4 CENTEROCK ROAD ■ WEST NYACK,NY 10994 APT ENGINEERING 3SpDDLMROCKDRNE PHGNE 1469 }a6Z164! KLLINGW RTKCT4a119ver17on%l Fp%(886)9634935 W4NNALLPOINISTECXGON APPROVALS WEST NYACK, NEW YORK RFENGIxo GATE RF ENGINEER GATE PERMITTING DOCUMENTS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY NO DATE REVISION 0 2w"n7 FOR REVIEW SMC 1 OS09H7 ATTORNEY REVLSIOKS SNC 2 10113n7 RF N RESIONS RCB 3 "CUTCHOGUE 2 " 6 I 6 31775 MAIN ROAD CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OF RECORD DRAWING INDEX SITE INFORMATION PROF SCOTTM : CHASSE P.E. COMP ADD 3SADDLEBROOKDRIVE T-1 TITLE SHEET&INDEX VZW SITE NAME 'CUTCHOGUE2* KILLINGWORTH,CT 08018 �_- VZW LOCATION CODE 171056 OWNER, VERVONNEW rowL VZW PROJECT CODE 02006159147 SP-1 SITE PLAN TELEPHONE K ) PROJECT LOCATION 31775 MAIN ROAD, ADDRESS POBoxo5220'6 MP CUTCHOGUE,NY 11935 IRM0,Tx750154t006 9 A-1 PLANS,ELEVATION&DETAILS NOTE, T4ak olP4bn4 H SITE TYPEDESCRIPTION REMOVE(2)10 FOOT DISH ANTENNAS FROM EXISTING MONOPOLE INSTALL(12) ATE NEW PANEL ANTENNAS,(12)NEW RRMS,(3)NEW MOB'S ON NEW 4 SIDED ITIS AIOLAW OF NEWYORKS TIO EDUCATION209 ) LAW ARTICLE 1d5,SECTION A-2 ANTENNA PLAN&DETAILS PLATFORM W/QUAD BRACKET MOUNT ON EXIST POLE ADD(1)NEW TELCO 7403(])FOR ANYPERSOU,UNLE39 MESA CABINET TO NEW 20'-4°x32'-6°(660±SF)COMPOUND AREA W/8'CHAIN ACTING UNDER THE DIRECDON GFA Coats I+eOD�te9 LINK FENCE&GREEN PRIVACY SLATS AND EQUIPMENT CABINETS,1 OKW LICENSED PROFESSIONALONGINEEROR �°F4nemIHrnH_ LAHDSURVEYOR,TOALTERMITE1101 yDy:\ ppR,D41,re a �,,.; NATURAL-GAS POWERED DC-GENERATOR&(4)GPS UNITS ON 10'12' ANy WAY D'AN REM BEARING7HESEAL O \ C Y (fee P010e0afa ONCRETE PAD W/STEEL CANOPY(4)EXISTING BOLLARDS TO REMAIN,ADD(6) OFAN ENGINEER OR LANG SURVEYORIS '-r . 10 Konen//z1�, ,✓' NEW CONCRETE-FlLLED BOLLARDS AROUND COMPOUND AREA IXISTING ALTERED,THEALTEfUNOENGNEEROR (OWT) , �- / LANDS RVEYORSNALLAFFD(TO THE 1' ,✓ FENCE TO BE FINISHED W/GREEN PRIVACY SLATS ITEM HIS SEAL AND 711ENOTAnoN "ALTERED BY•FOLLOWED BYTE '``� ^ `•„� �I, _ _ PROPERTY OWNER VERIZON NEW YORK (F/K/A NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY) SIGNATURE AND THE DATE I ALTERAnox,wxowsPEcmC SUCN .a PO BOX 152206,IRVING,TX 75015-2206 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION. LEASING CONTACTROB MONTELEONE VERIZON WIRELESS AT s \ d SITE KEN 316-4626 v` "CUTCHOGUE 2" I _ _ CONSTRUCTION CONTACT KENNY UHLL SRE 31775 MAIN ROAD,ADDRESS CUTCHOGUE,NY11933 (631)256-2108 APTFENGNUMBER• NYtHsoO ' - _ -"".\\ • - - ENGINEER CONTACT ROBERT C BURNS PROJECTCODE 01006159147 jb .• - :. „ (860)663-1697x206 LOCATIONCODE 171DU _ f�JI�ef !{ ''�`,�, .� LATITUDE ° 41 01'1027°N VZW CN Ku DRAWN BY RCB _- -Yf- LONGITUDE 72°28'4849°W DATE owzsn7 CHECKED BY smc ELEVATION 1518'N G V DATUM 1988 DISTRICT 1000 VICINITY MAP SECTION 97 BLOCK 5 SCALE 1•=500' LOTS 11 SHEETTRLE ZONING JURISDICTION TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONE B(GENERAL BUSINESS) TITLE SHEET &INDEX APPLICANT VZW PROJECT ATTORNEY POWER2dAS PROVIDER TELCO PROVIDER DIG SAFELY NEW YORK GOVERNINGCODEs SHEETNUMBER. VERIZON AMATO LAW GROUP,PLLC PSE&G(800)436-7734 VERIZON (914)741-8300 (800)962-7962 2015 IBC:W/2016 NYS UNIFORM CODE SUPPLEMENT 4 CENTEROCK RD ATTN DENISE VISTA,ESO NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE WEST NYACK,NY 10994 SUITE 901 TIA-222-G 555 OLD COUNTRY ROAD T-1 GARDEN CITY,NY 11530 (516)227-6363 i J GREENREEK 65-9 HOUSE I BULK TABLE ■ LAINOWORFOR PJAL7Y LLERLY OF I 310WIN OF 5 MAIN ROAD CUiCHOGUE,NY V�'ZOn DISZONE AC SECTIONICT 1000, sEcnoN s7, 4 CENTEROCK ROAD BLOCKS ■J�J WJ I I L1 LOT11 WEST NYACK,NY 10994 ZONE B _ N 4x666 E—I I ZONED B(GENERAL BUSINESS) ITEM ALLOWABLE EXISTING NEW WIRELESS COMM FACILITY SPACE AREA(SF) 1.000 SF NA 120 SF APT TOWER HEIGHT(FTI 80 •90 NO ENGINEERING 4. MAXIMUM HEIGHT(FT) (2)STORIESMV 171 9'<Y 3SADDLE6RODK DRIVE PHONE(860}65}1691 FRONT YARD(FT) 100 MAX 5q•x KELE-E ORTH CT 06x19 FAX(6e9)6ai6936 N REAR YARD"EMERY/ACCESSOR'0(FI) 39 517Y NO W ALNOINTSMCHLOM O O SIDE YARD(R1IMARYIACCES�CRY)FF) 29 42'x 35'x APPROVALS VVOOO® Z BOTH SIDE YARDS(FI) 50 96'x 89'x m UWOLRD DATE Z MIN LOT AREA(SF) 30,000 134,332 SF NO m MIN LOT WIDTH FD 150 200 NO RF ENGINEER DATE W MIN LOT OEPI-[(FT) 150 651'x NO PERMITTING DOCUMENTS MAX%LOT COVERAGE 30% 122% 126% ® 1 O DATE IREVISION 009/26H7 FOR REVIEW SMG I 1 09129117 ATTORNEYREVMIONS SMC O 2 10113717 RF RE1I1810N5.RCB EXISTING �qqdZ STRUCTURE ; W�¢a NA KNOT APPPLICAB APPLICABLE S Y NC=NO CHANGE S I 1 o LL 3 SITE PLAN NOTES 1) PROPERTYOWNER VER¢ON OF NEWYORK g (VWa NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY) 1 PO BOX 152206 IRVING.TX 75015-2206 1 UBRE 5743,PAGE 67 p 2) NEW USE INSTALLATION OF PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICES FACILITY ON EXISTINO 90e AGL MONOPOLE W/NEW GROUND EQUIPMENT ATTI-E:BASE OF THE TOWER 3) BOUNDARY 8 TOPOGRAP"C INFORMATION TAKEN FROM MAP ENTITLED' H BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAP"CAL SURVEY OF PROPERTY SITUATE CUTCHOGUE, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY,STATE OF NEW YOW PREPARED BY • _T BARRET,BONACCI AND VANWEELE,PC OF HAUPPAUGE,NY DATED 0226N9 4) NO ADDITIONAL PARKING IS NEW,AS THE NEW GROUND FACILITY INSTALLATION IS UNMANNED 8 VISITED APPROXIMATELY ONCE/MONTH FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE 13 EXISTING PARKING SPACES OCCUPYTHE SITE ACCORDINGLY THE NEW I I I I IDEVELOPMENT WILL NOT ADVERSELY CHANGE OR AFFECT TRAFFIC PATTERNS 5) SUBJECT BUILDING ONSITE IS LOCATED WITHIN ZONE X FLOOD ZONE DESIGNIAT10N 1 (FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP#360813 COMMUNITY PANEL 163 of 1026) i 6) NEW EQUIPMENT SPACE WILL BE OUTFITTED WITH A I5OW EXTERIOR LIGHTCRAB DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OFRECORD #H101 B W/PAR38)(SEE SHEET C-1 FOR DETAILS) 7) NO STORM ER DRAINAGE.WATER SUPPLY,SEWAGE DISPOSAL REFUSE PROF SCOTT CHASSE P.E 1000-97-5-12 ® 1 STORAGE.IS REQUIRED.AS THE NEW INSTALLATION IS FOR AN UNMANNED COMP APTENGWEERNG SHOPPING CENTER I I FACILITY. ADD 3SADDLEBROOKDRNE LAND NOWORFORMERLYOF e) NO COMMERCIAL SIGNS OR SECURITY GRU-SIGRATES ARE NEW. KILLINGWORTH,CT 08419 SEROTA CUTCHOOUE LLC 9) ALL NEW UTILITIES FOR NEW EQUIPMENT WILL BE PROVIDED FROM NEARBY SERVICES CURRENTLY SERVIONG THE SITE, OWNER VERFONNEWYORK t0)NO DUST,FUMES,ODORS,OR VIBRATIONS WILL OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THE NEW (FIWANEWYORK 1 INSTALLATION ADDRESS TELEPHONE COMPANY) PO BO%452208, 3 1 I IRVNG.TX 75318.2206 b I NOTE IT 19 ATI0N LAW OFNEYYYORK,STATE LEGEND EO 9(2)FO LAW ART]CLE UNLESS Z 7209(2)FOR ANY PERSON,ION OF 1 _ ACTINO UNDER THE DIRECTION OFA — — E LICEN DROP CUM BOLLARD LAND SURVEYOR,TSR O ALTER AN TTT]0 N WALL CHAIN LEW FENCE AN YWAY.IFANREMBENONGTHESEAL li I EWE OFPAVEMENT STOCKADEFENCE OF AN ENGINEER OR LAND WRVEYORI9 T I ALTD.THE LANDSRLSHALLAFRXTOTHETERING ENGINEER R IRVEY M �ws OVERHEAD WIRES FENCE OTHER EXIST PROPERTY 0 STRUCTURE-MANHOLE 81�' TCP/EOTTOM OF CURB ITEM HIS SEAL AND THE NOTATION ME 0 STRUCTURE-TEEPHOKE SPOT ELEVATION •ALTERED SY•FOLLOWEDBY TIE I• O STRUCTURE-0 NAGE © CONCRETE SIGNATURE AND THE DATE OF SUCH 5.. 0 WATER VALVE r'y'y TREE UNE ALTERATION,ANO ASPECGIC _ __ • WATER METER ■ MONUMENT DESCRIPTION OF THEALTERATIOK - o FIRE HYDRANT HEDGE DRAINAGE INLET ® HANDICAP PARKING TREE VE"CUTCHOGUIZON E2 AT NEW VERQON WIREESS po 'CUTCHOGUE 2" I• I Z I ® RgRI0NGI90AR7POOBNT ITE 31775 MAIN ROAD, TELECOMMUNCgnONS FACILITY 35 1 1 5 I I ADDRESS CUTCHOGUE,NY 11975 W/EXISTING 90x AGL MONOPOLE I ¢O 8,NEW 10X12 EOUPMENT PAD W/ W I I 5Z 1 I I APT FLING NUMBER NY161300 STEEL CANOPY I 149'x g a0 PROJECT CODE 020 1 STORY 1000-97b-6 10: I I GAS STATION 061591N NEW LID TELCO SERVICE(TYP) 42'�FMS I BUILDING g O p LOCATION CODE 1710M 161•x 0o3zKU 1 gZ STRUCTURE I DATE N 0926H7 IE CHECO BY'SMC EXISTING DRIVEWAY ACCESS �u — I. ® 54'� 0 2SN 1 I 1 EXISTING SHRUBS EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING I F NEW UNDERGROUND UTILITIES Fq H ® STRUCTURE I STRUCTURE EXISTING Q 5'AWAY FROM EXISTING I Tv N TRANSFORMER 1 I STRUCTURE SHEETTTTE' ON-SITE U/G DRAINAGE — STRUCTURES F1 • I b I I �J — _ — —_• E 1000.9789 _E—E ® — COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN EXISTING TELCO S 49.3850'W POLE(1A545) NEW U/G ��"��//,,'' SHEETNUMBER — NEW U/G GAS _ ELECTRICAL ,�� — SERSERV OE SERCEOYP) SITE PLAN1-41111-4- SP-1 MAIN ROAD SCALE 1 'a• 1000-103-1-1912 FARM #000-1031-193FARM —— _ X NEW VERZON WIRELESS(12)PANEL ANTENNAS NEW ��I�O�� 230•.30')W/(12)RRHS&(3)MOBS MOUNTED ON NEW 4 1 EXISTING 90'±AGL MONOPOLE W/(2) EXISTING DUMP5TER AREA SUED PLATFORM W/QUPD BRACKET MOUNT MOUNTED I-Y 1 C-FOOT DISH ANTENNAS REMOVED TO EXISTING 900t AGL MONOPOLE W/AN=NNA c @ 87-10'±AGL 4 CENTEROCK ROAD WEST NYACK,NY 10994 NEW VERIZON WIRELESS 3 PHASE NEW VER20N WIRELESS 20'4.1C92'-6'(6602 SF)LICENSED 200A METER AND DISCONNECT EXISTING PARKING KING AREA W/&CHAIN UN(FENCE&GREEN PRIVACY SLATS I / 120/208V ON UTILITY BACKBOARD STALL(TYP 12PL) A TTT I NEW VER¢ON WIRELESS EQUIPMENT I r--n ENGINEERING u CABINETS,1CKW NATURAL-GAS POWERED NEW TELCO MESA CABINET OC-GENERATOR&(4)GPS UNITS ON 10X12 I I I 3SADDLEBROOKDRIVE PHONE(860)70}169/ CONCRETE PAD W1 STEEL CANOPY I I II -=wO"RCTwLL FAX(fifiB)683 s ' X WWWAUPOINVI-1290m ! EXISTING DOUJIRD(iYP 4-0U&(5) I HYBRID CABLES ROUTED W/IN APPROVALS NEW CONCRETE-FLLEO BOLLARDS EXISTINGTOWERW/NEWENTRY& 1_.._ RD DATE EXIT PORTS RF ENGINEER GATE NEW VERZON WIRELESS I PERMITTING DOCUMENTS 20'4X32''-6'(660.SF)COMPOUND NEW TELCO MESA CABINET AREA W/8'CHAIN UN(FENCE& X4- L EXISTING FENCE I O DATE REVISION GREEN PRIVACY SLATSW/ST' S EXISTING FENCE'f0 BE FINISHED W/GRE 0 091267] FOR REVIEW SNC NEW VER20N WIRELESS 3 PHASE PRIVACY SLATS 1 09/29/1]ATTORNEYREVISIONS SMG 200A METER AND DISCONNECT i 2 10/13M7 RF REVISIONS.RCB EXISTING BOLLARD(TVP 4PU&A t 201208V ON UTILITY BACKBOARD 3 NEW CONCR^ETEFILLED BOLLARDSX X 4 S X EXISTING FENCE NEW Ur.OAS SERVICE S I W/STAIRS I FROM EXISTING GAS MAIN 2 TO NEW SE IZON EQUIPMENT UIP M SPIACE(TYPOUIPMEM' 157ROAD67BNGVNEW VER20N WIRELESS DAs X DATUM 1988 T E/f FI/f— EQNPMEMCABWETS,IONW EXISTING i T i —T —T —T— — —T—r — — —i—Tj NATURAL-GA.)POWERED 1STORY E—E— —EFE E —E —E —E E E—E EXISTING EXISTING TELCO DC-GENERATOR&(4)GPS UNITS BUILDNG TRANSFORMER POLE Mn#545) ON 10X12'CONCRETE PAD W/ NEW UNDERGROUND TO STEELCANOPY I Iw SUBJECT SITE LM (FI FROM VERIZON ENEW Up/ELECTRIC SERVICE FROM NEW TELCO SERVICE FROM EXISTING. APPROX LOCATpN OF ' F 31775 MAIN ROAD EXISTING ONSITE Up WIRELESS ICE EXISTING TRANSFORMER TO NEW NEW TEL(EMS OMESATING POLE CABYT INET M EXISTING DRYWBI- CUTCHOGUE W11935 DRAINAGE STRUCTURES BRIDGE UTILITY BACKBOARD NEW TELCO MESA SPAN CABINET(fYP) MAINTAIN&CLEARANCE X N3)30' DISTRICT 1000,SECTION 97,BLOCK 5, LOT 11 ZONINO JURISDICTION TOWN OF i • SOUTHOLD,ZONE B(GENERAL BUSINESS) EXIST R FENCE SECTION TO BE REMOVED NEW VERZON WIRELESS ICE z SOUTHERN ELEVATION DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OFRECORD NEW VER20N WIRELESS(12)PPNEL BRUGEWl(3)6x12HYBRID A•7 SCALE.Y."1'-0' (IN FEET)14we'18 R. pROF SCOTTM CHASSE PP. ANTENNAS(120',230•,30)W/02)RRHS& CABLES ROUTED WITHIN POLE NG (SMDBSVOUNTEDONNEW4SIDED 1 I TO ANTENNAS COMP APT EOLEBRO K PLATFORM W/QUAD BRACKET MOUNT AS MAINTAIN 3 CLEARANCE AROUND EXISTING NOTE NEW UNDERGROUND UTILITIES&EQUIP ADD 39ADLEBROODRIVE MO UNTEDTOEXISTINO90'.AGL I DRYWELL-INSTALL SILTSACK EROSION CONTROL SLAB@ SAWAV FROM EXISTING ONSTTE UG KILLINGWORTH,CT08419 MONOPOLE W/ANTENNA 1 @ 87110'±AOL U I 1` EXISTING DRAINAGE STRUCTURES II 10-FOOTDIS AN MONOPOLE REMOVED BE EXISTING 0CRDOLLARDTEFL ED 4PURDS OWNER. VEAZONNEWYORK AND OTDISHANTENNASREMOVED EXISTINGFENCETO SLATS NEW CONCRETE-FILLED BOLLARDS (F1WA NEW YORK EASTNO FENCE TO BE FINISHED N1)120• W/GREEN PRNACV SLATS / w AND PORTED TOP 8 BOTTOM FOR / ADDRESS TELEPHONE COMPANY) W/GREEN PRIVACY SLATS I VERZON CABLING / PO SOX 152208, y N2)230' NEW VER20NLESSAREA W/VCHAIN IRVNG,TX 74015.2206 u I 3 O—O REMOVE EXISTING OP (660±ENCSLICENSEDEN PRI ACY SLATS NEW UNDERGROUND UTILITIES @ 5' X CONCRETE WHEEL STOP LINK FENCE R GREEN PRIVACY SLATS NEW UNDERGROUND AWAY FROM EXISTNG ONSITE U/G r yI I UTUTES@SAWAY FROM IT 118 A VIOLATION OF NEWYORK STATE DRAINAGE STRUCTURES EZ ONSITE Up a� CONNECT NEW FENCE 70 NEW SILT FENCE(TVP) E STRUCTURES EDUCATION209(2) LAW ARTICLE 14 UNLESS a EXISTING FENCE @CORNER ]209(2)FOR ANY PERSON,UNIE9S FR ACT NG THE RECTION OFA EXISTING SIDEWALK NEW V WIDE CHAIN LINK ACEINSEDNPROFESSIOINALENWALTERAMNEEROR SURVEYOR EXISTING DRIVEWAY y O GATE W/GREEN PRIVACYLAND dw IIEMIN EXISTING SLATS ^_EXISTING ON B I EXISTING U/G TANK EXISTING DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY ANYWAY ffEEREMBEAWNGTIESEAL NEW TELCO SERVICE FROM D(ISTWG TRANSFORMER TELCO NEN/ OF AN ENGINEER 00.LAND 6URVEYORI9 DETELC(EXISTING POLE NYTTIND, 1 I d I I ESA LANNDRSURVEORLSHALL AFFIXTO THE R • CABINET ITEMNISSEALANDTHENOTATION W/TELCO MESA SPAN CABINET(fYP) I �w X Y X x —x —x —x —X I O 'ALTERED BY'FOLLOWED BYTIE I �'" SIGNATURE AND THE DATE OF SUCH NEW ELECTRIC SERVICE FROM ❑ NEW VF:FR20N WIRELESS 3 I ALTERATION,AND A SPECPIC 6 00 6 00 NEW Up GAS SERVICE FROM EXISTWGTRANSFORMERTONEW GPS UNIT(TVP 4PU Ad DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERIITOK y I EXISTING FENCE SECTION EXISTING GAS MAW TO NEW VER20N UTILITY BACKBOARD + X WIRELESS EOUIPMEM SPACE(fYP) 3L —=—Ew TO BE REMOVED I y O E E —E—E—E —E—E —E —E —E—E— VERIZON WIRELESS AT F �= _.UT CHOGUE2" O x ■— --- —■ x y SDE CUTCHAINROAD, OH X I ADDRESS CUTCHOGUE,NY 11935 EXISTING SIDEWALK (V/)120 I Um: p I I APTFRNG NUMBER'NY141300 4 MAIN ROAD 9E DETERMINED BYYLMA�FrYCOMvTDEXISTING TELCO POLE(NIT#545) EXISTNG Up GAS X ANY! X I O LOCATION CODE 171050 EDC OF ROAD CURB SERVICE ALONG EXISTING GO'±AGL MONOPOLE W/(2)1Gf00T I I I yZW CM KU DRAWN BY RCB DISHANTENNASREMOVEDANDPORTEDTOP& i1 I NEW VER20N WIRELESS EQUIPMENT I BOTTOM FOR NEW VERZON WIRELESS CABLING I I CABINETS,1 OKW NATURAL-GAS DATE ONZ6H7 CHECKED BY SM0 / I POWERED OC-GENERATOR&(4)GPSUNITS ON m 1; PARTIAL SITE PLAN I I TELCO I STEEL CANOPY CONCRE EPADW/ NEW VERZON WIRELESS(12)PANEL I PANEL I H A-� SCALE Ye'"1,•0• ANTENNAS(120•,230*,3Dr)W/02)RRHS&(3) _----- x • \ MOB'S MOUNTED ON NEW 4 SIDED PLATFORM l W/QUAD BRACKET MOUNT MOUNTED TO AZ X SHEETwrLE EXISTIND 90'±AGL MONOPOLE W/ANTENNA 1 ` N3)30' ET—Err—� Err—Fn �( E( @8710 AGL NEWVERZONWIRELESSICEBRIDGEW/(3) x PLANS, 6x12 HYBRID CABLES ROUTED WITHIN POLE ELEVATIONS& (IN FEET)I1B III A EXISTING FENCE TO BE FINISHED TO HYBRID ABLEWENTRV&EXR PORTS X EXISTPIG FENCE SECTION W/GREEN PRIVACY SLATS TO BE REMOVED 1625 DETAILS I REQUIRED) S 6 25 I 9HEETNUMBER (a)ENLARGED COMPOUND PLAN 2 NEWVER20NWIRELESS3 A-1 6 PHASE 200A METER AND 9 A-� SCALE'Y-110- (N FEETIIN°M1•4 M1 A0 DISCONNECT 120/208V ON UTILITY BACKBOARD verizon,ol 4 CENTEROCK ROAD WEST NYACK,NY 10994 iNGEPT NGINEERING 3—MEBROOKDRNE PHONE(060}6011691 KLUNGWORTK.T00910 FAK(880)0640415 W NM1Y ALlP01NTSTECHGOM APPROVALS LANDLORD• GATE RF ENGINEER DATE PERMRiNG DOCUMENTS O DATE REVISION 009/26/17 FOR RENEW SMG 09/29H]ATTORNEY REVISIONS SNC 2 M9 2 1011367 RF REVISIONS.RCB 1016'-4 SIDED WIRELESS 3 LOW PROFILE PLATFORM 4 W/QUAD BRACKET 5 MOUNT(COMMSCOFE 8 PM 3MC-PK12L4-9 W/ UNNERSAL TOP RAIL KIT NEW PLATFORM TOP RAL COMMSCOPE P/N (BEYOND) y 1 �II YMC-TR4-12) NEW ANTENNA f� I��i l III��f'I I Nil Ii! MOUNTING PIPE IfI �i 4VII` Ili NEW MOB 6PFL4 +I I LOCATION (1)NEW MOB MOUNTEDTONEW ANTENNA MOUNT AT EA SECTOR (TOTAL OF 3) _Af ANTENNA A NEW GPS UNITWIR A LESSN N Pt-1l4 STD STANDARD PIPE -` WIRELESS ANTENNA N (y2)230° SKIS r 90'x ACL (2)A323 BOLTS MONOPOLE (,/3)30° LOW-ONUE PLATFORM DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OF RECORD LOW PROFILE PLATFORM Y`L'BOLT W/QUADC<YP) BRACKET MOUNT 6.6x6.%BEM PLATE P (COMMSCOPE PROF SOD III CHASSE P.E. (COMMSM C0 P:APTENGNEERNG BMC-PK12L4-B W/ CANOPY FRAME ADO 3SADOLEBROOKDRNE UNIVERSAL TOP RNL KR (4)NEW RRHS COMMSCOPE PM KILLING WORTH,CT 06419 MOUNTED TO NEW BMC-TR4-12) ANTENNA MOUNT OWNER V/KJANEERIZON YOYORK AT EA SECTOR (FIWA NEW YORK (TOTAL OF 12) (j:)ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL nGPS UNIT MOUNT ADDRESS TELEPHONE COMPANY) A-2 SCALE Y2'•1'-0• p.2 SCALE N Te PO BOX 13220 0 IRVNG,TX 76015.7206 NOTE IT IS A VIOLATION OF NEW YORKSTATE EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 146,SECTION 7209(2)FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OFA LICENSED PROFESSIONALENGINEEROR LAND SURVEYOR TOALTERANREMN ANY WAY IF AN REM BEARING THE SEAL OF AN ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR IS NEW VERSON WIRELESS ANTENNA ALTERED,THE ALTERING ENGINEER OR ITS (TOTAL OF 12) LANG SURVEYOR SXALL AFFlXTO THE ITEM HIS SEAL AND THENOTATION "ALTERED BY•FOLLOWED BV THE SIGNATURE AND THE DATEOF SUCH ALTERATION,ANDASPECIFIC 11)120° DESCRIPTION OF TXEALTERALTER ATIOK VERIZON WIRELESS AT •CUTCHOGUE 2" ANTENNA MOUNTING PLAN ADDRESS OUTC ocUE,Nr1193s p.2 SCALE.N.T.S. APTFLNGNUARIER` NY141300 PROJECTCODE 02006159147 LOCATION CODE 171056 VZW CM KU DRAWN BY RCB DATE ON26I7] CHECKED BV SMC SHEETTT E` ANTENNA PLAN &DETAILS SHEETNUMBER• A-2 AMATO LAW GROUP, PLLC , r i 1 [t COUNSELORS AT LAW L I 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD i !� 9TH FLOOR 405 LEXINGTON AVE GARDEN CITY,NEW YORK 11530 402 MAIN ST. CHRYSLER BLDG,26TH FLR -"""" SUITE 204 NEW YORK,N.Y.10174 TEL:(516)227-6363 METUCHEN,NJ 08840 TEL:(212)485-6000 FAX:(516)227-6367 TEL:(732)317-1511 FAX:(212)485-6001 FAX:(732)317-1513 October 27,20 7D (� 2 73 OVR BYHAIVDDELIVERY Building Department OCT 2 7 2017 Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road BIJ?I ID-12KI4 1I)E IT. Southold,New York 11971 TOWN OF SO OLD Re: Building Permit Application (the "Application") by New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless") to the Town of Southold in connection with the proposed public utility wireless communication facility (the "Communication Facility")to be collocated at 31775 Main Road, Cutchogue,New York, known and designated as District 1000, Section 97,Block 5,Lot 11 (the"Property") NYSMSA Site Reference: Cutchopme 2/Our File No. 100-0716 Dear Sir/Madam: In connection with Verizon Wireless' Application for the proposed Communication Facility at the Property, enclosed are the following materials: 1. Two(2)Application for Building Permit forms; 2. Survey of the Property; 3. Authorization and Consent,executed by the Property owner; 4. Consent to Inspection form,executed by the Property owner; 5. Structural Analysis Report, prepared, signed and sealed by APT Engineering, dated September 29,2017; 6. Four sets of Zoning Drawings,prepared, signed and sealed by APT Engineering, issued for filing on October 13,2017; 7. Correspondence from the Property owner,Verizon New York Inc., dated October 18, 2017, regarding the history of the existing monopole on the Property (the "Monopole History Certification"); 8. Copy of 47 U.S.C. 1455 (the"Spectrum Act"); 9. Copy of Federal Communications Commission Report and Order No. 14-153 (the"FCC Order"); and 10. Application filing fee in the amount of$ Please note that pursuant to our review of the Title Report pertaining to the Property, there are no recorded covenants and restrictions. As you may be aware,the Spectrum Act and the FCC Order mandate an abbreviated, streamlined municipal application process for wireless communication facility applications which qualify as "eligible facilities requests," including a 60-day application review and approval deadline. Verizon Wireless respectfully submits that the Spectrum Act and FCC Order directly apply to its Application and require the Town's approval of the same, without the need for a protracted zoning process or a public hearing. Section 1455(a)(1)of the Spectrum Act provides,in relevant part,that: AMATO LAW GROUP, PLLC [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. Section 1455(a)(2)(A) of the Spectrum Act defines "eligible facilities request" as "[a]ny request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves . . . [the] collocation of new transmission equipment . . . ." Section 178 of the FCC Order defines "collocation" as "the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes." The term "eligible support structure" is defined in the FCC Order as "[a]ny structure that falls within the definitions of"tower" or "base station," . . . ." (R) Finally, "tower" is defined under § 166 of the FCC Order as "[a]ny structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any [Federal Communications] Commission-licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities." As depicted on the Zoning Drawings submitted herewith, Verizon Wireless is proposing to collocate antennas and equipment on the existing 90-foot tall Monopole (the "Monopole") located at the Property. Since, as indicated in the Monopole History Certification, the Monopole was built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting antennas and associated facilities licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, Verizon Wireless' Application involves a request for the "collocation of new transmission equipment"pursuant to § 1455(a)(2)(A)of the Spectrum Act. °As further depicted on the Zoning Drawings, such installation would not extend the height of the Monopole or protrude from the Monopole more than 20 feet. Verizon Wireless is also proposing to install additional equipment on the Property adjacent to the Monopole. Therefore, based upon the foregoing, Verizon Wireless' proposed collocation would "not substantially change the physical dimensions" of the Monopole or the base station as defined in the Spectrum Act and clarified in the FCC Order. As a result, the Application constitutes an "eligible facilities request" for a modification to the existing Monopole pursuant to the Spectrum Act and FCC Order that the Town"may not deny, and shall approve." Since approval of the Application is not discretionary under the Spectrum Act, any submission requirements beyond those that establish that the Application pertains to an eligible facilities request, which will not substantially change the physical dimensions of the Monopole, are preempted by the Spectrum Act. Based upon the following, it is respectfully requested that the Town Building Department administratively approve Verizon Wireless' Application without delay. If you should have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your attention to this Application. Vezy my y urs, �r Eric J.Helman Enclosures cc: Verizon Wireless(via email, without enclosures) verizon, April Yalenezian 79 High Street Engineer IV Consultant-Network Engineering Wareham,MA 02571 Phone(508)273-0581 april.l.yalenezian@verizon.com October 18,2017 VIA HAND DELIVERY Building Department Town of Southold 54375 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Re: Building Permit Application ("Application") by New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless")to the Town of Southold in connection with the proposed public utility wireless communication facility ("Communication Facility") to be collocated at 31775 Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, known and designated as District,1000, Section 97, Block 5, Lot 11 ("Property") NYSMSA Site Reference: Cutchogue 2/Our File No 100-0716 Dear Sir/Madam: I am the network engineer for the owner of the Property, Verizon New York Inc. I submit this letter in support of Verizon Wireless' Application for the proposed Communication Facility at the Property, including the collocation of antennas and equipment on the existing 90'-0"monopole (the "Monopole"). Please allow this correspondence to confirm that the Monopole was built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting antennas and associated facilities licensed by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). Based upon the records for Verizon New York Inc. the Monopole was built on or around 1980 to support two microwave dish antennas to facilitate FCC-licensed common carrier fixed point to point microwave transmissions pursuant to FCC Call Sign WFY631 FRN No. 0003469442. A copy of the corresponding FCC Radio Station Authorization is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 1 1 � 4 It is my understanding that this certification was prepared in connection with Verizon Wireless' "eligible facilities request"under applicable federal laws'. Very truly yours, VERIZON NEW FORK INC. N e: April Yalene an T' e: Engineer IV onsultant etwork Engineering 47 U.S.C.§ 1455(a);In re Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies,Report and Order,FCC 14-153,Oct.21,2014,WT Docket No. 13-238,29 FCC Rcd. 12,842,80 Fed.Reg. 1238(Jan.8,2015),available at 2 a o Town Hall Annex Telephone(631)765-1802 54375 Main Road CO- Fax(631)765-9502 P.O.Box 1179 • Q Southold,NY 11971-0959 'Q D BUILDING DEPARTMENT N O V 0 1 2 017 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold fawn Planning Board DATE: November 1, 2017 TO: Heather Lanza, Planning Dept. FROM: Mike Verity, Building Dept. RE: Permit application for an alteration to an existing telecommunications facility located at 31775 Route 25, Cutchogue. S.C.T.M. 1000-97-5-11, for Verizon Wireless for your review. f , Exhibit A FCC Radio Station Authorization 3 Y � a REFERENCE COPY This is not an official FCC license.It is a record of public information contained in the FCC's licensing database on the date that this reference copy was generated.In cases where FCC rules require the presentation,posting,or display of an FCC license,this document may not be used in place of an official FCC license. Federal Communications Commission W o ;. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION 10 LICENSEE: LEPHONE COMPANY Y . Call Sign ATTN:E A HELL `_ WFY631 File Number NEW YORK TELEPHO ,�.�� A�NY ' 395 FLATBUSH AVE E , 'F 5P6_ BROOKLYN NY 11201 - ,.� Radio Service CF-Common Carrier Fixed Point to Point Microwave v' SMSA Station Class FCC Registration Number(FRN):00 6` 442 Grant Date Effec i66�' i`ae�`% Expiration Date Print Date 08-29-1990 08-�91�90�� 08-01-2000 Fixed Location Address or Area of Operation: 689 MAIN STREET X,41691`1 City:CUTCHOGUE County: SUFFOLK Statel �_. Antenna Structure Loc No. Location Name Latitude 10 gitud", Elevation Registration No. 001 CUTCHOGUE 41-01-05.3 N 0 ' 3.3 9.1 3.k r: 002 WEST RVHD 40-53-07.3 N 072 41_34--A 61.0 003 NOYACK 40-58-11.3 N 072-20 47.2 77.1 FREQUENCY PAlk S Frequency Tol Emission EIRP Constr Path Seg Emit Ant Hgt Gaing,.� ea POL AZIM Rec Rec (MHz) (%) Desig (dBm) Date No Loc (m) e dBi = :;L #g)'� (deg) Loc Call No eflector No Sign (m)xWd(tn 11365.0 0.00500 20MOF7W 79.500 001 1 001 21.3 '�5. 38 V 115.2 003 WFY693 11445.0 0.00500 20MOF7W 79.500 001 1 001 21.3 46.5 :8 r 4 115.2 003 WFY693 11245.0 0.00500 20MOF7W 82.000 002 1 001 25.9 49.0 0. 30.4 002 KEM20 11325.0 0.00500 20MOF7W 82.000 002 1 001 25.9 49.0 0. Y V ; 230.4 002 KEM20 11405.0 0.00500 20MOF7W 82.000 002 1 001 25.9 49.0 0. ° ', l 4: '230,4 002 KEM20 11565.0 0.00500 20MOF7W 82.000 002 1 001 25.9 49.0 0.6 V 30 4 002 KEM20 Conditions: Pursuant to§309(h)of the Communications Act of 1934,as amended,47 U.S.C.§309(h),this license r sit`s c�to h4 following conditions: This license shall not vest in the licensee any right to operate the station nor any right in theuse of the frequencies designated in the license beyond the term thereof nor in any other manner than authorized herein. ,e� erthe license nor the right granted thereunder shall be assigned or otherwise transferred in violation of the Coru ratio s5Act of 1934,as amended. See 47 U.S.C. §310(d). This license is subject in terms to the right of use or control dc' 'We by§706 of the Communications Act of 1934,as amended. See 47 U.S.C. §606. FCC 601-M Page 1 of 2 August 2007 r ' Licensee Name: NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY Call Sign:WFY631 File Number: Print Date: Frequency To[ Emission EIRP Constr Path Seg Emit Ant Hgt Gain Beam POL AZIM Rec Ree (MHz) (%^ �esig (dBm) Date No Loc (m) (dBi) (deg) (deg) Loc Call No Reflector No Sign Ht(m)xWd(m) 11645.0 0.U•E02, { F7W 82.000 002 1 001 25.9 49.0 0.6 V 230.4 002 KEM20 11605.0 05'00 . OF7W 79.500 003 1 001 21.3 46.5 0.8 H 115.2 003 WFY693 Waivers/ConditY s: NONE s3 FCC 601-M Page 2 of 2 August 2007 AMATO LAW GROUP, PLLC COUNSELORS AT LAW 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD 9TH FLOOR 405 LEXINGTON AVE GARDEN CITY,NEW YORK 11530 402 MAIN ST. CHRYSLER BLDG,26TH FLR --` SUITE 204 NEW YORK,N.Y.10174 TEL:(516)227-6363 METUCHEN,NJ 08840 TEL: 212 FAX:(516)227-6367 TEL:(212)485-6000 TEL:(732)317-1511 FAX:(212)485-6001 FAX:(732)317-1513 October 27,2017 BY HAND DELIVERY D IMF,0V1E Building'Depattinent DD Town of Southold Town Hall Annex OCT 2 7 2017 54375 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 � r,, y { , 1�FJ�..��DE��Te TO OF SOF. HOLD Re: Building Permit Application (the "Application") by New York SA L1m1te Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless") to the Town of Southold in connection with the proposed public utility wireless communication facility (the "Communication Facility")to be collocated at 31775 Main Road, Cutchogue,New York, known and designated as District 1000, Section 97,Block 5,Lot 11 (the"Property") NYSMSA Site Reference: Cutchogue 2/Our File No.-100-0716 Dear Sir/Madam: In connection with Verizon Wireless'Application for the proposed Communication Facility at the Property,enclosed are the following materials: 1. Two(2)Application for Building Permit forms; 2. Survey of the Property; 3. Authorization and Consent,executed by the Property owner; 4. Consent to Inspection form,executed by the Property owner; 5. Structural Analysis Report, prepared, signed and sealed by APT Engineering, dated September 29,2017; 6. Four sets of Zoning Drawings,prepared, signed and sealed by APT Engineering, issued for filing on October 13,2017; 7. Correspondence from the Property owner,Verizon New York Inc., dated October 18, 2017, regarding the history of the existing monopole on the Property (the "Monopole History Certification"); 8. Copy of 47 U.S.C. 1455(the"Spectrum Act"); 9. Copy of Federal Communications Commission Report and Order No. 14-153 (the"FCC Order");and 10. Application filing fee in the amount of$ Please note that pursuant to our review of the Title Report pertaining to the Property,there are no recorded covenants and restrictions. As you may be aware,the Spectrum Act and the FCC Order mandate an abbreviated, streamlined municipal application process for wireless communication facility applications which qualify as"eligible facilities requests," including a 60-day application review and approval deadline. Verizon Wireless respectfully submits that the Spectrum Act and FCC Order directly apply to its Application and require the Town's approval of the same, without the need for a protracted zoning process or a public hearing. Section 1455(a)(1)of the Spectrum Act provides,in relevant part,that: AMATO LAW GROUP, PLLC [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. Section 1455(a)(2)(A) of the Spectrum Act defines "eligible facilities request" as "[a]ny request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves . . . [the] collocation of new transmission equipment . . . ." Section 178 of the FCC Order defines "collocation" as "the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes." The term "eligible support structure" is defined in the FCC Order as "[a]ny structure that falls within the defmitions of"tower" or "base station," . . . ." (Id.) Finally, "tower" is defined under § 166 of the FCC Order as "[a]ny structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any [Federal Communications] Commission-licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities." As depicted on the Zoning Drawings submitted herewith, Verizon Wireless is proposing to collocate antennas and equipment on the existing 90-foot tall Monopole (the "Monopole") located at the Property. Since, as indicated in the Monopole History Certification, the Monopole was built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting antennas and associated facilities licensed by the Federal Communications Commission, Verizon Wireless' Application involves a request for the "collocation of new transmission equipment"pursuant to § 1455(a)(2)(A) of the Spectrum Act. As further depicted on the Zoning Drawings, such installation would not extend the height of the Monopole or protrude from the Monopole more than 20 feet. Verizon Wireless is also proposing to install additional equipment on the Property adjacent to the Monopole. Therefore, based upon the foregoing, Verizon Wireless' proposed collocation would "not substantially change the physical dimensions" of the Monopole or the base station as defined in the Spectrum Act and clarified in the FCC Order. As a result, the Application constitutes an "eligible facilities request" for a modification to the existing Monopole pursuant to the Spectrum Act and FCC Order that the Town"may not deny, and shall approve." Since approval of the Application is not discretionary under the Spectrum Act, any submission requirements beyond those that establish that the Application pertains to an eligible facilities request, which will not substantially change the physical dimensions of the Monopole, are preempted by the Spectrum Act. Based upon the following, it is respectfully requested that the Town Building Department administratively approve Verizon Wireless' Application without delay. If you should have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your attention to this Application. Very my y urs, 1, Eric J. Helman Enclosures cc: Verizon Wireless(via email, without enclosures) AMATO LAW GROUP, PLLC COUNSELORS AT LAW 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD 9TH FLOOR 405 LEXINGTON AVE GARDEN CITY,NEW YORK 11530 402 MAIN ST. CHRYSLER BLDG,26TH FLR ---- SUITE 204 NEW YORK,N.Y.10174 TEL:(516)227-6363 METUCHEN,NJ 08840 TEL:(212)485-6000 FAX:(516)227-6367 TEL:(732)317-1511 FAX:(212)485-6001 FAX:(732)317-1513 November 16,2017 D��--- �- --•-� . (C N V- i VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS ' Planning Board Office NOV 1 a 2017 Town of Southold Town Hall Annex Southold Town 54375 State Route 25 Planning Board Southold,New York 11971 Attn.: Brian A. Cummings Re: Building Permit Application (the "Application") by New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless") to the Town of Southold in connection with the proposed public utility wireless communication facility (the "Communication Facility")to be collocated at 31775 Main Road, Cutchogue,New York, known and designated as District 1000, Section 97,Block 5,Lot 11 (the"Property") NYSMSA Site Reference: Cutchogue 2/Our File No. 100-0716 Dear Mr. Cummings: In connection with Verizon Wireless' Application for the proposed Communication Facility at the Property, enclosed is a check, payable to the Town, in the amount of$8,500.00, which represents the escrow payment for the Town's use of a technical consultant pursuant to § 280-74A(d) of the Town Code and as requested in your enclosed correspondence. Please provide an update once Verizon Wireless' Application has been reviewed. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. Thank you. e ru yours, Eric J. Helm'Flan Encl. cc: Verizon Wireless(via email, w/out encl.) AMATO LAW GROUP, PLLC COUNSELORS AT LAW 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD 9TH FLOOR 405 LEXINGTON AVE GARDEN CITY,NEW YORK 11530 402 MAIN ST. CHRYSLER BLDG,26TH FLR --- SUITE 204 NEW YORK,N.Y.10174 TEL:(516)227-6363 METUCHEN,NJ 08840 TEL:(212)485-6000 FAX:(516)227-6367 TEL:(732)317-1511 FAX:(212)485-6001 FAX:(732)317-1513 D BYHAND DELIVERY Building Department APR - ? 2018 Town of Southold Town Hall Annex ' 54375 Main Road TOWN OF SGUTILOW Southold,New York 11971 Re: Building Permit Application(the"Application")by New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless")to the Town of Southold in connection with the proposed public utility wireless communication facility (the "Communication Facility") to be collocated at 31775 Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, known and designated as District 1000, Section 97,Block 5,Lot 11 (the"Property") NYSMSA Site Reference: Cutchogue 2/Our File No. 100-0716 Dear Sir/Madam: We represent Verizon Wireless in connection with its Application for the Communication Facility at the Property. In connection with same, enclosed are the following materials: 1. Structural Analysis Report ("Structural Report"), prepared, signed and sealed by APT Engineering, dated March 27, 2018 (replacing the original Structural Analysis Report dated September 29,2017); 2. Antenna Site FCC RF Compliance Assessment and Report("FCC Report"),dated March 29, 2018 (replacing original Antenna Site FCC Compliance Report dated July 11,2017,and submitted December 14,2017 by email); 3. Four (4) sets of Construction Drawings, prepared, signed and sealed by APT, Engineering, issued for filing on March 23,2018; 4. Certificates of Liability, Disability, and Worker's Compensation Insurance, naming the Town as an additional insured and the Certificate Holder, from Comcell Construction Corp.,the project contractor; 5. Certificates of Liability, Disability, and Worker's Compensation Insurance, naming the Town as an additional insured and the Certificate Holder,from Charles M.Dwyer,Inc.,the project electrician; 6. Copy of Verizon Wireless' October 27,2017 Application submission(pursuant to the request of a Town Building Department representative); and 7. Check payable to the Town,in the amount of$550.00,representing the remainder of the Application filing fee. The enclosed Structural Report and FCC Report reflect minor updates to the equipment that is proposed as part of the Communications Facility. The updated equipment is to be located in the same positions as the previously proposed equipment and is lighter,reducing the calculated structural loading on the existing monopole. r AMATO LAW GROUP, PLLC Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the Town Building Department issue a Building Permit without delay. If you should have any questions regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you for your attention to this Application. Ve lyours, Eric J.Helm Enclosures cc:Verizon Wireless(via email,without enclosures) 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD, 9TH FLOOR AMATO GARDEN CITY,NY 11530 LAW GROUP, P L L C TEL: 516.227.6363 1 FAX: 516.227.6367 D 1 May 11, 2018 MAY 1 6 2018 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS B0 G D ETA Town of Southold TOWN OF SOUT110= Building Department Town Hall Annex 54375 Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Change of Contractor for Building Permit No. 42463 (the "Building Permit") issued by the Town of Southold (the "Town") Building Department to New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless") in connection with the proposed public utility wireless communication facility (the "Communication Facility") to be collocated at 31775 Main Road, Cutchogue New York, Suffolk Cty. Tax Map designation District 1000, Section 97,Block 5,Lot 11 NYSMSA Site Reference: Cutchogue 2/Our File No. 100-0716 Dear Sir or Madam: In connection with the enclosed Building Permit, please note that Verizon Wireless has retained Cel Tech Electric, Inc. ("Cel Tech") as the general contractor for work in connection with the Communication Facility. As Cel Tech was not the contractor listed on the Building Permit materials, we are writing to ensure that the Town's Building Department is aware of this change. In addition, please find enclosed a copy of Cel Tech's: (1) Certificate of Worker's Compensation Insurance; (2) Certificate of Liability Insurance; and (3) Certificate of Disability Insurance. If everything is in order,please change the contractor of record for the Building Permit to Cel Tech. Should you have any questions regarding the foregoing, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, India De armme Encls. cc: Verizon Wireless (via email w/o enclosures) 405 LEXINGTON AVENUE I CHRYSLER BUILDING,26TH FLOOR I NEW YORK,NY 10174 1 212.485.6000 402 MAIN STREET I SUITE 204 1 METUCHEN,NJ 08840 1 732.317 1511 Q � � T � j � verinwireless - AUG 2 9 2019 5 . August 28,2019 BYHAND DELIVERY Building Department Town of Southold Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Re: Request for Renewal of Building Permit No.42463,in connection with the public utility wireless communication facility (the "Communication Facility") located at 31775 Main Road, Cutchogue,New York,known and designated as District 1000, Section 97,Block 5, Lot 11 (the"Property") NYSMSA Site Reference: Cutchogue 2/Our File No 100-0716 Dear Sir/Madam: On behalf of New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, the applicant with regard to Building Permit No. 42463 ("Building Permit"), the undersigned hereby requests a six month extension/renewal of the Building Permit. This is the first such request made in connection with the Building Permit. Thank you for your attention to this matter. I have enclosed a copy of the Building Permit for your convenience. New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless By: _kpzZ_ NaJohn Walden Tit Sineer IV - Equipment 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD, 9TH FLOOR AMATOGARDEN CITY, NY 11530 LAW GROUP, P L L C TEL: 516.227.6363 FAX: 516.227.6367 March 17, 2020 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS a Building Department Town of Southold MAY 1 4 2020 Town Hall Annex 54375 Main Road Southold,New York 11971 Attention: Damon Rallis - - Re: Request for Extension of Building Permit No. 42463 ("Building Permit") issued to NYSMSA Limited partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless(Verizon Wireless"), in connection with the approved public utility wireless communication facility (the "Communication Facility") to be collocated at 31775 Main Road, Cutchogue, New York, known and designated as District 1000, Section 97, Block 5,Lot 11 (the"Property") NYSMSA Site Reference: Cutchogue 2/Our File No. 100-0716 Dear Mr. Rallis: Please be advised that Amato Law Group PLLC represents Verizon Wireless, the permit holder with regard to Building Permit No. 42463. The Building Permit is set to expire on March 18, 2020 and Verizon Wireless is currently in the process of closing the same out. Presently, the Planning Department has recommended that a Certificate of Occupancy issue (see March 11, 2020 Memorandum from the Planning Director, attached), and (as you and I discussed on the phone on March 16, 2020), there is a final inspection scheduled with the Building Department on March 27, 2020,which date is beyond the Building Permit's expiration.Accordingly, if necessary, and in order to accommodate the final inspection and any other items incidental to the close out of the Building Permit,the undersigned hereby requests an extension of the Building Permit. I have also enclosed a copy of the Building Permit for your convenience. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, India DeCarmine Enclosure cc: Verizon Wireless(via ema}l, without enclosures) x? i al 405 LEXINGTON AVENUE CHRYSLER BUILDING,26TH FLOOR NEW YORK,NY 10174 212.485.6000 402 MAIN STREET I SUITE 204 1 METUCHEN,NJ 08840 1 732.317.1511 i666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD, 9TH FLOOR AMATOGARDEN CITY, NY 11530 LAW GROUP, P L L C APR - 2 2020 TEL: 516.227.6363 1 FAX: 516.227.6367 elaJ- <� �e refs J� -7-Ir Len se'l ke 7 a-ot-- -&o1 7 4� 12 d l v . ,e V/-- hAs Al2m It 0 CGU // �S S ue `�'71s 405 LEXINGTON AVENUE CHRYSLER BUILDING,26TH FLOOR NEW YORK,NY 10174 212.485 6000 D 02 MAIN STREET I SUITE 204 1 METUCHEN,NJ 08840 1 732.317.1511 CC'a� aC�,S I' jo / oZ/'��L� CLl S 1� )01 CGc..S -e CUSS lei I Ol/ 0 pL, Der 117-1//7 e- (63 Bunch, Connie From: Bunch, Connie Sent: Friday,July 10, 2020 10:25 AM To: ''Jessica Zalin' Subject: Verizon wireless For BP 42463 located at 31775 Route 25, Cutchogue we require an electric inspection form and a fee of$85.00 for the generator that was installed at the site.Just have the electrician that installed the generator fill out the form and along with the check can be mailed to Southold Building Dept. P.O. Box 1179,Southold, NY 11971.The generator was . inspected so no additional inspections will be required and once we receive the form and check we can process the Certificate of Occupancy. If you have any questions just let me know. Best Regards, Connie Bunch Southold Town Building Dept. - 1 N K Workers' CERTIFICATE OF YSTATE Compensation NYS WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE COVERAGE Board 1 a.Legal Name&Address of Insured(use street address only) 1 b Business Telephone Number of Insured (516)599-1144 Cel Tech Electric,Inc 289 Hendrickson Ave 1 c NYS Unemployment Insurance Employer Registration Number of Lynbrook,NY 11563 Insured Work Location of Insured(Only required if coverage is specifically limited to r 1d.Federal Employer Identification Number of Insured or Social Security certain locations in New York State,Le,a Wrap-Up Policy) Number 47-0880310 2.Name and Address of Entity Requesting Proof of Coverage 3a.Name of Insurance Carrier (Entity Being Listed as the Certificate Holder) Continental Indemmty Company Town of Southold 3b.Policy Number of Entity Listed in Box"l a" 53095 Route 25 55-808225-01-10 PO Box 1179 Southold,NY 11971 3c.Policy effective period 1/01/2018 to 1/01/2019 3d.The Proprietor,Partners or Executive Officers are FX included.(Only check box if all partners/officers included) 7 all excluded or certain partners/officers excluded This certifies that the insurance carrier Indicated above in box"3"insures the business referenced above in box"1 a"for worlers' compensation under the New York State Workers'Compensation Law.(To use this form,New York(NY)must be listed under Item 3A on the INFORMATION PAGE of the workers'compensation insurance policy). The Insurance Carrier or its licensed agent will send this Certificate of Insurance to the entity listed above as the certificate holder in box"2" Will the carrier notify the certificate holder within 10 days of a policy being cancelled for non-payment of premium or within 30 days if cancelled for any other reason or If the insured is otherwise eliminated from the coverage Indicated on this certificate prlorto the end of the policy effective period? Zx YES [:]NO This certificate is issued as a matter of Information only and confers no rights upon the certificate holder.This certlficatedoes not amend, extend or alter the coverage afforded by the policy listed, nor does It confer any rights or responsibilities beyond those contained In the referenced policy. This certificate may be used as evidence of a Workers'Compensation contract of insurance only while the underlying policy is h effect. Please Note:Upon cancellation of the workers'compensation policy indicated on this form,if the business continues to be named on a permit,license or contract issued by a certificate holder,the business must provide that certificate holder with a new Certificate of Workers'Compensation Coverage or other authorized proof that the business is complying with the mandatory coverage requirements of the New York State Workers'Compensation Law. Under penalty of perjury,I certify that I am an authorized representative or licensed agent of the insurance carrier referenced above and that the named insured has the coverage as depicted on this form. Approved by. Patrick Scanlon (Print name of authorized representative or licensed agent of insurance carrier) Approved by: Qom- W 05/10/2018 (Signature) (Date) Title: Managing Partner Telephone Number of authorized representative or licensed agent of insurance carrier 212-947-4298 Please Note:Only insurance carriers and their licensed agents are authorized to issue Form C-105.2.Insurance brokers are NOT authorized to issue it. C-105.2(9-15) www.wcbny.gov DATE(MM/DD/YYYY) A�" CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE 05/10/2018 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND,EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S),AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER,AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT. If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED,the policy(ies)must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED,subject to the terms and conditions of the policy,certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER CONTACT William Anthony,Jr NAME' R&W Brokerage,Inc PHONE (516)599-3322 FAX 516)599-4377 A/C No Ext• FAX No 8 Forest Avenue E-MAIL wanthony/r@rwbrokeragecom ADDRESS. INSURER(S)AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# Lynbrook NY 11563 INSURERA. Merchants Preferred Ins Co 12901 INSURED INSURER B: Merchants Mutual Ins Co 23329 Edward Lamoreaux INSURER c: Westchester Fire Ins Co Cel Tech Electric Inc INSURER D: 289 Hendrickson Avenue INSURER E: Lynbrook NY 11563 INSURER F: COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: 17/18 Master REVISION NUMBER: THIS IS TO CERTIFYTHATTHE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT,TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACTOR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAYBE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN,THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS INSR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY EFF POLICY EXP LTR INSD WVD POLICY NUMBER MM/DD/YYYY MMIDD/YYYY LIMITS X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1,000,000 DAMA CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR PREMIGSEESTO(ERa=nrel $ 500,000 FX X Contractual Liability MED EXP(Any one person) $ 10,000 A X XCU Not Included Y CMP9155147 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 PERSONAL&ADV INJURY $ 1,000,000 GEN'LAGGREGATE LIMITAPPLIES PER GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 POLICY PRC F-1 LOC PRODUCTS-COMP/OPAGG $ 2,000,000 JECT OTHER $ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 1,000,000 Ea accident X ANYAUTO BODILY INJURY(Per person) $ A OWNED SCHEDULED CAP1050080 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 BODILY INJURY(Per accident) $ AUTOS ONLY AUTOS HIRED NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $ AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY Per accld.rA Uninsured Motorist $ 1,000,000 UMBRELLA LIAB 10,000,000 OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE $ B EXCESS LIAR HCLAIMS-MADE CUP9141474 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 AGGREGATE $ 10,000,000 DED I X RETENTION$ 10,000 $ WORKERS COMPENSATION PER OTH- AND EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY YIN STATUTE ER ANY PROPRIETORMARTNER/EXECUTIVE ❑ NIA EL EACH ACCIDENT $ OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? (Mandatory in NH) E L DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE $ If yes,describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E L DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $ Excess Umbrella each occurrence $5,000,000 C N11003114001 12/31/2017 12/31/2018 aggregate $5,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES (ACORD 101,Additional Remarks Schedule,maybe attached if more space Is required) Proof of Insurance Installation/Builders Risk—Policy 6045875847—Continentlal Casualty Co 2/15/20118-2/15/2019 Limit $1,000,000 Professional Liability-Policy LHYA22604004-Hanover Ins Co 2/15/2018-2/15/2019 Limit $1,000,000 Town Of Southhold is named as an additional Insured CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF,NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN Town Of Southhold ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS 53095 Route 25 PO BOX 1179 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE Southhold NY 11971 ©1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25(2016/03) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD YORK Workers' CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE COVERAGE STATE Compensation Board DISABILITY AND PAID FAMILY LEAVE BENEFITS LAW PART 1.To be completed by Disability and Paid Family Leave Benefits Carrier or Licensed Insurance Agent of that Carrier 1a.Legal Name&Address of Insured(use street address only) 1 b.Business Telephone Number of Insured CEL TECH ELECTRIC INC 516-599-1144 289 HENDRICKSON AVENUE LYNBROOK,NY 11563 1 c.Federal Employer Identification Number of Insured Work Location of Insured(Only required if coverage is specrticallylimited to or Social Security Number certain locations in New York State,i.e,Wrap-Up Policy) 470880310 2.Name and Address of Entity Requesting Proof of Coverage 3a.Name of Insurance Carrier (Entity Being Listed as the Certificate Holder) ShelterPoint Life Insurance Company Town of Southhold 3b.Policy Number of Entity Listed in Box"1 a" 53095 Route 25, PO BOX 1179 DBL328928 Southhold, NY11971 3c.Policy effective period 01/01/2018 to 12/31/2018 4. Policy provides the following benefits: © A.Both disability and paid family leave benefits. B.Disability benefits only. E] C.Paid family leave benefits only. 5. Policy covers- 2) A.All of the employer's employees eligible under the NYS Disability and Paid Family Leave Benefits Law. E] B.Only the following class or classes of employer's employees: Under penalty of perjury,I certify that I am an authorized representative or licensed agent of the insurance carrier referenced above and that the named insured has NYS Disability and/or Paid Family Leave Benefits insurance coverage as described above. Date Signed 5/10/2018 By Vda hf (Signature of insurance carrier's authorized representative or NYS Licensed Insurance Agent ofthat insurance carrier) Telephone Number 516-829-8100 Name and Title Richard White, Chief Executive Officer IMPORTANT: If Boxes 4A and 5A are checked,and this form is signed by the insurance carrier's authorized representative or NYS Licensed Insurance Agent of that carrier,this certificate is COMPLETE. Mail it directly to the certificate holder. If Box 4B,4C or 5B is checked,this certificate is NOT COMPLETE for purposes of Section 220, Subd.8 of the NYS Disability and Paid Family Leave Benefits Law. It must be mailed for completion to the Workers'Compensation Board, Plans Acceptance Unit, PO Box 5200,Binghamton, NY 13902-5200. PART 2.To be completed by the NYS Workers'Compensation Board (Only if Box 4C or 513 of Part 1 has been checked) State of New York Workers' Compensation Board According to information maintained by the NYS Workers'Compensation Board,the above-named employer has complied with the NYS Disability and Paid Family Leave Benefits Law with respect to all of his/her employees. Date Signed By (Signature of Authorized NYS Workers'Compensation Board Employee) Telephone Number Name and Title Please Note:Only insurance careers licensed to write NYS disability and paid family leave benefits insurance policies and NYS licensed insurance agents of those insurance carriers are authorized to issue Form DB-120.9.Insurance brokers are NOT authorized to issue this form. p DB-120.1 (10-17) 111111 P 111111m11111111111 III III 1 ALL- POINTS TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT 90' MONOPOLE TOWER CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK Prepared for Verizon Wireless Verizon Site: Cutchogue 2 September 29, 2017 Of NEP ycf'F� 0782651 ��Ga Fsst APT Project#NY141305 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE KILLINGWORTH,CT 06419•PHONE 860-663-1697 FAX 860-663-0935 OO 116 GRANDVIEW ROAD•CONWAY,NH 03818•PHONE 603-496-5853•FAX 603-447-2124 r STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT 90' MONOPOLE TOWER CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK prepared for Verizon Wireless EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: All-Points Technology Corporation, P.C. (APT) performed a structural analysis of this 90-foot monopole tower located at 31775 Main Road in Cutchogue, New York. The analysis ,was performed for Verizon Wireless's proposed removal of two high performance dishes and installation of twelve panel antennas, twelve remote radio heads (RRHs) and three power/fiber distribution boxes (D-boxes) on a 12'-6" square platform with rails at 88'. Feed lines will be three 1-5/8" hybrid power/fiber lines, assumed to be installed inside the pole by means of new entry/exit ports installed in the existing tower. Our analysis indicates the tower meets the requirements of the New York State Building Code with the proposed antennas and associated equipment. The tower foundation could not be evaluated, as information on its design or construction was not available to APT. The foundation is likely to be adequate considering proposed loads are significantly less than current loads and the tower has substantial additional capacity. INTRODUCTION: A structural analysis of this communications tower was performed by APT for Verizon Wireless. The tower is located at 31775 Main Road in Cutchogue, New York. APT previously visited the tower site on October 11, 2006. Robert O. Parrott climbed the tower in its entirety to compile data necessary to perform the structural analysis. The structure is a 90-foot, 12-sided tapered steel monopole of unknown manufacturer. Pole steel was assumed to be ASTM Grade A572-60, while base plate steel was assumed to be ASTM A570-50 with Grade A615-75 anchor bolts. These assumptions are on the conservative end of the range of typical values for monopoles of this type. The analysis was conducted using the following antennas (two existing high-performance dishes at 65' and 82' to be removed): Antenna Elev. Mount Coax. (12)X7CQAP-465 panel antennas,(6) 700MHz 88' 12'-6"square platform (3) hybrid RRHs, (3)AWS RRHs, (3)PCS RRHs, 3 RDC-3315-PF-48 D-boxes w/sure protector All-Points Technology Corporation 116 Grandview Road 3 Saddlebrook Drive Conway, NH 03818 Killingworth, CT 06419 (603) 496-5853 (860) 663-1697 r � Verizon Wireless September 29, 2017 90'Monopole, Cutchogue, NY page 2 Verizon Site: Cutchogue 2 APT Project#NY141305 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS: Methodology: The structural analysis was done in accordance with TIA/EIA-222, Revisions F and G (TIA), Structural Standards for Antenna Supporting Structures and Antennas. The more stringent of the two TIA revisions, in this case Revision G, was used to compute tower capacity values shown below. The analysis was conducted using a 120-mph 3-second gust wind speed with no ice and 50- mph with 3/4" of radial ice over the structure and associated appurtenances in accordance with TIA. The TIA Standard requires a basic wind speed of 110 miles per hour for Suffolk County, New York. Structure Class: II Exposure Category: C Topographic Category: 1 Analysis Results: The following table summarizes the capacity of the tower based on combined axial and bending stresses: Elevation Capacity 70'-90' 9% -----_ 30'-50' _24%The base foundation could not be evaluated, as information on its design or construction was not available to APT. The foundation is likely to be adequate considering proposed loads are significantly less than current loads and the tower has substantial additional capacity. Factored base reactions imposed with the proposed antennas were calculated to be as follows: Compression: 24.6 kips Total Shear: 33.4 kips Overturning Moment: 1834 ft-kips All-Points Technology Corporation 116 Grandview Road 3 Saddlebrook Drive Conway, NH 03818 Killingworth, CT 06419 (603) 496-5853 (860) 663-1697 Verizon Wireless September 29, 2017 90'Monopole, Cutchogue, NY Page 3 Verizon Site: Cutchogue 2 APT Project#NY141305 CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: As detailed above, our analysis indicates that the existing 90' monopole tower located at 31775 Main Road in Cutchogue, New York meets the requirements of the New York State Building Code with Verizon Wireless's proposed equipment changes. The base foundation could not be evaluated, as information on its design or construction was not available to APT. The foundation is likely to be adequate considering proposed loads are significantly less than current loads and the tower has substantial additional capacity. LIMITATIONS: This report is based on the following: 1. Tower is properly installed and maintained. 2. All members are in an undeteriorated condition. 3. All bolts are in place and are properly tightened. 4. Tower is in plumb condition. All-Points Technology Corporation, P.C. (APT) is not responsible for any modifications completed prior to or hereafter which APT is not or was not directly involved. Modifications include but are not limited to: 1. Adding or relocating antennas. 2. Installing antenna mounting gates or side arms. 3. Extending tower. APT hereby states that this document represents the entire report and that it assumes no liability for any factual changes that may occur after the date of this report. All representations, recommendations, and conclusions are based upon the information contained and set forth herein. If you are aware of any information which conflicts with that which is contained herein, or you are aware of any defects arising from original design, material, fabrication, or erection deficiencies, you should disregard this report and immediately contact APT. APT disclaims all liability for any representation, recommendation, or conclusion not expressly stated herein. All-Points Technology Corporation 116 Grandview Road 3 Saddlebrook Drive Conway, NH 03818 Killingworth, CT 06419 (603) 496-5853 (860) 663-1697 Appendix A Tower Schematic s00ft % _ DESIGNED APPURTENANCE LOADING TYPE ELEVATION TYPE ELEVATION (4)X7CCAP-065-VRO 68 ALU PCS 825 RRH2x60 w/bracket 88 � (4)X7COAP-465-VRO 88 ALU RRH2x40 700MHz w/bracket 88 o mo N (4)X7CQAP-465•VRO 88 ALU RRH2x40 700MHz Wbrackel 88 0 0 (2)ALU RRHMO-AWS w/bracket 88 N o a m NALU RRH2x40 700MHz wPorarJcet 88 � w (2)ALU RRH2x60-AWS w/bracket 88 Raycap ROC-331 5-PF-48 J-box 88 (2)ALU RRH2x60-AWS w@racket 88 Raycap RDC-3315-PF-48 J-box 88 ALU PCS B25 RRH2x60 w/bracket 68 Rayoap RDC-3315-PF-48 J-box 68 ALU PCS B25 RRH2x60 w/bracket 58 12'-6"square platform Wrails 88 I MATERIAL STRENGTH GRADE FY Fu GRADE FY Fu 70 0 ft A572-60 160 ksi 175 ks, 0 0 om o m o 'o o 'o 50 0 ft o O m N N O N Ci A fp Q 30 0 ft 0 ? N N r ALL REACTIONS ARE FACTORED AXIAL 36979 Ib SHEAR MOMENT 10 a ft 472516��__�� y 265067 lb-ft 50 mph WIND-0 7500 in ICE AXIAL o � o o 246171b O N SHEARMOMENT 3341116 Z1834080 lb-ft 00ft REACTIONS-120 mph WIND N m d V v N — Q _ r E a rn n E � � m a Z IL- F m 0 All-Points Technology Corporation lob 90'Monopole Tower 116 Grandview Road Protect NY141305 CutChogue 2 Conway, NH 03818 C"l-Venzon Wireless Dram by Rob Adair Appd Phone (603)496-5853 Code TIA-222-G Dale 09/29/17 Srae N FAX 603 447-2124 Path Dvg No ZlSIv1oENPV OIfiawcMwWM1Y191YLCUR eWY1<tYb CNc�e aG deCcrtno l } Appendix B Calculations WxTower Job Page 90' Monopole Tower 1 of 3 All-Points Technology Project Date Corporation NY141305 Cutchogue 2 15,59.30 09/29/17 116 Grandview Road Conway,NH 03818 Client Phone (603)496-5853 Designed by FAX (603)447-2124 Verizon Wheless Rob Adair Tower Input Data This tower is designed using the TIA-222-G standard. The following design criteria apply: Tower is located in Suffolk County,New York. Basic wind speed of 120 mph. Structure Class II. Exposure Category C. Topographic Category 1. Nominal ice thickness of 0.7500 in. Ice thickness is considered to increase with height. Ice density of 56 pcf. A wind speed of 50 mph is used in combination with ice. Deflections calculated using a wind speed of 60 mph. A non-linear(P-delta)analysis was used. Pressures are calculated at each section. Stress ratio used in pole design is 1. Local bending stresses due to climbing loads, feed line supports,and appurtenance mounts are not considered. Tapered Pole Section Geometry Section Elevation Section Splice Number Top Bottom Wall Bend Pole Grade Length Length of Diameter Diameter Thickness Radars f ft ft Sides in in in in L1 90 00-70 00 2000 000 12 300000 387780 03750 15000 A572-60 (60 ksi) L2 7000-50.00 2000 000 12 387780 475560 03750 1.5000 A572-60 (60 ksi) L3 50 00-30 00 2000 000 12 475560 563340 0.3750 15000 A572-60 (60 ksi) L4 30 00-10 00 2000 000 12 563340 65 1120 03750 15000 A572-60 (60 ksi) L5 10.00-0.00 1000 12 65 1120 695010 03750 15000 A572-60 (60 ksi) Feed Line/Linear Appurtenances Description Face Allow Component Placement Total CAAA Weight or Shield Type Number Leg ft ft2�ft f 157"Hybrid fiber-power A No Inside Pole 8800-600 3 No Ice 000 066 cable 1/2"Ice 000 066 1"Ice 000 066 Discrete Tower Loads Description Face Offset Offsets A_-imuth Placement C4A4 C4A4 Weight or Type Hor= Adjustment Front Side Leg Lateral Vert ft o ft .f` ft'' lb (4)X7CQAP-465-VRO A From Face 400 00000 8800 No Ice 7 17 350 4500 000 1/2"Ice 759 3 86 8625 000 1"Ice 803 425 132.36 e a MxTowe'r Job Page 90' Monopole Tower 2 of 3 All-Points Technology Project Date Corporation NY141305 Cutchogue 2 15 59 30 09/29/17 116 Grandview Road Conway,NH 03818 Client Designed by Phone (603)496-5853 Verizon Wireless FAX.-(603)447-2124 Rob Adair Description Face Offset Offsets A--imuth Placement C 44 CaA,, Weight or Type Horz Adjustment Front Side Leg Lateral Vert .t oh f fi lb (4)X7CQAP-465-VRO B From Face 400 00000 8800 No Ice 717 3 50 45.00 000 1/2"Ice 759 3 86 8625 0.00 1"Ice 8.03 425 13236 (4)X7CQAP-465-VRO C From Face 400 00000 8800 No Ice 717 3 50 4500 000 1/2"Ice 759 3.86 8625 000 1"Ice 803 425 13236 (2)ALU RRH2x60-AWS A From Face 300 00000 8800 No Ice 3 35 202 6000 w/bracket 000 1/2"Ice 360 225 83 19 000 1"Ice 387 2.49 11002 (2)ALU RRH2x60-AWS B From Face - 3 00 00000 8800 No Ice 3 35 202 6000 w/bracket 000 1/2"Ice 3 60 225 83 19 000 V Ice 387 249 11002 (2)ALU RRH2x60-AWS C From Face 3 00 00000 8800 No Ice 3 35 202 60.00 w/bracket 0.00 1/2"Ice 3 60 225 83 19 000 1"Ice 3"87 2.49 11002 ALU PCS B25 RRH2x60 A From Face 3.00 00000 88"00 No Ice 257 203 5500 w/bracket 000 1/2"Ice 279 224 7547 000 1"Ice 302 246 9894 ALU PCS B25 RRH2x60 B From Face 300 00000 8800 No Ice 2.57 203 5500 w/bracket 000 1/2"Ice 2.79 224 7547 000 1"Ice 302 246 9894 ALU PCS B25 RRH2x60 C From Face 300 00000 8800 No Ice 257 203 5500 w/bracket 000 1/2"Ice 279 224 7547 000 1"Ice 302 246 9894 ALU RRH2x40 700MHz A From Face 300 0.0000 88.00 No Ice 274 165 6100 w/bracket 000 1/2"Ice 2 95 1 82 85 12 000 1"Ice 3 16 199 11246 ALU RRH2x40 700MHz B From Face 300 00000 88.00 No Ice 2.74 165 6100 w/bracket 000 1/2"Ice 295 1 82 85 12 000 1"Ice 3.16 199 11246 ALU RRH2x40 700MHz C From Face 300 00000 8800 No Ice 274 165 6100 w/bracket 000 1/2"Ice 2 95 182 85 12 000 1"Ice 3 16 199 11246 Raycap RDC-3315-PF-48 J- A From Face 300 00000 8800 No Ice 2.51 164 3000 box 000 1/2"Ice 2.71 181 5286 000 1"Ice 291 198 78 84 Raycap RDC-3315-PF-48 J- B From Face 300 00000 8800 No Ice 251 164 3000 box 000 1/2"Ice 271 181 5286 000 1"Ice 291 198, 7884 Raycap RDC-3315-PF-48 J- C From Face 3 00 00000 8800 No Ice 251 164 3000 box 000 1/2"Ice 271 181 52.86 000 1"Ice 291 198 78"84 12'-6"square platform w/rails C None 00000 8800 No Ice 21 10 21 10 75500 1/2"Ice 27 50 2780 95000 1"Ice 3390 3390 115000 e• MxTower Job Page 90' Monopole Tower 3 of 3 All-Points Technology Project Date Corporation NY141305 Cutchogue 2 15 59'30 09/29/17 116 Grandview Road Conway,NH 03818 Client Designed by Phone (603)496-5853 Verizon Wireless FAX (603)447-2124 Rob Adair Solution Summary Maximum Tower Deflections - Service Wind Section Elevation Hor_ Gov Tilt Twist No Deflection Load ft in Comb ° Ll 90-70 1 143 12 0 1039 00000 L2 70-50 0 721 12 0 093 8 00000 L3 50-30 0 374 12 00706 00000 L4 30-10 0 136 12 0.0431 00000 L5 10-0 0 015 12 00144 00000 Critical Deflections and Radius of Curvature - Service Wind Elevation Appurtenance Gov Defection Tilt Twist Radius of Load Curvature h Comb in ° ft 8800 (4)X7CQAP-465-VRO 12 1 099 01032 00000 229138 Section Capacity Table Section Elevation Component Si_e Critical P eP&I— % Pass No .h Type Element lb lb Capacity Fail Ll 90-70 Pole TP38 778x3OxO 375 1 -5748 11 1572490 00 92 Pass L2 70-50 Pole TP47 556x38.778xO 375 2 -1000820 2288620 00 167 Pass L3 50-30 Pole TP56 334x47 556x0 375 3 -1517430 2838390 00 236 Pass L4 30-10 Pole TP65 112x56 334x0 375 4 -2125030 3212260 00 307 Pass L5 10-0 Pole TP69 501x65 112x0.375 5 -2461720 3335570 00 345 Pass Summary Pole(L5) 345 Pass RATING= 34.5 Pass All-Points Technology Corp., P.C. 116 Grandview Road Conway, NH 03818 (603)496-5853 Client Verizon Wireless Site No Cutchogue 2 Job Cutchogue, NY APT Job No NY141305 Calculated By R. Adair Date 29-Sep-17 General Parameters Ds Diameter of Skirt 695 in Do Outer Diameter of Base Ring 800 in Di Inner Diameter of Base Ring 66 0 in Dbc Bolt Circle Diameter 720 in Dbolt Nominal Bolt Diameter _ 225 in Nbolt Number of Bolts 8 Dbh Diameter of Balt Hole 2.3750 in Loadings OTM lOverturning Moment _ 1,834,000 ft-lbs V lVertical Load(+is Compressive) 1 25,300 jibs Material Properties ' Es Modulus of Elasticity of Steel 29,000,000 psi Ec Modulus of Easticity of Concrete 3,000,000 psi u Poissons Ratio for Steel 030 Fc(ult) Ultimate Compressive Strength 4,000 psi Fc(allow) Allowable Compressive Strength 4,000 psi Fbolt Allowable Bolt Stress 75,000 psi Fy Yield Stress of Top&Bottom Platesl 50,000 psi is Increase Increase for Wind or Seismic? 1 33 Ds IJ bh Fb Allow Bending Stress(Fy*0 6) 39,900 psi 1 17 :A tb - Program Output Df-' Dbc tb Minimum Base Plate Thickness 1 669 in Do Bolting Actual Load/Allowable Load 0 502 OK Concrete Actual Load/Allowable Load 0 336 OK ,Calculated Parameters n Es/Ec 966666667 Arnot Root area af Bolt 3.02 in^2 ttl Nbolt*Aroot/(3 14159*Dbc) 0 107 in tt3 (Do-Di)/2 7 0 in tt2 tt3-ft1 6 893 in Iteratively Solve for Compressive_and Tensile Loads on Compression_ Plate* Iteration k Cc ct z j fc fs Ft Fc # psi psi lbs lbs 1 0 340 1 614 2.354 0 429 0 783 4,000 75,000 376,701 402,001- 2 0 169_ 1 112 2 731 0 465 0 773 873 41,610 380,271 405,571 3 0 254 1_382 2 541 0 447 0 779 1,279 36,215 377,776 403,076 4 0204 1 229 2 653 0 458 0 776 1,022 38,660 378,858 404,158 5 0 231 1 312 2 593 0 452 -0778 1,153 37,135 378,255 403,555 6 0216, 1 265 2 627 0 456 0 777 1,078 37,935 378,592 403,892 7 0 224 1 291 2 608 0 454 0 777 1,119 37,482 378,407 403,707 8 0 219 1 277 2 619 0 455 _ 0 777 1,096 37,729 378,510 403,810 9 0 222 _1_2_84 2 613 0 454 0 777--i-jog 37,592 378,453 403,753 10 0 220 1 280 2 616 0 455 0 777 1,102 37,667 378,484 403,784 *Calculations in this table are based upon Ref 1 k=1 /(1 +(fs/(n*fc))) [Eqn 10 3] Ft=(12*OTM-V*z*Dbc)/Q*Dbc) [Eqn.10 24] fc=Fc/(tt2+n*ttl)*r*Cc[Eqn 10 18] Fc=Ft+V [Eqn 10 27] fs=Ft/(tt1*r*Ct) [Eqn 10 9] Concrete Bearins Pressure: __>Bearing Pressure Acceptable Check Boltin : __>Bolting Acceptable fcmax fc*(2*k*Dbc+tt3)/(2*k*Dbc)(Eqn.10 301 1345 psi Pbolt fs*Aroot 113,755 lbs FcAllow Allowable Bearing Pressure 4000 psi Pallow Fbolt*Arnot 226,500 I lbs Check Bottom Plate-Single Baseplate no Gussets: __>Basepla Cote Acceptable Coin ressive Loadin I (Do-Ds)/2 tbl 1*3*fcmax/Fb)^0 5 Eqn 10.32a 5 250 in Bolt Tensile Load-n 1.669 in a (Dbc-Ds)/2 tb2 (Pbolt*a*Nbolt*12/(PIQ*Ds*Fb))^0 3333 1 25 m tbmin Mammum of tbi or tb2 1 161 lin 1 669 m x TECHNOLOGY CORPORNFION STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT 90' MONOPOLE TOWER CUTCHOGUE,NEW YORK Prepared for Verizon Wireless Verizon Site: Cutchogue 2 March 27, 2018 OF NE A,V 4h co 0782� c�` ass` APT Project#NY141307 ❑3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE•KILLINGWORTI,CT 06419•PHONE 860-663-1697 FAX 860-663-0935 ® 116 GRANDVIEW ROAD•CONWAY,NH 03818•PHONE 603-496-5853•FAX 603-447-2124 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT 90' MONOPOLE TOWER CUTCHOGUE, NEW YORK prepared for Verizon Wireless EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: All-Points Technology Corporation, P.C. (APT)performed a structural analysis of this 90-foot monopole tower located at 31775 Main Road in Cutchogue, New York. The analysis was performed for Verizon Wireless's proposed removal of two high performance dishes and installation of twelve panel antennas, twelve remote radio heads (RRHs) and three power/fiber distribution boxes (D-boxes) on a 12'-6" square platform with rails at 88'. Feed lines will be three 1-5/8" hybrid power/fiber lines, assumed to be installed inside the pole by means of new entry/exit ports installed in the existing tower. Our analysis indicates the tower meets the requirements of the New York State Building Code with the proposed antennas and associated equipment. The tower foundation could not be evaluated, as information on its design or construction was not available to APT. The foundation is likely to be adequate considering proposed loads are significantly less than current loads and the tower has substantial additional capacity. INTRODUCTION: A structural analysis of this communications tower was performed by APT for Verizon Wireless. The tower is located at 31775 Main Road in Cutchogue, New York. APT previously visited the tower site on October 11, 2006. Robert O. Parrott climbed the tower in its entirety to compile data necessary to perform the structural analysis. The structure is a 90-foot, 12-sided tapered steel monopole of unknown manufacturer. Pole steel was assumed to be ASTM Grade A572-60, while base plate steel was assumed to be ASTM A570-50 with Grade A615-75 anchor bolts. These assumptions are on the conservative end of the range of typical values for monopoles of this type. The analysis was conducted using the following equipment (two high-performance dishes at 65' and 82' to be removed): Antenna Elev. Mount Coax. (12)NHH-65A-R2B panel antennas, (3)RDC- 88' 12'-6"square platform (3)hybrid 3315-PF-48 D-boxes w/surge protector, (3)B13 RRH2x60, (3)B66a RRH2x90,(3)B25 RRH2x60, 3 B5 RRH4x40 RRHs All-Points Technology Corporation 116 Grandview Road 3 Saddlebrook Drive Conway, NH 03818 Killingworth, CT 06419 (603)496-5853 (860) 663-1697 Verizon Wireless March 27, 2018 90'Monopole, Cutchogue,NY Page 2 Verizon Site: Cutchogue 2 APT Project#NY141307 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS: Methodology: The structural analysis was, done in accordance with TIA/EIA-222, Revision G (TIA), Structural Standards for Antenna Supporting; Structures and Antennas. The analysis was conducted using a 120-mph 3-second gust wind speed with no ice and 50- mph with 3/4" of radial ice over the structure and associated appurtenances in accordance with TIA. The TIA Standard requires a basic wind speed of 110 miles per hour for Suffolk County, New York. Structure Class: II Exposure Category: C Topographic Category: 1 Analysis Results: The following table summarizes the capacity of the tower based on combined axial and bending stresses: Elevation Capacity _7_0'-90' 8% The base foundation could not be evaluated, as information on its design or construction was not available to APT. The foundation is likely to be adequate considering proposed loads are significantly less than existing loads and the tower has substantial additional capacity. Factored base reactions imposed with the proposed antennas were calculated to be as follows: Compression: 36.6 kips Total Shear: 32.4 kips Overturning Moment: 1746 ft-kips CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS: As detailed above, our analysis indicates that the existing 90' monopole tower located at 31775 Main Road in Cutchogue, New York meets the requirements of the New York State Building Code with Verizon Wireless's proposed equipment changes. All-Points Technology Corporation 116 Grandview Road 3 Saddlebrook Drive Conway, NH 03818 Killingworth, CT 06419 (603)496-5853 (860) 663-1697 Verizon Wireless March 27, 2018 90'Monopole, Cutchogue, NY Page 3 Verizon Site: Cutchogue 2 APT Project#NY141307 The base foundation could not be evaluated, as information on its design or construction was not available to APT. The foundation is likely to be adequate considering proposed loads are significantly less than current loads and the tower has substantial additional capacity. LIMITATIONS: This report is based on the following: 1. Tower is properly installed and maintained. 2. All members are in an undeteriorated condition. 3. All bolts are in place and are properly tightened. 4. Tower is in plumb condition. All-Points Technology Corporation, P.C. (APT) is not responsible for any modifications completed prior to or hereafter which APT is not or was not directly involved. Modifications include but are not limited to: 1. Adding or relocating antennas. 2. Installing antenna mounting gates or side arms. 3. Extending tower. APT hereby states that this document represents the entire report and that it assumes no liability for any factual changes that may occur after the date of this report. All representations, recommendations, and conclusions are based upon the information contained and set forth herein. If you are aware,of any information which conflicts with that which is contained herein, or you are aware of any defects arising from original design, material, fabrication, or erection deficiencies, you should disregard this report and immediately contact APT. APT disclaims all liability for any representation,recommendation, or conclusion not expressly stated herein. All-Points Technology Corporation 116 Grandview Road 3 Saddlebrook Drive Conway, NH 03818 Killingworth, Cr 06419 (603)496-5853 (860) 663-1697 Appendix A Tower Schematic 80.0 ft sy > A DESIGNED APPURTENANCE LOADING TYPE ELEVATION TYPE ELEVATION (4)NHH-65A-R2B Be ALU B66a RRHWOmbracket 88 (4)NHH-65A-R2B 88 ALU B66a RRH2x80vdbracket 88 a (4)NHH65A-R2B 88 NolasAlrscale Be RRH440 88 N ti c I:z W ALU B13 RRH2x60 Hsbracket 88 Noka Auscale B5 RRH440 Be N n N ALU 813 RRH2x50 vdbrecket 88 Nowa Airscale B5 RRH4x40 88 ALU 813 RRH2x60 vdbracket 88 Raycap RDC-3315-PF-48 D-box 88 ALU PCS B25 RRH2x60 Wbracket 88 Raycap RDC-3315-PF-48 D-box Be ALU PCS B25 RRH2x50 w/brecket88 Raycap RDC-3315-PF-48 D-box 188 ALU PCS 825 RRH2x80 vabrecket Be 12'-6"square plafotm vdruls 181, ALU B66a RRH2x9Dv&mckat 88 70 0 ft MATERIAL STRENGTH GRADE FY Fu GRADE FY I Fu A572.60 160 ksi 175 ksi 0 0 R 50.0 ft O o a � Q m 300ft N p ALL REACTIONS ARE FACTORED AXIAL 36579 Ib SHEAR MOMENT 10.0ft 4588/6 252923 lb-ft 50 mph WIND-0 7500 in ICE AXIAL N 24525 lb SHEAR MOMENT 32420 Ib 1746459 lb-ft 0-oft REACTIONS-120 mph WIND v � N 0 E n D $ m .°� Z F F to 0 All-Points Technology Corporationlob 90'Mono ole Tower 116 Grandview Road Protect MY141307 CLdChO Ue 2 Conway, NH 03818 Client Venzon wireless DM-by-Rob Adair App'd. Phone'(603)496-5853 rode TIA-222-G Date 03/27/18 iscals NTS FAX' 603 447-2124 Path om e a Dwp No E-1 Appendix B Calculations ' �' Job Page MxT®we 90'Monopole Tower 1 of 3 All Points Technology Project Date Corporation NY141307 Cutchogue 2 10:45:2103/27/18 116 Grandview Road Conway,NH 03818 Client Designed by Phone:(603)496-5853 Verizon Wireless Rob Adair FAX. (603)447-2124 Tower Input Data This tower is designed using the TTA-222-G standard. The following design criteria apply: Tower is located in Suffolk County,New York. Basic wind speed of 120 mph. Structure Class II. Exposure Category C. Topographic Category 1. Nominal ice thickness of 0.7500 in. Ice thickness is considered to increase with height. Ice density of 56 pcf. A wind speed of 50 mph is used in combination with ice. Deflections calculated using a wind speed of 60 mph. A non-linear(P-delta)analysis was used. Pressures are calculated at each section. Stress ratio used in pole design is 1. Local bending stresses due to climbing loads,feed line supports,and appurtenance mounts are not considered. Tapered Pole Section Geometry Section Elevation Section Splice Number Top Bottom Wall Bend Pole Grade Length Length of Diameter Diameter Thickness Radius ft fi ft Sides in in in In Ll 90.00-70.00 2000 0.00 12 30.0000 387780 0.3750 15000 A572-60 (60 ksi) L2 70.00-5000 2000 000 12 38.7780 47.5560 03750 1.5000 A572-60 (60 kst) L3 50 00-30 00 2000 000 12 475560 563340 0.3750 1.5000 A572-60 (60 ksi) L4 30 00-10 00 20.00 000 12 563340 65.1120 03750 15000 A572-60 (60 ksi) L5 10 00-0 00 1000 12 65 1120 69.5010 03750 15000 A572-60 (60 ksi) Feed Line/Linear Appurtenances Description Face Allow Component Placement Total CAAA Weight or Shield Type Number Leg h A2 Py 157"Hybrid fiber-power A No Inside Pole 88.00-600 3 No Ice 0.00 0.66 cable 1/2"Ice 000 0.66 1"Ice 0.00 0.66 Discrete Tower Loads Description Face Offset Offsets: Azimuth Placement CAAA CAAA Weight or Type Horz Adjustment Front Side Leg Lateral Vert .1t 0R ? fe lb (4)NHH-65A-R213 A From Face 400 0.0000 88.00 No Ice 5.96 391 4000 000 1/2"Ice 6.32 427 7942 000 P Ice 670 4.63 123.88 MxTower Job Page 90' Monopole Tower 2 of 3 All-Paints Technology Project Date Corporation NY1413O7 Cutchogue 2 10:45:21 03/27/18 116 Grandview Road Conway,NH 03818 Client Designed by Phone:(603)496-5853 Verizon Wireless FAX(603)447-2124 1 Rob Adair Description Face Offset Offsets: Azimuth Placement CAAA CAAA Weight or Type Horz Adjustment Front Side Leg Lateral Vert .#- 0It ftp 1� lb (4)NHH-65A-R2B B From Face 4.00 00000 8800 No Ice 5.96 3.91 4000 0.00 1/2"Ice 6.32 427 7942 000 V Ice 670 463 12388 (4)NHH-65A-R2B C From Face 400 00000 8800 No Ice 596 391 4000 000 1/2"Ice 632 4.27 7942 000 V Ice 670 463 12388 ALU B13 RRH2x60 A From Face 300 00000 88.00 No Ice 2.06 132 6000 w/bracket 000 1/2"Ice 224 148 77.28 0.00 1"Ice 243 1.64 97.35 ALU B 13 RRH2x60 B From Face 300 00000 8800 No Ice 2.06 132 6000 w/bracket 0.00 1/2"Ice 224 1.48 77.28 000 V Ice 243 164 97.35 ALU B 13 RRH2x60 C From Face 3.00 00000 8800 No Ice 206 132 60.00 w/bracket 000 1/2"Ice 224 1.48 77.28 000 1"Ice 243 164 97.35 ALU PCS B25 RRH2x60 A From Face 3.00 00000 88.00 No Ice 257 203 55.00 w/bracket 000 1/2"Ice 279 224 7547 000 1"Ice 3.02 246 9894 ALU PCS B25 RRH2x60 B From Face 300 0.0000 88.00 No Ice 257 2.03 5500 w/bracket 0.00 1/2"Ice 279 2.24 7547 000 V Ice 302 2.46 9894 ALU PCS B25 RRH2x60 C From Face 300 00000 88.00 No Ice 257 203 5500 w/bracket 000 1/2"Ice 279 2.24 7547 000 1"Ice 302 246 9894 ALU B66a A From Face 300 00000 8800 No Ice 258 163 8000 RRH2x90w/bracket 000 1/2"Ice 279 1.81 10047 000 1"Ice 301 200 12406 ALU B66a B From Face 300 0.0000 88.00 No Ice 258 1.63 80.00 RRH2x90w/bracket 000 1/2"Ice 279 181 100.47 000 1"Ice 301 200 12406 ALU B66a C From Face 300 00000 8800 No Ice 2.58 163 80.00 RRH2x90w/bracket 000 1/2"Ice 279 181 10047 0.00 1"Ice 301 2.00 124.06 Nokia Airscale B5 RRH4x40 A From Face 300 00000 8800 No Ice 129 072 3530 000 1/2"Ice 143 083 46.59 000 1"Ice 158 0.96 6012 Nokia Airscale B5 RRH4x40 B From Face 300 00000 8800 No Ice 129 072 3530 0.00 1/2"Ice 143 083 4659 000 1"Ice 158 096 60.12 Nokia Airscale B5 RRH4x40 C From Face 3.00 00000 8800 No Ice 129 072 3530 000 1/2"Ice 143 083 4659 000 1"Ice 1.58 0.96 6012 Raycap RDC-3315-PF-48 A From Face 300 00000 8800 No Ice 2.51 1.64 3000 D-box 000 1/2"Ice 2.71 181 5286 000 1"Ice 291 1.98 7884 Raycap RDC-3315-PF-48 B From Face 300 00000 8800 No Ice 251 164 3000 D-box 000 1/2"Ice 271 1.81 5286 000 V Ice 291 1.98 7884 Raycap RDC-3315-PF-48 C From Face 3.00 0.0000 88.00 No Ice 2.51 1.64 3000 D-box 000 1/2"Ice 2.71 1.81 5286 000 V Ice 291 198 78.84 12'-6"square platform w/rails C None 0.0000 88.00 No Ice 21 10 21 10 75500 1/2"Ice 27.50 27.80 950.00 1"Ice 3390 3390 115000 _ � ��®�� Job Page 90' Monopole Tower 3 of 3 All Points Technology Project Date Corporation NY141307 Cutchogue 2 10:45:2103/27/18 116 Grandview Road Conway,NH 03818 Client Designed by Phone:(603)496-5853 Verizon Wireless FAX. (603)447-2124 Rob Adair Solution Summary Maximum Tower Deflections - Service Wind Section Elevation Hon Gov Tilt Twist No. Deflection Load ft in Comb. 0 ° Ll 90-70 1.074 12 00971 00000 L2 70-50 0 680 12 0.0879 0.0000 L3 50-30 0 354 12 0.0665 0.0000 L4 30-10 0.129 12 00408 00000 L5 10-0 0 014 12 00137 0.0000 Critical Deflections and Radius of Curvature - Service Wind Elevation Appurtenance Gov. Deflection Tilt Twist Radius of Load Curvature ft Comb in o oft 8800 (4)NHH-65A-R2B 12 1 033 00964 0.0000 251488 Section Capacity Table Section Elevation Component Size Critical P eP°u— % Pass No .lt Type Element lh lb Capacity Fail Ll 90-70 Pole TP38 778x30x0 375 1 -567667 1572490 00 8.4 Pass L2 70-50 Pole TP47.556x38 778x0 375 2 -993374 2288620 00 156 Pass L3 50-30 Pole TP56.334x47.556x0.375 3 -15094.20 2838390.00 22.2 Pass L4 30-10 Pole TP65.112x56 334x0 375 4 -2116240 3212260 00 29.2 Pass L5 10-0 Pole TP69.50lx65.112x0.375 5 -2452470 3335570 00 32.9 Pass Summary Pole(L5) 32.9 Pass RATING= 32.9 Pass All-Points Technology Corp., P.C. 116 Grandview Road Conway, NH 03818 (603)496-5853 Client: Verizon!Tireless Site No.: Cutchogue 2 Job: Cutchogue, NY APT Job No.: NY141307 Calculated By: R.Adair Date: 26-Mar-18 General Parameters Ds Diameter of Skirt 69.5 in Do Outer Diameter of Base ing 80.0 in Di Inner Diameter of Base Ring_-- 66.0 in -------- -------------------- ------- Dbc Balt Circle Diameter 72.0 in Dbolt Nominal Bolt Diameter 2.25 in Nbolt Number of Bolts 8 Dbh I Diameter of Bolt Hole 2.3750 in Loadings OTM _ Overtuming Moment 1,746,000 ft-lbs_ V Vertical Load +is Compressive) 25,300 lbs Material Properties FFbolt Modulus of Elasticity of Steel 29,000,000 psi Modulus of Easticity of Concrete _3,000,000 psi Polssons Ratio for Steel 0.30 Ultimate Compressive Strength 4,000 psi Allowable Compressive Strength 4,000 psi Allowable Bolt Stress 75,000 psi is F Yield Stress of To &Bottom Plat 50,000 psi Increase I Increase for Wind or Seismic? 1.33 Ds Fb jAllow Bending Stress(Fy*0.6) 39,900 psi _N :z tb Program Output Di tb Minimum Base Plate Thickness 1.629 m Dbc D o Bolting lActual Load/Allowable Load 0.477 OK Concrete jActual Load/Allowable Load 0.320 OK Calculated Parameters n Es/Ec 9.66666667 Aroot Root area of Bolt_ 3.02 In^2 tt1 Nbolt*Aroot13.14159*Dbc 0.107 in _ 0 Do-Di//2 7.0 in tt2 tt3-tt1 6.893 in Iteratively Solve for Compressive and Tensile Loads on Compression Plate* Iteration k Cc Ct z j fc Is Ft Fc # psi psi lbs lbs 1 0.340 1.614 2.354 0.429 0.783 4,000 75,000 357,960 383,260 2 0.169 1.113 2.730 0.465 0.773 832 39,540 361,275 386,575 3 0.2551 1.383 2.541 0.447 0.779 1,217 34,419 358,950 384,250 4 0.204' 1.230 2.652 0.458 0.776 974 36,742 359,954 385,254 5 0.2311 1.313 2.592 0.4521 0.778 1,098 35,293 359,392 1 384,692 6 0.2161 1.266 2.626 0.455 0.777 1,027 36,054 359,707 385,007 7 0.224 1.292 2.608 0.454 0.777_ 1,066 35,624 359,534 384,834 �8 0.220 1.278 2.618 0.455 0.7771,044 35,858 359,630 384,930 9 0.222 1.285 2.612 0.454 0.777— 1,056 35,728 359,577 384,877 10 0.221 1.281 2.615 0.454 0.777 1,049 35,799 359,606 384,906 *Calculations in this table are based upon Ref.1: k=1/(1 +(fs/(n*fc))) [Eqn.10.3] Ft=02*OTM-V*z*Dbc)/O*Dbc) [Eqn.10.24] fc=Fc!(tt2+n*tt1)*r*Cc,[Eqn.10.181 Fc=Ft+V [Eqn.10.27] fs=Ft/(tt1*r*Ct) [Eqn.10.9] Concrete Bearing Pressure: =_>Bearing Pressure Acceptable Check,Bolting: __>Bolting Acceptable fcmax fc*(2*k*Dbc+tt3)/(2*k*Dbc)[_Egn_10.30] 1280 psi Pbolt fs*Aroot 108,114 libs FcAlloW jAllowable Beanng Pressure 4000 psi Pallow Fbolt*Arnot 226,500 Jibs Check Bottom Plate-Single Baseplate no Gussets: =_>Baseplate Acceptable Compressive Loadin I I(Do-Ds)/2 5.250 in tb1 I*3*fcmax/Fb^0.5 Eqn.10.32a 1.629 in Bolt Tensile Loading a (Dbc-Ds /2 1.25 in tb2 (Pbolt*a*Nbolt*12/(PI()*Ds*Fb)"0.3333 1.142 in tbmin I Ma)amum of tbi or tb2 1.629 in PiNNACIE TELECOM GROUP Professional and Technical Services Tekaom Conwlbng ANTENNA SITE FCC RF COMPIiANCE ASSESSMENT ANd REPORT PREPAREd FOR NEW YORk SMSA LiMiTEd PARTNERShip d/b/A ,VERIZON WiREIESS "CUTChOClUE 2" SITE 31775 MAiN ROAd CUTCNOc U E, NY MARCH 291 2018 14 RidgEdAlE AVENUE - SUITE 260 • CEdAR KNOI[S, NJ 07927 0 973.451.1630 CONTENTS INTROdUCTION ANd SUMMARY 3 ANTENNA ANd TRANSMISSION DATA 5 COMpIIANCE ANALYSIS b COMPLIANCE CONCLUSION 11 CERTIFICATION 12 AppENdix A. BAckgROUNd ON ThE FCC MPE LIMIT ApPENdlx B. SUMMARY OF EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS 2 INTROdUCTION ANd SUMMARY At the request of New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless ("Verizon Wireless"), Pinnacle Telecom Group has performed an independent assessment of radiofrequency (RF) levels and related FCC compliance for the proposed modification of a wireless base station antenna operation on an existing monopole located at 31775 Main Road in Cutchogue, NY. Verizon Wireless refers to the site as"Cutchogue 2", and the proposed operation involves directional panel antennas to facilitate wireless service provision in the 746 MHz, 869 MHz, 1900 MHz, and 2100 MHz frequency bands licensed to Verizon Wireless by the FCC. The FCC requires wireless antenna operators to perform an assessment of potential human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) fields emanating from all the transmitting antennas at a site whenever antenna operations are added or modified, and to ensure compliance with the Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limit in the FCC regulations. In this case, there are no other existing antenna operations at the site to include in the compliance assessment. Note that FCC regulations require any future antenna collocators to assess and assure continuing compliance based on the cumulative effects of all then-proposed and then-existing antennas at the site. This report describes a mathematical analysis of RF levels resulting around the site in areas of unrestricted public access, that is, at ground level around the site. The compliance analysis employs a standard FCC formula for calculating the effects of the antennas in a very conservative manner, in order to overstate the RF levels and to ensure "safe-side" conclusions regarding compliance with the FCC limit for safe continuous exposure of the general public. The results of a compliance assessment can be explained in layman's terms by describing the calculated RF levels as simple percentages of the FCC MPE limit. If the reference for that limit is 100 percent, then calculated RF levels higher than 100 percent indicate the MPE limit is exceeded, while calculated RF levels consistently lower than 100 percent serve as a clear and sufficient demonstration 3 of compliance with the MPE limit. We will also describe the overall worst-case calculated result via the"plain-English"equivalent"times-below-the-limit factor". The results of the FCC RF compliance assessment in this case are as follows: ❑ At street level around the site, the conservatively calculated maximum RF level from the proposed antenna operations is 1.5591 percent of the FCC MPE limit — well below the 100-percent reference for compliance. In other words, even with the significant degree of conservatism in the calculations, the worst-case calculated RF level is still more than 60 times below the FCC limit for safe, continuous exposure to the RF emissions from antennas. ❑ The results of the calculations provide a clear demonstration that the RF levels from the proposed antenna operations at the site satisfy the applicable criteria for controlling potential human exposure to RF fields, and the RF levels will be in clear compliance with the FCC regulations and limit concerning RF safety. Moreover, because of the conservative methodology and incorporated assumptions, RF levels actually caused by the antennas will be even less significant than the calculation results here indicate. The remainder of this report provides the following. ❑ relevant technical data on the Verizon Wireless antenna operations, as proposed to be modified; ❑ descriptions of the applicable FCC mathematical models for assessing MPE compliance, and application of the relevant technical data to those models; and ❑ the results of the analysis, and the compliance conclusion for the site. In addition, Appendix A provides background on the FCC MPE limit, along with a list of FCC references on compliance. Appendix B provides a summary of the qualifications of the expert certifying RF compliance for this site. 4 ANTENNA ANd TRANSMISSION DATA The table that follows provides the key compliance-related data for the Verizon Wireless operations, as proposed to be modified. General Data Frequency Bands 746 MHz, 869 MHz, 19000 MHz and 2100 MHz Service Coverage Type Sectorized Antenna Type Directional Panel Antenna Centerline Height AGL 87 ft. 10 in. Antenna Line Loss 0 dB conservative) ignored) 746 MHz Antenna Data Antenna Model Max. Gain Commsco a NHH-65A-R2B 13.4 dBi RF Channels per Sector 2 @ 60 watts 869 MHz Antenna Data Antenna Model Max Gain) Commscope NHH-65A-R2B 13.5 dBi RF Channels per Sector 2 @ 60 watts 1900 MHz Antenna Data Antenna Model Max. Gain Commsco a NHH-65A-R2B 16 5 dBi RF Channels per Sector 2 @ 60 watts 2100 MHz Antenna Data Antenna Model Max. Gain Commsco a NHH-65A-R2B 17.1 dBi RF Channels per Sector 4 @ 45 watts The antenna vertical-plane radiation pattern is used in the calculations of RF levels at street level around a site. Figure 1 that follows shows the vertical-plane pattern of the proposed antenna model in the 746 MHZ band In this type of antenna pattern diagram, the antenna is effectively pointed at the three o'clock position (the horizon) and the pattern at different angles is described using decibel units. Note that the use of a decibel scale to describe the relative pattern at different angles actually serves to significantly understate the actual focusing effects of the antenna. Where the antenna pattern reads 20 dB the relative RF energy emitted at the corresponding downward angle is 1/100th of the maximum that occurs in the main beam (at 0 degrees); at 30 dB, the energy is only 1/10001h of the maximum 5 Note that the automatic pattern-scaling feature of our internal software may skew side-by-side visual comparisons of different antenna models, or even different parties' depictions of the same antenna model Figure 1.Commscope NHH-65A-R2B—746 MHz Vertical-plane Pattern 0 deg horizon 5 dB/division COMPLIANCE ANAIySIS FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65 ("OET Bulletin 65") provides guidelines for mathematical models to calculate the RF levels at various points around transmitting antennas At street-level around an antenna site (in what is called the "far field" of the antennas), the RF levels are directly proportional to the total antenna input power and the relative antenna gain in the downward direction of interest — and the levels are otherwise inversely proportional to the square of the straight-line distance to the antenna. Conservative calculations also assume the potential RF exposure is enhanced by reflection of the RF energy from the intervening ground. Our calculations will assume a 100% "perfect" reflection, the worst-case approach. 6 The formula for street-level RF compliance calculations for any given wireless antenna operation is as follows: MPE% _ 000*TxPower* 10(Gmax-Vdisc/10) *4)/(MPE*41r*R2) where MPE% = RF level, expressed as a percentage of the MPE limit applicable to continuous exposure of the general public 100 = factor to convert the raw result to a percentage TxPower = maximum net power into antenna sector, in milliwatts, a function of the number of channels per sector, the transmitter power per channel, and line loss 10(cmax-Vdisctl0) = numeric equivalent of the relative antenna gain in the downward direction of interest, referenced to any applied antenna mechanical downtilt; data on the antenna vertical-plane pattern is taken from manufacturer specifications 4 = factor to account for a 100-percent-efficient energy reflection from the ground, and the squared relationship between RF field strength and power density(22=4) MPE = FCC general population MPE limit R = straight-line distance from the RF source to the point of interest, centimeters The street-level MPE% calculations are performed out to a distance of 500 feet from the facility to points 6.5 feet (approximately two meters, the FCC- recommended standing height) off the ground, as illustrated in the Figure 2 on the next page. 7 antenna height from R antenna bottom to 6.5' above ground level 0 500 Ground Distance D from the site Figure 2. MPE%Calculation Geometry It is popularly understood that the farther away one is from an antenna, the lower the RF level — which is generally but not universally correct. The results of MPE% calculations fairly close to the site will reflect the variations in the vertical- plane antenna pattern as well as the variation in straight-line distance to the antennas. Therefore, RF levels may actually increase slightly with increasing distance within the range of zero to 500 feet from the site. As the distance approaches 500 feet and beyond, though, the antenna pattern factor becomes less significant, the RF levels become primarily distance- controlled, and as a result the RF levels generally decrease with increasing distance, and are well understood to be in compliance. FCC compliance for a multiple-band antenna operation is assessed in the following manner. At each distance point along the ground, an MPE% calculation is made for the RF effect in each frequency band, and the sum of the individual MPE% contributions at each point is compared to 100 percent, which serves as the normalized reference for the FCC MPE limit. We refer to the sum of the individual MPE% contributions as"total MPEW, and any calculated MPE% total MPE% result exceeding 100 percent is, by definition, higher than the FCC limit and represents non-compliance and a need to mitigate the RF levels. 8 If, on the other hand, all results are below 100 percent, that set of results serves as a demonstration of compliance with the MPE limit We refer to the sum of the individual MPE% contributions as "total MPE%", and any calculated total MPE% result exceeding 100 percent is, by definition, higher than the FCC limit and represents non-compliance and a need to mitigate the potential exposure. If all results are consistently below 100 percent, on the other hand, that set of results serves as a clear and sufficient demonstration of compliance with the MPE limit. Note that according to the FCC, when directional antennas such as the panels commonly used in wireless communications are used, the compliance assessments are based on the RF effect of a single(facing) antenna sector or, in cases of non-identical parameters, the worst-case effect of any individual sector. The following conservative methodology and assumptions are incorporated into the MPE% calculations on a general basis: 1. The antennas are assumed to be operating continuously at maximum power, and at maximum channel capacity. 2. The power-attenuation effects of shadowing or other obstructions to the line-of-sight path from the antenna to the point of interest are ignored. 3. The calculations intentionally minimize the distance factor (R) by assuming a 6'6" human and performing the calculations from the bottom (rather than the centerline) of the antenna. 4. The potential RF exposure at ground level is assumed to be 100-percent enhanced (increased)via a"perfect"field reflection from the ground itself. The net result of these assumptions is to significantly overstate the calculated RF exposure levels relative to the levels that will actually occur—and the purpose of this conservatism is to allow very"safe-side" conclusions about compliance. The table that follows provides the results of the MPE% calculations for each frequency band, with the worst-case result highlighted in bold in the last column. 9 Ground Verizon Verizon Verizon Verizon Distance Wireless Wireless Wireless Wireless Total (ft) 700 MHz 869 MHz 1900 MHz 2100 MHz MPE% MPE% MPE% MPE% MPE% 0 0.0000 00003 0.0002 0.0009 00014 20 0.0001 00007 0.0061 00199 00267 40 00891 00534 0.0204 00005 0.1634 60 05397 0.2182 00159 0.0104 0.7843 80 0.4231 0.0195 0.2203 00013 06643 100 0.1689 0.0458 06520 06923 1.5591 120 0.1266 0.1040 00030 0.9041 1.1377 140 02172 00354 00023 0.0056 02605 160 0.2490 00091 0.0220 00031 0.2832 180 0.1996 00320 0.0010 00327 0.2653 200 0.1265 00395 0.0112 00109 01881 220 00682 0.0319 0.0106 00163 0.1271 240 00487 00249 00076 00261 01072 260 0.0537 00350 0.0464 0.0410 01760 280 0.0702 00555 0.0657 0.0580 02494 300 00963 00888 00619 00827 0.3298 320 0.1301 0.1367 0.0371 0.0922 0.3961 340 0.1160 0.1219 00330 0.0823 0.3532 360 0.1521 0.1774 00103 0.0573 0.3970 380 0.1929 02366 00002 00187 0.4484 400 0.1748 0.2144 00002 0.0170 0.4063 420 0.2146 0.2756 00030 0.0004 0.4937 440 01961 02519 0.0028 00004 0.4512 460 0.2350 03117 00075 00076 05619 480 02163 0.2870 00069 0.0070 0.5172 500 1 02527 1 03336 1 0.0053 1 0.0145 0.6062 As indicated, even with the significant degree of conservatism built into the calculations, the maximum calculated RF level is 1.5591 percent of the FCC general population MPE limit - well below the 100-percent reference for compliance A graph of the overall street-level calculation results, provided on the next page, provides a clearer visual illustration of the relative insignificance of the calculated RF levels. The line representing the overall calculation results shows an obviously clear, consistent margin to the FCC MPE limit. 10 COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT RESULTS Normalized FCC MPE Limit ==AN� Total MPE% Results 120 a 100 0 80 0. 60 c d 40 0 20 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 Distance (ft) COMPLIANCE CONCLUSION According to the FCC, the FCC MPE limit has been constructed in such a manner that continuous human exposure to RF emissions up to and including 100 percent of the MPE limit is acceptable and safe. As described, the analysis in this case shows that the maximum calculated RF level from the proposed antenna operations at the site, is 1.5591 percent of the FCC MPE limit. In other words, the worst-case calculated RF level from the antenna operations is more than 60 times below the limit established as safe for continuous human exposure to the RF emissions from antennas. The results of the calculations provide a clear demonstration of compliance with the FCC MPE limit. Moreover, because of the conservative calculation methodology and operational assumptions we applied in the analysis, RF levels actually caused by the antennas will be even less significant than the calculation results here indicate. 11 CERTIFICATION The undersigned certifies as follows: 1. I have read and fully understand the FCC regulations concerning RF safety and the control of human exposure to RF fields (47 CFR 1.1301 et seq). 2 To the best of my knowledge, the statements and information disclosed in this report are true, complete and accurate. 3. The analysis of site RF compliance provided herein is consistent with the applicable FCC regulations, additional guidelines issued by the FCC, and industry practice. 4. The results of the analysis indicate that the subject antenna operations will be in compliance with the FCC regulations and applicable MPE limits 3/29/18 Daniel Penesso Date Director- RF Engineering Pinnacle Telecom Group, LLC 12 APPENdIX A. BAckgROUNd ON ThE FCC MPE LIMIT FCC Rules and Regulations As directed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the FCC has established limits for maximum continuous human exposure to RF fields. The FCC maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits represent the consensus of federal agencies and independent experts responsible for RF safety matters. Those agencies include the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In formulating its guidelines, the FCC also considered input from the public and technical community—notably the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The FCC's RF exposure guidelines are incorporated in Section 1.301 et seq of its Rules and Regulations (47 CFR 1.1301-1 1310). Those guidelines specify MPE limits for both occupational and general population exposure. The specified continuous exposure MPE limits are based on known variation of human body susceptibility in different frequency ranges, and a Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) of 4 watts per kilogram, which is universally considered to accurately represent human capacity to dissipate incident RF energy (in the form of heat). The occupational MPE guidelines incorporate a safety factor of 10 or greater with respect to RF levels known to represent a health hazard, and an additional safety factor of five is applied to the MPE limits for general population exposure. Thus, the general population MPE limit has a built-in safety factor of more than 50. The limits were constructed to appropriately protect humans of both sexes and all ages and sizes and under all conditions — and continuous exposure at levels equal to or below the applicable MPE limits is considered to result in no adverse health effects or even health risk The reason for two tiers of MPE limits is based on an understanding and assumption that members of the general public are unlikely to have had appropriate RF safety training and may not be aware of the exposures they receive; occupational exposure in controlled environments, on the other hand, is assumed to involve individuals who have had such training, are aware of the exposures, and know how to maintain a safe personal work environment. The FCC's RF exposure limits are expressed in two equivalent forms, using alternative units of field strength (expressed in volts per meter, or V/m), and power density (expressed in milliwatts per square centimeter, or mW/cm2). The table on the next page lists the FCC limits for both occupational and general population exposures, using the mW/cm2 reference, for the different radio frequency ranges. 13 Frequency Range(F) Occupational Exposure General Public Exposure (MHz) (mWlcm2) (mW/cm2) 0.3- 1.34 100 100 1.34-3.0 100 180/F2 3.0-30 900/F2 180/F2 30-300 1.0 0.2 300- 1,500 F/300 F/ 1500 1,500- 100,000 5.0 1.0 The diagram below provides a graphical illustration of both the FCC's occupational and general population MPE limits. Power Density (mWlcmz) 100 Occupational ------ General Public 5.0 ` 1.0 0.2 --- 14 I I I I I I I 0.3 1.34 3.0 30 300 1,500 100,000 Frequency(MHz) Because the FCC's MPE limits are frequency-shaped, the exact MPE limits applicable to the instant situation depend on the frequency range used by the systems of interest. The most appropriate method of determining RF compliance is to calculate the RF power density attributable to a particular system and compare that to the MPE limit applicable to the operating frequency in question. The result is usually expressed as a percentage of the MPE limit. 14 For potential exposure from multiple systems, the respective percentages of the MPE limits are added, and the total percentage compared to 100 (percent of the limit). If the result is less than 100, the total exposure is in compliance; if it is more than 100, exposure mitigation measures are necessary to achieve compliance. Note that the FCC"categorically excludes" certain types of antenna facilities from the routine requirement to specifically (i.e., mathematically) demonstrate compliance with the MPE limit. Among those types of facilities are cellular antennas mounted on any type of tower, when the bottoms of the antennas are more than 10 meters (c. 32.8 feet) above ground. The basis for the categorical exclusion, according to the FCC, is the understanding that because of the low power and the directionality of the antennas, such facilities — individually and collectively — are well understood to have no significant effect on the human environment. As a result, the FCC automatically deems such facilities to be in compliance. In addition, FCC Rules and Regulations Section 1.1307(b)(3) describes a provision known in the industry as "the 5% rule". It describes that when a specific location — like a spot on a rooftop — is subject to an overall exposure level exceeding the applicable MPE limit, operators with antennas whose MPE% contributions at the point of interest are less than 5% are exempted from the obligation otherwise shared by all operators to bring the site into compliance, and those antennas are automatically deemed by the FCC to satisfy the rooftop compliance requirement. FCC References on Compliance 47 CFR, FCC Rules and Regulations, Part 1 (Practice and Procedure), Section 1.1310 (Radiofrequency radiation exposure limits). FCC Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 97-303), In the Matter of Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief From State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the Communications Act of 1934 (WT Docket 97-192), Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation (ET Docket 93-62), and Petition for Rulemaking of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association Concerning Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Preempt State and Local Regulation of Commercial Mobile Radio Service Transmitting Facilities, released August 25, 1997. FCC First Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket 93-62, In the Matter of Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, released December,24, 1996. FCC Report and Order, ET Docket 93-62, In the Matter of Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, released August 1, 1996. 15 FCC Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, "Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields", Edition 97-01,August 1997. 16 APPENdIX B. SUMMARY OF EXPERT QUALIFICATIONS Daniel Penesso, Director.RF Engineering, Pinnacle Telecom Group, LLC Synopsis: • 19 years of experience in all aspects of wireless RF engineering, including network design and implementation, interference analysis, FCC and FAA regulatory matters, and antenna site compliance with FCC RF exposure regulations • Have performed RF engineering and FCC compliance work for all the major wireless carriers—AT&T,Verizon Wireless, Sprint, T-Mobile, and MetroPCS, as well as Crown Castle • Have served as an expert witness on RF engineering and/or FCC RF compliance more than 100 times before municipal boards in New Jersey and New York Education: • Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, DeVry Institute of Technology, Chicago, IL, 1987 Current Responsibilities • Manages PTG staff work involving FCC RF compliance for wireless antenna sites, including the provision of math- and measurements-based site compliance reports, related expert testimony in municipal hearings, and compliance-related support in client meetings with prospective site landlords and in town meetings • Provides math-based FCC compliance assessments and reports for PTG's wireless clients, including AT&T, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, Sprint, MetroPCS, and Crown Castle • Responsible for providing client consulting and in-house training on FCC and OSHA RF safety compliance Prior Experience: • Have served as senior RF engineer for four of the five national wireless carriers—AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, and MetroPCS—in the New York and New Jersey markets • Served as an RF engineer for Metricom, Triton PCS, Alltel Communications, and Western Wireless • Have worked as an RF engineer for several engineering services companies, including Sublime Wireless,Amirit Technologies, Celcite, and Wireless Facilities Inc or orated 17 § 1455.Wireless facilities deployment,47 USCA§ 1455 r KeyCite Yellow Flag-Negative Treatment Proposed Le 'station United States Code Annotated Title 47.Telecommunications(Refs&Annos) Chapter 13.Public Safety Communications and Electromagnetic Spectrum Auctions Subchapter IV.Spectrum Auction Authority 47 U.S.C.A.§1455 § 1455•Wireless facilities deployment Effective: February 22,2012 Currentness (a)Facility modifications (1)In general Notwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104)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. (2)Eligible facilities request r For purposes of this subsection, the term "eligible facilities request" means any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves-- (A)collocation of new transmission equipment; (B)removal of transmission equipment;or (C)replacement of transmission equipment. (3)Applicability of environmental laws :�_' i § 1455. Wireless facilities deployment,47 USCA§ 1455 Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to relieve the Commission from the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. (b)Federal easements and rights-of-way (1)Grant If an executive agency, a State, a political subdivision or agency of a State, or a person, firm, or organization applies for the grant of an easement or right-of-way to, in, over,or on a building or other property owned by the Federal Government for the right to install, construct, and maintain wireless service antenna structures and equipment and backhaul transmission equipment,the executive agency having control of the building or other property may grant to the applicant, on behalf of the Federal Government, an easement or right-of-way to perform such installation, construction, and maintenance. (2)Application The Administrator of General Services shall develop a common form for applications for easements and rights-of-way under paragraph (1) for all executive agencies that shall be used by applicants with respect to the buildings or other property of each such agency. (3)Fee (A)In general Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Administrator of General Services shall establish a fee for the grant of an easement or right-of-way pursuant to paragraph(1)that is based on direct cost recovery. (B)Exceptions The Administrator of General Services may establish exceptions to the fee amount required under subparagraph(A)-- (i)in consideration of the public benefit provided by a grant of an easement or right-of-way;and (ii)in the interest of expanding wireless and broadband coverage. § 1455.Wireless facilities deployment,47 USCA§ 1455 (4)Use of fees collected Any fee amounts collected by an executive agency pursuant to paragraph (3) may be made available, as provided in appropriations Acts,to such agency to cover the costs of granting the easement or right-of-way. (c)Master contracts for wireless facility sitings (1)In general Notwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or any other provision of law, and not later than 60 days after February 22,2012,the Administrator of General Services shall-- (A) develop 1 or more master contracts that shall govern the placement of wireless service antenna structures on buildings and other property owned by the Federal Government; and (B)in developing the master contract or contracts,standardize the treatment of the placement of wireless service antenna structures on building rooftops or facades, the placement of wireless service antenna equipment on rooftops or inside buildings, the technology used in connection with wireless service antenna structures or equipment placed on Federal buildings and other property,and any other key issues the Administrator of General Services considers appropriate. (2)Applicability The master contract or contracts developed by the Administrator of General Services under paragraph(1)shall apply to all publicly accessible buildings and other property owned by the Federal Government, unless the Administrator of General Services decides that issues with respect to the siting of a wireless service antenna structure on a specific building or other property warrant nonstandard treatment of such building or other property. (3)Application The Administrator of General Services shall develop a common form or set of forms for wireless service antenna structure siting applications under this subsection for all executive agencies that shall be used by applicants with respect to the buildings and other property of each such agency. (d)Executive agency defined §1455. Wireless facilities deployment, 47 USCA§ 1455 In this section,the term"executive agency"has the meaning given such term in section 102 of Title 40. CREDIT(S) (Pub.L 112-96,Title VI, § 6409,Feb.22,2012, 126 Stat.232.) Notes of Decisions(4) 47 U.S.C.A. § 1455,47 USCA§ 1455 Current through P.L. 115-61.Also includes P.L. 115-63 to 115-68.Title 26 current through P.L. 115-68. End of Document C 2017 Thomson RCLIMs No claim to ougunal U 5 GoN emment Works Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington,D.C.20554 In the Matter of ) Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by ) WT Docket No. 13-238 Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies ) Acceleration of Broadband Deployment: ) WC Docket No. 11-59 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 ) WT Docket No. 13-32 Telecommunications Regulations ) REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: October 17,2014 Released: October 21,2014 By the Commission: Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clyburn,Rosenworcel,Pai,and O'Rielly issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph# 1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. 18 III. NEPA AND NHPA REVIEW OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES..............................................23 A. Description of DAS, Small Cells, and Other Small Wireless Technologies.................................29 B. NEPA Categorical Exclusions.......................................................................................................35 1. Regulatory Background...........................................................................................................35 2. Antennas Mounted on Existing Buildings and Towers...........................................................39 a. Clarification of"Antenna"................................................................................................39 b. Antennas Mounted in the Interior of Buildings................................................................46 c. Antennas Mounted on Other Structures............................................................................50 3. Categorical Exclusion of Deployments in Communications or Utilities Rights-of-Way........57 C. NHPA Exclusions..........................................................................................................................70 1. Regulatory Background...........................................................................................................70 2. New Exclusions.......................................................................................................................76 a. Collocations on Utility Structures.....................................................................................90 b. Collocations on Buildings and Other Non-tower Structures ............................................96 3. Antennas Mounted in the Interior of Buildings.....................................................................104 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION EXEMPTION FOR REGISTRATION OF TEMPORARYTOWERS.................................................................................................................. 106 A. Background.................................................................................................................................. 108 B. Discussion.................................................................................................................................... 120 V. IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 6409(A).................................................................................. 135 A. Background..................................................................................................................................136 B. Discussion.................................................................................................................................... 142 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 1. Definition of Terms in Section 6409(a)................................................................................. 145 a. Scope of Covered Services............................................................................................. 146 b. Transmission Equipment................................................................................................ 155 c. Existing Wireless Tower or Base Station....................................................................... 161 d. Collocation,Replacement,Removal,Modification........................................................ 176 e. Substantial Change and Other Conditions and Limitations............................................ 182 2. Application Review Process,Including Timeframe for Review...........................................205 3. Remedies...............................................................................................................................222 4. Non-application to States or Municipalities in Their Proprietary Capacities........................237 5. Effective Date........................................................................................................................241 VI. SECTION 332(C)(7)AND THE 2009 DECLARATORY RULING................................................243 A. Background..................................................................................................................................245 B. Discussion....................................................................................................................................253 1. Completeness of Applications...............................................................................................254 2. Moratoria...............................................................................................................................263 3. Application to DAS and Small Cells.....................................................................................268 4. Definition of Collocation.......................................................................................................273 5. Preferences for Deployments on Municipal Property...........................................................278 6. Remedies...............................................................................................................................281 VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS............................................................................................................285 A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis..........................................................................................285 B. Paperwork Reduction Act............................................................................................................286 C. Congressional Review Act...........................................................................................................287 VIII.ORDERING CLAUSES..................................................................................................................288 APPENDIX A–List of Comments and Replies APPENDIX B–Final Rules APPENDIX C–Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis I. INTRODUCTION 1. We take important steps in this Report and Order to promote the deployment of wireless infrastructure,recognizing that it is the physical foundation that supports all wireless communications. We do this by eliminating unnecessary reviews,thus reducing the costs and delays associated with facility siting and construction. In particular,we update and tailor the manner in which we evaluate the impact of proposed deployments on the environment and historic properties. We also adopt rules to clarify and implement statutory requirements related to State and local government review of infrastructure siting applications, and we adopt an exemption from our environmental public notification process for towers that are in place for only short periods of time. Taken together,these steps will further facilitate the delivery of more wireless capacity in more locations to consumers throughout the United States. Our actions will expedite the deployment of equipment that does not harm the environment or historic properties, as well as recognize the limits on Federal, State,Tribal,and municipal resources available to review those cases that may adversely affect the environment or historic properties. 2. Demand for wireless capacity is booming: more consumers are accessing mobile broadband every year,driving more innovation and expanding access to public safety. But our ability to meet this demand depends on the infrastructure that supports the services. We therefore take concrete steps to facilitate the deployment of the infrastructure necessary to support surging demand, expand broadband access,support innovation and wireless opportunity, and enhance public safety—all to the benefit of consumers and the communities in which they live. 3. Our actions recognize that a technological revolution has changed the wireless network landscape. The Commission's current rules for deploying infrastructure were drafted at a time when antennas were huge and bolted to the top of enormous towers. While that kind of macrocell deployment still exists and will continue to exist,there are now a variety of complementary and alternative 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 technologies that are far less obtrusive. Distributed antenna system(DAS)networks and other small-cell systems use components that are a fraction of the size of macrocell deployments, and can be installed— with little or no impact—on utility poles,buildings, and other existing structures. We are revising our rules to reflect this technological progress. At the same time,however,we recognize that State, local and Tribal governments play important roles in this process, including with respect to their own land use regulation and as part of our historic preservation review process. While we eliminate review procedures that are not necessary for small-size facilities collocated on existing structures,we do so in a manner that preserves local zoning requirements and rules requiring camouflage or concealment measures. In particular,the rules we adopt today will allow local jurisdictions to retain their ability to protect aesthetic and safety interests. Accordingly, our actions are intended to encourage deployments on existing towers and structures—rather than entirely new towers—in recognition that collocations almost always result in less impact or no impact at all. 4. These measures reflect our ongoing commitment to promote wireless infrastructure deployment,with the goal of facilitating robust wireless coverage for consumers everywhere. We have undertaken three particularly notable initiatives this year to facilitate wireless infrastructure deployment in addition to the actions we take today. First,we adopted rules that substantially reformed tower lighting and marking requirements.' The steps we took in that proceeding eased compliance burdens for tower owners without any adverse impact on aviation and public safety. Second,we recently commenced discussions with relevant government and non-governmental stakeholders to develop a process for "clearing" existing towers that were not subject to historic preservation review prior to construction, including those commonly referred to as"twilight towers." Once complete,this effort will make thousands of additional towers available for collocation,resulting in an enormous expansion in deployment opportunities for public safety operations and commercial wireless offerings. Finally,we are working with other government stakeholders to expand on the measures we adopt today. In particular,we intend to tailor further our environmental and historic preservation reviews for small-scale wireless deployments by implementing more broadly applicable efficient procedures? 5. The rules we adopt today should help spur wireless broadband deployment, in part, by facilitating the sharing of infrastructure that supports wireless communications. We create strong incentives for wireless providers to collocate on structures that already support wireless deployments, and we likewise facilitate sharing of transmission equipment by, for example, using"neutral-host"DAS that 'See 2004 and 2006 Biennial Regulatory Reviews--Streamlining and Other Revisions of Parts 1 and 17 of the Commission's Rules Governing Construction,Marking and Lighting of Antenna Structures,WT Docket No. 10-88, Amendments to Modernize and Clarify Part 17 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Construction,Marking and Lighting of Antenna Structures,RM-11349,Report and Order,FCC 14-117(rel.Aug. 8,2014)(Part 17 Report and Order). 2 We note that other efforts are also ongoing. Among these,we continue to assist the interagency Working Group established by Executive Order 13616 to facilitate broadband deployment on Federal buildings and rights-of-way. See Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment,Executive Order No. 13616,77 Fed.Reg.36903 (June 14, 2012)(Executive Order 13616). Finding that"decisions on access to Federal property and[rights-of-way]can be essential to the deployment of both wired and wireless broadband infrastructure,"Executive Order 13616 created a "Broadband Deployment on Federal Property Working Group"to develop"a coordinated and consistent approach in implementing agency procedures,requirements,and policies related to access to Federal lands,buildings,and [rights-of-way],federally assisted highways,and tribal lands to advance broadband deployment." Id. In part,this effort is to fulfill the directive of Sections 6409(b)and(c)of the Spectrum Act,which address access to Federal property for the deployment of wireless broadband facilities,including requirements that the General Services Administration(GSA)develop application forms,master contracts,and fees for such access in consultation with the Working Group. See Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,Pub.L.No. 112-96 § 6409(b),(c), 126 Stat. 156(2012)(Spectrum Act);Executive Order 13616 §4. The Working Group is composed of representatives from seven Federal agencies that each have significant ownership of or responsibility for managing Federal lands, buildings,and rights-of-way,federally assisted highways,or Tribal lands,and also includes representatives from four other agencies,including the Commission,that"provide advice and assistance." Id. 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 can support multiple providers simultaneously. Promoting shared use in this manner advances several important policy goals while creating little or no potential for competitive harm and, indeed,promoting opportunities for increased competition. First, a"shared use"approach leverages existing resources and thus facilitates provider efforts to expand both coverage and capacity more quickly. Second, sharing wireless infrastructure—whether towers, other support structures, or transmission equipment—reduces costs and promotes access to such infrastructure, and thus may reduce a notable barrier to deployment. Finally, sharing resources—rather than relying on new builds—safeguards environmental, aesthetic, historic, and local land-use values. 6. Facilitating wireless deployment more generally advances the interests of a wide array of stakeholders, ranging from public safety entities to wireless innovators to schools and libraries. But wider and more robust deployment is particularly important for individual consumers. According to the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC), wireless service is the only telecommunications connection for an increasing percentage of Americans, especially among more vulnerable populations.3 A CDC report covering the second half of 2013 determined that two in every five American homes (41.0%)had only wireless telephones during the second half of 2013, up from 30% in 2010. Moreover, more than half of adults in poverty live in wireless-only households.4 The same report found that approximately 34%of households with both landline and wireless telephones use wireless telephones for all or almost all calls. 7. Consumers are also increasing their reliance on and use of mobile broadband services. According to one estimate,Americans will have 34 million mobile broadband devices by the end of 2015, an increase of nearly 50%from 2013,5 and the volume of data crossing North American mobile networks will grow almost eight-fold between 2013 and 2018.6 Consumers in the United States already account for approximately 45%of the 278 million Long Term Evolution(LTE)connections worldwide, and they are projected to have the biggest share of all Fourth Generation(4G)connections worldwide in the coming years.' This growing demand reflects the importance of broadband to our nation's economic growth, global competitiveness, and civic life.$ As the President recognized in an Executive Order promoting the 3 See"Wireless Substitution:Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey,July-December 2013,"Stephen J.Blumberg,Ph.D.,and Julian V.Luke,Division of Health Interview Statistics,available at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless20l4O7 pdf. 4 See id. 5 See"34 Million Americans will have Mobile Broadband Devices,"April 22,2014,available at http://www.etia.ore/resource-library/facts-and-infogrUhics/archive/34-million-americans mobile broadband devices. 6 See Alina Selyukh,Reuters,"U.S.mobile data traffic to jump nearly eight-fold by 2018: Cisco,"Feb.5,2014, available at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/05/us-usa-spectrum-cisco-idUSBREA14OVY20140205. TIA indicates that American spending on mobile data services"rose by a third in 2012,and during the next four years it will increase by 94 percent." TIA Comments at 2. Cisco fiirther forecasts that global mobile data traffic will increase 11-fold between 2013 and 2018—in other words,global mobile data traffic will grow at a compound annual growth rate(year-over-year)of 61%from 2013 to 2018. See"Cisco Visual Networking Index:Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update,2013-2018,"available at http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white paper cll 520862.html(Cisco VNI Report 2014). See also"2014-2017 ICT Market Review&Forecast,"available at http://www.tiaonline.org/resources/market-forecast(finding that"[t]he skyrocketing demand for wireless data is a key driver,fueling growth for the[Information and Communications Technology]market."). 'Cisco VNI Report 2014,available at http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual- networking-index-vni/white paper cl 1-520862 html,at 10. 8 See Connect America Fund;A National Broadband Plan for Our Future;Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers;High-Cost Universal Service Support;Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime;Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service;Lifeline and Link-Up;Universal Service Reform Mobility Fund,WC Docket Nos. 10-90,07-135,05-337,03-109,CC Docket Nos. 01-92,96-45,GN (continued....) 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 deployment of broadband infrastructure, "[b]roadband access is essential to the Nation's global competitiveness in the 21st century, driving job creation,promoting innovation, and expanding markets for American businesses,"and also"afford[ing] public safety agencies the opportunity for greater levels of effectiveness and interoperability.i9 8. As the demand for wireless capacity surges,we must take steps to ensure that the networks underlying wireless services can bear the load.10 The record confirms that meeting America's growing demand for wireless broadband will require the deployment of large numbers of new or improved wireless facilities. AT&T alone plans to deploy more than 40,000 additional small cells, 1,000 additional DAS networks, and 10,000 additional macrocells from 2013 through 2015." Verizon states that it expects to have deployed more than 3,000 small cells across the country in 2014 alone.12 Recent data further demonstrate the impact of growing wireless demand on the need for new infrastructure. In its comments in a recent proceeding,PCIA states that in 2013 providers were expected to add up to 27,000 additional cell sites,13 while CTIA reports that its member companies had 304,360 cell sites in service at year-end 2013,a 26%increase in five years.14 9. Despite the widely acknowledged need for additional wireless infrastructure,the process of deploying these facilities can be expensive,cumbersome, and time-consuming.15 In addition to any private arrangements necessary to gain access to suitable land or structures,parties must typically obtain siting approval from the local municipality. They must also comply with the Commission's rules for environmental review, which implement our obligations under Federal statutes including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA)and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA or Section 106).16 (Continued from previous page) Docket No.09-51,WT Docket No. 10-208,Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,26 FCC Rcd 17663, 17667 para.3 (2011),affd In re:FCC 11-161,753 F.3d 1015(10th Cir.2014). See,generally,Federal Communications Commission,Connecting America:The National Broadband Plan,at xi(rel.Mar. 16,20 10) (National Broadband Plan). 9 See Executive Order 13616. 10 See Alan Pearce,Ph.D.,J.Richard Carlson,MBA,Michael Pagano,Ph.D,Wireless Broadband Infrastructure:A Catalyst for DGP and Job Growth 2013-2017,at 1-2(Sept.2013),submitted as an attachment to Letter from Jonathan M.Campbell,PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association,to Marlene Dortch, Secretary,FCC,WT Docket Nos. 13-238, 13-32;WC Docket Nos. 11-59, 10-90,07-135,05-337,03-109;GN Docket No.09-51; CC Docket Nos.01-92,96-45 (filed Oct.22,2013). 11 HetNet Forum Seminar Presentation,Small Cell Acceleration(July 29,2013),available at http://www.thedasforum.org/wp-contenVuploads/2013/07/HetNet-Forum-Small-Cell-Acceleration-Seminar- Presentations.pdf,at 21. 12 Verizon Comments at 8. 13 PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association and the HetNet Forum Comments,WT Docket No. 13-135,at 8. 14 See CTIA, "Annual Wireless Industry Survey,"available at http://www.ctia.ors/your-wireless-life/how-wireless- works/annual-wireless-industry-survey. 15 See 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,Amendment of Parts 1 and 17 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice Procedures for Processing Antenna Structure Registration Applications for Certain Temporary Towers,2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations,WT Docket Nos. 13-238, 13-32,WC Docket No. 13-122,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,28 FCC Rcd 14238, 14240 para.3 (2013)(Infrastructure NPRA4). 16 See 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. §470f. 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 10. Although these review requirements serve important local and national interests, local and Federal review processes can slow deployment substantially,even in cases that do not present significant concerns." Because these processes can significantly delay deployment,we now take action in four areas to reduce regulatory obstacles and bring efficiency to wireless facility siting and construction, as summarized below. We take these actions based on consideration of the entire record compiled in response to the Infrastructure NPRM.18 11. Environmental and Historic Preservation Review Processes. First,in Section III, we adopt measures to refine our environmental and historic preservation review processes under NEPA and NHPA to account for new wireless technologies, including physically small facilities like those used in DAS networks and small-cell systems that are a fraction of the size of macrocell installations.19 In contrast to the large-scale antennas and structures that our review processes were designed to address, these smaller antennas(and their associated compact radio equipment)can operate on existing short structures such as utility poles as well as on rooftops or inside buildings. As described in detail in the Executive Summary and in Section III,we expand an existing categorical exclusion from NEPA review so that it applies not only to collocations on buildings and towers,but also to collocations on other structures like utility poles. We also adopt a new categorical exclusion from NEPA review for some kinds of deployments in utilities or communications rights-of-way. With respect to NHPA,we create new exclusions to address certain collocations on utility poles and other non-tower structures. We take these steps to assure that, as we continue to meet our responsibilities under NEPA and NHPA,we also fulfill our obligation under the Communications Act to ensure that rapid, efficient, and affordable radio communications services are available to all Americans.20 12. Prior to adopting or changing rules to implement NEPA, an agency is required to publish its proposed procedures in the Federal Register for comment, and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)must advise whether the proposed procedures conform to NEPA and CEQ's regulations.21 In keeping with this process, CEQ has advised that the measures we adopt in this Report and Order to clarify and modify our environmental review process conform with NEPA and CEQ regulations.22 We have also 17 See Fibertech Comments at 7(reporting that"[m]any small cells deployments have languished for years due to lengthy and unproductive bureaucratic administrative tasks and hearings,"and citing cases). Verizon reports that the NHPA review process alone takes an average of 84 days for its DAS deployments(where such review is required), even though DAS networks are desirable in large part because the components are small and unobtrusive;in one case,the NHPA review took 150 days for a single DAS installation on a single pole. Verizon Comments at 9. 18 In response to the Inf•astructure NPP-Ni,we received 207 timely filed comments and 42 timely reply comments. Major commenters are listed,and the short forms by which they are cited in this Report and Order are identified, in Appendix A. In addition,we received numerous brief comments and ex parte submissions from a variety of interested parties,which are not listed in the Appendix but were reviewed and considered. To the extent that we cite comments in other proceedings,the citation specifies the docket. 19 Small cells are low-powered wireless base stations that function like cells in a mobile network but provide significantly smaller coverage area than traditional macrocells. DAS networks represent another wireless alternative to macrocells,but differ from small cells in that,whereas each small-cell deployment includes its own transceiver equipment that generally serves on wireless carrier/operator, a DAS network involves the use of transceiver equipment at a central hub site to support multiple antenna locations throughout the desired coverage area and in "neutral-host"deployments can serve multiple wireless carriers/operators. We describe these technologies in detail below. See infra, Section IIIA. 20 47 U.S.C. § 151. " 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3(a). 22 See Letter from Horst G.Greczmiel,Associate Director for NEPA Oversight,Council on Environmental Quality, to Peter B Trachtenberg,Deputy Chief, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division,dated Oct. 17,2014. This letter will be filed in WT Docket 13-238. The rules were first proposed in the Infrastructure NPRMthat was published in the Federal Register on December 5,2013. See Proposed Rules,Federal Communications Commission,47 C.F.R. (continued....) 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 coordinated the steps we are taking to tailor and clarify our Section 106 review process with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation(ACHP)and with Tribal Nations.23 13. We emphasize that additional,broader exclusions for DAS networks and other small facilities may well be appropriate. We conclude,however,that additional measures will require further consultation with CEQ,ACHP, state historic preservation officers, and Tribal Nations. With regard to our review process under Section 106, we find that broader reform is more appropriately undertaken through the development of a"program alternative"as defined under ACHP's rules.24 Therefore, Commission staff are working with ACHP and other stakeholders to develop a program alternative that will promote additional efficiencies in the historic preservation review of DAS and small-cell deployments, and we expect that this process will conclude between 18 and 24 months after the release of this Report and Order. 14. Temporary Towers. In Section IV,we codify a waiver previously granted by the Commission 2'and adopt a narrow exemption from the Commission's requirement that owners of proposed towers requiring antenna structure registration(ASR)provide 30 days of national and local notice to give members of the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed tower's potential environmental effects. The exemption from notification requirements applies only to proposed temporary towers meeting defined criteria, including limits on the size and duration of the installation,that greatly reduce the likelihood of any significant environmental effects. Allowing licensees to deploy temporary towers meeting these criteria without first having to complete the Commission's environmental notification process will enable them to more effectively respond to emergencies,natural disasters, and other planned and unplanned short-term spikes in demand without undermining the purposes of the notification process. This exemption will "remove an administrative obstacle to the availability of broadband and other wireless services during major events and unanticipated periods of localized high demand"where expanded or substitute service is needed quickly.26 (Continued from previous page) Parts 1 and 17,WT Docket Nos. 13-238, 13-32;WC Docket No. 11-59;FCC 13-122,Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies,78 Fed.Reg.73144-02(Dec.5,2013). Z3 See Letter from Jeffrey S.Steinberg,Geoffrey C.Blackwell,and Peter B.Trachtenberg,to Tribal Leaders,dated Aug.28,2014,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Sept.4,2014(Tribal Letter);Memo from Spectrum and Competition Policy Division,Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Sept.4,2014(Tribal Sept.4, 2014 Conference Call)(describing conference call with representatives of approximately 20 Tribal Nations concerning the Tribal Letter and issues in the rulemaking);Memo from Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Sept. 11,2014(describing meetings with approximately 100 representatives from Tribal Nations across the United States at the conference of the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers,including a discussion of DAS and small cells and the ongoing proceeding);Memo from Spectrum and Competition Policy Division,Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Sept. 19,2014(describing Division staff meetings with Robert Thrower,Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Poarch Band of Creek Indians,and Jeremy McDaniel of the Catawba Indian Nation, including a discussion of DAS and small cells and the instant rulemaking proceeding). See also Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14258 para.54&nn.104, 105(detailing the Commission's preliminary Tribal outreach regarding Section 106 review for DAS and small cells). 24 36 C.F.R.§ 800.14. 21 See Amendment of Parts 1 and 17 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice Procedures for Processing Antenna Structure Registration Applications for Certain Temporary Towers;2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations,RM-11688,WT Docket No. 13-32,Order,28 FCC Rcd 7758(2013)(Waiver Order). 26 See Waiver Order,28 FCC Rcd at 7758 para. 1. As with the NEPA measures in Section III,CEQ's October 17, 2014 letter also advised that the environmental notification exemption we adopt in this Report and Order conforms with NEPA and CEQ's regulations. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 15. Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act. In Section V, we adopt rules to implement and enforce Section 6409(a)of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012(Spectrum Act)?' Section 6409(a)provides, in part,that"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. ,28 By requiring timely approval of eligible requests, Congress intended to advance wireless broadband service for both public safety and commercial users.29 Section 6409(a) includes a number of undefined terms, however,that bear directly on how the provision applies to infrastructure deployments, and the record confirms that there are substantial disputes on a wide range of interpretive issues under the provision. We accordingly adopt rules that clarify many of these terms and enforce their requirements,thus advancing Congress's goal of facilitating rapid deployment. These rules 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. 16. Section 332(c)(7). Finally, in Section VI,we clarify issues related to Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act and the Commission's 2009 Declaratory Ruling.3' Among other things,we explain when a siting application is complete so as to trigger the presumptively reasonable timeframes for local and State review of siting applications under the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, and how the timeframes apply to local moratoria and DAS or small-cell facilities. These clarifications will eliminate many disputes under Section 332(c)(7), provide certainty about timing related to siting applications(including the time at which applicants may seek judicial relief), and preserve State and municipal governments' roles in the siting application process. 17. Taken together, the actions we take in this Report and Order will enable more rapid deployment of wireless facilities, delivering broadband and wireless innovations to consumers across the country. At the same time,they will safeguard the environment, preserve historic properties, protect the interest of Tribal Nations in their ancestral lands and cultural legacies, and address municipalities' concerns over impacts to aesthetics and other local values. II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 18. In this Section, we summarize the steps we take to facilitate wireless infrastructure deployment. First, as detailed in Section III.B,we adopt the following measures with regard to our NEPA process for review of environmental effects: • Amend the existing NEPA categorical exclusion for antenna collocations on buildings and towers to clarify that it includes equipment associated with the antennas(such as wiring, 27 See Spectrum Act§ 6409(a). We note that Section 6409(a)has since been codified in the Communications Act as 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a). However,for consistency with the Infrastructure NPRM,we continue to refer to it as Section 6409(a). 28 Spectrum Act§ 6409(a)(1). 29 See H.R.Rep. 112-399,at 136(2012)(Conference Report). We note that much of the Conference Report describes provisions in the House or Senate bills,and is not necessarily representative of Congressional intent in passing the Spectrum Act. The portions of the Conference Report that we rely upon in this Report and Order pertain expressly to the Spectrum Act as passed. so 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7);Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(b)to Ensure Timely Siting Review&to Preempt Under Section 253 State&Local Ordinances That Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals As Requiring A Variance,WT Docket No. 08-165,Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd 13994(2009)(2009 Declaratory Ruling). 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 cabling,cabinets,and backup-power), and that it also covers collocations in a building's interior; • Amend the NEPA categorical exclusion for collocations to cover collocations on structures other than buildings and towers; and • Adopt a new NEPA categorical exclusion for deployments, including deployments of new poles, in utility or communications rights-of-way that are in active use for such purposes, where the deployment does not constitute a substantial increase in size over the existing utility or communications uses. All of these categorical exclusions are subject to Sections 1.1307(c)and(d)of the Commission's rules, which require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment(EA)for a proposed facility otherwise categorically excluded from environmental processing if the processing bureau, either on its own motion or in response to a public complaint, determines that it may have a significant environmental impact.31 19. As detailed in Section III.C,we adopt the following measures with regard to our Section 106 process for review of effects on historic properties: • Adopt an exclusion from Section 106 review for collocations on utility structures, including utility poles and electric transmission towers,that meet the following conditions: o The deployment does not exceed a specified size limitation, detailed in Section III.C.2.a, when measured together with any other wireless deployment on the same structure; o The deployment will involve no new ground disturbance; and o The deployment is not(1) inside the boundary of a historic district, or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district; (2) located on a structure that is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places(National Register); or(3)the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties. • Adopt an exclusion from Section 106 review for collocations on buildings and any other non- tower structures that meet the following conditions: o There is an existing antenna on the building or structure; o The new deployment meets certain requirements related to visibility and proximity to an existing antenna; o The new antenna will comply with all zoning conditions and historic preservation conditions on existing antennas that directly mitigate or prevent effects, such as camouflage or concealment requirements; o The deployment will involve no new ground disturbance; and o The deployment is not(1) inside the boundary of a historic district, or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district; (2)located on a structure that is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register;or(3)the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties. • Clarify that the existing exclusions for certain collocations on buildings under the Commission's programmatic agreements extend to collocations inside buildings. 20. In Section IV,we adopt an exemption from the Commission's requirement that ASR applicants provide local and national environmental notification prior to submitting a completed ASR 3i 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(c),(d). 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 application for certain temporary antenna structures meeting criteria that make them unlikely to have significant environmental effects. Specifically, we exempt antenna structures that: • Will be in place for 60 days or less; • Require notice of construction to the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA); • Do not require marking or lighting under FAA regulations; • Will be less than 200 feet above ground level; and • Will involve minimal or no ground excavation. 21. In Section V, we adopt rules to clarify and implement the requirements of Section 6409(a)of the Spectrum Act. Among other measures, we: • Clarify that Section 6409(a) applies to support structures and to transmission equipment used in connection with any Commission-licensed or authorized wireless transmission; • Define"transmission equipment"to encompass antennas and other equipment associated with and necessary to their operation, including power supply cables and backup power equipment; • Define"tower"to include any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any Commission-licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities; • Clarify that the term "base station" includes structures other than towers that support or house an antenna, transceiver, or other associated equipment that constitutes part of a"base station" at the time the relevant application is filed with State or municipal authorities, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support, but does not include structures that do not at that time support or house base station components; • Clarify that a modification"substantially changes"the physical dimensions of a tower or base station, as measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station inclusive of any modifications approved prior to the passage of the Spectrum Act, if it meets any of the following criteria: o for towers outside of public rights-of-way, it increases the height by more than 20 feet or 10%,whichever is greater; for those towers in the rights-of-way and for all base stations, it increases the height of the tower or base station by more than 10%or 10 feet, whichever is greater; o for towers outside of public rights-of-way, it protrudes from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance,whichever is greater; for those towers in the rights-of-way and for all base stations, it protrudes from the edge of the structure more than six feet; o it involves installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four cabinets; o it entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site of the tower or base station; o it would defeat the existing concealment elements of the tower or base station; or o it does not comply with conditions associated with the prior approval of the tower or base station unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding "substantial change"thresholds; 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 • Provide that States and localities may continue to enforce and condition approval on compliance with generally applicable building, structural, electrical, and safety codes and with other laws codifying objective standards reasonably related to health and safety; • With regard to the process for reviewing an application under Section 6409(a),provide that: o A State or local government may only require applicants to provide documentation that is reasonably related to determining whether the eligible facilities request meets the requirements of Section 6409(a); o Within 60 days from the date of filing, accounting for tolling, a State or local government shall approve an application covered by Section 6409(a); and o The running of the period may be tolled by mutual agreement or upon notice that an application is incomplete provided in accordance with the same deadlines and requirements applicable under Section 332(c)(7), as described below,but not by a moratorium; • Provide that an application filed under Section 6409(a)is deemed granted if a State or local government fails to act on it within the requisite time period; • Clarify that Section 6409(a)applies only to State and local governments acting in their role as land use regulators and does not apply to such entities acting in their proprietary capacities; and • Provide that parties may bring disputes—including disputes related to application denials and deemed grants—in any court of competent jurisdiction. The Commission will not entertain such disputes. 22. In Section VI, we adopt clarifications of our 2009 Declaratory Ruling,which established the presumptively reasonable time periods within which a State or local government must act on a facilities siting application under Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act. We take the following specific actions: • Clarify,with regard to the Commission's determination in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling that a State or municipality may toll the running of the shot clock if it notifies the applicant within 30 days of submission that its application is incomplete,that: o The timeframe begins to run when an application is first submitted,not when it is deemed complete by the reviewing government; o A determination of incompleteness tolls the shot clock only if the State or local government provides notice to the applicant in writing within 30 days of the application's submission, specifically delineating all missing information, and specifying the code provision,ordinance,application instruction,or otherwise publically-stated procedures that require the information to be submitted; o Following an applicant's submission in response to a determination of incompleteness, the State or local government may reach a subsequent determination of incompleteness based solely on the applicant's failure to supply the specific information that was requested within the first 30 days; _ o The shot clock begins running again when the applicant makes its supplemental submission; however,the shot clock may again be tolled if the State or local government notifies the applicant within 10 days that the supplemental submission did not provide the specific information identified in the original notice delineating missing information; • Clarify that the presumptively reasonable timeframes run regardless of any applicable moratoria; 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 • Clarify that where DAS or small-cell facilities, including third-party facilities such as neutral- host DAS deployments,are or will be used for the provision of personal wireless services, their siting applications are subject to the 2009 Declaratory Ruling and the presumptively reasonable timeframes it established; and • Decline to adopt an additional remedy for State or local government failures to act within the presumptively reasonable time limits. III. NEPA AND NHPA REVIEW OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES 23. In this section,we adopt measures to update our review processes under NEPA32 and Section 106 of NHPA,33 with a particular emphasis on accommodating new wireless technologies that use smaller antennas and compact radio equipment to provide mobile voice and broadband service. These technologies, including distributed antenna systems (DAS), small cells, and others, can be deployed on a variety of non-traditional structures such as utility poles, as well as on rooftops and inside buildings,to enhance capacity or fill in coverage gaps. Updating our environmental and historic preservation rules will enable these innovations to flourish, delivering more broadband service to more communities,while reducing the need for potentially intrusive new construction and safeguarding the values the rules are designed to protect. 24. Our environmental and historic preservation rules have traditionally been directed toward the deployment of macrocells on towers and other tall structures.14 Since 1974,these rules have excluded collocations of antennas from most of the requirements under our NEPA review process,recognizing the benefits to the environment and historic properties from the use of existing support structures over the construction of new structures. These exclusions have limitations, however. The collocation exclusion under NEPA,which was first established in 1974,on its face encompasses only deployments on existing towers and buildings, as these were the only support structures widely used 40 years ago, and therefore does not encompass collocations on existing utility poles,for example. Similarly,the collocation exclusions in our process for historic preservation review under Section 106 do not consider the scale of small wireless facility deployments. 25. Thus,while small wireless technologies are increasingly deployed to meet the growing demand for high mobile data speeds and ubiquitous coverage, our rules and processes under NEPA and Section 106, even as modified over time, have not reflected those technical advances. Accordingly, after review of the record,we conclude that it will serve the public interest to update our environmental and historic preservation rules in large measure to account for innovative small facilities, and we take substantial steps to advance the goal of widespread wireless deployment, including clarifying and amending our categorical exclusions. We conclude that these categorical exclusions, as codified in Note 1 and 4 of Section 1.1306 of our rules, do not have the potential for individually or cumulatively significant environmental impacts.35 We find that the steps we take today will serve both the industry and the conservation values our review process was intended to protect. These steps will eliminate review processes and the sometimes cumbersome compliance measures that accompany such review, relieving the industry of review process requirements in cases where they are not needed. At the same time,we eliminate the need for bureaucratic review of deployments that do not require it. These steps will advance our goal of spurring efficient wireless broadband deployment while also ensuring that we continue to protect environmental and historic preservation values. 32 See 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq 33 See 16 U.S.C. §470f. 34 We use the term"macrocell'to refer to a high-powered deployment,typically installed relatively high on a tower, to provide signal coverage to a large geographic area. 3s 47 C.F.R. § 1.13 06 Note 1,Note 4. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 26. Specifically,and as discussed in detail below,we take the following actions in connection with our NEPA review process: (1)we amend the existing NEPA categorical exclusion for antenna collocations on buildings and towers to clarify that it includes equipment associated with the antennas(such as wiring, cabling, cabinets,and backup-power equipment), and that it also covers collocations in a building's interior, and we codify these clarifications;(2)we amend the NEPA categorical exclusion for collocations to cover collocations on structures other than buildings and towers; and(3)we adopt a new NEPA categorical exclusion for deployments, including deployments of new poles, in utility or communications rights-of-way that are in active use for such purposes, where the deployment does not constitute a substantial increase in size over the existing utility or communications uses.36 27. We also adopt measures to update our historic preservation review process under Section 106 of NHPA. Relying on our authority under the rules of ACHP,we adopt two limited exclusions from Section 106 review, one applicable to utility structures specifically and the other to non-tower structures in general, including buildings. First,we exclude from Section 106 review collocations on utility structures, including utility poles and electric transmission towers,that meet the following conditions: (1) the antenna and any associated equipment,when measured together with any other wireless deployments on the same structure,meet specified size limitations;and(2)the deployment will involve no new ground disturbance. Second,we exclude collocations on buildings and any other non-tower structures that meet the following conditions: (1)there is an existing antenna on the building or structure; (2)the collocation meets one of three alternative criteria for visibility, location,and size, as described in detail below; (3)the new antenna complies with all zoning conditions and historic preservation conditions on existing antennas that directly mitigate or prevent effects,such as camouflage or concealment requirements; and(4)the deployment involves no new ground disturbance. We further limit both of these collocation exclusions, however,to deployments that are not(1)inside the boundary of a historic district,or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district; (2)located on a structure that is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register; or(3)the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties. In other words,these two new targeted exclusions address collocations on utility structures and other non-tower structures where historic preservation review would otherwise be required under the Collocation Agreement and our existing rules only because the structures are more than 45 years old. In addition to these two new exclusions,we further clarify that the existing exclusions for certain collocations on buildings under the Commission's programmatic agreements extend to collocations inside buildings. 28. While these steps will provide significant benefits for wireless deployments,particularly DAS and small-cell deployments,we intend to take additional measures, including adopting broader exclusions from NEPA and Section 106 review. However, consistent with NEPA and NHPA,we conclude that additional measures will require further consideration and consultation. Accordingly,we do not, at this time, adopt categorical exclusions from NEPA and NHPA review that would cover all DAS 36 We emphasize that none of these exclusions,or any other action we take in this Report and Order,would exclude any facility from the requirement under our rules to conduct an Environmental Assessment if human exposure to radiofrequency(RF)emissions will exceed specified levels. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b). We further note that the Commission issued a First Report and Order,Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making,and Notice of Inquiry last year that addressed several issues regarding compliance with current RF exposure criteria,and sought comment on whether to reassess the current limits. See Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies;Proposed Changes in the Commission's Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,ET Docket Nos. 13-84,03-137,First Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry,28 FCC Rcd 3498 (2013)(RF Emissions R&O, FNPW &NOI). Because that proceeding remains open,we do not address comments filed in this proceeding to the extent they suggest changes to our RF exposure standards. 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 and small-cell deployments.37 We recognize that there are ways to make the historic preservation review process in particular even more efficient. We find,however,that broader reform of our process is more appropriately undertaken through the development of a"program alternative"as defined under ACHP's rules,which provides greater opportunity and flexibility to tailor our process than our limited authority under ACHP's rules to adopt exclusions.38 Therefore, in consultation with ACNP and other applicable stakeholders, Commission staff are developing a program alternative that will further facilitate review of DAS and small-cell deployments by better focusing review on those deployments that are likely to raise concerns, including on structures other than utility poles and transmission towers even if there is no existing antenna on the structure. For example, Verizon proposes that we find that no historic properties will be affected by a deployment on structures other than utility poles and transmission towers where(1) the facility meets specified volumetric limits; (2)the facility involves no new ground disturbance under the standard defined by the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement(NPA); (3)the facility requires historic preservation review solely due to the age of the structure;and(4)the structure is neither listed in the National Register nor formally determined eligible for listing by the Keeper of the National Register.39 While we find that such an exclusion is not appropriate under the governing ACHP rule that provides us narrow authority to unilaterally adopt exclusions from Section 106 review, we intend to address this proposal in the program alternative process. We expect that this process will conclude between 18 and 24 months after the release of this Report and Order. A. Description of DAS, Small Cells,and Other Small Wireless Technologies 29. The increasing demand for advanced wireless services and greater wireless bandwidth is driving an urgent and growing need for additional infrastructure deployment and new infrastructure technologies.`10 To meet localized needs for coverage and increased capacity in outdoor and indoor environments,many wireless providers have turned in part to DAS and small-cell technologies.ai 30. Small cells are low-powered wireless base stations that function like cells in a mobile wireless network,typically covering targeted indoor or localized outdoor areas ranging in size from 3'See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14254-55 para.43 (seeking comment on whether to adopt a categorical exclusion for some or all of the components involved in DAS and small-cell deployments from NEPA review other than for compliance with RF exposure limits). 38 As discussed below,we must comply with the rules of ACHP,which specify the process under which Federal agencies shall perform their historic preservation reviews. See 36 C.F.R. §§ 800.2,800.3. Program alternatives, which allow Federal agencies to streamline their Section 106 process by tailoring the process to the agency's programs and decision-making process,substitute in whole or in part for ACHP's Section 106 regulations under Subpart B. See 36 C.F.R. § 800.14. Program alternatives can include alternative procedures or programmatic agreements,among other possibilities. See"Program Alternatives,"available at httn://www achp.eov/progalt/. 39 See Letter from Tamara Preiss,Verizon,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WT Docket 13-238,filed Oct. 8, 2014(Venzon Oct. 8,2014 Ex Parte). 40 See PCIA Comments at 2-3; Verizon Comments at 2. 41 See Crown Castle Comments at 2("DAS and Small Cell networks provide an increasingly important role in facilitating the deployment of broadband infrastructure,as network operators seek to target broadband capacity to the locations where their customers use wireless broadband and to improve in-building coverage."); Implementation of Section 6002(B)of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993,Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless,Including Commercial Mobile Services,Sixteenth Report,WT Docket No. 11-186,28 FCC Rcd 3700,3933 para.373 (2013)(Sixteenth Competition Report);J.Sharpe Smith, AGL Magazine,"Towers Will Handle Most Mobile Data Growth in Next Five Years,"Mar. 11,2013,available at http://www.aglmediagroup.com/tae/iames-taiclet/(noting projection by Cisco that 25%of wireless data growth through 2017 will be carried by DAS,picocells and Wi-Fi);Tammy Parker,FierceWirelessTech,"Active DAS equipment market growing 20%annually in North America,"Aug. 18,2012,available at http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless com/story/active-das-equipment-market- rowing 20 annually north america/2012-08-18. 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 homes and offices to stadiums, shopping malls,hospitals, and metropolitan outdoor spaces.az Wireless service providers often use small cells to provide connectivity to their subscribers in areas that present capacity and coverage challenges to traditional wide-area macrocell networks, such as coverage gaps created by buildings,tower siting difficulties,and challenging terrain as Because these cells are significantly smaller in coverage area than traditional macrocells,networks that incorporate small-cell technology can reuse scarce wireless frequencies,thus greatly increasing spectral efficiency and data capacity within the network footprint.44 For example, deploying ten small cells in a coverage area that can be served by a single macrocell could result in a tenfold increase in capacity while using the same quantity of spectrum.as 31. DAS provides another alternative to macrocells mounted on tall antenna structures.4' A DAS network distributes RF signals from transceivers at a central hub to a specific service area with poor coverage or inadequate capacity 47 As typically configured, a DAS network consists of: (1)a number of remote communications nodes deployed throughout the desired coverage area, each including at least one antenna for transmission and reception; (2)a high capacity signal transport medium (typically fiber optic cable)connecting each node to a central communications hub site; and(3)radio transceivers located at the hub site(rather than at each individual node as is the case for small cells)to process or control the communications signals transmitted and received through the antennas.as DAS deployments offer robust and broad coverage without creating the visual and physical impacts of multiple macrocells. Further, whereas small cells are usually operator-managed and support only a single wireless service provider, DAS networks can often accommodate multiple providers using different frequencies and/or wireless air interfaces." 42 See Sixteenth Competition Report,28 FCC Rcd at 3937-38 para.384; "Small Cell Forum: What is a small cell?", available at http://www.smallcellforum.oreaboutsmallcells-small-cells-what-is-a-small-cell. While the industry has not always been consistent in the terms it uses for different types of small-cell technology,generally speaking, femtocells,picocells,metrocells,and microcells refer to types of small-cell technologies with coverage areas of increasing size. 43 See Amendment of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, GN Docket No. 12-354,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order,27 FCC Rcd 15594, 15596 para.4, 15605 para. 30(2012)(3.5 GHz Set-vice Rules NPRM). Networks using a mix of both macrocells and small wireless technologies are sometimes referred to as"heterogeneous networks"or"HetNets." See,e g,Sara Landstr6m, Anders FuruskAr,Klas Johansson,Laetitia Falconetti,and Fredric Kronestedt,"Heterogeneous networks— increasing cellular capacity,"available at http://www.ericsson.com/res/thecompanv/docs/publications/ericsson review/2011/heterogeneous networks.pdf; PCIA Comments,GN Docket No. 12-354,at 3 n.6. 44 See 3.5 GHz Service Rules NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15596 para.4 4s Id 46 See Sixteenth Competition Report,28 FCC Rcd at 3906 para.321. 47 See, e.g., "the DAS forum:Distributed Antenna Systems(DAS)And Small Cell Technologies Distinguished," available at hiip://www.thedasforum.ore/wp-content/upi ads/2013/02/DAS-And-Small-Cell-Technologies- Distinguished-2 4 13.pdf,at 5. 48 Id See also Ontario Energy Board,Expert Report of Charles L.Jackson,"Wireless Networks and Utility Poles," June 11,2013,available at hiips://www.torontohydro.com/sites/electricsystem/Documents/W ireless/Expert%20Evidence%20of%20Charies%2 OL.%20Jackson%20June%2011%202013.pdf,at 13 (noting that while"each small cell is a separate base station, . . .a cell with a distributed antenna system is built by connecting several antennas to a single base station"). 49 See,e.g, "Small Cell Forum:What is a small cell?",available at http://www.smallceliforum.org/aboutsmallcells- small-cells-what-is-a-small-cell(noting that small cells are"operator-controlled"); "the DAS forum:Distributed Antenna Systems(DAS)And Small Cell Technologies Distinguished,"available at http://www.thedasforum.oriz/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/DAS-And-Sma ll-Cell-Techno to Qi es-Distin eui shed- (continued....) 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 32. Small wireless technologies like DAS and small cells have a number of advantages over traditional macrocells. Because the facilities deployed at each node are physically much smaller than macrocell antennas and associated equipment and do not require the same elevation,they can be placed on light stanchions,utility poles, building walls and rooftops, and other small structures either privately owned or in the public rights-of-way. Thus, providers can deploy the technologies in geographic areas, such as densely populated urban areas,where traditional towers are not feasible or in areas, such as stadiums, where localized wireless traffic demands would require an unrealistic number of macrocells.so 33. In addition,because these technologies utilize small equipment and transmit at signal power levels much lower than macrocells,they can be deployed in indoor environments to improve interior wireless services.51 Current estimates suggest that more than 60%of wireless voice calls and 70%of wireless data usage take place inside buildings.52 DAS and small-cell deployments not only improve interior coverage in a general sense,they can also enhance security by providing a cost-effective mechanism for public-safety communications throughout a building alongside commercial cellular services.53 Deployments of such small facilities are also particularly useful to address capacity or coverage needs in areas with stringent siting regulations, such as historic districts. Because small cells are smaller and less visible than macrocells,providers can more easily deploy them with stealth measures such as concealment enclosures that blend with the structures on which they are installed. 34. More broadly, DAS and small-cell deployments are a comparatively cost-effective way of addressing increased demand for wireless broadband services, particularly in urban areas.54 As a result, providers are rapidly increasing their use of these technologies, and the growth is projected to increase exponentially in the coming years. According to one estimate,more than 37 million small cells will be (Continued from previous page) 2 4_13.pdf,at 3 (noting that in contrast to DAS,"small cell solutions are typically deployed piecemeal to provide coverage or enhance capacity in much smaller areas with a single wireless communications technology for a single wireless carrier."). so See, e.g, PCIA Comments at i;Verizon Comments at 2,8; Letter from D.Zachary Champ,PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WC Docket No. 11-59; GN Docket No. 12-354, filed Mar. 19,2013 (PCIA Mar. 19,2013 Ex Parte),Attach.(Dr.Amos J.Loveday,DAS/Small Cells&Historic Preservation:An Analysis of the Impact of Historic Preservation Rules on Distributed Antenna Systems and Small Cell Deployment,Feb.27,2013,at 1,2("Loveday Report"));"the DAS forum:Distributed Antenna Systems(DAS) And Small Cell Technologies Distinguished,"available at http://www.thedasforum.org/w- content/uploads/2013/02/DAS-And-Small-Cell-Technologies-Distinguished-2 4 13 pdf,at 6. See also PCIA—The Wireless Infrastructure Association and the DAS Forum Comments,WC Docket No. 11-59,at 11-12,27(PCIA and DAS Forum NOI Comments). 51 Common candidates for indoor DAS deployments include offices and corporate campuses,stadiums,universities, retail centers,health care facilities,transportation centers(e g,airports,train and subway stations)and hospitality venues(e g,hotels,convention centers). See Tracy Ford,BICSI News Magazine,"Installing DAS&Small Cells— What You Need to Know,"available at http://www.thedasforum.org/m-content/uploads/2013/04/Ford-BISCI- News-Article.pdf. 521d. Another report estimates that more than two-thirds of all wireless communication occurs indoors. See ECS, "An In-Depth Look at DAS,Wi-FI,and Small Cell Growth and Trends,"available at http://ecselectrical.net/2014/03/an-in-d evth-look-at-das-wi-fi-and-sm all-cel l-growth-and-trends/. "See John B.Whatley,"White Paper:Considerations for an in-building distributed antenna system,"available at http://www.rcrwire less.com/arti cle/20120104/infrastructure-2/das/white-paper-cons iderations-for-an-in-building- distributed-antenna-system/. Public safety information can be broadcast across a range of frequencies that DAS networks can support. Id 54 See"Hetrogeneous Networks,Securing Excellent Broadband Mobile Experience,Everywhere,"Ericsson White Paper,Sept.2014,available at http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/whitepapers/wp-heterogenous-networks pdf,at 5- 6. 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 deployed by 2017.55 Another predicts that 16 million DAS nodes will be deployed by 2018—with the number of nodes doubling between 2013 and 2016—and that more than 50%of DAS networks will include Wi-Fi capability by 2018.56 Indeed,one study projects that aggregate small-cell capacity will overtake macrocell capacity by 2016-2017.57 As they are increasingly relied upon, DAS and small-cell technologies are also posing new logistical deployment challenges.58 In particular, because individual DAS nodes and small cells cover small areas,providers must often deploy a substantial number of nodes to achieve the seamless coverage of a single macrocell s9 B. NEPA Categorical Exclusions 1. Regulatory Background 35. NEPA requires Federal agencies to identify and evaluate the environmental effects of proposed Federal actions and to prepare a"detailed statement"for"major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment."60 In particular,NEPA requires Federal agencies to take a"hard look"at"major"Federal actions that may have significant environmental consequences and to disseminate relevant information to the public.61 The Commission satisfies its NEPA responsibility to 55 See Joe Madden,"Cost Comparison: Carrier Wi-Fi, Small Cells,DAS,Repeaters,"April 2013,available at http://www.richardsonfpd.com/resources/ReIlDocuments/SYS 29/Joe Madden Avril2013.pdf,at 2. Verizon states that it plans to deploy over 3,000 small cells across the country in 2014. See Verizon Comments at 8. By 2015,AT&T plans to deploy over 40,000 small cells and over 1,000 DAS networks,in addition to 10,000 macrocells. See PCIA Comments at 3. 56 See Antenna Systems&Technology,"16 Million DAS Nodes to be Deployed Through 2018,"available at http://www.antennasonline.com/main/news/16-million-das-nodes-to-be-deployed-through-2018/(citing a forecast report by Mobile Experts called"DAS:Absorbing Small Cells and Wi-Fi"). 57 See Tessco,"Cellular Coverage/Capacity. . .the Small Cell Revolution,"available at https://www.tessco.com/vts/knowledge center/su/cellular-coverage-capacity-the-small-cell-revolution.html. A December 2012 survey conducted by Informa found that 98%of operators think small cells are essential to the future of their networks. Id "See, e g,Wireless Magazine,"Small cells and DAS—A widely distributed choice,"Feb.22,2013,available at http://www.wireless-mag.com/features/24320/small-cells-and-das---a-widely-distributed-choice.aspx(noting that multiple operators often need to share systems in order to please localities,and that efficient management of a shared system may require a middleman to acquire and manage sites);Vladan Jevremovic,Ph.D.,"The Technological Future of Small Cells,"available at http://www.ibwave.com/blog/the-technological-future-of-small- cells/(noting challenges of heterogeneous networks,also known as HetNets,which integrate small-cell technologies and DAS with macrocells into a single network). 59 See,e g.,"the DAS forum:Distributed Antenna Systems(DAS)And Small Cell Technologies Distinguished," available at hgp://www.thedasforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/DAS-And-Small-Cell-Technologies- Distinguished-2 4 13.pdf,at 3,4(explaining that DAS networks can range from just two nodes to ten,fifty,or even more nodes,covering areas ranging from several blocks to entire cities);AT&T,"DAS a Winner,How AT&T's Distributed Antenna System Keeps Fans Connected,"available at hqp://www.att.com/Common/about us/files/pdf/das football.pdf(indicating DAS deployment in a stadium typically includes hundreds of antennas). For further information regarding DAS and small cells,see FCC,"Augmenting Mobile Broadband in Your Community—An Overview of Distributed Antenna Systems and Small Cell Solutions," available at http://www.fcc.gov/events/augmenting-mobile-broadband-your-community-overview-distributed- antenna-systems-and-small-cel(describing Commission-hosted workshop providing"an overview of[DAS] and small cell technologies that augment mobile broadband and wireless services"). 60 See 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C);47 C.F.R. § 1.1305;National Environmental Policy Act Compliance for Proposed Tower Registrations,Effects of Communications Towers on Migratory Birds,WT Docket Nos.08-61,03-187, Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd 16700, 16702-03 (2011)(Environmental Notification Order on Remand)(citing Robertson v Methow Valley Citizens Council,490 U.S.332,349-50(1989)). 61 Robertson, 490 U.S.at 349-50. 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 identify and evaluate the environmental effects of proposed Federal actions that do not have significant impacts and therefore do not require a"detailed statement"(an Environmental Impact Statement62)using an environmental assessment or a categorical exclusion.63 Federal actions include projects or programs that are entirely or partly financed, assisted, conducted, regulated, or approved by Federal agencies.' 36. Under Section 204 of NEPA,the Council on Environmental Quality(CEQ) is entrusted with NEPA oversight responsibility.65 CEQ's regulations direct agencies to identify their Federal actions and place each within one of three categories.66 The first category encompasses actions that normally have a significant environmental impact. Before undertaking these actions,the agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS).6' The second category includes actions that may, but do not necessarily, have a significant environmental impact.6' For actions in this category, an agency may conduct an Environmental Assessment(EA) in lieu of an EIS.69 If the EA shows that a proposed action will have no significant environmental impact, then the agency issues a Finding of No Significant Impact,70 and the proposed action can proceed. Otherwise, the agency must proceed with the EIS process. The third category—"categorical exclusions"—covers actions that, based on the agency's assessment, "do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. . . and for which. . . neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required."71 CEQ regulations require that an agency that chooses to establish categorical exclusions must also provide for "extraordinary circumstances"under which an action that is normally categorically excluded may have a significant environmental effect and therefore require further NEPA review in an EA or EIS.72 37. The Commission has generally found that its grant or approval of an application that will result in the deployment of a wireless communications facility qualifies as a Federal action,thereby subjecting the facility to NEPA procedures.'' With respect to the first category of actions described 62 40 C.F.R. § 1508.11. 63 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1306, 1.1307. 64 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18(a). 6s See 42 U.S.C. §4344. 66 See 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3(b)(2). 67 See 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4. An EIS is a detailed statement by the responsible Federal official on-"(i)the environmental impact of the proposed action,(ii)any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,(iii)alternatives to the proposed action,(iv)the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-tern productivity,and(v)any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented." 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C);see also 40 C.F.R. § 1508.11. The Commission's procedures for preparing an EIS are described in 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1314-1.1319. "See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4(b), 1507.3(b)(2)(iii)(providing that agency procedures shall identify those typical classes of action that normally require EAs but not necessarily EISs). 69 See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4(b), 1507.3(b)(2)(iii).An EA is briefer than an EIS,and its purpose is to determine whether an EIS is required. Pursuant to CEQ's regulations,an EA is a document that: (1)discusses the need for a proposed action,the alternatives,and the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives;(2)lists the agencies and persons consulted;and(3)provides evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact(FONSI). See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9. See also 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b). 70 See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.13. " 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4. See 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3(b)(2)(ii);47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1306, 1.1307. 72 40 C.F R. § 1508.4. 73 See Infrastructure NPkVI,28 FCC Rcd at 14247 para.21. 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 above,the Commission has found that none of its actions are of a type that ordinarily will have the potential for a significant environmental impact, and therefore that no facility deployments automatically require an EIS.74 Sections 1.1307(a)and(b)of the Commission's rules identify the environmentally sensitive circumstances under which communications-facility deployments may significantly affect the environment and require preparation of an EA.75 Section 1.1307(a) includes facilities to be located in an officially designated wilderness area,an officially designated wildlife preserve, or a flood plain. It also includes facilities that may affect threatened or endangered species or their critical habitats, or are likely to jeopardize proposed threatened or endangered species or destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitats;that may affect districts, sites, buildings,structures or objects that are listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register; that may affect Native American religious sites;that will involve significant change in surface features(e.g., deforestation); or that will be located in residential neighborhoods and will be equipped with high intensity white lights.76 In addition, under Section 1.1307(b)a facility may have a significant environmental impact if it would cause human exposure to RF emissions in excess of specified levels." For all of these proposed facilities identified in Sections 1.1307(a)and(b),unless they are identified in the Notes to Section 1.1306 as discussed below, applicants must prepare and submit an EA that the Commission uses to determine whether the deployment would result in a significant environmental impact. Sections 1.1307(c)and (d)also require the preparation of an EA for a proposed facility otherwise categorically excluded from environmental processing under Section 1.1306 if the processing bureau,either on its own motion or in response to a public complaint,determines that it may have a significant environmental impact." 38. With respect to the third category described above, Section 1.13 06 of the Commission's rules specifies those actions that are categorically excluded from environmental review.79 Under Section 1.1306,wireless facility deployments, including deployments of new wireless towers, are categorically excluded from review if they fall outside of the environmentally sensitive categories identified in Sections 1.1307(a) and(b). Further,Note 1 to Section 1.1306 (Note 1)clarifies that the requirement to file an EA under Section 1.1307(a)generally does not apply to"the mounting of antenna(s)on an existing building or antenna tower"or to the installation of wire or cable in an existing underground or aerial corridor,even if an environmentally sensitive circumstance identified in Section 1.1307(a)is present.80 More specifically,Note 1 provides that mounting an antenna on an existing building or antenna tower is categorically excluded under NEPA unless Section 1.1307(a)(4)applies(that is, if the proposed installation may affect historic properties protected by Section 106)or if the proposed installation would result in human exposure to RF emissions in excess of health and safety guidelines cited in Section 1.1307(b). Note 1 reflects a preference first articulated by the Commission in 1974, and codified into Note 1 in 1986,that"[t]he use of existing buildings,towers or corridors is an environmentally,desirable alternative to the construction of new facilities and is encouraged."" 74 See 47 C.F.R. §1.1305. 71 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a),(b). 76 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a). 77 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b). As noted above,the Commission has initiated a proceeding on RF emissions criteria, and that proceeding is pending. See supra, n.36. 71 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(c),(d). 79 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306(a). 80 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306 Note 1. 81 Id See,e.g.,Amendment of the Commission's Environmental Rules, Order,3 FCC Rcd 4986,4986 para. 7 (1988)(1988 NEPA Order)("The Commission has long held that the mounting of antennas on existing buildings or antenna towers generally is environmentally preferable to the construction of a new facility,a preference which is reflected in note 1.");Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,Docket No. 19555,Report and Order,49 FCC 2d 1313, 1324 para.27(1974)(1974 NEPA Order). The Note 1 categorical exclusion for (continued....) 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 2. Antennas Mounted on Existing Buildings and Towers a. Clarification of"Antenna" 39. Background. The Infrastructure NPRMsought comment on whether to provide expressly that the categorical exclusion for the mounting of"antenna(s)"on buildings or towers also applies to the equipment associated with the antenna, such as transceivers, converters, and power supplies.82 It also sought comment on whether and how, in this context, the Commission should clarify what constitutes associated equipment.83 40. Industry commenters argue that the categorical exclusion should be interpreted to include associated equipment.84 Verizon argues that if the exclusion does not encompass such equipment,then our rules would require NEPA review for every collocation, and that this would vitiate the exclusion and frustrate its intended purpose.85 Some municipal commenters express concerns about the proposed clarification,however.BG Savannah opposes including any associated equipment under the NEPA collocation categorical exclusion, asserting that it may have a greater environmental or historic preservation impact than the antenna itself.87 Tempe argues that the categorical exclusion should not extend to diesel generators because of their fumes,noise, and potential for spills.88 41. Discussion Because the record confirms some uncertainty regarding the scope of the Commission's existing Note 1 categorical exclusion for the"mounting of antenna(s)on existing buildings and antenna towers,"we take this opportunity to clarify the scope of the categorical exclusion.89 We first clarify that the term"antenna" as used in Note 1 encompasses all on-site equipment associated with the (Continued from previous page) collocations on existing buildings or towers was originally adopted in 1986. See Amendment of Environmental Rules in Response to New Regulations Issued by the Council on Environmental Quality,Report and Order,GEN Docket No.79-163,60 Rad.Reg.2d 13 (1986)(1986 NEPA Order). It was modified in the 1988 NEPA Order to provide that such collocations are subject to Section 1.1307(a)(4)as well as to Section 1.1307(b). See 1988 NEPA Order,3 FCC Rcd at 4986 para.7. 82 Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14254 para.40. 89 See id 84 See, e g, AT&T Comments at 10(arguing that Note 1 already extends to associated equipment and therefore needs no amendment to do so);PCIA Comments at 17(arguing as an"analogy"that associated equipment is covered by the term"antenna"as used in the programmatic agreements governing the Commission's historic preservation review process);UTC Comments at 4(supporting amendment to the exclusion so that it"expressly covers"the associated equipment),Verizon Comments at 15-16(arguing that Commission should change the phrase "mounting of antenna(s)"to"mounting of antenna(s)and associated equipment,"or otherwise"make clear"that the Note 1 exclusion applies to associated equipment). 85 See Verizon Comments at 16. See also AT&T Comments at 10(arguing that limiting the categorical exclusion to antennas"would frustrate the purpose of the exemption,as it would exclude equipment,mountings,and other components needed to operate the antennas");Towerstream Comments at 31 (arguing that application of"stringent" environmental requirements to"the other equipment necessary to operate these wireless technologies would not provide effective relief'). 96 See, e g, Letter from Edna Branch Jackson,Mayor, Savannah,Georgia,to Jane Jackson,FCC, WT Docket No. 13-238,filed April 8,2014(Savannah Ex Parte),at 2; San Antonio Reply Comments at 27;Tempe Comments at 5- 7. See also Alexandria et al. Comments at 4(arguing that if Commission were to read Section 6409(a)of the Spectrum Act to broadly preempt local review of modification requests that present environmental and historic preservation concerns,then the Commission's proposed actions on Note 1 would be inappropriate). 87 See Savannah Ex Parte at 2;see also San Antonio Reply Comments at 27(objecting to inclusion of associated equipment because"many additional equipment deployments will be swept out of the reach of NEPA"as a result). 88 See Tempe Comments at 5-7. 89 We also amend the text of Note 1 to codify the clarification. See infra,App.B. 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 antenna, including transceivers,cables,wiring,converters,power supplies,equipment cabinets and shelters,and other comparable equipment. We conclude that this is the only logically consistent interpretation of the term, as associated equipment is a standard part of such collocations,and the antennas subject to NEPA review cannot operate without it.90 Thus, interpreting the term"antenna"as omitting associated equipment would eviscerate the categorical exclusion by requiring routine NEPA review for nearly every collocation. Such an interpretation would therefore frustrate the categorical exclusion's purpose 91 We also note that our interpretation of"antenna"in this context is consistent with how the Commission has defined the term"antenna"in the comparable context of our process for reviewing effects of proposed deployments on historic properties. Specifically, and as discussed in detail in the next section,the Commission's Section 106 historic preservation review is governed by two programmatic agreements,and in both,the term"antenna"encompasses all associated equipment.92 42. Further, if associated equipment presented significant concerns,we would expect that otherwise excluded collocations that included such equipment would, at some point over the past 40 years,have been subject to environmental objections or petitions to deny. We are unaware of any such objections or petitions directed at backup generators or any other associated equipment, or of any past EAs that found any significant environmental effect from such equipment 93 Given this long history,we find some commenters' generalized assertions of a risk of environmental effects to be unpersuasive, and we reaffirm that the collocations covered by Note 1, including the collocation of associated equipment addressed by our clarification,will not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.94 90 See, a g, AT&T Comments at 4, 10;Verizon Comments at 15-16. 91 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 10;Towerstream Comments at 31;see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306 Note 1. 92 The first agreement,the 2001 Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, provides that most collocations of antennas on existing structures are excluded from routine historic preservation review,with a few defined exceptions to address potentially problematic situations. See 47 C.F.R.Part 1,App.B, Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas(Collocation Agreement). The second,the 2005 Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review Process,establishes a detailed process for the review of the effects of proposed communications facilities on historic properties. See 47 C.F.R.Part 1,App.C,Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review Process§II.A.1 (NPA)(defining"antenna"to include associated equipment). While the Collocation Agreement does not define the term"antenna,"its use of the term indicates that it necessarily encompasses the associated equipment. 47 C.F.R.Part 1,App.B,Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas. For example,the Collocation Agreement specifies that a collocation of an"antenna"on a tower constitutes a"substantial increase in the size of the tower"if "[t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved." Collocation Agreement§I.C(2). We note that this intuitive interpretation of"antenna"in the context of wireless facility collocations is also reflected in certain local ordinances. For example,Montgomery County,Maryland,recently adopted an amendment to its zoning ordinance to provide, inter alfa,that an"Antenna on Existing Structure includes related equipment." Montgomery County,Maryland Zoning Ordinance Section 59.3.5.14(C)(1). See Ordinance No.: 17-49,Zoning Text Amendment No.: 14-04, "Concerning:Accessory Commercial Uses—Antennas,"adopted July 22,2014,effective Oct.30,2014,available at http://www.montgome cry ouniymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/zta/2014/20140722_17-49.pdf. 93 Cf.Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding The Section 166 National Historic Preservation Act Review Process,WT Docket No.03-128,Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd 1073, 1130 para. 158(2004)(NPA Report and Order)("We are aware of no case,however,where noise from a communications facility generator has been found to have an adverse effect on a historic property."),aff d,CTIA-The Wireless Ass'n v. F C.C.,466 F.3d 105(D.C.Cir. 2006). 94 While Alexandria et al. submit a declaration from Joseph Monaco asserting that"[m]inor additions to existing facilities could have significant effects even if only incremental to past disturbances,"see Alexandria et al Comments,Attach.(Monaco Declaration),at 5,we find this position is inconsistent with the Commission's finding that the mounting of antennas on existing towers and buildings will not have significant effects,and with our (continued....) 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 43. Against this evidence,we find unpersuasive Tempe's argument that the NEPA categorical exclusion for collocation should not encompass backup generators in particular.95 Tempe argues that generators cause"fumes,noise, and the potential for exposure to hazardous substances if there is a leak or a spill"and therefore"should not be allowed to be installed without the appropriate oversight."" To the extent Tempe raises concerns about noise from testing generators,97 we note that the Commission has previously determined that maintenance and servicing of equipment do not constitute Commission"undertakings"subject to the Section 106 historic preservation review process,98 and that courts have generally treated Federal actions under NEPA as closely analogous to Federal undertakings under NHPA.99 Thus,such maintenance procedures arguably do not constitute Federal actions subject to environmental review under NEPA.1 ' In any case,the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau addressed all of these potential impacts in its Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Antenna Structure Registration Program(PEA), and did not find any to be significant.101 Tempe's own comments, (Continued from previous page) experience administering the NEPA process,in which a collocation has never been identified by the Commission or the public to have caused a significant environmental effect. We further note that the proffered examples appear to confuse consideration under our NEPA process with review under local process,which we do not address here. See, e g,Monaco Declaration at 7(stating that"[r]emoving local discretion from the process of siting and design of additions to existing structures could result in significant effects"with respect to an endangered species). To the extent that rare circumstances exist where"even the smallest change could result in a significant effect,based on the intrinsic sensitivity of a particular resource,"Monaco Declaration at 11,we conclude that such extraordinary circumstances are appropriately addressed through Sections 1.1307(c)and(d),as necessary. Consistent with the requirement under CEQ regulations that an agency that establishes categorical exclusions must also provide for "extraordinary circumstances"under which an action that is normally categorically excluded may have a significant environmental effect and therefore require further NEPA review,we reaffirm that under Sections 1.1307(c)and(d) of our rules,if the relevant Bureau determines on its own motion or in response to a public objection that a proposed deployment that falls under this categorical exclusion may have a significant environmental impact,it will require the preparation of an EA. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(c),(d). 95 We note that the National Park Service adopted a categorical exclusion for proposed tower construction in Yellowstone National Park that included the installation of a backup generator based on a determination that the action would result in"no or minor impacts." See National Park Service,U.S.Department of the Interior, Categorical Exclusion Form,PEPC Project Number 43426,Oct. 13,2012,available at hM://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parklD=l I I&pro i ectID=43426&documentID=50144. 96 Tempe Comments at 5-6. 97 See Tempe Reply Comments at 3. 98 NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1088 para.39(citing NPA§I.B.("Many changes to tower sites . . .are in the nature of service or maintenance and are not federal undertakings.Thus,the Nationwide Agreement provides explicitly that Undertakings do not include maintenance and servicing of equipment.")). 99 See,e g,Karst Environmental Educ and Protection,Inc v.Environmental Protection Agency,475 F.3d 1291, 1295-96(D.C.Cir.2007);Sac and Fox Nation ofMassouri v Norton,240 F.3d 1250, 1263(10th Cir.2001). r ...But see 47 C.F.R. § 1.1311(b)(specifying that"[i]n the case of wilderness areas,wildlife preserves,or other like areas,the[EA] shall discuss the effect of any continuing pattern of human intrusion into the area(e g., necessitated by the operation and maintenance of the facilities)."). 101 See Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment For the Antenna Structure Registration Program,Public Notice,2012 WL 871792(WTB Mar. 13,2012)(PEA),at 8("Several resources were determined to not be affected by or to be affected negligibly by the No Action Alternative,Alternative 1,and the three options under Alternative 2. These resources include:geology,soils,farmlands,groundwater,coastal zones/barriers,designated wilderness areas(which are already protected under FCC rules),air quality,noise,and land use."),38(finding that all considered options for registration of antenna structures taking into account emissions from backup generators, would have negligible impact on air quality),id (finding that registered antenna structures would create no long- term differences in the frequency,magnitude,or duration of noise at the project site(s)and therefore all options"are expected to have negligible impacts on noise"),70(finding that potential that a spill or leak from a fuel-burning (continued....) 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 moreover, confirm that backup generators are already subject to extensive local, State, and Federal regulation, suggesting that further oversight from the Commission would not meaningfully augment existing environmental safeguards. For example,as Tempe notes, local building and fire codes often regulate the deployment of generators.10' In addition,the Environmental Protection Agency and many localities regulate emissions from and use of backup generators to alleviate environmental concerns,103 and generators must comply with any applicable noise ordinances and laws as well.1 ' In assessing environmental effect, an agency may factor in an assumption that the action is performed in compliance with other applicable regulatory requirements in the absence of a basis in the record beyond mere speculation that the action threatens violations of such requirements.1 ' Tempe's comments support our conclusion that such regulations applicable to backup generators address Tempe's concerns.10' Further, (Continued from previous page) generator would occur is small,and the amount of fuel onsite would not be sufficient to cause widespread contamination"and that,therefore,"[s]pills or leaks would likely result in short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts on surface water resources"). 102 See Tempe Comments at 6-7. 103 See Environmental Protection Agency,"Nonroad Diesel Engines,"available at hllp://www.el2a. ova /otaq/nonroad-diesel.htm(noting that Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)has"adopted a comprehensive national program to reduce emissions from non-road diesel engines by[systemically] integrating engine and fuel controls");see also Diesel Technology Forum,"Diesel at Work,"available at http://www.dieselforum.org/diesel-at-work/power-generation(noting that"[d]iesel generators are covered by a wide range of federal,state and local requirements regarding emissions performance and operating conditions"). 104 Cf"City of Palo Alto,California,Staff Report 2393,"available at http://valoattocilyca.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail Le iFg ile.aspx?Frame=&ID=2393&CssClass=(finding Palo Alto DAS installation compliant with local noise ordinance). Moreover,any noise from such generators is unlikely to have a significant effect on the environment,as they will be used only on the comparatively infrequent occasions when power has been lost or during brief periodic testing. Cf. Gray Tower Environmental Assessment,available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/psic/MSCommNet%20PSIC%20EA%20report%20final.pdf(finding no significant long-term noise impacts from generator as"use of the generator would be limited and would only occur during equipment maintenance and testing as a backup for primary power equipment and during interruption of the primary (grid)power supply"). 10'See,e g.,PEA,2012 WL 871792,at*38(assessing environmental impact of noise,the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau concluded that,"because tower construction is a private activity that is subject to state and local regulations,such as requirements to perform work during day-time business hours,the Bureau expects that any short-term impacts to adjacent land uses and populations would be mitigated"and further that"[c]onstruction workers also are required to comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration noise regulations"); National Telecommunications and Information Administration,"Finding of No Significant Impact for Proposed Gray Tower,"available at hqp://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/psic/Gray%20Tower ME 09-01-1 l.pdf(approving Gray Tower EA,which found no significant impact from tower that included generator in part because"Federal regulations limit the use of backup generators to 500 hours per year");Lone Tree Council v US Army Corp. of Engineers,2007 WL 1520904(E.D.Mich.May 24,2007)(upholding agency's Finding of No Significant Impact, where argument that its action might involve release of pollutant in violation of Clean Water Act certification was nothing more than"speculation"). See also Sierra Club v Van Antwerp,661 F.3d 1147, 1155 (D.C.Cir.2012) (upholding agency's FONSI,finding that agency reasonably found that past violation from similar action did not "threaten"future violations where previous violation was result of error and"not a problem of design");Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States, Inc v US Dept of Transp,524 F.Supp.2d 642(D.Md.2007) (affirming Department of Transportation's reliance in its environmental assessment on EPA standards regarding emissions). 106 See Tempe Comments at 6-7 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 we find that cell sites with such generators will rarely if ever be grouped in sufficient proximity to present a risk of cumulative effects.107 44. Accordingly, we find no reason to interpret"antenna"in the Note 1 NEPA collocation categorical exclusion to omit backup generators or other kinds of backup power equipment. Rather, as discussed above,we find that the term"antenna"as used in the categorical exclusion should be interpreted to encompass the on-site equipment associated with the antenna, including backup power sources. Further,the need for such power sources at tower sites is largely undisputed, as backup power is critical for continued service in the event of natural disasters or other power disruptions—times when the need and demand for such service is often at its greatest.108 We therefore amend Note 1 to clarify that the categorical exclusion encompasses equipment associated with the antenna, including the critical component of backup power. 45. Finally,we note once again that Sections 1.1306(b)(1)-(3)and 1.1307(c)and(d)of our rules provide for situations where environmental concerns are presented and, as called for by the requirement that categorical exclusions include consideration of extraordinary circumstances, closer scrutiny and potential additional environmental review are appropriate. Sections 1.1306(b)(1)-(3) expressly cross reference the factors in Section 1.1307 that trigger the need for an EA. Further,under Sections 1.1307(c)and(d)of our rules, even otherwise categorically excluded applications are subject to environmental review if the bureau responsible for processing the application determines on its own motion or in response to a public objection that the proposed deployment may have a significant environmental impact for which an EA must be prepared."' We conclude that individual cases presenting extraordinary circumstances in which collocated generators or other associated equipment may have a significant effect on the environment, including cases in which closely spaced generators may have a significant cumulative effect or where the deployment of such generators would violate local codes in a manner that raises environmental concerns, will be adequately addressed through these provisions.10 b. Antennas Mounted in the Interior of Buildings 46. Background. The Infrastructure NPRM also sought comment on whether the Commission should clarify that the existing NEPA categorical exclusion for mounting antennas on buildings applies not only to installations on rooftops and facades but also to installations in the interior of buildings."' As noted above, interior placements play an increasingly important role in providing access to wireless networks from inside buildings and other indoor environments. 47. No commenters oppose the proposed clarification, although Tempe objects to any categorical exclusion that would allow a diesel generator inside an existing building or other structure based on concerns about fumes,noise, and the potential for exposure to hazardous substances if there is a leak or a spill.112 Industry commenters support the clarification, arguing that no special environmental 107 See,e.g,American Tower Corporation,Generator Site List,available at http://www.americantower.com/Assets/unloads/files/ExceINariable-related/Americantower backup power site 11st.xls. 1"8 See Improving 9-1-1 Reliability;Reliability and Continuity of Communications Networks,Including Broadband Technologies,PS Docket Nos. 13-75, 11-60,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,28 FCC Rcd 3414(2013)(seeking comment on approaches to ensure the reliability and resiliency of the communications infrastructure necessary to ensure continued availability of the Nation's 9-1-1 system,particularly during times of major disaster). 109 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(c),(d). "0 Cf NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1130 para. 158(finding that reliance on public complaint is best approach to address"unusual case"of a generator having an adverse impact on historic properties). ...See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14254 para.41. 112 See Tempe Comments at 6. 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 effects arise from collocations in the interior of buildings as opposed to collocations on the exterior.1' Towerstream argues that this clarification is necessary to advance the goal of facilitating DAS and small- cell deployments that often operate inside buildings.1' AT&T argues that, "regardless of the manner or location of antenna placements on an existing structure, collocations meet the goals of the" categorical exclusion—namely, encouraging collocations and minimizing new tower construction."' 48. Discussion. We adopt the proposal and clarify that the existing NEPA categorical exclusion for mounting antennas"on"existing buildings applies to installations in the interior of existing buildings.1' An antenna mounted on a surface inside a building is as much"on"the building as an antenna mounted on a surface on the exterior, and we find nothing in the language of the categorical exclusion, in the adopting order, or in the current record supporting a distinction between collocations on the exterior or in the interior that would limit the scope of the categorical exclusion to exterior collocations."' To the contrary, it is even more likely that indoor installations will have no significant environmental effects in the environmentally sensitive areas in which proposed deployments would generally trigger the need to prepare an EA,such as wilderness areas,wildlife preserves,and flood plains."' Specifically,the existing Note 1 collocation categorical exclusion reflects a finding that collocations do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,even if they would otherwise trigger the requirement of an EA under the criteria identified in Sections 1.1307(a)(1)-(3)and(5)-(8). We find that this conclusion applies equally or even more strongly to an antenna deployed inside a building than to one on its exterior, since the building's exterior structure would serve as a buffer against any effects.1' In addition,we note that FirstNet,the National Telecommunications and Information Administration(NTIA),and other agencies have adopted categorical exclusions covering internal modifications and equipment additions inside buildings and structures. For example, in adopting categorical exclusions as part of its implementation of the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program,NTIA noted that excluding interior modifications and equipment additions reflects long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records,including in particular"the legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S. Department of Agriculture,U.S.Department of Homeland Security,and the Federal Emergency Management Agency."12' While a Federal agency cannot apply another agency's categorical exclusion to a proposed Federal action, it may substantiate a categorical exclusion of its own based on another agency's experience with a comparable categorical 113 See,e.g.,UTC Comments at 4;WISPA Comments at 14. 114 See Towerstream Comments at 31. 115 See AT&T Comments 10. 116 In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission also sought comment on whether to codify this clarification by amending Note 1. See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14255 para.41 (seeking comment on whether to "amend the first sentence of Note I to clarify that the collocation exclusion applies to installations in the interior of buildings"). 117 See, e.g, AT&T Comments at 10;UTC Comments at 4;WISPA Comments at 14. 118 See, e.g, ACUTA Comments at 4. 119 For example,Section 1.1307(a)(2)normally requires an EA for facilities in wildlife preserves,47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a)(2),but under Note 1,this provision does not encompass collocations on buildings. We find it evident that interior deployments have,if anything,less potential to impact such environments than exterior deployments. 120 Department of Commerce,National Telecommunications and Information Administration,National Environmental Policy Act—Categorical Exclusions covering the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP),Docket No.0906221081-91339-02,74 Fed.Reg.52456,52458(Oct. 13,2009);see also Department of Commerce,National Telecommunications and Information Administration,First Responder Network Authority, National Environmental Policy Act Categorical Exclusions,Docket Number 131219999-4338-02,79 Fed.Reg. 23945,23949(April 29,2014)(similar). 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 exclusion.121 This long-standing practice of numerous agencies that conduct comparable activities, reflecting experience that confirms the propriety of the categorical exclusion,provides further support for the conclusion that internal collocations will not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment."' With respect to Tempe's concern about generators being placed inside buildings as the result of collocations, as noted above,we rely on local building,noise,and safety regulations to address these concerns,and we anticipate that such regulations will almost always require generators to be outside of any residential buildings where their use would present health or safety concerns or else place very strict requirements on any placement in the interior.123 For all of these reasons, we find it appropriate to amend Note 1 to clarify that the Note 1 collocation categorical exclusion applies to the mounting of antennas in the interior of buildings as well as the exterior. 49. We emphasize that the NEPA categorical exclusion we address here does not encompass deployments that may significantly affect historic properties,nor does it cover the review required if exposure to RF emissions would exceed specified levels." Measures to promote efficiencies in Section 106 processing, including processing of certain interior deployments, are discussed in Section III.0 below. C. Antennas Mounted on Other Structures 50. Background. The Commission also asked whether it should expand the Note 1 categorical exclusion,which currently extends to deployments on existing buildings or antenna towers,to deployments on other existing structures, including but not limited to utility poles,water tanks,and road signs.12' The Commission tentatively concluded that its prior determination that collocations on antenna towers and buildings are individually and cumulatively unlikely to have significant environmental effects applies equally to collocations on other structures.121 In addition,and in support of this conclusion,the Commission noted that the NHPA Collocation Agreement and the NPA do not distinguish between buildings and other non-tower structures in applying exclusions from Section 106 review.121 121 See Council On Environmental Quality,"Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Establishing, Applying,and Revising Categorical Exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act,"75 FR 75628,75634 (Dec.6,2010). 122 See,e.g,First Responder Network Authority;National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures and Categorical Exclusions,79 FR 639,640(Jan.6,2014)(drawing on NTIA exclusions after finding,inter alfa,that its projects are comparable and that,in the 100 cases where excluded projects were subject to review due to extraordinary circumstances,NTIA had made a Finding of No Significant Impact in 99 cases and was still in the process of reviewing one project). 123 See,e.g.,University of Colorado Boulder Fire and Life-Safety Group,"A Code Review for Emergency Generators and Indoor Use of Portable Generators,"available at http://www.colorado.edu/firelifesafety/sites/default/files/attached-files/EmergencvandIndoorGenerators pdf; Norwall Power Systems,"Choosing a Location for Standby Home Generator Installation,"available at http://www.norwall.com/blog/generator-information/locatin -standby-home-generator-installation/;eHow,"Indoor Emergency Generator Requirements;"available at http://www.ehow.com/list 7707300 indoor-emer ency- generator-reguirements.html;David Gries,E-A-R Specialty Composites,"Noise Control Solutions for Standby Power Generators,"available at http://www.earsc.com/Rdfs/StandbyGeneratorsWhitePgper.pdf. 124 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b). Specifically,with regard to antennas that are deployed pursuant to the NEPA collocation categorical exclusion,Note 1 provides:"Such antennas are subject to§ 1.1307(b)of this part and require EAs if their construction would result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable health and safety guidelines cited in§ 1.1307(b)of this part." 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306 Note 1. See also supra,n.36. 125 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14253-54 paras.37-39. 126 Id at 14253 para.38. 127 Id (citing Collocation Agreement§V,Collocation of Antennas on Buildings and Non-Tower Structures Outside of Historic Districts). 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 51. Industry commenters broadly support the proposal.12' They argue that collocations by placement on existing structures other than towers and buildings are unlikely to have any greater environmental effects than collocations on towers or buildings, and that facilitating such collocations will speed deployment of broadband wireless facilities without impacting the environment.12' Mesquite also supports the proposal, but other municipalities oppose it.13' The municipalities in opposition(including Mendham,Phoenix, Savannah,Tempe,High Point,West Palm Beach, and Coconut Creek)argue that the categorical exclusion should not extend to collocations on water tanks in particular because of concerns about water safety.131 Some,such as Tempe, express concern that collocations on road signs should not be categorically excluded because they could distract drivers and affect vehicular safety.132 52. Discussion. We adopt the proposal to extend the categorical exclusion for collocations on towers and buildings to collocations on other existing man-made structures.13 After review of the record,we conclude that deployments covered by this extension will not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment. Through this measure,we update the categorical exclusion adopted as part of Note 1 in 1986 to reflect the modern development of wireless technologies that can be collocated on a much broader range of existing structures. This measure will facilitate collocations and speed deployment of wireless broadband to consumers without significantly affecting the environment."' 53. In finding that it is appropriate to broaden the categorical exclusion contained in Section 1.13 06 Note 1 to apply to other structures,we rely in part on the Commission's prior findings regarding the environmental effects of collocations. In implementing NEPA requirements in 1974,for example,the Commission found that mounting an antenna on an existing building or tower"has no significant aesthetic effect and is environmentally preferable to the construction of a new tower,provided there is compliance with radiation safety standards."135 In revising its NEPA rules in 1986,the Commission found that antennas mounted on towers and buildings are among those deployments that will normally have no significant impact on the environment.13' We note in particular that collocations will typically add only marginal if any extra height to a structure,and that in 2011, in a proceeding addressing the 128 See, e g, AT&T Comments at 4,9;AT&T Reply Comments at 2,4;PCIA Comments at 17;PCIA Reply Comments at 8; Sprint Comments at 6;TIA Comments at 3;UTC Comments at 1-4;UTC Reply Comments at 2-3; Verizon Comments at 4; WISPA Comments at 12-13;WISPA Reply Comments at 11. 129 See, e.g, Sprint Comments at 6;UTC Reply Comments at 2-3;Verizon Comments at 15-16;WISPA Comments at 13. 130 Compare Mesquite Comments at 1 with Mendham Comments at 4;Phoenix Comments at 3;Savannah Ex Parte at 1. 131 See, e g, High Point Comments at 2;Tempe Comments at 5(expressing concerns about collocations on water tanks as they are critical infrastructure);West Palm Beach Comments at 2(stating that proposal is not objectionable in concept but should not apply to water tank collocations);see also Coconut Creek Comments at 2(same); Steel in the Air Comments at 2(same). 132 See Tempe Comments at 5. 133 We extend the categorical exclusion to other existing structures subject to the same limitations that apply to the existing categorical exclusion. Namely,the categorical exclusion does not apply to review for effects on historic properties nor to review for compliance with our RF exposure limits. Further,we retain authority under Sections 1.1307(c)and(d)of our rules to address individual cases where there may be significant environmental effects. See 47 C.F.R.§§ 1.1306(a), 1.1307(c),(d). 134 See, e.g., Improving Performance of federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects,Exec.Order No. 13604,77 Fed.Reg. 18887(Mar.22,2012). 135 1974 NEPA Order,49 FCC 2d at 1324 para.27. 136 See 1986 NEPA Order,60 Rad.Reg.2d at 15 para.6;Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16708 para. 19. 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Commission's NEPA requirements with respect to migratory birds,the Commission reaffirmed that collocations on towers and buildings are unlikely to have environmental effects and thus such collocations are categorically excluded from review for impact on birds.13' Further,given that towers and buildings are typically much taller than other man-made structures on which antennas will be collocated,we expect that there will be even less potential for significant effects on birds from collocations on such other structures. 54. In the Infrastructure NPRM, we tentatively concluded that the same determination applies with regard to collocations on other structures such as utility poles and water towers.13' Numerous commenters support this determination,13'and opponents offer no persuasive basis to distinguish the environmental effects of collocations on antenna towers and buildings from the effects of collocations on other existing structures. Indeed, in this regard, we note that buildings and towers,which are already excluded under Note 1,are typically taller than structures such as utility poles and road signs.141 While some commenters raise concerns about possible water-tank contamination or driver distraction,141 these concerns do not present persuasive grounds to limit the categorical exclusion. Under Sections 1.1306(a) and(b), collocations on structures such as water tanks and road signs are already categorically excluded from the obligation to file an EA unless they occur in the environmentally sensitive circumstances identified in Sections 1.1307(a)or(b)(such as in wildlife preserves or flood plains).14' Nothing in the record leads us to find that collocations in such sensitive areas that currently require EAs present greater risks of water tank contamination or driver distraction than collocations outside such areas.143 55. We also find support for expanding this categorical exclusion for collocations in our approach to historic preservation review and in other agencies' approach to environmental review. We note in particular that the exclusion from Section 106 review in the Collocation Agreement is not limited to collocations on towers and buildings but also specifically includes collocations on other existing non- tower structures.144 Further,the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service has found collocations on existing non- 117 See Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16708 para. 19&n.57. 13s See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14253 para.38. 139 See, e g., AT&T Comments at 4,9;PCIA Comments at 17; Sprint Comments at 6;UTC Comments at 4;Verizon Comments at 15-16;WISPA Comments at 13. 140 According to statistics published by the Florida Public Service Commission,the standard utility pole is 35 feet tall,though poles can range from 20 to 100 feet tall. See Florida Public Service Commission,"What's on a Utility Pole?"available at http://www.psc.state.fl.us/consumers/utiliiypole/en/AllUtiIityPoleInfo aspx. By contrast, antenna structures,e.g, towers,must be registered if the tower is taller than 200 feet above ground level or may interfere with the flight path of a nearby airport. See FCC,"Antenna Structure Registration(ASR)—Help," available at http://www.fcc.gov/help/antenna-structure-registration-asr-help. 141 See supra, n.131. 142 Under the existing rules,actions not within the categories for which EAs are required under Sections 1.1307(a) and(b)of the Commission's rules"are deemed individually and cumulatively to have no significant effect on the quality of the human environment and are categorically excluded from environmental processing. . . [e]xcept as provided in Sections 1.1307(c)and(d)." 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306(a). 143 For similar reasons,we are also not persuaded by Springfield's argument that extending the categorical exclusion to other structures without"qualifying delimitations for how DAS facilities are defined and where they may be installed may have unacceptable impacts on historic and other sensitive neighborhoods." Springfield Comments at 4. Springfield offers no argument to explain why the NEPA categorical exclusion for collocations on utility poles should be more restrictive than the exclusion for collocations on buildings. Moreover,we note that the NEPA categorical exclusion we address here does not exclude the proposed collocation from NHPA review for effects on historic properties or historic districts. 144 See Collocation Agreement§I.A(defining"collocation"covered by the Agreement as"the mounting or installation of an antenna on an existing tower,building or structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving [RF]signals for communications purposes"). We note that the phrase"for the purpose of transmitting and/or (continued. ..) 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 tower structures to be environmentally desirable with regard to impacts on birds,noting that they will in virtually every circumstance have less impact than would construction of a new tower.145 56. As the Commission noted in the Infrastructure NPRM,non-tower and non-building structures are vitally important to the deployment of broadband and other services,146 particularly via DAS and small-cell facilities.147 As we noted above, small facility deployments are increasing dramatically, and they are typically located on utility poles or similar structures rather than on towers.148 Further,the Note 1 categorical exclusion reflects our long-held position that collocations are environmentally desirable because they obviate the need for construction of new towers,149 and broadening the category of excluded structures advances this policy. Considering that collocating on these structures is necessary for broadband deployment, and in light of the environmental benefits of encouraging collocation rather than the construction of new structures and our analysis above, we find that extending the categorical exclusion to other structures advances the public interest and meets our obligations under NEPA. 3. Categorical Exclusion of Deployments in Communications or Utilities Rights-of-Way 57. Background. In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission sought comment on whether to adopt a categorical exclusion for small facilities located in communications or utility rights-of-way.150 Noting that the NPA excludes wireless deployments(including deployments on new structures)from routine Section 106 review when they are located in or near above-ground utility or telecommunications rights-of-way,the Commission sought comment on whether to adopt a similar categorical exclusion from routine NEPA review. Further, in the event it were to adopt such a categorical exclusion,the Commission sought comment on whether to apply any of the conditions that are applicable under the NPA rights-of- way exclusion,such as limiting it to facilities that do not constitute a substantial increase in size relative (Continued from previous page) receiving[RF]signals for communications purposes"is intended to modify"an antenna"rather than"an existing tower,building or structure." This is evident because,if the phrase were to modify"an existing tower,building or structure,"then such buildings and structures would themselves qualify as towers under the definition of tower in the Collocation Agreement,rendering"building or structure"redundant. Collocation Agreement§I.B. 145 See,e g.,Recommendations to Avoid Adverse Impacts to Migratory Birds,Federally Listed Species and Other Wildlife from Communications Towers and Antennae,Guidance prepared by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, available at http://www.d ig f.vir ig nia.gov/environmental-programs/files/USFWS-tower-recommendations.pdf,at 1 ("Collocate communication antennae and other equipment on existing structures whenever possible to avoid new tower construction. Antennae have been mounted on rooftops; flagpoles;bell,cross,and clock towers;road signs; silos;and water and power line towers. Where attachment to an existing non-tower structure is not feasible, collocate antennae on existing communication towers."). 146 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14253 para.38&n.91 (citing Implementation of Section 224 of the Act;A National Broadband Plan For Our Future,WC Docket No.07-245,GN Docket No.09-51,Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration,26 FCC Rcd 5240,5241-42(2011)). 147 Id at 14253 para.38,n.92(citing,e.g,Letter from Tamara Preiss,Verizon,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary, FCC,WC Docket No. 11-59,filed May 14,2013;Letter from Colleen Thompson,AT&T,to Marlene H.Dortch, Secretary,FCC,WC Docket No. 11-59,filed June 17,2013)). 141 See, e.g, "the DAS forum:Distributed Antenna Systems(DAS)And Small Cell Technologies Distinguished," available at hitp://www.thedasforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/DAS-And-Small-Cell-Technolo ig es- Distinguished-2 4 13.pdf,at 3. 149 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306 Note 1 ("The use of existing buildings,towers or corridors is an environmentally desirable alternative to the construction of new facilities and is encouraged."); 1988 NEPA Order,3 FCC Rcd 4986, 4986 para.7(citing 1974 NEPA Order,49 FCC 2d at 1320, 1324). 150 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14256-57 para.50. 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 to existing nearby structures in the right-of-way.151 The Commission also sought comment on whether to expand the categorical exclusion in Section 1.1306 Note 1,which currently covers"the installation of aerial wire or cable over existing aerial corridors of prior or permitted use or the underground installation of wire or cable along existing underground corridors of prior or permitted use, established by the applicant or others."152 The Infi-astructure NPRM sought comment on extending the categorical exclusion to cover components of DAS or small-cell deployments,including new support structures, in such corridors."' 58. Industry commenters support the adoption of a categorical exclusion for installations in the rights-of-way.114 WISPA recommends that we"adopt a categorical exclusion from routine NEPA review for all communications facilities" in communications and utilities rights-of-way,with conditions similar to the rights-of-way exclusion in the NPA.155 AT&T similarly recommends that we adopt a rights- of-way NEPA categorical exclusion for all communications facilities,not just DAS and small-cell installations, in or within 50 feet of rights-of-way, including new support structures of comparable size to other structures in the right-of-way.156 Some industry commenters also support a categorical exclusion for installations in existing aerial or underground corridors.15' 59. Eugene opposes any expansion of the current NEPA categorical exclusions.158 While not generally objecting to a rights-of-way categorical exclusion, Tempe argues that we should"limit the number of non-substantial increases in size over existing structures to only one,"and that all subsequent increases in size should be subject to Section 106 review.15' Tempe argues that"[m]ultiple incremental increases could create a negative impact."160 Coconut Creek indicates it is not opposed to exclusions in existing aerial corridors,where infrastructure is attached to existing equipment, but expresses concern with any exclusion of above-ground deployments where there is no existing above-ground infrastructure.16' Further, it asserts that installing new wireless infrastructure within rights-of-way may cause hazards to pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and it notes that a"substantial increase in size"criterion does not resolve this concern.16' 60. Discussion. We adopt a categorical exclusion for certain wireless facilities deployed in above-ground utility and communications rights-of-way. We find that such deployments will not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. Given that DAS and small-cell nodes are often deployed in communications and utilities rights-of-way,we conclude that the categorical 151 Id 112 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306 Note 1. 153 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14257 para. 51. Iso See, e g, AT&T Comments at 6, 17-18;Joint Venture Comments at 4;Fibertech Comments at 10-11;PCIA Comments at 18-19;WISPA Comments at 16. 155 See WISPA Comments at 16. 156 See AT&T Comments at 6, 17-18. 157 See, e.g, Fibertech Comments at 10-11 (supporting a categorical exclusion for DAS and small-cell installations along"existing aerial and underground corridors(e g,public rights-of-way and utility easements)");PCIA Comments at 18-19;WISPA Comments at 16. See also AT&T Comments at 17. 158 See Eugene Comments at 28-29. 159 Tempe Comments at 9. 160 Id 161 See Coconut Creek Comments at 3. 162 Id. 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 exclusion will significantly advance the deployment of such facilities in a manner that safeguards environmental values.163 61. Specifically,this categorical exclusion,which we incorporate into our rules as Note 4 to Section 1.1306,covers construction of wireless facilities, including deployments on new or replacement poles, only if: (1)the facility will be located in a right-of-way that is designated by a Federal, State, local, or Tribal government for communications towers, above-ground utility transmission or distribution lines, or any associated structures and equipment; (2)the right-of-way is in active use for such designated purposes; and(3)the facility will not constitute a substantial increase in size over existing support structures that are located in the right-of-way within the vicinity of the proposed construction.164 62. Although the Commission sought comment, in the Infrastructure NPRM,on whether to adopt a categorical exclusion that covered facilities also located within fifty feet of a communications or utility right-of-way,similar to the exclusion from Section 106 review in Section III.E. of the NPA,165 we limit our NEPA categorical exclusion to facilities deployed within existing communications and utility rights-of-way. Industry commenters that support applying the categorical exclusion to deployments within fifty feet of a right-of-way do not explain why the conclusion that deployments in the right-of-way will not have a significant effect on the human environment also apply outside of a right-of-way.166 Such ground would not necessarily be in active use for the designated purposes,and there could well be a greater potential outside the right-of-way for visual impact or new or significant ground disturbance that might have the potential for significant environmental effects. Finally,the record supports the conclusion that a categorical exclusion limited to deployments within the rights-of-way will address most of the deployments that would be covered by a categorical exclusion that also encompassed deployments nearby. Sprint,for example,emphasizes that"many DAS and small cells will be attached to existing structures and installed within utility rights-of-way corridors."161 63. For purposes of this categorical exclusion,we define a substantial increase in size in similar fashion to how it is defined in the Collocation Agreement.168 Thus, a deployment would result in a substantial increase in size if it would: (1)exceed the height of existing support structures that are 163 For example,the categorical exclusion addresses Crown Castle's concern that the existing rules,which require EAs for facilities located in 100-year flood plains,could result in the preparation of an EA for each new utility pole installed in a 100-year flood plain to support the deployment of a DAS or small cell network,despite the facts that: (i)the utility poles will be located within the previously disturbed public right-of-way;(ii)the same utility poles would not require such environmental review if installed for another public utility purpose;and(iii)the placement of utility poles within the right-of-way will not significantly impact the 100-year floodplain. According to Crown Castle,"much of the area along the Gulf Coast and other coastal regions falls within 100-year flood plains,"and deployment of DAS or small cell networks in coastal rural areas with little or no existing coverage could therefore require individual EAs for hundreds of new utility poles in the right-of-way. See Crown Castle Comments at 3-4. See also"the DAS forum:Distributed Antenna Systems(DAS)And Small Cell Technologies Distinguished," available at hiip://www.thedasforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/DAS-And-Small-Cell-Technolo ig es- Distinguished-2 4 13.ndf,at 6. We note that facilities subject to this categorical exclusion are still required to undergo review for compliance with our RF exposure limits,and for effects on historic properties to the extent the deployment is not excluded under the Collocation Agreement,the NPA,or the Section 106 exclusions adopted in this Report and Order. 164 See NPA§III.E. The NPA imposes two additional conditions,that:(1)the facility would not be located within the boundaries of a historic property,and(2)the applicant has successfully completed the process established in the NPA for Tribal and Native Hawaiian Organization participation. These conditions are relevant to Section 106 review,not NEPA review,and there is no need to include them here. 165 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14256-57 para.50. 166 See,e.g,AT&T Comments at 6, 17-18. 167 Sprint Comments at 5(emphasis added). 168 See Collocation Agreement§I.C. 31 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 located in the right-of-way within the vicinity of the proposed construction by more than 10%or twenty feet,whichever is greater; (2)involve the installation of more than four new equipment cabinets or more than one new equipment shelter; (3)add an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge of the structure more than twenty feet,or more than the width of the structure at the level of the appurtenance,whichever is greater(except that the deployment may exceed this size limit if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via cable); or(4) involve excavation outside the current site, defined as the area that is within the boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the deployment or that is in proximity to the structure and within the boundaries of the utility easement on which the facility is to be deployed,whichever is more restrictive. 64. We note that we have found a similar test appropriate in other contexts,including under our environmental rules. In particular,the first three criteria that we specify above to define the scope of the NEPA rights-of-way categorical exclusion also define the scope of the rights-of-way exclusion from historic preservation review under the NPA.169 Similarly,for purposes of Antenna Structure Registration, we do not require environmental notice for a proposed tower replacement if,among other criteria,the deployment will not cause a substantial increase in size under the first three criteria of the Collocation Agreement, and there will be no construction or excavation more than 30 feet beyond the existing antenna structure property.170 Further, given that the industry now has almost a decade of experience applying this substantial increase test to construction in the rights-of-way under the NPA exclusion,and in light of the efficiencies to be gained from using a similar test here,we find the Collocation Agreement test, as modified here,to be appropriate in this context. 65. We conclude that facilities subject to this categorical exclusion will not have a significant effect on the environment either individually or cumulatively, and that the categorical exclusion is therefore appropriate. In the NPA Report and Order,the Commission found that excluding construction in utilities or communications rights-of-way from historic preservation review was warranted because, "[w]here such structures will be located near existing similar poles. . . .the likelihood of an incremental adverse impact on historic properties is minimal.""' We find that the potential incremental impacts on the environment are similarly minimal. Indeed, deploying these facilities should rarely involve more than minimal new ground disturbance,given that constructing the existing facilities likely disturbed the ground already and given the limitations on the size of any new poles. Moreover, any new pole will also cause minimal visual effect because by definition comparable structures must already exist in the vicinity of the new deployment in that right-of-way, and new poles covered by this categorical exclusion will not be substantially larger.1' Further,because such corridors are already employed for utility or 169 See NPA§III.E. We note that the NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1098 paras.63-64,in establishing a substantial increase'in size test for the partial exclusion from Section 106 review for deployments in the rights-of- way,omitted the fourth prong of the Collocation Agreement's test without explanation. The fourth prong provides that a substantial increase in size occurs when the mounting of an antenna would involve excavation outside the current tower site,defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower or the utility easement and any access or utility easements currently related to the site. See Collocation Agreement§I.CA. Notwithstanding the omission of any excavation criteria from the rights-of-way exclusion in the NPA,we find that it is appropriate to include a modified limitation on excavation for purposes of the NEPA rights-of-way categorical exclusion. Our modified criterion reflects the fact that deployments in the rights-of-way will generally be deployed not on"leased or owned property"but on an easement that constitutes the designated right-of-way,and our conclusion that excavations that are in that right-of-way and in proximity to the structure,where the right-of-way is already in active use for utility or communications purposes,will not have a significant effect on the human environment. 170 See 47 C.F.R. § 17.4(c)(1)(iv);see also NPA§ III.B(applying same test for exclusion of replacement towers from Section 106 review). 171 NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1098 para.63. 172 See, e.g, AT&T Comments at 6, 17-18;Crown Castle Comments at 3-4. 32 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 communications uses, and the new deployments will be comparable in size to such existing uses,these additional uses are unlikely to trigger new NEPA concerns. Any such concerns would have already been addressed when such corridors were established,and the size of the deployments we categorically exclude will not be substantial enough to raise the prospect of cumulative effects. 66. We also find support for these conclusions in the categorical exclusions adopted by other agencies, including FirstNet. In establishing its own categorical exclusions,FirstNet noted as part of its Administrative Record that its anticipated activities in constructing a nationwide public safety broadband network would primarily include"the installation of cables, cell towers, antenna collocations,buildings, and power units,"for example in connection with"Aerial Plant/Facilities,""Towers,""Collocations," "Power Units,"and"Wireless Telecommunications Facilit[ies.]"173 It defined a"Wireless Telecommunications Facility"as"[a]n installation that sends and/or receives radio frequency signals, including directional,omni-directional, and parabolic antennas,structures,or towers(no more than 199 feet tall with no guy wires),to support receiving and/or transmitting devices,,cabinets, equipment rooms, accessory equipment, and other structures,and the land or structure on which they are all situated."174 To address its NEPA obligations in connection with these activities,FirstNet adopted a number of categorical exclusions,including a categorical exclusion for"[c]onstruction of wireless telecommunications facilities involving no more than five acres(2 hectares)of physical disturbance at any single site."175 In adopting this categorical exclusion,FirstNet found that it was"supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records. In particular,these include categorical exclusions from the U.S.Department of Commerce,U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S.Department of Energy."176 67. We find that FirstNet's anticipated activities encompass the construction of wireless facilities and support structures in the rights-of-way, and are therefore comparable to the wireless facility deployments we address here. Further,we note that the categorical exclusions adopted by FirstNet are broader in scope than the categorical exclusion we adopt for facilities deployed within existing rights-of- way.177 We further note that several other agencies have found it appropriate to categorically exclude other activities in existing rights-of-way unrelated to telecommunications.17' 68. We find that the categorical exclusion addresses some concerns raised by municipalities, and we find that other concerns they raise are not relevant to the environmental review process. First,we note that the categorical exclusion we adopt addresses Coconut Creek's objection to above-ground deployments in areas with no above-ground infrastructure because we limit it to rights-of-way in active use for above-ground utility structures or communications towers. Second,concerns about hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic are logically inapplicable.179 As we noted above in connection with 173 See Department of Commerce,National Telecommunications and Information Administration,First Responder Network Authority,National Environmental Policy Act Categorical Exclusions,Docket Number 131219999-4338- 02,79 Fed.Reg.23945,23946-47(April 29,2014)(FirstNet Categorical Ecchisions). 174 Id 175 Id. at 23947. 176 Id. at 23949. 177 Id See also 7 C.F.R. § 1794.22(a)(2)(U.S.Department of Agriculture,Rural Utilities Services(RUS) categorical exclusion of construction of buried and aerial telecommunications lines,cables,and related facilities). 178 See,e.g.,Environmental Impact and Related Procedures,79 Fed.Reg.2107(Jan. 13,2014)(establishing Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration categorical exclusion for transportation projects within existing operational rights-of-way);36 C.F.R. § 1010.7(a)(36)(Presidio Trust categorical exclusion for "[i]nstallation of underground utilities in previously disturbed areas having stable soils,or in an existing utility right- of-way"). While these categorical exclusions do not apply to communications facilities,they reflect and are consistent with the conclusion that ground-disturbing construction in a right-of-way that is in active use will generally not have a significant effect on the human environment. 179 See Coconut Creek Comments at 3. 33 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 deployments on structures other than communications towers and buildings, such concerns do not currently warrant the submission of an EA. Rather,EAs are routinely required for deployments in communications or utility rights-of-way only if they meet one of the criteria specified in Section 1.1307(a)or(b).180 Deployments in the communications or utility rights-of-way have never been identified in our rules as an environmentally sensitive category; indeed,the use of such rights-of-way for antenna deployments is environmentally desirable as compared to deployments in other areas."' Finally, we find it unnecessary to adopt Tempe's proposed limitation,whether it is properly understood as a proposal to categorically exclude only one non-substantial increase at a particular site or in the same general vicinity, as such limitation has proven unnecessary in the context of historic preservation review. Having concluded that wireless facility deployments in communications or utility rights-of-way have no potentially significant environmental effects individually or cumulatively, we find no basis to limit the number of times such a categorical exclusion is used either at a particular site or in the same general vicinity. Indeed,the categorical exclusion encourages an environmentally responsible approach to deployment given that, as Notes 1 and 4 make clear,the use of existing corridors"is an environmentally desirable alternative to the construction of new facilities."182 And, apart from environmental considerations, it would be contrary to the public interest to unnecessarily limit the application of this categorical exclusion. 69. We note that this categorical exclusion is separate from and in addition to the current categorical exclusion in Note 1 for installation of wire and cable along existing aerial and underground corridors.18' To the extent that commenters propose extending the Note 1 aerial and underground corridor categorical exclusion to include components of telecommunications systems other than wires and cables, we decline to do so.184 We find that the new Note 4 categorical exclusion we adopt for deployments in communications or utilities rights-of-way will provide substantial and appropriate relief,18'and that the record in this proceeding does not justify a further expansion of the Note 1 categorical exclusion.186 Further,the existing Note 1 categorical exclusion for wires and cables in underground and aerial corridors is broader than the categorical exclusion for installations on existing buildings or antenna towers because it is not limited by Section 1.1307(a)(4)(Section 106 review)or 1.1307(b)(RF emissions),while collocations on existing buildings or towers are subject to these provisions.187 We note that even parties advocating an extension of the categorical exclusion for installation of wire and cable to additional telecommunications components concede that the extension should not apply to review of RF emissions 180 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a),(b). 181 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.13 06 Note I ("The use of existing. . .corridors is an environmentally desirable alternative to the construction of new facilities and is encouraged."). 182 Id. 183 Id. 184 See, e.g., Fibertech Comments at 10-11 (supporting a categorical exclusion for DAS and small cell installations along existing aerial and underground corridors(e g., public rights-of-way and utility easements));Joint Venture Comments at 4(public rights-of-way);PCIA Comments at 18-19. 181 Indeed,one commenter proposes an extension of the aerial and underground corridors categorical exclusion in a manner that would create essentially the NEPA categorical exclusion we adopt today. See AT&T Comments at 6 (proposing extension to categorically exempt all facilities in or within 50 feet of a right-of-way,including new support structures of comparable size to other structures in the right-of-way). 186 Fibertech treats the term"aerial or underground corridors"as encompassing"public rights-of-way." Fibertech Comments at i, 10-11. While such corridors will often run along public rights-of-way,the terms are not synonymous,as aerial or underground corridors run horizontally only in an elevated or underground space,while rights-of-way are not so limited. While one can deploy cable in an underground or aerial corridor, it is apparent that a pole could not be so deployed. 187 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.13 06 Note 1. 34 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 exposure, as the existing categorical exclusion does.18' This distinction underscores that the existing categorical exclusion of cables and wires in aerial and underground corridors is based on an analysis that does not directly apply to other communications facilities. C. NHPA Exclusions 1. Regulatory Background 70. Section 106 of NEPA requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their "undertaking[s]"on historic properties included or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places(National Register).18' NHPA does not require the Commission to engage in any particular preservation activities; rather, Section 106 requires that the Commission consult the applicable State Historic Preservation Officer(SHPO)or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer(THPO)and ACHP, and consider the impacts of its proposed undertakings.19' Similar to a"Federal action"in the NEPA context, an"undertaking"for purposes of Section 106 includes, among other things,projects, activities, or programs that"requir[e] a Federal permit, license, or approval."191 The Commission has generally interpreted the scope of its Federal undertakings under NEPA as coextensive with its Federal actions under NEPA.1 ' 71. NHPA charges ACHP with promulgating rules to govern the Section 106 process.1 ' ACHP's rules generally specify the process under which Federal agencies perform their historic preservation reviews.194 Section 800.3 of ACHP's rules,entitled"Initiation of the section 106 process," provides that the agency official shall first"determine whether the proposed Federal action is an undertaking. . . and, if so,whether it is a type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties."19' Section 800.3(a)(1)specifies that'*[i]fthe undertaking is a type of activity that does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties,assuming such historic properties were present, the agency official has no further obligations under section 106 or this part."'16 Agencies rely upon this regulatory process to establish that certain types of activities are excluded from Section 106 review.19' 72. This is not the only mechanism under ACHP's rules for establishing deviations from ACHP's routine Section 106 procedures,however. Section 800.14 of ACHP's rules provides for several types of"program alternatives"by which Federal agencies, in consultation with ACHP and other stakeholders in the historic preservation process,may develop alternative Section 106 procedures tailored 188 See,e.g,AAR Comments at 13;Fibertech Comments at 11. "' 16 U.S.C. §470f. 190 See, e g, Davis v Latschar,202 F.3d 359,370(D.C.Cir.2000). 191 16 U.S.C.§470w(7). 192 See,e.g.,NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1083-84 paras.25-28. Courts also generally treat similarly "Federal actions"under NEPA and"Federal undertakings"under NHPA. See,e.g,Karst Environmental Educ and Protection, Inc. v Environmental Protection Agency,475 F.3d 1291, 1295-96(D.C.Cir.2007);Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri v Norton,240 F.3d 1250, 1263(10th Cir.2001). '9s See 16 U.S.C.§470s("The Council is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as it deems necessary to govern the implementation of section 470f of this title in its entirety."). 194 See 36 C.F.R.Part 800. '9s 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(a). 196 36 C.F.R. §800.3(a)(1). 19'See,e g.,Save Our Heritage, Inc v. F.A.A.,269 F.3d 49(1st Cir.2001). 35 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 to their particular programs and undertakings.19' For example, an agency,ACHP, and the relevant SHPO/THPO or, if nationwide,the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO)may"negotiate a programmatic agreement to govern the implementation of a particular program or the resolution of adverse effects from certain complex project situations or multiple undertakings."199 Compliance with the procedures set forth in an approved programmatic agreement satisfies the Federal agency's Section 106 responsibilities for individual undertakings covered by the agreement.200 73. To fulfill its responsibilities under Section 106,the Commission has incorporated the requirements of NHPA into its environmental rules 201 Specifically, if a proposed facility has the potential to affect properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register, Section 1.1307(a)(4)requires the applicant to submit an EA prior to construction202 Section 1.1307(a)(4)directs licensees and applicants, when determining whether a proposed action may affect historic properties, to follow the procedures in ACHP's rules as modified by the Collocation Agreement and the NPA,two programmatic agreements that took effect in 2001 and 2005, respectively.213 74. The Collocation Agreement addresses historic preservation review for collocations on existing towers,buildings, and other non-tower structures.204 Under the Collocation Agreement,most antenna collocations on existing structures are excluded from routine historic preservation review,with a few defined exceptions to address potentially problematic situations. Thus, in addition to excluding collocations on towers, with certain limitations,205 the Collocation Agreement excludes collocations on buildings or other non-tower structures outside of historic districts from routine Section 106 review unless: (1)the structure is inside the boundary of a historic district, or it is within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district and the antenna is visible from ground level within the historic district;(2)the structure is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register; (3)the structure is over 45 years old; or(4)the proposed collocation is the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties.216 198 36 C.F.R. § 800.14;see also"Program Alternatives,"available at http://www.achD.gov/progalt/. Specifically, Section 800.14 authorizes development of alternatives to the review procedures set forth in 36 C.F.R.Part 800, Subpart B. 199 36 C.F.R. § 800.14(b). 200 See 36 C.F.R.§ 800.14(b)(2)(iii). 211 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a)(4)(providing that applicants must submit an EA for proposed facilities that may affect historic properties listed in or eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places(National Register)and must follow ACHP's Section 106 procedures as modified and supplemented by the Collocation Agreement and the NPA to ascertain whether their proposed facilities may affect historic properties). 2021d. For a full discussion of our historic preservation rules and processes,see FCC,"Tower and Antenna Siting," available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/siting/npa/npa.html. 203 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a)(4). 204 See Collocation Agreement; Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Execution of Programmatic Agreement with Respect to Collocating Wireless Antennas on Existing Structures,Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 5574 (WTB 2001). The Collocation Agreement was codified under Section 1.1307(a)(4) as of the effective date of the NPA.See NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1134 paras. 168-169. 205 See Collocation Agreement§§III.A,IV.A. 216 Id at§V("Collocation Of Antennas On Buildings And Non-Tower Structures Outside Of Historic Districts"). 36 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 75. The NPA establishes detailed procedures that are better tailored than ACHP's general rules for reviewing the effects caused by communications towers. 07 In particular,the NPA establishes a process for pre-construction consultation and initial review by the relevant SHPO or THPO and, if necessary, subsequent Commission review of the proposed tower.20' The NPA also outlines procedures for Tribal participation,public participation,identifying and evaluating historic properties within the area of potential effects, and assessing effects on historic properties. 2. New Exclusions 76. Background. As noted above,the Collocation Agreement,while excluding most collocations from Section 106 review,provides that collocations on existing buildings and other non- tower structures that are over 45 years old are not excluded.20' This is the case even if the building or non-tower structure itself has not been listed(or determined eligible for listing)on the National Register and is not located in or near a historic district;the age of the structure alone is sufficient to trigger review. 77. In addition to seeking comment on whether the Commission should add an exclusion from Section 106 review for DAS and small cells generally,the Infrastructure NPRM sought comment on whether to expand the existing categorical exclusion for collocations to cover collocations on structures subject to review solely because of the structure's age—that is,to deployments that are more than 45 years old but that are not(1)inside the boundary of a historic district,or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district; (2)located on a structure that is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register; or(3)the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties 210 The Infrastructure NPRM noted that,because utility poles are maintained for long periods of time;many eventually fall out of the exclusion due to the 45-year limitation.211 It sought comment on whether to clarify or otherwise provide that the exclusion covers collocations on utility poles over 45 years of age. It further sought comment on excluding collocations on other categories of non-tower structures, such as street lamps or water towers, from the 45-year trigger for review. The Commission also asked whether, alternatively, it should conclude that deployments of small wireless facilities such as DAS or small cells do not qualify as Federal undertakings under NHPA. 78. Industry commenters support the exclusion of collocations on utility poles over 45 years old where the age of the pole is the only reason for review.212 WISPA states that there is no evidence that utility poles possess any historic value or that collocations on such structures could result in adverse effects to any historic value.213 Verizon argues that we should apply such an exclusion to collocations on both utility poles and other utility structures,including electric transmission structures 214 Verizon asserts 207 See NPA;NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1079 para. 15, 1080-81 para. 19. For an overview of the history of and processes established by the NPA,see"Tower and Antenna Siting,"available at hiip://wireless.fcc.gov/siting/npa/intro.html. 208 See NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1127-30 paras. 149-57. 209 See Collocation Agreement§V.A.1. 210 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14260-63 paras.60-67. 211 It also noted PCIA's assertion that the percentage of utility poles that are 45 years or older is significant and growing and that,as a consequence,collocations of small wireless facilities on utility poles will increasingly be subject to review. See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14260 para.60(citing PCIA Mar. 19,2013 Ex Parte, Attach.(Dr.Amos J.Loveday,"DAS/Small Cells&Historic Preservation:An Analysis of the Impact of Historic Preservation Rules on Distributed Antenna Systems and Small Cell Deployment,"Feb.27,2013,at 3(Loveday Report)). 212 See, e g, AT&T Comments at 12;PCIA Comments at 21-22;UTC Comments at 8;WISPA Comments at iv, 17- 18. 213 See WISPA Comments at 18. 214 See Verizon Comments at 13. 37 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 that a structure originally designed to host telegraph,telephone,or power equipment is likely to have changed over time in any event(e.g.,as utilities add equipment with the advent of new technologies),and that these changes do not harm its historic characteristics, if any.215 79. Some SHPOs do not oppose the exclusion and note that the addition of DAS facilities and small cells to existing poles would not cause an adverse effect on historic properties,unless a pole is a contributing element to the eligibility of a historic property.21' Other localities and SHPOs state that the exclusion is unnecessary as a practical matter because utility poles are generally not deemed historic.21 The Colorado SHPO, on the other hand,urges caution and argues that a blanket exemption for collocations on"utility poles"could sweep in other structures that may be more problematic from a historic preservation perspective,such as water tanks or clock towers. 18 Some Tribal Nations support exclusion from Section 106 review of certain installations with no potential to affect historic properties, including those of cultural and religious significance to Tribal Nations219 One Tribal Nation argues, however,that DAS systems may have an adverse visual effect on culturally important landscapes and historic properties in the vicinity, and that their cumulative effects"may be significantly greater than anticipated."Zzo 80. In addition to supporting an exclusion for collocations on utility structures over 45 years old, Verizon also proposes an exclusion for collocations on any building or other structure over 45 years old if:(1)the antenna will be added in the same location as other antennas previously deployed; (2)the height of the new antenna will not exceed the height of the existing antennas by more than three feet,or the new antenna will not be visible from the ground regardless of the height increase;and(3)the new antenna will comply with any requirements placed on the existing antennas by the State or local zoning authority or as a result of any previous historic preservation review process221 In a subsequently filed ex parte letter, Verizon further clarifies its proposal by suggesting how to determine whether the new antenna is in the"same location"as an existing antenna.222 215 See Verizon Comments at 14. 216 See, e g., AHPP Comments at 2(asserting that placement of DAS on utility poles will not cause adverse effects even in historic districts except where the pole is a contributing element to a historic property or district);CAOHP Comments at 2(recommending exemption of collocations on utility poles over 45 years of age from Section 106 review). 21'See, e g., OHPO Comments at 1. 218 COSHPO Comments at 2. 219 See Letter from Cynthia Stacy,Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Sept.5,2014, at 1 (supporting the proposal"to exclude certain additional installations from Section 106 review depending on the location and the size of the equipment at issue and the need for any new excavation"and indicating that changes targeted at installations with no potential to affect historic properties will"help to streamline consultation so that our limited time and resources can be wisely spent.");Letter from Franklin Dancy,Tribal Council of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Aug.29,2014,at 1 (indicating no concerns with proposed Section 106 changes in light of its view that"any impact that could potentially occur from telecommunications projects involving the replacement and/or collocation or addition of new equipment/antennas on existing facilities has already occurred and no further impacts will occur"but arguing that it should retain the right to review projects"that extend beyond or otherwise exceed a previously impacted project site or that could be considered a new project"). 220 See Letter from Kassandra Rippee,Coquille Indian Tribe, WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Oct. 10,2014,at 1. 221 See Verizon Comments at 18. 222 See Letter from Tamara Preiss,Verizon,to Marlene H.Dortch, Secretary,FCC,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed July 14,2014(Verizon July 14,2014 Ex Parte),at 1-2. Verizon suggests that we define the same location as follows. For rooftop antennas,the new antenna must also be mounted on the roof,and the center point of the new antenna must be no more than 10 feet from the center point of the outermost existing antenna(s). For antennas mounted on the facade or facades of a building,the new antenna must be mounted on the same facade or facades, (continued....) 38 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 81. Verizon asserts that its proposal would remove obstacles to wireless broadband facility siting without adversely affecting any historic property. According to Verizon, even if the structure itself is historic,the effect of adding antennas of a similar size to equipment that already exists at the same location on the structure will not be different than the effects, if any, already created by the existing facilities. Similarly, it adds, if the facilities to be added are visible from a nearby historic district,they would not have an additional visual effect on the historic district beyond any effects created by the existing antennas."' 82. AT&T, Sprint,and PCIA support Verizon's proposal 224 AT&T states that adopting this limited exclusion would remove unnecessary obstacles to wireless broadband facility siting without adversely affecting any historic property. AT&T also states that this proposal would afford significant relief because the vast majority of AT&T's LTE deployments involve adding antennas to structures that already support wireless facilities.225 83. As an alternative to adopting an exclusion in this rulemaking,PCIA asks us to determine that DAS and small-cell deployments are not"undertakings."226 PCIA states that the Federal government does not assist in funding DAS and small-cell deployments, issue licenses or approvals for them,or provide other assistance related to them.22' Notwithstanding these arguments,PCIA asserts that excluding these facilities from review would be less time-consuming and complex than finding them not to be undertakings.22' AT&T agrees with PCIA that an exclusion from review is the preferable course over a finding that such facility deployments are not undertakings.129 UTC argues that the Commission may find that small-cell and DAS deployments are not undertakings because they"are less intrusive than traditional macro sites"and based on other unspecified differences from macrocells 230 Localities and SHPOs oppose a determination that DAS and small-cell deployments are not undertakings,based on FCC (Continued from previous page) with a center point no more than 10 feet from the center point of the existing antenna(s). Alternatively,new antennas may be mounted anywhere on the same roof or facade(s),as the case may be,so long as they are not significantly more visible from ground level. Under Verizon's proposal,satisfying either alternative would satisfy the same location criterion. See id. 223 See Verizon Comments at 18-19. 224 See AT&T Reply Comments at 8;CTIA Reply Comments at 11-12;PCIA Reply Comments at ii, 12-13;Sprint Reply Comments at 4. 225 See AT&T Reply Comments at 8-9. 226 PCIA Comments at i, 15-17. 227 See PCIA Comments at 16. 228 See id. 229 See AT&T Comments at 13-14(asserting that adoption of an exclusion under Section 800.3(a)(1)is more efficient and timely than a finding that covered deployments are not undertakings). 230 See UTC Comments at 8-9. 39 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 precedent as well as the assertion that such installations can affect historic properties 231 NCSHPO notes the Commission's history of finding that the installation of an antenna is an undertaking.132 84. Discussion. As an initial matter, we find no basis to hold categorically that small wireless facilities such as DAS and small cells are not Commission undertakings. As the Commission discussed in the Infrastructure NPRM, Section 319 of the Communications Act gives us authority to regulate and require preconstruction approval for the construction of any facility for which a license is required,which in turn extends to any"apparatus for the transmission of energy, or communications, or signals by radio."233 Further, while the Commission has generally waived the requirement of preconstruction approval for geographic-area licensees, as permitted by Section 319(d),the Commission has also retained authority under Section 1.1312 of the Commission's rules to review the environmental effects of all "facilities," including their effects on historic properties.234 The Commission has found, given this retained approval authority,that macrocell deployments, including both new tower sites and collocations, are appropriately classified as Federal undertakings, a conclusion affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.231 While PCIA argues that small facilities could be distinguished, it does not identify any characteristic of such deployments that logically removes them from the analysis applicable to other facilities. Others argue in conclusory fashion that the size of these facilities is a distinguishing factor without explaining how smaller facilities deployments cease to be undertakings simply because of their size.211We note,however,that ACHP's rules clearly contemplate that the determination of whether a proposed Federal action is an undertaking is separate from the determination of whether that action is the type that could have effects on historic properties238 Thus,the extent of any potential effects is not relevant to determining whether any agency action constitutes a 231 See, e.g, AHPP Comments at 1 (arguing that installation of DAS and small-cell facilities is an undertaking); CAOHP Comments at 1 (asserting that"[t]he deployment of a DAS or other small cell system is an Undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR part 800.16(y)"(emphasis in original));Des Moines Comments at 4-5;Minneapolis Comments at 14(arguing that DAS and small cells are"undertakings"that"have the potential to cause effects on historic properties");OHPO Comments at 2(arguing that a finding that DAS and small-cell deployments are not undertakings would be contrary to longstanding FCC precedent,and the advancement of technology does not change the fact that the installation of cell equipment may affect historic properties). 232 See NCSHPO Comments at 1 (arguing that,given the Commission's past acceptance that installations of antennas,cell towers,and other types of facilities using various technologies are undertakings,and given the number of variables to consider depending on the method of installation, it is impossible to support a determination that DAS installations are not undertakings). 233 47 U.S.C. §§301,319. We note that DAS nodes and small cells transmit the signals of Commission licensees in technically the same manner as traditional macrocells. 234 47 C.F.R. § 1.1312. 231 See NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1083 para.24(finding that"our existing policies treating tower construction as an undertaking under the NHPA reflect a permissible interpretation of the Commission's authority under Section 319(d)of the Act to issue construction permits for radio towers"); CTIA—The Wireless Ass'n,466 F.3d at 114-15. See also NPA§I.0(providing that"[t]his Agreement does apply to collocations that are not exempt from Section 106 review under the Collocation Agreement"). 236 See PCIA Comments at 15-17. 237 See, e g, UTC Comments at 8-9. 231 See 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(a)(providing that agency official first determines whether the activity is an undertaking and"if so,whether it is a type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties"); 36 C.F.R. § 800.16(y)("Undertaking means a project,activity,or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency;those carried out with Federal financial assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit, license or approval."). 40 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Federal undertaking.239 Based on the record before us, we accordingly decline to find that DAS and small-cell deployments are not undertakings for purposes of Section 106 review.241 85. Having determined that DAS and small cell deployments constitute Federal undertakings subject to Section 106,we consider our authority based on Section 800.3(a)(1)of ACHP's rules to exclude such small facility deployments from Section 106 review. It is clear under the terms of Section 800.3(a)(1)that a Federal agency may determine that an undertaking is a type of activity that does not have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, assuming historic properties were present, in which case,"the agency has no further obligations under section 106 or this part[36 Part 800, Subpart 86. The commenters that propose a general exclusion for DAS and small cell deployments assert that under any circumstances, such deployments have the potential for at most minimal effects,but they do not provide evidence to support such a broad conclusion. 41 Moreover, several commenters, including several SHPOs, express concerns that such deployments do have the potential for effects in some cases." Accordingly,we cannot find on this record that DAS and small-cell facilities qualify for a general exclusion, and we therefore conclude, after consideration of the record,that any broad exclusion of such facilities must be implemented at this time through the development of a"program alternative" as defined under ACHP's rules."' We are committed, however,to making deployment processes as efficient as possible without undermining the values that Section 106 protects. As noted above, Commission staff are working on a program alternative that,through consultation with stakeholders, will ensure thorough consideration of all applicable interests, and will culminate in a system that eliminates additional bureaucratic processes for small facilities to the greatest extent possible consistent with the purpose and requirements of Section 106. 87. We further conclude, however,that it is in the public interest to immediately adopt targeted exclusions from our Section 106 review process that will apply to small facilities(and in some instances larger antennas)in many circumstances and thereby substantially advance the goal of facilities deployment. As noted above,we may exclude activities from Section 106 review upon determining that they have no potential to cause effects to historic properties, assuming such properties are present."' As discussed in detail below, we find two targeted circumstances that meet this test, one applicable to utility 239 See 16 U.S.C. §470w(7)(C)(defining undertaking to include a project or activity under the jurisdiction of a Federal agency"requiring a Federal permit license,or approval"). 240 See, e g., supra,nn.231,232. 241 See, e.g., Crown Castle Comments at 3;Fibertech Comments at 25;PCIA Comments at 7,9-10;Sprint Comments at 6;UTC Comments at 5;Verizon Comments at 13. 242 See, e.g., AHPP Comments at 1-2;COSHPO Comments at 1-2;NCS11PO Comments at 1. 243 Similarly,we do not,at this time,take action on certain other proposals on which the Commission sought comment in the Infrastructure NPRM, including whether to expand the current Section 106 exclusion for poles in communications or utilities rights-of-way to encompass such rights-of-way even where they are designated historic districts,and whether to provide an exclusion for replacements of some or all non-tower structures. See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14261-62 paras.62-63. We also note that the Infrastructure NPRM sought comment on whether the Commission should develop a process that would enable more efficient review under Section 106,such as by defining circumstances in which individual communication nodes(e g.,the separate antenna nodes of a single DAS deployment)can be grouped together and reviewed as a single undertaking. Id. at 14262 para.64. Various parties have indicated support for this proposal,see,a g.,AHPP Comments at 1;Mendham Comments at 4;Minneapolis Comments at 14,but none has suggested how to implement it. We will consider these options further in the context of our efforts to develop a program alternative. 244 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(a)(1);see,e g,Save Our Heritage, Inc v FA.A.,269 F.3d 49,62(1st Cir.2001); Preservation Society of Charleston v. U.S At-my Corp. of Engineers,2013 WL 6488282,at*4(D.S.C.Sept. 18, 2013). 41 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 structures and the other to buildings and any other non-tower structures. Pursuant to these findings we establish two exclusions. 88. First, we exclude collocations on existing utility structures, including utility poles and electric transmission towers,to the extent they are not already excluded in the Collocation Agreement,if: (1)the collocated antenna and associated equipment,when measured together with any other wireless deployment on the same structure,meet specified size limitations; and(2)the collocation will involve no new ground disturbance. Second,we exclude collocations on a building or other non-tower structure,to the extent they are not already excluded in the Collocation Agreement, if: (1)there is an existing antenna on the building or other structure; (2)certain requirements of proximity to the existing antenna are met, depending on the visibility and size of the new deployment; (3)the new antenna will comply with all zoning conditions and historic preservation conditions on existing antennas that directly mitigate or prevent effects, such as camouflage or concealment requirements; and(4)the deployment will involve no new ground disturbance. With respect to both of these categories—utility structures and other non-tower structures—we extend the exclusion only to deployments that are not(1)inside the boundary of a historic district,or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district; (2) located on a structure that is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register; or(3) the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties. In other words,these exclusions address collocations on utility structures and other non-tower structures where historic preservation review would otherwise be required under existing rules only because the structures are more than 45 years old. Our action here is consistent with our determination in the NPA to apply a categorical exclusion based upon a structure's proximity to a property listed in or eligible to be listed in the National Register rather than whether a structure is over 45 years old regardless of eligibility."' In our analysis below, consistent with Section 800.3(a)(1),we find collocations meeting the conditions stated above have no potential to affect historic properties even if such properties are present. We nevertheless find it appropriate to limit the adopted exclusions as described above. Given the sensitivities articulated in the record,particularly those from NCSHPO and other individual commenting SHPOs,regarding deployments in historic districts or on historic properties, we conclude that any broader exclusions require additional consultation and consideration, and are more appropriately addressed and developed through the program alternative process that Commission staff have already begun."' 89. While these exclusions will expedite small wireless facilities deployments in many cases, we reiterate that the measures discussed below are only initial steps. These measures will tailor and substantially improve our Section 106 review process for small wireless facilities. We note again that there is room for additional improvement in this area, and we are committed to relieving all stakeholders of unnecessary and nonproductive obligations. Therefore, Commission staff have engaged in discussions about broader reforms, and we expect that an ACHP-approved program alternative for Section 106 review will be concluded between 18 and 24 months after the release of this Report and Order. a. Collocations on Utility Structures 90. Pursuant to Section 800.3(a)(1)of ACHP's rules,we find that antennas mounted on existing utility structures have no potential for effects on historic properties, assuming such properties are present,where the deployment meets the following conditions: (1)the antenna and any associated equipment, when measured together with any other wireless deployments on the same structure,meets specified size limitations;and(2)the deployment will involve no new ground disturbance. ...See NPA.III.D;NPA Report and Order, 20 FCC Red at 1094 para.56(reasoning that the exclusion's applicability should depend on whether the property or a property within 500 feet is listed in or eligible to be listed in the National Register rather than the age of the property or of nearby properties regardless of eligibility). 241 See,e.g,AHPP Comments at 1-2; CASHPO Comments at 2; COSHPO Comments at 1-2;NCSHPO Comments at 1. See also DC Comments at 24-26(opposing general exclusion of DAS and small cell deployments but indicating that"the DC State Historic Preservation Office. . .would not need to review installations on sites that have not been listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register"). 42 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Notwithstanding this finding of no potential for effects even assuming historic properties are present,we limit this exclusion(as described above)in light of the particular sensitivities related to historic properties and districts. Accordingly,this exclusion does not apply to deployments that are(1)inside the boundary of a historic district, or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district; (2)located on a structure that is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register; or (3)the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties. In other words,this new targeted exclusion addresses collocations on utility structures where historic preservation review would otherwise be required under existing rules only because the structures are more than 45 years old. 91. For purposes of this exclusion,we define utility structures as utility poles or electric transmission towers in active use by a"utility"as defined in Section 224 of the Communications Act,but not including light poles, lamp posts, and other structures whose primary purpose is to provide public lighting. Utility structures are, by their nature, designed to hold a variety of electrical, communications, or other equipment, and they already hold such equipment. Their inherent characteristic thus incorporates the support of attachments,and their uses have continued to evolve with changes in technology since they were first used in the mid-19th century for distribution of telegraph services.247 Indeed, we note that other, often larger facilities are added to utility structures without review. For example, deployments of equipment supporting unlicensed wireless operations like Wi-Fi access occur without our Section 106 review in any case, as do installations of non-communication facilities such as municipal traffic management equipment248 or power equipment such as electric distribution transformers.249 The addition of DAS or small cell facilities to these structures is therefore fully consistent with their existing use.250 92. While the potential for effects from any deployments on utility structures is therefore remote at most,we conclude that the additional conditions described above support a finding that there is no such potential at all, assuming the presence of historic properties. First,we limit the size of equipment covered by this exclusion. In doing so,we draw on a PCIA proposal,which includes separate specific volumetric limits for antennas and for enclosures of associated equipment,but we modify the definition in certain respects to meet the standard in ACHP's rules that the undertaking must have no potential for effects. 51 Specifically,we provide that the deployment may include covered antenna enclosures no more 247 The first utility poles were erected in the mid-19th century in the United States for telegraph lines. See History Wired,"History of the Telegraph,"available at http://histoiywired.si.edu/detail.cfm?ID=324. The kinds of equipment placed on poles have adapted and evolved with the evolution of technology to include electrical and all manner of communications equipment. 241 See NPA§II.A.1 (providing that the antennas subject to the NPA"do[]not include. . .devices authorized under Part 15 of the Commission's rules."). See also Dayton Daily News,"Local cities using advanced traffic signals to cut wait times,"July 31,2014,available at htip://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/news/local/local-cities-using- advanced-traffic-signals-to-cut/ngrxG/(reporting that City of Moraine is using cameras mounted on utility poles to track traffic and adjust signal times);AT&T Reply Comments at 7("DAS and small cells have no more of an impact on historic property than any of the many other attachments placed on poles,including traffic cameras,wireless transmitters,and other devices installed by many local governments");PCIA Comments at 11. 249 See Wikipedia,"Distribution Transformer,"http://en.wikipedia.orglwiki/Distribution transformer(describing utility pole-mounted transformers). 250 See Fibertech Comments at 25(noting the"practical reality that small cells are the same size or smaller than other types of infrastructure deployed in the public rights-of-ways"). 251 As noted in the Infrastructure NPRM,PCIA proposed excluding small facilities from review if they meet the following criteria: 1)Equipment Volume.An equipment enclosure shall be no larger than seventeen(17)cubic feet in volume. 2)Antenna Volume.Each antenna associated with the installation shall be in an antenna enclosure of no more than three(3)cubic feet in volume.Each antenna that has exposed elements shall fit within an imaginary enclosure of no more than three(3)cubic feet. (continued....) 43 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 than three cubic feet in volume per enclosure, or exposed antennas that fit within an imaginary enclosure of no more than three cubic feet in volume per imaginary enclosure, up to an aggregate maximum of six cubic feet. We further provide that all equipment enclosures(or imaginary enclosures) associated with the collocation on any single structure, including all associated equipment but not including separate antennas or enclosures for antennas,must be limited cumulatively to seventeen cubic feet in volume. Further,collocations under this rule will be limited to collocations that cause no new ground disturbance. 93. Because we find that multiple collocations on a utility structure could have a cumulative impact,we further apply the size limits defined above on a cumulative basis taking into account all pre- existing collocations. Specifically, if there is a pre-existing wireless deployment on the structure, and any of this pre-existing equipment would remain after the collocation,then the volume limits apply to the cumulative volume of such pre-existing equipment and the new collocated equipment. Thus,for the new equipment to come under our exclusion,the sum of the volume of all pre-existing associated equipment that remains after the collocation and the new equipment must be no greater than seventeen cubic feet, and the sum of the volume of all collocated antennas, including pre-existing antennas that remain after the collocation,must be no greater than six cubic feet. We further provide that the cumulative limit of seventeen cubic feet for wireless equipment applies to all equipment on the ground associated with an antenna on the structure as well as associated equipment physically on the structure. Thus, application of the limit is the same regardless of whether equipment associated with a particular deployment is deployed on the ground next to a structure or on the structure itself."' Consistent with a proposal by PCIA, however,we find that certain equipment should be omitted from the calculation of the equipment volume, including: (1)vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services,the volume of which may be impractical to calculate and which should in any case have no effect on historic properties, consistent with our established exclusion of cable in pre-existing aerial or underground corridors; (2) ancillary equipment installed by other entities that is outside of the applicant's ownership or control,such as a power meter installed by the electric utility in connection with the wireless deployment, and (3) comparable equipment from pre-existing wireless deployments on the structure.lss (Continued from previous page) 3)Infrastructure Volume.Associated electric meter,concealment,telecom demarcation box,ground- based enclosures,battery back-up power systems,grounding equipment,power transfer switch,and cut-off switch may be located outside the primary equipment enclosure(s)and are not included in the calculation of Equipment Volume. Volume is a measure of the exterior displacement,not the interior volume of the enclosures.Any equipment that is concealed from public view in or behind an otherwise approved structure or concealment,is not included in the volume calculations. See Infrash•ucture NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14256 para.49,n.99. See also PCIA Comments at 7-9. A number of industry commenters also support this definition,or a close variation of it. See,e.g,AT&T Comments at 15-16; Cox Reply Comments at 2-3;Crown Castle Comments at 5-6(proposing a limit of 5 cubic feet for antennas because "Crown Castle currently deploys antennas in its DAS and Small Cell networks that are significantly larger than three cubic feet in volume in order to accommodate multiple carriers");Verizon Comments at 10-11;WISPA Comments at 15-16(proposing a limit of six cubic feet for antennas). 152 While some commenters oppose an exclusion based solely on PCIA's volumetric definition,we find that our exclusion addresses their concerns. For example,Tempe and the CA Local Governments express concern that PCIA's definition would allow an unlimited number of ground-mounted cabinets. See CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 6;Tempe Comments at 8. Our approach provides that any associated ground equipment must also come within the volumetric limit for equipment enclosures,however,and therefore does not allow for unlimited ground-based equipment. Further,because we apply the size limit on a cumulative basis,our exclusion directly addresses concerns that the PCIA definition would allow multiple collocations that cumulatively exceed the volumetric limits. See CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 6;Tempe Comments at 8. 251 See Letter from Jonathan M.Campbell,PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association,to Marlene H.Dortch, Secretary,FCC,filed Oct. 10,2014(PCIA Oct. 10,2014 Ex Parte),at 2;see also Letter from Brian M.Josef,CTIA- (continued....) 44 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 94. To meet the standard under Section 800.3(a)(1), we further impose a requirement of no new ground disturbance, consistent for the most part with the NPA standard. Under the NPA standard, no new ground disturbance occurs so long as the depth of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth(excluding footings and other anchoring mechanisms)by at least two feet.254 We find, however,that footings and anchorings should be included in this context to ensure no potential for effects. Therefore,our finding is limited to cases where there is no ground disturbance or the depth and width of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth and width, including the depth and width of any proposed footings or other anchoring mechanisms, by at least two feet.255 95. Adoption of this exclusion will provide significant efficiencies in the Section 106 process for DAS and small-cell deployments. Many DAS and small-cell installations involve collocations on utility structures 256 According to one estimate,there were 120 million utility poles in service in the United States in 2005,257 the overwhelming majority of which are made of wood"' The North American Wood Pole Council states that a properly maintained wood pole will have a service life of 75 years or more259 PCIA estimates that approximately 12%of wooden poles—between 19 and 22 million poles— are 45 years or older,with the number growing as pole preservation technology improves. PCIA also estimates that excluding collocations on these wooden poles would increase the estimated number of excluded collocation structures by a factor of 10—which would dramatically advance wireless infrastructure deployment without impacting historic preservation values."' (Continued from previous page) The Wireless Association,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,filed Oct. 10,2014(CTIA Oct. 10,2014 Fx Parte),at 2. 254 See NPA§§III.C,VI.D.2.c.i. 255 Some Tribal Nations have indicated that exclusions of small facilities from Section 106 review might be reasonable if there is no excavation but that any ground disturbance would be cause for concern. See Spectrum and Competition Policy Division,Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,Ex-parte summary,WT Docket 13-238(filed Sept.4,2014). We find that the restrictions we place on both of our new Section 106 exclusions are sufficient to address this concern and ensure that there is no potential for effects on historic properties of Tribal religious or cultural significance. As discussed in detail in this Report and Order,these restrictions include a strict requirement for both exclusions of no new ground disturbance and restrictions on the size and placement of equipment. Furthermore,both exclusions are limited to collocations(and therefore do not include new or replacement support structures). 256 Tracy Ford,"FCC Utility Poles rules to Help Broadband,DAS Deployments,"May 25,2010,available at http://www.rcrwireless.com/article/20100525/tower/fcc-utility-poles-rules-to-help-broadband-das-deployments/, Kevin White,Small Cells: Small,but Valuable Addition to 4G LTE Network,May 21,2013,available at http://www.verizonwireless.com/news/article/2013/05/4G-LTE-network-small-cells.htm 1. 257 See Environmental Literacy Council,"Wood Utility Pole Life Cycle,"available at http://enviroliteracy.ore/article.php/1311.html. The American Iron and Steel Institute estimates that there are 185 million utility poles across North America. See Steel Works,"Utility Poles,"available at hgp://www.steel.ore/en/SMDISteel org/Web%20Root/Content/Overview/Utilitv%2OPoies.aspx' According to the North American Wood Pole Council,there are about 130 million wood utility poles in use across North America. See North American Wood Pole Council,"Frequently Asked Questions,"available at http://www.woodpoles.org/FAQ-America.html. 25'The American Iron and Steel Institute estimates that since 1998,close to one million steel distribution poles have been installed and are now being used by over 600 of 3100 U.S.electric utilities. See Steel Works,"Utility Poles," available at http://www.steel.org/en/The%20New%2OSteeVUtility%2OPoles/Utility%2OPoles.aspx. We note that our exclusion is not limited to wood poles,and encompasses collocations on these steel utility poles as well. 259 See North American Wood Pole Council,"Frequently Asked Questions,"available at http://www.woodpoles.org/FAQ-America.htmi. 260 See Loveday Report at 3. 45 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 b. Collocations on Buildings and Other Non-tower Structures 96. As discussed above, Section 800.3(a)(1)ofACHP rules authorizes an exclusion only where the undertaking does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties, assuming such historic properties are present. 61 While we conclude that this standard allows for an exclusion applicable to many collocations on buildings and other structures that already house collocations, we find insufficient support in the record to adopt Verizon's proposed exclusion in its entirety. While Verizon states that adding an antenna to a building within the scope of its proposal would not have an effect that differs from those caused by existing antennas,we must also consider the cumulative effects of additional deployments on the integrity of a historic property to the extent that they add incompatible visual elements.262 Further,while Verizon relies heavily on the requirement that any new deployment must meet the same conditions as the existing deployment,we cannot assume that conditions placed on a previous deployment are always sufficient to prevent any effects, particularly in the event of multiple additional deployments. Indeed, it is often the case that mitigating conditions are designed to offset effects rather than eliminate or reduce them entirely. We conclude, however,that with certain modifications to Verizon's proposal,deployments covered by the test would have no potential for effects. 97. Specifically, we find that collocations on buildings or other non-tower structures over 45 years old will have no potential for effects on historic properties if: (1)there is an existing antenna on the building or structure; (2)one of the following criteria is met: (a)the new antenna will not be visible from any adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces and will be added in the same vicinity as a pre-existing antenna; (b)the new antenna will be visible from adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces,provided that(i)it will replace a pre-existing antenna, (ii)the new antenna will be located in the same vicinity as the pre-existing antenna, (iii)the new antenna will be visible only from adjacent streets and surrounding public spaces that also afford views of the pre-existing antenna, (iv)the new antenna will not be more than three feet larger in height or width(including all protuberances)than the pre-existing antenna, and (v)no new equipment cabinets will be visible from the adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces; or (c)the new antenna will be visible from adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces,provided that(i)it will be located in the same vicinity as a pre-existing antenna, (ii)the new antenna will be visible only from adjacent streets and surrounding public spaces that also afford views of the pre-existing antenna, (iii) the pre-existing antenna was not deployed pursuant to the exclusion based on this finding, (iv)the new antenna will not be more than three feet larger in height or width(including all protuberances)than the pre-existing antenna, and(v)no new equipment cabinets will be visible from the adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces; (3)the new antenna will comply with all zoning conditions and historic preservation conditions applicable to existing antennas in the same vicinity that directly mitigate or prevent effects, such as camouflage or concealment requirements; and(4)the deployment of the new antenna will involve no new ground disturbance. Notwithstanding our finding of no potential for effects even assuming historic properties are present,we limit this exclusion in light of many parties' particular sensitivities related to historic properties and districts. Accordingly, as with the exclusion for collocations on utility poles,this exclusion does not apply to deployments that are(1)inside the boundary of a historic district,or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district; (2)located on a structure that is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register; or(3) the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties. In other words,this new targeted exclusion addresses collocations on non-tower structures where historic preservation review would otherwise be required under existing rules only because the structures are more than 45 years old. "'See 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(a)(1). ...See 36 C.F.R. § 800.5(a)(1). Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance,based on its location, design,setting,materials,workmanship,feeling,and association. Adverse effects can be direct or indirect and can include introduction of incompatible visual,atmospheric,or audible elements. See Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,A Citizen's Guide to Section 106 Review,available at hftp://www.achp.gov/docs/CitizenGuide.pdf,at 7. 46 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 98. Consistent with the Verizon proposal,we require that there must already be an antenna on the building or other structure and that the new antenna be in the same vicinity as the pre-existing antenna. For this purpose, a non-visible new antenna is in the"same vicinity"as a pre-existing antenna if it will be collocated on the same rooftop, facade or other surface, and a visible new antenna is in the "same vicinity"as a pre-existing antenna if it is on the same rooftop,facade, or other surface and the centerpoint of the new antenna is within 10 feet of the centerpoint of the pre-existing antenna. Combined with the other criteria discussed below,this requirement is designed to assure that a new antenna will not have any incremental effect on historic properties, assuming they exist, as there will be no additional incompatible elements. 99. In addition to Verizon's proposed requirement that the deployment be in the same vicinity as an existing antenna,we also adopt a condition of no-visibility from adjoining streets or any surrounding public spaces,263 with two narrow exceptions. For the general case, our no-effects finding will apply only to a new antenna that is not visible from any adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces and is added in the same vicinity as a pre-existing antenna.164 100. We make a narrow exception to the no-visibility requirement where the new antenna would replace an existing antenna in the same vicinity and where the addition of the new antenna would not constitute a substantial increase in size over the replaced antenna. In this situation,no additional incompatible visual element is being added, as one antenna is a substitution for the other. We permit an insubstantial increase in size in this situation 265 For purposes of this criterion,the replacement facility would represent a substantial increase in size if it is more than three feet larger in height or width (including all protuberances)than the existing facility, or if it involves any new equipment cabinets that are visible from the street or adjacent public spaces. We decline to adopt the NPA definition of "substantial increase,"which allows greater increases in height or width in some cases, because it applies to towers, not to antenna deployments, and it is therefore overbroad with respect to the replacement of an 263 In adopting this standard,we are informed by the record,see,a g.,AHPP Comments at I (supporting exclusion of collocations on non-tower structures in an area not visible from the ground),and also in part by General Services Administration(GSA)Preservation Note 41,entitled"Administrative Guide for Submitting Antenna Projects for External Review,"available at http://www.ssa.aoy/portal/content/104184?utm source=PBS&utm medium=print- radio&utm term=technicalpreservationnote&utm campaign=shortcuts. The Preservation Notes are a series of technical briefs prepared by the GSA National Capital Region Historic Preservation staff as a resource on preservation project design,contracting,construction,and historic property management issues. Preservation Note 41 recommends that an agency may recommend a finding of no effect where the antenna will not be visible from the surrounding public space or streets and the antenna will not harm original historic materials or their replacements-in- kind. We note that,in addition to the measures ensuring that there are no incremental visual effects from covered facilities,our finding of no effects in this case is also implicitly based on a requirement,as the GSA Note recommends,that the deployment will not harm original historic materials. Even assuming a building is historic, however,as required by Section 800.3(a)(1),this"no harm"criterion would be satisfied by ensuring that any anchoring on the building was not performed on the historic materials of the property or their replacements-in-kind. See id. It is therefore unnecessary to expressly impose a"no harm"condition in this case,as the exclusion we adopt does not apply to historic properties. Necessarily,any anchoring of deployments subject to the exclusion will not be in any historic materials of the property. We also note that,under the criteria we adopt,the deployment will occur only where another antenna has already been reviewed under Section 106 and approved for deployment in the same vicinity,and any conditions imposed on that prior deployment to minimize or eliminate historic impact,including specifications of where,how,or under what conditions to construct,are part of our"no effect"finding and would apply as a condition of the exclusion. 264 Line-of-sight evaluations as referenced by the General Services Administration's Preservation Note 41 may be used to determine visibility. See GSA,"NCR Preservation Note Series,"available at http://www.gsa.gov/portaUcontent/104184?utm source=PBS&utm medium=print- radio&utm term=technicalpreservationnote&utm campaign=shortcuts. 265 By comparison,under the NPA,a replacement for a tower that results in an insubstantial increase in size is excluded from Section 106 review. See NPA§ III.B. 47 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 existing antenna. We further note that no one has objected to Verizon's proposed limit on increases of three feet in this context. Also, since we are required to ensure no potential for effects on historic properties assuming such properties are present,we find it appropriate to adopt a more stringent test than in the context of a program alternative."' For these reasons, any increase in the number of equipment cabinets that are visible from the street or adjacent public spaces in connection with a replacement antenna constitutes a substantial increase in size. In combination with the requirements that the new antenna be within 10 feet of the replaced antenna and that the pre-existing antenna be visible from any ground perspective that would afford a view of the new antenna,these requirements ensure that the replacement deployment will not have an additional visual effect. 101. Under our second partial exception to the no-visibility requirement,the new antenna may be in addition to,rather than a replacement of, a pre-existing antenna,but must meet the other requirements applicable to replacement antennas noted above. In addition,we require that the pre- existing antenna itself not have been deployed pursuant to this exception. While this exception will allow an additional visual element to be added,the element is again limited to a comparably-sized antenna in the same viewshed(and again does not include any new visible associated equipment). Further, because the pre-existing antenna may not itself have been deployed pursuant to this no-effects finding, deployments cannot be daisy-chained across the structure, which might present a potential for cumulative effects. 102. Consistent with the Verizon proposal,we require that the new antenna comply with all zoning and historic preservation conditions applicable to existing antennas in the same vicinity that directly mitigate or prevent effects, such as camouflage, concealment, or painting requirements. We do not extend that requirement to conditions that have no direct relationship to the facility's effect or how the facility is deployed, such as a condition that requires the facility owner to pay for historic site information signs or other conditions intended to offset harms rather than prevent them. Our goal is to assure that any new deployments have no effects on historic properties. Payments or other forms of mitigation applied to antennas previously deployed on the building or structure that were intended to compensate for any adverse effect on historic properties caused by those antennas but were not intended to prevent that effect from occurring do not advance our goal of assuring no effects from such collocations. Accordingly, we do not require that the new antenna comply with such conditions. 103. As with the exclusion we adopt above for collocations on utility structures,we impose a strict requirement of no new ground disturbance. Thus,the exclusion will permit ground disturbance only where the depth and width of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth and width (including footings and other anchoring mechanisms)by at least two feet. 3. Antennas Mounted in the Interior of Buildings 104. The Collocation Agreement provides that"[a]n antenna may be mounted on a building" without Section 106 review except under certain circumstances, e.g,the building is a historic property or over 45 years of age.267 In Section III.B.2.b. of this Report and Order,we clarify that the NEPA categorical exclusion codified in Note 1 for"antenna(s)mounted on an existing building"applies to 266 ACHP promulgated its program alternative regulation,36 C.F.R. § 800.14,pursuant to Section 214 of NI-IPA, 16 U.S.C. §470v,which authorizes ACNP to exempt Federal undertakings from any provision of NHPA"when such exemption is determined consistent with the purposes of this Act,taking into consideration the magnitude of the exempted undertaking or program and the likelihood of impairment of historic properties."See also NPA Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 1081-82 para.21 (interpreting these provisions to mean that, in formulating exemptions and prescribing Section 106 processes in a program alternative,ACHP and the action agency need not ensure that every possible effect on historic properties is considered under all circumstances but should be guided by a standard of reasonableness that takes into account both the likelihood that adverse effects will not be considered in all instances and the overall benefits to be obtained from streamlining measures). 267 Collocation Agreement§ V.A. 48 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 collocations in the interior of buildings.26' Because of the growing use of and reliance on small wireless facility deployments in the interior of buildings to improve coverage, we take this opportunity to similarly remove any uncertainty with regard to the Section 106 requirements related to interior collocations. 105. We therefore clarify that Section V of the Collocation Agreement covers collocations in buildings' interiors. Given the limited scope of the exclusion of collocations on buildings under the Collocation Agreement(e.g.,the building may not itself be listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register or in or near a historic district),there is no reason to distinguish interior collocations from exterior collocations for purposes of assessing impacts on historic properties. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION EXEMPTION FOR REGISTRATION OF TEMPORARY TOWERS 106. In this section,consistent with a waiver previously granted by the Commission,we adopt a narrow exemption from the Commission's requirement that owners of proposed towers requiring antenna structure registration(ASR)provide 30 days of national and local notice to give members of the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed tower's potential environmental effects. The exemption applies only to proposed temporary towers meeting defined criteria that reduce the likelihood of any significant environmental effects. Specifically,the exemption applies only to antenna structures that(1)will be in place for 60 days or less;(2)require notice of construction to the FAA; (3)do not require marking or lighting under FAA regulations; (4)will be less than 200 feet above ground level; and (5)will involve minimal or no ground excavation. We emphasize that this exemption only relieves applicants of the need to complete the process of public notice; it is not a categorical exclusion, and therefore does not relieve applicants of the obligation under our NEPA rules to file an EA in the circumstances identified by our rules. Further,the exemption from notice requirements does not apply to proposed deployments where an EA is in fact required under our rules. Rather, all EAs will continue to be put out on public notice in accordance with existing process to provide the public opportunity for engagement.269 107. We find that allowing licensees to deploy temporary towers meeting these criteria without first having to complete the Commission's environmental notification process or seek a site- specific waiver of that process will enable them to more effectively respond to emergencies,natural disasters, and other planned and unplanned short-term spikes in demand without undermining the purposes of the notification process. Thus,this exemption will"remove an administrative obstacle to the availability of broadband and other wireless services during major events and unanticipated periods of localized high demand',271where expanded or substitute service is needed quickly.27 A. Background 108. Under its rules,the FAA requires notification of the construction or alteration of any antenna structure that exceeds 200 feet in height above ground level, or where certain other conditions are met, including where the structure is located in a flight path near an airport and exceeds a height 268 See supra, Section III.B.2.b. 269 To the extent a party constructs a tower that does not require antenna structure registration,but does require an EA under our rules,that party typically registers the tower by filing an FCC Form 854 as a vehicle for submitting the EA. See Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16707 para. 18. All EAs that are filed with Form 854 go through environmental notice under our environmental notification procedures. See id. at 16723 para.57. Applications submitted through the Universal Licensing System(ULS)that are not also filed on Form 854 and that contain EAs are placed on public notice for 30 days by the appropriate processing division. See Weekly Status Public Notices in the Universal Licensing System(ULS),available at hllp://www.fcc. og v/help/weekly-status- publ ic-notices-universal-licensing-system-uls. 270 CTIA Comments at 6(quoting Infrastructure NPM11,28 FCC Rcd at 14263-64 para.68). 271 See Waiver Order,28 FCC Rcd 7758 para. 1. 49 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 determined using a formula based on its distance from the runway.272 The owner of a proposed antenna structure must file notice with the FAA on FAA Form 7460-1, and that agency in turn determines whether the construction or alteration is subject to lighting or marking specifications prescribed in the current version of an FAA Advisory Circular entitled"Obstruction Marking and Lighting."273 The FAA sends an acknowledgment to the antenna structure owner describing how the structure should be marked and lighted,which constitutes an FAA study and determination of"no hazard to air navigation."274 This means that the FAA has determined that the structure will not pose a hazard to aircraft provided that the structure is marked and/or lighted consistent with its recommendations. 109. If pre-construction notice to the FAA is required,275 the Commission's rules also require the tower owner to register the antenna structure in the Commission's ASR system, prior to construction or alteration as the case may be.276 As part of such registration,the applicant must submit the FAA's study and "no hazard"determination, including any associated marking and lighting specifications 277 If the Commission accepts the application, it registers the structure, issuing an ASR form that typically incorporates the FAA's"no hazard"marking and/or lighting specifications.171 110. The Commission has found that ASR application processing constitutes an action that triggers the Commission's review responsibilities under NEPA and Section 106 of NHPA.279 Among 272 See 14 C.F.R. § 77.13;47 C.F.R. § 17.7. 273 Federal Aviation Administration,"Advisory Circular: Obstruction Marking and Lighting,"FAA AC 70/7460-1K (2007),available at http://www.faa.sov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory Circular/AC%2070%207460-1K.pdf (FAA Obstruction Marking and Lighting Circular). 274 See Part 17 Report and Order,FCC 14-117,at para.3 271 See 14 C.F.R. § 77.13;47 C.F.R. § 17.7. 276 See 47 C.F.R.§ 17.4. As defined in the Commission's rules,"antenna structures"include"the radiating and/or receive system,its supporting structures and any appurtenances mounted thereon." 47 C.F.R. § 17.2 We note that the Commission has recently changed its Part 17 rules. See Part 17 Report and Order,FCC 14-117. Under these changes,which will be effective October 24,2014,see 79 Fed.Reg. 56968 (Sept.24,2014),an"antenna structure" is defined as"a structure that is constructed or used to transmit radio energy,or that is constructed or used for the primary purpose of supporting antennas to transmit and/or receive radio energy,and any antennas and other appurtenances mounted thereon,from the time construction of the supporting structure begins until such time as the supporting structure is dismantled." Id. In this section,we use the terms"antenna structures"and"towers" interchangeably. 277 47 C.F.R. § 17.4(b). The registration process is generally completed online at the Commission's ASR Online System website,available at http://wireless.fcc.cov/antenna/. This website provides comprehensive information about the registration process and the applicable rules. 278 The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau recently released a Public Notice announcing enhancements to the Commission's ASR System to allow ASR registrants electronic access to their current official authorizations in "Active"status,and that the electronic version of an authorization stored in the ASR System will be deemed as the official Commission document. See"Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Enhancements to the Commission's Universal Licensing System and Antenna Structure Registration System for Providing Access to Official Electronic Authorizations and Seeks Comment on Final Procedures,"WT Docket No. 14-161,Public Notice,DA 14-1478,at 2(WTB rel.Oct. 10,2014). 219 See Streamlining the Commission's Antenna Structure Clearance Procedure;Revision of Part 17 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Construction,Marking,and Lighting of Antenna Structures,WT Docket No.95-5, Report and Order, I 1 FCC Rcd 4272,4289 para.41 (1995)(Antenna Structure Clearance R&O)(finding that the registration of an antenna structure is subject to NEPA). Accord,NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1084 para. 27(explaining that the Commission's treatment of tower registrations as Federal undertakings within the meaning of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C.§470f,is a permissible interpretation in light of the preconstruction approval process that it has implemented to assure that communications towers are not a risk to air safety under Section 303(q)of the Communications Act). 50 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 other obligations,NEPA requires agencies to facilitate public involvement in agency decisions that may affect the environment.280 To fulfill this responsibility,the Commission requires owners of proposed towers, including temporary towers,that must be registered in the ASR system to provide local and national notice prior to submitting a completed ASR application.21' Typically,the ASR notice process takes approximately 40 days,282 as applicants must provide public notice, allow 30 days for the filing of any requests for further environmental review, and then wait for the Commission to clear the tower for construction. 111. The public notification requirements are subject to certain exemptions, such as an exemption for replacement towers meeting certain criteria.28' In addition,the Commission has provided that applicants may request site-specific waivers of the notification requirement in emergency situations, such as where a tower needs to be deployed quickly to restore lost communications.28' Such requests must be made and approved pre-construction, and the Commission has further provided that the reviewing bureau should ordinarily require in such cases that the applicant provide public notice within a short period after authorization or construction,unless the bureau concludes in a particular case that notice would be impracticable or not in the public interest"' 112. On December 21,2012, CTIA filed a Petition for Expedited Rulemaking asking the Commission to add a new exemption from the public notice requirements for temporary towers that(1) will be in use for 60 days or less, (2)require the filing of a Form 7460-1 with the FAA, (3)do not require marking or lighting pursuant to FAA regulations,and(4)will be less than 200 feet in height(Temporary Towers Petition)286 CTIA also asked the Commission for an interim waiver of its environmental notification rules for the same class of temporary towers pending the outcome of the rulemaking.287 113. On May 15,2013, in the Environmental Notification Waiver Order,the Commission granted an interim waiver of the ASR environmental notification requirements for substantially all of the class of temporary towers that CTIA identified,with the additional criterion that the construction entail no or only minimal ground disturbance."' The Commission provided that the interim waiver would remain in effect pending the completion of a rulemaking to address the issues raised in the petition."' 210 See 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6(a)(requiring agencies to make"diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures");see also 40 C.F.R. § 1500.2(d)("Federal agencies shall to the fullest extent possible.. .[e]ncourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions which affect the quality of the human environment."). 281 See Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd 16700;see also"Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Provides Guidance on the Implementation of the Environmental Notification Process for the Registration of Antenna Structures,"Public Notice,27 FCC Rcd 5082(WTB 2012)(ASR Guidance PN). 282 See ASR Guidance PN,27 FCC Rcd at 5082. 281 See Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16720-21 para.53. See also 47 C.F.R. § 17.14. Other exemptions address,for example,objects shielded by existing permanent structures,structures that are 20 feet or less in height,airport landing aids,and meteorological devices. 281 See Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16717 n.117. 285 Id 286 See Petition of CTIA—The Wireless Association for Expedited Rulemaking and Blanket Waiver Regarding Public Notice Procedures for Temporary Towers,RM-11688,filed Dec.21,2012(Temporary Towers Petition),at 1. 2"'Id at 11-12. 288 Id. More specifically,the Commission provided that the interim waiver would not apply to a temporary tower that requires excavation unless the ground was previously disturbed to a depth that exceeds the proposed construction depth by at least 2 feet. See Waiver Order,28 FCC Rcd at 7763 para. 12. 21'Id at 7763 para. 13. 51 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 114. In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission proposed to adopt a permanent exemption from the ASR pre-construction environmental notification requirements consistent with the interim exemption granted in the Waiver Order.29' It noted that,according to commenters,situations frequently arise where there is insufficient time to complete the notification process before a temporary tower must be deployed to meet near-term demand, including(1)newsworthy events that occur without any prior notice and require immediate deployments, such as natural disasters; (2)other events that occur with less than 30 days advance notice,such as certain political events and parades for sports teams; (3)events for which the timing and general location are known in advance, but where the specific locations for temporary towers are unknown until days before the event,such as state fairs and major sporting events; and(4)situations in which unexpected difficulties with permanent structures require the deployment of temporary towers while permanent facilities are repaired 291 Therefore, it found that absent an exemption, application of the ASR notice process to these temporary towers would apparently prevent service providers from meeting important short-term coverage and capacity needs, and sought comment on its analysis292 115. The Commission further sought comment on how it should define the scope of the exemption, and whether the criteria set out in the Waiver Order were sufficient and appropriate for this purpose.29' The Commission further proposed not to require post-construction environmental notice for towers that qualify for the new exemption."' While noting that the Commission ordinarily requires post- construction notification in those cases where pre-construction notice is waived due to an emergency situation,the Commission observed that post-construction public notice for towers deployed for the short periods of time addressed by the exemption would seem to serve little purpose."' 116. The Commission also proposed,however,to continue to require owners of towers eligible for the exemption to comply with the Commission's other NEPA requirements, including the obligations to certify environmental compliance on a completed ASR application and to file an EA in appropriate cases.296 It further proposed that if an applicant determines that it needs to complete an EA for a temporary tower otherwise eligible for the exemption, or if the relevant bureau makes this determination pursuant to Section 1.1307(c)or(d)of the Commission's rules, the tower would not be exempt from public notice requirements.29' Thus, for example, if a proposed temporary tower would have significant environmental effects on migratory birds,the tower owner would not be able to claim the exemption from the Commission's environmental notification process that we adopt today. 117. The Commission also sought comment on whether to provide for an extension if an applicant determines,subsequent to registering a tower under the temporary towers notification exemption,that the tower will or may be needed beyond the maximum period for the exemption.29' In particular, it sought comment on whether the Commission should establish a process for extending the period the tower may remain in place without environmental notice."' 290 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14263-64 para. 68. 291 Id at 14268 para. 80. 292 Id 293 Id at 14267 para.78. 294 Id at 14270 para. 85. 295 Id 296 Id at 14270-71 para.86. 297 Id 291 Id at 14271 para. 88. 299 Id 52 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 118. The vast majority of parties that commented on this issue support the adoption of an exemption from the environmental notification process for temporary towers.30' Most of the supporting commenters also agree that the Commission should rely on the criteria from the Waiver Order to define the scope of the exemption,301 while some propose different or additional criteria."' 119. A few parties raise objections. Orange County recommends the Commission not exempt temporary towers from"antenna registration and notification requirements,"asserting that temporary towers may have the same environmental effects as permanent towers.303 Lee County states that the Commission should not exempt temporary towers"from review."304 Tempe argues that temporary towers should not be included as part of any"environmental exemption"because such towers may include generators that could have significant environmental effects.311 B. Discussion 120. For the reasons set forth below, and essentially as proposed in the Infrastructure NPRM, we adopt a permanent exemption from our ASR environmental notification requirements for temporary towers that meet the criteria set forth in the Waiver Order. Specifically,we exempt proposed new antenna structures that do not require EAs from the ASR public notice requirements if they: (1)will be in place for no more than 60 days;(2)require notice of construction to the FAA; (3)do not require marking or lighting under FAA regulations;(4)will be less than 200 feet in height; and(5)will either involve no excavation or involve excavation only where the depth of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth(excluding footings and other anchoring mechanisms)by at least two feet. 121. We recognize that one of our responsibilities under NEPA is to facilitate public involvement in agency decisions that may affect the environment. CEQ regulations direct that agencies shall"make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures" and"solicit appropriate information from the public.""' At the same time,an agency has"`wide discretion in fashioning its own procedures' to implement its environmental obligations,,3"and "considerable discretion [under CEQ regulations] to decide the extent to which such public involvement 300 See,e.g,AT&T Comments at 6-7; CalWA Comments at 2;CCA Reply Comments at 12;CTIA Comments at 4- 6;Coconut Creek Comments at 4;Joint Venture Comments at 4-5;Mesquite Comments at 1-2;PCIA Comments at 59-60; Springfield Comments at 7-8; Sprint Comments at 6-7; Steel in the Air Comments at 4;TIA Comments at 4; UTC Comments at 9-10;Verizon Comments at 24-25;West Palm Beach Comments at 4. 30'See,e.g.,AT&T Comments at 19; Steel in the Air Comments at 4. 302 For example,Springfield and Mesquite argue that the maximum tower height eligible for the exemption should be reduced. See Springfield Comments at 8;Mesquite Comments at 2. Sprint argues that the exemption should apply to temporary towers in place for up to six months rather than 60 days. See Sprint Comments at 7. Mendham argues that applicants claiming the exemption should be required to provide notice to the municipality and county where the temporary tower is to be located. See Mendham Comments at 5. 303 Orange Reply Comments at 4-5. 304 Lee Comments at 1-2. 305 See Tempe Comments at 10. See also Savannah Ex Parte at 4(arguing that the flight hazard from towers over 100 feet in height is greater locally than in most of the nation and that the proposed exemption would"needlessly increase the risk to our public,and to our pilots in particular."). 306 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6(a),(d);see also 40 C.F.R. § 1500.2(d)("Federal agencies shall to the fullest extent possible . . . [e]ncourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions which affect the quality of the human environment."); American Bird Conservancy v. FCC,516 F.3d 1027, 1035(D.C.Cir.2008). 307 Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16717 para.45(quoting American Bird Conservancy,516 F.3d at 1035). 53 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 is 'practicable.""0' As discussed below,we find that establishing the proposed exemption is consistent with our obligations under NEPA and CEQ regulations,and will serve the public interest."' 122. As the Commission observed in the Infrastructure NPRM, the ASR notice process takes approximately 40 days and can take as long as two months.310 The record confirms that absent the exemption, situations would arise where there is insufficient time to complete this process before a temporary tower must be deployed to meet near-term demand.311 The record, as well as our own experience in administering the environmental notice rule, shows that a substantial number of temporary towers that would qualify for the exemption require registration.312 We find that, absent an exemption, application of the ASR notice process to these temporary towers will interfere with the ability of service providers to meet important short term coverage and capacity needs. 123. At the same time, the benefits of environmental notice are limited in the case of temporary towers meeting these criteria. The purpose of environmental notice is to facilitate public discourse regarding towers that may have a significant environmental impact.313 We find that towers meeting the specified criteria are highly unlikely to have significant environmental effects due to their short duration, limited height, absence of marking or lighting, and minimal to no excavation.'14 As the Commission explained in the Waiver Order,our experience in administering the ASR public notice process confirms that antenna structures meeting the waiver criteria rarely if ever generate public comment regarding potentially significant environmental effects or are determined to require further environmental processing.31' In particular, since the Waiver Order has been in place, we have seen no evidence that a temporary tower exempted from notification by the waiver has had or may have had a significant environmental effect."' We find that the limited benefits of notice in these cases do not outweigh the potential detriment to the public interest of prohibiting the deployment of towers in circumstances in which the notification process cannot be completed quickly enough to address short- term deployment needs. Further,having concluded that pre-construction environmental notification is categorically unnecessary in the situations addressed here,we find it would be inefficient to require the sob Brodsky v US. Nuclear Regulatoiy Comm'n,704 F.3d 113, 121 (2d Cir.2013)(noting that the reviewing court properly considers"whether the lack of public input prevented the agency from weighing all the factors essential to exercising its judgment[under NEPA]in a reasonable manner"if the issuance of a FONSI without public comment is challenged)(internal quotations omitted); TOMAC, Taxpayers of Mich Against Casinos v. Norton, 433 F.3d 852, 861 (D.C.Cir.2006);40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b). 309 Cf. Amendment of Environmental Rules in Response to New Regulations Issues by the Council on Environmental Quality,GEN Docket No. 79-163,Report and Order,60 Rad.Reg.2d(P&F) 13 para. 17(1986) (finding that for"temporary proposals that are encompassed within§ 1.1307,"the Commission"may assess the environmental factors and grant the authorization without awaiting public comment if it finds no likelihood of a long-term,significant environmental impact"). 310 See ASR Guidance PN,27 FCC Rcd at 5082. 311 See, e g, Temporary Towers Petition at 5-6;AT&T Comments,RM-11688,at 5-6;CTIA Reply Comments,RM- 11688,at 3-4;NTCH Comments,RM-11688,at 1;PCIA Comments,RM-11688,at 2-4;Verizon Comments,RM- 11688,at 3-4,7-8. 312 For example,we received at least six requests for relief under the Waiver Order in a three month period, indicating that there may be 20 or more registrations a year that meet the criteria for the exemption. See also Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14268 para. 80&n.174. 313 See Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16719 para. 50;47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(c). 314 See, e g, AT&T Comments at 18. We therefore disagree with Orange County that the potential for impacts from eligible temporary structures is the same as from permanent structures. See Orange Reply Comments at 4. 315 See Waiver Order,28 FCC Rcd at 7762-63 para. 11. 316 See, e g, AT&T Comments at 7. Thus,we have had no reason to consider requiring an EA for any of these structures. 54 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 filing and adjudication of individual waiver requests for these temporary towers. Accordingly,we conclude that adoption of the exemption is warranted. 124. We also adopt the proposal to require no post-construction environmental notice for temporary towers that qualify for the exemption. Ordinarily,when pre-construction notice is waived due to an emergency situation,we require environmental notification shortly after construction because such a deployment may be for a lengthy or indefinite period of time. We find,however,that requiring post- construction notification for towers intended to be in place for the limited duration covered by the exemption is not in the public interest as the exempted period is likely to be over or nearly over by the time the notice period ends. Additionally, we note again that we have rarely seen temporary antenna structures generate public comment regarding potentially significant environmental effects 31' We further note that of the many commenters supporting an exemption,none opposed our proposal to exempt qualifying temporary towers from post-construction environmental notification. 125. We find that the objections to the proposed exemption raised by Lee County, Tempe, and Orange County are misplaced. They express concerns that a temporary towers exemption would eliminate local review(including local environmental review) and antenna structure registration requirements. The exemption we adopt today,however, does neither of these things. First,the temporary towers measure does not exempt any deployment from any otherwise applicable requirement under our rules to provide notice to the FAA,to obtain an FAA"no-hazard"determination,or to complete antenna structure registration.31' Nor does the exemption impact any local requirements. Further,we provide, as proposed in the Infrastructure NPRM,that towers eligible for the notification exemption are still required to comply with the Commission's other NEPA requirements, including filing an EA in any of the environmentally sensitive circumstances identified by our rules.31' We further provide that if an applicant determines that it needs to complete an EA for a temporary tower otherwise eligible for the exemption,or if the relevant bureau makes this determination pursuant to Section 1.1307(c)or(d)of the Commission's rules,the application will not be exempt from the environmental notice requirement. No commenter objects to these proposals,which are consistent with limitations the Commission imposed in connection with the existing exemption from the notification process for replacement towers.320 In short,today's exemption,to the extent it applies, only relieves an applicant of the obligation to go through the Commission's ASR public notice process, and only in cases where an EA is not required."' 126. Some parties,while supporting a temporary towers exemption, argue that we should establish criteria different from those the Commission relied upon in adopting the interim waiver. Some assert,for example,that the maximum tower height should be something less than 200 feet above ground level.322 Mesquite asserts the maximum tower height should be 120 feet above ground level."' 317 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14270 para. 85. 318 In raising its concern,Orange County notes that it"operates. . .a large regional airport that has recently expanded through construction of a third terminal." Orange Reply Comments at 4. We find the exemption poses no threat to air safety. As noted,deployments remain subject to all applicable requirements to notify the FAA and register the structure in the ASR system. If the Commission or the FAA requires either painting or lighting,Le, because of a potential threat to aviation,the exemption does not apply. "'See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1301-1.1319. 320 See Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16720-21 para.53(providing that where an EA is required to be filed for a replacement tower,such a tower is not exempted from the environmental notification process). 321 See Waiver Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 7763 para. 11 ("Further,the interim waiver does not relieve ASR applicants from having to comply with the Commission's other NEPA rules,including the obligation to certify environmental compliance on a completed ASR application. Under those rules,if an applicant determines that it needs to complete an EA,environmental notification will be required."). 322 See, e.g., Mesquite Comments at 2; Springfield Comments at 8. 55 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Springfield argues that,generally,most temporary towers are only 100 feet tall and that, currently,the tallest available temporary tower model is 150 feet tall.311 127. We conclude that making the exemption available for towers less than 200 feet above ground level is appropriate and adequate to ensure that the exemption serves the public interest both by minimizing potential significant environmental effects and by enabling wireless providers to more effectively respond to large or unforeseen spikes in demand for service. CTIA indicates that carriers deploy temporary towers more than 150 feet tall to replace damaged towers of similar height, and that having to use shorter towers to stand in for damaged towers may reduce coverage and thereby limit the availability of service during emergencies."' We agree with CTIA that reducing the maximum tower height could undermine the intended purpose of the exemption. Further,the proposed limit of less than 200 feet will allow appropriate flexibility for taller temporary models,as they become available. 128. Sprint recommends adopting a time limit longer than 60 days for operation of the exempted towers. Sprint argues that at least six months is necessary for temporary towers that stand in for damaged permanent towers.326 We conclude,however,that 60 days is an appropriate time limit for the deployment of towers under this exemption. This time limit, as noted above, has substantial support in the record, and we find that 60 days strikes the proper balance between making this exemption a useful and effective tool for facilitating urgently needed short term communications deployments and facilitating public involvement in Commission decisions that may affect the environment. As discussed,the brief duration of the covered deployments renders post-construction notification unnecessary in the public interest because the deployment will be removed by the time a post-construction notice period is complete or shortly thereafter. As the intended deployment period grows,however,the applicability of that reasoning erodes. For emergency deployments that may last up to six months or even longer, post- construction notice will generally be warranted, as the Commission has indicated previously.32' Thus,we find that the existing procedure—i.e, site-specific waivers that are generally conditioned on post- construction notice—remains appropriate for emergency towers that will be deployed for longer periods than those covered by the narrow exemption we establish today. 129. Commenters differ on whether and on what terms the Commission should provide that an applicant that deploys a tower pursuant to this exemption may subsequently obtain an extension of the time limit for deployment. AT&T suggests that a single 60-day extension, upon a timely request accompanied by a showing of compelling justification, is appropriate.328 CTIA similarly proposes that, "[t]o ensure the integrity of the 60-day limit,a carrier should only be permitted to keep a tower deployed for more than 60 days pursuant to the exemption"if it(1)submits an extension request at least 10 days prior to the expiration of the initial 60-day period, and(2)provides a"compelling justification in support of keeping the temporary tower deployed for up to an additional 60 days."329 Steel in the Air and West Palm Beach, on the other hand, assert that if a tower is needed for more than 60 days,then"the existing rules should apply"and post-construction notification should be required.331 Minneapolis expresses concern about the exemption being misused as a loophole to provide long-term service or as a bridge to (Continued from previous page) 323 See Mesquite Comments at 2. 324 See Springfield Comments at 8. 325 See CTIA Reply Comments at 4. 326 See Sprint Comments at 7. 327 See Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16717 n.117. 3211 See AT&T Comments at 20. 329 CTIA Comments at 9. 330 Steel in the Air Comments at 4; West Palm Beach Comments at 4. 56 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 the eventual establishment of a permanent facility,and says that extensions should not be allowed routinely."' 130. While flexibility is important when compelling cases arise,we recognize that permitting long-term or multiple extensions could invite or allow misuse of the exemption. Therefore,we will permit a single extension of up to 60 days, and only upon a showing that the need to keep the exempted temporary tower in place beyond the initial 60 days is due to changed circumstances or information that emerged after the exempted temporary tower was deployed. 131. Some parties argue that concerns about potential misuse of the exemption justify additional enforcement measures. Mendham asks the Commission to define the consequences that would apply when an applicant uses the exemption for a non-qualifying tower or fails to remove a tower before the exemption expires.331 Springfield asks the Commission to regulate the number of times an exempt temporary tower may be deployed within a single service area in order to prevent abuse of the exemption by consecutive deployments.333 CTIA and PCIA,however, oppose such measures.334 132. We decline to define consequences or to adopt special enforcement mechanisms for misuse of the exemption we adopt today,as we find the Commission's general enforcement mechanisms sufficient. We agree with Springfield,however,that we should adopt a measure to prevent the use of consecutive deployments under the exemption to effectively exceed the time limit 331 We therefore require that at least 30 days must pass following the removal of one exempted temporary tower before the same applicant may rely on the exemption for another temporary tower covering substantially the same service area. While AT&T argues that the Commission should not adopt measures to prevent "speculative abuses,,331 we conclude that this narrow limitation on the consecutive use of the exemption will help to ensure that it applies only to deployments of brief duration,as intended. Further,we are not persuaded by CTIA's argument that such a restriction would interfere with a carrier's flexibility to respond to unforeseen events.33' The restriction places no limit on the number of exempt towers that can be deployed at any one time to cover a larger combined service area. We also note that our rule provides for extensions of the 60-day period in appropriate cases, which should further ensure that applicants have sufficient flexibility to respond to unforeseen events. 133. We further clarify that under appropriate conditions, such as natural disasters or national emergencies,the relevant bureau may grant waivers of this limitation applicable to defined geographic regions and periods. In addition, a party subject to this limitation at a particular site may still request a site-specific waiver of the notice requirements for a subsequent temporary deployment at that site. 134. To implement the new temporary towers exemption, Commission staff will modify FCC Form 854 to provide a checkbox for applicants to indicate that they are claiming the exemption and to require such applicants to provide documentation that supports such claim. We note that the modification of the form is subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget(OMB). To ensure clarity, we provide that the exemption will take effect only when the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issues a Public Notice announcing OMB's approval. We further provide that,until the new exemption is effective,the interim waiver of notification requirements for temporary towers remains available. 331 See Minneapolis Comments at 15. 332 See Mendham Comments at 5. 333 See Springfield Comments at 8-9. 334 See CTIA Reply Comments at 3-4;PCIA Reply Comments at 33. 331 See Springfield Comments at 7-8. 336 PCIA Reply Comments at 33. 337 See CTIA Reply Comments at 3-4. 57 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 V. IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 6409(A) 135. In this section,we adopt rules to implement and enforce Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act.338 Section 6409(a)provides, in pertinent 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. ,339 Ambiguities in many of the terms in this provision and its accompanying definition of"eligible facilities request"are likely to generate disputes about its proper application,which could in turn undermine the goal of Title VI of the Spectrum Act of advancing wireless broadband service for both public safety and commercial users.340 We therefore conclude that it will serve the public interest to establish rules clarifying the requirements of Section 6409(a) and implementing and enforcing this provision.341 The rules we adopt today will provide guidance to all stakeholders on their rights and responsibilities under the provision, facilitate the review process for wireless infrastructure modifications, and accelerate wireless broadband deployment consistent with our statutory responsibilities. A. Background 136. Congress adopted Section 6409 in 2012 as a provision of Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act,which is more commonly known as the Spectrum Act.342 The Spectrum Act required the Commission to allocate specific additional bands of spectrum for commercial use (including the H Block and the AWS-3 band) and to auction and grant new licenses for this spectrum by February 2015.343 The Spectrum Act also authorized the Commission to conduct an incentive auction of broadcast television spectrum in order to make additional spectrum available for commercial broadband service.344 Finally, the Spectrum Act established the First Responder Network Authority(FirstNet)to oversee the construction and operation of a nationwide public safety wireless broadband network(PSBN) and provided dedicated spectrum and other resources for this purpose, including funding from the proceeds of the auctions that the Spectrum Act required and authorized.345 Congress specifically directed FirstNet to"encourag[e]... leverag[ing] to the maximum extent economically desirable, existing 338 See Spectrum Act§6409(a). 339 Spectrum Act§6409(a)(1). 340 Conference Report at 136. 341 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Red at 14274 para.95 342 See,generally,Spectrum Act,Title VI. 343 See Spectrum Act§ 6401. The H Block auction closed in February 2014,and the Commission issued licenses for construction and operation over H Block spectrum in April 2014. Auction of H Block Licenses in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz Band Closes;Winning Bidder Announced for Auction 96,Public Notice,29 FCC Red 2044(WTB 2014); Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants H Block(1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz) Licenses,Auction No.96,Public Notice,29 FCC Red 4782(WTB 2014). The AWS-3 auction is scheduled for November 2014. Auction of Advanced Wireless Services(AWS-3)Licenses Scheduled for November 13,2014; Notice and Filing Requirements,Reserve Prices,Minimum Opening Bids,Upfront Payments and Other Procedures for Auction 97,Public Notice,29 FCC Red 8386(WTB 2014). 344 See Spectrum Act§§6402,6403. See also Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions,Docket No. 12-268,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,27 FCC Red 12357(2012); Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions,GN Docket No. 12-268,Report and Order,29 FCC Red 6567(2014)(Incentive Auction Report and Order). 345 See Spectrum Act§§6201,6202,6206. See also Implementing Public Safety Broadband Provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012;Implementing a Nationwide,Broadband,Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band; Service Rules for the 698-746,747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands,PS Docket No. 12-94,PS Docket No.06-229,WT Docket No.06-150,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,28 FCC Red 2715(2013). 58 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 commercial wireless infrastructure to speed deployment of the network."346 And it authorized the Commission to"take any action necessary to assist[FirstNet] in effectuating its duties and responsibilities"under the Spectrum Act.34' 137. In the context of these goals,Congress included Section 6409,which contributes to the twin goals of commercial and public safety wireless broadband deployment through several measures that promote the deployment of the network facilities needed to provide broadband wireless services. These measures include Section 6409(a),entitled"Facility Modifications,"which has three provisions. As noted above, Subsection(a)(1)provides that"[n]otwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [codified as 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."348 Subsection(a)(2)defines the term"eligible facilities request"as any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves(a)collocation of new transmission equipment; (b)removal of transmission equipment; or(c)replacement of transmission equipment 349 Subsection (a)(3)provides that"[n]othing in paragraph(a)shall be construed to relieve the Commission from the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969."iso Aside from the definition of"eligible facilities request," Section 6409(a)does not define any of its terms. Similarly,neither the definitional section of the Spectrum Act nor that of the Communications Act contains definitions of the Section 6409(a)terms.31' 138. After the adoption of the Spectrum Act,Commission staff received inquiries from service providers, facilities owners, and State and local governments seeking guidance as to how Section 6409(a) should be applied, leading the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to issue a Public Notice in January of 2013 (Section 6409(a) PN).352 Although the Section 6409(a)PN provided interpretive guidance on certain questions,the Bureau left other issues unaddressed, and parties also raised questions and concerns regarding the Section 6409(a)PN guidance itself.353 Therefore, in the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission sought comment on whether to address the provision more conclusively and comprehensively.3" The Commission found that it would serve the public interest to seek comment on implementing rules to define terms that the provision left undefined, and to fill in other interstices that may serve to delay the intended benefits of Section 6409(a). The Commission anticipated that, in the absence of definitive guidance,the uncertainties under Section 6409(a)might lead to protracted and costly litigation, adversely affect the timely deployment of the PSBN, and undermine the Spectrum Act's goal of advancing broadband deployment.315 In addition,the Commission expressed its belief that the various stakeholders,including State and local governments,FirstNet, Commission licensees,and tower companies,would benefit from having settled interpretations on which they could rely in determining 346 Spectrum Act§6206(b)(1)(C). 34'Spectrum Act§ 6213. 341 Id § 6409(a)(1). 349 Id. § 6409(a)(2). iso Id § 6409(a)(3). 35'See Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14272-73 para.92(citing Spectrum Act§6001;47 U.S.C. § 153). 352 See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Offers Guidance on Interpretation of Section 6409(a)of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,Public Notice,28 FCC Rcd 1 (WTB 2013)(Section 6409(a)PN). See also Infrastructure NP&V1, 28 FCC Rcd at 14273 para.93. 353 See id at 14275 para.96. 354 See id. 355 See id. 59 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 how to comply with the new law. It therefore sought comment on the interpretation of various terms, and on other implementing issues under the provision. The Commission also sought comment on any reasons it should limit or decline to take regulatory action to clarify Section 6409(a)in this proceeding.356 139. In response to the Infrastructure NPRM, a broad range of parties from within the communications industry, including carriers, cable companies,tower companies and other infrastructure providers,wireless equipment providers,and industry associations representing, among others,utilities, broadcasters, and wireless Internet service providers, submitted comments arguing that the Commission should adopt rules clarifying the terms of Section 6409(a)to reduce uncertainty and litigation and to facilitate deployment of broadband services.357 These commenters assert that some jurisdictions have adopted varying and often narrow interpretations of the provision, and that failure to adopt such rules will likely result in an inconsistent patchwork of requirements and undermine the efficiencies the provision was crafted to create.35' They contend that Commission action is necessary to eliminate ambiguities that have caused delay or denial of applications for broadband facilities deployment.359 140. Most municipality commenters, however, oppose adoption of rules and recommend instead that the Commission encourage the wireless industry and local governments to collaborate on development of best practices 360 They argue that it is not necessary to adopt rules at this time because there is no evidence of a widespread problem in deployment of modified facilities covered by Section 6409(a).361 They also contend that local governments and the wireless industry work well together on siting issues in most cases, and where problems arise,they can be and are addressed on a case-by-case basis.16' They argue that additional informal guidance would address the concerns raised in the Infrastructure NPRM more productively than adopting rules, particularly if the supplemental guidance encouraged cooperative efforts between interested parties and the development of best practices.363 Some localities, however, support adoption of rules, arguing that a clear statement from the Commission would resolve the divergent views of industry and regulatory authorities."' 141. Some industry associations have affirmatively committed to working"with municipal government representatives . . . on developing materials and gathering information that will foster a greater understanding of Section 6409(a)and facilitate timely and consistent wireless facility 356 See id. 357 See,e g, AT&T Comments at 21;AT&T Reply Comments at 12-13;CTIA Reply Comments at 5;PCIA Comments at 24-25; Sprint Comments at 7-8;Verizon Comments at 26-27. ass See, a g, AT&T Comments at 7;PCIA Comments at 24-25;Verizon Comments at 26-27. 359 See, e g, AT&T Comments at 7;Verizon Comments at 26-27(providing examples of narrow interpretation of the provision by States and local jurisdictions);see also Coconut Creek Comments at 5(arguing that it is appropriate for the Commission to adopt rules interpreting the Congressional intent behind Section 6409(a)because of the divergent views already taken by industry and local government in the absence of clarity). 360 See, e g, Alexandria et al Comments at 5-13; CA Local Governments Comments at 1;CCUA et al.Comments at 4-5;DC Comments at 7;Fairfax Comments at 6-7;IAC Comments at 2;Long Beach Comments at 1;NATOA et al. Comments at 7-11;NJSLM Comments at 2. 361 See, e g, CCUA et al Comments at 4, 17-18;see also CA Local Governments Comments at 1;DC Comments at 6(arguing that there is no record of State and local governments being unresponsive to requests for collocations or reasonable modification of existing towers);Fairfax Comments at 6-7(asserting that in the last five years,Fairfax County has approved 99.8%of all collocation applications). 362 See, e g, CCUA et al. Comments at 4-5. 363 See, e g, Alexandria et al Comments at 13-22; CCUA et al Comments at 4-5. 364 See, e g, Coconut Creek Comments at 5;MDIT Comments at 2;West Palm Beach Comments at 5. 60 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 modifications.161 In particular, CTIA and PCIA pledge to start working with representative national associations shortly after release of this Report and Order to assist resource-constrained municipalities "during the transition and implementation of any rules the FCC may adopt pertaining to the application review process pursuant to Section 6409(a)."366 They also have committed to distributing best practices to resource-constrained jurisdictions,holding webinars regarding the application process for resource- constrained jurisdictions, and"[p]roviding assistance in drafting a model ordinance and application for reviewing eligible facilities requests under Section 6409(a).,,167 Finally,they have committed to "[c]reating a Checklist that local government officials can use to help streamline review processes.99368 B. Discussion 142. After reviewing the voluminous record in this proceeding,we decide to adopt rules clarifying the requirements of Section 6409(a), and implementing and enforcing these requirements, in order to prevent delay and confusion in such implementation. As the Commission noted in the Infrastructure NPRM,collocation on existing structures 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. 69 We agree with industry commenters that clarifying the terms in Section 6409 will eliminate ambiguities in interpretation and thus facilitate the zoning process for collocations and other modifications to existing towers and base stations 370 Although these issues could be addressed over time through judicial decisions,we conclude that addressing them now in a comprehensive and uniform manner will ensure that the numerous and significant disagreements over the provision do not delay its intended benefits. 143. The record demonstrates very substantial differences in the views advanced by local government and wireless industry commenters on a wide range of interpretive issues under the provision. While many localities recommend that the Commission defer to best practices to be developed on a collaborative basis,371 we find that there has been little progress in that effort since enactment of Section 6409(a)well over two years ago. And while we generally encourage the development of voluntary best practices,we are also concerned that voluntary best practices, on their own,may not effectively resolve many of the interpretive disputes or ensure uniform application of the law in this instance. In light of these disputes,we take this opportunity to provide additional certainty to parties. 144. Authority. We find that we have authority under Section 6003 of the Spectrum Act to adopt rules to clarify the terms in Section 6409(a)and to establish procedures for effectuating its 365 Letter from Jonathan M.Campbell,PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association,and Brian M.Josef,CTIA- The Wireless Association,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Oct. 16,2014 (PCIA and CTIA Oct. 16,2014 Ex Parte). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1204(a)(10), 1.1203(a)(1). 366 PCIA and CTIA Oct. 16,2014 Fa Parte at 1. 3671d. at 2. 368 Id. 369 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14274 para.95(citing Sixteenth Competition Report,28 FCC Rcd at 3909 para 331). PCIA estimates that the average cost to build a new tower is between$250,000 and$300,000, whereas the average deployment cost for a collocation is between$25,000 and$30,000. See PCIA Comments,WT Docket 11-186,at 7. 370 See, e g,AT&T Comments at 7;Joint Venture Comments at 5;PCIA Comments at 24-25; San Diego PDS Comments at 2; Sprint Comments at 7-8;Verizon Comments at 26-27. 371 See, e.g., Alexandria et al Comments at 11;CA Local Governments Comments at 1;CCUA et al.Comments at 4-5;DC Comments at 7;Fairfax Comments at 6-7;IAC Comments at 2;NATOA et al Comments at 7-11;NJSLM Comments at 2. 372 See, e.g., PCIA Comments at 25-26. See also AT&T Reply Comments at 12-13. 61 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 requirements.373 Section 6003 requires the Commission to"implement and enforce this title as if this title is a part of the Communications Act of 1934,i374 bringing its interpretation directly within several provisions granting the Commission broad authority to promulgate rules implementing that Act."' As noted above,we also have broad authority to"take any action necessary to assist[FirstNet] in effectuating its duties and responsibilities"to construct and operate a nationwide public safety broadband network."' The rules we adopt reflect the authority conferred by these provisions,as they will facilitate and expedite infrastructure deployment in qualifying cases and thus advance wireless broadband deployment by commercial entities as well as FirstNet. 1. Definition of Terms in Section 6409(a) 145. Section 6409(a) includes a number of undefined terms that bear directly on how the provision applies to infrastructure deployments. Below,we address the meaning of"wireless tower or base station,""transmission equipment,""collocation,"and"substantially changes the physical dimensions." a. Scope of Covered Services 146. Background. We first address the scope of wireless services to which the provision applies through the definitions of both"transmission equipment"and"wireless tower or base station." In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission observed that Section 6409(a)refers to"transmission equipment"without referencing any particular service, and similarly refers generally to a"wireless"tower or base station, rather than specifying towers and base stations used for particular services.3 ' The Commission therefore proposed to find that Section 6409(a) applies to equipment used in connection with any Commission-authorized wireless transmission, licensed or unlicensed,terrestrial or satellite, including commercial mobile,private mobile,broadcast, and public safety services, as well as fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul or fixed broadband.17' The Commission further proposed to define a"wireless"tower or base station to include one used for any such purpose(i.e.,to cover the same scope of services as"transmission equipment"),379 147. Wireless and broadcast industry commenters generally support this proposed interpretation.38' For example,NAB argues that an interpretation of Section 6409(a) encompassing broadcast service, towers, and equipment is fundamentally consistent with Congress's intent to improve the facilities application process; it contends further that this interpretation will make broadcast towers more readily available for collocation, especially for public safety communications equipment."' UTC similarly argues that"[b]ecause of the ubiquity of utility and CII (`critical infrastructure industries') 373 See Spectrum Act§ 6003. 374 Spectrum Act§ 6003. 371 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i),201(b),303(r). 376 Spectrum Act§ 6213,codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1433. 377 Infrastructure NPW 28 FCC Rcd at 14277 para. 103. 378 See id at 14277 para. 104. 379 Id 310 See, e.g, AT&T Comments at 23;CCA Reply Comments at 4-5;Cox Reply Comments at 5; CTIA Reply Comments at 7;ExteNet Comments at 4;Fibertech Comments at 19;NCTA Reply Comments at 3;PCIA Comments at 29-30; Sprint Comments at 8-9;TIA Comments at 5;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 5-6;UTC Comments at 12,Verizon Comments at 27. 381 See NAB Reply Comments at 3-4. 62 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 communications networks,operators of small cell and DAS networks can use collocation on these facilities to . . . bring advanced communications capabilities throughout the United States.""' 148. Municipal commenters generally favor a narrower scope of covered services. 83 Several urge the Commission to interpret the term"wireless"in Section 6409(a)to cover only"personal wireless services"consistent with Section 332(c)(7).384 In a joint submission of proposed definitions(Local Government Definitions),385 several municipal commenters urge us to find that the provision covers "personal wireless services"and"wireless `public safety services.',386 Some municipal commenters object in particular to the inclusion of broadcast services, arguing that treating"broadcast"as a"wireless" service conflicts with the usage of those terms in the Spectrum Act and in other Commission orders.38' 149. Discussion. After considering the arguments in the record,we conclude that Section 6409(a)applies both to towers and base stations and to transmission equipment used in connection with any Commission-authorized wireless communications service. We find strong support in the record for this interpretation388 With respect to towers and base stations,we conclude that this interpretation is warranted given Congress's selection of the broader term"wireless"in Section 6409(a)rather than the narrow term"personal wireless service"it previously used in Section 332(c)(7), as well as Congress's express intent that the provisions of the Spectrum Act"advance wireless broadband service,"promoting "billions of dollars in private investment,"and further the deployment of FirstNet. We find that interpreting"wireless"in the narrow manner that some municipal commenters suggest would substantially undermine the goal of advancing the deployment of broadband facilities and services,"'and that interpreting Section 6409(a)to facilitate collocation opportunities on a broad range of suitable structures will far better contribute to meeting these goals, and is particularly important to further the deployment of FirstNet. As noted above,the Spectrum Act directs the FirstNet authority, in carrying out its duty to deploy and operate a nationwide public safety broadband network,to"enter into agreements to utilize,to the maximum extent economically desirable,existing. . . commercial or other communications 382 UTC Comments at 3. 383 See, a g.,Alexandria et al.Comments at 26;Coconut Creek Comments at 6;San Antonio Comments at 16; Springfield Comments at 14-15;West Palm Beach Comments at 6. 314 See, a g., Alexandria et al Comments at 26(arguing that in using the term"wireless,"Congress"was concerned with the sorts of services that are the subject of Section 332(c)(7)"and not,for example,broadcast towers). 315 See Letter from Gerard Lederer,Best Best&Krieger LLP,to Marlene Dortch, Secretary,FCC,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed July 21,2014(Local Governments July 21,2014 Ex Parte),Attach.B;Letter from Kenneth S. Fellman,Kissinger&Fellman,P.C.,to Marlene Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed July 17, 2014(CCUA et al July 17,2014 Ex Parte),Attach.A. Because these two sets of definitions are identical,and because their proponents confirmed as much,we refer to them collectively as the"Local Government Definitions." 386 See Local Government Definitions. The Local Government Definitions propose to define"public safety services"in the manner that term is defined in Section 1401(27)of the Spectrum Act,but they do not propose how to define"wireless." 31'See, e.g, Alexandria et al.Comments at 26; San Antonio Comments at 16. 388 See,a g.,AT&T Comments at 23;CCA Reply Comments at 4-5;Cox Reply Comments at 3-4;NAB Reply Comments at 6;PCIA Comments at 29;Sprint Comments at 8-9. 389 See Conference Report at 136(discussing the purposes of the public safety and spectrum provisions of the Conference substitute,stating that"[t]hese provisions also deliver on one of the last outstanding recommendations of the 9/11 Commission by creating a nationwide interoperable broadband communications network for first responders."). 390 As some commenters note, Section 332(c)(7)defines"personal wireless services"as"commercial mobile[radio] services,unlicensed wireless[telecommunications]services,and common carrier wireless exchange access services." 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7). 63 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 infrastructure; and . . . Federal, State,tribal, or local infrastructure.""' For all of these reasons,we find it appropriate to interpret Section 6409(a)as applying to collocations on infrastructure that supports equipment used for all Commission-licensed or authorized wireless transmissions. 150. We are not persuaded that Congress's use of the term "base station" implies that the provision applies only to mobile service.392 As noted in the Infrastructure NPRM,our rules define"base station"as a feature of a mobile communications network, and the term has commonly been used in that context.393 It is important,however,to interpret"base station"in the context of Congress's intention to advance wireless broadband service generally, including both mobile and fixed broadband services."' We note, for example,that the Spectrum Act directs the Commission to license the new commercial wireless services employing H Block,AWS-3, and repurposed television broadcast spectrum under "flexible-use service rules"—i.e.,for fixed as well as mobile use."' Moreover,in the context of wireless broadband service generally,the term "base station" describes fixed stations that provide fixed wireless service to users as well as those that provide mobile wireless service.."' Indeed,this is particularly true with regard to Long Term Evolution(LTE),in which base stations can support both fixed and mobile service 397 Accordingly, we find that, in the context of Section 6409(a),the term"base station" encompasses both mobile and fixed services. 391 Spectrum Act§6206(c)(3). We further note Congress's direction to FirstNet that,in issuing requests for proposals to private sector entities for the purposes of building and operating the public safety network,FirstNet should"encourage[e] that such requests leverage,to the maximum extent economically desirable,existing commercial wireless infrastructure to speed deployment of the network." Id at§6206(b)(1)(C). 392 See, e g., IAC Comments at 5(citing Intergovernmental Advisory Committee to the Federal Communications Commission:Advisory Recommendation Number 2013-9,"Response to Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Guidance on Interpretation of Section 6409(a)of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,"dated July 31,2013 ("IAC Recommendation"),at 3). The IAC Recommendation has been filed in WC Docket No. 11-59 (Aug.2,2013)and is also available at httn://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/intergovernmental-advisory-committee- comments.). 393 Infrastructure NPRXI, 28 FCC Rcd at 14278 para. 107(citing 47 C.F.R. § 90.7,which defines"base station"in Part 90 of the Commission's rules as a"station at a specified site authorized to communicate with mobile stations."); 47 C.F.R. §§2.1(c),24.5(defining"base station"as"[a] land station in the land mobile service."). 394 See WISPA Reply Comments at 7. 395 Spectrum Act§§ 640 1(b)(1)(B),6403(codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 145 1(b)(1)(B), 1452). 396 See, e g,Amendment of Part 27 of the Commission's Rules to Govern the Operation of Wireless Communications Services in the 2.3 GHz Band,WT Docket No. 07-293,Report and Order and Second Report and Order,25 FCC Rcd 11710,n.92(20 10)(stating that,"[i]n fixed WiMAX networks,both the base stations and subscriber stations are stationary during use");Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands,ET Docket No. 04-186,Additional Spectrum For Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band,ET Docket No.02- 380,Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order,23 FCC Rcd 16807, 16846 para. 104(2009) (adopting rules to allow unlicensed wireless broadband services,and noting that"[a]fixed system will consist of a permanently located base station transmitting to one or more fixed devices or to personal/portable end user devices");Pacific Wireless,"Fixed Wireless Broadband,"available at hLtp://www.pacificwireless.com.au/fixed- wireless-broadband.html(noting that"[i]n all wireless networks,base stations do not move—i.e.they are in a fixed location—but in a mobile broadband network,the[Subscriber Unit]can move"). 397 See,e g.,"PLDT Rolls-Out 5,000 New 4G LTE Base Stations,"available at httn://www.policychargingcontrol.com/1824-pldt-rolls-out-5-000-new-lte-base-stations(noting one service provider has"deployed nearly 2,000 fixed wireless LTE base stations to serve high-speed wireless broadband services to homes");"LTE to Bring Fixed-Wireless Broadband to Rural Australia,"available at httn://www.ericsson.com/news/1520376(noting that"[f]ixed-wireless networks are used to connect stationary points—in this case LTE base stations to several households or businesses"). 64 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 151. We are also not persuaded that we should exclude"broadcast"from the scope of Section 6409(a),both with respect to"wireless"towers and base stations and with respect to transmission equipment. While we acknowledge that the term"wireless providers" appears in other sections of the Spectrum Act that do not encompass broadcast services,""we do not agree that use of the word "wireless"in Section 6409's reference to a"tower or base station"can be understood without reference to context."' We therefore interpret the term "wireless"as used in Section 6409(a)in light of the purpose of this provision in particular and the larger purposes of the Spectrum Act as a whole. We find that Congress intended the provision to facilitate collocation in order to advance the deployment of commercial and public safety broadband services, including the deployment of the FirstNet network. We agree with NAB that including broadcast towers significantly advances this purpose by"supporting the approximately 25,000 broadcast towers as collocation platforms."400 We note that a variety of industry and municipal commenters likewise support the inclusion of broadcast towers for similar reasons"' Finally,we observe that this approach is consistent with the Collocation Agreement and the NPA, both of which define"tower"to include broadcast towers. These agreements address"wireless"communications facilities and collocation for any"communications"purposes. They extend to any"tower"built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any"FCC-licensed"facilities. 02 We find these references particularly persuasive in ascertaining congressional intent, since Section 6409(a)expressly references the Commission's continuing obligations to comply with NEPA and NHPA,which form the basis for these agreements.403 398 See, a g.,Spectrum Act§ 6203 ("Public Safety Interoperability Board"). This section provides that"4 members [of the board]shall be representatives of wireless providers,"of whom two members must represent"national wireless providers,"one must represent"regional wireless providers,"and one must represent"rural wireless providers." We agree that the phrase"wireless providers"in the context of this separate Subtitle B of the Spectrum Act,in establishing a board charged with developing recommended minimum technical interoperability requirements for the nationwide public safety broadband network,was not intended to include providers of broadcast services. See also San Antonio Comments at 16,n.19. San Antonio argues that the Commission has used the terms"wireless"and"broadcast"to refer to two different categories of service,citing the Commission's decisions that distinguish between"wireless"and"broadcast"licensees. The Commission decisions cited by San Antonio are in the context of establishing different regulatory requirements for wireless services and broadcast services,and do not address the context of facilitating access to infrastructure. As discussed further below,for example,the Collocation Agreement uses the term"wireless"broadly to refer to the use of"wireless antenna"for any"communications"purpose,including broadcast. See Collocation Agreement(entitled"National Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas")§I.A(encompassing all antennas for the"purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes"). 399 As the Supreme Court has cautioned,"[m]ost words have different shades of meaning and consequently may be variously construed,not only when they occur in different statutes,but when used more than once in the same statute or even in the same section." Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Coip., 549 U.S.561,574(2007). Thus,the same word in the same statute"may take on distinct characters from association with distinct statutory objects calling for different implementation strategies." Id. 40'NAB Reply Comments at 3-4(stating that anecdotal evidence suggests that as many as 85%of the approximately 25,000 existing broadcast towers are being used for collocation today). 401 See, e.g, Coconut Creek Comments at 6;NAB Reply Comments at 3;NCTA Reply Comments at 2-3; Springfield Comments at 15;West Palm Beach Comments at 5. 402 47 C.F.R.Part 1 App.B(Collocation Agreement)(introductory clause and part I definitions of"collocation"and "tower"). Under the NPA,"tower"is defined as"[a]ny structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting Commission-licensed or authorized Antennas,including the on-site fencing,equipment,switches,wiring,cabling, power sources,shelters,or cabinets associated with that Tower but not installed as part of an Antenna as defined herein." 47 C.F.R.Part 1 App.C§II.A.14(NPA). 403 See Spectrum Act§6409(c). 65 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 152. We further conclude that a broad interpretation of"transmission equipment"is similarly appropriate in light of the purposes of Section 6409(a)in particular and the Spectrum Act more generally.404 The statute's Conference Report expresses Congress's intention to advance wireless broadband service generally,405 and as PCIA states, a broad definition of this term will ensure coverage for all wireless broadband services, including future services not yet contemplated 406 Defining "transmission equipment"broadly will therefore facilitate the deployment of wireless broadband networks and will"minimize the need to continually redefine the term as technology and applications evolve."407 We also note that a broad definition reflects Congress's definition of a comparable term in the context of directly related provisions in the same statute; in Section 6408,the immediately preceding provision addressing uses of adjacent spectrum, Congress defined the term"transmission system"broadly to include"any telecommunications, broadcast, satellite,commercial mobile service, or other communications system that employs radio spectrum."nos 153. We disagree with commenters who contend that including broadcast equipment within covered transmission equipment does not advance the goals of the Spectrum Act 409 While broadcast equipment does not itself transmit wireless broadband signals, its efficient collocation pursuant to Section 6409(a)will expedite and minimize the costs of the relocation of broadcast television licensees that are reassigned to new channels in order to clear the spectrum that will be offered for broadband services through the incentive auction, as mandated by the Spectrum Act 410 Accordingly,we conclude that inclusion of broadcast service equipment in the scope of transmission equipment covered by the provision furthers the goals of the legislation and will contribute in particular to the success of the post-incentive auction transition of television broadcast stations to their new channels. In any event, we note that the language of Section 6409(a) is broader than that used in Section 332(c)(7), and it is therefore reasonable to construe it in a manner that does not differentiate among various Commission-regulated services, particularly in the context of mandating approval of facilities that do not result in any substantial increase in physical dimensions. 154. We further reject arguments that Congress intended these terms to be restricted to equipment used in connection with personal wireless services and public safety services. The Communications Act and the Spectrum Act already define those narrower terms,and Congress chose not to employ them in Section 6409(a), determining instead to use the broader term, "wireless." The 404 See., e g., AT&T Comments at 23;CCA Reply Comments at 4-5;NAB Reply Comments at 3-4;PCIA Comments at 29-31; Sprint Comments at 8-9, TIA Comments at 5;WISPA Reply Comments at 4. 405 See Conference Report at 136. 406 See PCIA Comments at 29. See also, e.g.,CCA Reply Comments at 4-5. 407 Towerstream Comments at 10-11; CCA Reply Comments at 5. 408 Spectrum Act§ 6408. 409 See, e g, Alexandria et al Comments at 26;CA Local Governments Comments at 2-3, CCUA et al Comments at 9;Local Government Definitions. 410 See Incentive Auction Report and Order,29 FCC Rcd 6133,at paras. 1 (establishing rules to,among other thing, reorganize the broadcast television bands in order to"recover a portion of ultra-high frequency(`UHF')spectrum for a`forward auction' of new,flexible-use licenses suitable for providing mobile broadband services"),581 (providing that"[t]he following circumstances may justify an extension of a station's construction deadline: . . . delays faced by broadcast stations that must obtain government approvals,such as land use or zoning approvals"). We further note that Section 6403 allows broadcasters subject to relocation in the incentive auction process to accept, in lieu of reimbursement for relocation cost,a waiver of the applicable service rules to permit the licensee to make flexible use of its assigned spectrum to provide services other than broadcast television services,so long as the licensee provides"at least 1 broadcast television program stream on such spectrum at no charge to the public." Spectrum Act§6403(b)(4)(B). 41 See Local Government Definitions. 66 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 legislative history supports the conclusion that Congress intended to employ broader language. In the Conference Report,Congress emphasized that a primary goal of the Spectrum Act was to"advance wireless broadband service,"which would"promot[e] billions of dollars in private investment, and create]tens of thousands ofjobs."412 In light of its clear intent to advance wireless broadband deployment through enactment of Section 6409(a),we find it implausible that Congress meant to exclude facilities used for such services. b. Transmission Equipment 155, Background In addition to seeking comment on the scope of services supported by covered"transmission equipment,"the Commission further proposed to define"transmission equipment" to encompass antennas and other equipment associated with and necessary to their operation, including power supply cables and backup power equipment.413 It sought comment in particular on including backup power equipment in light of the public interest in continued service during emergencies. It further sought comment on whether to use the NPA's definition of"antenna" as the definition of"transmission equipment.,114 156. Industry commenters support the Commission's proposal 415 They argue that the definition of"transmission equipment"must include backup power equipment and other power supply equipment in light of the public interest in maintaining uninterrupted service during emergencies"' AT&T recommends that we base the definition on the definition of"antenna"in the NPA,which includes the transmission device and any on-site equipment, switches,wiring, cabling, power sources, shelters, or cabinets."' 157. Several local government commenters oppose the proposed definition, urging the Commission to limit its scope to electronic components that actually transmit or receive communications signals.418 In particular,they oppose inclusion of backup power generators, arguing that some generators raise environmental, safety and zoning issues more properly suited to a discretionary review process 419 Tempe argues further that backup power equipment should not be included in the definition because it is 4-11 not"necessary"to wireless operations. 158. Discussion. We adopt the proposal in the Infrastructure NPRMto define"transmission equipment"to encompass antennas and other equipment associated with and necessary to their operation, including power supply cables and backup power equipment.421 We find that this definition reflects Congress's intent to facilitate the review of collocations and minor modifications, and it recognizes that 412 See Conference Report at 136. 411 Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14277-78 para. 105. 414 Id at 14278 para. 106. 411 See,e.g.,AT&T Comments at 23;CCA Reply Comments at 4-5;CTIA Reply Comments at 7;Fibertech Comments at 18;PCIA Comments at 29-31; Sprint Comments at 8-9;TIA Comments at 5. 416 See, e g, AT&T Comments at 23;PCIA Comments at 29-30; Sprint Comments at 8-9. 41'AT&T Comments at 23. 411 See, e.g., CA Local Governments Comments at 2-3;CCC Comments at 3 (arguing"transmission equipment" should not include"ancillary or support equipment that is uninvolved in transmission,such as back-up power generators");CCUA et al Comments at 9;Coconut Creek Comments at 5-6;Tucson Comments at 5. 419 See, e.g., CA Local Governments Comments at 3;Coconut Creek Comments at 5-6;Fairfax Comments at 7-8; Tucson Comments at 5;West Palm Beach Comments at 5-6. 42'Tempe Comments at 11. 421 Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14277-78 para. 105. 67 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Congress used the broad term"transmission equipment"without qualifications that would logically limit its scope 422 159. We are further persuaded by wireless industry commenters that power supplies, including backup power, are a critical component of wireless broadband deployment and that they are necessary to ensure network resiliency."' Indeed, including backup power equipment within the scope of "transmission equipment"under Section 6409(a) is consistent with Congress's directive to the FirstNet Authority to"ensure the . . . resiliency of the network."424 Tempe's assertion that backup power is not technically"necessary"because transmission equipment can operate without it is unpersuasive. Backup power is certainly necessary to operations during those periods when primary power is intermittent or unavailable. We also conclude that"transmission equipment"should be interpreted consistent with the term "antenna"in the NPA and,given that the NPA term encompasses"power sources"without limitation, we find that"transmission equipment"includes backup power sources.16 Finally,while we recognize the concerns raised by local government commenters regarding the potential hazards of backup power generators, we find that these concerns are fully addressed in the standards applicable to collocation applications discussed below."' 160. Therefore,we define"transmission equipment"under Section 6409(a)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, including coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power supply428 This definition includes equipment used in any technological configuration associated with any Commission-authorized wireless transmission, licensed or unlicensed,terrestrial or satellite, including commercial mobile,private mobile,broadcast, and public safety services, as well as fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul or fixed broadband. C. Existing Wireless Tower or Base Station 161. Background In addition to seeking comment on the scope of the word"wireless"as used in the phrase "wireless tower or base station,"as discussed above,the Commission sought comment more generally on how to define"existing wireless tower or base station" in order to determine the scope of 422 Id See also CCA Reply Comments at 4-5;PCIA Comments at 29; Sprint Comments at 8-9;TIA Comments at 5. 423 See, e g, PCIA Comments at 29-30;Sprint Comments at 8-9;TIA Comments at 5;CCA Reply Comments at 4-5. See also CTIA Comments at 23 ("Several significant storm-related disasters over the past three years have underscored the importance of infrastructure. . .hardening as[it]relate[s]to wireless carriers' ability to maintain communications at the very time it is needed by public safety to assist recovery efforts and by the public to find out the fates of loved ones."). 424 Spectrum Act§6206(b)(2)(A). See also"Why FirstNet,"available at http://www.firstnet.gov/about/why(stating that"Reliability Must Be Built In"and emphasizing that"[a]s wind speeds rise and electrical power beings to fail, cell sites need ample power backup to address outages"). 42'For a history of the Commission's concerns about the availability of backup power to ensure the resiliency of wireless services,see,generally,Improving the Resiliency of Mobile Wireless Communications Networks,PS Docket Nos. 13-139, 11-50, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 14373 (2013). 42'See NPA§ II.A.1. The NPA defines"antenna"in part as"[a]n apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radio frequency(`RF')radiation,to be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Commission authorization,for the transmission of writing,signs,signals,data, images,pictures,and sounds of all kinds, including the transmitting device and any on-site equipment,switches,wiring,cabling,power sources,shelters or cabinets associated with that antenna and added to a Tower,structure,or building as part of the original installation of the antenna." Id. 42'See infra,para.202. 421 Spectrum Act§6409(a). 68 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 support structures covered by Section 6409(a)429 Based on the existing definitions in comparable contexts in the Collocation Agreement,the NPA, and the Commission's rules,the Commission proposed to define a"tower"as any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting antennas used for any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communications service.430 The Commission proposed to define "base station"as"[a] station at a specified site that enables wireless communication between user equipment and a communications network, including any associated equipment such as,but not limited to,radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power supply."431 In addition,recognizing the Commission's efforts to encourage collocations on non-tower structures to enhance capacity for wireless networks,432 and consistent with the Bureau's guidance in the Section 6409(a)PN on the scope of"base station,"the Commission proposed to find that"wireless tower or base station"should be interpreted to encompass structures that support or house equipment that constitutes part of a base station,even if they were not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support"' Further,the Commission proposed to interpret"base station"as encompassing the relevant equipment in any technological configuration,including DAS.434 162. The Commission also sought comment on how to interpret the term "existing" in this context. It sought comment on whether the term, as applied to"wireless tower or base station,"requires only that a structure exist at the time of a collocation application or whether it also requires that the structure is in use at that time as a tower or base station. In particular,the Commission asked whether an "existing"base station only includes a structure that currently supports or houses base station equipment. It sought comment on which interpretation of the word would both facilitate deployments that are unlikely to conflict with local land use policies and also preserve State and local authority to review construction proposals that may have impacts."' 163. Industry commenters agree that"wireless tower"means a structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting Commission-licensed or authorized antennas."' Many industry commenters also support interpreting"base station"to include structures that support or house an antenna,transceiver, or other associated equipment that constitutes part of a base station,even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting that equipment. Some industry commenters propose that the definition of"wireless tower or base station"should also include other structures that are"similar to wireless towers"or otherwise suitable for wireless deployment, such as 429 Infi-astructure NPRM,28 FCC Red at 14278-80 paras. 107-112. 430 Id at 14278-9 para. 108, 14300 App.A,Proposed Rule§ 1.30001 (b)(6);see also NPA§ II.A.14. 431 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Red at 14299-302 App.A. 432 See,generally,Implementation of Section 224 of the Act;A National Broadband Plan for Our Future,WC Docket No.07-245,GN Docket No.09-51,Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration,26 FCC Red 5240 (2011),affd sub nom American Elec Power Service Corp v. FCC,708 F.3d 183(D.C.Cir.2013)(Pole Attachment Order). 433 Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Red at 14278-80 paras. 108, 111. 414 Id at 14279-80 para. 110. As noted above,DAS configuration differs from a traditional base station configuration in that transceiver equipment supporting an antenna is typically located not at the antenna site,but at a remote hub site typically connected to the antenna by fiber-optic cable. See supra, para.31. 431 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Red at 14280 para. 111. 436 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 22;PCIA Comments at 34. 437 See, e g, AT&T Comments at 22;AT&T Reply Comments at 10-11;CCA Reply Comments at 5-6;Cox Reply Comments at 3-5;PCIA Comments at 31-32; Sprint Comments at 8-9;TIA Comments at 5; T-Mobile Reply Comments at 6-8;WISPA Reply Comments at 6-7. 69 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 water towers, light stanchions, and utility poles, even if they do not currently house or support transmission equipment.438 164. Industry commenters urge the Commission not to limit the scope of equipment and structures encompassed by the term"base station," arguing that it should extend to associated equipment buildings, shelters, and cabinets even if they are not located immediately adjacent to the support structure.43' Sprint further argues that the word "base station"should cover DAS and small cell facilities, consistent with the guidance in the Section 6409(a)PN.440 165. Municipal commenters suggest narrower definitions. They argue that the definition of "wireless tower"should be limited to structures built for the sole or primary purpose of housing wireless facilities and should not include structures that have not previously been considered wireless towers, such as utility poles, light poles, or buildings 441 Municipal commenters further argue that the term"base station"does not logically apply to any structures at all;they contend that a"wireless tower" is a structure,but a"base station"is a system of transmission equipment distinct from the structure that supports or houses it." In addition, some commenters argue that a deployment at a particular site should not be considered a base station unless it includes all the components of a base station. Alexandria et al. thus assert that Section 6409(a)does not apply to most DAS facilities, arguing that DAS providers have stated that their facilities, including the distributed antenna, fiber optic connections, and hub site,do not constitute a"wireless . . . base station"at all except for the radio transmitters and reception equipment at the system's hub."' 166. Discussion. We adopt the definitions of"tower"and"base station"proposed in the Infrastructure NPRM with certain modifications and clarifications, in order to give independent meaning to both of these statutory terms, and consistent with Congress's intent to promote the deployment of wireless broadband services. First, we conclude that the term"tower"is intended to reflect the meaning of that term as it is used in the Collocation Agreement. Accordingly,we define"tower"to include any 438 See, e.g, Sprint Comments at 8-9; Verizon Comments at 27-28. See also CCA Reply Comments at 5-6; Cox Reply Comments at 4;NCTA Reply Comments at 3;WISPA Reply Comments at 6-7(arguing that excluding structures such as water tanks and grain silos that are traditionally utilized to support wireless equipment in rural areas would sharply limit the benefits intended by the statute). 439 See, e g, AT&T Comments at 23;Cox Reply Comments at 5. 440 Sprint Comments at 9. See also AT&T Comments at 22;PCIA Comments at 33 (asserting that while DAS and small cells may be deployed differently than macrocells,their core components and functionality are the same and they should therefore should be the subject to the same streamlined processing);Verizon Comments at 27-28. 441 See, e.g, Alexandria et al Comments at 22-26;Alexandria et al Reply Comments at 9-12;CA Local Governments Comments at 4-6;CCUA et al Reply Comments at 11;DC Comments at 8-9;DC Reply Comments at 7-8;Fairfax Reply Comments at 5;Henderson Comments at 2;CCUA et al Comments at 7-8;Minneapolis Comments at 12;NATOA et al Comments at 12-13;NATOA et al Reply Comments at 4;RCRC Comments at 2; San Antonio Reply Comments at 3; St.Paul Reply Comments at 1-2;Tempe Reply Comments at 4. 442 See, e.g., Alexandria et al Comments at 29;CA Local Governments Comments at 3,7;CCUA et aL Comments at 9;DC Reply Comments at 8-9;NATOA et al. Comments at 12-13;NATOA et al. Reply Comments at 4;PEC Comments at 8-9. See also Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 11 (contending that a"base station"is a"network element in[a] radio access network responsible for radio transmission and reception in one or more cells to or from the user equipment,"not a stricture that supports that network element)(internal quotation omitted). 443 Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 12-13,n.34(citing CTC Report at 20)("In a DAS,to the extent that any portion of the system may be considered a`base station,' that base station is limited to the radio transmission and reception equipment in the headend building."). See also Fairfax Comments at 8-9;RCRC Comments at 2; St.Paul Reply Comments at 1-2. 70 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any Commission-licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities'44 167. As proposed in the Infrastructure NPRM,we interpret"base station"to extend the scope of the provision to certain support structures other than towers. Specifically,we define that term as the equipment and non-tower supporting structure at a fixed location that enable Commission-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. We find that the term includes any equipment associated with wireless communications service including, but not limited to,radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable,regular and backup power supply,and comparable equipment 445 We note that this definition reflects the types of equipment included in our definition of"transmission equipment,"and that the record generally supports this approach.446 For example,DC argues that the Commission should define a base station as "generally consist[ing] of radio transceivers, antennae, coaxial cable, a regular and backup power supply,and other associated electronics."aa' TIA concurs that the term"base station"encompasses transmission equipment, including antennas,transceivers, and other equipment associated with and necessary to their operation, including coaxial cable and regular and backup power equipment.aas 168. We further find, consistent with the Commission's proposal,that the term"existing. . . base station"includes a structure that, at the time of the application, supports or houses an antenna, transceiver,or other associated equipment that constitutes part of a"base station"as defined above, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support 449 As the Commission noted in the Infrastructure NPRM,while"tower" is defined in the Collocation Agreement and the NPA to include only those structures built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting wireless communications equipment,the term"base station"is not used in these agreements aso However,we reject the proposal to define a"base station"to include any structure that is merely capable of supporting wireless transmission equipment,whether or not it is providing such support at the time of the application.451 We agree with municipalities' comments that by using the term"existing," Section 6409(a)preserves local government authority to initially determine what types of structures are appropriate for supporting wireless transmission equipment if the structures were not built(and thus were not previously approved)for the sole or primary purpose of supporting such equipment.452 Some wireless industry commenters also support our interpretation that,while a tower that was built for the primary purpose of housing or supporting communications facilities should be considered"existing"even if it does not currently host wireless equipment, other structures should be considered"existing"only if they support or house wireless equipment at the time the application is filed.ass 169. We find that the alternative definitions proposed by many municipalities are unpersuasive. First,we reject arguments that a"base station"includes only the transmission system 444 Collocation Agreement§I.B. 445 Inf.astructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14300 App.A,Proposed Rule§ 1.30001(b)(1). 441 See,e.g, AT&T Comments at 22;DC Comments at 9;PCIA Comments at 32-33; Sprint Comments at 8-9;TIA Comments at 6. 447 DC Comments at 9. 448 TIA Comments at 6. 449Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14278-79 para. 108;see also Section 6409(a)PN,28 FCC Rcd at 3. aso Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14278 para. 107;Collocation Agreement§V.A(referring to"building or non-Tower structure");NPA§H.A.14. See also AT&T Comments at 22;AT&T Reply Comments at 10-11. 451 See, e.g,NCTA Reply Comments at 3; Sprint Comments at 9;Verizon Comments at 27-28. 452 See,e.g, Coconut Creek Comments at 6;IAC Recommendation at 3; Salem Comments at 10. 453 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 22-23;PCIA Comments at 31-32;TIA Comments at 5. 71 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 equipment, not the structure that supports it. This reading conflicts with the full text of the provision, which plainly contemplates collocations on a base station as well as a tower. As noted above, Section 6409(x)defines an"eligible facilities request"as a request to modify an existing wireless tower or base station by collocating on it(among other modifications).asa This statutory structure precludes us from limiting the term "base station"to transmission equipment; collocating on base stations,which the statute envisions,would be conceptually impossible unless the structure is part of the definition as well. We further disagree that defining"base station"to include supporting structures will deprive"tower" of all independent meaning.ass As discussed above,we interpret"base station"not to include wireless deployments on towers. Further,we interpret"tower"to include all structures built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting Commission-licensed or authorized antennas,and their associated facilities,regardless of whether they currently support base station equipment at the time the application is filed. Thus, "tower"denotes a structure that is covered under Section 6409(a)by virtue of its construction. In contrast, a"base station" includes a structure that is not a wireless tower only where it already supports or houses such equipment. 170. We are also not persuaded by arguments that"base station"refers only to the equipment compound associated with a tower and the equipment located upon it. First, no commenters presented evidence that"base station" is more commonly understood to mean an equipment compound as opposed to the broader definition of all equipment associated with transmission and reception and its supporting structures. Furthermore,the Collocation Agreement's definition of"tower,"which we adopt in this Report and Order,treats equipment compounds as part of the associated towers for purposes of collocations;asb if towers include their equipment compounds,then defining base stations as equipment compounds alone would render the term superfluous. We also note that none of the State statutes and regulations implementing Section 6409(a)has limited its scope to equipment and structures associated with towers. 57 In addition, we agree with commenters who argue that limiting the definition of"base station"(and thus the scope of Section 6409(a))to structures and equipment associated with towers would compromise the core policy goal of bringing greater efficiency to the process for collocations.458 Other structures are increasingly important to the deployment of wireless communications infrastructure; omitting them from the scope of Section 6409(a)would mean the statute's efficiencies would not extend to many if not most wireless collocations, and would counterproductively exclude virtually all of the small cell collocations that have the least impact on local land use. 171. Some commenters arguing that Section 6409(a)covers no structures other than those associated with towers point to the Conference Report, which, in describing the equivalent provision in the House bill, states that the provision"would require approval of requests for modification of cell towers.i45' We do not find this ambiguous statement sufficient to overcome the language of the statute as enacted,which refers to"modification of an existing wireless tower or base station."460 Moreover,this asa Spectrum Act§6409(a)(2). ass See, e g, Alexandria et al Comments at 29. ash NPA §II.A.14. 457 See, e g., GA. ST§36-66B("Mobile Broadband Infrastructure Leads to Development Act")(GA BILD Act);MI ST. 125.3514;MO ST 67.5090 et seq,MO LEGIS S.B. 650(2014)("Uniform Wireless Communications Infrastructure Deployment Act");NH Rev Stat§ 12-K:10(2013);NC ST§ 160A-400.50 et seq. ("Wireless Telecommunications Facilities");PA ST 53 P.S. § 11702.1 et seq. ("Municipalities-Wireless Broadband Collocation Act");WI ST 66-0404(2014)("Mobile Tower Siting Regulations). ass Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14278-80 paras. 107-110;AT&T Comments at 22;PCIA Comments at 31- 33; Sprint Comments at 8-9;TIA Comments at 5;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 6-8;WISPA Reply Comments at 6- 7. "9 Conference Report at 133. 460 Spectrum Act§6409(a)(emphasis added). 72 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 statement from the report does not expressly state a limitation on the provision, and thus may reasonably be read as a simplified reference to towers as an important application of its mandate. Therefore,we do not view this language as indicating Congress's intention that the provision encompasses only modifications of structures that qualify as wireless towers. 172. We thus adopt the proposed definition of"base station"to include a structure that currently supports or houses an antenna,transceiver, or other associated equipment that constitutes part of a base station at the time the application is filed.46' Consistent with the Bureau's guidance in the Section 6409(a)PN,we also find that"base station"encompasses the relevant equipment in any technological configuration, including DAS and small cells 461 We disagree with municipalities that argue that"base station" should not include DAS or small cells 463 As the record supports,there is no statutory language limiting the term "base station"in this manner. Our definition is sufficiently flexible to encompass,as appropriate to Section 6409(a)'s intent and purpose, future as well as current base station technologies and technological configurations,using either licensed or unlicensed spectrum.aba 173. While we do not accept municipal arguments to limit Section 6409(a)to equipment or structures associated with towers,we reject industry arguments that Section 6409(a)should apply more broadly to include certain structures that neither were built for the purpose of housing wireless equipment nor have base station equipment deployed upon them.abs We find no persuasive basis to interpret the statutory provision so broadly. We agree with Alexandria et al. that the scope of Section 6409(a)is different from that of the Collocation Agreement, as the statutory provision clearly applies only to collocations on an existing"wireless tower or base station"rather than any existing"tower or structure."166 Further, interpreting"tower"to include structures"similar to a tower"would be contrary to the very Collocation Agreement to which these commenters point us,which defines"tower"in the narrower fashion that we adopt. We also agree with municipalities as a policy matter that local governments should retain authority to make the initial determination(subject to the constraints of Section 332(c)(7))of which non-tower structures are appropriate for supporting wireless transmission equipment;our interpretations of"tower"and "base station"preserve that authority.ab' 174. Finally,we agree with Fairfax that the term"existing"requires that wireless towers or base stations have been reviewed and approved under the applicable local zoning or siting process or that the deployment of existing transmission equipment on the structure received another form of affirmative State or local regulatory approval(e.g., authorization from a State public utility commission).46' Thus, 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,the governing authority is not obligated to grant a collocation application under Section 6409(a). We further clarify that a wireless tower that does not have a permit because it was not in a zoned area when it was built,but was lawfully constructed,is an"existing"tower. We find that our interpretation of"existing"is consistent with the purposes of Section 6409(a)to facilitate 461 Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14300 App.A.,Proposed Rules §1.30001(b)(1). 462 Id. at 14279-80 para. 110. See also Sprint Comments at 9. 463 See,e g,Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 12;Fairfax Comments at 8-9;RCRC Comments at 2. 464 See, e g., CTIA Reply Comments at 12; Sprint Comments at 8-9. abs See, e.g., PCIA Comments at 31-32; Sprint Comments at 9;Verizon Comments at 27-28;WISPA Reply Comments at 6. See also CCA Reply Comments at 5-6;Cox Reply Comments at 4;NCTA Reply Comments at 3; WISPA Reply Comments at 6-7. 466 Alexandria et al Comments at 30-31. 467 See e.g., Coconut Creek Comments at 6;IAC Recommendation at 3; Salem Comments at 10. abs Fairfax Comments at 5;See also Fairfax Reply Comments at 7("A tower or structure illegally constructed is not sanitized by§6409(a)."). 73 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 deployments that are unlikely to conflict with local land use policies and preserve State and local authority to review proposals that may have impacts. First, it ensures that a facility that was deployed unlawfully does not trigger a municipality's obligation to approve modification requests under Section 6409(a). Further, it guarantees that the structure has already been the subject of State or local review. This interpretation should also minimize incentives for governing authorities to increase zoning or other regulatory review in cases where minimally intrusive deployments are currently permitted without review. For example, under this interpretation, a homeowner's deployment of a femtocell that is not subject to any zoning or other regulatory requirements will not constitute a base station deployment that triggers obligations to allow deployments of other types of facilities at that location under Section 6409(a). By thus preserving State and local authority to review the first base station deployment that brings any non-tower structure within the scope of Section 6409(a),we ensure that subsequent collocations of additional transmission equipment on that structure will be consistent with congressional intent that deployments subject to Section 6409(a)will not pose a threat of harm to local land use values. 175. On balance, we find that the foregoing definitions are consistent with congressional intent to foster collocation on various types of structures,while addressing municipalities' valid interest in preserving their authority to determine which structures are suitable for wireless deployment, and under what conditions.169 d. Collocation,Replacement,Removal,Modification 176. Background The Commission also sought comment on how to define or interpret the terms"collocation,""removal, "replacement,"and"modification"as they are used in the statutory definition of"eligible facilities request."470 It sought comment on whether to interpret"collocation" consistent with the Collocation Agreement,where it is defined as "the mounting or installation of an antenna on an existing tower, building or structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes.i471 It further proposed to interpret a"modification" of a wireless tower or base station to include collocation,removal, or replacement of an antenna or any other transmission equipment associated with the supporting structure, even if the equipment is not physically located upon the structure 472 In this regard,the Commission observed that the Collocation Agreement similarly construes the mounting of an antenna"on a tower"to encompass installation of associated equipment cabinets or shelters on the ground 473 The Commission also sought comment on whether the definition should apply to a request to replace or harden a tower or other covered structure if, for example, replacement or hardening of the tower or structure is necessary to support an otherwise covered collocation.474 177. Industry commenters generally agree with the Commission's proposed definition of 4Ccollocation."475 Several municipalities, on the other hand, argue that the term"collocation"should not include the first wireless installation on a given structure. In addition, PCIA and AT&T argue that 469 See, e g., WISPA Reply Comments at 7. 470 Infrastructure NPRNI,28 FCC Rcd at 14280 para. 113. 47' Id 472 Id. at 14280 para. 114. 473 Id 474 See id. at 14281 para. 115. 475 See, e g, AT&T Comments at 24;PCIA Comments at 36; Sprint Comments at 9-10;TIA Comments at 6. 476 See, e g., Alexandria et al.Comments at 30-31 (arguing that the definitions in the Commission's programmatic agreements do not define the scope of Section 6409(a));CA Local Governments Comments at 9-11; CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 9-10("Whether a permit request constitutes a`collocation' should depend on whether a legally established wireless use already exists on the structure.");CCUA et al Comments at 10; CCUA et al Reply Comments at 11-12; Tempe Reply Comments at 4. 74 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 replacing or hardening a supporting structure should fall under Section 6409(a)if it does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the tower 4 ' However,Alexandria et al. argue that replacing or hardening of a tower should not be included as an"eligible facilities request"under Section 6409(a)."' 178. Discussion. We conclude again that it is appropriate to look to the Collocation Agreement for guidance on the meaning of analogous terms, particularly in light of Section 6409(a)(3)'s specific recognition of the Commission's obligations under NHPA and NEPA. Accordingly,as proposed in the Infrastructure NPRM and supported by the record,we conclude that the definition of"collocation" for purposes of Section 6409(a)should be consistent with its definition in the Collocation Agreement.419 We therefore define"collocation"under Section 6409(a)as"the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes."480 The term "eligible support structure"means any structure that falls within the definitions of"tower"or"base station,"as discussed above. Consistent with the language of Section 6409(a)(2)(A)-(C), we also find that a"modification"of a"wireless tower or base station" includes collocation,removal, or replacement of an antenna or any other transmission equipment associated with the supporting structure. 179. We therefore disagree with municipal commenters who argue that collocations are limited to mounting equipment on structures that already have transmission equipment on them.41' That limitation is not consistent with the Collocation Agreement's definition of"collocation,"and would not serve any reasonable purpose as applied to towers built for the purpose of supporting transmission equipment. Nevertheless,we observe that our approach leads to the same result in the case of"base stations;"since our definition of that term includes only structures that already support or house base station equipment, Section 6409(a)will not apply to the first deployment of transmission equipment on such structures. Thus,we disagree with CA Local Governments that adopting our proposed definition of collocation would require local governments to approve deployments on anything that could house or support a component of a base station."' Rather, Section 6409(a)will apply only where a State or local government has approved the construction of a structure with the sole or primary purpose of supporting covered transmission equipment(i.e., a wireless tower)or,with regard to other support structures,where the State or local government has previously approved the siting of transmission equipment that is part of a base station on that structure 463 In both cases,the State or local government must decide that the site is suitable for wireless facility deployment before Section 6409(a)will apply. 180. We find that the term"eligible facilities request" encompasses hardening through structural enhancement where such hardening is necessary for a covered collocation, replacement, or removal of transmission equipment,but does not include replacement of the underlying structure. We 477 See AT&T Comments at 24;PCIA Comments at 36-37. See also Tucson Comments at 6(arguing that replacement or hardening of a tower should be covered if the tower already supports wireless equipment);UTC Comments at 15. 476 Alexandria et al.Comments at 31;Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 15. See also Tempe Comments at 20-21 (arguing that any new structures,including replacement structures,should be subject to review). 479 Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14280 para. 113. 480 Id at 14300 App.A,Proposed Rule§ 1.30001(b)(2). As discussed above,"transmission equipment"includes antennas and other equipment associated with and necessary to their operation,including power supply cables and backup power equipment. 411 See, a g, Alexandria et al. Comments at 30-31;CCUA et al.Comments at 10. 461 See CA Local Governments Comments at 10. 463 Thus,as noted above,if a tower or base station equipment was constructed or deployed without proper review or was not required to undergo siting review,the governing authority is not obligated to grant a collocation application under Section 6409(a). 75 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 note that the term"eligible facilities request"encompasses any"modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves"collocation,removal, or replacement of transmission equipment. Given that structural enhancement of the support structure is a modification of the relevant tower or base station,484 we find that such modification is part of an eligible facilities request so long as the modification of the underlying support structure is performed in connection with and is necessary to support a collocation,removal, or replacement of transmission equipment. We further clarify that,to be covered under Section 6409(a), any such structural enhancement must not constitute a substantial change as defined below. 181. We agree with Alexandria et al., however,that"replacement,"as used in Section 6409(a)(2)(C),relates only to the replacement of"transmission equipment,"and that such equipment does not include the structure on which the equipment is located 485 Even under the condition that it would not substantially change the physical dimensions of the structure, replacement of an entire structure may affect or implicate local land use values differently than the addition, removal, or replacement of transmission equipment, and we find no textual support for the conclusion that Congress intended to extend mandatory approval to new structures. Thus,we decline to interpret"eligible facilities requests" to include replacement of the underlying structure. e. Substantial Change and Other Conditions and Limitations 182. Background In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission sought comment on whether and how to determine when a collocation or other eligible modification will"substantially change the physical dimensions"of a wireless tower or base station under Section 6409(a). The Commission noted that the Collocation Agreement establishes a four-prong test to determine whether a collocation will effect a"substantial increase in the size of a tower,"487 and sought comment on whether to adopt this as the test 484 We note that permitting structural enhancement as a part of a covered request may be particularly important to ensure that the relevant infrastructure will be available for use by FirstNet because of its obligation to"ensure the safety,security,and resiliency of the[public safety broadband] network. . . ." Spectrum Act§6206(b)(2)(A). See also"FirstNet,Guiding Principles,"available at http://www.firstnet.gov/about/guiding-principles(providing that "FirstNet will harden the network to assist with resiliency during natural disasters,incidents and man-made threats"). In addition to hardening for Public Safety,commercial providers may seek structural enhancement for many reasons,for example,to increase load capacity or to repair defects due to corrosion or other damage. See, e g., "Refurbishment—Structural Enhancement,"available at http://m.rohnproducts.com/tower-upgrade.html. 415 Alexandria et al.Comments at 31 (arguing that replacement of a tower is not a"modification"of it and that Congress knew how to address"replacement"when that was its intent). 486 See Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14281-82 paras. 116-122. 487 Collocation Agreement§I.C. Under this test,a"substantial increase in the size of the tower"occurs if: 1)[t]he mounting of the proposed antenna on the tower would increase the existing height of the tower by more than 10%,or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet,whichever is greater,except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas;or 2)[t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved,not to exceed four,or more than one new equipment shelter; or 3)[t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet,or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance,whichever is greater,except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via cable;or (continued....) 76 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 for a"substantial change"under Section 6409(a)and whether to modify or clarify any of the prongs 488 The Commission further sought comment on how to address situations where the tower or other structure has been previously modified since it was originally approved, and specifically whether to measure any physical change in dimensions resulting from a proposed new modification based on the structure's original dimensions or the existing dimensions taking into account all modifications that have occurred previously."' The Commission also sought comment on whether the test should differ depending on the type of structure and whether a different test should apply to"stealth structures'—i.e.,those that have been constructed to blend in with their surroundings ago In particular, it sought comment on whether changes that would undermine stealth characteristics should be considered substantia149' The Commission further sought comment on the recommendation of the Commission's Intergovernmental Advisory Committee(IAC)that the question of substantiality cannot be resolved by applying inflexible numerical rules,but rather must be evaluated in the context of each specific installation and each community's land use requirements and decisions.192 183. The Commission also sought comment on whether there are implicit circumstances other than"substantial changes"under which Section 6409(a)would permit a State or local government to deny an otherwise covered request 493 It also sought comment on whether States and localities may impose conditions or require alterations when granting a covered request and, if so, what types of conditions or alterations they could require. In particular,the Commission asked whether States and local governments could require covered requests to comply with State or local building codes and other laws reasonably related to health and safety, and whether States and localities are required to approve an otherwise covered modification of a tower or base station that has legal, non-conforming status,"'or when the modification does not conform to a condition or restriction that the State or locality imposed as a prerequisite to its original approval of the tower or base station 491 The Commission further sought (Continued from previous page) 4)[t]he 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. 488 Infi-astructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14281-82 paras. 117-19. 489 See id at 14282 para. 120. 490 Id at 14282 para. 121. 491 See id. 492 See id. at 14282 para. 122(citing Intergovernmental Advisory Committee to the Federal Communications Commission:Advisory Recommendation Number 2013-9,"Response to Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Guidance on Interpretation of Section 6409(a)of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,"dated July 31,2013 ("IAC Recommendation"),at 2). This document has been filed in WC Docket No. 11-59(Aug.2, 2013)and is also available at hiip://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/intergovernmental-advisory-committee-comments. Subsequently,the IAC also filed comments on the Infrastructure NPRM. See,generally,IAC Comments. The IAC, comprised of fifteen representatives from local,State,and Tribal governments,advises the Commission on a range of telecommunications issues for which these governments share responsibility with the Commission. See FCC Announces The Reauthorization Of The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee And Seeks Nominations,Public Notice,28 FCC Rcd 14749(2013). 491 Infi-astructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14283 para. 124. 494 See id at 14283-84 paras. 124, 126. Legal,non-conforming status refers to a structure that was approved at the time of construction but is not presently in conformance due to subsequent changes to the governing zoning ordinance. Id 491 See id. at 14283-84 paras. 124, 127. 77 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 comment generally on the legal basis for any of these asserted grounds for potential denial—for example, whether they should be understood as factors under the"substantial change"test.491 184. Industry commenters generally oppose the contextual, subjective approach to determining "substantial change"advocated by the IAC and instead support an objective test based on the Collocation Agreement's four-prong test, on the grounds that it will provide greater certainty and avoid delay."' Some of these commenters propose modifications to particular prongs of the test.498 Industry commenters also support applying the"substantial change"test as a limit on cumulative increases by comparing changes to the state of the structure at some fixed point in time"' While some advocate using the same four-prong test for all structures, others argue that the Commission should consider a different test for some or all non-tower structures.5'0 Several industry commenters agree that modifications that undermine the concealment elements of a stealth facility or defeat a stealth condition should be considered substantial,501 and some argue that we should treat a change as"substantial" if it conflicts with any condition on the structure's original zoning approval.50' Industry commenters generally oppose including 496 Id at 14285 para. 128. 49'See, e g, AT&T Comments at 24(arguing that a uniform approach to"substantial change"will provide certainty and avoid the delay in broadband deployment that will result from case-by-case determinations);AT&T Reply Comments at 9-10;PCIA Comments at 37; Sprint Comments at 10;Towerstream Comments at 21 (arguing that the IAC approach would be subject to abuse and"would undermine the intended purpose of Section 6409(a)to facilitate the rapid deployment of public safety and commercial wireless broadband networks");Verizon Comments at 29-30; WISPA Reply Comments at 7-8. 498 See,e g., AT&T Comments at 24(proposing that the test should consider only changes with a visual effect and not equipment concealed from public view through screening or other camouflage techniques);Fibertech Comments at 27(proposing an alternate substantial change test for small cells of 25 cubic feet or less);PCIA Comments at 37- 38(proposing that the Commission apply the test as modified in the NPA,allowing expansion outside the existing tower site that does not expand the boundaries of the leased or owned property 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);WISPA Reply Comments at 7-8. 499 See, e g, PCIA Comments at 39(proposing all changes be measured from the tower's last zoning approval or the effective date of the rules,whichever is later);Verizon Comments at 29-30(proposing that changes be measured against the structure as of the date the rule becomes effective). "'See, e g, CCA Reply Comments at 6(Commission should consider"a secondary set of standards for structures other than those`built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting FCC-licensed antennas and their associated facilities"');UTC Comments at 13 (arguing that the Commission should adopt a"higher threshold"for utility poles, because increases in height exceeding 10%are often necessary to meet utility safety codes);Verizon Comments at 30(arguing that same test should apply to all structures,but that if the Commission adopts a different test for buildings,it should accommodate collocations on the sides or facades of buildings as well as roof-top collocations that extend some allowable height above the roof or that are not visible from the street). In an ex parte letter filed after its comments,Verizon suggests the definition of substantial change for towers should at least apply to utility structures,while a different definition could apply to other non-tower structures. See Letter from Tamara Preiss, Verizon,to Marlene H.Dortch, Secretary,FCC,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Sept. 17,2014,at 2(Verizon Sept. 17,2014 Ex Parte). For non-tower structures,Verizon proposes that the substantial change test allow new facilities to extend"up to six feet wider than the widest point on the structure,"including an appurtenance attached to the structure,and"up to 15 feet above the highest point on the structure(which may be an appurtenance attached to the structure)." See id Verizon also proposes that, if the Commission adopts a height limitation stated in terms of a percentage of the height of the structure,it should adopt"a minimum allowable height increase"that is"no less than ten feet above[the]highest point of the structure." Verizon Oct. 8,2014 Ex Parte,at 3. sol See, e.g, Crown Castle Comments at 14;PCIA Comments at 39;PCIA Reply Comments at 18-19. sot See, e g, AT&T Reply Comments at 12, 16. 78 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 other considerations in determining whether a modification is a"substantial change,"such as whether a structure has legal,non-conforming status.sol 185. Industry commenters generally agree that States and localities may require or otherwise condition approval of a covered request on compliance with building codes and other non-discretionary structural and safety codes,but they argue that States and localities may not otherwise impose conditions.504 In particular,PCIA argues that States and municipalities may ensure that a modification is consistent with existing stealth requirements, but may not impose new stealth requirements when granting a covered request.sos 186. Most municipalities,support the IAC recommendation, arguing that a"substantial change"will mean different things depending on the particular structure and context, and therefore that the analysis does not lend itself to an objective or numerical formula."' They oppose adoption of the Collocation Agreement's four-prong,test or another numerical test, arguing that it will inevitably require approval of modifications that cause significant harms to aesthetics,safety, or other local concerns.507 They further object to any test that considers only"increases in size,"arguing that the test should consider all physical dimensions,including height,width,depth,volume, surface area,weight, and visual impact.50' Many support the test proposed in the Local Government Definitions,which provides that "substantially change the physical dimensions"means to"alter the physical dimensions of a wireless tower or base station in a manner that has a significant impact given the surroundings, characteristics of, and any conditions on,the wireless tower or base station.""' In support of a context-specific approach, they argue that an objective and mechanical test will discourage States and municipalities from approving 5111 See, e.g., Crown Castle Comments at 14;CTIA Reply Comments at 8;Fibertech Reply Comments at 16-17; PCIA Comments at 43-45. 504 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 26;AT&T Reply Comments at 11-12;PCIA Comments at 40-41 (supporting requirement of compliance with general building codes or other objective ministerial laws reasonably related to health and safety so long as they are clearly related to structural standards);PCIA Reply Comments at 1.8; Sprint Comments at 11;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 15-16. But see PCIA Comments at 45(arguing that fall zones and setbacks;while appropriate when approving new towers,should not be grounds for denying an otherwise covered request,because they can be too easily adjusted retroactively to transform compliant towers into legal,non- conforming towers). 5115 See PCIA Comments at 45-46. 509 See,a g.,Alexandria et al. Comments at 32-33;CA Local Governments Comments at 11-12(arguing that whether modification is a substantial change depends on the character and circumstances of the particular tower or base station;issue therefore does not lend itself to a national standard);CCUA et al.Comments at 11-15; San Antonio Reply Comments at 3, 12-13(arguing that"substantial change"must be"construed in a factual context that includes the historical or environmental surroundings,structural and public safety considerations,and generally applicable zoning requirements"). Certain municipalities support numerical standards,however. See,e.g.,Coconut Creek Comments at 6(arguing that the four-prong test will lend uniformity and certainty to localities' application of Section 6409(a)). Savannah proposes that any increase in height or width be considered substantial. See Savannah Ex Parte at 7. s0.See,e g.,Alexandria et al Comments at 33-36;Long Beach Comments at 2;Michaud Comments at 1 (arguing that numerical test ignores"local regulations on visual impact and building codes[and]regulations");Minneapolis Comments at 11-12;MML Comments at 2;NJSLM Comments at 5. '0'See, e g, CA Local Governments Comments at 14-15;CCUA et al.Comments at 14-15. CA Local Governments also highlight other aspects of the four-prong test as problematic,including exceptions to the size limits to avoid interference or accommodate weather conditions. See CA Local Governments Comments at 15. 509 See, e g., Local Governments July 21,2014 Ex Parte, Attach.B;CCUA et al July 17,2014 Ex Parte,Attach A. 79 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 initial wireless facility deployments,because such deployments, even if unobjectionable on their own, would open the door to potentially objectionable collocations covered by Section 6409(a)."' 187. State and local commenters also offer certain considerations that the Commission should incorporate into any test for substantial change. Similar to the position of some industry commenters, many municipalities propose that a change should be treated as substantial if it violates any existing conditions applicable to the tower or base station."' Many also contend that any request subject to Section 6409(a)must nonetheless comply with regulations related to health and safety, such as building, structural or safety codes, arguing that compliance with these codes is a factor in determining whether a change is substantial.512 Municipal commenters also agree with industry commenters that"substantial change"should be measured as a cumulative limit on all changes from a fixed point in time but,unlike most industry commenters,they argue that the changes should be measured from the dimensions of the structure as originally approved.51' In addition,the IAC suggests that any change in physical dimensions that would violate a federal law or regulation(such as FAA requirements or Commission RF exposure standards)should be considered substantial."' Alexandria et al.argue that a proposed change should be considered"substantial" if it would make a facility unsafe,create hazards or environmental harms,render public streets or sidewalks less accessible, damage a historically significant area or structure, expose a "stealth"facility,or otherwise defeat conditions applicable to the original regulatory approval of the underlying tower or base station."' 188. Discussion. After careful review of the record,we adopt an objective standard for determining when a proposed modification will"substantially change the physical dimensions"of an existing tower or base station. Specifically, and for the reasons discussed below,we provide that a modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of a tower or base station if it meets any of the following criteria: (1)for towers outside of public rights-of-way, it increases the height of the tower by more than 10%, or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet,whichever is greater;for those towers in the rights-of-way and for all base stations, it increases the height of the tower or base station by more than 10%or 10 feet, whichever is greater; (2)for towers outside of public rights-of-way, it protrudes from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater; for those towers in the rights-of-way and for all base stations, it protrudes from the edge of the structure more than six feet; (3)it involves installation of more than the 5'0 See, e.g., IAC Comments at 5-6. 5"See, e.g, Alexandria et al Comments at 41; CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 13-14;CCUA et al Comments at 13,20;CCUA et al Reply Comments at 12;Henderson Comments at 2;Minneapolis Comments at 11-13;RCRC Comments at 2. 512 See, e.g, Alexandria et al.Comments at 37-39;CCUA et al.Comments at 18;Fairfax Comments at 14-15; NATOA et al. Comments at 13; Springfield Comments at 13. 513 See, e g, Alexandria et al. Comments at 19;CA Local Governments Comments at 16-17(arguing that a cumulative limit should take the form of a boundary on the physical dimensions of the wireless tower or base station,but not necessarily a limit on the number of changes a wireless service provider may request within that cumulative limit);Coconut Creek Comments at 6-7(arguing that height increase should be calculated from the original tower or structure height prior to any previous additions). 514 See IAC Comments at 5. "'Alexandria et al.Comments at 42. See also CA Local Governments Comments at 12. Alexandria et al further argue that modifications that would violate load-bearing limits,undermine hardening standards,or violate fall zone or set-back distances should fail the test as well. See Alexandria et al.Comments at 42-43. See also CA Local Governments Comments at 17(arguing that a modification is a"substantial change"if it violates a"generally applicable law");CCUA et al.Comments at 12(arguing that a modification is a"substantial change"if it would create a public safety hazard or otherwise violate any local,State,or Federal law,or negatively impact the aesthetics of a community). 80 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved,but not to exceed four cabinets; (4)it entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site of the tower or base station;(5)it would defeat the existing concealment elements of the tower or base station; or(6)it does not comply with conditions associated with the prior approval of construction or modification of the tower or base station unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding"substantial change"thresholds identified above. We further provide that the changes in height resulting from a modification should be measured from the original support structure in cases where the 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. Beyond these standards for what constitutes a substantial change in the physical dimensions of a tower or base station,we further provide that for applications covered by Section 6409(a), States and localities may continue to enforce and condition approval on compliance with generally applicable building,structural, electrical,and safety codes and with other laws codifying objective standards reasonably related to health and safety. 189. We initially conclude that we should adopt a test that is defined by specific, objective factors rather than the contextual and entirely subjective standard advocated by the IAC and municipalities. As we discuss in detail below, Congress took care to refer, in excluding certain modifications from mandatory approval requirements,to those that would substantially change the tower or base station's"physical dimensions." We also find that Congress intended approval of covered requests to occur in a timely fashion.51' While we acknowledge that the IAC approach would provide municipalities with maximum flexibility to consider potential effects,we are concerned that it would invite lengthy review processes that conflict with Congress's intent. Indeed,some municipal commenters anticipate their review of covered requests under a subjective, case-by-case approach could take even longer than their review of collocations absent Section 6409(a).51 We also anticipate that disputes arising from a subjective approach would tend to require longer and more costly litigation to resolve given the more fact-intensive nature of the IAC's open-ended and context-specific approach. We find that an objective definition,by contrast,will provide an appropriate balance between municipal flexibility and the rapid deployment of covered facilities. We find further support for this approach in State statutes that have implemented Section 6409(a), all of which establish objective standards.51' 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 Agreement and NPA should inform our interpretation of similar terms in Section 6409(a). Further, as noted in the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission has previously relied on the Collocation Agreement'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."519 The Commission has also applied a similar objective test to determine whether a modification of an existing registered tower requires public notice for purposes of environmental review.520 We note that some municipalities support 516 See infra,Section V.B.2. 517 See,e g.,CA Local Governments Comments at 21-22. 518 See infra,n.522. sig Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14281 para. 117(citing 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 14012 para.46). 120 See 47 C.F.R.§ 17.4(c)(1)(B);Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16720-21 para. 53. 1 81 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 this approach,52' and we further observe that the overwhelming majority of State collocation statutes adopted since the passage of the Spectrum Act have adopted objective criteria similar to the Collocation Agreement test for identifying collocations subject to mandatory approval."' We note as well that there is nothing in the record indicating that any of these objective State-law tests have resulted in objectionable collocations that might have been rejected under a more subjective approach. Therefore,we are persuaded that it is reasonable to look to the Collocation Agreement test as a starting point in interpreting the very similar"substantial change"standard under Section 6409(a). We further decide,however,to modify and supplement the factors to establish an appropriate balance between promoting rapid wireless facility deployment and preserving States' and localities' ability to manage and protect local land-use interests. 191. First,we decline to adopt the Collocation Agreement's exceptions that allow modifications to exceed the usual height and width limits when necessary to avoid interference or shelter the antennas from inclement weather 523 We agree with CA Local Governments that these issues pose technically complex and fact-intensive questions that many local governments cannot resolve without the aid of technical experts;modifications that would not fit within the Collocation Agreement's height and width exceptions are thus not suitable for expedited review under Section 6409(a).524 192. Second, we conclude that the limit on height and width increases should depend on the type and location of the underlying structure. Under the Collocation Agreement's"substantial increase in size"test,which applies only to towers, a collocation constitutes a substantial increase in size if it would increase a tower's height by 10%or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet,whichever is greater.525 In addition,the Collocation Agreement authorizes collocations that would protrude by twenty feet, or by the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater.121 We find that the Collocation Agreement's height and width criteria are generally suitable for towers, as was contemplated by the Agreement. 193. These tests were not designed with non-tower structures in mind,however, and we find that they may often fail to identify substantial changes to non-tower structures such as buildings or poles, particularly insofar as they would permit height and width increases of 20 feet under all circumstances. Instead,considering the proposals and arguments in the record and the purposes of the provision,we conclude that a modification to a non-tower structure that would increase the structure's height by more than 10%or 10 feet,whichever is greater, constitutes a substantial change under Section 6409(a). 121 See,e.g., San Diego Comments at 3. Other municipalities,including Coconut Creek and West Palm Beach,also support adoption of a standard based on the Collocation Agreement's test. See Coconut Creek Comments at 6;West Palm Beach Comments at 6. 122 See, e g, GA.ST§36-66B-4(b)(establishing a four-prong test for mandatory streamlined process,barring any increase in height or width and requiring compliance with pre-existing conditions and weight limits);MI ST §125.3514(1)(c)(establishing a four-prong test for"substantial change"similar to the Collocation Agreement test); MO ST§67.5092(13)(establishing a four-prong test for"substantial modification"similar to the Collocation Agreement test);NC. ST§ 160A-400.51(7a)(establishing a three-prong test for"substantial modification," imposing limits on height and width increases and on increases to the equipment compound area);N.J.S.A.40:55 D- 46.2.a.(2)(establishing a three-prong test,including limits on increases to height and compound size and barring any increases in width);PA ST 53 P.S. § 11702.2(establishing a two-prong test for"substantial change");WI ST 66- 0404(1)(s)(establishing a four-prong test for"substantial modification"). 123 See Collocation Agreement§I.C. 524 See CA Local Governments Comments at 15. 525 Collocation Agreement§I.C(1). 126 See Collocation Agreement§I.C(3). 82 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Permitting increases of up to 10%has significant support in the record.52' Further,we find that the adoption of a fixed minimum best serves the intention of Congress to advance broadband service by expediting the deployment of minor modifications of towers and base stations. Without such a minimum, we find that the test will not properly identify insubstantial increases on small buildings and other short structures, and may undermine the facilitation of collocation,as vertically collocated antennas often need 10 feet of separation and rooftop collocations may need such height as well.52' Further,the fact that the 10-foot minimum is substantially less than the 20-foot minimum limit under the Collocation Agreement and many State statutes or the 15-foot limit proposed by some commenters provides us additional assurance that our interpretation of�what is considered substantial under Section 6409(a)is reasonable.129 194. We also provide,as suggested by Verizon and PCIA,that a proposed modification of a non-tower structure constitutes a"substantial change"under Section 6409(a)if it would protrude from the edge of the structure more than six feet."' We find that allowing for width increases up to six feet will promote the deployment of small facility deployments by accommodating installation of the mounting brackets/arms often used to deploy such facilities on non-tower structures,and that it is consistent with small facility deployments that municipalities have approved on such structures."' We further note that it is significantly less than the limits in width established by most State collocation statutes adopted since the Spectrum Act.ssz We therefore find that six feet is the appropriate objective standard for substantial changes in width for non-tower structures,rather than the alternative proposals in the record. 195. We decline to apply the same substantial change criteria to utility structures as apply to towers. While Verizon argues in an ex parte that this approach is justified because of the"significant similarities"between towers and utility structures, its own comments note that in contrast to"macrocell 527 See, e g., PEC Comments at 7-8(proposing that the test allow for one increase of 10%over the initially approved height);Tucson Comments at 9("Typically those increases should be 10%or less than what was originally approved for the facility to receive an expedited review."); San Diego Comments at 3 ("[I]f a project results in a change of more than 10%beyond the baseline condition,it would be substantial."). 528 See Kenmore Municipal Code, § 18.60.130("Minor communication facilities—Collocation"),available at http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/Kenmore/html/Kenmorel8/Kenmorel860.html(requiring support structures to have the"structural strength to allow the collocation of additional antennas from other service providers at the standard 10-foot separation");American Planning Association,Planning and Urban Design Standards,358(2006) ("A 10-foot vertical separation between antennas of different carriers is typically required to avoid interference"); Letter from Tamara Preiss,Verizon,to Marlene H.Dortch, Secretary,FCC,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Oct. 10, 2014(Verizon Oct. 10,2014 Ex Parte)at 2(stating that a minimum allowance of ten feet would"accommodate the height of panel antennas and their mounting brackets,to enable the antennas to clear other structures on roof-tops, such as parapet walls and HVAC facilities—which can limit the coverage provided by the facilities,and to reduce the radiofrequency emissions produced by antennas on the surface of the roof."). 129 MI ST. 1253514(1)(c)(20 feet or 10%);MO ST 67.5092(12)(same);NH Rev Stat§ 12-K:2(XXV)(same);NC ST§ 160A-400.51(7a)(same);PA ST 53 P.S. § 11702.1 et seq.(same);WI ST 66-0404(1)(same). 5'0 See Verizon Oct. 10,2014 Ex Parte at 2;Letter from Jonathan M.Campbell,PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association,to Marlene H.Dortch, Secretary,FCC,filed Oct.9,2014(PCIA Oct.9,2014 Ex Parte)at 1-2. "'See Verizon Oct. 10,2014 Ex Parte at 2(asserting that the six-foot allowance is needed to account for both the width of the antenna panels and the mounting arms that attach the antenna panels to the structure);PCIA Oct.9, 2014 Ex Parte at 1-2(proposing that the mounting of the proposed antenna may protrude six feet or less from the structure). See also, a g.,Letter from Tamara Preiss,Verizon,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WC Docket No. 11-59,filed May 14,2013 (providing dimensions to small-cell and DAS equipment used on poles with depths of 19 or 20 inches);Letter from Colleen Thompson,AT&T,to Marlene H.Dortch, Secretary,FCC,WC Docket No. 11-59,filed June 17,2013 (providing small cell and DAS dimensions reflecting depths of 2.08 inches,3.75 inches, 8.25 inches, 11.2 inches„and 18 inches). 532 See supra,n.529(citing to statutes). 83 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 towers,"utility structures are"smaller sites[.],,133 Because utility structures are typically much smaller than traditional towers, and because utility structures are often located in easements adjacent to vehicular and pedestrian rights-of-way where extensions are more likely to raise aesthetic, safety, and other issues, we do not find it appropriate to apply to such structures the same substantial change criteria applicable to towers. We further find that towers in the public rights-of-way should be subject to the more restrictive height and width criteria applicable to non-tower structures rather than the criteria applicable to other towers. We note that, to deploy DAS and small-cell wireless facilities, carriers and infrastructure providers must often deploy new poles in the rights-of-way. Because these structures are constructed for the sole or primary purpose of supporting Commission-licensed or authorized antennas,they fall under our definition of"tower." They are often identical in size and appearance,however,to utility poles in the area, which do not constitute towers."' As a consequence, applying the tower height and width standards to these poles constructed for DAS and small-cell support would mean that two adjacent and nearly identical poles could be subject to very different standards. To ensure consistent treatment of structures in the public rights-of-way, and because of the heightened potential for impact from extensions in such locations,535 we provide that structures qualifying as towers that are deployed in public rights-of-way will be subject to the same height and width criteria as non-tower structures. 196. We agree with commenters that our substantial change criteria for changes in height should be applied as limits on cumulative changes; otherwise, a series of permissible small changes could result in an overall change that significantly exceeds our adopted standards.536 Specifically,we find that 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. 197. We decline to provide that changes in height should always be measured from the original tower or base station dimensions, as suggested by some municipalities. As with the original tower or base station,discretionary approval of subsequent modifications reflects a regulatory determination of the extent to which wireless facilities are appropriate, and under what conditions. At the same time,we decline to adopt industry commenters' proposal always to measure changes from the last approved change or the effective date of the rules.53' Measuring from the last approved change in all cases would provide no cumulative limit at all. In particular,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. Because it is impractical to require parties, in measuring cumulative impact,to determine whether each pre-existing modification was or was not required by the Spectrum Act,we provide that modifications of an existing tower or base station that occur after the passage of the Spectrum Act will not change the baseline for purposes of measuring 533 Verizon Comments at 2-3. See also id. at 6(arguing that historic preservation review should distinguish "[macrocells]on large towers from small cells on utility poles"). 534 See, e.g., Jefferson Comments at 2(noting that facilities disguised as light poles but constructed for the primary purpose of supporting antennas would"seem to meet the proposed definition of a tower"). 535 See, e g., St.Paul Reply Comments at 2(stating that,although"St.Paul wishes to leave open the possibility of allowing implementation of DAS or other small scale wireless technology in the public right-of-way,"it is unlikely to pursue that route because of concerns about the impact of potential multiple collocations);see also Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 4. 536 See, e g, Alexandria et al.Comments at 36;Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 19;CA Local Governments Comments at 16;PCIA Comments at 38;Verizon Comments at 29-30. We note that it is unnecessary to impose any cumulative limit on increases to width because,consistent with the Collocation Agreement,all changes in width are measured from the original structure S37 See,e g,PCIA Comments at 39;Verizon Comments at 29-30. 84 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 substantial change. Consistent with our determination above that a tower or base station is not covered by Section 6409(a)unless it received such approval,s'$this approach will in all cases limit modifications that are subject to mandatory approval to the same modest increments over what the relevant governing authority has previously deemed compatible with local land use values. We further find that, for structures where collocations are separated horizontally rather than vertically(such as building rooftops), substantial change is more appropriately measured from the height of the original structure,rather than the height of a previously approved antenna. Thus, for example,the deployment of a 10-foot antenna on a rooftop would not mean that a nearby deployment of a 20-foot antenna would be considered insubstantial. 198. Again drawing on the Collocation Agreement's test,we further provide that a modification is a substantial change if it entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site of the tower or base station. As in the Collocation Agreement,we define the"site"for towers outside of 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. For other towers and all base stations,we further restrict the site to that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground. 199. We also reject the PCIA and Sprint proposal to expand the Collocation Agreement's fourth prong, as modified by the 2004 NPA,to allow applicants to excavate outside the leased or licensed premises.539 Under the NPA, certain undertakings are excluded from the 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.""O The NPA exclusion from Section 106 review,however, applies to replacement of"an existing communications tower." In contrast, as discussed above, "replacement,"as used in Section 6409(a)(2)(C),relates only to the replacement of"transmission equipment,"541 not the replacement of the supporting structures. Thus,the activities covered under Section 6409(a)are more nearly analogous to those covered under the Collocation Agreement than under the replacement towers exclusion in the NPA. We therefore agree with localities comments that any eligible facilities requests that involve excavation outside the premises should be considered a substantial change, as under the fourth prong of the Collocation Agreement's test.542 200. Based on our review of the record and various state statutes,we further find that a modification constitutes a substantial change in physical dimensions under Section 6409(a) if the change (1)would defeat the existing concealment elements of the tower or base station, or(2)does not comply with pre-existing conditions associated with the prior approval of construction or modification of the tower or base station.14' The first of these criteria is widely supported by both wireless industry and "'See supra,para. 174. 539 See PCIA Comments at 37-38; Sprint Comments at 10. Soo NPA§III.B. 541 See supra,para. 181. 542 See, e.g, CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 12;San Antonio Reply Comments at 15. 543 See, e.g.,Alexandria et al. Comments at 37-39;CCUA et al.Comments at 11-15;GA.Code Ann.§36-6613- 4(b)(3)("The proposed modification or collocation shall comply with applicable conditions of approval,if any, applied to the initial wireless facilities and wireless support structure.");Mich.Comp.Laws Serv. § 125.3514(2012) ("The proposed collocation complies with the terms and conditions of any previous final approval of the support structure or compound."). We recognize that issues may arise under these two criteria that do not relate to a change in physical dimensions. For example,a replacement of exactly the same dimensions could still violate concealment elements if it does not have the same camouflaging paint as the replaced facility. We expect,however,that failures to meet these criteria will generally relate to changes in physical dimensions,and taking into account the support in (continued....) 85 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 municipal commenters,who generally agree that a modification that undermines the concealment elements of a stealth wireless facility, such as painting to match the supporting fagade or artificial tree branches, should be considered substantial under Section 6409(a).544 We agree with commenters that in the context of a modification request related to concealed or"stealth"-designed facilities—i.e., facilities designed to look like some feature other than a wireless tower or base station—any change that defeats the concealment elements of such facilities would be considered a"substantial change"under Section 6409(a).541 Commenters differ on whether any other conditions previously placed on a wireless tower or base station should be considered in determining substantial change under Section 6409(a). After consideration, we agree with municipal commenters that a change is substantial if it violates any condition of approval of construction or modification imposed on the applicable wireless tower or base station,546 unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding"substantial change"thresholds we identify above. In other words, modifications qualify for Section 6409(a)only if they comply,for example, with conditions regarding fencing,access to the site, drainage, height or width increases that exceed the thresholds we adopt above,and other conditions of approval placed on the underlying structure. This approach, we find,properly preserves municipal authority to determine which structures are appropriate for wireless use and under what conditions, and reflects one of the three key priorities identified by the IAC in assessing substantial change.117 201. We agree with PCIA 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 as defined here.5"8 We accordingly reject municipal arguments that any modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that has"legal, non- conforming" status should be considered a"substantial change"to its "physical dimensions.,,14' As PCIA argues,the approach urged by municipalities could thwart the purpose of Section 6409(a) altogether, as simple changes to local zoning codes could immediately turn existing structures into legal, non- conforming uses unavailable for collocation under the statute."' Considering Congress's intent to (Continued from previous page) the record for including these criteria,we find it appropriate to include them as criteria of the substantial change test. Further,we find that,as with building codes,Congress did not intend to exempt covered modifications from compliance with such elements and conditions or to undermine such conditions,whether or not they affect the physical dimensions of the wireless tower or base station,and that Section 6409(a)in any case permits States and localities to condition a covered request on compliance with such criteria or otherwise require a covered request to meet these criteria. Thus,as discussed below,even if we were not persuaded that a modification that violates one of these criteria should be considered a substantial change,we would nevertheless conclude that States and localities may require covered requests to meet these criteria. 144 See, e g„ Alexandria el al.Comments at 42;CCA Comments at 5;CCUA et al.Comments at 20;PCIA Comments at 39,46. 145 See, e g, Coconut Creek Comments at 7;West Palm Beach Comments at 7;see also PCIA Comments at 46 (arguing that for an eligible facilities request involving previously concealed or"stealth"facilities,the modification should qualify as an insubstantial increase as long as the concealment elements are maintained). 546 See, e.g, Alexandria et al. Comments at 12-13,40-42;CCUA et al.Comments at 20;Henderson Comments at 2; NJSLM Comments at 6;RCRC Comments at 2. 541 See IAC Comments at 5(recommending that any change that would violate the conditions of approval under which the site construction was initially authorized should be considered a substantial change in physical dimensions). 548 PCIA Comments at 43-45. See also Crown Castle Comments at 14; CTIA Reply Comments at 8;Fibertech Reply Comments at 16-17. 5411 See, e g, Alexandria et al Comments at 21-23. "0 See PCIA Reply Comments at 18-19. 86 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 promote wireless facilities deployment by encouraging collocation on existing structures,and considering the requirement in Section 6409(a)that States and municipalities approve covered requests "[n]otwithstanding. . . any other provision of law,"we find the municipal commenters' proposal to be unsupportably restrictive."' 202. The record also reflects general consensus that wireless facilities modification under Section 6409(a)should remain subject to building codes and other non-discretionary structural and safety codes."' As municipal commenters indicate,many local jurisdictions have promulgated code provisions that encourage and promote collocations and replacements through a streamlined approval process,while ensuring that any new facilities comply with building and safety codes and applicable Federal and State regulations."' Consistent with that approach on the local level,we find that Congress did not intend to exempt covered modifications from compliance with generally applicable laws related to public health and safety."' We therefore conclude that States and localities may require a covered request to comply with generally applicable building,structural,electrical, and safety codes or with other laws codifying objective standards reasonably related to health and safety, and that they may condition approval on such compliance. In particular, we clarify 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. 203. We further clarify that eligible facility requests covered by Section 6409(a)must still comply with any relevant Federal requirement, including any applicable Commission,FAA,NEPA, or Section 106 requirements. We find that this interpretation is supported in the record, addresses a concern raised by severatmunicipal commenters and the IAC, and is consistent with the express direction in Section 6409(a)that the provision is not intended to relieve the Commission from the requirements of NEPA and NHPA.555 204. In sum,we find that the definitions, criteria, and related clarifications we adopt for purposes of Section 6409(a)will provide clarity and certainty, reducing delays and litigation, and thereby facilitate the rapid deployment of wireless infrastructure and promote advanced wireless broadband services. At the same time,we conclude that our approach also addresses concerns voiced by municipal commenters and reflects the priorities identified by the IAC.ss6 We conclude that this approach reflects a reasonable interpretation of the language and purposes of Section 6409(a)and will serve the public interest. 2. Application Review Process,Including Timeframe for Review 205. Background. In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission sought comment on whether Section 6409(a)places any particular limitations on the application filing and review process,and if so, how to implement such limitations."' The Commission proposed to find that State or local governments 551 Spectrum Act§6409(a)(1)(emphasis added). 552 See, e g, PCIA Comments at 41;Sprint Comments at 11. 553 See, e.g, CCUA et al.Comments at 18. 554 See, e g., Alexandria et al.Comments at 42;CA Local Governments Comments at 17;CCUA et al.Comments at 25;Gallina Comments at 1;Haddon Heights Comments at 1. "5 See Spectrum Act§ 6409(a)(3). 156 See IAC Comments at 5. The IAC recommended that any change in physical dimensions constitutes a "substantial change"if it would violate(1)a building or safety code;(2)a federal law or regulation,including environmental law,historic preservation law,Commission RF exposure standards,or FAA requirements;or(3)the conditions of approval under which the site construction was initially authorized. 557 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14285-86 para.130. See also Section 6409(a)PN,28 FCC Rcd at 3-4. 87 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 at a minimum may require the submission of applications(so that the State or local government can determine whether Section 6409(a)applies),"'and it sought comment on whether Section 6409(a) warrants rules limiting applicable fees,review procedures, or time for review.`9 In particular,the Commission sought comment on whether to limit State and local application review to resolving whether the request is in fact covered by Section 6409(a).5w In this regard,the Commission sought comment on whether to impose limits on the kinds of information and documentation that States and localities may require in connection with an application that the applicant asserts is covered by Section 6409(a).561 It specifically sought comment on whether to clarify that,when an applicant asserts that its application falls under Section 6409(a), States and localities may not require the submission of information or documents that are not relevant to determining whether the provision applies.161 206. The Commission further sought comment on whether, in the event it decides to adopt a time limit for State or local review, it should establish 90 days as a presumptively reasonable period of time for reviewing requests or if a shorter period is warranted in light of the narrow scope of review under Section 6409(a).56s It further sought comment on whether a State or municipality may toll the review period if it notifies the applicant in writing that an application is incomplete and specifies the additional information or documentation required to complete the application.564 In addition,given Congress's explicit language that a State or local government"may not deny,and shall approve"a covered application"[n]otwithstanding. . . any other provision of law,"the Commission proposed to preempt the application of any moratoria to covered requests under Section 6409(a)."' 207. Industry commenters generally argue that the Commission should adopt procedural restrictions on State or local review of applications subject to Section 6409(a). In particular,many industry commenters propose restrictions on the information that a State or municipality can require in connection with eligible facilities requests.566 Several argue that we should permit States or localities to require only the information needed to confirm that the request is covered under Section 6409(a).16' Some commenters assert that the Commission should expressly clarify that certain types of information— such as information to demonstrate"proof of need"or the business case for the proposed modification, an authorization or a valid lease agreement from the property owner and/or tower owner, and surveys—are not relevant for this narrow purpose.56' Others argue that jurisdictions should not be permitted to impose documentation requirements that vary from or exceed the requirements expressly identified in applicable 558 See id. 559 See id. at 14286 para. 131. 560 See id at 14286 para. 132. `1 See id. at 14286-87 para.133. 562 See id 561 See id. at 14287 para.134. 564 See id. 565 Id at 14287-88 para.135. 566 See, e.g.,AT&T Comments at 25;CCA Reply Comments at 7-8;PCIA Comments at 46-47;PCIA Reply Comments at 20-21;PWA Comments at 2-3;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 12-14;Towerstream Reply Comments at 5-7;WISPA Reply Comments at 9. 567 See, e.g, CCA Reply Comments at 7-8;PCIA Comments at 46-47;PCIA Reply Comments at 20-21;WISPA Reply Comments at 9. See also T-Mobile Reply Comments at 13-14. 168 See, e g, PCIA Comments at 47;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 13-14;see also CCA Reply Comments at 7-8; PCIA Reply Comments at 20-21;PWA Comments at 2-3;Towerstream Reply Comments at 5-6;WISPA Reply Comments at 9. 88 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 regulations."' CCA argues that,because a deployment of DAS or small-cell wireless technology to serve even a medium-sized city could require hundreds of modification applications,the Commission should adopt a mechanism for applicants to submit multiple modification requests using a single application.57o Some industry commenters further argue that the Commission should preempt any unreasonable or non- cost based fees that may be associated with applications covered by Section 6409(a).57 208. Industry commenters also generally urge the Commission to place a time limit on State or local review of an eligible facilities request.572 Many of these commenters argue for a 45-day timeframe,573 while others argue for 60 days.57' These commenters argue that a time period shorter than 90 days is warranted in light of the limited scope of review permitted for such applications and Congress's goal of expediting the facilities siting process.17' They further argue that the timeframe should not in any case exceed 90 days,the presumptively reasonable timeframe for review of collocation applications under the 2009 Declaratory Ruling.176 Some industry commenters propose that 90 days is the appropriate period'17'and Fibertech proposes 90 days for collocations but argues that 45 days should "be adequate for the administrative review for transmission equipment replacement. . . ."578 Many industry commenters also support the Commission's proposals regarding treatment of moratoria under Section 6409(a).57" Further,while many industry commenters agree that the review period should be tolled when a State or locality determines an application is incomplete,they recommend that the Commission set reasonable limits on the ability of States or localities to require additional information or documentation.580 For example,T-Mobile and PCIA argue that tolling is appropriate only if the State or locality notifies the applicant that its application is incomplete within 30 days of its submission, as under the 2009 Declaratory Ruling.581 569 See,a g.,AT&T Comments at 25(arguing that Section 6409(a)"requires State and local jurisdictions to promulgate rules that identify the specific limited documentation that applicants must include to demonstrate that they qualify for Section 6409 approval"and that the Commission should not interpret the provision to permit State and local jurisdictions to"impose[documentation] standards that are inconsistent with State or local laws"). 570 See CCA Reply Comments at 8. See also Towerstream Reply Comments at 6-7("Wi-Fi and small cell technologies,however,often require tens of thousands of facilities sitings to cover a geographic area and provide effective and reliable broadband service"). 571 See, e.g, CCA Reply Comments at 7-8;PCIA Comments at 46-49;PWA Comments at 2-3;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 13;WISPA Reply Comments at 9. 572 See, e.g, AT&T Comments at 30-31;CTIA Reply Comments at 9;NYSWA Comments at 2;PCIA Comments ii, 48;PCIA Reply Comments at 21-22;Sprint Comments at 10-11; Sprint Reply Comments at 6;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 12-14;Verizon Comments at 31-32;WISPA Reply Comments at 8-9. 573 See, e.g, CTIA Reply Comments at 9;PCIA Comments ii,48;PCIA Reply Comments at 21; Sprint Reply Comments at 6;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 14;Verizon Comments at 31-32;WISPA Reply Comments at 8-9. 574 See, e g., WISPA Comments at 10. 575 See, e.g,CCA Reply Comments at 8(arguing that the"circumscribed scope of review"supports a shorter period);CTIA Reply Comments at 9. 576 See, e.g, CCA Reply Comments at 8-9;NYSWA Comments at 2;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 14. See also 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 13995, 13999 paras.4, 18-19. 577 See, e g, Joint Venture Comments at 7. 578 Fibertech Comments at 31. 579 See, e g, AT&T Comments at 30; Sprint Reply Comments at 7. ...See, a g., PCIA Comments at ii,48; Sprint Comments at 10-11;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 14-15. 581 See PCIA Comments at ii,48;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 14. T-Mobile contends that,whenever a State or locality rejects an applicant's claim that Section 6409(a)applies or finds its application incomplete,the State or (continued....) 89 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 209. Municipal commenters generally oppose the adoption of any procedural requirements. They argue that the statutory provision itself contains no process requirements and, accordingly,that we should not impose any.582 They also contend that placing procedural limits on State or local governments would contravene the principles of federalism under the Tenth Amendment and would result in the incongruous application of nationwide rules to a diverse universe of government entities.58s Regarding application documentation, some municipal commenters assert that in order to process requests,they will require more information than the bare minimum necessary to determine whether the request falls under Section 6409(a)."' Regarding permit review fees,municipal commenters assert that while Section 6409(a)may obviate some review costs, it does not eliminate them altogether, and nothing in the statute requires local authorities to subsidize wireless service providers by internalizing administrative costs."' 210. Municipal commenters generally argue that the maximum review period, if there is one at all,should be no less than the 90-day timeframe for review under the 2009 Declaratory Ruling.116 These commenters argue that States and localities must have sufficient time to review proposed changes, particularly in circumstances involving complex technical issues, local environmental and historic preservation concerns, local traffic and economic development patterns, and other concerns that are important to the community."' Further, commenters assert that the review period must allow for tolling in certain instances, such as when the application is incomplete,the parties mutually consent to extend the (Continued from previous page) locality must inform the applicant in writing in a timely manner,specifying with particularity the reasons for its conclusion. See T-Mobile Reply Comments at 14-16. 582 See,e g,CA Local Governments Comments at 18("Section 6409(a)mandates a particular result but not any particular process to achieve that result'and therefore"does not invite the Commission to impose rules on the permit application and review process."). ...See, e.g., Alexandria et at Comments at 45-46;Minneapolis Comments at 15-16;Pennsauken Reply Comments at 1;Tucson Comments at 3. 584 See, e g, CA Local Governments Comments at 19-20("The Commission should reaffirm that State and local governments may legitimately seek information from the carriers to perform their fact finding duties and to confirm compliance with legal requirements in the wireless siting process,"including information relevant to address factual issues under Section 6409(a)and whether the applications"comply with the local requirements");Coconut Creek Comments at 8(arguing that the Commission should impose no document restrictions because municipalities need more than the bare minimum necessary to determine eligibility under Section 6409(a),including information demonstrating compliance with structural standards and information that will enable communities to"analyze deployment of infrastructure and plan for future needs");MDIT Comments at 5-6;West Palm Beach Comments at 8. 585 See, e.g, Alexandria et al. Comments at 44-45;CA Local Governments Comments at 20;Minneapolis Comments at 15;PEC Comments at 13. 516 See, e g, Alexandria et al Comments at 44-45;Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 23-24(arguing that adopting a period shorter than 90 days would be premature because the Commission lacks a record about how Section 6409(a)is operating and"would only be guessing at what time period is reasonable");CA Local Governments at 20-21;Coconut Creek Comments at 8-9;DC Comments at 18;Fairfax Reply Comments at 8; Henderson Comments at 3;NJSLM Comments at 7; San Antonio Reply Comments at 20-22; San Diego Comments at 4;West Palm Beach Comments 8. Alexandria et al further argue that a local government should be able to defend the reasonableness of any review that extends beyond a 90-day period. See Alexandria et al. Comments at 44-45. 117 See, e.g, CA Local Governments Comments at 20-21 (asserting that"(1)no fully developed factual record exists to show that Section 6409(a)review subjects applicants to unreasonable delays and(2)the terms of that statute require local governments to act as factfinders on complex and technical issues");Fairfax Reply Comments at 8; Henderson Comments at 3. See also Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 24; San Diego Comments at 5. 90 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 review period,or the municipality enacts a temporary moratorium to amend or otherwise revise its permit review process,rules, or policies 588 211. Discussion. As an initial matter,we find,consistent with the Commission's proposal, that State or local governments may require parties asserting that proposed facilities modifications are covered under Section 6409(a)to file applications, and that these governments may review the applications to determine whether they constitute covered requests."' As the Bureau observed in the Section 6409(a) PN,the statutory provision requiring a State or local government to approve an"eligible facilities request"implies that the relevant government entity may require an applicant to file a request for approval."' Further,nothing in the provision indicates that States or local governments must approve requests merely because applicants claim they are covered. Rather,under Section 6409(a), only requests that do in fact meet the provision's requirements are entitled to mandatory' approval. Therefore, States and local governments must have an opportunity to review applications to determine whether they are covered by Section 6409(a), and if not,whether they should in any case be granted. 212. However,we further conclude that Section 6409(a)warrants the imposition of certain requirements with regard to application processing, including a specific timeframe for State or local government review and a limitation on the documentation States and localities may require. While Section 6409(a),unlike Section 332(c)(7),does not expressly provide for a time limit or other procedural restrictions,we conclude that certain limitations are implicit in the statutory requirement'that a State or local government"may not deny, and shall approve"covered requests for wireless facility siting. In particular,we conclude that the provision requires not merely approval of covered applications,but approval within a reasonable period of time commensurate with the limited nature of the review,whether or not a particular application is for"personal wireless service"facilities covered by Section 332(c)(7)."' With no such limitation, a State or local government could evade its statutory obligation to approve covered applications by simply failing to act on them, or it could impose lengthy and onerous processes not justified by the limited scope of review contemplated by the provision. Such unreasonable delays not only would be inconsistent with the mandate to approve but also would undermine the important benefits that the provision is intended to provide to the economy,competitive wireless broadband deployment,and public safety. Accordingly, pursuant to our authority to implement and enforce Section 6409(a)described above,we require that States and localities grant covered requests within a specific time limit and pursuant to other procedures outlined below. 213. We find substantial support in the record for adopting such requirements. It is clear from the record that there is significant dispute as to whether any time limit applies at all under Section 6409(a) and, if so, what that limit is. We also note that there is already some evidence in the record, albeit anecdotal, of significant delays in the processing of covered requests under this new provision,which may be partly a consequence of the current uncertainty regarding the applicability of any time limit.592 588 See, e.g., CA Local Governments Comments at 22-23;Coconut Creek Comments at 8-9;Henderson Comments at 3;NJSLM Comments at 8;West Palm Beach Comments at 8. 589 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14286 para.131. 590 Section 6409(a)PN, 28 FCC Rcd at 3. 59' Implementation of Section 621(A)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as Amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,MB Docket No.05-311,Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,22 FCC Rcd 5101,5137 para.73 (2006)("Local Franchising Order"), aff'd sub nom,Alliance for Community Media v. FCC,529 F.3d 763 (6th Cir.2008)(finding that"[f]ailure of[a local franchising authority]to act[on a franchise application]within[specified]time frames ...constitutes a refusal to award a competitive franchise"under Section 621(a)(1)of the Communications Act);Section 6409(a)PN,28 FCC Rcd at 4. See also AT&T Comments at 25("Section 6409 is an administrative requirement for an application that is not subject to discretionary review and must be granted in a timely manner."). 592 See,e.g.,Verizon Comments at 31-32. 91 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Because the statutory language does not provide guidance on these requirements,we are concerned that, without clarification,future disputes over the process could significantly delay the benefits associated with the statute's implementation. Moreover, we find it important that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of when an applicant may seek relief from a State or municipal failure to act under Section 6409(a). We find further support for establishing these process requirements in analogous State statutes, nearly all of which include a timeframe for review, as discussed below. Therefore, we adopt the following procedural requirements for processing applications under Section 6409(a).593 214. First,we provide that in connection with requests asserted to be covered by Section 6409(a), State and local governments may only require applicants to provide documentation that is reasonably related to determining whether the request meets the requirements of the provision. We find that this restriction is appropriate in light of the limited scope of review applicable to such requests and that it will facilitate timely approval of covered requests. At the same time,under this standard, State or local governments have considerable flexibility in determining precisely what information or documentation to require. We agree with PCIA,however,that States and localities may not require documentation proving the need for the proposed modification or presenting the business case for it.594 We anticipate that over time, experience and the development of best practices will lead to broad standardization in the kinds of information required."' 215. In addition to defining acceptable documentation requirements,we establish a specific and absolute timeframe for State and local processing of eligible facilities requests under Section 6409(a). 593 Contrary to the suggestion of municipalities,we disagree that the Tenth Amendment prevents the Commission from exercising its authority under the Spectrum Act to implement and enforce the limitations imposed thereunder on State and local land use authority These limitations serve to preempt the operation of state law,not to"compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." Printz v United States, 521 U.S. 898,900(1997). They do not require State or local authorities to review wireless facilities siting applications,but rather preempt them from choosing to exercise such authority under their laws other than in accordance with Federal law—i e,to deny any covered requests. See Cellular Phone Taskforce v FCC, 205 F.3d 823,96-97(2d Cir.2000). See also City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S.Ct. 1863, 1873 (2013)(dispute about FCC shot clock rules implementing Section 332(c)(7)"has nothing to do with federalism,"as that provision"explicitly supplants state authority"). Compare Petersburg Cellular Partnership v. Board of Supervisors of Nottowav County, 205 F.3d 688,716(4th Cir.2000) (King,J.,dissenting),with id at 699-705(Niemeyer,J.,separate opinion). Similar arguments with respect to similar remedies were rejected by the Commission in its Local Franchising Order,22 FCC Rcd at 5161-62 para. 136. Such arguments were also made by State and local authorities on judicial review of that Order. See Brief of Petitioners, City of Tampa et al,Alliance for Community Media v FCC,No. 07-3391 (6th Cir.Nov. 1,2007),at 20-24;Reply Brief of Petitioners,City of Tampa et al,Alliance for Community Media v FCC,No.07-3391 (6th Cir.Nov. 1, 2007),at 12-13;Brief of the Dept.of the Public Advocate,Division of Rate Counsel,Alliance for Community Media v. FCC,No.07-3391 (6th Cir.July 18,2007),at 15-17;Reply Brief of the Dept.of the Public Advocate,Division of Rate Counsel,Alhance for Community Media v FCC,No.07-3391 (6th Cir.Oct.4,2007),at 15-16. The Sixth Circuit rejected these arguments without discussion. See Alliance for Community Media v. FCC,529 F.3d 763 (6th Cir.2008). 594 See PCIA Reply Comments at 20-21. 595 As discussed above,even as to applications covered by Section 6409(a), State and local governments may continue to enforce and condition approval on compliance with non-discretionary codes reasonably related to health and safety,including building and structural codes. We find that municipalities should have flexibility to decide when to require applicants to provide documentation of such compliance,as a single documentation submission may be more efficient than a series of submissions,and municipalities may also choose to integrate such compliance review into the zoning process. See Coconut Creek Comments at 8(arguing that requiring a separate documentation submission to demonstrate compliance with structural codes will introduce further delay);MML Comments at 14 ("Cities should be able to require full applications,primarily because submission of full applications up front will provide for speedier processing of all applications and,on the whole,decrease costs for all parties."). Accordingly, we clarify that our documentation restriction does not prohibit States and local governments from requiring documentation needed to demonstrate compliance with any such applicable codes. 92 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 We find that a 60-day period for review, including review to determine whether an application is complete, is appropriate. In addressing this issue, it is appropriate to consider not only the record support for a time limit on review but also State statutes that facilitate collocation applications. Many of these statutes impose review time limits,thus providing valuable insight into States' views on the appropriate amount of time. Missouri,New Hampshire, and Wisconsin, for example,have determined that 45 days is the maximum amount of time available to a municipality to review applications,116 while Georgia,North Carolina, and Pennsylvania have adopted a 90-day review period, including review both for completeness and for approval.597 Michigan's statute provides that after the application is filed,the locality has 14 days to deem the application complete and an additional 60 days to review.59' With consideration of the time periods adopted in these statutes, and for the further reasons discussed below,we find it appropriate to adopt a 60-day time period as the time limit for review of an application under Section 6409(a). 216. We find that a period shorter than the 90-day period applicable to review of collocations under Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act is warranted to reflect the more restricted scope of review applicable to applications under Section 6409(a). We further find,however,that a 60-day period of review, rather than the 45-day period proposed by many industry commenters,599 is appropriate to provide municipalities with sufficient time to review applications for compliance with Section 6409(a), because the timeframe sets an absolute limit that—in the event of a failure to act—results in a deemed grant."' Thus,whereas a municipality may rebut a claim of failure to act under Section 332(c)(7)if it can demonstrate that a longer review period was reasonable,that is not the case under Section 6409(a). Rather, if an application covered by Section 6409(a)has not been approved by a State or local government within 60 days from the date of filing, accounting for any tolling, as described below,the reviewing authority will have violated Section 6409(a)'s mandate to approve and not deny the request, and the request will be deemed granted. 217. We further provide that the foregoing Section 6409(a)timeframe may be tolled by mutual agreement or in cases where the reviewing State or municipality informs the applicant in a timely manner that the application is incomplete. As with tolling for completeness under Section 332(c)(7)(as discussed later in this Report and Order),an initial determination of incompleteness tolls the running of the period only if the State or local government provides notice to the applicant in writing within 30 days of the application's submission. We also require that any determination of incompleteness must clearly and specifically delineate the missing information in writing, similar to determinations of incompleteness under Section 332(c)(7), as discussed below.601 Further, consistent with the documentation restriction established above,the State or municipality may only specify as missing information and supporting documents that are reasonably related to determining whether the request meets the requirements of Section 6409(a). 218. The timeframe for review will begin running again when the applicant makes a supplemental submission,but may be tolled again if the State or local government provides written notice to the applicant within 10 days that the application remains incomplete and specifically delineates which of the deficiencies specified in the original notice of incompleteness have not been addressed. The 596 See MO ST§67.5100.2;NH Rev Stat§ 12-K:10(2013);WI ST§66-0404(3)(b),(c)(providing for up to 5 days to determine completeness of application and up to 45 days to review). 597 See GA ST§36-66B-4(d);NC ST§ 160A-400.53;PAST 53 P.S. §11702.4(b)(2). The North Carolina statute provides a municipality up to 45 days to determine completeness,and then an additional 45 days for review,for a total of up to 90 days. See NC ST§ 160A-400.53. 59s See MI ST 125.3514(2). 599 See supra,para.208. 601 See infra,para.226. - 611 See infra,Section VI.B.1. 93 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 timeframe for review will be tolled in this circumstance until the applicant supplies the relevant authority with the information delineated. Consistent with determinations of incompleteness under Section 332(c)(7)as described below,any second or subsequent determination that an application is incomplete may be based only on the applicant's failure to provide the documentation or information the State or municipality required in its initial request for additional information 602 Further, if the 10-day period passes without any further notices of incompleteness from the State or locality,the period for review of the application may not thereafter be tolled for incompleteness. 219. We further find that the timeframe for review under Section 6409(a)continues to run regardless of any local moratorium. This is once again consistent with our approach under Section 332(c)(7),as discussed below,and is further warranted in light of Section 6409(a)'s direction that covered requests shall be approved"[n]otwithstanding. . . any other provision of law.""' 220. Some additional clarification of time periods and deadlines will assist in cases where both Section 6409(a)and Section 332(c)(7)apply. In particular,we note that States and municipalities reviewing an application under Section 6409(a)will be limited to a restricted application record tailored to the requirements of that provision. As a result,the application may be complete for purposes of Section 6409(a)review but may not include all of the information the State or municipality requires to assess applications not subject to Section 6409(a). In such cases, if the reviewing State or municipality finds that Section 6409(a)does not apply(because, for example, it proposes a substantial change), we provide that the presumptively reasonable timeframe under Section 332(c)(7)will start to run from the issuance of the State's or municipality's decision that Section 6409(a)does not apply. To the extent the State or municipality needs additional information at that point to assess the application under Section 332(c)(7),it may seek additional information subject to the same limitations applicable to other Section 332(c)(7)reviews, as discussed below. We recognize that, in such cases,there might be greater delay in the process than if the State or municipality had been permitted to request the broader documentation in the first place. We find,however,that applicants are in a position to judge whether to seek approval under Section 6409(a), and we expect they will have strong incentives to do so in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary delays. Finally, as we proposed in the Infrastructure NPRM,we find that where both Section 6409(a)and Section 332(c)(7)apply, Section 6409(a)governs,consistent with the express language of Section 6409(a)providing for approval"[n]otwithstanding"Section 332(c)(7)and with canons of statutory construction that a more recent statute takes precedence over an earlier one and that "normally the specific governs the general."boa 221. Beyond the guidance provided in this Report and Order,we decline to adopt the other proposals put forth by commenters regarding procedures for the review of applications under Section 6409(a)or the collection of fees. We conclude that our clarification and implementation of this statutory provision strikes the appropriate balance of ensuring the timely processing of these applications and preserving flexibility for State and local governments to exercise their rights and responsibilities. Given the limited record of problems implementing the provision,further action to specify procedures would be premature. 3. Remedies 222. Background. In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission sought comment on the remedies that should be available to applicants in cases where a State or locality fails to act on an 602 See infra,Section VI.B.1. Eos Spectrum Act§ 6409(a)(1);see also infra§VI.B.2(discussing application of moratoria to timeframes for review under Section 332(c)(7)and the 2009 Declaratory Ruling). boa Inf astructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14290 para. 143. See also,e g, Long Island Care at Home, Ltd v Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 170(2007). 94 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 application covered by Section 6409(a)or issues a decision adverse to the applicant Eos The Commission sought comment on whether,for example, it should provide that a covered request is"deemed granted" by operation of law if a State or local government fails to act within a specified period of time,and if so, how a deemed granted remedy should operate and how it should be enforced bob It also sought comment on any alternative remedies to provide recourse in cases of State or municipal inaction, including whether the Commission should preempt State or local authority after a specified period of time.601 With regard to adverse decisions,the Commission sought comment on whether it should adopt a deemed granted rule applicable in these cases as well. It further proposed to permit applicants to file petitions for declaratory ruling with the Commission in cases of alleged violations of Section 6409(a), and sought comment on whether to adopt special procedures for such petitions. 223. Many industry commenters support adoption of a deemed granted remedy if a State or municipality fails to act on an application covered under Section 6409(a)within a specified period of time,60.and some propose that this remedy should apply to application denials as well.609 PCIA further proposes that if an applicant requires an actual permit,the applicant should have the option of either(1) informing the State or municipality of the deemed grant and requesting issuance of the permit or(2) seeking a court order directing the State or municipality to issue the permit.610 AT&T recommends that the applicant should have the burden of notifying the State or local government that its application is deemed granted under the rule, and that the State or local government would then have the opportunity to file a challenge with the Commission within 14 days arguing that the application is not covered by Section 6409(a). Under AT&T's proposal, if no challenge is filed within the 14-day period the application would conclusively be deemed granted.6 ' 224. Industry commenters contend that Section 6003 of the Spectrum Act and various provisions of the Communications Act authorize the Commission to adopt a deemed granted remedy, and they argue that doing so would not present constitutional concerns 612 They argue that a deemed granted remedy is necessary to effectuate congressional intent to expedite covered applications, and that judicial and administrative remedies are costly and time-consuming and would impede applicants' ability to 611 See Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14288-90 paras. 137-143. 606 Id. at 14288 para. 137. 607 See id. at 14289 para.139. 608 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 26-28;AT&T Reply Comments at 3-4, 14-15;CCA Reply Comments at 8-9; CTIA Reply Comments at 1-2, 8-10;Fibertech Reply Comments at 19;NYSWA Comments at 2;PCIA Comments at 50-53; Sprint Comments at 11; Sprint Reply Comments at 6;Towerstream Reply Comments at 5-7;Verizon Comments at 31-33. PCIA proposes that the deemed grant should apply in cases of a failure to act on an"eligible facilities request." PCIA Comments at 50. It is not clear from its comments whether,in this context,PCIA means an"eligible facilities request"generally as that term is used in Section 6409(a)(i.e., any request for collocation, removal,or replacement of transmission equipment on an existing wireless tower or base station)or whether PCIA refers to the subset of eligible facilities requests that require mandatory approval(Le,covered requests). Given that PCIA asserts that the"plain language of Section 6409(a)requires states and localities to approve all EFR applications without exception and without discretionary review,"PCIA Comments at 40,we interpret its use of the term to refer to covered requests. 609 See,e g,AT&T Reply Comments at 3-4;PCIA Comments at 51-52. We note that commenters do not specifically describe how or to what extent a deemed grant would apply in the context of a denial. 611 See PCIA Comments at 50. 611 See AT&T Comments at 26-27. 612 See,e g.,PCIA Comments at 51-53. 95 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 deploy wireless facilities.61' Several industry commenters also argue that applicants should be permitted to bring complaints alleging violations of Section 6409(a)to the Commission through petitions for declaratory ruling or otherwise, either challenging a State or municipal action on a specific application or alleging that a particular State or local requirement violates the provision.614 225. Municipal commenters addressing this issue oppose a deemed granted remedy and argue that the courts should resolve Section 6409(a)disputes.61' These commenters argue that a deemed granted remedy would contravene the Tenth Amendment as well as the approach developed in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling.616 For support,these commenters assert that such a remedy would pose an unnecessary intrusion into State and local governments' longstanding zoning authority and would be inconsistent with traditional notions of Federal and state jurisdiction.6 ' Municipal commenters further contend that resolving Section 6409(a)disputes via Commission action rather than in court—whether through the Commission's adoption of a deemed granted approach or its review of specific applications— would conflict with the Commission's stated intention not to become a"national zoning board."618 They argue as well that the Commission lacks expertise in zoning disputes,that requiring adjudication at the Commission would significantly and unreasonably burden municipalities, and that local courts are better equipped to identify applicable precedents and assess the particular facts and circumstances of individual disputes.619 Alexandria et al. argue that Section 6409(a)neither specifies a judicial cause of action nor directs the Commission to review disputes, and that Congress is therefore"best understood to have elected to rely on existing avenues of relief.i62' They therefore propose that applicants follow the normal state-law procedures for challenging local zoning decisions or that they seek judicial review under Section 619 See, e g, AT&T Comments at 8,25-26; CTIA Reply Comments at 1-2,7-8; Verizon Comments at 32-33. See also PCIA Comments at 50(arguing that deemed grant is a"reasonable and appropriate way of enforcing"the"shall approve"requirement). 614 See,e.g,AT&T Comments at 27-28;Fibertech Comments at 33;Towerstream Comments at 27-28;Towerstream Reply Comments at 7. 611 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 45-48;Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 25-28;CA Local Governments Comments at 24-26;CA Local Governments Reply Comments at iv, 19-23; Ca1WA Reply Comments at 3, 10-11;CCA Reply Comments at 9-10;Coconut Creek Comments at 9;DC Comments at 20;IAC Comments at 2;RCRC Comments at 4; San Antonio Reply Comments at 3-4,21-23; Springfield Comments at 16;Tucson Comments at 9-10; West Palm Beach Comments at 9. 616 See, e g, Alexandria et al Comments at 46-47;Alexandria et al Reply Comments at 27-28;CA Local Governments Comments at 25-26;Coconut Creek Comments at 9;Fairfax Comments at 19; San Antonio Reply Comments at 3-4;Tucson Comments at 10;West Palm Beach Comments at 9. Some commenters also contend that a deemed granted remedy would violate the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Alexandria et al Reply Comments at 25- 28; Springfield Comments at 16. 617 See, e.g, Alexandria et al Reply Comments at 27-28;Coconut Creek Comments at 9;DC Comments at 20; Fairfax Comments at 19; San Antonio Reply Comments at 22,Tucson Comments at 10;West Palm Beach Comments at 9. 618 See, e g, Alexandria et al Comments at 47-48;Fairfax Comments at 19-20;Tucson Comments at 10. 619 See, e g, Alexandria et al. Comments at 47-48;CA Local Governments Comments at 24(asserting an"express Congressional intent to allow federal courts to craft individualized remedies"),27-28;CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 19-20; CCUA et al.Comments at 15;Coconut Creek Comments at 9;IAC Comments at 2;RCRC Comments at 4;San Antonio Reply Comments at 23;Tucson Comments at 10. Commenters point out that localities generally do not have Washington,D.C.-based counsel available for representation before the Commission. See, e.g, Alexandria et al. Comments at 47-48; CCUA et al Comments at 15;Coconut Creek Comments at 9;IAC Comments at 2("Localities should not be required to incur the expense of retaining legal counsel in Washington, D.C.and traveling long distances to defend local zoning decisions"), 8 (noting in particular the costs and burden on smaller communities);RCRC Comments at 4;Tucson Comments at 10. 620 Alexandria et al Comments at 47. 96 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 332(c)(7),which they believe"has proven effective.s621 Coconut Creek argues that Section 6409(a) disputes should be raised through causes of action brought in court under Section 332(c)(7).622 226. Discussion. After a careful assessment of the statutory provision and a review of the record,we establish a deemed granted remedy for cases in which the applicable State or municipal reviewing authority fails to issue a decision within 60 days(subject to any tolling, as described above)on an application submitted pursuant to Section 6409(a). We further conclude that a deemed grant does not become effective until the applicant notifies the reviewing jurisdiction in writing, after the time period for review by the State or municipal reviewing authority as prescribed in our rules has expired,that the application has been deemed granted. 227. Our reading of Section 6409(a)supports this approach. The provision states without equivocation that the reviewing authority"may not deny, and shall approve"any qualifying application.621 This directive leaves no room for a lengthy and discretionary approach to reviewing an application that meets the statutory criteria; once the application meets these criteria,the law forbids the State or local government from denying it. Moreover,while State and local governments retain full authority to approve or deny an application depending on whether it meets the provision's requirements,the statute does not permit them to delay this obligatory and non-discretionary step indefinitely. In this Report and Order,we have defined objectively the statutory criteria for determining whether an application is entitled to a grant under this provision. Given the objective nature of this assessment,then,we conclude that withholding a decision on an application indefinitely,even if an applicant can seek relief in court or in another tribunal,would be tantamount to denying it, in contravention of the statute's pronouncement that reviewing authorities"may not deny"qualifying applications. We therefore find that the text of Section 6409(a)supports adoption of a deemed granted remedy,which will directly serve the broader goal of promoting the rapid deployment of wireless infrastructure. We note as well that our approach is consistent with other Federal agencies' processes to address inaction by State and local authorities eta 228. As noted above, many municipalities oppose the adoption of a deemed granted remedy primarily on the ground that it arguably represents an intrusion into local decision-making authority."' We fully acknowledge and value the important role that local reviewing authorities play in the siting process, and, as the Commission stated in the Infrastructure NPRM,"our goal is not to`operate as a national zoning board. ,,62' At the same time,our authority and responsibility to implement and enforce Section 6409(a) as if it were a provision of the Communications Act obligate us to ensure effective enforcement of the congressional mandate reflected therein. To do so,given our"broad grant of rulemaking authority,,611 the importance of ensuring rapid deployment of commercial and public safety wireless broadband services as reflected in the adoption of the Spectrum Act,and in light of the record of disputes in this proceeding, as well as the prior experience of the Commission with delays in municipal 621 Id 622 See Coconut Creek Comments at 9. See also CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 23,27-28;CCUA et al Reply Comments at 5; San Antonio Reply Comments at 3-4,21-22;Tucson Comments at 9-10. 623 Spectrum Act§ 6409(a)(1). 624 See, e.g,42 C.F.R. §438.56(e)(2)(Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rule providing that an application to disenroll from a Medicaid managed care plan shall be"considered approved"if not acted on by a State agency within the regulatory deadline). See also 47 U.S.C. § 160(c)(petition for forbearance deemed granted if Commission fails to deny within the regulatory deadline). 625 See supra,para.225. 626 See Infi-astructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14276 para.99(quoting Preemption of Local Zoning or Other Regulation of Receive-Only Satellite Earth Stations,CC Docket No. 85-87,59 Rad.Reg.2d(P&F) 1073,para.39 (1986)). 627 City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S.Ct. 1863, 1874(2013). 97 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 action on wireless facility siting applications that led to the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, we conclude it is necessary to balance these federalism concerns against the need for ensuring prompt action on Section 6409(a)applications.628 We therefore adopt this approach in tandem with several measures that safeguard the primacy of State and local government participation in local land use policy,to the extent consistent with the requirements of Section 6409(a). First, we have adopted a 60-day time period for States and localities to review applications submitted under Section 6409(a).629 While many industry commenters proposed a 45-day review period based on the non-discretionary analysis that the provision requires,63o we have provided more time in part to ensure that reviewing authorities have sufficient time to assess the applications. 229. Second,we are establishing a clear process for tolling the 60-day period when an applicant fails to submit a complete application,thus ensuring that the absence of necessary information does not prevent a State or local authority from completing its review before the time period expires."' 230. Third, even in the event of a deemed grant,the Section 106 historic preservation review process—including coordination with State and Tribal historic preservation officers—will remain in place with respect to any proposed deployments in historic districts or on historic buildings(or districts and buildings eligible for such status)."' 231. Fourth,as explained below, a State or local authority may challenge an applicant's written assertion of a deemed grant in any court of competent jurisdiction when it believes the underlying application did not meet the criteria in Section 6409(a) for mandatory approval, would not comply with applicable building codes or other non-discretionary structural and safety codes,or for other reasons is not appropriately"deemed granted."633 232. Finally, and perhaps most importantly,the deemed granted approach does not deprive States and localities of the opportunity to determine whether an application is covered; rather, it provides a remedy for a failure to act within the fixed but substantial time period within which they must determine, on a non-discretionary and objective basis, whether an application fits within the parameters of Section 6409(a). 233. We emphasize as well that we expect deemed grants to be the exception rather than the rule. To the extent there have been any problems or delays due to ambiguity in the provision,we anticipate that the framework we have established, including the specification of substantive and procedural rights and applicable remedies,will address many of these problems. We anticipate as well that the prospect of a deemed grant will create significant incentives for States and municipalities to act in a timely fashion. 628 See 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 14004-06 paras.32-34. See also,e.g.,T-Mobile Comments, Sullivan Decl.at 1-5(stating that"wireless siting permit issues are so prevalent that T-Mobile has had to bring or defend more than 300 lawsuits in state and federal courts,"and describing several disputes over land use regulation of wireless facility modifications,including two cases that remain pending in trial court after more than three years), 3 ("Even in the absence of litigation,T-Mobile experiences substantial delays in obtaining local approvals to collocate on existing towers and base stations,or to modify such facilities as part of the company's modernization efforts."). 629 See supra,para.216. 630 See supra,para.208. 63'See supra,paras.217-219. 632 See supra,para. 88(excluding collocations from Section 106 review under certain circumstances,but not when they would be located on buildings that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register or in or near a historic district). 633 See,e g,infra,paras.234-236. 98 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 234. With respect to the appropriate forum for redress or for resolving disputes, including disputes over the application of the deemed grant rule,we find that the most appropriate course for a party aggrieved by operation of Section 6409(a)is to seek relief from a court of competent jurisdiction. Although we find that we have authority to resolve such disputes under our authority to implement and enforce that provision,we also find that requiring that these disputes be resolved in court,and not by the Commission,will better accommodate the role of the States and local authorities and serve the public interest for the reasons the municipal commenters identify and as discussed below."' 235. A number of factors persuade us to require parties to adjudicate claims under Section 6409(a)in court rather than before the Commission. First,we find that Commission adjudication would impose significant burdens on localities,many of which are small entities with no representation in Washington,D.C.and no experience before the Commission. The possible need for testimony to resolve disputed factual issues,which may occur in these cases, would magnify the burden. We are also concerned that the Commission may simply lack the resources to adjudicate these matters in a timely fashion if we enable parties to seek our review of local zoning disputes arising in as many as 38,000 jurisdictions,thus thwarting Congress's goal of speeding up the process.63' We also agree with municipalities that the Commission does not have any particular expertise in resolving local zoning disputes,whereas courts have been adjudicating claims of failure to act on wireless facility siting applications since the adoption of Section 332(c)(7).636 236. Accordingly,we require parties to bring claims related to Section 6409(a)in a court of competent jurisdiction. Such claims would appear likely to fall into one of three categories. First, if the State or local authority has denied the application, an applicant might seek to challenge that denial. Second, if an applicant invokes its deemed grant right after the requisite period of State or local authority inaction,that reviewing authority might seek to challenge the deemed grant. Third, an applicant whose application has been deemed granted might seek some form of judicial imprimatur for the grant by filing a request for declaratory judgment or other relief that a court may find appropriate. In light of the policy underlying Section 6409(a)to ensure that covered requests are granted promptly,and in the self- interest of the affected parties,we would expect that these parties would seek judicial review of any such claims relating to Section 6409(a)expeditiously. The enforcement of such claims is a matter appropriately left to such courts of competent jurisdiction. However,given the foregoing Federal interest reflected in Section 6409(a), it would appear that the basis for equitable judicial remedies would diminish significantly absent prompt action by the aggrieved party. In our judgment, based on the record established in this proceeding,we find no reason why(absent a tolling agreement by parties seeking to resolve their differences)such claims cannot and should not be brought within 30 days of the date of the 634 Section 6003 of the Spectrum Act,47 U.S.C. § 1403,directs us to enforce the provisions of Title VI as though they were part of the Communications Act. We adopt the approach described in the text—namely,adjudication in court rather than before the Commission—pursuant to our well-established discretion in matters of enforcement, including in determining whether it is appropriate for the Commission to resolve a controversy. See National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners'Petition for Clarification or Declaratory Ruling That No FCC Order or Rule Limits State Authority to Collect Broadband Data,Memorandum Opinion and Order,25 FCC Rcd 5051,5053 para.5(20 10)(noting that the Commission has broad discretion whether to issue a ruling to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty);Heckler v. Chaney,470 U.S.821, 831 (1985)("[A]n agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce,whether through civil or criminal process,is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion.");New York State Dept. of Law v. FCC,984 F.2d 1209, 1213(D.C.Cir. 1993)(upholding the Commission's exercise of its enforcement discretion)(citing Heckler,470 U.S.at 831). 635 See "Government Organization Summary Report:2012,"available at http://www2.census.aov/ ovg s/cog/ lg_2 org.pdf(finding 38,910 general purpose local governments). See also CA Local Governments Comments at 11. 636 As we note in connection with Section 332(c)(7),see infra,para.284,a party pursuing a claim under Section 6409(a)may seek injunctive relief,which may be appropriate in many cases in light of Congress's goal of advancing wireless broadband service. See Conference Report at 136. 99 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 relevant event(i e,the date of the denial of the application or the date of the notification by the applicant to the State or local authority of a deemed grant in accordance with our rules). 4. Non-application to States or Municipalities in Their Proprietary Capacities 237. Background. In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission sought comment on the IAC's argument that the Section 6409(a)mandate applies only to State and local governments acting in their role as land use regulators and does not apply to such entities acting in their capacities as property owners 63' In its Recommendations to the Commission,the IAC had asserted that"[w]here . . . a county government, as landlord rather than as land use regulator, has by contract or lease chosen, in its discretion,to authorize the installation of an antenna on a county courthouse rooftop of certain exact dimensions and specifications, Section 6409 does not require the county, acting in its capacity as landlord rather than its capacity as regulator of private land use,to allow the tenant to exceed to any extent those mutually and contractually agreed-upon exact dimensions and specifications.,,61' The Commission proposed to adopt this interpretation, and sought comment on how to determine in which capacity a government is acting and whether to address how Section 6409(a)applies where both capacities are implicated."' 238. Although T-Mobile argues that Section 6409(a) does not distinguish between situations in which a local government is acting as a municipal authority or as a proprietary landlord,"'the record otherwise reflects near unanimity in support of the IAC's recommendation.641 Certain industry commenters argue,however,that municipal regulation of the public rights-of-way constitutes action by a government in its regulatory capacity rather than its proprietary capacity.baz Municipal commenters argue,by contrast, that there is no need at this time to further define what is or is not proprietary action."' 239. Discussion. As proposed in the Infrastructure NPRM and supported by the record, we conclude that Section 6409(a)applies only to State and local governments acting in their role as land use regulators and does not apply to such entities acting in their proprietary capacities. As discussed in the record,courts have consistently recognized that in"determining whether government contracts are subject to preemption,the case law distinguishes between actions a State entity takes in a proprietary capacity— actions similar to those a private entity might take—and its attempts to regulate."6 4 As the Supreme Court has explained, "[i]n the absence of any express or implied implication by Congress that a State may not manage its own property when it pursues its purely proprietary interests, and when analogous private conduct would be permitted,this Court will not infer such a restriction."64s Like private property owners, local governments enter into lease and license agreements to allow parties to place antennas and other wireless service facilities on local-government property, and we find no basis for applying Section 6409(a)in those circumstances. We find that this conclusion is consistent with judicial decisions holding 61'See Infrastructure NPRM,, 28 FCC Rcd at 14285 para 129. 611 Id (citing IAC Recommendations at 3). 639 See id 640 See T-Mobile Reply Comments at 19. 641 See, e g, Alexandria et al Comments at 49-51;CA Local Governments Comments at 16-17;Coconut Creek Comments at 7-8;CTC Reply Comments at 8;DC Comments at 19;DC Reply Comments at 14;Fairfax Comments at 15-16;IAC Comments at 2;Minneapolis Comments at 11-12;NATOA et al. Reply Comments at 3;NJSLM Comments at 7;PCIA Reply Comments at 22;VA DOSP Comments at 4-6. 642 See, e.g, PCIA Reply Comments at 22;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 19. 641 See,e g,Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 3. 644 See, e g, Alexandria et al Comments at 49(citing American Airlines v Dept of Transp.,202 F.3d 788, 810(5th Cir.2000)). 64'Building&Construction Trades Council of Metropolitan District v Associated Builders& Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Islandlnc.,507 U.S.218,231-32(1993). 100 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 that Sections 253 and 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act do not preempt"non regulatory decisions of a state or locality acting in its proprietary capacity.7i646 240. We decline at this time to further elaborate as to how this principle should apply to any particular circumstance in connection with Section 6409(a). We agree with Alexandria et al. that the record does not demonstrate a present need to define what actions are and are not proprietary,and we conclude in any case that such a task is best undertaken,to the extent necessary, in the context of a specific municipal action and associated record.647 Further, as discussed above,there is extensive case law on the application of this distinction in other contexts, including in connection with wireless facility siting applications under Section 332(c)(7),which can provide valuable guidance for its application under Section 6409(a). 5. Effective Date 241. Background. The Commission sought comment on whether,in the event it adopted rules in connection with Section 6409(a), it should provide a transition period to allow States and localities time to implement the rules in their laws, ordinances, and procedures has The Commission further asked how it could establish a transition period consistent with the provision's requirements and how long any transition period should be.649 The record reflects divided views,with industry commenters arguing against a transition period and municipalities arguing for one. While PCIA argues that no transition is necessary for States and localities to implement Section 6409(a)requirements into their laws,611 municipal commenters contend that a transition period would be essential in order for them to accommodate the additional workload involved in updating regulations and procedures.65' In particular,the IAC urges the Commission to provide that the rules will not take effect until 90 days after publication in the Federal Register, arguing that a transition period is necessary to allow affected State, local, and Tribal governments time to make the necessary changes to their laws and procedures 612 646 Qwest Corp v City of Portland,385 F.3d 1236, 1240(9th Cir.2004)(recognizing that Section 253(a)preempts only"regulatory schemes");Sprint Spectrum v. Mills,283 F.3d 404,421 (2d Cir.2002)(finding that Section 332(c)(7)"does not preempt nonregulatory decisions of a local governmental entity or instrumentality acting in its proprietary capacity"). 647 See Alexandria et al Reply Comments at 3. We note that this issue has been raised informally by parties in the context of New York City's payphone franchising regulation. See Letter from Robert G. Scott,Jr.,Davis Wright Tremaine LLP,to Marlene H.Dortch, Secretary,FCC,filed July 24,2014(Telebeam Ex Parte)at 4(urging the Commission on behalf of Telebeam Telecommunications Corp.to avoid any statement that would"allow the City of New York. . .to evade the wireless siting rules ultimately adopted,through claims that its regulation of public telephones is an exercise of proprietary authority or otherwise"). We take no position on Telebeam's argument in this Report and Order. 649 See Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14276 para. 100. 649 See id. 610 See PCIA Comments at 27-28. 611 See, a g., Alexandria el al. Reply Comments at 24;CA Local Governments Comments at 29-30(arguing that at least twelve months is necessary to adjust local land use ordinances,policies,and procedures to reflect any new rules adopted as a result of this proceeding);Haddon Heights Comments at 2;San Diego Comments at 3. 612 See Letter from Kenneth S.Fellman,Intergovernmental Advisory Committee,to Marlene H.Dortch, Secretary, FCC,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Oct. 8,2014(IAC Oct. 8,2014 Ex Parte),at 1-2(asserting that it will be necessary to educate staff and elected officials throughout the country of the substance of the Order and the changes that might be required once local codes are reviewed in light of the Commission's guidance). See also Letter fromYejin Jang,National Association of Counties,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WT Docket No. 13-238, filed Oct. 10,2014(NACo Oct. 10,2014 Ex Parte),at 1 (asserting that the effective date should be no earlier than 90 days after publication and that in implementing such changes to existing State and local laws and requirements, States and municipalities would need time for appropriate action,such as providing notice for official meetings and (continued....) 101 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 242. Discussion. Based on our review of the record, we are persuaded that a transition period is necessary and appropriate. We agree with certain municipal commenters that affected State and local governments may need time to make modifications to their laws and procedures to conform to and comply with the rules we adopt in this Report and Order implementing and enforcing Section 6409(a), and that a transition period is warranted to give them time to do s0.653 We therefore conclude, as proposed by the IAC and other parties,that the rules adopted to implement Section 6409(a)will take effect 90 days after Federal Register publication. VI. SECTION 332(C)(7)AND THE 2009 DECLARATORY RULING 243. In this section, we address questions related to Section 332(c)(7)and the Commission's 2009 Declaratory Ruling."' In particular,we clarify when a siting application is considered complete for the purpose of triggering the presumptively reasonable timeframes for local and State review of personal wireless service facilities siting applications under the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, and we also clarify how the presumptively reasonable timeframes apply to local moratoria and DAS or small-cell facilities. We find that these actions will resolve ambiguities and thus enable both industry and State and local jurisdictions to expedite personal wireless service facilities siting and facilitate the provision of advanced wireless services across the country. 244. With regard to certain other issues, after review of the record,we decline to take action at this time. Specifically,we decline to further clarify or amend the test for determining which applications must be reviewed under the shorter 90-day period applicable to collocations under the 2009 Declaratory Ruling,to hold that preferences for the placement of wireless facilities on municipal property are per se unlawful under Section 332(c)(7), or to adopt additional remedies beyond the one articulated in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling for failures to act in a timely manner under Section 332(c)(7). A. Background 245. Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act, adopted as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,generally preserves State and local authority over"personal wireless service facilities"siting, while also placing important limitations on that authority.655 Three of these limits involve substantive restrictions. The first, Section 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(I), states that municipal regulation of the placement,construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities"shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services."656 A second substantive limit provides that a State or local government's siting regulations"shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services."657 The third provides that a State or (Continued from previous page) agenda,informing the public,providing opportunity for comment,gathering public input and testimony,and, in some instances,action by state legislatures to support local compliance with the Commission's order). 653 To the extent existing State and local laws conflict with our rules implementing Section 6409(a),they will no longer apply once the rules take effect. 654 See,generally,47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7);2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd 13994. Ess 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(A)(stating that,"[e]xcept as provided in this paragraph,nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement,construction,and modification of personal wireless services facilities"). Personal wireless services are defined as"commercial mobile services,unlicensed wireless services,and common carrier wireless exchange access services."47 U.S.C.§ 332(c)(7)(C)(i). As discussed above,in 2012,Congress expressly modified this preservation of local and State authority by enacting Section 6409(a),which requires local or State governments to approve certain types of facilities siting applications"[n]otwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [codified in substantial part as Section 332(c)(7)] . ..or any other provision of law. . . ." Spectrum Act§ 6409(a)(1). See supra,Section V 656 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(13)(i)(I). 657 Id at§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). 102 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 local government may not regulate the siting of personal wireless service facilities"on the basis of the environmental effects of[RF] emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.s65' Section 332(c)(7)(B)also imposes procedural obligations on State and local governments, including a requirement that they must act on requests for personal wireless service facilities sitings"within a reasonable period of time.„659 246. Section 332(c)(7)also sets forth a judicial remedy for violations of the provision, stating that"[a]ny person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government” that is inconsistent with the requirements of Section 332(c)(7)"may,within 30 days after such action or failure to act,commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction."660 The provision further directs the court to "decide such action on an expedited basis."661 While the statute makes this judicial remedy available for any violation of Section 332(c)(7), it also provides that applicants may petition the Commission for relief in one circumstance—where they are adversely affected by a State or local government's action or failure to act based on the effects of RF emissions."' 247. In 2009,the Commission adopted a Declaratory Ruling663 in response to a petition requesting clarification on two points:what constitutes a"reasonable period of time" after which an aggrieved applicant may file suit asserting a failure to act under Section 332(c)(7), and whether a zoning authority may restrict competitive entry by multiple providers in a given area under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).164 In the 2009 Declaratory Ruling,the Commission interpreted a"reasonable period of time"under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)to be 90 days for processing collocation applications, and 150 days for processing applications other than collocations.665 The Commission further determined that failure to meet the applicable timeframe presumptively constitutes a failure to act under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v), enabling an applicant to pursue judicial relief within the next 30 days.666 248. The Commission also defined certain circumstances that would warrant adjustments to the presumptive deadlines, including when the applicant fails to submit a complete application or to file necessary additional information in a timely manner.667 Specifically,the Commission stated that"when applications are incomplete as filed,the timeframes do not include the time that applicants take to respond 651 Id. at§332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 659 Id at§332(c)(7)(B)(ii). In addition,Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)provides that"[a]ny decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place,construct,or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record."Id at § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). See T-Mobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell,731 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir.2013)cert.granted 134 S.Ct. 2136(2014). 660 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). 661 Id 662 See id 663 See 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd 13994. 664 Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance,Petition for Declaratory Ruling of CTIA—The Wireless Association,WT Docket No.08-165, filed July 11,2008(CTIA Petition). In its petition,CTIA also requested that the Commission find that a State or local regulation that requires a variance or waiver for every wireless facility siting violates Section 253(a)of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C.§253(a). The Commission denied this request due to a lack of a specific controversy. See 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 14019-20 paras.66-67. 665 See id at 14012 para.45. 666 See id at 14005 para.32, 14012 para.45. 667 See id.at 14010 para.42. 103 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 to State and local governments' requests for additional information.,66' This automatic tolling,however, applies only if a zoning authority notifies an applicant within the first 30 days that its application is incomplete.669 In addition,the Commission clarified that the presumptive deadlines for acting on siting applications could be extended beyond 90 or 150 days by mutual consent, and that such an agreement would toll the commencement of the 30-day period for filing suit.671 249. Finally, addressing Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)'s direction that States and localities shall not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services,the Commission found that this provision prohibits a State or local government from denying a personal wireless service facility siting application solely because service is available from another provider.671 250. On December 17,2009, a Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification(Petition)was filed by the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors,the United States Conference of Mayors,the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, and the American Planning Association(Petitioners).672 In August of 2010,the Commission adopted the 2010 Shot Clock Reconsideration Order, in which it denied the requests to reconsider certain of its conclusions.673 251. In 2012,the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the 2009 Declaratory Riding in its entirety,674 deferring to the Commission's conclusion that it had jurisdiction to address these issues. In 2013,the United States Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision, finding that judicial deference under Chevron applies to an agency's determination of the scope its own statutory jurisdiction.671 252. Subsequent to the Supreme Court's decision,the Commission released the Infrastructure NPRM. While stating that the Commission would not generally revisit the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, it 668 Id at 14014 para.52. 669 See id.at 14014-15 para. 53. 670 See id. at 14013 para.49. 671 See id.at 14016 para.56. 67'See Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance,Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification,WT Docket No.08-165,filed Dec. 17,2009. Also on December 17,2009,Petitioners filed an Emergency Motion for Stay pending Commission action on their petition. See Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance,Emergency Motion for Stay,WT Docket No.08-165,filed Dec. 17,2009. On January 29, 2010,WTB denied the stay request. See Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance,WT Docket No.08-165, Order,25 FCC Red 1215 (WTB 2010)(2010 Stay Denial Order). 673 See,generally,Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance,WT Docket No.08-165, Order on Reconsideration,25 FCC Red 11157(2010) (2010 Reconsideration Order). 674 See City of Arlington v FCC,668 F.3d 229(5th Cir.2012),aff'd, 133 S.Ct. 1863 (2013). 675 See City ofArlington, 133 S.Ct.at 1874("[T]he preconditions to deference under Chevron are satisfied because Congress has unambiguously vested the FCC with general authority to administer the Communications Act through rulemaking and adjudication,and the agency interpretation at issue was promulgated in the exercise of that authority."); see Chevron USA Inc v. NRDC, Inc.,467 U.S. 837(1984). 104 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 sought comment on six discrete issues arising under Section 332(c)(7)and the 2009 Declaratory Ruling:676 (1)whether and how to clarify when a siting application is considered complete for the purpose of triggering the 2009 Declaratory Ruling's shot clock; (2)whether to clarify that the presumptively reasonable period for State or local government action on an application runs regardless of any local moratorium; (3)whether the 2009 Declaratory Ruling applies to DAS and small-cell facilities; (4) whether to clarify the types of actions that constitute"collocations"for purposes of triggering the shorter shot clock; (5)whether local ordinances establishing preferences for deployment on municipal property violate Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I); and(6)whether to adopt an additional remedy for failures to act in violation of Section 332(c)(7).67 B. Discussion 253. In order to add greater efficiency to the siting process—for the municipal and State entities that must review applications, for the applicants that file them, and for the tribunals that resolve disputes—we clarify how the 2009 Declaratory Ruling applies in some but not all of the contexts we identified in the NPRM. The record demonstrates that these clarifications will promote the deployment of infrastructure necessary for advanced wireless broadband services while preserving both State and municipalities' front-line roles in the siting process. We discuss each of the six issues on which the Commission sought comment below. 1. Completeness of Applications 254. Background. The 2009 Declaratory Ruling held that,when an application is incomplete as filed,the shot clock timeframe does not include the time the applicant takes to respond to a State or local government's request for additional information, provided that the State or locality makes its request within 30 days of the application's submission.678 255. The 2009 Declaratory Ruling did not,however,define when a siting application should be considered"complete"for this purpose. PCIA has asserted that, as a result, some jurisdictions have repeatedly requested additional information to toll the shot clock and delay application processing.679 In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission sought comment on whether to clarify when a siting application is considered complete for the purpose of triggering the 2009 Declaratory Ruling timeframe and, if so, how that should be determined. 256. Several industry commenters argue that the 2009 Declaratory Ruling needs clarification in this area,and they suggest specific approaches.680 Crown Castle and PCIA, for example, propose that a request for additional information should toll the shot clock only if it: (1) is in writing, (2)delineates any information alleged to be missing, and(3)specifies the particular subsection of the applicable code that requires the applicant to submit the information.681 Crown Castle further proposes that the clock should continue running if a jurisdiction requests information not specifically identified in the zoning application's requirements.682 Municipalities generally oppose these clarifications.683 676 See Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14293 para. 152. 611 Id at 14293-96 paras. 153-162. 671 See 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 14014 paras.52-53. 679 PCIA and DAS Forum NOI Comments,WC Docket No. 11-59,at 14. 680 See, e g, Crown Castle Comments at 15-17;ExteNet Comments at 6-7;PCIA Comments at iii,54-55;PCIA Reply Comments at iii,28. 611 See Crown Castle Comments at 17;PCIA Comments at iii,54-55. 682 See Crown Castle Comments at 17. 683 See, e g., Alexandria et al.Comments at 57-58;Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 30-35;CA Local Governments Comments at 31-32;Coconut Creek Comments at 10;DC Comments at 23;Fairfax Comments at 25; (continued....) 105 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 257. Discussion. We find that we should clarify under what conditions the presumptively reasonable timeframes may be tolled on grounds that an application is incomplete. We take this action not only to provide clarity in connection with a State's or municipality's first request for additional information in connection with a particular application,but also in situations where a State or municipality makes repeated requests. Indeed,the 2009 Declaratory Ruling did not address how such repeated requests would toll the timeframes. For example, while the 2009 Declaratory Ruling provided that a State or municipality must notify the applicant of incompleteness within 30 days, it did not indicate whether that restriction applies where the State or municipality, after receiving additional data, determines at some point after the first 30 days that the application remains incomplete. We find that this ambiguity has undermined the effectiveness of the timeframes.684 258. As an initial matter,we note that under the 2009 Declaratofy Ruling, the presumptively reasonable timeframe begins to run when an application is first submitted, not when it is deemed complete.61' Accordingly, to the extent municipalities have interpreted the clock to begin running only after a determination of completeness,that interpretation is incorrect. 259. Further,consistent with proposals submitted by Crown Castle and PCIA,116 we clarify that,following a submission in response to a determination of incompleteness, any subsequent determination that an application remains incomplete must be based solely on the applicant's failure to supply information that was requested within the first 30 days. The shot clock will begin running again after the applicant makes a supplemental submission. The State or local government will have 10 days to notify the applicant that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original notice delineating missing information. In other words, a subsequent determination of incompleteness can result in further tolling of the shot clock only if the local authority provides it to the applicant in writing within 10 days of the supplemental submission, specifically identifying the information the applicant failed to supply in response to the initial request. Once the 10-day period passes,the period for review of the application may not thereafter be tolled for incompleteness. 260. We further provide that, in order to toll the timeframe for review on grounds of incompleteness, a municipality's request for additional information must specify the code provision, ordinance,application instruction, or otherwise publically-stated procedures that require the information to be submitted.687 This requirement will avoid delays due to uncertainty or disputes over what documents or information are required for a complete application. Further, while some municipal commenters argue that"[n]ot all jurisdictions codify detailed application submittal requirements because doing so would require a code amendment for even the slightest change,488 our approach does not restrict them to reliance on codified documentation requirements. (Continued from previous page) Mendham Comments at 6; Springfield Comments at 17-18; Steel in the Air Comments at 10;Tempe Comments at 30;West Palm Beach Comments at 10. 614 Some commenters cite certain instances in which local authorities have significantly delayed action on applications through successive unrelated data requests. See,e g.,Crown Castle Comments at 15-16(asserting one instance in which Crown Castle went before a local reviewing board eight times,and that"with each review the Town alleged new and different`deficiencies'with the permit applications");PCIA Comments at 55 n.182 (asserting that in one case,"a second notice of incomplete application was provided to a member over five months after the date of the initial application");see also AT&T Comments,WC Docket No. 11-59,at 15-16. 685 See 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 14014 para. 52(providing that the"timeframes do not include the time that applicants take to respond to State and local governments'requests for additional information"). 616 See Crown Castle Comments at 17;PCIA Comments at 54-55. 687 See, e g., Crown Castle Comments at 17;PCIA Comments at iii, 54-55. 611 See, a g., Alexandria et al Reply Comments at 35. 106 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 261. Beyond these procedural requirements,we decline to enumerate what constitutes a "complete"application. We find that,as some commenters note, State and local governments are best suited to decide what information they need to process an application.689 Differences between jurisdictions make it impractical for the Commission to specify what information should be included in an application. 262. We find that these clarifications will provide greater certainty regarding the period during which the clock is tolled for incompleteness. This in turn provides clarity regarding the time at which the clock expires, at which point an applicant may bring suit based on a"failure to act." Further,we expect that these clarifications will result in shared expectations among parties,thus limiting potential miscommunication and reducing the potential or need for serial requests for more information. Accordingly,these clarifications will facilitate faster application processing,reduce unreasonable delay, and accelerate wireless infrastructure deployment. 2. Moratoria 263. Background. In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission sought comment on whether and how the presumptively reasonable timeframes under Section 332(c)(7)apply to delays in processing applications that result from a local moratorium that is, when a State or local government freezes all siting applications across the board while, for example, it updates applicable zoning regulations 690 We proposed to find that the presumptively reasonable period continues to run regardless of any local moratorium.691 We alternatively sought comment on whether a moratorium should toll the shot clock and, if so, whether the tolling period for moratoria should be limited in some manner.192 264. Industry commenters generally argue that moratoria should not suspend the shot clock,693 while localities argue that they should.694 On a more granular level, UTC proposes prohibiting moratoria over 6 months,695 while municipal commenters disagree.696 265. Discussion. We clarify that the shot clock runs regardless of any moratorium. This is consistent with a plain reading of the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, which specifies the conditions for tolling and makes no provision for moratoria. Moreover,our conclusion that the clock runs regardless of any moratorium means that applicants can challenge moratoria in court when the shot clock expires without State or local government action,which is consistent with the case-by-case approach that courts have generally applied to moratoria under Section 332(c)(7). 97 This approach,which establishes clearly that 689 See, e.g., CA Local Governments Comments at 31. See also Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 31-32; Coconut Creek Comments at 10;DC Comments at 23;Fairfax Comments at 25;Mendham Comments at 6; Steel in the Air Comments at 10;Tempe Comments at 30;West Palm Beach Comments at 10. 690 See Infrastructure NPRM,, 28 FCC Rcd at 14294 para. 155. 691 See id at 14294 para. 156. 692 See id. at 14294 para. 157. 693 See, e g,AT&T Comments at 30;Crown Castle Comments at 15;ExteNet Comments at 7-8;PCIA Comments at iii,55;PCIA Reply Comments at iii,27-28;UTC Comments at 16. 694 See, e.g., Alexandria et al.Comments at 53-56;Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 36-37;CA Local Governments Comments at 32-34;Coconut Creek Comments at 8-10;LOC Comments at 5; Steel in the Air Comments at 8-10;West Palm Beach Comments at 8-10. See also Fairfax Comments at 25. 695 See UTC Comments at 16. See also Coconut Creek Comments at 10;Steel in the Air Comments at 10;West Palm Beach Comments at 10. 696 See,,e.g, Alexandria et al.Comments at 55;Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 37. 697 See,e g,Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Village of Itasca, Illinois, 503 F.Supp.2d 928,935(N.D.III.2007) (finding that moratoria,some of which were extended formally or informally,were effectively complete prohibitions on the expansion of plaintiffs telecommunications facilities);Masterpage Communications, Inc. v Town of Olive, (continued....) 107 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 an applicant can seek redress in court even when a jurisdiction has imposed a moratorium,will prevent indefinite and unreasonable delay of an applicant's ability to bring suit. 266. Some commenters argue that if moratoria do not toll the presumptively reasonable periods,this would discourage local governments from updating their regulations.698 Similarly, others contend that this approach would, in effect,improperly require municipal staff to simultaneously review and update their regulations to adapt to new technologies while also reviewing applications.699 We recognize that new technologies may in some cases warrant changes in procedures and codes,but we find no reason to conclude that the need for any such change should freeze all applications. We are confident that industry and local governments can work together to resolve applications that may require more staff resources due to complexity,pending changes to the relevant siting regulations, or other special circumstances. Moreover, in those instances in which a moratorium may reasonably prevent a State or municipality from processing an application within the applicable timeframe,the State or municipality will, if the applicant seeks review,have an opportunity to justify the delay in court. We therefore clarify that the shot clock continues to run regardless of any moratorium. 267. We decline at this time to determine that a moratorium that lasts longer than six months constitutes aper se violation of the obligation to take action in a reasonable period of time. Although some have argued that a six-month limit would"discourage localities from circumventing the intent of the Commission's shot clock rules,"701 others disagree,and the record provides insufficient evidence to support aper se determination at this juncture.701 Given our clarification that the presumptively reasonable timeframes apply regardless of moratoria, any moratorium that results in a delay of more than 90 days for a collocation application or 150 days for any other application will be presumptively unreasonable. The courts are well situated to assess whether such moratoria are in fact reasonable on a case-by-case basis, including when the moratorium extends for six months or longer. 3. Application to DAS and Small Cells 268. Background. In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission noted that some jurisdictions have adopted the view that the shot clocks do not apply to DAS or small-cell deployments.702 The Commission proposed to clarify that to the extent DAS or small-cell facilities, including neutral-host deployments shared by more than one carrier, are or will be used for the provision of personal wireless services,their siting applications are subject to the same presumptively reasonable timeframes and other requirements as applications related to other personal wireless service facilities."' 269. Several industry commenters support our proposal, arguing that DAS and small-cell applications are covered by the 2009 Declaratory Ruling and are subject to the same timeframes as other (Continued from previous page) NN,418 F.Supp.2d 66,78(N.D.N.Y.2005)(finding that delay was unreasonable where a moratorium lasted more than two years,was extended at least once without explanation,and prohibited Masterpage from applying for more than one year);Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v City of Medina,924 F.Supp. 1036, 1039-40(W.D.Wash. 1996)(finding a six-month moratorium was reasonable). See also CA Local Governments Comments at 34. 698 See, e.g, Coconut Creek Comments at 8, 10;Steel in the Air Comments at 8, 10;West Palm Beach Comments at 8, 10. 699 See, e.g., Alexandria et al.Comments at 55. 700 See, e g, UTC Comments at 16. See also Coconut Creek Comments at 10; Steel in the Air Comments at 10; West Palm Beach Comments at 10. 701 See, e g, Alexandria et al.Comments at 55;Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 36-37. 702 See,e g.,PCIA and DAS Forum NOI Comments,WC Docket No. 11-59,at 13,47(asserting that the 2009 Declaratory Ruling timeframes have not been applied to DAS projects in some jurisdictions due to the lack of clarity or consensus regarding their applicability). 703 See Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14295 para. 158. 108 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 covered applications.704 Other commenters support the proposal with modifications. Some,for example, argue that the shot clocks apply,but also that the applicable timeline should be adjusted if a single DAS deployment entails more than 10 antenna siting applications, in light of the greater review and processing burden.705 Coconut Creek proposes that we apply a shot clock only when a DAS deployment will support multiple providers,but not where it is designed to support only one.706 Some municipalities disagree with our proposal altogether, arguing that the 2009 Declaratory Ruling timeframes do not apply to DAS or small cells,707 while others assert this issue does not require any additional clarification.701 270. Discussion. We clarify that to the extent DAS or small-cell facilities, including third- party facilities such as neutral host DAS deployments, are or will be used for the provision of personal wireless services,their siting applications are subject to the same presumptively reasonable timeframes that apply to applications related to other personal wireless service facilities. We note that courts have addressed the issue and, consistent with our conclusion,have found that the timeframes apply to DAS and small-cell deployments.709 271. Some commenters argue that the shot clocks should not apply because some providers describe DAS and small-cell deployments as wireline,not wireless, facilities.710 The City of Eugene, Oregon, for example, argues that the Commission should not consider DAS a personal wireless service because one DAS provider has argued that its service is "no different from, and indeed competes directly with,the fiber-based backhaul/private line service provided by Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers."'ll This argument is not persuasive. Determining whether facilities are"personal wireless service facilities" subject to Section 332(c)(7)does not rest on a provider's characterization in another context; rather,the analysis turns simply on whether they are facilities used to provide personal wireless services.72 Based on our review of the record,we find no evidence sufficient to compel the conclusion that the characteristics of DAS and small-cell deployments somehow exclude them from Section 332(c)(7)and the 2009 Declaratory Ruling. For similar reasons,we reject Coconut Creek's argument that the shot clocks should apply only to neutral host deployments. 704 See, e.g., Ca1Wa Comments at 3-4;CTIA Comments at 21-22;CTIA Reply Comments at 12;ExteNet Comments at 4,7;Fibertech Comments at 33-34;Fibertech Reply Comments at 20-21;PCIA Comments at 55-56;PCIA Reply Comments at iii,28; Sprint Comments at 12. 705 See, e.g., Coconut Creek Comments at 10;Steel in the Air Comments at 10;West Palm Beach Comments at 10. See also CA Local Governments Comments at 34(arguing that a 150-day review period is necessary for DAS collocations because antennas will typically be installed on poles that do not,prior to the installation,host any personal wireless service equipment);Fairfax Comments at 27-28(arguing that,due to the number of nodes proposed with many DAS systems and the fact that they are not collocations, 150 days is an appropriate time for processing applications). 706 See Coconut Creek Comments at 10; Steel in the Air Comments at 10;West Palm Beach Comments at 10. 707 See, e.g, Eugene Comments at v, 16-17; San Antonio Comments at v-vi, 18-20; San Antonio Reply Comments at 18-19;see also Tempe Comments at 30(arguing that the shot clock should not apply to DAS and small-cell installations"where the wireless antenna portion will be going on a support structure that does not currently house a wireless facility"). 708 See, e g, Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 39;Fairfax Comments at 27-28. 709 See,e.g,Crown Castle NG East Inc. v Town of Greenburgh,2013 WL 3357169(S.D.N.Y.2013),aff d,552 Fed.Appx.47(2d Cir.2014). 711 See, e g.,Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 38-39;Eugene Comments at v, 16-17; San Antonio Reply Comments at 18-19. 711 Eugene Comments at 16. 712 See, e.g., Alexandria et al.Comments at 58-59;Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 38;CTIA Comments at 21- 22. 109 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 272. Some commenters suggest revising our proposal on the grounds that the unique qualities of DAS and small-cell systems require longer timeframes for municipal review.713 We decline to adjust the timelines as these commenters suggest. We note that the timeframes are presumptive, and we expect applicants and State or local governments to agree to extensions in appropriate cases. Moreover, courts will be positioned to assess the facts of individual cases—including whether the applicable time period "t[ook] into account the nature and scope of[the]request"—in instances where the shot clock expires and the applicant seeks review.714 We also note that DAS and small-cell deployments that involve installation of new poles will trigger the 150-day time period for new construction that many municipal commenters view as reasonable for DAS and small-cell applications.7' Accordingly, we find it unnecessary to modify the presumptive timeframes as they apply to DAS applications. 4. Definition of Collocation 273. Background. In the 2009 Declaratory Ruling,the Commission held that the presumptively reasonable timeframe for review of personal wireless facility siting applications is 90 days for"collocation"applications and 150 days for all other applications.71' It further determined that an application is a request for collocation for purposes of the Section 332(c)(7)shot clock if it seeks authorization to place an antenna on an existing structure and does not involve a"substantial increase in . . . size,"as that phrase is defined in the Collocation Agreement.71' 274. In the Infrastructure NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether to revise the test for a"substantial increase in size"under Section 332(c)(7)and the 2009 Declaratory Ruling to reflect the test we adopt in this Report and Order for a"substantial change in physical dimensions"under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act.718 275. We received a wide array of comments on this question. Some commenters propose that we harmonize the two tests completely,719 others oppose any revisions to the current rule'720 and others suggest some specific revisions. Some, for example, oppose formal harmonization but support a"plain language"approach to defining"collocation,,721 while another supports defining"substantial increase"to include changes to both the collocation site and any associated ground equipment.722 Still others contend that the collocation definition should apply to mounting an antenna on any structure, including utility 713 See, e.g, Alexandria et al Comments at 60;Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 39;CA Local Governments Comments at 34;Coconut Creek Comments at 10;Fairfax Comments at 27-28; Steel in the Air Comments at 10; West Palm Beach Comments at 10. 71`147 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(ii). 715 See, e g., CA Local Governments Comments at 34;Fairfax Comments at 28. 716 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 14012 para.45. 71714 at 14012 para.46. 718 Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14293-94 para. 153. 719 See, e g, AT&T Comments at 28-29; Coconut Creek Comments at 9-10;Fibertech Comments at 34(arguing that if Commission expands the 2009 Declaratory Ruling to collocations on existing base stations, it should adopt the same"substantial change"test as Fibertech proposed for Section 6409(a));PCIA Comments at iii,53-54;Steel in the Air Comments at 9-10;UTC Comments at 16;West Palm Beach Comments at 9-10. 720 See, e.g, MDIT Comments at 7; Springfield Comments at 17. 721 See, e g., CA Local Governments Comments at 30(proposing to define"collocation"as a wireless facility placed at a location shared with an existing wireless tower or other wireless structure);Fairfax Comments at 23-24 (proposing to define"collocation"as an installation of additional antennas on an existing wireless facility that already supports one or existing antennas,with no substantial change in the existing facility's physical dimensions). 722 Tempe Comments at 30. 110 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 poles,723 while another expressly opposes this approach.724 Another proposes to include aggregate limits in the"substantial change"definition to avoid the cumulative impact that can result from successive changes that are individually insignificant.72' 276. Discussion. After reviewing the record,we decline to make any changes or clarifications to the existing standard established in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling for applying the 90-day shot clock for collocations. In particular,we decline to apply the"substantial change"test that we establish in this Report and Order for purposes of Section 6409(a). We observe that Sections 6409(a)and 332(c)(7)serve different purposes,and we accordingly find that the tests for"substantial change"and"substantial increase in size"are appropriately distinct.726 More specifically,the test for a"substantial increase in size"under Section 332(c)(7)affects only the length of time for State or local review,while the test we adopt under Section 6409(a)identifies when a State or municipality must grant an application. This is a meaningful distinction that merits amore demanding standard under Section 6409(a). 277. In further support for this conclusion, we note that while the two statutory provisions overlap in many cases,some collocation applications covered by Section 332(c)(7)do not constitute "eligible facilities requests"for purposes of Section 6409(a). Moreover, as noted above, Section 6409(a) covered requests extend to any"wireless"tower or base station modification,not just"personal wireless service"facilities. Considering that these provisions cover different(though overlapping)pools of applications, it is appropriate to apply them differently. Further,we find no compelling evidence in the record that using the same test for both provisions would provide significant administrative efficiencies or limit confusion,as some have argued.727 We therefore preserve distinct standards under the two provisions. 5. Preferences for Deployments on Municipal Property 278. Background. Some municipalities have established preferences for siting wireless facilities on municipal property.728 PCIA argues that these preferences violate Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I),721 which states that regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities"shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services."730 PCIA contends that preferences for placing wireless facilities on municipal property unreasonably discriminate among providers by limiting the siting flexibility of subsequent wireless entrants in a given area.731 The Infrastructure NPRM sought comment on PCIA's contention.732 723 See, e.g, ExteNet Comments at 6;Fibertech Comments at 34;Fibertech Reply Comments at 20-21;Joint Venture Comments at 8. 724 See Alexandria et al Reply Comments at 38. 721 Pennsauken Reply Comments at 1. 726 MDIT Comments at 7("Maryland believes that there are substantial differences between the parties contemplated in 332(c)(7).. .and 6409(a). .. . As a result,the State believes that the test for`substantial change in physical dimensions' in 6409 should be distinct from the test for`substantial increase in size'under 332."). 727 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 28-29;Coconut Creek Comments at 10;Steel in the Air Comments at 10;West Palm Beach Comments at 10. 728 See,e.g,Seattle Resolution 29344,available at http://clerk.seattle.gov/-archives/Resolutions/Resn 29344.pdf, which allows City facilities to be used for wireless communication facilities.See CCUA et al Comments at 18-19. 721 See PCIA and DAS Forum NOI Comments,WC Docket No. 11-59,at 43-44. 71'47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I). 731 See PCIA and DAS Forum NOI Comments,WC Docket No. 11-59,at 44. 712 See Infrastructure NPP-Vf 28 FCC Rcd at 14295 para. 160. 111 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 279. Most commenters, including many municipal commenters and also some industry commenters, argue that municipal property preferences are not per se unlawful under Section 332(c)(7).733 For example,Fairfax argues that location preferences are not impermissibly discriminatory because they apply equally to all applicants and because there are many valid reasons for such preferences.734 Some commenters agree with Fairfax that the Commission cannot reach aper se conclusion because there are valid reasons for such preferences,735 and others assert that the courts,not the Commission,must decide whether a municipal preference is unreasonably discriminatory on a case- by-case basis.736 Many industry commenters,on the other hand, argue that municipal property preferences are unlawfully discriminatory under Section 332(c)(7)737 and that they violate the statute by effectively prohibiting the provision of wireless services.738 280. Discussion. We find insufficient evidence in the record to make a determination that municipal property preferences are per se unreasonably discriminatory or otherwise unlawful under Section 332(c)(7). To the contrary,most industry and municipal commenters support the conclusion that many such preferences are valid.739 For example,some commenters assert that such preferences are not unlawfully discriminatory as a general matter,but that they can violate Section 332(c)(7) if they effectively"pressure"applicants to use municipal property or are coupled with ordinances making it too onerous to site anywhere else.740 As an example,PCIA describes a situation where a member company had difficulty siting due to a municipal property preference that coupled high municipal lease fees with onerous regulations,making it difficult to site on non-municipal property.741 As PCIA's argument suggests,however, determining whether a particular municipal property preference violates Section 332(c)(7)depends on the specific details of the preference and related requirements.742 We note that available court precedent further supports the conclusion that the validity of preferences is an inquiry best suited to resolution on a case-by-case basis.743 Therefore, consistent with the majority of comments on 733 See, e g, Alexandria et al. Comments at 56-57;Alexandria et al Reply Comments at 40-41;CA Local Governments Comments at 34-35;CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 24-25;Coconut Creek Comments at 10;DC Comments at 23;Eugene Comments at vi,23-24;LOC Comments at 5; Steel in the Air Comments at 10; San Antonio Comments at vii,25-28; San Antonio Reply Comments at 23-25;West Palm Beach Comments at 10. 714 See Fairfax Comments at 26-27(citing diminished visual impact of telecommunication facilities,potential to join publicly managed communication systems with commercial wireless service antennas,greater continuity of telecommunications facilities, improved buffering from adjacent residential uses,and enhanced cell phone service in more remote parts of the County as valid reasons for preferences). 735 See, e.g, Alexandria et al Reply Comments at 41 (asserting municipal preferences encourage wireless deployments by making municipal property available where options may be limited);CA Local Governments Comments at 35(asserting that benefits to municipal preferences include reduced aesthetic impact,fewer land use restrictions,and quicker application approval process);CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 25. 736 See, e.g., Alexandria et al Comments at 56-57;CA Local Governments Comments at 35;CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 24-25;DC Comments at 23. 737 See, e.g., PCIA Reply Comments at iii,28-29,UTC Comments at 17. 738 See, e.g, PCIA Comments at iii,56;see also 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). 739 See, e g, Alexandria et al Comments at 56-57;CA Local Governments Comments at 34-35; CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 24-25; CTIA Comments at 20;DC Comments at 23;PCIA Comments at 56. 740 See, e g, CTIA Comments at 20-21;PCIA Comments at iii,56. 741 See PCIA Comments at 56,n.183. We note that St.Paul,the municipality in question,has challenged PCIA's assertions regarding the preference. See St.Paul Reply Comments at 1. See also NIACTA Reply Comments at 2. 742 See, e g, Alexandria et al Comments at 56-57;CA Local Governments Comments at 35;DC Comments at 23. 743 See, e g, T-Mobile Northeast LLC v Faufax County Bd of Sup'rs,672 F.3d 259(4th Cir.2012) 112 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 this issue,we decline at this time to find municipal property preferences per se unlawful under Section 332(c)(7). 6. Remedies 281. Background. In the 2009 Declaratory Ruling,the Commission considered whether an application should be deemed granted when a State or local government fails to take action before the shot clock expires. The Commission declined to establish this remedy.7' Noting that Section 332(c)(7) expressly establishes a judicial remedy,the Commission concluded that"this provision indicates congressional intent that courts should have the responsibility to fashion appropriate case-specific remedies.s745 The Commission also declined to suggest that a reviewing court should presumptively issue an injunction granting the application,noting that"case law does not establish that an injunction granting the application is always or presumptively appropriate when a`failure to.act' occurs."746 The Commission further noted that in cases where injunctions were granted, courts did so"only after examining all the facts in the case.s747 Although the Commission declined to adopt a presumption that the court should issue an injunction granting the application, it recognized that injunctions granting applications may be appropriate in many cases.711 282. The Infrastructure NPRM noted that some parties have asked the Commission to revisit this issue. In response,the Commission sought comment on whether to adopt remedies beyond the judicial remedy described in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling." 283. Commenters are split on the issue,with industry supporting a deemed granted remedy750 and municipalities opposing the idea.751 Industry generally asserts that a deemed granted remedy is necessary to help ensure that States and localities act within the prescribed timelines,752 and that the Commission has ample authority to adopt such a remedy.753 State and local governments disagree, 744 See 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 14009 para.39. 745 Id 746 Id. 747 Id 748 See id 749 See Infrastructure NPRM,, 28 FCC Rcd at 14296 para. 162. 751 See, e.g, AT&T Comments at 8,30-31;CalWa Comments at 3-4;Ca1Wa Reply Comments at 3-11;Crown Castle Comments at 15-18; CTIA Comments at 19;CTIA Reply Comments at 1-2,8-9;ExteNet Comments at 4; Fibertech Comments at 34-35;Joint Venture Comments at 8;PCIA Comments at iii,56-59;PCIA Reply Comments at iii,26,29-32; Sprint Comments at 12; Sprint Reply Comments at 7-8;UTC Comments at 17;UTC Reply Comments at 6-7. 751 See, e.g., Alexandria et al Comments at 51-53;Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 41-44;CA Local Governments Comments at 35-36;Coconut Creek Comments at 9-11;Cornelius Comments at 5-6;DC Comments at 22;Eugene Comments at v, 18-20;Fairfax Comments at 21-23;Fairfax Reply Comments at 9-10;Happy Valley Comments at 5-6;NATOA et al Reply Comments at 7;Orange Reply Comments at 6;Oregon City Comments at 6; RCRC Comments at 4; San Antonio Comments at vi,20-23;San Antonio Reply Comments at 19-20; Springfield Comments at 19-20;Steel in the Air Comments at 9-11;West Palm Beach Comments at 9-11. 752 See, e g, AT&T Comments at 30-31;Ca1WaReply Comments at 10-11;Crown Castle Comments at 18;CTIA Reply Comments at 8-9;PCIA Comments at 56-57;PCIA Reply Comments at 30-31. 753 See, e g., Crown Castle Comments at 18-19;CTIA Comments at 19-20;CTIA Reply Comments at 9-10;PCIA Comments at 57-58;PCIA Reply Comments at 32. 113 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 arguing that the Commission lacks authority to adopt a deemed granted remedy,754 that the deemed granted remedy raises Constitutional concerns,755 that failures to comply with the shot clock timelines require fact-specific inquiries from courts,71'and that there is no convincing evidence that a deemed granted remedy is warranted.757 284. Discussion. After reviewing the record,we decline to adopt an additional remedy for State or local government failures to act within the presumptively reasonable time limits. We also note that a party pursuing a"failure to act"claim may ask the reviewing court for an injunction granting the application. As the 2009 Declaratory Ruling noted,758 courts have considered,and in many cases granted, such relief.759 Moreover, Congress recognized the importance of expeditious action with regard to the application process and infrastructure deployment,by directing the court to"hear and decide such action on an expedited basis."760 While the propriety of prompt injunctive relief should be a matter for the courts to decide in light of"the specific facts of individual applications,,711 such relief may be appropriate in many cases in light of the balance of equities, including the public interest reflected in the statute of promoting rapid but responsible wireless facility deployment.762 Moreover, in the case of a failure to act within the reasonable timeframes set forth in our rules, and absent some compelling need for additional time to review the application,we believe that it would also be appropriate for the courts to treat such circumstances as significant factors weighing in favor of such relief. 754 See, e g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 51-53;Alexandria et al Reply Comments at 41-44;Eugene Comments at v, 18-20;Fairfax Comments at 21-22;Fairfax Reply Comments at 9-10; San Antonio Comments at vi,20-23;San Antonio Reply Comments at 19. 755 See, e g, Coconut Creek Comments at 10-11; Steel in the Air Comments at 10-11;West Palm Beach Comments at 10-11. 756 See, e.g, Cornelius Comments at 5-6;Happy Valley Comments at 5-6;Mendham Comments at 6;Oregon City Comments at 6. 757 See, e.g,Alexandria et al Reply Comments at 42;CA Local Governments Comments at 36;Fairfax Reply Comments at 8-9;NATOA et al Reply Comments at 7. 758 See 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 14009 para.39. 759 See Cellular Telephone Company v. The Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490,497(2d Cir.1999)(finding that Section 332(c)(7)does not specify a remedy for violations and that a majority of district courts have held that the appropriate remedy is injunctive relief in the form of an order to issue the relevant permits);Bell Atlantic Mobile of Rochester L P. v. Town of Irondequoit,848 F.Supp.2d 391,403 (finding that further municipal review would serve no useful purpose and would cause additional delay in the applicant's ability to provide service,and that a mandatory injunction was therefore an appropriate remedy);Preferred Sites, LLC v Troup County,296 F.3d 1210, 1222(11th Cir.2002)(finding that an injunction ordering a municipality to issue a permit is an appropriate remedy for a violation of Section 332(c)(7));Nat'l Tower, LLC v Plainville Zoning Board of Appeals,297 F.3d 14,21-22 (1st Cir.2002)(finding that an injunction directing a zoning board to authorize construction is the proper remedy for most violations of Section 332(c)(7));Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v.Planning&Zoning Com'n of Town of Wallingford,83 F.Supp.2d 306,312(D.Conn.2000)(finding that remand to board would not be appropriate as that would create further delay,especially in light of the multiple hearings that had already spanned many months). See also Omnipoint Communications MB Operations, LLC v. Town of Lincoln, 107 F.Supp.2d 108, 120-121 (D.Mass. 2000);Masterpage Communications,Inc. v. Town of Olive,418 F.Supp.2d 66,81 (N.D.N.Y.2005). 760 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). 7612009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14009 para.39. 762 See 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 13994 para. 1. 114 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 285. With respect to this Report and Order, a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis(FRFA)is contained in Appendix C. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,the Commission has prepared a FRFA of the expected impact on small entities of the requirements adopted in this Report and Order. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order,including the FRFA,to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. B. Paperwork Reduction Act 286. This Report and Order contains revised information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget(OMB)for review under Section 3507(d)of the PRA. OMB,the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition,we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,Public Law 107-198,see 44 U.S.C.3506(c)(4),we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition,we have described impacts that might affect small businesses, which includes most businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the FRFA in Appendix C, infra. C. Congressional Review Act 287. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act(CRA), see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES 288. ACCORDINGLY,IT IS ORDERED,pursuant to sections 1,2,4(i), 7,201, 301, 303, 309, and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Sections 6003, 6213, and 6409(a)of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub.L.No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156,47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154(1), 157,201, 301, 303,309,332, 1403, 1433, and 1455(a), Section 102(C)of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,as amended,42 U.S.C. § 4332(C), and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 470f, that this Report and Order IS HEREBY ADOPTED. If any section,subsection,paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Report and Order or the rules adopted herein is declared invalid for any reason,the remaining portions of this Report and Order and the rules adopted herein SHALL BE severable from the invalid part and SHALL REMAIN in full force and effect. 289. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Parts 1 and 17 of the Commission's Rules ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B,and that these changes SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, except for Section 1.40001,which SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 90 days after publication in the Federal Register; provided,however,that those rules and requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date. 115 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 290. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and 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. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 116 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 APPENDIX A List of Comments and Replies Comments Short Title Aaron Baker/City of Mesquite,Nevada Mesquite ACUTA-The Association for Information Communications Technology Professionals ACUTA Adirondack Council;Adirondack Mountain Club; Citizen's Campaign for the Environment; The Mohawk Hudson Land Conservancy;New York Public Interest Research Group; Parks and Trails New York. Adirondack Council Adirondack Park Agency APA Alex Hempton/City of San Diego San Diego American Cultural Resources Association ACRA American Public Works Association APWA Arkansas Historic Preservation Program AHPP Association of American Railroads AAR AT&T Services Inc. AT&T Ben Mule Muld Borough of Bloomingdale Bloomingdale California Coastal Commission CCC California Wireless Association CalWA Carolinas Wireless Association CarWA CCUA,RCC,Tacoma, Seattle,King County,CML and AWC CCUA et al. City of Alexandria,Virginia; City of Arlington, Texas; City of Bellevue, Washington; City of Boston, Massachusetts; City of Davis,California; City of Los Angeles,California;Los Angeles County, California; City of McAllen,Texas;Montgomery County, Maryland;City of Ontario, California; Town of Palm Beach,Florida; City of Portland, Oregon; City of Redwood City,California;City of San Jose,California; Village of Scarsdale,New York; City of Tallahassee,Florida;Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues; Georgia Municipal Association; International Municipal Lawyers Association; and American Planning Association Alexandria et al. City of Chicago Chicago City of Coconut Creek Coconut Creek City of Cornelius,OR Cornelius City of Des Moines, Iowa Des Moines City of Eugene,Oregon Eugene City of Happy Valley, OR Happy Valley City of Henderson Henderson City of Huntsville,Alabama Huntsville City of Long Beach Long Beach City of Mount Vernon and Mount Vernon Planning Board Mount Vernon City of Mountlake Terrace Mountlake Terrace City of New York/DoITT NYC City of Oregon City, OR Oregon City City of Portland Portland City of Salem Salem City of San Antonio,Texas San Antonio City of Springfield Springfield City of Tempe,Arizona Tempe 117 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 City of West Palm Beach,FL West Palm Beach Commonwealth of Virginia Department of State Police Virginia DOSP Corey M. Conover/City of Minneapolis Minneapolis County of San Diego Planning&Development Services San Diego San Diego PDS Crown Castle Crown Castle CTIA-The Wireless Association CTIA David Ellertson Ellertson David Lindsay/Society for American Archeology SAA Dennis Michaud Michaud Diana Tang/City of Long Beach Long Beach District of Columbia DC Donald G. Everist Everist EMR Policy Institute EPI Erik Hein-NCSHPO NCSHPO ExteNet Systems, Inc. ExteNet Fairfax County Fairfax Fibertech Networks,LLC Fibertech Intergovernmental Advisory Committee IAC Jefferson County, Colorado Jefferson Jennifer Imo/City of High Point High Point John P. Gallina Gallina John Strand-Strand Consult Strand Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Joint Venture Joseph Saldibar/Colorado State Historic Preservation Office COSHPO Karen Jackson Jackson Kenneth Coppage/Maryland Department of Information Technology MDIT ' League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, and SCAN NATOA CA Local Governments Maja K.Haium/League of Oregon Cities LOC Mark Epstein/Ohio Historic Preservation Office OHPO Mendham Borough Planning Board Mendham Michael R. Schaffert/City of Phoenix Phoenix Missouri Municipal League MM, Naj Wikoff Wikoff NATOA,NACo,NLC, USCM NATOA et al. Nettie Richardson for Lee County Lee New Jersey State League of Municipalities NJSLM New York State Wireless Association NYSWA California Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation CAOHP Padre Dam Municipal Water District Padre Dam Passaic County Planning Board Passaic PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association&The HetNet Forum PCIA Pennsylvania Wireless Association PWA Piedmont Environmental Council PEC Piroschka Glinsky/City of Tucson Tucson Planning Board of the Borough of Haddon Heights,NJ Haddon Heights QUALCOMM Incorporated QUALCOMM Rama Communications, Inc. Rama Riverside County Office of Education RCOE Rural County Representatives of California RCRC Sprint Corporation Sprint Steel in the Air, Inc. Steel in the Air Stephen A.McFadden,M.S. McFadden 118 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Steven Magee Magee Sweetwater Authority Sweetwater Telecommunications Industry Association TIA Towerstream Corporation Towerstream Town of Hillsborough,California Hillsborough Utilities Telecom Council UTC Valley Center Municipal Water District VCMWD Verizon and Verizon Wireless Verizon Wireless Internet Service Providers Association WISPA Reply Comments Short Title American Petroleum Institute API Association of American Railroads AAR AT&T Services Inc. AT&T Borough of Glen Gardner Planning and Zoning Board Glen Gardner Brian Wahler Wahler California Wireless Association Ca1WA CCUA, RCC,Tacoma, Seattle,King County,CML and AWC CCUA et al. Cherry Hill Township,NJ Cherry Hill City of Alexandria,Virginia; City of Arlington,Texas; City of Bellevue, Washington;City of Boston,Massachusetts; City of Davis, California; City of Los Angeles,California;Los Angeles County, California; City of McAllen,Texas;Montgomery County,Maryland;City of Ontario, California; Town of Palm Beach,Florida; City of Portland, Oregon; City of Redwood City, California;City of San Jose, California; Village of Scarsdale,New York; City of Tallahassee,Florida;Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues; Georgia Municipal Association; International Municipal Lawyers Association; and American Planning Association Alexandria et al. City of Eugene,Oregon Eugene City of Mesa,Arizona Mesa City of Saint Paul St. Paul City of San Antonio,Texas San Antonio City of Tempe,Arizona Tempe Coalition of Texas Cities CTC Competitive Carriers Association CCA County of Orange,California Orange Cox Communications,Inc. Cox CTIA-The Wireless Association CTIA District of Columbia DC Eric Alan DelaPena DelaPena Fairfax County,Virginia Fairfax Fibertech Networks,LLC Fibertech League of California Cities,California State Association of Counties, and SCAN NATOA CA Local Governments Minnesota Association of Community Telecommunications Administrators MACTA National Association of Broadcasters NAB National Cable&Telecommunications Association NCTA NATOA,NLC,NACo,USCM NATOA et al. Nina Beety Beety Paul Benoit/City of Astoria Astoria PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association&The HetNet Forum PCIA 119 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Sprint Corporation Sprint State Wireless Association Presidents SWAP T-Mobile USA,Inc. T-Mobile Towerstream Corporation Towerstream Township of Pennsauken Pennsauken Utilities Telecom Council UTC Wireless Internet Service Providers Association WISPA 120 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 APPENDIX B Final Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 C.F.R. Part 1 and Part 17 as follows: PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for Part 1 is amended to read as follows: AUTHORITY: 15 U.S.C. 79, et seq.;47 U.S.C. 151, 154(1), 1540), 155, 157, 160,201,225,227,303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, and 1455. 2. Section 1.1306 is amended by revising NOTE 1 and adding NOTE 4 to read as follows: § 1.1306 Actions which are categorically excluded from environmental processing. NOTE 1: The provisions of§ 1.1307(a)requiring the preparation of EAs do not encompass the mounting of antenna(s)and associated equipment(such as wiring, cabling,cabinets, or backup-power), on or in an existing building, or on an antenna tower or other man-made structure,unless § 1.1307(a)(4)is applicable. Such antennas and associated equipment are subject to § 1.1307(b)and require EAs if their construction would result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable health and safety guidelines cited in§ 1.1307(b). The provisions of§§ 1.13 07(a)and(b)do not encompass the installation of aerial wire or cable over existing aerial corridors of prior or permitted use or the underground installation of wire or cable along existing underground corridors of prior or permitted use, established by the applicant or others. The use of existing structures or corridors is an environmentally desirable alternative to the construction of new facilities and is encouraged. The provisions of§§ 1.1307(a)and(b)do not encompass the construction of new submarine cable systems. NOTE 4: Unless § 1.1307(a)(4)is applicable,the provisions of§ 1.1307(a)requiring the preparation of EAs do not encompass the construction of wireless facilities, including deployments on new or replacement poles, if: 121 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 (a)the facilities will be located in a right-of-way that is designated by a Federal, State, local, or Tribal government for communications towers,above-ground utility transmission or distribution lines, or any associated structures and equipment; (b)the right-of-way is in active use for such designated purposes; and (c)the facilities would not (1)increase the height of the tower or non-tower structure by more than 10%or twenty feet, whichever is greater, over existing support structures that are located in the right-of-way within the vicinity of the proposed construction; (2) involve the installation of more than four new equipment cabinets or more than one new equipment shelter; (3)add an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge of the structure more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the structure at the level of the appurtenance,whichever is greater(except that the deployment may exceed this size limit if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via cable); or (4)involve excavation outside the current site, defined as the area that is within the boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the deployment or that is in proximity to the structure and within the boundaries of the utility easement on which the facility is to be deployed, whichever is more restrictive. Such wireless facilities are subject to § 1.1307(b)and require EAs if their construction would result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable health and safety guidelines cited in § 1.1307(b). 3. Section 1.13 07 is amended by adding a NOTE to paragraph(a)(4)to read as follows: § 1.1307 Actions that may have a significant environmental effect,for which Environmental Assessments(EAs)must be prepared. 122 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 NOTE: The requirements in paragraph(a)(4)of this section do not apply to: (a)The mounting of antennas(including associated equipment such as wiring, cabling, cabinets, or backup-power)on existing utility structures(including utility poles and electric transmission towers in active use by a"utility"as defined in Section 224 of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C. 224,but not including light poles, lamp posts,and other structures whose primary purpose is to provide public lighting)where the deployment meets the following conditions: (1)All antennas that are part of the deployment fit within enclosures(or if the antennas are exposed,within imaginary enclosures)that are individually no more than three cubic feet in volume, and all antennas on the structure, including any pre-existing antennas on the structure, fit within enclosures(or if the antennas are exposed,within imaginary enclosures)that total no more than six cubic feet in volume; (2)All other wireless equipment associated with the structure,including pre-existing enclosures and including equipment on the ground associated with antennas on the structure, are cumulatively no more than seventeen cubic feet in volume, exclusive of (i)Vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services; (ii) Ancillary equipment installed by other entities that is outside of the applicant's ownership or control, and (iii)Comparable equipment from pre-existing wireless deployments on the structure; (3)The deployment will involve no new ground disturbance; and (4)The deployment would otherwise require the preparation of an EA under paragraph(a)(4)of this section solely because of the age of the structure; or (b)The mounting of antennas(including associated equipment such as wiring, cabling, cabinets, or backup-power)on buildings or other non-tower structures where the deployment meets the following conditions: (1)There is an existing antenna on the building or structure; (2)One of the following criteria is met: 123 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 (i)Non-Visible Antennas The new antenna is not visible from any adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces and is added in the same vicinity as a pre-existing antenna; (ii) Visible Replacement Antennas. The new antenna is visible from adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces, provided that(A)it is a replacement for a pre-existing antenna,(B)the new antenna will be located in the same vicinity as the pre-existing antenna,(C)the new antenna will be visible only from adjacent streets and surrounding public spaces that also afford views of the pre-existing antenna, (D)the new antenna is not more than 3 feet larger in height or width(including all protuberances)than the pre- existing antenna, and (E)no new equipment cabinets are visible from the adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces; or (iii) Other Visible Antennas. The new antenna is visible from adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces, provided that(A)it is located in the same vicinity as a pre- existing antenna, (B)the new antenna will be visible only from adjacent streets and surrounding public spaces that also afford views of the pre-existing antenna, (C)the pre- existing antenna was not deployed pursuant to the exclusion in this subsection(§ 1.13 07(a)(4),Note(b)(2)(iii)), (D)the new antenna is not more than three feet larger in height or width(including all protuberances)than the pre-existing antenna, and(E)no new equipment cabinets are visible from the adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces; (3)The new antenna complies with all zoning conditions and historic preservation conditions applicable to existing antennas in the same vicinity that directly mitigate or prevent effects, such as camouflage or concealment requirements; (4)The deployment of the new antenna involves no new ground disturbance; and (5)The deployment would otherwise require the preparation of an EA under paragraph(a)(4)of this section solely because of the age of the structure. For purposes of this Note, a non-visible new antenna is in the"same vicinity" as a pre-existing antenna if it will be collocated on the same rooftop, fagade or other surface. For purposes of this Note, a visible new 124 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 antenna is in the"same vicinity"as a pre-existing antenna if it is on the same rooftop,fagade, or other surface and the centerpoint of the new antenna is within ten feet of the centerpoint of the pre-existing antenna. For purposes of this Note, a deployment causes no new ground disturbance when the depth and width of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth and width by at least two feet. 4. Part 1 is amended by adding Subpart CC as follows: Subpart CC—State and Local Review of Applications for Wireless Service Facility Modification 1.40001 Wireless Facility Modifications (a) Purpose. These rules implement § 6409 of the Spectrum Act(codified at 47 U.S.C. 1455),which requires a State or local government to approve any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station. (b) Definitions. Terms used in this section have the following meanings. (1) Base Station. A structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables Commission-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined in this subpart or any equipment associated with a tower. (i)The term includes, but is not limited to, equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private,broadcast,and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. (ii)The term includes,but is not limited to,radio transceivers, antennas,coaxial or fiber- optic cable,regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment,regardless of technological configuration(including Distributed Antenna Systems and small-cell networks). (iii)The term includes any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the State or local government under this section, supports or houses equipment described in paragraphs(b)(1)(i)-(ii)of this section that has been 125 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process,or under another State or local regulatory review process, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support. (iv)The term does not include any structure that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the State or local government under this section, does not support or house equipment described in paragraphs (b)(1)(i)-(ii)of this section. (2) Collocation. The mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes. (3) Eligible Facilities Request. 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. (4)Eligible Support Structure. Any tower or base station as defined in this section, provided that it is existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the State or local government under this section. (5)Existing. A constructed tower or base station is existing for purposes of this section if it has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process,provided that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is existing for purposes of this definition. (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. 126 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 (7) Substantial Change. A modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of an eligible support structure if it meets any of the following criteria: (i)for towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, it increases the height of the tower by more than 10%or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet,whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it increases the height of the structure by more than 10% or more than ten feet,whichever is greater; (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. (ii)for towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, it involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance,whichever is greater; for other eligible support structures, it involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge of the structure by more than six feet; (iii)for any eligible support structure, it involves installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved,but not to exceed four cabinets; or, for towers in the public rights-of-way and base stations,it involves installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no pre-existing ground cabinets associated with the structure, or else involves installation of ground cabinets that are more than 10%larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure; (iv)it entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site; 127 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 (v) it would defeat the concealment elements of the eligible support structure; or (vi) it does not comply with conditions associated with the siting approval of the construction or modification of the eligible support structure or base station equipment, provided however that this limitation does not apply to any modification that is non- compliant only in a manner that would not exceed the thresholds identified in § 1.4000 1(b)(7)(i)-(iv). (8) Transmission Equipment. Equipment that facilitates transmission for any Commission- licensed or authorized wireless communication service, including, but not limited to,radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power supply. The term includes equipment associated with wireless communications services including, but not limited to, private,broadcast, and public safety services,as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. (9) Tower. Any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any Commission- licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities, including structures that are constructed for wireless communications services including, but not limited to, private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul, and the associated site. (c) Review of Applications. A State or local government may not deny and shall approve any eligible facilities request for modification of an eligible support structure that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such structure. (1) Documentation Requirementfor Review. When an applicant asserts in writing that a request for modification is covered by this section, a State or local government may require the applicant to provide documentation or information only to the extent reasonably related to determining whether the request meets the requirements of this section. A State or local government may not require an applicant to submit any other documentation, including but not limited to documentation intended to illustrate the need for such wireless facilities or to justify the business decision to modify such wireless facilities. 128 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 (2) Timeframe for Review. Within 60 days of the date on which an applicant submits a request seeking approval under this section,the State or local government shall approve the application unless it determines that the application is not covered by this section. (3) Tolling of the Timeframe for Review. The 60-day period begins to run when the application is filed, and may be tolled only by mutual agreement or in cases where the reviewing State or local government determines that the application is incomplete. The timeframe for review is not tolled by a moratorium on the review of applications. (i) To toll the timeframe for incompleteness,the reviewing State or local government must provide written notice to the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the application, clearly and specifically delineating all missing documents or information. Such delineated information is limited to documents or information meeting the standard under paragraph(c)(1)of this section. (ii) The timeframe for review begins running again when the applicant makes a supplemental submission in response to the State or local government's notice of incompleteness. (iii) Following a supplemental submission,the State or local government will have 10 days to notify the applicant that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original notice delineating missing information. The timeframe is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices pursuant to the procedures identified in this paragraph(c)(3). Second or subsequent notices of incompleteness may not specify missing documents or information that were not delineated in the original notice of incompleteness. (4) Failure to Act. In the event the reviewing State or local government fails to approve or deny a request seeking approval under this section within the timeframe for review(accounting for any tolling),the request shall be deemed granted. The deemed grant does not become effective until the applicant notifies the applicable reviewing authority in writing after the review period has expired(accounting for any tolling)that the application has been deemed granted. 129 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 (5) Remedies. Applicants and reviewing authorities may bring claims related to Section 6409(a) to any court of competent jurisdiction. PART 17—CONSTRUCTION,MARKING,AND LIGHTING OF ANTENNA STRUCTURES S. The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs.4,303,48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended;47 U.S.C. 154,303. Interpret or apply secs. 301, 309,48 Stat. 1081, 1085 as amended; 47 U.S.C. 301, 309. 6. Section 17.4 is amended by revising paragraphs(c)(1)(v)and(c)(1)(vi),and adding paragraph (c)(1)(vii)to read as follows: § 17.4 Antenna structure registration. (c) * * * (v)For any other change that does not alter the physical structure,lighting, or geographic location of an existing structure; (vi)For construction, modification, or replacement of an antenna structure on Federal land where another Federal agency has assumed responsibility for evaluating the potentially significant environmental effect of the proposed antenna structure on the quality of the human environment and for invoking any required environmental impact statement process,or for any other structure where another Federal agency has assumed such responsibilities pursuant to a written agreement with the Commission(see §1.1311(e)of this chapter); or (vii) For the construction or deployment of an antenna structure that will (A)be in place for no more than 60 days,(B)requires notice of construction to the FAA, (C)does not require marking or lighting under FAA regulations, (D)will be less than 200 feet in height above ground level, and(E)will either involve no excavation or involve 130 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 excavation only where the depth of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth(excluding footings and other anchoring mechanisms)by at least two feet. An applicant that relies on this exception must wait 30 days after removal of the antenna structure before relying on this exception to deploy another antenna structure covering substantially the same service area. 131 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 APPENDIX C Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended(RFA),'the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the clarifications and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding (Infrastructure NPW.Z The Commission sought writtenpublic comment on the proposals in the In NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. None of the comments filed in the proceeding addressed the IRFA. Because we amend our rules in this Report and Order,we have included this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis(FRFA)which conforms to the RFA.3 To the extent that any statement contained in this FRFA is perceived as creating ambiguity with respect to our rules,or statements made in preceding sections of this Report and Order,the rules and statements set forth in those preceding sections shall be controlling. A. Need for,and Objectives of,the Report and Order 2. In this Report and Order, we take important steps to promote the deployment of wireless infrastructure, recognizing that it is the physical foundation that supports all wireless communications. The Report and Order adopts and clarifies rules in four specific areas in an effort to reduce regulatory obstacles and bring efficiency to wireless facility siting and construction. We do this by eliminating unnecessary reviews,thus reducing the burden on State and local jurisdictions and also on industry, including small businesses. In particular,we update and tailor the manner in which we evaluate the impact of proposed deployments on the environment and historic properties. We also adopt rules to clarify and'implement statutory requirements related to State and local government review of infrastructure siting applications,and we adopt an exemption from our environmental public notification process for towers that are in place for only short periods of time. Taken together,these steps will further facilitate the delivery of more wireless capacity in more locations to consumers throughout the United States. Our actions will expedite the deployment of equipment that does not harm the environment or historic properties, as well as recognize the limits on Federal, State,Tribal,and municipal resources available to review those cases that may adversely affect the environment or historic properties. 3. First,we adopt measures to refine our environmental and historic preservation review processes under NEPA and NHPA to account for new wireless technologies,including physically small facilities like those used in Distributed Antenna System(DAS)networks and small-cell systems that are a fraction of the size of macrocell installations. Among these,we expand an existing categorical exclusion from NEPA review so that it applies not only to collocations on buildings and towers,but also to collocations on other structures like utility poles. We also adopt a new categorical exclusion from NEPA review for some kinds of deployments in utilities or communications rights-of-way. With respect to NEPA,we create new exclusions from Section 106 review to address certain collocations that are currently subject to review only because of the age of the supporting structure. We take these steps to assure that, as we continue to meet our responsibilities under NEPA and NHPA,we also fulfill our 'See 5 U.S.C. §603. The RFA,see 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 See 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,Amendment of Parts 1 and 17 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice Procedures for Processing Antenna Structure Registration Applications for Certain Temporary Towers,2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations,WT Docket Nos. 13-238, 13-32,WC Docket No. 11-59,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,28 FCC Rcd 14238, 14240, 14304-17 App.B (2013)(Infrastructure NPRAI) 3 See 5 U.S.C. § 604. 132 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 obligation under the Communications Act to ensure that rapid, efficient, and affordable radio communications services are available to all Americans.4 4. Second,regarding temporary towers,we adopt a narrow exemption from the Commission's requirement that owners of proposed towers requiring antenna structure registration(ASR) provide 30 days of national and local notice to give members of the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed tower's potential environmental effects. The exemption from notification requirements applies only to proposed temporary towers meeting defined criteria, including limits on the size and duration of the installation,that greatly reduce the likelihood of any significant environmental effects. Allowing licensees to deploy temporary towers meeting these criteria without first having to complete the Commission's environmental notification process will enable them to more effectively respond to emergencies,natural disasters,and'other planned and unplanned short-term spikes in demand without undermining the purposes of the notification process. This exemption will"remove an administrative obstacle to the availability of broadband and other wireless services during major events and unanticipated periods of localized high demand"where expanded or substitute service is needed quickly.' 5. Third,we adopt rules to implement and enforce Section 6409(a)of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012(Spectrum Act).' Section 6409(a)provides, in part,that"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."' By requiring timely approval of eligible requests,Congress intended to advance wireless broadband service for both public safety and commercial users.$ Section 6409(a)includes a number of undefined terms, however,that bear directly on how the provision applies to infrastructure deployments, and the record confirms that there are substantial disputes on a wide range of interpretive issues under the provision. We accordingly adopt rules that clarify many of these terms and enforce their requirements,thus advancing Congress's goal of facilitating rapid deployment. These rules 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 and promoting advanced wireless broadband services. 6. Finally,we clarify issues related to Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act and the Commission's 2009 Declaratory Ruling.' Among other things,we explain when a siting application is 4 47 U.S.C. § 151. 'See Amendment of Parts 1 and 17 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice Procedures for Processing Antenna Structure Registration Applications for Certain Temporary Towers;2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations,RM-11688,WT Docket No. 13-32,Order,28 FCC Rcd 7758 para. 1 (2013) (Waiver Order). 6 See Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,Pub.L.No. 112-96,§6409(a), 126 Stat. 156(2012). We refer hereinafter to the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 as the"Spectrum Act." We note that Section 6409(a)has since been codified in the Communications Act as 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a). However,for consistency with the Infrastructure NPRM,we will continue to refer to it as Section 6409(a). 7 Spectrum Act§6409(a)(1). 'See H.R.Rep. 112-399,at 136(2012)(Conference Report). We note that much of the Conference Report describes provisions in the House or Senate bills,and is not necessarily representative of Congressional intent in passing the Spectrum Act. The portions of the Conference Report that are cited in this Report and Order pertain expressly to the Act as passed. '47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7);Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(b)to Ensure Timely Siting Review&to Preempt Under Section 253 State&Local Ordinances That Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals As Requiring A Variance,WT Docket No.08-165,Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd 13994(2009)(2009 Declaratory Ruling). Because our clarifications of the 2009 Declaratory Riding are themselves merely interpretive rulings,we note that the RFA does not apply to them. See Central Texas Telephone Co-op., Inc. v F.C.C.,402 F.3d 205,211 (2005). Nevertheless,we address them in this analysis. 133 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 complete so as to trigger the presumptively reasonable timeframes for local and State review of siting applications under the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, and how the shot clock timeframes apply to local moratoria and DAS or small-cell facilities. These clarifications will eliminate many disputes-under Section 332(c)(7),provide certainty about timing related to siting applications(including the time at which applicants may seek judicial relief), and preserve State and municipal governments' critical role in the siting application process. 7. Taken together,the actions we take in this Report and Order will enable more rapid deployment of vital wireless facilities, delivering broadband and wireless innovations to consumers across the country. At the same time,they will safeguard the environment,preserve historic properties, protect the interest of Tribal Nations in their ancestral lands and cultural legacies,and address municipalities' concerns over impacts to aesthetics and other local values. B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 8. No commenters directly responded to the IRFA. Some commenters raised issues of particular relevance to small entities, and we address those issues in this FRFA. C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 9. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010,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. 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 Rules Will Apply 10. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and,where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules, if adopted.10 The RFA generally defines the term"small entity"as having the same meaning as the terms"small business," "small organization,"and"small government jurisdiction."" In addition,the term "small business"has the same meaning as the term"small business concern"under the Small Business Act." 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.13 11. The Report and Order adopts rule changes regarding local and Federal regulation of the siting and deployment of communications towers and other wireless facilities. Due to the number and diversity of owners of such infrastructure and other responsible parties, including small entities that are Commission licensees as well as non-licensees, we classify and quantify them in the remainder of this section. 10 5 U.S.C. §603(b)(3). 11 Id.§601(6). 12 Id. §601(3)(incorporating by reference the definition of"small business concern"in 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." 5 U.S.C. § 601(3). 13 15 U.S.C. §632. Application of the statutory criteria of dominance in its field of operation and independence are sometimes difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television. Accordingly,the Commission's statistical account of television stations may be over-inclusive. 134 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 12. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time,affect a variety of small entities. To assist in assessing the Report and Order's effect on these entities,we describe three comprehensive categories—small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions—that encompass entities that could be directly affected by the rules we adopt.14 As of 2010,there were 27.9 million small businesses in the United States, according to the SBA.15 A"small organization"is generally"any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field."16 Nationwide, as of 2007,there were approximately 1,621,315 small organizations.17 Finally,the term"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.,18 Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that there were 89,527 governmental jurisdictions in the United States.19 We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as"small governmental jurisdictions."20 Thus,we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small. 13. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: "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 phone services, paging services,wireless Internet access,and wireless video services."" The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers(except Satellite). In this category,a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.22 For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.13 Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or more.21 14 See 5 U.S.C. §601(3){6). 15 See Small Business Administration,Office of Advocacy,"Frequently Asked Questions,"available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ Sept 2012.pdf. 16 5 U.S.C. §601(4). 17 INDEPENDENT SECTOR,THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC&DESK REFERENCE(2010). is 5 U.S.C. §601(5). 19 U.S.CENSUS BUREAU,STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES:2011,Table 426(2007). 20 The 2007 U.S.Census data for small governmental organizations are not presented based on the size of the population in each such organization.There were 89,476 local governmental organizations in 2007.If we assume that county,municipal,township,and school district organizations are more likely than larger governmental organizations to have populations of 50,000 or less,the total of these organizations is 52,095.As a basis of estimating how many of these 89,476 local government organizations were small,in 2011,we note that there were a total of 715 cities and towns(incorporated places and minor civil divisions)with populations over 50,000. CITY AND TOWN TOTALS:VINTAGE 2011—U.S.Census Bureau,available at http://www.census.izoy/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/index.html. If we subtract the 715 cities and towns that meet or exceed the 50,000 population threshold,we conclude that approximately 88,761 are small. U.S.CENSUS BUREAU,STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES:2011,Tables 426,427(data cited therein are from 2007). 21 U.S.Census Bureau,2012 NAICS Definitions. 517210 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers(except Satellite), http://www.census.gov/cki-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2012. 22 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS code 517210). 23 U.S.Census Bureau,Table No.EC0751SSSZ5,Information-Subject Series-Establishment and Firm Size- Employment Size of firms for the United States. 2007(NAICS code 517210), http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/isf/paces/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN 2007 US 51SSSZ5. 24 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees;the largest category provided is for firms with 1000 employees or more. 135 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 According to Commission data,413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony,including cellular service, PCS,and Specialized Mobile Radio(SMR)telephony services.25 Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.26 Consequently,the Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small. Thus,using available data,we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small. 14. 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.27 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.28 There are a variety of methods used to license the spectrum in these rule parts, from licensing by rule,to conditioning operation on successful completion of a required test,to site-based licensing,to geographic area licensing. Under the RFA,the Commission is required to make a determination of which small entities are directly affected by the rules we adopt. Since all such entities are wireless,we apply the definition of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers(except Satellite),pursuant to which a small entity is defined as employing 1,500 or fewer persons.29 Many of the licensees in these services are individuals, and thus are 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 under an SBA definition that might be directly affected by the Report and Order. 15. Public SafeN Radio Services. Public safety radio services include police,fire, local government,forestry conservation, highway maintenance,and emergency medical services. There are a total of approximately 127,540 licensees within these services. Governmental entities30 as well as private businesses comprise the licensees for these services. All governmental entities in jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 fall within the definition of a small entity.31 16. Private Land Mobile Radio. Private Land Mobile Radio(PLMR)systems serve an essential role in a range of industrial,business, land transportation, and public safety activities. These radios are used by companies of all sizes operating in all U.S.business categories that operate and maintain 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 phone services, paging services,wireless Internet access,and wireless video services.32 The SBA has not developed a definition of small entity specifically applicable to PLMR licensees due to the vast array of PLMR users. However,the Commission believes that the most appropriate classification for 21 See Federal Communications Commission, Trends in Telephone Service(Sep.20 10)at Table 5.3,available at hgp:Hhraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs p6blic/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1 pdf(Trends in Telephone Service). 26 See id. 2'47 C.F.R.Part 90. 28 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 C.F.R. Part 95. 2913 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS Code 517210. 30 47 C.F.R. § 1.1162. s1 5 U.S.C. §601(5)-(6). 32 http://www.census.gov/cai-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search. 136 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 PLMR is Wireless Communications Carriers(except satellite). The size standard for that category is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.33 For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 11,163 establishments that operated for the entire year.34 Of this total, 10,791 establishments had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 372 had employment of 1000 employees or more.35 Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard,the Commission estimates that the majority of PLMR licensees are small entities that may be affected by our action.36 17. Similarly, according to Commission data,413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service, PCS, and SMR telephony services.37 Of these,an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.38 Consequently,the Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small. Thus,using available data,we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small. 18. The Commission's 1994 Annual Report on PLMRs39 indicates that at the end of fiscal year 1994 there were 1,087,267 licensees operating 12,481,989 transmitters in the PLMR bands below 512 MHz. Because any entity engaged in a commercial activity is eligible to hold a PLMR license,the rules we adopt could potentially impact every small business in the United States. 19. Multiple Address Svstems. 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,the Commission defines "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.40 "Very small business" is defined as an entity that,together with its affiliates,has average annual gross revenues of not more than$3 million over the preceding three calendar years.4 1 The SBA has approved these definitions.42 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. 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 indicates that, as 33 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS Code 517210. 34 U.S.Census Bureau,Subject Series:Information,Table 5,"Establishment and Firm Size:Employment Size of Firms for the United States:2007 NAICS Code 517210"(issued Nov.2010). 35 See hgp:Hfactfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN 2007 US 51SSSZ2&prod Type--table. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees;the largest category provided is for firms with"1000 employees or more." 36 See id. 37 See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3. 38 See id. 39 Federal Communications Commission,60th Annual Report,Fiscal Year 1994. 41 See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems,WT Docket No.97-81,Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11956, 12008 para. 123 (2000). 411d. 42 See Letter from Aida Alvarez,Administrator,Small Business Administration,to Thomas Sugrue,Chief,Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,FCC(June 4, 1999). 137 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 of April 16,2010, of the 11,653 total MAS station authorizations, 10,773 authorizations were for private radio service. In addition, an auction for 5,104 MAS licenses in 176 EAs was conducted in 2001.43 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 i 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. 20. With respect to the second category,which 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 applicable definition of small entity in this instance appears to be the"Wireless Telecommunications Carriers(except satellite)"definition under the SBA rules.44 Under that SBA category, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.4' For this category,census data for 2007 show that there were 11,163 establishments that operated for the entire year.46 Of this total, 10,791 establishments had employment of 99 or fewer employees and 372 had employment of 100 employees or more.47 Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard,the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers(except satellite)are small entities that may be affected by our action.48 21. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Broadband Radio Service systems—previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service(MDS)and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service 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)49 In connection with the 1996 BRS auction,the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average annual gross revenues of no more than$40 million over the previous three calendar years.50 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. We previously estimated that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners, based on our review of licensing records,48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 43 See"Multiple Address Systems Spectrum Auction Closes,"Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21011 (2001). 44 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS Code 517210. 45 Id. 46 U.S.Census Bureau,Subject Series: Information,Table 5,"Establishment and Firm Size:Employment Size of Firms for the United States:2007 NAICS Code 517210"(issued Nov.2010). 47 See http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/productviewxhtml?pid=ECN 2007 US 51SSSZ2&prod Type--table. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees;the largest category provided is for firms with"100 employees or more." 48 See id 49 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 3090)of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding,MM Docket No.94-131,PP Docket No.93-253,Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9593 para.7(1995). so 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1)(1996). 138 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 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.51 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's rules or the Commission's rules. In 2009,the Commission conducted Auction 86,which involved the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas.52 The Commission established three small business size standards that were used in Auction 86: (i)an entity with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceeded$15 million and did not exceed$40 million for the preceding three years was considered a small business; (ii)an entity with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceeded$3 million and did not exceed$15 million for the preceding three years was considered a very small business; and(iii)an entity with attributed average annual gross revenues that did not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years was considered an entrepreneur.53 Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses.54 Of the 10 winning bidders,two bidders that claimed small business status won four licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses. We note that, as a general matter,the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. 22. In addition,the SBA's placement of Cable Television Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is applicable to cable-based educational broadcasting services. Since 2007, Wired Telecommunications Carriers have been defined as follows: "This industry comprises 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."55 Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services;wired(cable)audio and video programming distribution;and wired broadband Internet services. Establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.56 The SBA has determined that a business in this category is a small business if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.57 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms in this category that operated for the duration of that year 58 Of those,3,144 had fewer than 1000 employees,and 44 firms had more than 1000 employees. " 47 U.S.C.§3090). Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of Section 3090)of the Communications Act of 1934,47 U.S.C.§3090). For these pre-auction licenses,the applicable standard is SBA's small business size standard of 1500 or fewer employees. sz 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,AU Docket No. 09-56,Public Notice,24 FCC Red 8277(2009). "Id at 8296. 54 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 Red 13572(2009). 55 U.S.Census Bureau,2012 NAICS Definitions:517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers, http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=5171 10&search=2012. 56 Id "See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS code 517110). 58 U.S.Census Bureau,Table No.EC0751SSSZ5,Information Subject Series-Establishment and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the United States: 2007(NAICS code 517110), http•//factfinder2 census.sov/faces/tableservices/isf/oases/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN 2007 US 51SSSZ5. 139 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard,the majority of such firms can be considered small. In addition to Census data,the Commission's Universal Licensing System indicates that as of July 2013,there are 2,236 active EBS licenses. The Commission estimates that of these 2,236 licenses,the majority are held by non-profit educational institutions and school districts,which are by statute defined as small businesses." 23. Location and Monitoring Service aMS). 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 60 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.61 These definitions have been approved by the SBA.62 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. 24. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category"comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public."" The SBA has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: those having$38.5 million or less in annual receipts.64 The 2007 U.S. Census indicates that 2,076 television stations operated in that year. Of that number, 1,515 had annual receipts of$10,000,000 dollars or less, and 561 had annual receipts of more than$10,000,000. Since the Census has no additional classifications on the basis of which to identify the number of stations whose receipts exceeded$38.5 million in that year,the Commission concludes that the majority of television stations were small under the applicable SBA size standard. 25. Apart from the U.S. Census,the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,387.65 In addition, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Advisory Services, LLC's Media Access Pro Television Database on March 28,2012, about 950 of an estimated 1,300 commercial television stations(or approximately 73 percent)had revenues of$14 million or less.66 We therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities. "The term"small entity"within SBREFA applies to small organizations(nonprofits)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). 60 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 C.F.R. §90.1103. 61 Id. 62 See Letter from Aida Alvarez,Administrator,Small Business Administration to Thomas J.Sugrue,Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,FCC(Feb.22, 1999). 63 U.S.Census Bureau,2012 NAICS Definitions,"515120 Television Broadcasting,"at http://www.census.jzov./cgi- bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. 64 13 C.F.R. § 121.201;2012 NAICS code 515120. 65 See Broadcast Station Totals as of Aine 30, 2014,Press Release(MB rel.July 9,2014)("Jany 9, 2014 Broadcast Station Totals Press Release"),at hgps://apps.fcc.gov/edocs public/attachmatch/DOC-328096A1 pdf. 66 We recognize that BIA's estimate differs slightly from the FCC total given supra. 140 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 26. We note,however,that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition,business(control)affiliations67 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, an element of the definition of"small business"is that the 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 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 to that extent. 27. In addition,the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational(NCE)television stations to be 395.68 These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities.69 28. There are also 2,414 LPTV stations, including Class A stations,and 4,046 TV translator stations.70 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. 29. Radio Broadcasting. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small business if it has no more than$35.5 million in annual receipts.71 Business concerns included in this category are those "primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public."72 According to review of the BIA Publications,Inc. Master Access Radio Analyzer Database as of November 26,2013, about 11,331 (or about 99.9 percent)of 11,341 commercial radio stations have revenues of$38.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The Commission notes,however,that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition,revenues from business(control)affiliations73 must be included. This estimate,therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. 30. In addition, an element of the definition of"small business"is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on this basis and therefore may be over-inclusive to that extent. Also, as noted,an additional element of the definition of"small business"is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it can be difficult to assess this criterion in the context of media entities and the estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent. 31. FM translator stations and low power FM stations. The rules and clarifications we adopt could affect licensees of FM translator and booster stations and low power FM(LPFM)stations, as well 67"[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 to power to control both." 13 C.F.R. §21.103(a)(1). 68 See Judy 9, 2014 Broadcast Station Totals Press Release. 69 See,generally,5 U.S.C. §§601(4),(6). 71 See FCC News Release,Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31,2013(rel.January 8,2014), http://transition.fcc.L,ov/Daily Releases/Daily Business/2014/db0108/DOC-325039A1.pdf. 71 13 C.F.R§ 121.201,2012 NAICS code 515112. 72 U.S.Census Bureau,2012 NAICS Definitions-515112 Radio Broadcasting,http://www.census.jzov/cgi- bin/sssd%naics/naicsrch?code=515112&search=2012. 73 See n.14. 141 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 as potential licensees in these radio services. The same SBA definition that applies to radio broadcast licensees would apply to these stations. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than$38.5 million in annual receipts.74 Currently,there are approximately 6,155 licensed FM translator and booster stations and 864 licensed LPFM stations.75 Given the nature of these services,we will presume that all of these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. 32. Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDD3). 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.76 These definitions were approved by the SBA." 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.78 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.79 33. Satellite Telecommunications. Two economic census categories address the satellite industry. Both establish a small business size standard of$32.54 million or less in annual receipts.80 34. The first category, "Satellite Telecommunications,""comprises establishments 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.iS1 Census Bureau data for 2007 show that 607 Satellite Telecommunications establishments operated for that entire year.12 Of this total, 533 had annual receipts of under$10 million,and 74 establishments had receipts of$10 million or more.83 Consequently,the 74 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS Code 515112. 75 See News Release,"Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31,2009"(rel.Feb.26,2010),available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs public/attachmatchMOC-296538A1 pdf269784A1 doc. 76 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,ET Docket No.98-206,Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614,9711 para.252(2002). "See Letter from Hector V.Barreto,Administrator,U.S.Small Business Administration,to Margaret W.Wiener, Chief,Auctions and Industry Analysis Division,Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,FCC(Feb. 13,2002). 78 See"Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Spectrum Auction Closes,"Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 1834(2004). 79 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). 8° 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS Codes 517410,517919. 8' U.S.Census Bureau,2007 NAICS Definition,517410 Satellite Telecommunications. 82 See http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/productviewxhtml?Rid=ECN 2007 US 51SSSZ1&prod Type--table. ss See id. 142 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action. 35. The second category,"All Other Telecommunications,"comprises"establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services,such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry,and radar station operation. 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. Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet protocol(VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry."84 For this category, Census data for 2007 shows that there were a total of 2,639 establishments that operated for the entire year.85 Of those,2,333 operated with annual receipts of less than$10 million and 306 with annual receipts of$10 million or more.86 Consequently,the Commission estimates that a majority of All Other Telecommunications establishments are small entities that might be affected by our action. 36. Non-Licensee Tower Owners. 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 on FCC Form 854.87 Thus,non- licensee tower owners may be subject to the environmental notification requirements associated with ASR registration, and may benefit from the exemption for certain temporary antenna structures that we adopt in the Report and Order. In addition,non-licensee tower owners may be affected by our interpretations of Section 6409(a)of the Spectrum Act or by our revisions to our interpretation of Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act.88 37. As of September 5,2014,the ASR database includes approximately 116,643 registration records reflecting a"Constructed"status and 13,972 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.89 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 we adopt. 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,and that nearly all of these qualify as small businesses under the SBA's definition for"All 14 See http://www.census.gov/c/cs i-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517919&search=2007%20NAICS%2OSearch. 85 See http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN 2007 US 51SSSZ4&prod hVe=table. 86 See id. 87 47 C.F.R. §§ 17.4(a), 17.7(a)-(b). 88 See supra,Sections IV,V. 89 We note,however,that approximately 13,000 towers are registered to 10 cellular carriers with 1,000 or more employees. 143 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Other Telecommunications."90 In addition,there may be other non-licensee owners of other wireless infrastructure, including DAS and small cells,that might be affected by the regulatory measures we adopt. We do not have any basis for estimating the number of such non-licensee owners that are small entities. E. Description of Projected Reporting,Recordkeeping,and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities 38. This Report and Order adopts a narrow exemption from the Commission's requirement that owners of proposed towers requiring ASR registration provide 30 days of national and local notice to give members of the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed tower's potential environmental effects. The exemption from the notice requirements applies only to applicants seeking to register temporary antenna structures meeting certain criteria that greatly reduce the likelihood of any significant environmental effects. Specifically,proposed towers exempted from the Commission's local and national environmental notification requirement are those that(i)will be in use for 60 days or less, (ii)require notice of construction to the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA),(iii)do not require marking or lighting pursuant to FAA regulations, (iv)will be less than 200 feet in height, and(v)will involve minimal or no excavation. 39. As noted above,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 on FCC Form 854.91 An applicant seeking to claim the temporary towers exemption from the environmental notification process must indicate on its FCC Form 854 that it is claiming the exemption for a new, proposed temporary tower and demonstrate that the proposed tower satisfies the applicable criteria.92 While small entities must comply with these requirements in order to take advantage of the exemption, on balance,the relief from compliance with local and national environmental notification requirements provided by the exemption greatly reduces burdens and economic impacts on small entities. 40. The applicant may seek an extension of the exemption from the Commission's local and national environmental notification requirement of up to sixty days through another filing of Form 854, if the applicant can demonstrate that the extension of the exemption period is warranted due to changed circumstances or information that emerged after the exempted tower was deployed. The exemption adopted in this Report and Order is intended specifically for proposed towers that are intended and expected to be deployed for no more than 60 days, and the option to apply for an extension is intended only for cases of unforeseen or changed circumstances or information. Small entities, like all applicants, are expected to seek extensions of the exemption period only rarely and therefore, any burdens or economic impacts incurred by applying for such extensions should be minimal. F. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,and Significant Alternatives Considered 41. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in developing 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)the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and 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 90 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS Code 517919. Under this category,a business is small if it has$30 million or less in annual receipts. 91 47 C.F.R. §§ 17.4(a), 17.7(a)-(b). 92 See 47 C.F.R. § 17.4(c)(vii). 144 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 entities.i93 This FRFA incorporates by reference all discussion in the Report and Order that considers the impact on small entities of the rules adopted by the Commission. In addition,the Commission's consideration of those issues as to which the impact on small entities was specifically discussed in the record is summarized below. 42. The actions taken in this Report and Order encourage and promote the deployment of advanced wireless broadband and other services by tailoring the regulatory review of new wireless network infrastructure consistent with the law and the public interest. We anticipate that the steps taken in this Report and Order will not impose any significant economic impacts on small entities,and will in fact help reduce burdens on small entities by reducing the cost and delay associated with the deployment of such infrastructure. 43. In this Report and Order,the Commission takes action in four major areas relating to the regulation of wireless facility siting and construction. In each area,the rules we adopt and clarifications we make will not increase burdens or costs on small entities. To the contrary, our actions will reduce costs and burdens associated with deploying wireless infrastructure. 44. First,we adopt measures with regard to our NEPA process for review of environmental effects regarding wireless broadband deployment that should reduce existing regulatory costs for small entities that construct or deploy wireless infrastructure, and will not impose any additional costs on such entities. Specifically,we clarify that the existing NEPA categorical exclusion for antenna collocations on buildings and towers includes equipment associated with the antennas(such as wiring, cabling, cabinets, or backup-power), and that it also covers collocations in a building's interior. We also expand the NEPA collocation categorical exclusion to cover collocations on structures other than buildings and towers, and adopt a new NEPA categorical exclusion for deployments, including deployments of new poles, in utility or communications rights-of-way that are in active use for such purposes,where the deployment does not constitute a substantial increase in size over the existing utility or communications uses. We also adopt measures concerning our Section 106 process for review of impact on historic properties. First,we adopt certain exclusions from Section 106 review, and we clarify that the existing exclusions for certain collocations on buildings under the Commission's programmatic agreements extend to collocations inside buildings. These new exclusions and clarifications will reduce environmental compliance costs of small entities by providing that eligible proposed deployments of small wireless facilities do not require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment. 45. Second, we adopt an exemption from the Commission's requirement that ASR applicants must provide local and national environmental notification prior to submitting a completed ASR application for certain temporary antenna structures meeting criteria that makes them unlikely to have significant environmental effects. Specifically,we exempt antenna structures that(1)will be in place for 60 days or less;(2)require notice of construction to the FAA; (3)do not require marking or lighting under FAA regulations; (4)will be less than 200 feet above ground level; and(5)will involve minimal or no ground excavation. This exemption will reduce the burden on wireless broadband providers and other wireless service providers, including small entities. 46. Third,we adopt several rules to clarify and implement the requirements of Section 6409(a)of the Spectrum Act. In interpreting the statutory terms of this provision,such as"wireless tower or base station,""transmission equipment," and"substantially change the physical dimensions,"we generally do not distinguish between large and small entities, as the statute provides no indication that such distinctions were intended, and such distinctions have been proposed. Further,these clarifications will help limit potential ambiguities within the rule and thus reduce the burden associated with complying with this statutory provision, including the burden on small entities. Generally, however,we clarify that Section 6409(a) applies only to State and local governments acting in their regulatory role and does not apply to such entities acting in their proprietary capacities. 9s 5 U.S.C. §603(c). 145 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 47. With regard to the process for reviewing an application under Section 6409(a),we provide that a State or local government may only require applicants to provide documentation that is reasonably related to determining whether the eligible facility request meets the requirements of Section 6409(a)and that,within 60 days from the date of filing(accounting for tolling), a State or local government shall approve an application covered by Section 6409(a). Where a State or local government fails to act on an application covered under Section 6409(a)within the requisite time period,the application is deemed granted. Parties may bring claims under Section 6409(a)to a court of competent jurisdiction. We decline to entertain such disputes in a Commission adjudication, which would impose significant burdens on localities,many of which are small entities with no representation in Washington, D.C. or experience before the Commission. Limiting relief to court adjudication lessens the burden on applicants in general, and small entities specifically. 48. Lastly,we adopt clarifications of our 2009 Declaratory Ruling,which established the time periods after which a State or local government has presumptively failed to act on a facilities siting application"within a reasonable period of time"under Section 332(c)(7)of the Act. Specifically,we clarify that the timeframe begins to run when an application is first submitted, not when it is deemed complete by the reviewing government. Further, a determination of incompleteness tolls the shot clock only if the State or local government provides notice to the applicant in writing within 30 days of the application's submission, specifically delineating all missing information. Following a submission in response to a determination of incompleteness, any subsequent determination that an application remains incomplete must be based solely on the applicant's failure to supply missing information that was identified within the first 30 days. These clarifications will provide greater certainty in the application process and reduce the potential or need for serial requests for more information. Accordingly,these clarifications will facilitate faster application processing,reduce unreasonable delay, and reduce the burden on regulated entities, including small businesses. 49. We also clarify that to the extent DAS or small-cell facilities, including third-party facilities such as neutral host DAS deployments, are or will be used for the provision of personal wireless services,their siting applications are subject to the same presumptively reasonable timeframes that apply to applications related to other personal wireless service facilities under Section 332(c)(7). We clarify further that the presumptively reasonable timeframes run regardless of any applicable moratoria, and that municipal property preferences are not per se unreasonably discriminatory or otherwise unlawful under Section 332(c)(7). Finally,we conclude that the explicit remedies under Section 332(c)(7)preclude adoption of a deemed granted remedy for failures to act. These clarifications reduce confusion and delay within the siting process which in turn reduces the burden on industry and State and local jurisdictions alike, which may include small entities. G. Federal Rules that Might Duplicate, Overlap,or Conflict with the Rules 50. None. H. Report to Congress 51. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA(or summaries thereof)will also be published in the Federal Register. I. Report to Small Business Administration 52. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center,will send a copy of this Report and Order, including this FRFA,to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. 146 F6deral Communications Commission FCC 14-153 STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER Re: In the Matter ofAcceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, WT Docket No. 13-238;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, WC Docket No. I1-59;2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations, WT Docket No. 13-32. Last month's record-setting launch of the new iPhone is just the latest reminder that our appetite for new mobile technologies appears to be insatiable. Mobile innovation is not only delighting U.S. consumers,it's a major force in driving economic growth,boosting U.S. competitiveness,and enabling solutions to challenges like education and health care. As the demand for wireless technologies increases, so does the need for greater coverage and wireless network capacity. According to recent reports from the wireless industry,wireless data consumption has grown 732 percent since 2010. And Cisco forecasts that global mobile data traffic will increase 11-fold between 2013 and 2018. The Commission has been hard at work to make more licensed and unlicensed spectrum available to keep up with the growing demand. But making more spectrum available for broadband is just part of the Commission's wireless agenda. High-speed mobile broadband also requires high-speed broadband buildout. However,the regulatory burdens associated with deployments can be expensive and time-consuming. This Order takes concrete steps to immediately and substantially ease those burdens. The Order recognizes that a technological revolution with regard to infrastructure deployment has changed the landscape. The current rules for deploying infrastructure were drafted at a time when antennas were huge and bolted to the top of enormous towers that were designed and built for the purpose of supporting those big antennas. Today, new Distributed Antenna System(DAS)networks and other small-cell systems use components that are a fraction of the size and can be installed—unobtrusively—on utility poles, buildings, and other existing structures. The Order we adopt today accounts for that change by crafting a more efficient process for small deployments and other installations that do not trigger concerns about environmental protection or historic preservation. The Order also implements federal statutory directives that are intended to make State and local review more efficient for wireless deployments and modifications. At the same time,the Order preserves our commitment to safeguard the essential roles that State, local, and Tribal governments play in this process. For instance,the Order preserves local governments' authority to adopt and apply the zoning, safety, and concealment requirements that are appropriate for their communities. 147 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Taken together,the rules we adopt today lay the groundwork for delivering more wireless capacity in more locations to consumers throughout the United States—while staying true to our statutory obligations to protect the environment and historic properties, and with sufficient safeguards to protect local land-use priorities as well as safety and aesthetic interests. This Order builds on previous Commission efforts to make the regulatory approval processes for wireless infrastructure more efficient and effective. In August,we substantially reformed tower lighting and marking requirements,which greatly eased compliance burdens for tower owners without any adverse impact on aviation safety. And we have already started additional discussions with government and non-governmental stakeholders to further facilitate review processes and encourage collocations on existing towers. In particular,we intend to further tailor our historic preservation review process by working with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation(ACHP)to implement broader fast-track federal reviews for small-scale wireless deployments. Thank you to the Wireless Bureau for your continued dedication to promoting broadband infrastructure deployment. 148 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN Re: In the Matter ofAcceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, WT Docket No. 13-238,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, WC Docket No. 11-59;2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations, WT Docket No. 13-32. When considering how best to help wireless companies meet the explosive consumer demand for mobile services, the FCC focuses a lot on its upcoming AWS-3 and incentive auctions. The reality is that, in order to meet our ever growing communications needs, carriers cannot just acquire spectrum. They must also deploy that spectrum using a hardened,robust mobile infrastructure,which includes antennas and base stations. Too often,the process of obtaining the necessary approvals from federal,state, and local governments to deploy can be both expensive and time-consuming. Today's Order seeks to address these shortcomings by bringing about more efficiency to the process of approving wireless facilities. Since 1974,the FCC's environmental and historical review procedures have excluded collocations of antennas from most of the requirements,recognizing the benefits of using existing structures over constructing new ones. Today, in order to facilitate faster deployment of wireless infrastructure,we expand that categorical exclusion to include: equipment associated with the antennas(such as wires,cables, and backup-power equipment), utility poles and electric transmission towers that meet certain conditions, and collocations within a building. We also adopt a 60-day period of review, before a collocation application can be deemed granted,pursuant to Section 6409(a)of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. I was able to support this time period for two reasons. First,my colleagues agreed to move the effective date for the rules adopted here, from 30 days to 90 days after Federal Register publication. Second, last night, CTIA and PCIA agreed to make a number of commitments that could help resource constrained municipalities,transition to the new streamlined rules we are adopting today. Specifically,those associations will work in good faith towards the following goals: Informing resource-constrained municipalities of best practices,used by other jurisdictions that are able to review and approve applications in fewer than 60 days; Providing webinars and contacts to provide education and assistance,to these municipalities regarding the application process; Providing assistance in drafting a model ordinance and application, for reviewing eligible facilities requests under Section 6409(a); and Creating a checklist,that local government officials can use,to help streamline review processes. I commend those organizations for making those commitments. By making these changes to our rules,we anticipate spurring greater deployment of new technologies, such as small cells and Distributed Antenna Systems,which multiply wireless capacity within existing spectrum resources. For example, deploying ten small cells in a coverage area that can be served by a single macrocell could result in a tenfold increase in capacity. Small cells can also be deployed relatively easily on utility poles, street lamps,water towers, or rooftops--a big reason why they are becoming so popular. We also adopt an exemption from the rule,that tower owners must give the public 30 days' notice to comment on a proposed tower's potential effects to the environment and to historic sites. This exemption 149 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 applies only to proposed temporary towers that meet certain criteria. Specifically,those towers must be in use for 60 days or less;be shorter than 200 feet in height; involve minimal or no excavation; and not require FAA marking or lighting. This exemption will allow communications companies,to respond more effectively to emergencies, and other planned and unplanned short-term spikes in demand. Finally, I wish to thank Roger Sherman, Chad Breckinridge,Patty Robbins,Peter Trachtenberg, Won Kim,Mania Baghdadi, and Michael Smith as well as my wireless legal advisor Louis Peraertz for providing us with such an excellent item. 150 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL Re: In the Matter ofAcceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, WT Docket No. 13-238,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, WC Docket No. 11-59;2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations, WT Docket No. 13-32. If you want a wireless revolution,you need an evolution—in infrastructure. Mindful of this truth, today the Commission significantly evolves its policies for wireless facilities siting. That means we streamline many aspects of our tower siting rules to help encourage the deployment of wireless infrastructure. But what we do goes well beyond traditional towers. That's because the rules we put in place today are our first steps to encourage deployment of infrastructure that is absolutely critical for the next generation of wireless service-5G. This is a good thing. Because the race to 5G is on. And in the next generation of wireless networks, traffic will change. We will see more data traveling wirelessly than ever before—between people, between people and machines,and between machines themselves. To accommodate all of this traffic, we will need to look anew at spectrum that is way,way up there—well beyond our traditional 3 GHz boundary for mobile broadband. But the physics of these far-off frequencies are different. They have smaller waves,multiplying our need for antenna systems. That means we need different infrastructure here on the ground. That means exploring new technologies like massive multiple-input,multiple output antenna arrays and hetnets that could change how we think about network topology. That means we need to start with new policies to support deployment of Distributed Antenna Systems and small cells. That is a critical part of what we do here today—and I am pleased to support it. Some revolutions begin with a bang—but this one starts with the heavy lift of hard work. So thank you to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau for your efforts to evolve our wireless siting policies and for your commitment to support infrastructure deployment—both in this generation of technology and the next. 151 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI Re: In the Matter ofAcceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, WT Docket No. 13-238;Acceleration of Broadband Deployment.Expanding the Reach and Reducing the Cost of Broadband Deployment by Improving Policies Regarding Public Rights of Wi1v and Wireless Facilities Siting, WC Docket No. 11-59;2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations, WT Docket No. 13-32. Removing barriers to wireless infrastructure deployment has been one of my top priorities since joining the Commission. Two years ago,I laid out a plan to do just that. It called on the Commission to modernize our environmental and historic preservation rules by exempting most distributed antenna systems(DAS) and small cell technologies, curb local moratoria on the approval of new infrastructure, and make clear that our shot-clock rules apply to DAS and small cells.' Five months ago, I reiterated those proposals and urged the Commission to adopt a deemed-granted remedy for violations of section 6409 of the Spectrum Act and objective standards for determining the types of modifications that qualify for treatment under that section.z Now, I'll be the first to admit that infrastructure isn't always the most glamorous issue. Discussing categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act isn't as exciting as thinking about multi-billion dollar spectrum auctions. But wireless infrastructure is just as important as spectrum. Consider one figure: $35 billion. That's how much,on average,wireless operators are expected to invest on an annual basis in mobile broadband infrastructure.' That translates into hundreds of towers, thousands of base stations,and a vast network of microcells,picocells, and DAS. And with today's Order,we're going to stretch those dollars farther. That will mean broader coverage,greater capacity, and ultimately better wireless broadband services for consumers. It's a simple relationship,really. Lower costs mean greater deployment. But for far too long and in far too many places, a web of municipal, state, and federal regulations has entangled those trying to build infrastructure. Delays,needless paperwork, and moratoria all mean higher costs and accordingly less deployment. Additionally,many of these regulations ignore the realities of modern wireless technology, so some places apply the rules for constructing a 200-foot tower to swapping out a 3G antenna for a 4G one. That disserves the public interest. And if left in place,rules like this could delay the use of the AWS-3 and 600 MHz spectrum we'll soon be auctioning off and slow the build-out of FirstNet. That's why I'm pleased we're removing some of these barriers today, and I'm grateful that the Order includes many of my initial proposals. For example,the Order amends our environmental and historic preservation rules to make it easier to deploy small cells and collocate antennas on existing structures. The Order also makes it clear that our shot-clock rules apply to small cells and DAS and that local moratoria cannot be used to make an end run around those rules. And it adopts a bright-line test for determining which equipment modifications qualify for section 6409's deemed-grant remedy and makes clear that an applicant can start building on day 61 if a municipality doesn't act on its application. ' See Remarks of Commissioner Ajit Pai at CTIA's MobileCon(2012),http://go.usa.gov/wMG9. 2 See Remarks of Commissioner Ajit Pai at PCIA's 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Show(2014), https://apps.fcc gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-327172A1.pdf. 'Alan Pearce,Ph.D.,J.Richard Carlson,MBA,Michael Pagano,Ph.D., Wireless Broadband Infrastructure-A Catalyst For GDP And Job Growth 2013-2017(Sept.2013). 152 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 These are no small changes. American consumers stand to benefit in a big way. Today's Order will make it easier for carriers both large and small to maintain, upgrade, and expand their coverage and capacity. I would also like to thank my colleagues for agreeing to accept some of my suggested changes that have improved the item. For example,the Order now provides greater relief to those seeking to deploy small-scale technology by expanding the permitted size of collocations that qualify under the categorical exclusions we adopt today. Similarly,the Order now provides that cabling and other non-telecom equipment do not count against providers when they collocate on a utility structure. And I appreciate the Order's discussion of the benefit of injunctive relief in cases where localities don't comply with the Commission's shot clock. I also would like to thank Commissioner O'Rielly in particular for the important role he played in securing other positive changes to the item. Critically,the actions we take today lie well within our statutory authority. For example, in both section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act and section 6409 of the Spectrum Act, Congress has clearly and specifically granted the Commission the power to remove barriers to wireless infrastructure deployment. Moving forward,there is more to be done. In 18 to 24 months—but I hope sooner—we'll have a new programmatic agreement that will further streamline the process for deploying small cell technologies. And once we have some experience in the field with a deemed-granted remedy for infrastructure deployment,I hope we consider extending that remedy to our section 332 shot clock. But this does not obscure the fact that today's Order is a solid step in the right direction. Finally,I would like to thank the FCC's talented staff for all of their hard work on this item,most especially:Mania Baghdadi, Chad Breckinridge, Saurbh Chhabra,Monica DeLong, Stephen Delsordo, Jennifer Flynn, Ivy Harris,David Horowitz,Don Johnson,Aliza Katz,Won Kim,Lee Martin, Sade Oshinubi, Bill Richardson,Patty Robbins,Roger Sherman, Michael Smith,Jeff Steinberg,Joel Taubenblatt,Peter Trachtenberg,and Morasha Younger. I also want to acknowledge the dedicated efforts that PCIA, CTIA, and many players in the infrastructure industry have made to bring these issues to the fore. Finding ways to make it easier to deploy wireless infrastructure is not the easiest of tasks,but it is essential so that all Americans can enjoy the benefits of wireless broadband. 153 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O'RIELLY Re: In the Matter of Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, WT Docket No. 13-238;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, WC Docket No. 11-59,2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations, WT Docket No. 13-32. I am very pleased to support the item before us to facilitate the deployment of wireless infrastructure. It is disappointing, however,that we had to go to such great lengths to get where we are today. But that is not a slight on the Chairman or the Commission. By way of background, section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was designed to ensure a thoughtful process to deal with disagreements between local and state governments and wireless communications providers.' Many weeks of negotiations between interested parties resulted in a statutory provision that many thought provided a reasonable compromise and outcome. It balanced the market demands of wireless companies—and their then predominately voice consumers—with the interests of localities. Unfortunately, as soon as the ink was dry on the Telecom Act, some state and local governments went to work to undermine, and in some cases, completely ignore the siting provisions in the statute. The same entities that previously struck a deal continued to impede the placement of wireless towers in their jurisdictions. We saw some impose siting moratoria, claiming that such restrictions were not a violation of the statute. We saw certain localities stretch out zoning meetings for months, require excessive documentation, intentionally delay decisions, fail to provide written rejections based on the facts, and generally do everything possible to maintain barriers to siting. And the scope of the blocking did not just focus on larger or new towers; it also extended to adjustments or additions of antennas to existing towers. I have observed years of court filings and cases containing weak arguments as to why action on a particular siting application was unnecessary or not required. On point,the Supreme Court is expected to soon consider what qualifies as"in writing"under the statute and the timing for providing the reasons for denying an application.' Is it really too much to ask for a locality to provide written justification for denying an application at the same time it provides the reasons for denying the application? Or for a locality to spell out the exact reasons for a denial? Must an applicant get a denial one day and be forced to fish through a record issued on another to find the reasons? Of course not. Such disruptive practices did not go unnoticed. After years of excuses, Congress acted as part of what is commonly referred to as the Spectrum Act? The provisions of the law,which we act upon today, provide extensive responses to lessons learned from the practices of certain state and local governments. The overall message delivered was the gig is up. Congress provided what I believed to be very clear direction to remove barriers to the siting, installation and modification process. The benefits of today's item will be great, and our action is essential to the development of the future of wireless communications. As wireless data continues to grow annually at a furious pace,'more ' Telecommunications Act of 1996§704,47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7). 2 T-Mobile South,LLC v.City of Roswell,731 F.3d 1213 (11`h Cir.2013),cert. granted 134 S.Ct.2136(2014). 3 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012§6409(a),47 U.S.C.§ 1455. 'One wireless provider calculated its mobile data traffic growth at 30,000 percent between 2006 and 2012. HetNet Forum Seminar Presentation, Small Cell Acceleration,at 21 (July 29,2013),http://www.thedasforum.org/wp- (continued....) 154 Q0.+ Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 wireless infrastructure is needed to carry such traffic and deploy new wireless services.By removing specific practices that are unnecessary obstacles, simplifying numerous provisions in our rules and f providing clarity on exactly how the Commission will implement the statutory provisions,we set the stage for an easier wireless antenna siting process. This will facilitate the hundreds of thousands of sitings in the future and greatly expand wireless service capacity and coverage. To put this in perspective, comments in the record by PCIA suggest that one provider is in the process of trying to deploy 10,000 new macro-cells,40,000 small cells and 1,000 distributed antenna systems(DAS).' Our action today is especially important for unlicensed spectrum use, and small cell and DAS siting. I have been promoting more unlicensed spectrum allocations in a number of spectrum bands. Licensed spectrum networks unload a large portion of traffic onto unlicensed networks,which also must receive approvals to place equipment. Small cell and DAS deployments are also crucial because they can expand capacity and coverage of existing wireless networks. The growth of unlicensed use and small cells means more wireless infrastructure is going to be needed. Simply put,we are going to need more towers and more antennas, and fewer legal obstacles by state and local governments. More importantly, we need to keep in mind the types of wireless communications that can be aided by our action. As we know from other proceedings,today's wireless devices are used to communicate in times of emergency,keep in touch with friends and families, expand broadband options for an array of people,among other purposes. The Commission must remain focused on the needs of the American consumer. Lastly, let me be clear that I see a great deal of difference between the action we take today and the effort to override state and local protections on municipal-owned and operated networks. The most important distinction is that Congress spoke directly to wireless infrastructure but not to muni-broadband. Over the years,there have been numerous efforts in Congress to address the muni-broadband issue,but those efforts were never enacted. I thank the Chairman for moving this item and incorporating many of my edits and the staff for all of their hard work. (Continued from previous page) content/uploads/2013/07/HetNet-Forum-Small-Cell-Acceleration-Seminar-Presentations.pdf,cited in Comments of PCIA—The Wireless Infrastructure Association and the HetNet Forum,WT Docket No. 13-238,at 3 n.7(Feb.3, 2014)("Comments of PCIA"). Mobile data traffic in the U.S.in 2013 was 51 times the amount in 2008.`"See Cisco, VNI Mobile Forecast Highlights, 2013-2018, United States—2013 Year in Review, http://www.cisco.com/assets/sol/sp/vni/forecast_highlights—mobile/index.html#--Country(filtering by United States and 2013 Year in Review)(last visited Oct. 16,2014). Annual wireless data usage more than doubled between 2012 and 2013 from approximately 1.47 trillion Megabytes to 3.23 trillion Megabytes. CTIA-The Wireless Association, Your Wireless Life,Annual Wireless Industry Survey,http://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/how-wireless- works/annual-wireless-industry-survey(last visited Oct. 16,2014). s Comments of PCIA at 3. 155 c � REFERENCE COPY This is not an official FCC license.It is a record of public information contained in the FCC's licensing database on the date that this reference copy was generated.In cases where FCC rules require the presentation,posting,or display of an FCC license,this document may not be used in place of an official FCC license. �COWA Federal Communications Commission Wireless Telecommunications Bureau LL /ftr - RADIO STATION AUTHORIZATION LICENSEE:NEW Y6 K TELEPHONE COMPANY Call Sign ATTN:E A HELL ANS WFY631 NEW YORK TELEPHONE, 0 File Number 395 FLATBUSH AVE EXIT RM 5 BROOKLYN,NY 11201 Radio Service CF-Common Carrier Fixed Point to Point Microwave SMSA Station Class FCC Registration Number(FRN):00 346944 Grant Date Effeef ive D1afeYY Expiration Date Print Date 08-29-1990 08- 9; 990 / 08-01-2000 LOCATION Fixed Location Address or Area of Operation: 689 MAIN STREET City:CUTCHOGUE County:SUFFOLK State:NY Antenna Structure Loc No. Location Name Latitude 'otue Elevation Registration No. 001 CUTCHOGUE 41-01-05.3 N O', -28-53.3-W 9.1 002 WEST RVHD 40-53-07.3 N 072-41-313 W 61.0 003 NOYACK 40-58-11.3 N 072-20 1�7 2 77.1 FREQUENCY PA FILLS Frequency Tol Emission EIRP Constr Path Seg Emit Ant Hgt Gain-'B am POL AZIM Ree Rec (MHz) (%) Desig (dBm) Date No Loc (m) Ai�(deg) (deg) Loc Call No Reflector No Sign H`m)xWd( 11365.0 0.00500 20MOF7W 79.500 001 1 001 21.3 65'--08 V 115.2 003 WFY693 11445.0 0.00500 20MOF7W 79.500 001 1 001 21.3 46.5'---08 V-,,,, 115.2 003 WFY693 11245.0 0.00500 20MOF7W 82.000 002 1 001 25.9 49.0 0. CV 30.4 002 KEM20 11325.0 0.00500 20MOF7W 82.000 002 1 001 25.9 49.0 0. 230.4 002 KEM20 11405.0 0.00500 20MOF7W 82.000 002 1 001 25.9 49.0 0.6\ 23 :4 002 KEM20 11565.0 0.00500 20MOF7W 82.000 002 1 001 25.9 49.0 0.6 `�V 300-4 02 KEM20 Conditions: Pursuant to§309(h)of the Communications Act of 1934,as amended,47 U.S.C. §309(h),this license tssubjecto he following conditions: This license shall not vest in the licensee any right to operate the station nor any right int a use of the frequencies designated in the license beyond the term thereof nor in any other manner than authorized heTcatio in.�Ne}ther-th` , license nor the right granted thereunder shall be assigned or otherwise transferred in violation of the CoQunts-Act��of 1934,as amended. See 47 U.S.C. §310(d). This license is subject in terms to the right of use or control conferred by §706 of the Communications Act of 1934,as amended. See 47 U.S.C. §606. FCC 601-M Page 1 of 2 August 2007 Licensee Name: NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY Call Sign:WFY631 File Number: Print Date: Frequency Tol �e�Emission EIRP Constr Path Seg Emit Ant Hgt Gain Beam POL AZIM Rec Rec (MHz) (%), Desig (dBm) Date No Loc (m) (dBi) (deg) (deg) Loc Call No Reflector No Sign Ht(m)xWd(m) 11645.0 0. 0 00F7W 82.000 002 1 001 25.9 49.0 0.6 V 230.4 002 KEM20 11605.0 0 0500 20 OF7W 79.500 003 1 001 21.3 46.5 0.8 H 115.2 003 WFY693 Waivers/Conditions: NONE l FCC 601-M Page 2 of 2 August 2007 § 1455.Wireless facilities deployment,47 USCA§ 1455 PKeyCite Yellow Flag-Negative Treatment Proposed Legislation United States Code Annotated Title 47.Telecommunications(Refsr,&Annos) Chapter 13.Public Safety Communications and Electromagnetic Spectrum Auctions Subchapter IV.Spectrum Auction Authority 47 U.S.C.A.§1455 § 1455•Wireless facilities deployment Effective:February 22,2012 Currentness (a)Facility modifications (1)In general Notwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-104)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. (2)Eligible facilities request For purposes of this subsection, the term "eligible facilities request" means any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves-- (A)collocation of new transmission equipment; (B)removal of transmission equipment;or (C)replacement of transmission equipment. (3)Applicability of environmental laws dWESTLAW ©2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 §1455.Wireless facilities deployment,47 USCA§1455 Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to relieve the Commission from the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. (b)Federal easements and rights-of-way (1)Grant If an executive agency, a State, a political subdivision or agency of a State, or a person, firm, or organization applies for the grant of an easement or right-of-way to,in,over, or on a building or other property owned by the Federal Government for the right to install, construct, and maintain wireless service antenna structures and equipment and backhaul transmission equipment,the executive agency having control of the building or other property may grant to the applicant, on behalf of the Federal Government, an easement or right-of-way to perform such installation, construction, and maintenance. (2)Application The Administrator of General Services shall develop a common form for applications for easements and rights-of-way under paragraph (1) for all executive agencies that shall be used by applicants with respect to the buildings or other property of each such agency. (3)Fee (A)In general Notwithstanding any,other provision of law,the Administrator of General Services shall establish a fee for the grant of an easement or right-of-way pursuant to paragraph(1)that is based on direct cost recovery. (B)Exceptions The Administrator of General Services may establish exceptions to the fee amount required under subparagraph(A)-- (i)in consideration of the public benefit provided by a grant of an easement or right-of-way;and (ii)in the interest of expanding wireless and broadband coverage. WESTLAW ©2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 §1455.Wireless facilities deployment,47 USCA§1455 (4)Use of fees collected Any fee amounts collected by an executive agency pursuant to paragraph (3) may be made available, as provided in appropriations Acts,to such agency to cover the costs of granting the easement or right-of-way. (c)Master contracts for wireless facility sitings (1)In general Notwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 or any other provision of law, and not later than 60 days after February 22,2012,the Administrator of General Services shall-- (A) develop 1 or more master contracts that shall govern the placement of wireless service antenna structures on buildings and other property owned by the Federal Government;and (B)in developing the master contract or contracts,standardize the treatment of the placement of wireless service antenna structures on building rooftops or facades, the placement of wireless service antenna equipment on rooftops or inside buildings, the technology used in connection with wireless service antenna structures or equipment placed on Federal buildings and other property,and any other key issues the Administrator of General Services considers appropriate. (2)Applicability The master contract or contracts developed by the Administrator of General Services under paragraph(1)shall apply to all publicly accessible buildings and other property owned by the Federal Government, unless the Administrator of General Services decides that issues with respect to the siting of a wireless service antenna structure on a specific building or other property warrant nonstandard treatment of such building or other property. (3)Application The Administrator of General Services shall develop a common form or set of forms for wireless service antenna structure siting applications under this subsection for all executive agencies that shall be used by applicants with respect to the buildings and other property of each such agency. (d)Executive agency defined %VESTLAW ©2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 §1455.Wireless facilities deployment,47 USCA§1455 In this section,the term"executive agency"has the meaning given such term in section 102 of Title 40. CREDITS) (Pub.L. 112-96,Title VI,§ 6409,Feb.22,2012, 126 Stat.232.) Notes of Decisions(4) 47 U.S.C.A. § 1455,47 USCA§ 1455 Current through P.L. 115-61.Also includes P.L. 115-63 to 115-68.Title 26 current through P.L. 115-68. End of Document ©2017 Thomson Reuteis No claim to original U.S Government Works WESTLAW ©2017 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S Government Works. 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington,D.C.20554 In the Matter of ) Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by ) WT Docket No. 13-238 Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies ) Acceleration of Broadband Deployment: ) WC Docket No. 11-59 Expanding the Reach and Reducing the Cost of ) Broadband Deployment by Improving Policies ) Regarding Public Rights of Way and Wireless ) L Facilities Siting, ) 2012 Biennial Review of ) WT Docket No. 13-32 Telecommunications Regulations ) REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: October 17,2014 Released: October 21,2014 By the Commission: Chairman Wheeler and Commissioners Clybum,Rosenworcel,Pai,and O'Rielly issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph# I. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................1 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. 18 III. NEPA AND NHPA REVIEW OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES..............................................23 A. Description of DAS, Small Cells,and Other Small Wireless Technologies.................................29 B. NEPA Categorical Exclusions.......................................................................................................35 1. Regulatory Background...........................................................................................................35 2. Antennas Mounted on Existing Buildings and Towers...........................................................39 a. Clarification of"Antenna"................................................................................................39 b. Antennas Mounted in the Interior of Buildings................................................................46 c. Antennas Mounted on Other Structures............................................................................50 3. Categorical Exclusion of Deployments in Communications or Utilities Rights-of-Way........57 C. NHPA Exclusions..........................................................................................................................70 1. Regulatory Background...........................................................................................................70 2. New Exclusions.......................................................................................................................76 a. Collocations on Utility Structures.....................................................................................90 b. Collocations on Buildings and Other Non-tower Structures............................................96 3. Antennas Mounted in the Interior of Buildings..................................................................... 104 IV. ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION EXEMPTION FOR REGISTRATION OF TEMPORARY TOWERS.................................................................................................................. 106 A. Background.................................................................................................................................. 108 B. Discussion....................................................................................................................................120 V. IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 6409(A).................................................................................. 135 A. Background.................................................................................................................................. 136 B. Discussion.................................................................................................................................... 142 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 1. Definition of Terms in Section 6409(a)................................................................................. 145 a. Scope of Covered Services............................................................................................. 146 b. Transmission Equipment................................................................................................ 155 c. Existing Wireless Tower or Base Station....................................................................... 161 d. Collocation,Replacement,Removal,Modification........................................................ 176 e. Substantial Change and Other Conditions and Limitations............................................ 182 2. Application Review Process,Including Timeframe for Review...........................................205 3. Remedies...............................................................................................................................222 4. Non-application to States or Municipalities in Their Proprietary Capacities........................237 5. Effective Date........................................................................................................................241 VI. SECTION 332(C)(7)AND THE 2009 DECLARATORY RULING................................................243 A. Background..................................................................................................................................245 B. Discussion....................................................................................................................................253 1. Completeness of Applications...............................................................................................254 2. Moratoria...............................................................................................................................263 3. Application to DAS and Small Cells.....................................................................................268 4. Definition of Collocation.......................................................................................................273 5. Preferences for Deployments on Municipal Property...........................................................278 6. Remedies...............................................................................................................................281 VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS............................................................................................................285 A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis..........................................................................................285 B. Paperwork Reduction Act............................................................................................................286 C. Congressional Review Act...........................................................................................................287 VIII.ORDERING CLAUSES..................................................................................................................288 APPENDIX A—List of Comments and Replies APPENDIX B—Final Rules APPENDIX C—Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis I. INTRODUCTION 1. We take important steps in this Report and Order to promote the deployment of wireless infrastructure,recognizing that it is the physical foundation that supports all wireless communications. We do this by eliminating unnecessary reviews,thus reducing the costs and delays associated with facility siting and construction. In particular,we update and tailor the manner in which we evaluate the impact of proposed deployments on the environment and historic properties. We also adopt rules to clarify and implement statutory requirements related to State and local government review of infrastructure siting applications, and we adopt an exemption from our environmental public notification process for towers that are in place for only short periods of time. Taken together,these steps will further facilitate the delivery of more wireless capacity in more locations to consumers throughout the United States. Our actions will expedite the deployment of equipment that does not harm the environment or historic properties, as well as recognize the limits on Federal, State,Tribal,and municipal resources available to review those cases that may adversely affect the environment or historic properties. 2. Demand for wireless capacity is booming:more consumers are accessing mobile broadband every year,driving more innovation and expanding access to public safety. But our ability to meet this demand depends on the infrastructure that supports the services. We therefore take concrete steps to facilitate the deployment of the infrastructure necessary to support surging demand,expand broadband access,support innovation and wireless opportunity,and enhance public safety—all to the benefit of consumers and the communities in which they live. 3. Our actions recognize that a technological revolution has changed the wireless network landscape. The Commission's current rules for deploying infrastructure were drafted at a time when antennas were huge and bolted to the top of enormous towers. While that kind of macrocell deployment still exists and will continue to exist,there are now a variety of complementary and alternative 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 technologies that are far less obtrusive. Distributed antenna system(DAS)networks and other small-cell systems use components that are a fraction of the size of macrocell deployments,and can be installed— with little or no impact—on utility poles,buildings, and other existing structures. We are revising our rules to reflect this technological progress. At the same time,however,we recognize that State,local and Tribal governments play important roles in this process, including with respect to their own land use regulation and as part of our historic preservation review process. While we eliminate review procedures that are not necessary for small-size facilities collocated on existing structures,we do so in a manner that preserves local zoning requirements and rules requiring camouflage or concealment measures. In particular,the rules we adopt today will allow local jurisdictions to retain their ability to protect aesthetic and safety interests. Accordingly, our actions are intended to encourage deployments on existing towers and structures—rather than entirely new towers—in recognition that collocations almost always result in less impact or no impact at all. 4. These measures reflect our ongoing commitment to promote wireless infrastructure deployment,with the goal of facilitating robust wireless coverage for consumers everywhere. We have undertaken three particularly notable initiatives this year to facilitate wireless infrastructure deployment in addition to the actions we take today. First,we adopted rules that substantially reformed tower lighting and marking requirements.' The steps we took in that proceeding eased compliance burdens for tower owners without any adverse impact on aviation and public safety. Second,we recently commenced discussions with relevant government and non-governmental stakeholders to develop a process for "clearing"existing towers that were not subject to historic preservation review prior to construction, including those commonly referred to as"twilight towers." Once complete,this effort will make thousands of additional towers available for collocation,resulting in an enormous expansion in deployment opportunities for public safety operations and commercial wireless offerings. Finally,we are working with other government stakeholders to expand on the measures we adopt today. In particular,we intend to tailor further our environmental and historic preservation reviews for small-scale wireless deployments by implementing more broadly applicable efficient procedures? 5. The rules we adopt today should help spur wireless broadband deployment, in part,by facilitating the sharing of infrastructure that supports wireless communications. We create strong incentives for wireless providers to collocate on structures that already support wireless deployments, and we likewise facilitate sharing of transmission equipment by, for example,using"neutral-host"DAS that 'See 2004 and 2006 Biennial Regulatory Reviews--Streamlining and Other Revisions of Parts 1 and 17 of the Commission's Rules Governing Construction,Marking and Lighting of Antenna Structures,WT Docket No. 10-88, Amendments to Modernize and Clarify Part 17 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Construction,Marking and Lighting of Antenna Structures,RM-11349,Report and Order,FCC 14-117(rel.Aug.8,2014)(Part 17 Report and Order). 2 We note that other efforts are also ongoing. Among these,we continue to assist the interagency Working Group established by Executive Order 13616 to facilitate broadband deployment on Federal buildings and rights-of-way. See Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment,Executive Order No. 13616,77 Fed.Reg.36903(June 14, 2012)(Executive Order 13616). Finding that"decisions on access to Federal property and[rights-of-way]can be essential to the deployment of both wired and wireless broadband infrastructure,"Executive Order 13616 created a "Broadband Deployment on Federal Property Working Group"to develop"a coordinated and consistent approach in implementing agency procedures,requirements,and policies related to access to Federal lands,buildings,and [rights-of-way],federally assisted highways,and tribal lands to advance broadband deployment." Id. In part,this effort is to fulfill the directive of Sections 6409(b)and(c)of the Spectrum Act,which address access to Federal property for the deployment of wireless broadband facilities,including requirements that the General Services Administration(GSA)develop application forms,master contracts,and fees for such access in consultation with the Working Group. See Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,Pub.L.No. 112-96§6409(b),(c), 126 Stat. 156(2012)(Spectrum Act);Executive Order 13616§4. The Working Group is composed of representatives from seven Federal agencies that each have significant ownership of or responsibility for managing Federal lands, buildings,and rights-of-way,federally assisted highways,or Tribal lands,and also includes representatives from four other agencies,including the Commission,that"provide advice and assistance." Id. 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 can support multiple providers simultaneously. Promoting shared use in this manner advances several important policy goals while creating little or no potential for competitive harm and, indeed,promoting opportunities for increased competition. First,a"shared use"approach leverages existing resources and thus facilitates provider efforts to expand both coverage and capacity more quickly. Second, sharing wireless infrastructure—whether towers,other support structures, or transmission equipment—reduces costs and promotes access to such infrastructure, and thus may reduce a notable barrier to deployment. Finally,sharing resources—rather than relying on new builds—safeguards environmental, aesthetic,historic, and local land-use values. 6. Facilitating wireless deployment more generally advances the interests of a wide array of stakeholders,ranging from public safety entities to wireless innovators to schools and libraries. But wider and more robust deployment is particularly important for individual consumers. According to the National Center for Health Statistics and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention(CDC),wireless service is the only telecommunications connection for an increasing percentage of Americans,especially among more vulnerable populations.3 A CDC report covering the second half of 2013 determined that two in every five American homes(41.0%)had only wireless telephones during the second half of 2013, up from 30%in 2010. Moreover, more than half of adults in poverty live in wireless-only households.a The same report found that approximately 34%of households with both landline and wireless telephones use wireless telephones for all or almost all calls. 7. Consumers are also increasing their reliance on and use of mobile broadband services. According to one estimate,Americans will have 34 million mobile broadband devices by the end of 2015, an increase of nearly 50%from 2013,5 and the volume of data crossing North American mobile networks will grow almost eight-fold between 2013 and 2018.6 Consumers in the United States already account for approximately 45%of the 278 million Long Term Evolution(LTE)connections worldwide, and they are projected to have the biggest share of all Fourth Generation(4G)connections worldwide in the coming years.' This growing demand reflects the importance of broadband to our nation's economic growth, global competitiveness, and civic life.' As the President recognized in an Executive Order promoting the 'See"Wireless Substitution:Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey,July-December 2013,"Stephen J.Blumberg,Ph.D.,and Julian V.Luke,Division of Health Interview Statistics,available at hgp://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis/earlyrelease/wireless20l4O7.pdf. 4 See id 5 See"34 Million Americans will have Mobile Broadband Devices,"April 22,2014,available at hiip://www.ctia.org/resource-library/facts-and-infographics/archive/34-million-americans-mobile-broadband- devices. 6 See Alina Selyukh,Reuters,"U.S.mobile data traffic to jump nearly eight-fold by 2018:Cisco,"Feb.5,2014, available at bM://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/05/us-usa-spectrum-cisco-idUSBREA14OVY20140205. TIA indicates that American spending on mobile data services"rose by a third in 2012,and during the next four years it will increase by 94 percent." TIA Comments at 2. Cisco further forecasts that global mobile data traffic will increase 11-fold between 2013 and 2018—in other words,global mobile data traffic will grow at a compound annual growth rate(year-over-year)of 61%from 2013 to 2018. See"Cisco Visual Networking Index:Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update,2013-2018,"available at http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual-networking-index-vni/white pgper cll- 520862.html(Cisco VNI Report 2014). See also"2014-2017 ICT Market Review&Forecast,"available at hiip://www.tiaonline.org/resources/market-forecast(finding that"[t]he skyrocketing demand for wireless data is a key driver,fueling growth for the[Information and Communications Technology]market."). 'Cisco VNI Report 2014,available at http://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/solutions/collateral/service-provider/visual- networking-index-vni/white pgper cl1-520862.htm1,at 10. 'See Connect America Fund;A National Broadband Plan for Our Future;Establishing Just and Reasonable Rates for Local Exchange Carriers;High-Cost Universal Service Support;Developing a Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime;Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service;Lifeline and Link-Up;Universal Service Reform—Mobility Fund,WC Docket Nos. 10-90,07-135,05-337,03-109,CC Docket Nos.01-92,96-45,GN (continued....) 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 deployment of broadband infrastructure,"[b]roadband access is essential to the Nation's global competitiveness in the 21st century,driving job creation, promoting innovation, and expanding markets for American businesses,"and also"afford[ing] public safety agencies the opportunity for greater levels of effectiveness and interoperability."' 8. As the demand for wireless capacity surges,we must take steps to ensure that the networks underlying wireless services can bear the load.10 The record confirms that meeting America's growing demand for wireless broadband will require the deployment of large numbers of new or improved wireless facilities. AT&T alone plans to deploy more than 40,000 additional small cells, 1,000 additional DAS networks, and 10,000 additional macrocells from 2013 through 2015." Verizon states that it expects to have deployed more than 3,000 small cells across the country in 2014 alone.12 Recent data further demonstrate the impact of growing wireless demand on the need for new infrastructure. In its comments in a recent proceeding,PCIA states that in 2013 providers were expected to add up to 27,000 additional cell sites,13 while CTIA reports that its member companies had 304,360 cell sites in service at year-end 2013,a 26%increase in five years.14 9. Despite the widely acknowledged need for additional wireless infrastructure,the process of deploying these facilities can be expensive,cumbersome,and time-consuming.15 In addition to any private arrangements necessary to gain access to suitable land or structures,parties must typically obtain siting approval from the local municipality. They must also comply with the Commission's rules for environmental review,which implement our obligations under Federal statutes including the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA)and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(NHPA or Section 106).16 (Continued from previous page) Docket No.09-51,WT Docket No. 10-208,Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,26 FCC Rcd 17663, 17667 para.3 (2011),affd In re. FCC 11-161,753 F.3d 1015(10th Cir.2014). See,generally,Federal Communications Commission,Connecting America:The National Broadband Plan,at xi(rel.Mar. 16,20 10) (National Broadband Plan). 9 See Executive Order 13616. 10 See Alan Pearce,Ph.D.,J.Richard Carlson,MBA,Michael Pagano,Ph.D,Wireless Broadband Infrastructure:A Catalyst for DGP and Job Growth 2013-2017,at 1-2(Sept.2013),submitted as an attachment to Letter from Jonathan M.Campbell,PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association,to Marlene Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WT Docket Nos. 13-238, 13-32;WC Docket Nos. 11-59, 10-90,07-135,05-337,03-109;GN Docket No.09-51;CC Docket Nos.01-92,96-45(filed Oct.22,2013). 11 HetNet Forum Seminar Presentation,Small Cell Acceleration(July 29,2013),available at http://www.thedasforum.org/W-content/uploads/2013/07/HetNet-Forum-Small-Cell-Acceleration-Seminar- Presentations.pdf,at 21. 12 Verizon Comments at 8. 13 PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association and the HetNet Forum Comments,WT Docket No. 13-135,at 8. 14 See CTIA, "Annual Wireless Industry Survey,"available at htlp://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/how-wireless- works/annual-wireless-industry-survey. 15 See 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,Amendment of Parts 1 and 17 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice Procedures for Processing Antenna Structure Registration Applications for Certain Temporary Towers,2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations,WT Docket Nos. 13-238, 13-32,WC Docket No. 13-122,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,28 FCC Rcd 14238, 14240 para.3 (2013)(Infrastructure NPR . 16 See 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq.; 16 U.S.C.§470f. 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 10. Although these review requirements serve important local and national interests, local and Federal review processes can slow deployment substantially, even in cases that do not present significant concerns." Because these processes can significantly delay deployment,we now take action in four areas to reduce regulatory obstacles and bring efficiency to wireless facility siting and construction,as summarized below. We take these actions based on consideration of the entire record compiled in response to the Infrastructure NPRM.18 11. Environmental and Historic Preservation Review Processes. First, in Section III,we adopt measures to refine our environmental and historic preservation review processes under NEPA and NHPA to account for new wireless technologies,including physically small facilities like those used in DAS networks and small-cell systems that are a fraction of the size of macrocell installations.19 In contrast to the large-scale antennas and structures that our review processes were designed to address, these smaller antennas(and their associated compact radio equipment)can operate on existing short structures such as utility poles as well as on rooftops or inside buildings. As described in detail in the Executive Summary and in Section III,we expand an existing categorical exclusion from NEPA review so that it applies not only to collocations on buildings and towers,but also to collocations on other structures like utility poles. We also adopt a new categorical exclusion from NEPA review for some kinds of deployments in utilities or communications rights-of-way. With respect to NHPA,we create new exclusions to address certain collocations on utility poles and other non-tower structures. We take these steps to assure that,as we continue to meet our responsibilities under NEPA and NHPA,we also fulfill our obligation under the Communications Act to ensure that rapid,efficient, and affordable radio communications services are available to all Americans.20 12. Prior to adopting or changing rules to implement NEPA, an agency is required to publish its proposed procedures in the Federal Register for comment,and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)must advise whether the proposed procedures conform to NEPA and CEQ's regulations." In keeping with this process, CEQ has advised that the measures we adopt in this Report and Order to clarify and modify our environmental review process conform with NEPA and CEQ regulations.12 We have also 17 See Fibertech Comments at 7(reporting that"[m]any small cells deployments have languished for years due to lengthy and unproductive bureaucratic administrative tasks and hearings,"and citing cases). Verizon reports that the NHPA review process alone takes an average of 84 days for its DAS deployments(where such review is required), even though DAS networks are desirable in large part because the components are small and unobtrusive; in one case,the NHPA review took 150 days for a single DAS installation on a single pole. Verizon Comments at 9. 18 In response to the Infrastructure NPRM,we received 207 timely filed comments and 42 timely reply comments. Major commenters are listed,and the short forms by which they are cited in this Report and Order are identified,in Appendix A. In addition,we received numerous brief comments and ex pw-te submissions from a variety of interested parties,which are not listed in the Appendix but were reviewed and considered. To the extent that we cite comments in other proceedings,the citation specifies the docket. 19 Small cells are low-powered wireless base stations that function like cells in a mobile network but provide significantly smaller coverage area than traditional macrocells. DAS networks represent another wireless alternative to macrocells,but differ from small cells in that,whereas each small-cell deployment includes its own transceiver equipment that generally serves on wireless carrier/operator,a DAS network involves the use of transceiver equipment at a central hub site to support multiple antenna locations throughout the desired coverage area and in "neutral-host"deployments can serve multiple wireless carriers/operators. We describe these technologies in detail below. See inf•a,Section III.A. 20 47 U.S.C. § 151. 21 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3(a). 22 See Letter from Horst G.Greczmiel,Associate Director for NEPA Oversight,Council on Environmental Quality, to Peter B.Trachtenberg,Deputy Chief, Spectrum and Competition Policy Division,dated Oct. 17,2014. This letter will be filed in WT Docket 13-238. The rules were first proposed in the Infrastructure NPRMthat was published in the Federal Register on December 5,2013. See Proposed Rules,Federal Communications Commission,47 C.F.R. (continued....) 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 coordinated the steps we are taking to tailor and clarify our Section 106 review process with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation(ACHP)and with Tribal Nations.23 13. We emphasize that additional,broader exclusions for DAS networks and other small facilities may well be appropriate. We conclude,however,that additional measures will require further consultation with CEQ,ACHP, state historic preservation officers,and Tribal Nations. With regard to our review process under Section 106,we find that broader reform is more appropriately undertaken through the development of a"program alternative"as defined under ACHP's rules.24 Therefore, Commission staff are working with ACHP and other stakeholders to develop a program alternative that will promote additional efficiencies in the historic preservation review of DAS and small-cell deployments, and we expect that this process will conclude between 18 and 24 months after the release of this Report and Order. 14. Temporary Towers. In Section IV,we codify a waiver previously granted by the Commission,25 and adopt a narrow exemption from the Commission's requirement that owners of proposed towers requiring antenna structure registration(ASR)provide 30 days of national and local notice to give members of the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed tower's potential environmental effects. The exemption from notification requirements applies only to proposed temporary towers meeting defined criteria, including limits on the size and duration of the installation,that greatly reduce the likelihood of any significant environmental effects. Allowing licensees to deploy temporary towers meeting these criteria without first having to complete the Commission's environmental notification process will enable them to more effectively respond to emergencies,natural disasters,and other planned and unplanned short-term spikes in demand without undermining the purposes of the notification process. This exemption will"remove an administrative obstacle to the availability of broadband and other wireless services during major events and unanticipated periods of localized high demand"where expanded or substitute service is needed quickly." (Continued from previous page) Parts 1 and 17,WT Docket Nos. 13-238, 13-32;WC Docket No. 11-59;FCC 13-122,Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies,78 Fed.Reg.73144-02(Dec.5,2013). 23 See Letter from Jeffrey S.Steinberg,Geoffrey C.Blackwell,and Peter B.Trachtenberg,to Tribal Leaders,dated Aug.28,2014,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Sept.4,2014(Tribal Letter);Memo from Spectrum and Competition Policy Division,Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Sept.4,2014(Tribal Sept.4, 2014 Conference Call)(describing conference call with representatives of approximately 20 Tribal Nations concerning the Tribal Letter and issues in the rulemaking);Memo from Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Sept. 11,2014(describing meetings with approximately 100 representatives from Tribal Nations across the United States at the conference of the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers,including a discussion of DAS and small cells and the ongoing proceeding);Memo from Spectrum and Competition Policy Division,Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Sept. 19,2014(describing Division staff meetings with Robert Thrower,Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Poarch Band of Creek Indians,and Jeremy McDaniel of the Catawba Indian Nation, including a discussion of DAS and small cells and the instant rulemaking proceeding). See also Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14258 para.54&nn.104, 105(detailing the Commission's preliminary Tribal outreach regarding Section 106 review for DAS and small cells). 24 36 C.F.R. § 800.14. 25 See Amendment of Parts 1 and 17 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice Procedures for Processing Antenna Structure Registration Applications for Certain Temporary Towers;2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations,RM-11688,WT Docket No. 13-32, Order,28 FCC Rcd 7758(2013)(Waiver Order). 26 See Waiver Order,28 FCC Rcd at 7758 para. 1. As with the NEPA measures in Section III,CEQ's October 17, 2014 letter also advised that the environmental notification exemption we adopt in this Report and Order conforms with NEPA and CEQ's regulations. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 15. Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act. In Section V,we adopt rules to implement and enforce Section 6409(a)of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012(Spectrum Act).27 Section 6409(a)provides,in part,that"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.,28 By requiring timely approval of eligible requests,Congress intended to advance wireless broadband service for both public safety and commercial users.29 Section 6409(a)includes a number of undefined terms,however,that bear directly on how the provision applies to infrastructure deployments,and the record confirms that there are substantial disputes on a wide range of interpretive issues under the provision. We accordingly adopt rules that clarify many of these terms and enforce their requirements,thus advancing Congress's goal of facilitating rapid deployment. These rules 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. 16. Section 332(c)(7). Finally, in Section VI,we clarify issues related to Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act and the Commission's 2009 Declaratory Ruling.30 Among other things,we explain when a siting application is complete so as to trigger the presumptively reasonable timeframes for local and State review of siting applications under the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, and how the timeframes apply to local moratoria and DAS or small-cell facilities. These clarifications will eliminate many disputes under Section 332(c)(7),provide certainty about timing related to siting applications(including the time at which applicants may seek judicial relief),and preserve State and municipal governments' roles in the siting application process. 17. Taken together,the actions we take in this Report and Order will enable more rapid deployment of wireless facilities,delivering broadband and wireless innovations to consumers across the country. At the same time,they will safeguard the environment,preserve historic properties,protect the interest of Tribal Nations in their ancestral lands and cultural legacies, and address municipalities' concerns over impacts to aesthetics and other local values. II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 18. In this Section,we summarize the steps we take to facilitate wireless infrastructure deployment. First,as detailed in Section III.B,we adopt the following measures with regard to our NEPA process for review of environmental effects: • Amend the existing NEPA categorical exclusion for antenna collocations on buildings and towers to clarify that it includes equipment associated with the antennas(such as wiring, 27 See Spectrum Act§6409(a). We note that Section 6409(a)has since been codified in the Communications Act as 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a). However,for consistency with the Infrastructure NPRM,we continue to refer to it as Section 6409(a). 28 Spectrum Act§ 6409(a)(1). 29 See H.R.Rep. 112-399,at 136(2012)(Conference Report). We note that much of the Conference Report describes provisions in the House or Senate bills,and is not necessarily representative of Congressional intent in passing the Spectrum Act. The portions of the Conference Report that we rely upon in this Report and Order pertain expressly to the Spectrum Act as passed. s0 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7);Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(b)to Ensure Timely Siting Review&to Preempt Under Section 253 State&Local Ordinances That Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals As Requiring A Variance,WT Docket No.08-165,Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd 13994(2009)(2009 Declaratory Ruling). 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 cabling, cabinets, and backup-power),and that it also covers collocations in a building's interior; • Amend the NEPA categorical exclusion for collocations to cover collocations on structures other than buildings and towers;and • Adopt a new NEPA categorical exclusion for deployments, including deployments of new poles,in utility or communications rights-of-way that are in active use for such purposes, where the deployment does not constitute a substantial increase in size over the existing utility or communications uses. All of these categorical exclusions are subject to Sections 1.1307(c)and(d)of the Commission's rules, which require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment(EA)for a proposed facility otherwise categorically excluded from environmental processing if the processing bureau,either on its own motion or in response to a public complaint,determines that it may have a significant environmental impact.31 19. As detailed in Section III.C,we adopt the following measures with regard to our Section 106 process for review of effects on historic properties: • Adopt an exclusion from Section 106 review for collocations on utility structures,including utility poles and electric transmission towers,that meet the following conditions: o The deployment does not exceed a specified size limitation, detailed in Section III.C.2.a, when measured together with any other wireless deployment on the same structure; o The deployment will involve no new ground disturbance; and o The deployment is not(1) inside the boundary of a historic district,or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district;(2)located on a structure that is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places(National Register); or(3)the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties. • Adopt an exclusion from Section 106 review for collocations on buildings and any other non- tower structures that meet the following conditions: o There is an existing antenna on the building or structure; o The new deployment meets certain requirements related to visibility and proximity to an existing antenna; o The new antenna will comply with all zoning conditions and historic preservation conditions on existing antennas that directly mitigate or prevent effects,such as camouflage or concealment requirements; o The deployment will involve no new ground disturbance; and o The deployment is not(1)inside the boundary of a historic district,or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district;(2)located on a structure that is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register; or(3)the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties. • Clarify that the existing exclusions for certain collocations on buildings under the Commission's programmatic agreements extend to collocations inside buildings. 20. In Section IV,we adopt an exemption from the Commission's requirement that ASR applicants provide local and national environmental notification prior to submitting a completed ASR 31 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(c),(d). 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 application for certain temporary antenna structures meeting criteria that make them unlikely to have significant environmental effects. Specifically,we exempt antenna structures that: • Will be in place for 60 days or less; • Require notice of construction to the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA); • Do not require marking or lighting under FAA regulations; • Will be less than 200 feet above ground level; and • Will involve minimal or no ground excavation. 21. In Section V,we adopt rules to clarify and implement the requirements of Section 6409(a)of the Spectrum Act. Among other measures,we: • Clarify that Section 6409(a)applies to support structures and to transmission equipment used in connection with any Commission-licensed or authorized wireless transmission; • Define"transmission equipment"to encompass antennas and other equipment associated with and necessary to their operation, including power supply cables and backup power equipment; • Define"tower"to include any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any Commission-licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities; • Clarify that the term"base station"includes structures other than towers that support or house an antenna,transceiver, or other associated equipment that constitutes part of a"base station" at the time the relevant application is filed with State or municipal authorities, even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support,but does not include structures that do not at that time support or house base station components; • Clarify that a modification"substantially changes"the physical dimensions of a tower or base station,as measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station inclusive of any modifications approved prior to the passage of the Spectrum Act, if it meets any of the following criteria: o for towers outside of public rights-of-way, it increases the height by more than 20 feet or 10%,whichever is greater;for those towers in the rights-of-way and for all base stations, it increases the height of the tower or base station by more than 10%or 10 feet, whichever is greater; o for towers outside of public rights-of-way, it protrudes from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance,whichever is greater; for those towers in the rights-of-way and for all base stations, it protrudes from the edge of the structure more than six feet; o it involves installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four cabinets; o it entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site of the tower or base station; o it would defeat the existing concealment elements of the tower or base station; or o it does not comply with conditions associated with the prior approval of the tower or base station unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets,or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding "substantial change"thresholds; 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 • Provide that States and localities may continue to enforce and condition approval on compliance with generally applicable building,structural, electrical,and safety codes and with other laws codifying objective standards reasonably related to health and safety; • With regard to the process for reviewing an application under Section 6409(a),provide that: o A State or local government may only require applicants to provide documentation that is reasonably related to determining whether the eligible facilities request meets the requirements of Section 6409(a); o Within 60 days from the date of filing,accounting for tolling,a State or local government shall approve an application covered by Section 6409(a);and o The running of the period may be tolled by mutual agreement or upon notice that an application is incomplete provided in accordance with the same deadlines and requirements applicable under Section 332(c)(7), as described below,but not by a moratorium; • Provide that an application filed under Section 6409(a)is deemed granted if a State or local government fails to act on it within the requisite time period; • Clarify that Section 6409(a)applies only to State and local governments acting in their role as land use regulators and does not apply to such entities acting in their proprietary capacities; and • Provide that parties may bring disputes—including disputes related to application denials and deemed grants—in any court of competent jurisdiction. The Commission will not entertain such disputes. 22. In Section VI,we adopt clarifications of our 2009 Declaratory Ruling,which established the presumptively reasonable time periods within which a State or local government must act on a facilities siting application under Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act. We take the following specific actions: • Clarify,with regard to the Commission's determination in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling that a State or municipality may toll the running of the shot clock if it notifies the applicant within 30 days of submission that its application is incomplete,that: o The timeframe begins to run when an application is first submitted,not when it is deemed complete by the reviewing government; o A determination of incompleteness tolls the shot clock only if the State or local government provides notice to the applicant in writing within 30 days of the application's submission, specifically delineating all missing information, and specifying the code provision,ordinance,application instruction, or otherwise publically-stated procedures that require the information to be submitted; o Following an applicant's submission in response to a determination of incompleteness, the State or local government may reach a subsequent determination of incompleteness based solely on the applicant's failure to supply the specific information that was requested within the first 30 days; o The shot clock begins running again when the applicant makes its supplemental submission;however,the shot clock may again be tolled if the State or local government notifies the applicant within 10 days that the supplemental submission did not provide the specific information identified in the original notice delineating missing information; • Clarify that the presumptively reasonable timeframes run regardless of any applicable moratoria; 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 • Clarify that where DAS or small-cell facilities,including third-party facilities such as neutral- host DAS deployments,are or will be used for the provision of personal wireless services, their siting applications are subject to the 2009 Declaratory Ruling and the presumptively reasonable timeframes it established; and • Decline to adopt an additional remedy for State or local government failures to act within the presumptively reasonable time limits. III. NEPA AND NAPA REVIEW OF SMALL WIRELESS FACILITIES 23. In this section,we adopt measures to update our review processes under NEPA32 and Section 106 of NHPA,33 with a particular emphasis on accommodating new wireless technologies that use smaller antennas and compact radio equipment to provide mobile voice and broadband service. These technologies, including distributed antenna systems(DAS),small cells, and others, can be deployed on a variety of non-traditional structures such as utility poles,as well as on rooftops and inside buildings,to enhance capacity or fill in coverage gaps. Updating our environmental and historic preservation rules will enable these innovations to flourish,delivering more broadband service to more communities,while reducing the need for potentially intrusive new construction and safeguarding the values the rules are designed to protect. 24. Our environmental and historic preservation rules have traditionally been directed toward the deployment of macrocells on towers and other tall structures.34 Since 1974,these rules have excluded collocations of antennas from most of the requirements under our NEPA review process,recognizing the benefits to the environment and historic properties from the use of existing support structures over the construction of new structures. These exclusions have limitations, however. The collocation exclusion under NEPA,which was first established in 1974,on its face encompasses only deployments on existing towers and buildings, as these were the only support structures widely used 40 years ago, and therefore does not encompass collocations on existing utility poles,for example. Similarly,the collocation exclusions in our process for historic preservation review under Section 106 do not consider the scale of small wireless facility deployments. 25. Thus,while small wireless technologies are increasingly deployed to meet the growing demand for high mobile data speeds and ubiquitous coverage, our rules and processes under NEPA and Section 106, even as modified over time,have not reflected those technical advances. Accordingly, after review of the record,we conclude that it will serve the public interest to update our environmental and historic preservation rules in large measure to account for innovative small facilities, and we take substantial steps to advance the goal of widespread wireless deployment, including clarifying and amending our categorical exclusions. We conclude that these categorical exclusions, as codified in Note 1 and 4 of Section 1.1306 of our rules,do not have the potential for individually or cumulatively significant environmental impacts.35 We find that the steps we take today will serve both the industry and the conservation values our review process was intended to protect. These steps will eliminate review processes and the sometimes cumbersome compliance measures that accompany such review,relieving the industry of review process requirements in cases where they are not needed. At the same time,we eliminate the need for bureaucratic review of deployments that do not require it. These steps will advance our goal of spurring efficient wireless broadband deployment while also ensuring that we continue to protect environmental and historic preservation values. 32 See 42 U.S.C. §§4321 et seq. 33 See 16 U.S.C. §470f. 34 We use the term"macrocell"to refer to a high-powered deployment,typically installed relatively high on a tower, to provide signal coverage to a large geographic area. 3s 47 C.F.R. § 1.13 06 Note 1,Note 4. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 26. Specifically, and as discussed in detail below,we take the following actions in connection with our NEPA review process: (1)we amend the existing NEPA categorical exclusion for antenna collocations on buildings and towers to clarify that it includes equipment associated with the antennas(such as wiring, cabling, cabinets,and backup-power equipment), and that it also covers collocations in a building's interior,and we codify these clarifications; (2)we amend the NEPA categorical exclusion for collocations to cover collocations on structures other than buildings and towers; and(3)we adopt a new NEPA categorical exclusion for deployments, including deployments of new poles,in utility or communications rights-of-way that are in active use for such purposes,where the deployment does not constitute a substantial increase in size over the existing utility or communications uses.36 27. We also adopt measures to update our historic preservation review process under Section 106 of NHPA. Relying on our authority under the rules of ACHP,we adopt two limited exclusions from Section 106 review, one applicable to utility structures specifically and the other to non-tower structures in general,including buildings. First,we exclude from Section 106 review collocations on utility structures, including utility poles and electric transmission towers,that meet the following conditions: (1) the antenna and any associated equipment,when measured together with any other wireless deployments on the same structure,meet specified size limitations; and(2)the deployment will involve no new ground disturbance. Second,we exclude collocations on buildings and any other non-tower structures that meet the following conditions: (1)there is an existing antenna on the building or structure; (2)the collocation meets one of three alternative criteria for visibility, location,and size, as described in detail below;(3)the new antenna complies with all zoning conditions and historic preservation conditions on existing antennas that directly mitigate or prevent effects,such as camouflage or concealment requirements; and(4)the deployment involves no new ground disturbance. We further limit both of these collocation exclusions, however,to deployments that are not(1)inside the boundary of a historic district,or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district; (2)located on a structure that is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register; or(3)the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties. In other words,these two new targeted exclusions address collocations on utility structures and other non-tower structures where historic preservation review would otherwise be required under the Collocation Agreement and our existing rules only because the structures are more than 45 years old. In addition to these two new exclusions,we further clarify that the existing exclusions for certain collocations on buildings under the Commission's programmatic agreements extend to collocations inside buildings. 28. While these steps will provide significant benefits for wireless deployments,particularly DAS and small-cell deployments,we intend to take additional measures, including adopting broader exclusions from NEPA and Section 106 review. However,consistent with NEPA and NHPA,we conclude that additional measures will require further consideration and consultation. Accordingly,we do not, at this time,adopt categorical exclusions from NEPA and NHPA review that would cover all DAS 36 We emphasize that none of these exclusions,or any other action we take in this Report and Order,would exclude any facility from the requirement under our rules to conduct an Environmental Assessment if human exposure to radiofrequency(RF)emissions will exceed specified levels. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b). We further note that the Commission issued a First Report and Order,Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making,and Notice of Inquiry last year that addressed several issues regarding compliance with current RF exposure criteria,and sought comment on whether to reassess the current limits. See Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies;Proposed Changes in the Commission's Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,ET Docket Nos. 13-84,03-137,First Report and Order,Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry,28 FCC Rcd 3498(2013)(RF Emissions R&O,FNPRM, &NOI). Because that proceeding remains open,we do not address comments filed in this proceeding to the extent they suggest changes to our RF exposure standards. 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 and small-cell deployments.37 We recognize that there are ways to make the historic preservation review process in particular even more efficient. We find,however,that broader reform of our process is more appropriately undertaken through the development of a"program alternative"as defined under ACHP's rules,which provides greater opportunity and flexibility to tailor our process than our limited authority under ACHP's rules to adopt exclusions.38 Therefore,in consultation with ACNP and other applicable stakeholders, Commission staff are developing a program alternative that will further facilitate review of DAS and small-cell deployments by better focusing review on those deployments that are likely to raise concerns,including on structures other than utility poles and transmission towers even if there is no existing antenna on the structure. For example, Verizon proposes that we find that no historic properties will be affected by a deployment on structures other than utility poles and transmission towers where(1) the facility meets specified volumetric limits; (2)the facility involves no new ground disturbance under the standard defined by the Nationwide Programmatic Agreement(NPA); (3)the facility requires historic preservation review solely due to the age of the structure;and(4)the structure is neither listed in the National Register nor formally determined eligible for listing by the Keeper of the National Register.39 While we find that such an exclusion is not appropriate under the governing ACHP rule that provides us narrow authority to unilaterally adopt exclusions from Section 106 review,we intend to address this proposal in the program alternative process. We expect that this process will conclude between 18 and 24 months after the release of this Report and Order. A. Description of DAS,Small Cells,and Other Small Wireless Technologies 29. The increasing demand for advanced wireless services and greater wireless bandwidth is driving an urgent and growing need for additional infrastructure deployment and new infrastructure technologies 40 To meet localized needs for coverage and increased capacity in outdoor and indoor environments,many wireless providers have turned in part to DAS and small-cell technologies 41 30. Small cells are low-powered wireless base stations that function like cells in a mobile wireless network,typically covering targeted indoor or localized outdoor areas ranging in size from 37 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14254-55 para.43 (seeking comment on whether to adopt a categorical exclusion for some or all of the components involved in DAS and small-cell deployments from NEPA review other than for compliance with RF exposure limits). 38 As discussed below,we must comply with the rules of ACHP,which specify the process under which Federal agencies shall perform their historic preservation reviews. See 36 C.F.R. §§ 800.2,800.3. Program alternatives, which allow Federal agencies to streamline their Section 106 process by tailoring the process to the agency's programs and decision-making process,substitute in whole or in part for ACHP's Section 106 regulations under Subpart B. See 36 C.F.R. § 800.14. Program alternatives can include alternative procedures or programmatic agreements,among other possibilities. See"Program Alternatives,"available at http://www.achl2.gov/progalt/. 99 See Letter from Tamara Preiss,Verizon,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WT Docket 13-238,filed Oct. 8, 2014(Verizon Oct.8,2014 Ex Parte). 40 See PCIA Comments at 2-3;Verizon Comments at 2. 41 See Crown Castle Comments at 2("DAS and Small Cell networks provide an increasingly important role in facilitating the deployment of broadband infrastructure,as network operators seek to target broadband capacity to the locations where their customers use wireless broadband and to improve in-building coverage.");Implementation of Section 6002(B)of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993,Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless,Including Commercial Mobile Services,Sixteenth Report,WT Docket No. 11-186,28 FCC Rcd 3700,3933 para.373 (2013)(Sixteenth Competition Report);J. Sharpe Smith, AGL Magazine,"Towers Will Handle Most Mobile Data Growth in Next Five Years,"Mar. 11,2013,available at http://www.a lgmedia rg_oup.com/tag/iames-taiclet/(noting projection by Cisco that 25%of wireless data growth through 2017 will be carried by DAS,picocells and Wi-Fi); Tammy Parker,FierceWirelessTech,"Active DAS equipment market growing 20%annually in North America,"Aug. 18,2012,available at http://www.fiercebroadbandwireless.com/story/active-das-equipment-market-growing-20-annually-north- america/2012-08-18. 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 homes and offices to stadiums,shopping malls,hospitals, and metropolitan outdoor spaces. Wireless service providers often use small cells to provide connectivity to their subscribers in areas that present capacity and coverage challenges to traditional wide-area macrocell networks, such as coverage gaps created by buildings,tower siting difficulties, and challenging terrain. Because these cells are significantly smaller in coverage area than traditional macrocells,networks that incorporate small-cell technology can reuse scarce wireless frequencies,thus greatly increasing spectral efficiency and data capacity within the network footprint 44 For example, deploying ten small cells in a coverage area that can be served by a single macrocell could result in a tenfold increase in capacity while using the same 41 quantity of spectrum. 31. DAS provides another alternative to macrocells mounted on tall antenna structures.4' A DAS network distributes RF signals from transceivers at a central hub to a specific service area with poor coverage or inadequate capacity47 As typically configured,a DAS network consists of: (1)a number of remote communications nodes deployed throughout the desired coverage area,each including at least one antenna for transmission and reception;(2)a high capacity signal transport medium(typically fiber optic cable)connecting each node to a central communications hub site;and(3)radio transceivers located at the hub site(rather than at each individual node as is the case for small cells)to process or control the communications signals transmitted and received through the antennas.4' DAS deployments offer robust and broad coverage without creating the visual and physical impacts of multiple macrocells. Further, whereas small cells are usually operator-managed and support only a single wireless service provider, DAS networks can often accommodate multiple providers using different frequencies and/or wireless air interfaces.49 42 See Sixteenth Competition Report,28 FCC Rcd at 3937-38 para.384; "Small Cell Forum:What is a small cell?", available at hgp://www.smallcelIforum.org/aboutsmalIcells-small-cells-what-is-a-small-cell. While the industry has not always been consistent in the terms it uses for different types of small-cell technology,generally speaking, femtocells,picocells,metrocells,and microcells refer to types of small-cell technologies with coverage areas of increasing size. 43 See Amendment of the Commission's Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, GN Docket No. 12-354,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order,27 FCC Rcd 15594, 15596 para.4, 15605 para. 30(2012)(3 5 GHz Service Rules NPRM). Networks using a mix of both macrocells and small wireless technologies are sometimes referred to as"heterogeneous networks"or"HetNets." See,e g,Sara Landstrom, Anders FuruskAr,Klas Johansson,Laetitia Falconetti,and Fredric Kronestedt,"Heterogeneous networks— increasing cellular capacity,"available at htip://www.ericsson.com/res/thecomppy/docs/publications/ericsson review/2011/hetero e� networks.pdf; PCIA Comments,GN Docket No. 12-354,at 3 n.6. 44 See 3.5 GHz Service Rules NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 15596 para.4. as Id 46 See Sixteenth Competition Report,28 FCC Rcd at 3906 para.321. 47 See, e.g, "the DAS forum:Distributed Antenna Systems(DAS)And Small Cell Technologies Distinguished," available at http://www.thedasforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/DAS-And-Small-Cell-Technologies- Distinguished-2 4 13.pdf,at 5. 48 Id. See also Ontario Energy Board,Expert Report of Charles L.Jackson,"Wireless Networks and Utility Poles," June 11,2013,available at https://www.torontohydro.com/sites/electricsystem/Documents/W ireless/Expert%20Evidence%20of%20Charl es%2 OL.%20Jackson%20June%2011%202013.pdf,at 13 (noting that while"each small cell is a separate base station, . . .a cell with a distributed antenna system is built by connecting several antennas to a single base station"). 49 See,e.g., "Small Cell Forum:What is a small cell?",available at hiip://www.smallceliforum.org/aboutsmallcells- small-cells-what-is-a-small-cell(noting that small cells are"operator-controlled");"the DAS forum:Distributed Antenna Systems(DAS)And Small Cell Technologies Distinguished,"available at http://www.thedasforum.or /g_wp-content/uploads/2013/02/DAS-And-Small-Cell-Technologies-Distinguished- (continued....) 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 32. Small wireless technologies like DAS and small cells have a number of advantages over traditional macrocells. Because the facilities deployed at each node are physically much smaller than macrocell antennas and associated equipment and do not require the same elevation,they can be placed on light stanchions,utility poles,building walls and rooftops, and other small structures either privately owned or in the public rights-of-way. Thus,providers can deploy the technologies in geographic areas, such as densely populated urban areas,where traditional towers are not feasible or in areas,such as stadiums,where localized wireless traffic demands would require an unrealistic number of macrocells.so 33. In addition,because these technologies utilize small equipment and transmit at signal power levels much lower than macrocells,they can be deployed in indoor environments to improve interior wireless services.51 Current estimates suggest that more than 60%of wireless voice calls and 70%of wireless data usage take place inside buildings.52 DAS and small-cell deployments not only improve interior coverage in a general sense,they can also enhance security by providing a cost-effective mechanism for public-safety communications throughout a building alongside commercial cellular services.53 Deployments of such small facilities are also particularly useful to address capacity or coverage needs in areas with stringent siting regulations, such as historic districts. Because small cells are smaller and less visible than macrocells,providers can more easily deploy them with stealth measures such as concealment enclosures that blend with the structures on which they are installed. 34. More broadly,DAS and small-cell deployments are a comparatively cost-effective way of addressing increased demand for wireless broadband services,particularly in urban areas.14 As a result, providers are rapidly increasing their use of these technologies,and the growth is projected to increase exponentially in the coming years. According to one estimate,more than 37 million small cells will be (Continued from previous page) 2 4 13.pdf,at 3(noting that in contrast to DAS,"small cell solutions are typically deployed piecemeal to provide coverage or enhance capacity in much smaller areas with a single wireless communications technology for a single wireless carrier."). "See, e.g., PCIA Comments at i;Verizon Comments at 2, 8;Letter from D.Zachary Champ,PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WC Docket No. 11-59;GN Docket No. 12-354, filed Mar. 19,2013 (PCIA Mar. 19,2013 Ex Parte),Attach.(Dr.Amos J.Loveday,DAS/Small Cells&Historic Preservation:An Analysis of the Impact of Historic Preservation Rules on Distributed Antenna Systems and Small Cell Deployment,Feb.27,2013,at 1,2("Loveday Report"));"the DAS forum:Distributed Antenna Systems(DAS) And Small Cell Technologies Distinguished,"available at http://www.thedasforum.org/wp- content/uploads/2013/02/DAS-And-Small-Cell-Technologies-Distinguished-2 4 13.pdf,at 6. See also PCIA—The Wireless Infrastructure Association and the DAS Forum Comments,WC Docket No. 11-59,at 11-12,27(PCIA and DAS Forum NOI Comments). " Common candidates for indoor DAS deployments include offices and corporate campuses,stadiums,universities, retail centers,health care facilities,transportation centers(e.g.,airports,train and subway stations)and hospitality venues(e.g,hotels,convention centers). See Tracy Ford,BICSI News Magazine,"Installing DAS&Small Cells— What You Need to Know,"available at http://www.thedasforum.org/W-content/uploads/2013/04/Ford-BISCI- News-Article.pdf. sz Id. Another report estimates that more than two-thirds of all wireless communication occurs indoors. See ECS, "An In-Depth Look at DAS,Wi-FI,and Small Cell Growth and Trends,"available at hM:Hecselectrical.net/2014/03/an-in-depth-look-at-das-wi-fi-and-small-cell-growth-and-trends/. ss See John B.Whatley,"White Paper:Considerations for an in-building distributed antenna system,"available at hLtp://www.rcrwireless.com/arti cle/20120104/infrastructure-2/das/white-paper-cons iderations-for-an-in-buildinQ- distributed-antenna-system/. Public safety information can be broadcast across a range of frequencies that DAS networks can support. Id. 54 See"Hetrogeneous Networks,Securing Excellent Broadband Mobile Experience,Everywhere,"Ericsson White Paper,Sept.2014,available at hgR://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/whitepgpers/wp-heterogenous-networks.pdf,at 5- 6. 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 deployed by 2017.55 Another predicts that 16 million DAS nodes will be deployed by 2018—with the number of nodes doubling between 2013 and 2016—and that more than 50%of DAS networks will include Wi-Fi capability by 2018.56 Indeed, one study projects that aggregate small-cell capacity will overtake macrocell capacity by 2016-2017.57 As they are increasingly relied upon,DAS and small-cell technologies are also posing new logistical deployment challenges 58 In particular,because individual DAS nodes and small cells cover small areas,providers must often deploy a substantial number of nodes to achieve the seamless coverage of a single macrocell.59 B. NEPA Categorical Exclusions 1. Regulatory Background 35. NEPA requires Federal agencies to identify and evaluate the environmental effects of proposed Federal actions and to prepare a"detailed statement"for"major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.s60 In particular,NEPA requires Federal agencies to take a"hard look"at"major"Federal actions that may have significant environmental consequences and to disseminate relevant information to the public6' The Commission satisfies its NEPA responsibility to ss See Joe Madden,"Cost Comparison:Carrier Wi-Fi, Small Cells,DAS,Repeaters,"April 2013,available at http://www.richardsonrfpd.com/resources/ReltDocuments/SYS 29/Joe Madden Apri12013.pdf,at 2. Verizon states that it plans to deploy over 3,000 small cells across the country in 2014. See Verizon Comments at 8. By 2015,AT&T plans to deploy over 40,000 small cells and over 1,000 DAS networks,in addition to 10,000 macrocells. See PCIA Comments at 3. 56 See Antenna Systems&Technology,"16 Million DAS Nodes to be Deployed Through 2018,"available at http://www.antennasonline.com/main/news/16-million-das-nodes-to-be-deployed-through-2018/(citing a forecast report by Mobile Experts called"DAS:Absorbing Small Cells and Wi-Fi"). 57 See Tessco,"Cellular Coverage/Capacity. . .the Small Cell Revolution,"available at hitps://www.tessco.com/yts/knowledge center/su/cellular-coverage-capacity-the-small-cell-revolution.html. A December 2012 survey conducted by Informa found that 98%of operators think small cells are essential to the future of their networks. Id. "See, e g,Wireless Magazine,"Small cells and DAS—A widely distributed choice,"Feb.22,2013,available at http://www.wireless-mag.com/features/24320/small-cells-and-das---a-widely-distributed-choice.aspx(noting that multiple operators often need to share systems in order to please localities,and that efficient management of a shared system may require a middleman to acquire and manage sites);Vladan Jevremovic,Ph.D.,"The Technological Future of Small Cells,"available at http://www.ibwave.com/blog/the-technological-future-of-small- cells/(noting challenges of heterogeneous networks,also known as HetNets,which integrate small-cell technologies and DAS with macrocells into a single network). s9 See,a g.,"the DAS forum:Distributed Antenna Systems(DAS)And Small Cell Technologies Distinguished," available at http://www.thedasforum.org/wp-contenVuploads/2013/02/DAS-And-Small-Cell-Technologies- Distinguished-2 4 13.pdf,at 3,4(explaining that DAS networks can range from just two nodes to ten,fifty,or even more nodes,covering areas ranging from several blocks to entire cities);AT&T,"DAS a Winner,How AT&T's Distributed Antenna System Keeps Fans Connected,"available at http://www.aff.com/Common/about us/files/pdf/das football.pdf(indicating DAS deployment in a stadium typically includes hundreds of antennas). For further information regarding DAS and small cells,see FCC,"Augmenting Mobile Broadband in Your Community—An Overview of Distributed Antenna Systems and Small Cell Solutions," available at http://www.fcc.gov/events/au mg entiniz-mobile-broadband-your-community-overview-distributed- antenna-systems-and-small-cel(describing Commission-hosted workshop providing"an overview of[DAS]and small cell technologies that augment mobile broadband and wireless services"). 61 See 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C);47 C.F.R. § 1.1305;National Environmental Policy Act Compliance for Proposed Tower Registrations,Effects of Communications Towers on Migratory Birds,WT Docket Nos.08-61,03-187, Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd 16700, 16702-03 (2011)(Environmental Notification Order on Remand)(citing Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council,490 U.S.332,349-50(1989)). 61 Robertson, 490 U.S.at 349-50. 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 identify and evaluate the environmental effects of proposed Federal actions that do not have significant impacts and therefore do not require a"detailed statement"(an Environmental Impact Statement62)using an environmental assessment or a categorical exclusion.63 Federal actions include projects or programs that are entirely or partly financed, assisted,conducted,regulated,or approved by Federal agencies.64 36. Under Section 204 of NEPA,the Council on Environmental Quality(CEQ)is entrusted with NEPA oversight responsibility.65 CEQ's regulations direct agencies to identify their Federal actions and place each within one of three categories 66 The first category encompasses actions that normally have a significant environmental impact. Before undertaking these actions,the agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement(EIS).67 The second category includes actions that may,but do not necessarily,have a significant environmental impact.68 For actions in this category, an agency may conduct an Environmental Assessment(EA)in lieu of an EIS.69 If the EA shows that a proposed action will have no significant environmental impact,then the agency issues a Finding of No Significant Impact,70 and the proposed action can proceed. Otherwise,the agency must proceed with the EIS process. The third category—"categorical exclusions"--covers actions that,based on the agency's assessment, "do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. . . and for which. . . neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required."71 CEQ regulations require that an agency that chooses to establish categorical exclusions must also provide for "extraordinary circumstances"under which an action that is normally categorically excluded may have a significant environmental effect and therefore require further NEPA review in an EA or EIS.72 37. The Commission has generally found that its grant or approval of an application that will result in the deployment of a wireless communications facility qualifies as a Federal action,thereby subjecting the facility to NEPA procedures.73 With respect to the first category of actions described 62 40 C.F.R.§ 1508.11. 63 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1306, 1.1307. 64 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18(a). "See 42 U.S.C. §4344. 66 See 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3(b)(2). 67 See 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4. An EIS is a detailed statement by the responsible Federal official on:"(i)the environmental impact of the proposed action,(ii)any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented,(iii)alternatives to the proposed action,(iv)the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity,and(v)any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented." 42 U.S.C. §4332(2)(C);see also 40 C.F.R. § 1508.11. The Commission's procedures for preparing an EIS are described in 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1314-1.1319. "See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4(b), 1507.3(b)(2)(iii)(providing that agency procedures shall identify those typical classes of action that normally require EAs but not necessarily EISs). 69 See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4(b), 1507.3(b)(2)(iii).An EA is briefer than an EIS,and its purpose is to determine whether an EIS is required. Pursuant to CEQ's regulations,an EA is a document that:(1)discusses the need for a proposed action,the alternatives,and the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives;(2)lists the agencies and persons consulted;and(3)provides evidence and analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or a finding of no significant impact(FONSI). See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.9. See also 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b). 70 See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.13. "40 C.F.R. § 1508.4. See 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3(b)(2)(ii);47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1306, 1.1307. 72 40 C.F.R. § 1508.4. 73 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14247 para.21. 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 above,the Commission has found that none of its actions are of a type that ordinarily will have the potential for a significant environmental impact,and therefore that no facility deployments automatically require an EIS.74 Sections 1.1307(a)and(b)of the Commission's rules identify the environmentally sensitive circumstances under which communications-facility deployments may significantly affect the environment and require preparation of an EA.7' Section 1.1307(a)includes facilities to be located in an officially designated wilderness area, an officially designated wildlife preserve,or a flood plain. It also includes facilities that may affect threatened or endangered species or their critical habitats,or are likely to jeopardize proposed threatened or endangered species or destroy or adversely modify proposed critical habitats;that may affect districts, sites,buildings, structures or objects that are listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register;that may affect Native American religious sites;that will involve significant change in surface features(e.g.,deforestation); or that will be located in residential neighborhoods and will be equipped with high intensity white lights.76 In addition,under Section 1.1307(b)a facility may have a significant environmental impact if it would cause human exposure to RF emissions in excess of specified levels.77 For all of these proposed facilities identified in Sections 1.1307(a)and(b),unless they are identified in the Notes to Section 1.1306 as discussed below, applicants must prepare and submit an EA that the Commission uses to determine whether the deployment would result in a significant environmental impact. Sections 1.1307(c)and(d)also require the preparation of an EA for a proposed facility otherwise categorically excluded from environmental processing under Section 1.1306 if the processing bureau,either on its own motion or in response to a public complaint,determines that it may have a significant environmental impact.78 38. With respect to the third category described above, Section 1.1306 of the Commission's rules specifies those actions that are categorically excluded from environmental review.79 Under Section 1.1306,wireless facility deployments, including deployments of new wireless towers,are categorically excluded from review if they fall outside of the environmentally sensitive categories identified in Sections 1.1307(a)and(b). Further,Note 1 to Section 1.1306(Note 1)clarifies that the requirement to file an EA under Section 1.1307(a)generally does not apply to"the mounting of antenna(s)on an existing building or antenna tower"or to the installation of wire or cable in an existing underground or aerial corridor,even if an environmentally sensitive circumstance identified in Section 1.1307(a)is present.80 More specifically,Note 1 provides that mounting an antenna on an existing building or antenna tower is categorically excluded under NEPA unless Section 1.1307(a)(4)applies(that is,if the proposed installation may affect historic properties protected by Section 106)or if the proposed installation would result in human exposure to RF emissions in excess of health and safety guidelines cited in Section 1.1307(b). Note 1 reflects a preference first articulated by the Commission in 1974,and codified into Note 1 in 1986,that"[t]he use of existing buildings,towers or corridors is an environmentally desirable alternative to the construction of new facilities and is encouraged."81 74 See 47 C.F.R. §1.1305. 71 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a),(b). 76 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a). 77 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b). As noted above,the Commission has initiated a proceeding on RF emissions criteria, and that proceeding is pending. See supra, n.36. 78 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(c),(d). 79 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306(a). 80 47 C.F.R. § 1.13 06 Note 1. $'Id. See,e.g,Amendment of the Commission's Environmental Rules,Order,3 FCC Rcd 4986,4986 para.7 (198 8)(1988 NEPA Order)("The Commission has long held that the mounting of antennas on existing buildings or antenna towers generally is environmentally preferable to the construction of a new facility,a preference which is reflected in note 1.");Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,Docket No. 19555,Report and Order,49 FCC 2d 1313, 1324 para.27(1974)(1974 NEPA Order). The Note 1 categorical exclusion for (continued....) 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 2. Antennas Mounted on Existing Buildings and Towers a. Clarification of"Antenna" 39. Background. The In NPRM sought comment on whether to provide expressly that the categorical exclusion for the mounting of"antenna(s)"on buildings or towers also applies to the equipment associated with the antenna, such as transceivers,converters,and power supplies.82 It also sought comment on whether and how, in this context,the Commission should clarify what constitutes associated equipment.83 40. Industry commenters argue that the categorical exclusion should be interpreted to include associated equipment.84 Verizon argues that if the exclusion does not encompass such equipment,then our rules would require NEPA review for every collocation,and that this would vitiate the exclusion and frustrate its intended purpose.85 Some municipal commenters express concerns about the proposed clarification,however.86 Savannah opposes including any associated equipment under the NEPA collocation categorical exclusion, asserting that it may have a greater environmental or historic preservation impact than the antenna itself.87 Tempe argues that the categorical exclusion should not extend to diesel generators because of their fumes,noise, and potential for spills.88 41. Discussion. Because the record confirms some uncertainty regarding the scope of the Commission's existing Note 1 categorical exclusion for the"mounting of antenna(s)on existing buildings and antenna towers,"we take this opportunity to clarify the scope of the categorical exclusion.89 We first clarify that the term"antenna"as used in Note 1 encompasses all on-site equipment associated with the (Continued from previous page) collocations on existing buildings or towers was originally adopted in 1986. See Amendment of Environmental Rules in Response to New Regulations Issued by the Council on Environmental Quality,Report and Order,GEN Docket No.79-163,60 Rad.Reg.2d 13 (1986)(1986 NEPA Order). It was modified in the 1988 NEPA Order to provide that such collocations are subject to Section 1.1307(a)(4)as well as to Section 1.1307(b). See 1988 NEPA Order,3 FCC Rcd at 4986 para.7. 82 Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14254 para.40. 93 See id. 84 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 10(arguing that Note 1 already extends to associated equipment and therefore needs no amendment to do so);PCIA Comments at 17(arguing as an"analogy"that associated equipment is covered by the term"antenna"as used in the programmatic agreements governing the Commission's historic preservation review process);UTC Comments at 4(supporting amendment to the exclusion so that it"expressly covers"the associated equipment);Verizon Comments at 15-16(arguing that Commission should change the phrase "mounting of antenna(s)"to"mounting of antenna(s)and associated equipment,"or otherwise"make clear"that the Note 1 exclusion applies to associated equipment). 85 See Verizon Comments at 16. See also AT&T Comments at 10(arguing that limiting the categorical exclusion to antennas"would frustrate the purpose of the exemption,as it would exclude equipment,mountings,and other components needed to operate the antennas");Towerstream Comments at 31 (arguing that application of"stringent" environmental requirements to"the other equipment necessary to operate these wireless technologies would not provide effective relief'). 86 See, e.g., Letter from Edna Branch Jackson,Mayor,Savannah,Georgia,to Jane Jackson,FCC,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed April 8,2014(Savannah Ex Parte),at 2; San Antonio Reply Comments at 27;Tempe Comments at 5- 7. See also Alexandria et al. Comments at 4(arguing that if Commission were to read Section 6409(a)of the Spectrum Act to broadly preempt local review of modification requests that present environmental and historic preservation concerns,then the Commission's proposed actions on Note 1 would be inappropriate). 87 See Savannah Ex Parte at 2;see also San Antonio Reply Comments at 27(objecting to inclusion of associated equipment because"many additional equipment deployments will be swept out of the reach of NEPA"as a result). 88 See Tempe Comments at 5-7. 89 We also amend the text of Note 1 to codify the clarification. See infra,App.B. 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 antenna, including transceivers,cables,wiring, converters,power supplies,equipment cabinets and shelters, and other comparable equipment. We conclude that this is the only logically consistent interpretation of the term,as associated equipment is a standard part of such collocations,and the antennas subject to NEPA review cannot operate without it.9' Thus,interpreting the term"antenna"as omitting associated equipment would eviscerate the categorical exclusion by requiring routine NEPA review for nearly every collocation. ,Such an interpretation would therefore frustrate the categorical exclusion's purpose9' We also note that our interpretation of"antenna"in this context is consistent with how the Commission has defined the term"antenna"in the comparable context of our process for reviewing effects of proposed deployments on historic properties. Specifically,and as discussed in detail in the next section,the Commission's Section 106 historic preservation review is governed by two programmatic agreements, and in both,the term"antenna"encompasses all associated equipment 92 42. Further,if associated equipment presented significant concerns,we would expect that otherwise excluded collocations that included such equipment would, at some point over the past 40 years,have been subject to environmental objections or petitions to deny. We are unaware of any such objections or petitions directed at backup generators or any other associated equipment,or of any past EAs that found any significant environmental effect from such equipment." Given this long history,we find some commenters' generalized assertions of a risk of environmental effects to be unpersuasive, and we reaffirm that the collocations covered by Note 1,including the collocation of associated equipment addressed by our clarification,will not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.14 90 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 4, 10;Verizon Comments at 15-16. 91 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 10;Towerstream Comments at 31;see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306 Note 1. 92 The first agreement,the 2001 Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas, provides that most collocations of antennas on existing structures are excluded from routine historic preservation review,with a few defined exceptions to address potentially problematic situations. See 47 C.F.R.Part 1,App.B, Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas(Collocation Agreement). The second,the 2005 Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review Process,establishes a detailed process for the review of the effects of proposed communications facilities on historic properties. See 47 C.F.R.Part 1,App.C,Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding the Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review Process§II.A.1 (NPA)(defining"antenna"to include associated equipment). While the Collocation Agreement does not define the term"antenna,"its use of the term indicates that it necessarily encompasses the associated equipment. 47 C.F.R.Part 1,App.B,Nationwide Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas. For example,the Collocation Agreement specifies that a collocation of an"antenna"on a tower constitutes a"substantial increase in the size of the tower"if "[t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved." Collocation Agreement§I.C(2). We note that this intuitive interpretation of"antenna"in the context of wireless facility collocations is also reflected in certain local ordinances. For example,Montgomery County,Maryland,recently adopted an amendment to its zoning ordinance to provide, inter alfa,that an"Antenna on Existing Structure includes related equipment." Montgomery County,Maryland Zoning Ordinance Section 59.3.5.14(C)(1). See Ordinance No.: 17-49,Zoning Text Amendment No.: 14-04, "Concerning:Accessory Commercial Uses—Antennas,"adopted July 22,2014,effective Oct.30,2014,available at http://www.mont og_me_[yco=md.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/zta/2014/20140722 17-49.pd£ 93 Cf.Nationwide Programmatic Agreement Regarding The Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act Review Process,WT Docket No.03-128,Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd 1073, 1130 para. 158(2004)(NPA Report and Order)("We are aware of no case,however,where noise from a communications facility generator has been found to have an adverse effect on a historic property."),aff'd,CTIA-The Wireless Assn v. F.C.C.,466 F.3d 105(D.C.Cir. 2006). 94 While Alexandria et al. submit a declaration from Joseph Monaco asserting that"[m]inor additions to existing facilities could have significant effects even if only incremental to past disturbances,",see Alexandria et al. Comments,Attach.(Monaco Declaration),at 5,we find this position is inconsistent with the Commission's finding that the mounting of antennas on existing towers and buildings will not have significant effects,and with our (continued....) 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 43. Against this evidence,we find unpersuasive Tempe's argument that the NEPA categorical exclusion for collocation should not encompass backup generators in particular.95 Tempe argues that generators cause"fumes,noise, and the potential for exposure to hazardous substances if there is a leak or a spill"and therefore"should not be allowed to be installed without the appropriate oversight.,16 To the extent Tempe raises concerns about noise from testing generators,97 we note that the Commission has previously determined that maintenance and servicing of equipment do not constitute Commission"undertakings"subject to the Section 106 historic preservation review process,98 and that courts have generally treated Federal actions under NEPA as closely analogous to Federal undertakings under NHPA.99 Thus,such maintenance procedures arguably do not constitute Federal actions subject to environmental review under NEPA.1 O In any case,the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau addressed all of these potential impacts in its Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Antenna Structure Registration Program(PEA),and did not find any to be significant."' Tempe's own comments, (Continued from previous page) experience administering the NEPA process,in which a collocation has never been identified by the Commission or the public to have caused a significant environmental effect. We further note that the proffered examples appear to confuse consideration under our NEPA process with review under local process,which we do not address here. See, e.g.,Monaco Declaration at 7(stating that"[r]emoving local discretion from the process of siting and design of additions to existing structures could result in significant effects"with respect to an endangered species). To the extent that rare circumstances exist where"even the smallest change could result in a significant effect,based on the intrinsic sensitivity of a particular resource,"Monaco Declaration at 11,we conclude that such extraordinary circumstances are appropriately addressed through Sections 1.1307(c)and(d),as necessary. Consistent with the requirement under CEQ regulations that an agency that establishes categorical exclusions must also provide for "extraordinary circumstances"under which an action that is normally categorically excluded may have a significant environmental effect and therefore require further NEPA review,we reaffirm that under Sections 1.1307(c)and(d) of our rules,if the relevant Bureau determines on its own motion or in response to a public objection that a proposed deployment that falls under this categorical exclusion may have a significant environmental impact,it will require the preparation of an EA. 47 C.F.R.§ 1.1307(c),(d). 9s We note that the National Park Service adopted a categorical exclusion for proposed tower construction in Yellowstone National Park that included the installation of a backup generator based on a determination that the action would result in"no or minor impacts." See National Park Service,U.S.Department of the Interior, Categorical Exclusion Form,PEPC Project Number 43426,Oct. 13,2012,available at http://parkplanning.nps.eov/document.cftn?parklD=111&projectID=43426&documentID=50144. 96 Tempe Comments at 5-6. 97 See Tempe Reply Comments at 3. 98 NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1088 para.39(citing NPA§I.B.("Many changes to tower sites . . .are in the nature of service or maintenance and are not federal undertakings.Thus,the Nationwide Agreement provides explicitly that Undertakings do not include maintenance and servicing of equipment.")). 99 See,e.g.,Karst Environmental Educ. and Protection,Inc. v.Environmental Protection Agency,475 F.3d 1291, 1295-96(D.C.Cir.2007);Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri v.Norton,240 F.3d 1250, 1263 (10th Cir.2001). "0 But see 47 C.F.R.§ 1.1311(b)(specifying that"[i]n the case of wilderness areas,wildlife preserves,or other like areas,the[EA]shall discuss the effect of any continuing pattern of human intrusion into the area(e.g., necessitated by the operation and maintenance of the facilities)."). 101 See Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment For the Antenna Structure Registration Program,Public Notice,2012 WL 871792(WTB Mar. 13,2012)(PEA),at 8("Several resources were determined to not be affected by or to be affected negligibly by the No Action Alternative,Alternative 1,and the three options under Alternative 2. These resources include:geology,soils,farmlands,groundwater,coastal zones/barriers,designated wilderness areas(which are already protected under FCC rules),air quality,noise,and land use."),38(finding that all considered options for registration of antenna structures taking into account emissions from backup generators, would have negligible impact on air quality),id (finding that registered antenna structures would create no long- term differences in the frequency,magnitude,or duration of noise at the project site(s)and therefore all options"are expected to have negligible impacts on noise"),70(finding that potential that a spill or leak from a fuel-burning (continued....) 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 moreover,confirm that backup generators are already subject to extensive local, State, and Federal regulation,suggesting that further oversight from the Commission would not meaningfully augment existing environmental safeguards. For example,as Tempe notes, local building and fire codes often regulate the deployment of generators.102 In addition,the Environmental Protection Agency and many localities regulate emissions from and use of backup generators to alleviate environmental concerns,113 and generators must comply with any applicable noise ordinances and laws as well."' In assessing environmental effect, an agency may factor in an assumption that the action is performed in compliance with other applicable regulatory requirements in the absence of a basis in the record beyond mere speculation that the action threatens violations of such requirements.10' Tempe's comments support our conclusion that such regulations applicable to backup generators address Tempe's concerns.10' Further, (Continued from previous page) generator would occur is small,and the amount of fuel onsite would not be sufficient to cause widespread contamination"and that,therefore,"[s]pills or leaks would likely result in short-term negligible to minor adverse impacts on surface water resources"). 102 See Tempe Comments at 6-7. 10'See Environmental Protection Agency,"Nonroad Diesel Engines,"available at http://www.epa.2ov/otaq/nonroad-diesel.htm(noting that Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)has"adopted a comprehensive national program to reduce emissions from non-road diesel engines by[systemically]integrating engine and fuel controls");see also Diesel Technology Forum,"Diesel at Work,"available at http://www.dieselforum.or0diesel-at-work/power-generation(noting that"[d]iesel generators are covered by a wide range of federal,state and local requirements regarding emissions performance and operating conditions"). 104 Cf"City of Palo Alto,California,Staff Report 2393,"available at http://paloaltociiyca.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&ID=2393&CssClass=(finding Palo Alto DAS installation compliant with local noise ordinance): Moreover,any noise from such generators is unlikely to have a significant effect on the environment,as they will be used only on the comparatively infrequent occasions when power has been lost or during brief periodic testing. Cf. Gray Tower Environmental Assessment,available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/psic/MSCommNet%20PSIC%20EA%20report%20final.pdf(finding no significant long-term noise impacts from generator as"use of the generator would be limited and would only occur during equipment maintenance and testing as a backup for primary power equipment and during interruption of the primary (grid)power supply"). 10'See,e.g.,PEA,2012 WL 871792,at*38(assessing environmental impact of noise,the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau concluded that,"because tower construction is a private activity that is subject to state and local regulations,such as requirements to perform work during day-time business hours,the Bureau expects that any short-term impacts to adjacent land uses and populations would be mitigated"and further that"[c]onstruction workers also are required to comply with Occupational Safety and Health Administration noise regulations"); National Telecommunications and Information Administration,"Finding of No Significant Impact for Proposed Gray Tower,"available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/psic/Gray%20Tower ME 09-01-11.12df(approving Gray Tower EA,which found no significant impact from tower that included generator in part because"Federal regulations limit the use of backup generators to 500 hours per year");Lone Tree Council v. U.S.Army Corp. of Engineers,2007 WL 1520904(E.D.Mich.May 24,2007)(upholding agency's Finding of No Significant Impact, where argument that its action might involve release of pollutant in violation of Clean Water Act certification was nothing more than"speculation"). See also Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp,661 F.3d 1147, 1155 (D.C.Cir.2012) (upholding agency's FONSI,finding that agency reasonably found that past violation from similar action did not "threaten"future violations where previous violation was result of error and"not a problem of design");Audubon Naturalist Society of the Central Atlantic States,Inc. v. U.S.Dept. of Transp,524 F.Supp.2d 642(D.Md.2007) (affirming Department of Transportation's reliance in its environmental assessment on EPA standards regarding emissions). 106 See Tempe Comments at 6-7. 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 we find that cell sites with such generators will rarely if ever be grouped in sufficient proximity to present a risk of cumulative effects.107 44. Accordingly,we find no reason to interpret"antenna"in the Note 1 NEPA collocation categorical exclusion to omit backup generators or other kinds of backup power equipment. Rather,as discussed above,we find that the term"antenna"as used in the categorical exclusion should be interpreted to encompass the on-site equipment associated with the antenna,including backup power sources. Further,the need for such power sources at tower sites is largely undisputed,as backup power is critical for continued service in the event of natural disasters or other power disruptions—times when the need and demand for such service is often at its greatest.10' We therefore amend Note 1 to clarify that the categorical exclusion encompasses equipment associated with the antenna,including the critical component of backup power. 45. Finally,we note once again that Sections 1.1306(b)(1)-(3)and 1.1307(c)and(d)of our rules provide for situations where environmental concerns are presented and,as called for by the requirement that categorical exclusions include consideration of extraordinary circumstances,closer scrutiny and potential additional environmental review are appropriate. Sections 1.1306(b)(1)-(3) expressly cross reference the factors in Section 1.1307 that trigger the need for an EA. Further,under Sections 1.1307(c)and(d)of our rules,even otherwise categorically excluded applications are subject to environmental review if the bureau responsible for processing the application determines on its own motion or in response to a public objection that the proposed deployment may have a significant environmental impact for which an EA must be prepared.10' We conclude that individual cases presenting extraordinary circumstances in which collocated generators or other associated equipment may have a significant effect on the environment, including cases in which closely spaced generators may have a significant cumulative effect or where the deployment of such generators would violate local codes in a manner that raises environmental concerns,will be adequately addressed through these provisions."' b. Antennas Mounted in the Interior of Buildings 46. Background. The Infrastructure NPRM also sought comment on whether the Commission should clarify that the existing NEPA categorical exclusion for mounting antennas on buildings applies not only to installations on rooftops and facades but also to installations in the interior of buildings."' As noted above,interior placements play an increasingly important role in providing access to wireless networks from inside buildings and other indoor environments. 47. No commenters oppose the proposed clarification, although Tempe objects to any categorical exclusion that would allow a diesel generator inside an existing building or other structure based on concerns about fumes,noise,and the potential for exposure to hazardous substances if there is a leak or a spill.112 Industry commenters support the clarification,arguing that no special environmental 107 See,e.g.,American Tower Corporation,Generator Site List,available at hiip://www.americantower.com/Assets/uploads/files/Excel/Variable-related/Americantower backup-power site- list.xls. los See Improving 9-1-1 Reliability;Reliability and Continuity of Communications Networks,Including Broadband Technologies,PS Docket Nos. 13-75, 11-60,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,28 FCC Rcd 3414(2013)(seeking comment on approaches to ensure the reliability and resiliency of the communications infrastructure necessary to ensure continued availability of the Nation's 9-1-1 system,particularly during times of major disaster). 109 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(c),(d). "Cf.NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1130 para. 158(finding that reliance on public complaint is best approach to address"unusual case"of a generator having an adverse impact on historic properties). 111 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14254 para.41. 112 See Tempe Comments at 6. 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 effects arise from collocations in the interior of buildings as opposed to collocations on the exterior.1' Towerstream argues that this clarification is necessary to advance the goal of facilitating DAS and small- cell deployments that often operate inside buildings.14 AT&T argues that,"regardless of the manner or location of antenna placements on an existing structure,collocations meet the goals of the"categorical exclusion—namely, encouraging collocations and minimizing new tower construction."' 48. Discussion. We adopt the proposal and clarify that the existing NEPA categorical exclusion for mounting antennas"on"existing buildings applies to installations in the interior of existing buildings.1' An antenna mounted on a surface inside a building is as much"on"the building as an antenna mounted on a surface on the exterior, and we find nothing in the language of the categorical exclusion, in the adopting order,or in the current record supporting a distinction between collocations on the exterior or in the interior that would limit the scope of the categorical exclusion to exterior collocations."' To the contrary,it is even more likely that indoor installations will have no significant environmental effects in the environmentally sensitive areas in which proposed deployments would generally trigger the need to prepare an EA,such as wilderness areas,wildlife preserves, and flood plains.1' Specifically,the existing Note 1 collocation categorical exclusion reflects a finding that collocations do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, even if they would otherwise trigger the requirement of an EA under the criteria identified in Sections 1.1307(a)(1)-(3)and(5)-(8). We find that this conclusion applies equally or even more strongly to an antenna deployed inside a building than to one on its exterior, since the building's exterior structure would serve as a buffer against any effects.1' In addition,we note that FirstNet,the National Telecommunications and Information Administration(NTIA), and other agencies have adopted categorical exclusions covering internal modifications and equipment additions inside buildings and structures. For example,in adopting categorical exclusions as part of its implementation of the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program,NTIA noted that excluding interior modifications and equipment additions reflects long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records,including in particular"the legacy categorical exclusions from the U.S.Department of Agriculture,U.S.Department of Homeland Security,and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.i12' While a Federal agency cannot apply another agency's categorical exclusion to a proposed Federal action, it may substantiate a categorical exclusion of its own based on another agency's experience with a comparable categorical "'See,e.g.,UTC Comments at 4;WISPA Comments at 14. 114 See Towerstream Comments at 31. 11'See AT&T Comments 10. 116 In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission also sought comment on whether to codify this clarification by amending Note 1. See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14255 para.41 (seeking comment on whether to "amend the first sentence of Note 1 to clarify that the collocation exclusion applies to installations in the interior of buildings"). 117 See, a g., AT&T Comments at 10;UTC Comments at 4;WISPA Comments at 14. 118 See, e.g., ACUTA Comments at 4. 119 For example,Section 1.1307(a)(2)normally requires an EA for facilities in wildlife preserves,47 C.F.R. § 1.1 307(a)(2),but under Note 1,this provision does not encompass collocations on buildings. We find it evident that interior deployments have,if anything,less potential to impact such environments than exterior deployments. 120 Department of Commerce,National Telecommunications and Information Administration,National Environmental Policy Act--Categorical Exclusions covering the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP),Docket No.0906221081-91339-02,74 Fed.Reg.52456,52458(Oct. 13,2009);see also Department of Commerce,National Telecommunications and Information Administration,First Responder Network Authority, National Environmental Policy Act Categorical Exclusions,Docket Number 131219999-4338-02,79 Fed.Reg. 23945,23949(April 29,2014)(similar). 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 exclusion.12' This long-standing practice of numerous agencies that conduct comparable activities, reflecting experience that confirms the propriety of the categorical exclusion,provides further support for the conclusion that internal collocations will not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment." With respect to Tempe's concern about generators being placed inside buildings as the result of collocations, as noted above,we rely on local building,noise,and safety regulations to address these concerns,and we anticipate that such regulations will almost always require generators to be outside of any residential buildings where their use would present health or safety concerns or else place very strict requirements on any placement in the interior.123 For all of these reasons,we find it appropriate to amend Note 1 to clarify that the Note 1 collocation categorical exclusion applies to the mounting of antennas in the interior of buildings as well as the exterior. 49. We emphasize that the NEPA categorical exclusion we address here does not encompass deployments that may significantly affect historic properties,nor does it cover the review required if exposure to RF emissions would exceed specified levels.124 Measures to promote efficiencies in Section 106 processing,including processing of certain interior deployments,are discussed in Section III.0 below. C. Antennas Mounted on Other Structures 50. Background. The Commission also asked whether it should expand the Note 1 categorical exclusion,which currently extends to deployments on existing buildings or antenna towers,to deployments on other existing structures,including but not limited to utility poles,water tanks, and road signs.121 The Commission tentatively concluded that its prior determination that collocations on antenna towers and buildings are individually and cumulatively unlikely to have significant environmental effects applies equally to collocations on other structures.126 In addition, and in support of this conclusion,the Commission noted that the NHPA Collocation Agreement and the NPA do not distinguish between buildings and other non-tower structures in applying exclusions from Section 106 review.121 121 See Council On Environmental Quality,"Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Establishing, Applying,and Revising Categorical Exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act,"75 FR 75628,75634 (Dec.6,2010). 122 See,e.g.,First Responder Network Authority;National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures and Categorical Exclusions,79 FR 639,640(Jan.6,2014)(drawing on NTIA exclusions after finding,inter alfa,that its projects are comparable and that,in the 100 cases where excluded projects were subject to review due to extraordinary circumstances,NTIA had made a Finding of No Significant Impact in 99 cases and was still in the process of reviewing one project). 121 See,a g.,University of Colorado Boulder Fire and Life-Safety Group,"A Code Review for Emergency Generators and Indoor Use of Portable Generators,"available at http_//www colorado edu/firelifesgfgV/sites/default/files/attached-files/Emer eg_ncyandlndoorGenerators.pdf-, Norwall Power Systems,"Choosing a Location for Standby Home Generator Installation,"available at http•//www norwall com/blog/¢enerator-information/locating-standby-home-generator-installation/;eHow,"Indoor Emergency Generator Requirements,"available at b.9p://www.ehow.com/list 7707300 indoor-emergency- generator-requirements.html;David Gries,E-A-R Specialty Composites,"Noise Control Solutions for Standby Power Generators,"available at http://www.earsc.com/pdfs/StandbyGeneratorsWhitePaper.pdf. 124 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b). Specifically,with regard to antennas that are deployed pursuant to the NEPA collocation categorical exclusion,Note 1 provides:"Such antennas are subject to§ 1.1307(b)of this part and require EAs if their construction would result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable health and safety guidelines cited in§ 1.1307(b)of this part." 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306 Note 1. See also supra,n.36. 121 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14253-54 paras.37-39. "'Id. at 14253 para.38. 127 Id. (citing Collocation Agreement§V,Collocation of Antennas on Buildings and Non-Tower Structures Outside of Historic Districts). 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 51. Industry commenters broadly support the proposal.12' They argue that collocations by placement on existing structures other than towers and buildings are unlikely to have any greater environmental effects than collocations on towers or buildings,and that facilitating such collocations will speed deployment of broadband wireless facilities without impacting the environment.12' Mesquite also supports the proposal,but other municipalities oppose it.13' The municipalities in opposition(including Mendham,Phoenix, Savannah,Tempe,High Point,West Palm Beach, and Coconut Creek)argue that the categorical exclusion should not extend to collocations on water tanks in particular because of concerns about water safety.131 Some,such as Tempe,express concern that collocations on road signs should not be categorically excluded because they could distract drivers and affect vehicular safety.132 52. Discussion. We adopt the proposal to extend the categorical exclusion for collocations on towers and buildings to collocations on other existing man-made structures.133 After review of the record,we conclude that deployments covered by this extension will not individually or cumulatively have a significant impact on the human environment. Through this measure,we update the categorical exclusion adopted as part of Note 1 in 1986 to reflect the modern development of wireless technologies that can be collocated on a much broader range of existing structures. This measure will facilitate collocations and speed deployment of wireless broadband to consumers without significantly affecting the environment.134 53. In finding that it is appropriate to broaden the categorical exclusion contained in Section 1.13 06 Note 1 to apply to other structures,we rely in part on the Commission's prior findings regarding the environmental effects of collocations. In implementing NEPA requirements in 1974,for example,the Commission found that mounting an antenna on an existing building or tower"has no significant aesthetic effect and is environmentally preferable to the construction of a new tower,provided there is compliance with radiation safety standards."135 In revising its NEPA rules in 1986,the Commission found that antennas mounted on towers and buildings are among those deployments that will normally have no significant impact on the environment.136 We note in particular that collocations will typically add only marginal if any extra height to a structure, and that in 2011,in a proceeding addressing the 128 See, e.g.,AT&T Comments at 4,9;AT&T Reply Comments at 2,4;PCIA Comments at 17;PCIA Reply Comments at 8; Sprint Comments at 6;TIA Comments at 3;UTC Comments at 1-4;UTC Reply Comments at 2-3; Verizon Comments at 4;WISPA Comments at 12-13;WISPA Reply Comments at 11. 129 See, e.g., Sprint Comments at 6;UTC Reply Comments at 2-3;Verizon Comments at 15-16;WISPA Comments at 13. 130 Compare Mesquite Comments at 1 with Mendham Comments at 4;Phoenix Comments at 3; Savannah Ex Parte at 1. 131 See, e.g., High Point Comments at 2;,Tempe Comments at 5(expressing concerns about collocations on water tanks as they are critical infrastructure);West Palm Beach Comments at 2(stating that proposal is not objectionable in concept but should not apply to water tank collocations);see also Coconut Creek Comments at 2(same);Steel in the Air Comments at 2(same). 132 See Tempe Comments at 5. 133 We extend the categorical exclusion to other existing structures subject to the same limitations that apply to the existing categorical exclusion. Namely,the categorical exclusion does not apply to review for effects on historic properties nor to review for compliance with our RF exposure limits. Further,we retain authority under Sections 1.1307(c)and(d)of our rules to address individual cases where there may be significant environmental effects. See 47 C.F.R.§§ 1.1306(a), 1.1307(c),(d). 134 See, e.g., Improving Performance of Federal Permitting and Review of Infrastructure Projects,Exec.Order No. 13604,77 Fed.Reg. 18887(Mar.22,2012). 135 1974 NEPA Order,49 FCC 2d at 1324 para.27. 136 See 1986 NEPA Order,60 Rad.Reg.2d at 15 para.6;Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16708 para. 19. 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Commission's NEPA requirements with respect to migratory birds,the Commission reaffirmed that collocations on towers and buildings are unlikely to have environmental effects and thus such collocations are categorically excluded from review for impact on birds.13' Further,given that towers and buildings are typically much taller than other man-made structures on which antennas will be collocated;we expect that there will be even less potential for significant effects on birds from collocations on such other structures. 54. In the Infrastructure NPRM,we tentatively concluded that the same determination applies with regard to collocations on other structures such as utility poles and water towers.138 Numerous commenters support this determination,13'and opponents offer no persuasive basis to distinguish the environmental effects of collocations on antenna towers and buildings from the effects of collocations on other existing structures. Indeed,in this regard,we note that buildings and towers,which are already excluded under Note 1,are typically taller than structures such as utility poles and road signs.140 While some commenters raise concerns about possible water-tank contamination or driver distraction,141 these concerns do not present persuasive grounds to limit the categorical exclusion. Under Sections 1.1306(a) and(b),collocations on structures such as water tanks and road signs are already categorically excluded from the obligation to file an EA unless they occur in the environmentally sensitive circumstances identified in Sections 1.1307(a)or(b)(such as in wildlife preserves or flood plains).14' Nothing in the record leads us to find that collocations in such sensitive areas that currently require EAs present greater risks of water tank contamination or driver distraction than collocations outside such areas."' 55. We also find support for expanding this categorical exclusion for collocations in our approach to historic preservation review and in other agencies' approach to environmental review. We note in particular that the exclusion from Section 106 review in the Collocation Agreement is not limited to collocations on towers and buildings but also specifically includes collocations on other existing non- tower structures.'' Further,the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service has found collocations on existing non- 117 See Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16708 para. 19&n.57. 138 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14253 para.38. 139 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 4,9;PCIA Comments at 17; Sprint Comments at 6;UTC Comments at 4;Verizon Comments at 15-16;WISPA Comments at 13. 140 According to statistics published by the Florida Public Service Commission,the standard utility pole is 35 feet tall,though poles can range from 20 to 100 feet tall. See Florida Public Service Commission,"What's on a Utility Pole?"available at http://www.1sc.state.fl.us/consumers/utilitypole/en/AllUtilityPolelnfo.aspx. By contrast, antenna structures,e.g., towers,must be registered if the tower is taller than 200 feet above ground level or may interfere with the flight path of a nearby airport. See FCC,"Antenna Structure Registration(ASR)—Help," available at hU://www.fcc. og v/help/antenna-structure-registration-asr-help. 141 See supra, n.131. 142 Under the existing rules,actions not within the categories for which EAs are required under Sections 1.1307(a) and(b)of the Commission's rules"are deemed individually and cumulatively to have no significant effect on the quality of the human environment and are categorically excluded from environmental processing. . . [e]xcept as provided in Sections 1.1307(c)and(d)." 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306(a). 143 For similar reasons,we are also not persuaded by Springfield's argument that extending the categorical exclusion to other structures without"qualifying delimitations for how DAS facilities are defined and where they may be installed may have unacceptable impacts on historic and other sensitive neighborhoods." Springfield Comments at 4. Springfield offers no argument to explain why the NEPA categorical exclusion for collocations on utility poles should be more restrictive than the exclusion for collocations on buildings. Moreover,we note that the NEPA categorical exclusion we address here does not exclude the proposed collocation from NHPA review for effects on historic properties or historic districts. 144 See Collocation Agreement§I.A(defining"collocation"covered by the Agreement as"the in or installation of an antenna on an existing tower,building or structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving [RF]signals for communications purposes"). We note that the phrase"for the purpose of transmitting and/or (continued....) 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 tower structures to be environmentally desirable with regard to impacts on birds,noting that they will in virtually every circumstance have less impact than would construction of a new tower.141 56. As the Commission noted in the Infrastructure NPRM,non-tower and non-building structures are vitally important to the deployment of broadband and other services,146 particularly via DAS and small-cell facilities.147 As we noted above, small facility deployments are increasing dramatically,and they are typically located on utility poles or similar structures rather than on towers."' Further,the Note 1 categorical exclusion reflects our long-held position that collocations are environmentally desirable because they obviate the need for construction of new towers,149 and broadening the category of excluded structures advances this policy. Considering that collocating on these structures is necessary for broadband deployment, and in light of the environmental benefits of encouraging collocation rather than the construction of new structures and our analysis above,we find that extending the categorical exclusion to other structures advances the public interest and meets our obligations under NEPA. 3. Categorical Exclusion of Deployments in Communications or Utilities Rights-of-Way 57. Background. In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission sought comment on whether to adopt a categorical exclusion for small facilities located in communications or utility rights-of-way.150 Noting that the NPA excludes wireless deployments(including deployments on new structures)from routine Section 106 review when they are located in or near above-ground utility or telecommunications rights-of-way,the Commission sought comment on whether to adopt a similar categorical exclusion from routine NEPA review. Further, in the event it were to adopt such a categorical exclusion,the Commission sought comment on whether to apply any of the conditions that are applicable under the NPA rights-of- way exclusion,such as limiting it to facilities that do not constitute a substantial increase in size relative (Continued from previous page) receiving[RF]signals for communications purposes"is intended to modify"an antenna"rather than"an existing tower,building or structure." This is evident because,if the phrase were to modify"an existing tower,building or structure,"then such buildings and structures would themselves qualify as towers under the definition of tower in the Collocation Agreement,rendering"building or structure"redundant. Collocation Agreement§I.B. 145 See,e.g.,Recommendations to Avoid Adverse Impacts to Migratory Birds,Federally Listed Species and Other Wildlife from Communications Towers and Antennae,Guidance prepared by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, available at http://www.dgif virginia.jzov/environmental-programs/files/USFWS-tower-recommendations.pdf,at 1 ("Collocate communication antennae and other equipment on existing structures whenever possible to avoid new tower construction. Antennae have been mounted on rooftops;flagpoles;bell,cross,and clock towers;road signs; silos;and water and power line towers. Where attachment to an existing non-tower structure is not feasible, collocate antennae on existing communication towers."). 146 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14253 para.38&n.91 (citing Implementation of Section 224 of the Act;A National Broadband Plan For Our Future,WC Docket No.07-245,GN Docket No.09-51,Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration,26 FCC Rcd 5240,5241-42(2011)). 147 Id at 14253 para.38,n.92(citing,a g.,Letter from Tamara Preiss,Verizon,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary, FCC,WC Docket No. 11-59,filed May 14,2013;Letter from Colleen Thompson,AT&T,to Marlene H.Dortch, Secretary,FCC,WC Docket No. 11-59,filed June 17,2013)). 148 See, e.g., "the DAS forum:Distributed Antenna Systems(DAS)And Small Cell Technologies Distinguished," available at http://www.thedasforum.or /g_n-content/uploads/2013/02/DAS-And-Small-Cell-Technologies- Distinguished-2 4 13.pdf,at 3. 149 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306 Note 1 ("The use of existing buildings,towers or corridors is an environmentally desirable alternative to the construction of new facilities and is encouraged."); 1988 NEPA Order,3 FCC Rcd 4986, 4986 para.7(citing 1974 NEPA Order,49 FCC 2d at 1320, 1324). 150 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14256-57 para.50. 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 to existing nearby structures in the right-of-way.15' The Commission also sought comment on whether to expand the categorical exclusion in Section 1.13 06 Note 1,which currently covers"the installation of aerial wire or cable over existing aerial corridors of prior or permitted use or the underground installation of wire or cable along existing underground corridors of prior or permitted use,established by the applicant or others.s15' The Infrastructure NPRM sought comment on extending the categorical exclusion to cover components of DAS or small-cell deployments, including new support structures, in such corridors."' 58. Industry commenters support the adoption of a categorical exclusion for installations in the rights-of-way.154 WISPA recommends that we"adopt a categorical exclusion from routine NEPA review for all communications facilities"in communications and utilities rights-of-way,with conditions similar to the rights-of-way exclusion in the NPA.155 AT&T similarly recommends that we adopt a rights- of-way NEPA categorical exclusion for all communications facilities,not just DAS and small-cell installations, in or within 50 feet of rights-of-way, including new support structures of comparable size to other structures in the right-of-way.156 Some industry commenters also support a categorical exclusion for installations in existing aerial or underground corridors.157 59. Eugene opposes any expansion of the current NEPA categorical exclusions.]$' While not generally objecting to a rights-of-way categorical exclusion,Tempe argues that we should"limit the number of non-substantial increases in size over existing structures to only one,"and that all subsequent increases in size should be subject to Section 106 review.15' Tempe argues that"[m]ultiple incremental increases could create a negative impact.s16' Coconut Creek indicates it is not opposed to exclusions in existing aerial corridors,where infrastructure is attached to existing equipment,but expresses concern with any exclusion of above-ground deployments where there is no existing above-ground infrastructure.16' Further, it asserts that installing new wireless infrastructure within rights-of-way may cause hazards to pedestrian and vehicular traffic,and it notes that a"substantial increase in size"criterion does not resolve this concern.161 60. Discussion. We adopt a categorical exclusion for certain wireless facilities deployed in above-ground utility and communications rights-of-way. We find that such deployments will not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. Given that DAS and small-cell nodes are often deployed in communications and utilities rights-of-way,we conclude that the categorical 151 Id. 112 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306 Note 1. 153 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14257 para.51. 154 See, e.g, AT&T Comments at 6, 17-18;Joint Venture Comments at 4;Fibertech Comments at 10-11;PCIA Comments at 18-19;WISPA Comments at 16. 155 See WISPA Comments at 16. 156 See AT&T Comments at 6, 17-18. 157 See, e.g, Fibertech Comments at 10-11 (supporting a categorical exclusion for DAS and small-cell installations along"existing aerial and underground corridors(e.g.,public rights-of-way and utility easements)");PCIA Comments at 18-19;WISPA Comments at 16. See also AT&T Comments at 17. 15'See Eugene Comments at 28-29. 159 Tempe Comments at 9. 160 Id 161 See Coconut Creek Comments at 3. 162 Id. 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 exclusion will significantly advance the deployment of such facilities in a manner that safeguards environmental values.163 61. Specifically,this categorical exclusion,which we incorporate into our rules as Note 4 to Section 1.1306,covers construction of wireless facilities, including deployments on new or replacement poles,only if:(1)the facility will be located in a right-of-way that is designated by a Federal, State,local, or Tribal government for communications towers, above-ground utility transmission or distribution lines, or any associated structures and equipment; (2)the right-of-way is in active use for such designated purposes; and(3)the facility will not constitute a substantial increase in size over existing support structures that are located in the right-of-way within the vicinity of the proposed construction.164 62. Although the Commission sought comment, in the Infrastructure NPRM,on whether to adopt a categorical exclusion that covered facilities also located within fifty feet of a communications or utility right-of-way, similar to the exclusion from Section 106 review in Section III.E.of the NPA,161 we limit our NEPA categorical exclusion to facilities deployed within existing communications and utility rights-of-way. Industry commenters that support applying the categorical exclusion to deployments within fifty feet of a right-of-way do not explain why the conclusion that deployments in the right-of-way will not have a significant effect on the human environment also apply outside of a right-of-way.166 Such ground would not necessarily be in active use for the designated purposes,and there could well be a greater potential outside the right-of-way for visual impact or new or significant ground disturbance that might have the potential for significant environmental effects. Finally,the record supports the conclusion that a categorical exclusion limited to deployments within the rights-of-way will address most of the deployments that would be covered by a categorical exclusion that also encompassed deployments nearby. Sprint,for example,emphasizes that"many DAS and small cells will be attached to existing structures and installed within utility rights-of-way corridors.99167 63. For purposes of this categorical exclusion,we define a substantial increase in size in similar fashion to how it is defined in the Collocation Agreement.168 Thus,a deployment would result in a substantial increase in size if it would:(1)exceed the height of existing support structures that are 163 For example,the categorical exclusion addresses Crown Castle's concern that the existing rules,which require EAs for facilities located in 100-year flood plains,could result in the preparation of an EA for each new utility pole installed in a 100-year flood plain to support the deployment of a DAS or small cell network,despite the facts that: (i)the utility poles will be located within the previously disturbed public right-of-way;(ii)the same utility poles would not require such environmental review if installed for another public utility purpose;and(iii)the placement of utility poles within the right-of-way will not significantly impact the 100-year floodplain. According to Crown Castle,"much of the area along the Gulf Coast and other coastal regions falls within 100-year flood plains,"and deployment of DAS or small cell networks in coastal rural areas with little or no existing coverage could therefore require individual EAs for hundreds of new utility poles in the right-of-way. See Crown Castle Comments at 3-4. See also"the DAS forum:Distributed Antenna Systems(DAS)And Small Cell Technologies Distinguished," available at http://www.thedasforum.org/W-content/uploads/2013/02/DAS-And-Small-Cell-Technoloaies- Distinguished-2 4 13.pdf,at 6. We note that facilities subject to this categorical exclusion are still required to undergo review for compliance with our RF exposure limits,and for effects on historic properties to the extent the deployment is not excluded under the Collocation Agreement,the NPA,or the Section 106 exclusions adopted in this Report and Order. 164 See NPA§III.E. The NPA imposes two additional conditions,that:(1)the facility would not be located within the boundaries of a historic property,and(2)the applicant has successfully completed the process established in the NPA for Tribal and Native Hawaiian Organization participation. These conditions are relevant to Section 106 review,not NEPA review,and there is no need to include them here. 161 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14256-57 para.50. 166 See,e.g.,AT&T Comments at 6, 17-18. 167 Sprint Comments at 5(emphasis added). 168 See Collocation Agreement§I.C. 31 i Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 located in the right-of-way within the vicinity of the proposed construction by more than 10%or twenty feet,whichever is greater; (2)involve the installation of more than four new equipment cabinets or more than one new equipment shelter;(3)add an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge of the structure more than twenty feet,or more than the width of the structure at the level of the appurtenance,whichever is greater(except that the deployment may exceed this size limit if necessary I to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via cable); or(4) involve excavation outside the current site,defined as the area that is within the boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the deployment or that is in proximity to the structure and within the boundaries of the utility easement on which the facility is to be deployed,whichever is more restrictive. 64. We note that we have found a similar test appropriate in other contexts,including under our environmental rules. In particular,the first three criteria that we specify above to define the scope of the NEPA rights-of-way categorical exclusion also define the scope of the rights-of-way exclusion from historic preservation review under the NPA.169 Similarly,for purposes of Antenna Structure Registration, we do not require environmental notice for a proposed tower replacement if, among other criteria,the deployment will not cause a substantial increase in size under the first three criteria of the Collocation Agreement,and there will be no construction or excavation more than 30 feet beyond the existing antenna structure property.170 Further,given that the industry now has almost a decade of experience applying this substantial increase test to construction in the rights-of-way under the NPA exclusion,and in light of the efficiencies to be gained from using a similar test here,we find the Collocation Agreement test,as modified here,to be appropriate in this context. i 65. We conclude that facilities subject to this categorical exclusion will not have a significant effect on the environment either individually or cumulatively,and that the categorical exclusion is therefore appropriate. In the NPA Report and Order,the Commission found that excluding construction in utilities or communications rights-of-way from historic preservation review was warranted because, "[w]here such structures will be located near existing similar poles, . . .the likelihood of an incremental adverse impact on historic properties is minimal.""' We find that the potential incremental impacts on j the environment are similarly minimal. Indeed,deploying these facilities should rarely involve more than minimal new ground disturbance,given that constructing the existing facilities likely disturbed the ground already and given the limitations on the size of any new poles. Moreover,any new pole will also cause minimal visual effect because by definition comparable structures must already exist in the vicinity of the i new deployment in that right-of-way,and new poles covered by this categorical exclusion will not be substantially larger.1' Further,because such corridors are already employed for utility or ,I 1fi9 See NPA§III.E. We note that the NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1098 paras.63-64,in establishing a substantial increase in size test for the partial exclusion from Section 106 review for deployments in the rights-of- way,omitted the fourth prong of the Collocation Agreement's test without explanation. The fourth prong provides that a substantial increase in size occurs when the mounting of an antenna would involve excavation outside the current tower site,defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower or the utility easement and any access or utility easements currently related to the site. See Collocation Agreement§I.CA. Notwithstanding the omission of any excavation criteria from the rights-of-way exclusion in the NPA,we find that it is appropriate to include a modified limitation on excavation for purposes of the NEPA rights-of-way categorical exclusion. Our modified criterion reflects the fact that deployments in the rights-of-way will generally be deployed not on"leased or owned property"but on an easement that constitutes the designated right-of-way,and our conclusion that excavations that are in that right-of-way and in proximity to the structure,where the right-of-way is already in active use for utility or communications purposes,will not have a significant effect on the human environment. 10 See 47 C.F.R. § 17.4(c)(1)(iv);see also NPA§III.B(applying same test for exclusion of replacement towers from Section 106 review). 171 NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1098 para.63. 172 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 6, 17-18;Crown Castle Comments at 3-4. 32 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 communications uses,and the new deployments will be comparable in size to such existing uses,these additional uses are unlikely to trigger new NEPA concerns. Any such concerns would have already been addressed when such corridors were established, and the size of the deployments we categorically exclude will not be substantial enough to raise the prospect of cumulative effects. 66. We also find support for these conclusions in the categorical exclusions adopted by other agencies, including FirstNet. In establishing its own categorical exclusions,FirstNet noted as part of its Administrative Record that its anticipated activities in constructing a nationwide public safety broadband network would primarily include"the installation of cables,cell towers,antenna collocations,buildings, and power units,"for example in connection with"Aerial Plant/Facilities,""Towers,""Collocations," "Power Units,"and"Wireless Telecommunications Facilit[ies.]"173 It defined a"Wireless Telecommunications Facility"as"[a]n installation that sends and/or receives radio frequency signals, including directional, omni-directional,and parabolic antennas,structures, or towers(no more than 199 feet tall with no guy wires),to support receiving and/or transmitting devices,cabinets,equipment rooms, accessory equipment,and other structures,and the land or structure on which they are all situated.474 To address its NEPA obligations in connection with these activities,FirstNet adopted a number of categorical exclusions, including a categorical exclusion for"[c]onstruction of wireless telecommunications facilities involving no more than five acres(2 hectares)of physical disturbance at any single site."171 In adopting this categorical exclusion,FirstNet found that it was"supported by long-standing categorical exclusions and administrative records. In particular,these include categorical exclusions from the U.S.Department of Commerce,U.S.Department of Agriculture,and U.S.Department of Energy."176 67. We find that FirstNet's anticipated activities encompass the construction of wireless facilities and support structures in the rights-of-way, and are therefore comparable to the wireless facility deployments we address here. Further,we note that the categorical exclusions adopted by FirstNet are broader in scope than the categorical exclusion we adopt for facilities deployed within existing rights-of- way.177 We further note that several other agencies have found it appropriate to categorically exclude other activities in existing rights-of-way unrelated to telecommunications.171 68. We find that the categorical exclusion addresses some concerns raised by municipalities, and we find that other concerns they raise are not relevant to the environmental review process. First,we note that the categorical exclusion we adopt addresses Coconut Creek's objection to above-ground deployments in areas with no above-ground infrastructure because we limit it to rights-of-way in active use for above-ground utility structures or communications towers. Second, concerns about hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic are logically inapplicable.179 As we noted above in connection with 171 See Department of Commerce,National Telecommunications and Information Administration,First Responder Network Authority,National Environmental Policy Act Categorical Exclusions,Docket Number 131219999-4338- 02,79 Fed.Reg.23945,23946-47(April 29,2014)(FirstNet Categorical Exclusions). 174 Id. 171 Id. at 23947. 176 Id. at 23949. 177 Id. See also 7 C.F.R. § 1794.22(a)(2)(U.S.Department of Agriculture,Rural Utilities Services(RUS) categorical exclusion of construction of buried and aerial telecommunications lines,cables,and related facilities). 178 See,e.g.,Environmental Impact and Related Procedures,79 Fed.Reg.2107(Jan. 13,2014)(establishing Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration categorical exclusion for transportation projects within existing operational rights-of-way);36 C.F.R. § 1010.7(a)(36)(Presidio Trust categorical exclusion for "[i]nstallation of underground utilities in previously disturbed areas having stable soils,or in an existing utility right- of-way"). While these categorical exclusions do not apply to communications facilities,they reflect and are consistent with the conclusion that ground-disturbing construction in a right-of-way that is in active use will generally not have a significant effect on the human environment. 179 See Coconut Creek Comments at 3. 33 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 deployments on structures other than communications towers and buildings,such concerns do not currently warrant the submission of an EA. Rather,EAs are routinely required for deployments in communications or utility rights-of-way only if they meet one of the criteria specified in Section 1.1307(a)or(b).180 Deployments in the communications or utility rights-of-way have never been identified in our rules as an environmentally sensitive category;indeed,the use of such rights-of-way for antenna deployments is environmentally desirable as compared to deployments in other areas.181 Finally, we find it unnecessary to adopt Tempe's proposed limitation,whether it is properly understood as a proposal to categorically exclude only one non-substantial increase at a particular site or in the same general vicinity,as such limitation has proven unnecessary in the context of historic preservation review. Having concluded that wireless facility deployments in communications or utility rights-of-way have no potentially significant environmental effects individually or cumulatively,we find no basis to limit the number of times such a categorical exclusion is used either at a particular site or in the same general vicinity. Indeed,the categorical exclusion encourages an environmentally responsible approach to deployment given that, as Notes 1 and 4 make clear,the use of existing corridors"is an environmentally desirable alternative to the construction of new facilities.s182 And,apart from environmental considerations,it would be contrary to the public interest to unnecessarily limit the application of this categorical exclusion. 69. We note that this categorical exclusion is separate from and in addition to the current categorical exclusion in Note 1 for installation of wire and cable along existing aerial and underground corridors.183 To the extent that commenters propose extending the Note 1 aerial and underground corridor categorical exclusion to include components of telecommunications systems other than wires and cables, we decline to do so.184 We find that the new Note 4 categorical exclusion we adopt for deployments in communications or utilities rights-of-way will provide substantial and appropriate relief,18'-and that the record in this proceeding does not justify a further expansion of the Note 1 categorical exclusion."' Further,the existing Note 1 categorical exclusion for wires and cables in underground and aerial corridors is broader than the categorical exclusion for installations on existing buildings or antenna towers because it is not limited by Section 1.1307(a)(4)(Section 106 review)or 1.1307(b)(RF emissions),while collocations on existing buildings or towers are subject to these provisions.187 We note that even parties advocating an extension of the categorical exclusion for installation of wire and cable to additional telecommunications components concede that the extension should not apply to review of RF emissions iso See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a),(b). '81 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.13 06 Note 1 ("The use of existing. . .corridors is an environmentally desirable alternative to the construction of new facilities and is encouraged."). 182 Id. 183 Id. 184 See, e.g., Fibertech Comments at 10-11 (supporting a categorical exclusion for DAS and small cell installations along existing aerial and underground corridors(e.g, public rights-of-way and utility easements));Joint Venture Comments at 4(public rights-of-way);PCIA Comments at 18-19. 185 Indeed,one commenter proposes an extension of the aerial and underground corridors categorical exclusion in a manner that would create essentially the NEPA categorical exclusion we adopt today. See AT&T Comments at 6 (proposing extension to categorically exempt all facilities in or within 50 feet of a right-of-way,including new support structures of comparable size to other structures in the right-of-way). pp P 116 Fibertech treats the term"aerial or underground corridors"as encompassing"public rights-of-way." Fibertech Comments at i, 10-11. While such corridors will often run along public rights-of-way,the terms are not synonymous,as aerial or underground corridors run horizontally only in an elevated or underground space,while rights-of-way are not so limited. While one can deploy cable in an underground or aerial corridor,it is apparent that a pole could not be so deployed. 187 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1306 Note 1. 34 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 exposure,as the existing categorical exclusion does.188 This distinction underscores that the existing categorical exclusion of cables and wires in aerial and underground corridors is based on an analysis that does not directly apply to other communications facilities. C. NHPA Exclusions 1. Regulatory Background 70. Section 106 of NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their "undertaking[s]"on historic properties included or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places(National Register).18' NHPA does not require the Commission to engage in any particular preservation activities;rather, Section 106 requires that the Commission consult the applicable State Historic Preservation Officer(SHPO)or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer(THPO)and ACHP, and consider the impacts of its proposed undertakings.19' Similar to a"Federal action"in the NEPA context, an"undertaking"for purposes of Section 106 includes,.among other things,projects,activities,or programs that"requir[e] a Federal permit,license,or approval."191 The Commission has generally interpreted the scope of its Federal undertakings under NHPA as coextensive with its Federal actions under NEPA.192 71. NHPA charges ACHP with promulgating rules to govern the Section 106 process."' ACHP's rules generally specify the process under which Federal agencies perform their historic preservation reviews.194 Section 800.3 of ACHP's rules,entitled"Initiation of the section 106 process," provides that the agency official shall first"determine whether the proposed Federal action is an undertaking. . . and, if so,whether it is a type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties."195 Section 800.3(a)(1)specifies that"[i]f the undertaking is a type of activity that does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties,assuming such historic properties were present, the agency official has no further obligations under section 106 or this part.i196 Agencies rely upon this regulatory process to establish that certain types of activities are excluded from Section 106 review.19' 72. This is not the only mechanism under ACHP's rules for establishing deviations from ACHP's routine Section 106 procedures,however. Section 800.14 of ACHP's rules provides for several types of"program alternatives"by which Federal agencies,in consultation with ACNP and other stakeholders in the historic preservation process,may develop alternative Section 106 procedures tailored 188 See,e.g,AAR Comments at 13;Fibertech Comments at 11. 189 16 U.S.C. §470f. 190 See, e.g.,Davis v.Latschar,202 F.3d 359,370(D.C.Cir.2000). 191 16 U.S.C. §470w(7). 192 See,e.g.,NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1083-84 paras.25-28. Courts also generally treat similarly "Federal actions"under NEPA and"Federal undertakings"under NHPA. See,e.g.,Karst Environmental Educ. and Protection, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency,475 F.3d 1291, 1295-96(D.C.Cir.2007);Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri v.Norton,240 F.3d 1250, 1263(10th Cir.2001). '9s See 16 U.S.C.§470s("The Council is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations as it deems necessary to govern the implementation of section 470f of this title in its entirety."). 194 See 36 C.F.R.Part 800. '95 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(a). 196 36 C.F.R.§ 800.3(a)(1). 197 See,e.g.,Save Our Heritage, Inc v. F.A.A.,269 F.3d 49(1st Cir.2001). 35 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 to their particular programs and undertakings.19' For example,an agency,ACHP, and the relevant SHPO/THPO or,if nationwide,the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO)may"negotiate a programmatic agreement to govern the implementation of a particular program or the resolution of adverse effects from certain complex project situations or multiple undertakings."199 Compliance with the procedures set forth in an approved programmatic agreement satisfies the Federal agency's Section 106 responsibilities for individual undertakings covered by the agreement.2oo 73. To fulfill its responsibilities under Section 106,the Commission has incorporated the requirements of NHPA into its environmental rules 201 Specifically, if a proposed facility has the potential to affect properties listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register, Section 1.1307(a)(4)requires the applicant to submit an EA prior to construction.202 Section 1.1307(a)(4)directs licensees and applicants,when determining whether a proposed action may affect historic properties,to follow the procedures in ACHP's rules as modified by the Collocation Agreement and the NPA,two programmatic agreements that took effect in 2001 and 2005,respectively.213 74. The Collocation Agreement addresses historic preservation review for collocations on existing towers,buildings, and other non-tower structures. Under the Collocation Agreement,most antenna collocations on existing structures are excluded from routine historic preservation review,with a few defined exceptions to address potentially problematic situations. Thus, in addition to excluding collocations on towers,with certain limitations,20'the Collocation Agreement excludes collocations on buildings or other non-tower structures outside of historic districts from routine Section 106 review unless: (1)the structure is inside the boundary of a historic district,or it is within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district and the antenna is visible from ground level within the historic district; (2)the structure is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register; (3)the structure is over 45 years old; or(4)the proposed collocation is the subject of a pending 16 complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties. 198 36 C.F.R. § 800.14;see also"Program Alternatives,"available at http://www.achp.goy/pro2alt/. Specifically, Section 800.14 authorizes development of alternatives to the review procedures set forth in 36 C.F.R.Part 800, Subpart B. 199 36 C.F.R.§ 800.14(b). 200 See 36 C.F.R.§ 800.14(b)(2)(iii). 201 See 47 C.F.R.§ 1.1307(a)(4)(providing that applicants must submit an EA for proposed facilities that may affect historic properties listed in or eligible to be listed in the National Register of Historic Places(National Register)and must follow ACHP's Section 106 procedures as modified and supplemented by the Collocation Agreement and the NPA to ascertain whether their proposed facilities may affect historic properties). 202 Id. For a full discussion of our historic preservation rules and processes,see FCC,"Tower and Antenna Siting," available at httg://wireless.fcc. ova /siting/npa/npa.html. 203 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a)(4). 204 See Collocation Agreement;Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Execution of Programmatic Agreement with Respect to Collocating Wireless Antennas on Existing Structures,Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 5574 (WTB 2001). The Collocation Agreement was codified under Section 1.1307(a)(4) as of the effective date of the NPA.See NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1134 paras. 168-169. 205 See Collocation Agreement§§IH.A,N.A. 206 Id. at§V("Collocation Of Antennas On Buildings And Non-Tower Structures Outside Of Historic Districts"). 36 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 75. The NPA establishes detailed procedures that are better tailored than ACHP's general rules for reviewing the effects caused by communications towers. 07 In particular,the NPA establishes a process for pre-construction consultation and initial review by the relevant SHPO or THPO and, if necessary, subsequent Commission review of the proposed tower.21' The NPA also outlines procedures for Tribal participation,public participation,identifying and evaluating historic properties within the area of potential effects, and assessing effects on historic properties. 2. New Exclusions 76. Background. As noted above,the Collocation Agreement,while excluding most collocations from Section 106 review,provides that collocations on existing buildings and other non- tower structures that are over 45 years old are not excluded.209 This is the case even if the building or non-tower structure itself has not been listed(or determined eligible for listing)on the National Register and is not located in or near a historic district;the age of the structure alone is sufficient to trigger review. 77. In addition to seeking comment on whether the Commission should add an exclusion from Section 106 review for DAS and small cells generally,the Infrastructure NPRM sought comment on whether to expand the existing categorical exclusion for collocations to cover collocations on structures subject to review solely because of the structure's age—that is,to deployments that are more than 45 years old but that are not(1)inside the boundary of a historic district,or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district; (2)located on a structure that is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register; or(3)the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties"" The Infrastructure NPRM noted that,because utility poles are maintained for long periods of time,many eventually fall out of the exclusion due to the 45-year limitation. It sought comment on whether to clarify or otherwise provide that the exclusion covers collocations on utility poles over 45 years of age. It further sought comment on excluding collocations on other categories of non-tower structures,such as street lamps or water towers,from the 45-year trigger for review. The Commission also asked whether,alternatively, it should conclude that deployments of small wireless facilities such as DAS or small cells do not qualify as Federal undertakings under NHPA. 78. Industry commenters support the exclusion of collocations on utility poles over 45 years old where the age of the pole is the only reason for review. WISPA states that there is no evidence that utility poles possess any historic value or that collocations on such structures could result in adverse effects to any historic value.213 Verizon argues that we should apply such an exclusion to collocations on both utility poles and other utility structures,including electric transmission structures214 Verizon asserts 207 See NPA;NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1079 para. 15, 1080-81 para. 19. For an overview of the history of and processes established by the NPA,see"Tower and Antenna Siting,"available at hgR://wireless.fec.gov/siting/npa/intro.html. 208 See NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1127-30 paras. 149-57. 209 See Collocation Agreement§V.A.1. 210 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14260-63 paras.60-67. 211 It also noted PCIA's assertion that the percentage of utility poles that are 45 years or older is significant and growing and that,as a consequence,collocations of small wireless facilities on utility poles will increasingly be subject to review. See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14260 para.60(citing PCIA Mar. 19,2013 Ex Parte, Attach.(Dr.Amos J.Loveday,"DAS/Small Cells&Historic Preservation:An Analysis of the Impact of Historic Preservation Rules on Distributed Antenna Systems and Small Cell Deployment,"Feb.27,2013,at 3(Loveday Report)). 212 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 12;PCIA Comments at 21-22;UTC Comments at 8;WISPA Comments at iv, 17- 18. 213 See WISPA Comments at 18. 214 See Verizon Comments at 13. 37 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 that a structure originally designed to host telegraph,telephone,or power equipment is likely to have changed over time in any event(e.g., as utilities add equipment with the advent of new technologies),and that these changes do not harm its historic characteristics,if any."' 79. Some SHPOs do not oppose the exclusion and note that the addition of DAS facilities and small cells to existing poles would not cause an adverse effect on historic properties,unless a pole is a contributing element to the eligibility of a historic property216 Other localities and SHPOs state that the exclusion is unnecessary as a practical matter because utility poles are generally not deemed historic." The Colorado SHPO,on the other hand,urges caution and argues that a blanket exemption for collocations on"utility poles"could sweep in other structures that may be more problematic from a historic preservation perspective, such as water tanks or clock towers 218 Some Tribal Nations support exclusion from Section 106 review of certain installations with no potential to affect historic properties, including those of cultural and religious significance to Tribal Nations."' One Tribal Nation argues, however,that DAS systems may have an adverse visual effect on culturally important landscapes and historic properties in the vicinity, and that their cumulative effects"may be significantly greater than anticipated.,220 80. In addition to supporting an exclusion for collocations on utility structures over 45 years old,Verizon also proposes an exclusion for collocations on any building or other structure over 45 years old if. (1)the antenna will be added in the same location as other antennas previously deployed;(2)the height of the new antenna will not exceed the height of the existing antennas by more than three feet, or the new antenna will not be visible from the ground regardless of the height increase;and(3)the new antenna will comply with any requirements placed on the existing antennas by the State or local zoning authority or as a result of any previous historic preservation review process.21 In a subsequently filed ex parte letter,Verizon further clarifies its proposal by suggesting how to determine whether the new antenna is in the"same location"as an existing antenna.' 211 See Verizon Comments at 14. 216 See., e.g, AHPP Comments at 2(asserting that placement of DAS on utility poles will not cause adverse effects even in historic districts except where the pole is a contributing element to a historic property or district);CAOHP Comments at 2(recommending exemption of collocations on utility poles over 45 years of age from Section 106 review). 217 See, e.g., OHPO Comments at 1. 218 COSHPO Comments at 2. 219 See Letter from Cynthia Stacy,Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Sept.5,2014, at 1 (supporting the proposal"to exclude certain additional installations from Section 106 review depending on the location and the size of the equipment at issue and the need for any new excavation"and indicating that changes targeted at installations with no potential to affect historic properties will"help to streamline consultation so that our limited time and resources can be wisely spent.");Letter from Franklin Dancy,Tribal Council of the Morongo Band of Mission Indians,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Aug.29,2014,at 1 (indicating no concerns with proposed Section 106 changes in light of its view that"any impact that could potentially occur from telecommunications projects involving the replacement and/or collocation or addition of new equipment/antennas on existing facilities has already occurred and no further impacts will occur"but arguing that it should retain the right to review projects"that extend beyond or otherwise exceed a previously impacted project site or that could be considered a new project"). 220 See Letter from Kassandra Rippee,Coquille Indian Tribe,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Oct. 10,2014,at 1. 221 See Verizon Comments at 18. 222 See Letter from Tamara Preiss,Verizon,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed July 14,2014(Verizon July 14,2014 Ex Parte),at 1-2. Verizon suggests that we define the same location as follows. For rooftop antennas,the new antenna must also be mounted on the roof,and the center point of the new antenna must be no more than 10 feet from the center point of the outermost existing antenna(s). For antennas mounted on the facade or facades of a building,the new antenna must be mounted on the same facade or facades, (continued....) 38 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 81. Verizon asserts that its proposal would remove obstacles to wireless broadband facility siting without adversely affecting any historic property. According to Verizon,even if the structure itself is historic,the effect of adding antennas of a similar size to equipment that already exists at the same location on the structure will not be different than the effects,if any,already created by the existing facilities. Similarly,it adds,if the facilities to be added are visible from a nearby historic district,they would not have an additional visual effect on the historic district beyond any effects created by the existing antennas 223 82. AT&T, Sprint,and PCIA support Verizon's proposal.22' AT&T states that adopting this limited exclusion would remove unnecessary obstacles to wireless broadband facility siting without adversely affecting any historic property. AT&T also states that this proposal would afford significant relief because the vast majority of AT&T's LTE deployments involve.adding antennas to structures that already support wireless facilities."' 83. As an alternative to adopting an exclusion in this rulemaking,PCIA asks us to determine that DAS and small-cell deployments are not 44undertakings."226 PCIA states that the Federal government does not assist in funding DAS and small-cell deployments, issue licenses or approvals for them,or provide other assistance related to them.2" Notwithstanding these arguments,PCIA asserts that excluding these facilities from review would be less time-consuming and complex than finding them not to be undertakings 228 AT&T agrees with PCIA that an exclusion from review is the preferable course over a finding that such facility deployments are not undertakings 229 UTC argues that the Commission may find that small-cell and DAS deployments are not undertakings because they"are less intrusive than traditional macro sites"and based on other unspecified differences from macrocells 230 Localities and SHPOs oppose a determination that DAS and small-cell deployments are not undertakings,based on FCC (Continued from previous page) with a center point no more than 10 feet from the center point of the existing antenna(s). Alternatively,new antennas may be mounted anywhere on the same roof or facade(s),as the case may be,so long as they are not significantly more visible from ground level. Under Verizon's proposal,satisfying either alternative would satisfy the same location criterion. See id. 223 See Verizon Comments at 18-19. 224 See AT&T Reply Comments at 8;CTIA Reply Comments at 11-12;PCIA Reply Comments at ii, 12-13;Sprint Reply Comments at 4. 225 See AT&T Reply Comments at 8-9. 226 PCIA Comments at i, 15-17. 227 See PCIA Comments at 16. 228 See id 229 See AT&T Comments at 13-14(asserting that adoption of an exclusion under Section 800.3(a)(1)is more efficient and timely than a finding that covered deployments are not undertakings). 230 See UTC Comments at 8-9. 39 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 precedent as well as the assertion that such installations can affect historic properties 23' NCSHPO notes the Commission's history of finding that the installation of an antenna is an undertaking232 84. Discussion. As an initial matter,we find no basis to hold categorically that small wireless facilities such as DAS and small cells are not Commission undertakings. As the Commission discussed in the Infrastructure NPRM, Section 319 of the Communications Act gives us authority to regulate and require preconstruction approval for the construction of any facility for which a license is required,which in turn extends to any"apparatus for the transmission of energy,or communications,or signals by radio.,233 Further,while the Commission has generally waived the requirement of preconstruction approval for geographic-area licensees,as permitted by Section 319(d),the Commission has also retained authority under Section 1.1312 of the Commission's rules to review the environmental effects of all"facilities,"including their effects on historic properties. 34 The Commission has found, given this retained approval authority,that macrocell deployments,including both new tower sites and collocations,are appropriately classified as Federal undertakings, a conclusion affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. 31 While PCIA argues that small facilities could be distinguished,it does not identify any characteristic of such deployments that logically removes them from the analysis applicable to other facilities. Others argue in conclusory fashion that the size of these facilities is a distinguishing factor without explaining how smaller facilities deployments cease to be undertakings simply because of their size. We note,however,that ACHP's rules clearly contemplate that the determination of whether a proposed Federal action is an undertaking is separate from the determination of whether that action is the type that could have effects on historic properties. Thus,the extent of any potential effects is not relevant to determining whether any agency action constitutes a 231 See, e.g., AHPP Comments at 1 (arguing that installation of DAS and small-cell facilities is an undertaking); CAOHP Comments at 1 (asserting that"[t]he deployment of a DAS or other small cell system is an Undertaking pursuant to 36 CFR part 800.16(y)"(emphasis in original));Des Moines Comments at 4-5;Minneapolis Comments at 14(arguing that DAS and small cells are"undertakings"that"have the potential to cause effects on historic properties");OHPO Comments at 2(arguing that a finding that DAS and small-cell deployments are not undertakings would be contrary to longstanding FCC precedent,and the advancement of technology does not change the fact that the installation of cell equipment may affect historic properties). 232 See NCSHPO Comments at 1 (arguing that,given the Commission's past acceptance that installations of antennas,cell towers,and other types of facilities using various technologies are undertakings,and given the number of variables to consider depending on the method of installation,it is impossible to support a determination that DAS installations are not undertakings). 233 47 U.S.C.§§301,319. We note that DAS nodes and small cells transmit the signals of Commission licensees in technically the same manner as traditional niacrocells. 234 47 C.F.R.§ 1.1312. 235 See NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1083 para.24(finding that"our existing policies treating tower construction as an undertaking under the NHPA reflect a permissible interpretation of the Commission's authority under Section 319(d)of the Act to issue construction permits for radio towers"); CTIA—The Wireless Ass'n,466 F.3d at 114-15. See also NPA§I.0(providing that"[t]his Agreement does apply to collocations that are not exempt from Section 106 review under the Collocation Agreement"). 236 See PCIA Comments at 15-17. 237 See, a g, UTC Comments at 8-9. 231 See 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(a)(providing that agency official first determines whether the activity is an undertaking and"if so,whether it is a type of activity that has the potential to cause effects on historic properties");36 C.F.R. § 800.16(y)("Undertaking means a project,activity,or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency,including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal agency;those carried out with Federal financial assistance;and those requiring a Federal permit,license or approval."). 40 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Federal undertaking.23' Based on the record before us,we accordingly decline to find that DAS and small-cell deployments are not undertakings for purposes of Section 106 review zao 85. Having determined that DAS and small cell deployments constitute Federal undertakings subject to Section 106,we consider our authority based on Section 800.3(a)(1)of ACHP's rules to exclude such small facility deployments from Section 106 review. It is clear under the terms of Section 800.3(a)(1)that a Federal agency may determine that an undertaking is a type of activity that does not have the potential to cause effects to historic properties,assuming historic properties were present, in which case,"the agency has no further obligations under section 106 or this part[36 Part 800, Subpart B]." 86. The commenters that propose a general exclusion for DAS and small cell deployments assert that under any circumstances, such deployments have the potential for at most minimal effects,but they do not provide evidence to support such a broad conclusion. 41 Moreover, several commenters, including several SHPOs, express concerns that such deployments do have the potential for effects in some cases.14' Accordingly,we cannot find on this record that DAS and small-cell facilities qualify for a general exclusion,and we therefore conclude,after consideration of the record,that any broad exclusion of such facilities must be implemented at this time through the development of a"program alternative"as defined under ACHP's rules.21 We are committed,however,to making deployment processes as efficient as possible without undermining the values that Section 106 protects. As noted above, Commission staff are working on a program alternative that,through consultation with stakeholders,will ensure thorough consideration of all applicable interests,and will culminate in a system that eliminates additional bureaucratic processes for small facilities to the greatest extent possible consistent with the purpose and requirements of Section 106. 87. We further conclude,however,that it is in the public interest to immediately adopt targeted exclusions from our Section 106 review process that will apply to small facilities(and in some instances larger antennas)in many circumstances and thereby substantially advance the goal of facilities deployment. As noted above,we may exclude activities from Section 106 review upon determining that they have no potential to cause effects to historic properties,assuming such properties are present." As discussed in detail below,we find two targeted circumstances that meet this test, one applicable to utility 239 See 16 U.S.C. §470w(7)(C)(defining undertaking to include a project or activity under the jurisdiction of a Federal agency"requiring a Federal permit license,or approval"). 240 See, e.g.,supra,nn.231,232. 241 See, e.g., Crown Castle Comments at 3;Fibertech Comments at 25;PCIA Comments at 7,9-10; Sprint Comments at 6;UTC Comments at 5;Verizon Comments at 13. 242 See, e.g.,AHPP Comments at 1-2;COSHPO Comments at 1-2;NCSHPO Comments at 1. 243 Similarly,we do not,at this time,take action on certain other proposals on which the Commission sought comment in the Infrastructure NPRM,including whether to expand the current Section 106 exclusion for poles in communications or utilities rights-of-way to encompass such rights-of-way even where they are designated historic districts,and whether to provide an exclusion for replacements of some or all non-tower structures. See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14261-62 paras.62-63. We also note that the Infrastructure NPRM sought comment on whether the Commission should develop a process that would enable more efficient review under Section 106,such as by defining circumstances in which individual communication nodes(e.g.,the separate antenna nodes of a single DAS deployment)can be grouped together and reviewed as a single undertaking. Id. at 14262 para.64. Various parties have indicated support for this proposal,see,e.g.,AHPP Comments at 1;Mendham Comments at 4;Minneapolis Comments at 14,but none has suggested how to implement it. We will consider these options further in the context of our efforts to develop a program alternative. 244 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(a)(1);see,e.g.,Save Our Heritage, Inc. v.F.A.A.,269 F.3d 49,62(1st Cir.2001); Preservation Society of Charleston v. U.S.Army Corp. of Engineers,2013 WL 6488282,at*4(D.S.C. Sept. 18, 2013). 41 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 structures and the other to buildings and any other non-tower structures. Pursuant to these findings we establish two exclusions. 88. First,we exclude collocations on existing utility structures, including utility poles and electric transmission towers,to the extent they are not already excluded in the Collocation Agreement,if: (1)the collocated antenna and associated equipment,when measured together with any other wireless deployment on the same structure,meet specified size limitations; and(2)the collocation will involve no new ground disturbance. Second,we exclude collocations on a building or other non-tower structure,to the extent they are not already excluded in the Collocation Agreement, if: (1)there is an existing antenna on the building or other structure;(2)certain requirements of proximity to the existing antenna are met, depending on the visibility and size of the new deployment;(3)the new antenna will comply with all zoning conditions and historic preservation conditions on existing antennas that directly mitigate or prevent effects,such as camouflage or concealment requirements; and(4)the deployment will involve no new ground disturbance. With respect to both of these categories—utility structures and other non-tower structures—we extend the exclusion only to deployments that are not(1)inside the boundary of a historic district, or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district;(2)located on a structure that is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register;or(3) the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties. In other words,these exclusions address collocations on utility structures and other non-tower structures where historic preservation review would otherwise be required under existing rules only because the structures are more than 45 years old. Our action here is consistent with our determination in the NPA to apply a categorical exclusion based upon a structure's proximity to a property listed in or eligible to be listed in the National Register rather than whether a structure is over 45 years old regardless of eligibility."' In our analysis below, consistent with Section 800.3(a)(1),we find collocations meeting the conditions stated above have no potential to affect historic properties even if such properties are present. We nevertheless find it appropriate to limit the adopted exclusions as described above. Given the sensitivities articulated in the record,particularly those from NCSHPO and other individual commenting SHPOs,regarding deployments in historic districts or on historic properties,we conclude that any broader exclusions require additional consultation and consideration,and are more appropriately addressed and developed through the program alternative process that Commission staff have already begun 246 89. While these exclusions will expedite small wireless facilities deployments in many cases, we reiterate that the measures discussed below are only initial steps. These measures will tailor and substantially improve our Section 106 review process for small wireless facilities. We note again that there is room for additional improvement in this area,and we are committed to relieving all stakeholders of unnecessary and nonproductive obligations. Therefore, Commission staff have engaged in discussions about broader reforms, and we expect that an ACHP-approved program alternative for Section 106 review will be concluded between 18 and 24 months after the release of this Report and Order. a. Collocations on Utility Structures 90. Pursuant to Section 800.3(a)(1)of ACHP's rules,we find that antennas mounted on existing utility structures have no potential for effects on historic properties, assuming such properties are present,where the deployment meets the following conditions: (1)the antenna and any associated equipment,when measured together with any other wireless deployments on the same structure,meets specified size limitations; and(2)the deployment will involve no new ground disturbance. 241 See NPA.III.D;NPA Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 1094 para.56(reasoning that the exclusion's applicability should depend on whether the property or a property within 500 feet is listed in or eligible to be listed in the National Register rather than the age of the property or of nearby properties regardless of eligibility). 246 See,e.g.,AHPP Comments at 1-2;CASHPO Comments at 2;COSHPO Comments at 1-2;NCSHPO Comments at 1. See also DC Comments at 24-26(opposing general exclusion of DAS and small cell deployments but indicating that"the DC State Historic Preservation Office. . .would not need to review installations on sites that have not been listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National Register"). 42 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Notwithstanding this finding of no potential for effects even assuming historic properties are present,we limit this exclusion(as described above)in light of the particular sensitivities related to historic properties and districts. Accordingly,this exclusion does not apply to deployments that are(1)inside the boundary of a historic district, or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district; (2)located on a structure that is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register; or (3)the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties. In other words,this new targeted exclusion addresses collocations on utility structures where historic preservation review would otherwise be required under existing rules only because the structures are more than 45 years old. 91. For purposes of this exclusion,we define utility structures as utility poles or electric transmission towers in active use by a"utility"as defined in Section 224 of the Communications Act,but not including light poles, lamp posts, and other structures whose primary purpose is to provide public lighting. Utility structures are,by their nature, designed to hold a variety of electrical, communications, or other equipment, and they already hold such equipment. Their inherent characteristic thus incorporates the support of attachments,and their uses have continued to evolve with changes in technology since they were first used in the mid-19th century for distribution of telegraph services. 47 Indeed,we note that other, often larger facilities are added to utility structures without review. For example,deployments of equipment supporting unlicensed wireless operations like Wi-Fi access occur without our Section 106 review in any case, as do installations of non-communication facilities such as municipal traffic management equipment248 or power equipment such as electric distribution transformers" The addition of DAS or small cell facilities to these structures is therefore fully consistent with their existing use.zso 92. While the potential for effects from any deployments on utility structures is therefore remote at most,we conclude that the additional conditions described above support a finding that there is no such potential at all,assuming the presence of historic properties. First,we limit the size of equipment covered by this exclusion. In doing so,we draw on a PCIA proposal,which includes separate specific volumetric limits for antennas and for enclosures of associated equipment,but we modify the definition in certain respects to meet the standard in ACHP's rules that the undertaking must have no potential for effects. s' Specifically,we provide that the deployment may include covered antenna enclosures no more 247 The first utility poles were erected in the mid-19th century in the United States for telegraph lines. See History Wired,"History of the Telegraph,"available at http://historywired.si.edu/detail.cftn?ID=324. The kinds of equipment placed on poles have adapted and evolved with the evolution of technology to include electrical and all manner of communications equipment. 241 See NPA§II.A.1 (providing that the antennas subject to the NPA"do[]not include. . .devices authorized under Part 15 of the Commission's rules."). See also Dayton Daily News,"Local cities using advanced traffic signals to cut wait times,"July 31,2014,available at http://www.mvda ondailynews.com/news/news/local/local-cities-using- advanced-traffic-signals-to-cut/ngrxG/(reporting that City of Moraine is using cameras mounted on utility poles to track traffic and adjust signal times);AT&T Reply Comments at 7("DAS and small cells have no more of an impact on historic property than any of the many other attachments placed on poles,including traffic cameras,wireless transmitters,and other devices installed by many local governments");PCIA Comments at 11. 249 See Wikipedia,"Distribution Transformer,"hLtp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution transformer(describing utility pole-mounted transformers). zso See Fibertech Comments at 25(noting the"practical reality that small cells are the same size or smaller than other types of infrastructure deployed in the public rights-of-ways"). 2s'As noted in the Infrastructure NPRM,PCIA proposed excluding small facilities from review if they meet the following criteria: 1)Equipment Volume.An equipment enclosure shall be no larger than seventeen(17)cubic feet in volume. 2)Antenna Volume.Each antenna associated with the installation shall be in an antenna enclosure of no more than three(3)cubic feet in volume.Each antenna that has exposed elements shall fit within an imaginary enclosure of no more than three(3)cubic feet. (continued....) 43 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 than three cubic feet in volume per enclosure, or exposed antennas that fit within an imaginary enclosure of no more than three cubic feet in volume per imaginary enclosure,up to an aggregate maximum of six cubic feet. We further provide that all equipment enclosures(or imaginary enclosures)associated with the collocation on any single structure, including all associated equipment but not including separate antennas or enclosures for antennas,must be limited cumulatively to seventeen cubic feet in volume. Further,collocations under this rule will be limited to collocations that cause no new ground disturbance. 93. Because we find that multiple collocations on a utility structure could have a cumulative impact,we further apply the size limits defined above on a cumulative basis taking into account all pre- existing collocations. Specifically, if there is a pre-existing wireless deployment on the structure,and any of this pre-existing equipment would remain after the collocation,then the volume limits apply to the cumulative volume of such pre-existing equipment and the new collocated equipment. Thus, for the new equipment to come under our exclusion,the sum of the volume of all pre-existing associated equipment that remains after the collocation and the new equipment must be no greater than seventeen cubic feet, and the sum of the volume of all collocated antennas,including pre-existing antennas that remain after the collocation,must be no greater than six cubic feet. We further provide that the cumulative limit of seventeen cubic feet for wireless equipment applies to all equipment on the ground associated with an antenna on the structure as well as associated equipment physically on the structure. Thus, application of the limit is the same regardless of whether equipment associated with a particular deployment is deployed on the ground next to a structure or on the structure itself"' Consistent with a proposal by PCIA, however,we find that certain equipment should be omitted from the calculation of the equipment volume, including: (1)vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services,the volume of which may be impractical to calculate and which should in any case have no effect on historic properties, consistent with our established exclusion of cable in pre-existing aerial or underground corridors; (2) ancillary equipment installed by other entities that is outside of the applicant's ownership or control,such as a power meter installed by the electric utility in connection with the wireless deployment, and(3) comparable equipment from pre-existing wireless deployments on the structure.253 (Continued from previous page) 3)Infrastructure Volume.Associated electric meter,concealment,telecom demarcation box,ground- based enclosures,battery back-up power systems,grounding equipment,power transfer switch,and cut-off switch may be located outside the primary equipment enclosure(s)and are not included in the calculation of Equipment Volume. Volume is a measure of the exterior displacement,not the interior volume of the enclosures.Any equipment that is concealed from public view in or behind an otherwise approved structure or concealment,is not included in the volume calculations. See Infi-ash-zrchn-e NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14256 para.49,n.99. See also PCIA Comments at 7-9. A number of industry commenters also support this definition,or a close variation of it. See,a g.,AT&T Comments at 15-16; Cox Reply Comments at 2-3;Crown Castle Comments at 5-6(proposing a limit of 5 cubic feet for antennas because "Crown Castle currently deploys antennas in its DAS and Small Cell networks that are significantly larger than three cubic feet in volume in order to accommodate multiple carriers");Verizon Comments at 10-11;WISPA Comments at 15-16(proposing a limit of six cubic feet for antennas). 252 While some commenters oppose an exclusion based solely on PCIA's volumetric definition,we find that our exclusion addresses their concerns. For example,Tempe and the CA Local Governments express concern that PCIA's definition would allow an unlimited number of ground-mounted cabinets. See CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 6;Tempe Comments at 8. Our approach provides that any associated ground equipment must also come within the volumetric limit for equipment enclosures,however,and therefore does not allow for unlimited ground-based equipment. Further,because we apply the size limit on a cumulative basis,our exclusion directly addresses concerns that the PCIA definition would allow multiple collocations that cumulatively exceed the volumetric limits. See CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 6;Tempe Comments at 8. 253 See Letter from Jonathan M.Campbell,PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association,to Marlene H.Dortch, Secretary,FCC,filed Oct. 10,2014(PCIA Oct. 10,2014 Ex Parte),at 2;see also Letter from Brian M.Josef,CTIA- (continued....) 44 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 94. To meet the standard under Section 800.3(a)(1),we further impose a requirement of no new ground disturbance,consistent for the most part with the NPA standard. Under the NPA standard,no new ground disturbance occurs so long as the depth of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth(excluding footings and other anchoring mechanisms)by at least two feet."' We find, however,that footings and anchorings should be included in this context to ensure no potential for effects. Therefore,our finding is limited to cases where there is no ground disturbance or the depth and width of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth and width,including the depth and width of any proposed footings or other anchoring mechanisms,by at least two feet.zss 95. Adoption of this exclusion will provide significant efficiencies in the Section 106 process for DAS and small-cell deployments. Many DAS and small-cell installations involve collocations on utility structures.256 According to one estimate,there were 120 million utility poles in service in the United States in 2005,257 the overwhelming majority of which are made of wood.21' The North American Wood Pole Council states that a properly maintained wood pole will have a service life of 75 years or more.219 PCIA estimates that approximately 12%of wooden poles—between 19 and 22 million poles— are 45 years or older,with the number growing as pole preservation technology improves. PCIA also estimates that excluding collocations on these wooden poles would increase the estimated number of excluded collocation structures by a factor of 10—which would dramatically advance wireless infrastructure deployment without impacting historic preservation values"' (Continued from previous page) The Wireless Association,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,filed Oct. 10,2014(CTIA Oct. 10,2014 Ex Parte),at 2. 254 See NPA§§III.C,VI.D.2.c.i. 255 Some Tribal Nations have indicated that exclusions of small facilities from Section 106 review might be reasonable if there is no excavation but that any ground disturbance would be cause for concern. See Spectrum and Competition Policy Division,Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,Ex-parte summary,WT Docket 13-238(filed Sept.4,2014). We find that the restrictions we place on both of our new Section 106 exclusions are sufficient to address this concern and ensure that there is no potential for effects on historic properties of Tribal religious or cultural significance. As discussed in detail in this Report and Order,these restrictions include a strict requirement for both exclusions of no new ground disturbance and restrictions on the size and placement of equipment. Furthermore,both exclusions are limited to collocations(and therefore do not include new or replacement support structures). 256 Tracy Ford,"FCC Utility Poles rules to Help Broadband,DAS Deployments,"May 25,2010,available at http://www.rcrwireless.com/article/20100525/tower/fcc-utilitypoles-rules-to-help-broadband-das-deployments/; Kevin White,Small Cells: Small,but Valuable Addition to 4G LTE Network,May 21,2013,available at http://www.verizonwireless.com/news/article/2013/05/4G-LTE-network-small-cells.httn1. 257 See Environmental Literacy Council,"Wood Utility Pole Life Cycle,"available at hM://enviroliteracy.org/article.php/1311.html. The American Iron and Steel Institute estimates that there are 185 million utility poles across North America. See Steel Works,"Utility Poles,"available at http://www.steel.org/en/SMDISteel org/Web%20Root/Content/Overview/Utility%2OPoles.aWxx. According to the North American Wood Pole Council,there are about 130 million wood utility poles in use across North America. See North American Wood Pole Council,"Frequently Asked Questions,"available at http://www.woodpoles.org/FAQ-America.html. 25'The American Iron and Steel Institute estimates that since 1998,close to one million steel distribution poles have been installed and are now being used by over 600 of 3100 U.S.electric utilities. See Steel Works,"Utility Poles," available at http://www.steel.org/en/The%20New%2OSteellUtility%2OPoles/Utility%20Poles.aspx. We note that our exclusion is not limited to wood poles,and encompasses collocations on these steel utility poles as well. 259 See North American Wood Pole Council,"Frequently Asked Questions,"available at hiip://www.woodpoles.ore/FAQ-America.html. 260 See Loveday Report at 3. 45 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 b. Collocations on Buildings and Other Non-tower Structures 96. As discussed above, Section 800.3(a)(1)ofACHP rules authorizes an exclusion only where the undertaking does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties,assuming such historic properties are present."' While we conclude that this standard allows for an exclusion applicable to many collocations on buildings and other structures that already house collocations,we find insufficient support in the record to adopt Verizon's proposed exclusion in its entirety. While Verizon states that adding an antenna to a building within the scope of its proposal would not have an effect that differs from those caused by existing antennas,we must also consider the cumulative effects of additional deployments on the integrity of a historic property to the extent that they add incompatible visual elements"' Further,while Verizon relies heavily on the requirement that any new deployment must meet the same conditions as the existing deployment,we cannot assume that conditions placed on a previous deployment are always sufficient to prevent any effects,particularly in the event of multiple additional deployments. Indeed, it is often the case that mitigating conditions are designed to offset effects rather than eliminate or reduce them entirely. We conclude,however,that with certain modifications to Verizon's proposal,deployments covered by the test would have no potential for effects. 97. Specifically,we find that collocations on buildings or other non-tower structures over 45 years old will have no potential for effects on historic properties if: (1)there is an existing antenna on the building or structure; (2)one of the following criteria is met: (a)the new antenna will not be visible from any adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces and will be added in the same vicinity as a pre-existing antenna;(b)the new antenna will be visible from adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces,provided that(i)it will replace a pre-existing antenna, (ii)the new antenna will be located in the same vicinity as the pre-existing antenna,(iii)the new antenna will be visible only from adjacent streets and surrounding public spaces that also afford views of the pre-existing antenna, (iv)the new antenna will not be more than three feet larger in height or width(including all protuberances)than the pre-existing antenna, and (v)no new equipment cabinets will be visible from the adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces; or (c)the new antenna will be visible from adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces,provided that(i)it will be located in the same vicinity as a pre-existing antenna,(ii)the new antenna will be visible only from adjacent streets and surrounding public spaces that also afford views of the pre-existing antenna, (iii) the pre-existing antenna was not deployed pursuant to the exclusion based on this finding,(iv)the new antenna will not be more than three feet larger in height or width(including all protuberances)than the pre-existing antenna, and(v)no new equipment cabinets will be visible from the adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces;(3)the new antenna will comply with all zoning conditions and historic preservation conditions applicable to existing antennas in the same vicinity that directly mitigate or prevent effects, such as camouflage or concealment requirements; and(4)the deployment of the new antenna will involve no new ground disturbance. Notwithstanding our finding of no potential for effects even assuming historic properties are present,we limit this exclusion in light of many parties' particular sensitivities related to historic properties and districts. Accordingly,as with the exclusion for collocations on utility poles,this exclusion does not apply to deployments that are(1)inside the boundary of a historic district, or within 250 feet of the boundary of a historic district; (2)located on a structure that is a designated National Historic Landmark or is listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register; or(3) the subject of a pending complaint alleging adverse effect on historic properties. In other words,this new targeted exclusion addresses collocations on non-tower structures where historic preservation review would otherwise be required under existing rules only because the structures are more than 45 years old. 261 See 36 C.F.R. § 800.3(a)(1). 262 See 36 C.F.R. § 800.5(a)(1). Integrity is the ability of a property to convey its significance,based on its location, design,setting,materials,workmanship,feeling,and association. Adverse effects can be direct or indirect and can include introduction of incompatible visual,atmospheric,or audible elements. See Advisory Council on Historic Preservation,A Citizen's Guide to Section 106 Review,available at http://www.achp.gov/docs/CitizenGuide.pdf,at 7. 46 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 98. Consistent with the Verizon proposal,we require that there must already be an antenna on the building or other structure and that the new antenna be in the same vicinity as the pre-existing antenna. For this purpose, a non-visible new antenna is in the"same vicinity"as a pre-existing antenna if it will be collocated on the same rooftop,fagade or other surface,and a visible new antenna is in the "same vicinity"as a pre-existing antenna if it is on the same rooftop,fagade, or other surface and the centerpoint of the new antenna is within 10 feet of the centerpoint of the pre-existing antenna. Combined with the other criteria discussed below,this requirement is designed to assure that a new antenna will not have any incremental effect on historic properties, assuming they exist, as there will be no additional incompatible elements. 99. In addition to Verizon's proposed requirement that the deployment be in the same vicinity as an existing antenna,we also adopt a condition of no-visibility from adjoining streets or any surrounding public spaces,263 with two narrow exceptions. For the general case, our no-effects finding will apply only to a new antenna that is not visible from any adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces and is added in the same vicinity as a pre-existing antenna.261 100. We make a narrow exception to the no-visibility requirement where the new antenna would replace an existing antenna in the same vicinity and where the addition of the new antenna would not constitute a substantial increase in size over the replaced antenna. In this situation,no additional incompatible visual element is being added,as one antenna is a substitution for the other. We permit an insubstantial increase in size in this situation 265 For purposes of this criterion,the replacement facility would represent a substantial increase in size if it is more than three feet larger in height or width (including all protuberances)than the existing facility,or if it involves any new equipment cabinets that are visible from the street or adjacent public spaces. We decline to adopt the NPA definition of "substantial increase,"which allows greater increases in height or width in some cases,because it applies to towers,not to antenna deployments,and it is therefore overbroad with respect to the replacement of an 263 In adopting this standard,we are informed by the record,see,e.g.,AHPP Comments at 1 (supporting exclusion of collocations on non-tower structures in an area not visible from the ground),and also in part by General Services Administration(GSA)Preservation Note 41,entitled"Administrative Guide for Submitting Antenna Projects for External Review,"available at hqp://www.gsa.goy/portal/content/104184?utm source=PBS&utm_mediumfprint- radio&utm_term=technicalpreservationnote&utm_campaign=shortcuts. The Preservation Notes are a series of technical briefs prepared by the GSA National Capital Region Historic Preservation staff as a resource on preservation project design,contracting,construction,and historic property management issues. Preservation Note 41 recommends that an agency may recommend a finding of no effect where the antenna will not be visible from the surrounding public space or streets and the antenna will not harm original historic materials or their replacements-in- kind. We note that,in addition to the measures ensuring that there are no incremental visual effects from covered facilities,our finding of no effects in this case is also implicitly based on a requirement,as the GSA Note recommends,that the deployment will not harm original historic materials. Even assuming a building is historic, however,as required by Section 800.3(a)(1),this"no harm"criterion would be satisfied by ensuring that any anchoring on the building was not performed on the historic materials of the property or their replacements-in-kind. See id. It is therefore unnecessary to expressly impose a"no harm"condition in this case,as the exclusion we adopt does not apply to historic properties. Necessarily,any anchoring of deployments subject to the exclusion will not be in any historic materials of the property. We also note that,under the criteria we adopt,the deployment will occur only where another antenna has already been reviewed under Section 106 and approved for deployment in the same vicinity,and any conditions imposed on that prior deployment to minimize or eliminate historic impact,including specifications of where,how,or under what conditions to construct,are part of our"no effect"finding and would apply as a condition of the exclusion. 264 Line-of-sight evaluations as referenced by the General Services Administration's Preservation Note 41 may be used to determine visibility. See GSA,"NCR Preservation Note Series,"available at hLtp://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/104184?utm source=PBS&utm medium=print- radio&utm term=technicalpreservationnote&utm campaign=shortcuts. 265 By comparison,under the NPA,a replacement for a tower that results in an insubstantial increase in size is excluded from Section 106 review. See NPA§III.B. 47 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 existing antenna. We further note that no one has objected to Verizon's proposed limit on increases of three feet in this context. Also, since we are required to ensure no potential for effects on historic properties assuming such properties are present,we find it appropriate to adopt a more stringent test than in the context of a program alternative."' For these reasons, any increase in the number of equipment cabinets that are visible from the street or adjacent public spaces in connection with a replacement antenna constitutes a substantial increase in size. In combination with the requirements that the new antenna be within 10 feet of the replaced antenna and that the pre-existing antenna be visible from any ground perspective that would afford a view of the new antenna,these requirements ensure that the replacement deployment will not have an additional visual effect. 101. Under our second partial exception to the no-visibility requirement,the new antenna may be in addition to,rather than a replacement of,a pre-existing antenna,but must meet the other requirements applicable to replacement antennas noted above. In addition,we require that the pre- existing antenna itself not have been deployed pursuant to this exception. While this exception will allow an additional visual element to be added,the element is again limited to a comparably-sized antenna in the same viewshed(and again does not include any new visible associated equipment). Further,because the pre-existing antenna may not itself have been deployed pursuant to this no-effects finding, deployments cannot be daisy-chained across the structure,which might present a potential for cumulative effects. 102. Consistent with the Verizon proposal,we require that the new antenna comply with all zoning and historic preservation conditions applicable to existing antennas in the same vicinity that directly mitigate or prevent effects,such as camouflage, concealment, or painting requirements. We do not extend that requirement to conditions that have no direct relationship to the facility's effect or how the facility is deployed, such as a condition that requires the facility owner to pay for historic site information signs or other conditions intended to offset harms rather than prevent them. Our goal is to assure that any new deployments have no effects on historic properties. Payments or other forms of mitigation applied to antennas previously deployed on the building or structure that were intended to compensate for any adverse effect on historic properties caused by those antennas but were not intended to prevent that effect from occurring do not advance our goal of assuring no effects from such collocations. Accordingly,we do not require that the new antenna comply with such conditions. 103. As with the exclusion we adopt above for collocations on utility structures,we impose a strict requirement of no new ground disturbance. Thus,the exclusion will permit ground disturbance only where the depth and width of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth and width (including footings and other anchoring mechanisms)by at least two feet. 3. Antennas Mounted in the Interior of Buildings 104. The Collocation Agreement provides that"[a]n antenna may be mounted on a building" without Section 106 review except under certain circumstances, e.g.,the building is a historic property or over 45 years of age.267 In Section III.B.2.b. of this Report and Order,we clarify that the NEPA categorical exclusion codified in Note 1 for"antenna(s)mounted on an existing building"applies to 266 ACNP promulgated its program alternative regulation,36 C.F.R. § 800.14,pursuant to Section 214 of NHPA, 16 U.S.C.§470v,which authorizes ACNP to exempt Federal undertakings from any provision of NHPA"when such exemption is determined consistent with the purposes of this Act,taking into consideration the magnitude of the exempted undertaking or program and the likelihood of impairment of historic properties."See also NPA Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 1081-82 para.21 (interpreting these provisions to mean that,in formulating exemptions and prescribing Section 106 processes in a program alternative,ACNP and the action agency need not ensure that every possible effect on historic properties is considered under all circumstances but should be guided by a standard of reasonableness that takes into account both the likelihood that adverse effects will not be considered in all instances and the overall benefits to be obtained from streamlining measures). 267 Collocation Agreement§V.A. 48 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 collocations in the interior of buildings 268 Because of the growing use of and reliance on small wireless facility deployments in the interior of buildings to improve coverage,we take this opportunity to similarly remove any uncertainty with regard to the Section 106 requirements related to interior collocations. 105. We therefore clarify that Section V of the Collocation Agreement covers collocations in buildings' interiors. Given the limited scope of the exclusion of collocations on buildings under the Collocation Agreement(e.g.,the building may not itself be listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register or in or near a historic district),there is no reason to distinguish interior collocations from exterior collocations for purposes of assessing impacts on historic properties. IV. ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION EXEMPTION FOR REGISTRATION OF TEMPORARY TOWERS 106. In this section, consistent with a waiver previously granted by the Commission,we adopt a narrow exemption from the Commission's requirement that owners of proposed towers requiring antenna structure registration(ASR)provide 30 days of national and local notice to give members of the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed tower's potential environmental effects. The exemption applies only to proposed temporary towers meeting defined criteria that reduce the likelihood of any significant environmental effects. Specifically,the exemption applies only to antenna structures that(1)will be in place for 60 days or less;(2)require notice of construction to the FAA; (3)do not require marking or lighting under FAA regulations; (4)will be less than 200 feet above ground level; and (5)will involve minimal or no ground excavation. We emphasize that this exemption only relieves applicants of the need to complete the process of public notice; it is not a categorical exclusion, and therefore does not relieve applicants of the obligation under our NEPA rules to file an EA in the circumstances identified by our rules. Further,the exemption from notice requirements does not apply to proposed deployments where an EA is in fact required under our rules. Rather,all EAs will continue to be put out on public notice in accordance with existing process to provide the public opportunity for engagement.269 107. We find that allowing licensees to deploy temporary towers meeting these criteria without first having to complete the Commission's environmental notification process or seek a site- specific waiver of that process will enable them to more effectively respond to emergencies,natural disasters,and other planned and unplanned short-term spikes in demand without undermining the purposes of the notification process. Thus,this exemption will"remove an administrative obstacle to the availability of broadband and other wireless services during major events and unanticipated periods of localized high demandi270 where expanded or substitute service is needed quickly.271 A. Background 108. Under its rules,the FAA requires notification of the construction or alteration of any antenna structure that exceeds 200 feet in height above ground level,or where certain other conditions are met, including where the structure is located in a flight path near an airport and exceeds a height 268 See supra, Section III.B.2.b. 269 To the extent a party constructs a tower that does not require antenna structure registration,but does require an EA under our rules,that party typically registers the tower by filing an FCC Form 854 as a vehicle for submitting the EA. See Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16707 para. 18. All EAs that are filed with Form 854 go through environmental notice under our environmental notification procedures. See id. at 16723 para.57. Applications submitted through the Universal Licensing System(ULS)that are not also filed on Form 854 and that contain EAs are placed on public notice for 30 days by the appropriate processing division. See Weekly Status Public Notices in the Universal Licensing System(ULS),available at hq://www.fcc. og v/help/weekly-status- public-notices-universal-licensing-system-uls. 270 CTIA Comments at 6(quoting Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14263-64 para.68). 271 See Waiver Order,28 FCC Rcd 7758 para. 1. 49 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 determined using a formula based on its distance from the runway.272 The owner of a proposed antenna structure must file notice with the FAA on FAA Form 7460-1,and that agency in turn determines whether the construction or alteration is subject to lighting or marking specifications prescribed in the current version of an FAA Advisory Circular entitled"Obstruction Marking and Lighting.,17' The FAA sends an acknowledgment to the antenna structure owner describing how the structure should be marked and lighted,which constitutes an FAA study and determination of"no hazard to air navigation."274 This means that the FAA has determined that the structure will not pose a hazard to aircraft provided that the structure is marked and/or lighted consistent with its recommendations. 109. If pre-construction notice to the FAA is required,275 the Commission's rules also require the tower owner to register the antenna structure in the Commission's ASR system,prior to construction or alteration as the case may be.17' As part of such registration,the applicant must submit the FAA's study and"no hazard"determination,including any associated marking and lighting specifications 277 If the Commission accepts the application, it registers the structure, issuing an ASR form that typically 171 incorporates the FAA's"no hazard"marking and/or lighting specifications. 110. The Commission has found that ASR application processing constitutes an action that triggers the Commission's review responsibilities under NEPA and Section 106 of NHPA.27' Among 272 See 14 C.F.R. §77.13;47 C.F.R. § 17.7. 273 Federal Aviation Administration,"Advisory Circular: Obstruction Marking and Lighting,"FAA AC 70/7460-1K (2007),available at hqp://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory Circular/AC%2070%207460-1K.pdf (FAA Obstruction Marking and Lighting Circular). 274 See Part 17 Report and Order,FCC 14-117,at para.3 271 See 14 C.F.R. §77.13;47 C.F.R. § 17.7. 276 See 47 C.F.R. § 17.4. As defined in the Commission's rules,"antenna structures"include"the radiating and/or receive system,its supporting structures and any appurtenances mounted thereon." 47 C.F.R.§ 17.2. We note that the Commission has recently changed its Part 17 rules. See Part 17 Report and Order,FCC 14-117. Under these changes,which will be effective October 24,2014,see 79 Fed.Reg.56968(Sept.24,2014),an"antenna structure" is defined as"a structure that is constructed or used to transmit radio energy,or that is constructed or used for the primary purpose of supporting antennas to transmit and/or receive radio energy,and any antennas and other appurtenances mounted thereon,from the time construction of the supporting structure begins until such time as the supporting structure is dismantled." Id. In this section,we use the terms"antenna structures"and"towers" interchangeably. 277 47 C.F.R. § 17.4(b). The registration process is generally completed online at the Commission's ASR Online System website,available at http://wireless.fcc.izov/antenna/. This website provides comprehensive information about the registration process and the applicable rules. 27'The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau recently released a Public Notice announcing enhancements to the Commission's ASR System to allow ASR registrants electronic access to their current official authorizations in "Active"status,and that the electronic version of an authorization stored in the ASR System will be deemed as the official Commission document. See"Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Enhancements to the Commission's Universal Licensing System and Antenna Structure Registration System for Providing Access to Official Electronic Authorizations and Seeks Comment on Final Procedures,"WT Docket No. 14-161,Public Notice,DA 14-1478,at 2(WTB rel.Oct. 10,2014). 279 See Streamlining the Commission's Antenna Structure Clearance Procedure;Revision of Part 17 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Construction,Marking,and Lighting of Antenna Structures,WT Docket No.95-5, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 4272,4289 para.41 (1995)(Antenna Structure Clearance R&O)(finding that the registration of an antenna structure is subject to NEPA). Accord,NPA Report and Order,20 FCC Rcd at 1084 para. 27(explaining that the Commission's treatment of tower registrations as Federal undertakings within the meaning of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, 16 U.S.C. §470f,is a permissible interpretation in light of the preconstruction approval process that it has implemented to assure that communications towers are not a risk to air safety under Section 303(q)of the Communications Act). 50 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 other obligations,NEPA requires agencies to facilitate public involvement in agency decisions that may affect the environment 280 To fulfill this responsibility,the Commission requires owners of proposed towers, including temporary towers,that must be registered in the ASR system to provide local and national notice prior to submitting a completed ASR application.21' Typically,the ASR notice process takes approximately 40 days,282 as applicants must provide public notice,allow 30 days for the filing of any requests for further environmental review,and then wait for the Commission to clear the tower for construction. 111. The public notification requirements are subject to certain exemptions,such as an exemption for replacement towers meeting certain criteria.281 In addition,the Commission has provided that applicants may request site-specific waivers of the notification requirement in emergency situations, such as where a tower needs to be deployed quickly to restore lost communications. 84 Such requests must be made and approved pre-construction, and the Commission has further provided that the reviewing bureau should ordinarily require in such cases that the applicant provide public notice within a short period after authorization or construction,unless the bureau concludes in a particular case that notice would be impracticable or not in the public interest."' 112. On December 21,2012,CTIA filed a Petition for Expedited Rulemaking asking the Commission to add a new exemption from the public notice requirements for temporary towers that(1) will be in use for 60 days or less, (2)require the filing of a Form 7460-1 with the FAA,(3)do not require marking or lighting pursuant to FAA regulations,and(4)will be less than 200 feet in height(Temporary Towers Petition). CTIA also asked the Commission for an interim waiver of its environmental notification rules for the same class of temporary towers pending the outcome of the rulemaking.28' 113. On May 15,2013,in the Environmental Notification Waiver Order,the Commission granted an interim waiver of the ASR environmental notification requirements for substantially all of the class of temporary towers that CTIA identified,with the additional criterion that the construction entail no or only minimal ground disturbance."' The Commission provided that the interim waiver would remain in effect pending the completion of a rulemaking to address the issues raised in the petition.289 280 See 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6(a)(requiring agencies to make"diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures");see also 40 C.F.R. § 1500.2(d)("Federal agencies shall to the fullest extent possible.. .[e]ncourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions which affect the quality of the human environment."). 281 See Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd 16700;see also"Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Provides Guidance on the Implementation of the Environmental Notification Process for the Registration of Antenna Structures,"Public Notice,27 FCC Rcd 5082(WTB 2012)(ASR Guidance PN). 282 See ASR Guidance PN,27 FCC Rcd at 5082. 281 See Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16720-21 para.53. See also 47 C.F.R.§ 17.14. Other exemptions address,for example,objects shielded by existing permanent structures,structures that are 20 feet or less in height,airport landing aids,and meteorological devices. 284 See Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16717 n.117. 285 Id. 286 See Petition of CTIA—The Wireless Association for Expedited Rulemaking and Blanket Waiver Regarding Public Notice Procedures for Temporary Towers,RM-11688,filed Dec.21,2012(Temporary Towers Petition),at 1. 287 Id. at 11-12. 288 Id. More specifically,the Commission provided that the interim waiver would not apply to a temporary tower that requires excavation unless the ground was previously disturbed to a depth that exceeds the proposed construction depth by at least 2 feet. See Waiver Order,28 FCC Rcd at 7763 para. 12. 289 Id. at 7763 para. 13. 51 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 114. In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission proposed to adopt a permanent exemption from the ASR pre-construction environmental notification requirements consistent with the interim exemption granted in the Waiver Order:290 It noted that, according to commenters,situations frequently arise where there is insufficient time to complete the notification process before a temporary tower must be deployed to meet near-term demand, including(1)newsworthy events that occur without any prior notice and require immediate deployments,such as natural disasters; (2)other events that occur with less than 30 days advance notice,such as certain political events and parades for sports teams; (3)events for which the timing and general location are known in advance,but where the specific locations for temporary towers are unknown until days before the event,such as state fairs and major sporting events; and(4)situations in which unexpected difficulties with permanent structures require the deployment of temporary towers while permanent facilities are repaired 291 Therefore, it found that absent an exemption, application of the ASR notice process to these temporary towers would apparently prevent service providers from meeting important short-term coverage and capacity needs,and sought comment on its analysis292 115. The Commission further sought comment on how it should define the scope of the exemption, and whether the criteria set out in the Waiver Order were sufficient and appropriate for this purpose."' The Commission further proposed not to require post-construction environmental notice for towers that qualify for the new exemption294 While noting that the Commission ordinarily requires post- construction notification in those cases where pre-construction notice is waived due to an emergency situation,the Commission observed that post-construction public notice for towers deployed for the short periods of time addressed by the exemption would seem to serve little purpose."' 116. The Commission also proposed,however,to continue to require owners of towers eligible for the exemption to comply with the Commission's other NEPA requirements, including the obligations to certify environmental compliance on a completed ASR application and to file an EA in appropriate cases296 It further proposed that if an applicant determines that it needs to complete an EA for a temporary tower otherwise eligible for the exemption,or if the relevant bureau makes this determination pursuant to Section 1.1307(c)or(d)of the Commission's rules,the tower would not be exempt from public notice requirements. Thus,for example, if a proposed temporary tower would have significant environmental effects on migratory birds,the tower owner would not be able to claim the exemption from the Commission's environmental notification process that we adopt today. 117. The Commission also sought comment on whether to provide for an extension if an applicant determines, subsequent to registering a tower under the temporary towers notification exemption,that the tower will or may be needed beyond the maximum period for the exemption."" In particular,it sought comment on whether the Commission should establish a process for extending the period the tower may remain in place without environmental notice299 290 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14263-64 para.68. 291 Id. at 14268 para. 80. 292 Id. 291 Id. at 14267 para.78. 294 Id at 14270 para. 85. 295 Id 296 Id. at 14270-71 para. 86. 297 Id. 291 Id at 14271 para. 88. 299 Id. 52 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 118. The vast majority of parties that commented on this issue support the adoption of an exemption from the environmental notification process for temporary towers."' Most of the supporting commenters also agree that the Commission should rely on the criteria from the Waiver Order to define the scope of the exemption,30' while some propose different or additional criteria.30' 119. A few parties raise objections. Orange County recommends the Commission not exempt temporary towers from"antenna registration and notification requirements,"asserting that temporary towers may have the same environmental effects as permanent towers 303 Lee County states that the Commission should not exempt temporary towers"from review.,,30' Tempe argues that temporary towers should not be included as part of any"environmental exemption"because such towers may include generators that could have significant environmental effects.305 B. Discussion 120. For the reasons set forth below, and essentially as proposed in the Infrastructure NPRM, we adopt a permanent exemption from our ASR environmental notification requirements for temporary towers that meet the criteria set forth in the Waiver Order. Specifically,we exempt proposed new antenna structures that do not require EAs from the ASR public notice requirements if they: (1)will be in place for no more than 60 days;(2)require notice of construction to the FAA;(3)do not require marking or lighting under FAA regulations;(4)will be less than 200 feet in height;and(5)will either involve no excavation or involve excavation only where the depth of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth(excluding footings and other anchoring mechanisms)by at least two feet. 121. We recognize that one of our responsibilities under NEPA is to facilitate public involvement in agency decisions that may affect the environment. CEQ regulations direct that agencies shall"make diligent efforts to involve the public in preparing and implementing their NEPA procedures" and"solicit appropriate information from the public."306 At the same time,an agency has"`wide discretion in fashioning its own procedures' to implement its environmental obligations,,107 and "considerable discretion[under CEQ regulations]to decide the extent to which such public involvement Soo See,e.g.,AT&T Comments at 6-7;CalWA Comments at 2;CCA Reply Comments at 12;CTIA Comments at 4- 6;Coconut Creek Comments at 4;Joint Venture Comments at 4-5;Mesquite Comments at 1-2;PCIA Comments at 59-60;Springfield Comments at 7-8; Sprint Comments at 6-7; Steel in the Air Comments at 4;TIA Comments at 4; UTC Comments at 9-10;Verizon Comments at 24-25;West Palm Beach Comments at 4. 30'See,e.g.,AT&T Comments at 19;Steel in the Air Comments at 4. 302 For example,Springfield and Mesquite argue that the maximum tower height eligible for the exemption should be reduced. See Springfield Comments at 8;Mesquite Comments at 2. Sprint argues that the exemption should apply to temporary towers in place for up to six months rather than 60 days. See Sprint Comments at 7. Mendham argues that applicants claiming the exemption should be required to provide notice to the municipality and county where the temporary tower is to be located. See Mendham Comments at 5. 303 Orange Reply Comments at 4-5. 304 Lee Comments at 1-2. 305 See Tempe Comments at 10. See also Savannah Ex Parte at 4(arguing that the flight hazard from towers over 100 feet in height is greater locally than in most of the nation and that the proposed exemption would"needlessly increase the risk to our public,and to our pilots in particular."). 306 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6(a),(d);see also 40 C.F.R.§ 1500.2(d)("Federal agencies shall to the fullest extent possible . . .[e]ncourage and facilitate public involvement in decisions which affect the quality of the human environment."); American Bird Conservancy v.FCC,516 F.3d 1027, 1035(D.C.Cir.2008). 307 Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16717 para.45(quoting American Bird Conservancy,516 F.3d at 1035). 53 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 is `practicable.""" As discussed below,we find that establishing the proposed exemption is consistent with our obligations under NEPA and CEQ regulations, and will serve the public interest.309 122. As the Commission observed in the Infrastructure NPRM,the ASR notice process takes approximately 40 days and can take as long as two months 310 The record confirms that absent the exemption, situations would arise where there is insufficient time to complete this process before a temporary tower must be deployed to meet near-term demand.311 The record,as well as our own experience in administering the environmental notice rule, shows that a substantial number of temporary towers that would qualify for the exemption require registration.312 We find that, absent an exemption, application of the ASR notice process to these temporary towers will interfere with the ability of service providers to meet important short term coverage and capacity needs. 123. At the same time,the benefits of environmental notice are limited in the case of temporary towers meeting these criteria. The purpose of environmental notice is to facilitate public discourse regarding towers that may have a significant environmental impact.313 We find that towers meeting the specified criteria are highly unlikely to have significant environmental effects due to their short duration,limited height, absence of marking or lighting,and minimal to no excavation."' As the Commission explained in the Waiver Order, our experience in administering the ASR public notice process confirms that antenna structures meeting the waiver criteria rarely if ever generate public comment regarding potentially significant environmental effects or are determined to require further environmental processing.31' In particular,since the Waiver Order has been in place,we have seen no evidence that a temporary tower exempted from notification by the waiver has had or may have had a significant environmental effect."' We find that the limited benefits of notice in these cases do not outweigh the potential detriment to the public interest of prohibiting the deployment of towers in circumstances in which the notification process cannot be completed quickly enough to address short- term deployment needs. Further,having concluded that pre-construction environmental notification is categorically unnecessary in the situations addressed here,we find it would be inefficient to require the 30'Brodsky v US Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n,704 F.3d 113, 121 (2d Cir.2013)(noting that the reviewing court properly considers"whether the lack of public input prevented the agency from weighing all the factors essential to exercising its judgment[under NEPA] in a reasonable manner"if the issuance of a FONSI without public comment is challenged)(internal quotations omitted); TOMAC, Taxpayers of Mich.Against Casinos v. Norton, 433 F.3d 852, 861 (D.C.Cir.2006), 40 C.F.R. § 1501.4(b). 309 Cf. Amendment of Environmental Rules in Response to New Regulations Issues by the Council on Environmental Quality,GEN Docket No.79-163,Report and Order,60 Rad.Reg.2d(P&F) 13 para. 17(1986) (finding that for"temporary proposals that are encompassed within§ 1.1307,"the Commission"may assess the environmental factors and grant the authorization without awaiting public comment if it finds no likelihood of a long-term,significant environmental impact"). 310 See ASR Guidance PN,27 FCC Rcd at 5082. 311 See, e.g., Temporary Towers Petition at 5-6;AT&T Comments,RM-11688,at 5-6;CTIA Reply Comments,RM- 11688,at 3-4;NTCH Comments,RM-11688,at 1;PCIA Comments,RM-11688,at 2-4;Verizon Comments,RM- 11688,at 3-4,7-8. 312 For example,we received at least six requests for relief under the Waiver Order in a three month period, indicating that there may be 20 or more registrations a year that meet the criteria for the exemption. See also Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14268 para. 80&n.174. 313 See Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16719 para.50;47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(c). 314 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 18. We therefore disagree with Orange County that the potential for impacts from eligible temporary structures is the same as from permanent structures. See Orange Reply Comments at 4. 311 See Waiver Order,28 FCC Rcd at 7762-63 para. 11. 316 See, a g., AT&T Comments at 7. Thus,we have had no reason to consider requiring an EA for any of these structures. 54 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 filing and adjudication of individual waiver requests for these temporary towers. Accordingly,we conclude that adoption of the exemption is warranted. 124. We also adopt the proposal to require no post-construction environmental notice for temporary towers that qualify for the exemption. Ordinarily,when pre-construction notice is waived due to an emergency situation,we require environmental notification shortly after construction because such a deployment may be for a lengthy or indefinite period of time. We find,however,that requiring post- construction notification for towers intended to be in place for the limited duration covered by the exemption is not in the public interest as the exempted period is likely to be over or nearly over by the time the notice period ends. Additionally,we note again that we have rarely seen temporary antenna structures generate public comment regarding potentially significant environmental effects."' We further note that of the many commenters supporting an exemption,none opposed our proposal to exempt qualifying temporary towers from post-construction environmental notification. 125. We find that the objections to the proposed exemption raised by Lee County,Tempe, and Orange County are misplaced. They express concerns that a temporary towers exemption would eliminate local review(including local environmental review)and antenna structure registration requirements. The exemption we adopt today,however,does neither of these things. First,the temporary towers measure does not exempt any deployment from any otherwise applicable requirement under our rules to provide notice to the FAA,to obtain an FAA"no-hazard"determination, or to complete antenna structure registration.31' Nor does the exemption impact any local requirements. Further,we provide, as proposed in the Infrastructure NPRM,that towers eligible for the notification exemption are still required to comply with the Commission's other NEPA requirements,including filing an EA in any of the environmentally sensitive circumstances identified by our rules.31' We further provide that if an applicant determines that it needs to complete an EA for a temporary tower otherwise eligible for the exemption,or if the relevant bureau makes this determination pursuant to Section 1.1307(c)or(d)of the Commission's rules,the application will not be exempt from the environmental notice requirement. No commenter objects to these proposals,which are consistent with limitations the Commission imposed in connection with the existing exemption from the notification process for replacement towers 320 In short,today's exemption,to the extent it applies,only relieves an applicant of the obligation to go through the 121 Commission's ASR public notice process,and only in cases where an EA is not required. 126. Some parties,while supporting a temporary towers exemption,argue that we should establish criteria different from those the Commission relied upon in adopting the interim waiver. Some assert,for example,that the maximum tower height should be something less than 200 feet above ground level.122 Mesquite asserts the maximum tower height should be 120 feet above ground level 323 31'See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14270 para.85. 318 In raising its concern,Orange County notes that it"operates. . .a large regional airport that has recently expanded through construction of a third terminal." Orange Reply Comments at 4. We find the exemption poses no threat to air safety. As noted,deployments remain subject to all applicable requirements to notify the FAA and register the structure in the ASR system. If the Commission or the FAA requires either painting or lighting,i.e., because of a potential threat to aviation,the exemption does not apply. 319 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1301-1.1319. 320 See Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16720-21 para.53(providing that where an EA is required to be filed for a replacement tower,such a tower is not exempted from the environmental notification process). 321 See Waiver Order, 28 FCC Rcd at 7763 para. 11 ("Further,the interim waiver does not relieve ASR applicants from having to comply with the Commission's other NEPA rules,including the obligation to certify environmental compliance on a completed ASR application. Under those rules,if an applicant determines that it needs to complete an EA,environmental notification will be required."). 322 See, e.g., Mesquite Comments at 2; Springfield Comments at 8. 55 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Springfield argues that,generally,most temporary towers are only 100 feet tall and that, currently,the tallest available temporary tower model is 150 feet tall.324 127. We conclude that making the exemption available for towers less than 200 feet above ground level is appropriate and adequate to ensure that the exemption serves the public interest both by minimizing potential significant environmental effects and by enabling wireless providers to more effectively respond to large or unforeseen spikes in demand for service. CTIA indicates that carriers deploy temporary towers more than 150 feet tall to replace damaged towers of similar height, and that having to use shorter towers to stand in for damaged towers may reduce coverage and thereby limit the availability of service during emergencies."' We agree with CTIA that reducing the maximum tower height could undermine the intended purpose of the exemption. Further,the proposed limit of less than 200 feet will allow appropriate flexibility for taller temporary models, as they become available. 128. Sprint recommends adopting a time limit longer than 60 days for operation of the exempted towers. Sprint argues that at least six months is necessary for temporary towers that stand in for damaged permanent towers.316 We conclude,however,that 60 days is an appropriate time limit for the deployment of towers under this exemption. This time limit, as noted above,has substantial support in the record, and we find that 60 days strikes the proper balance between making this exemption a useful and effective tool for facilitating urgently needed short term communications deployments and facilitating public involvement in Commission decisions that may affect the environment. As discussed,the brief duration of the covered deployments renders post-construction notification unnecessary in the public interest because the deployment will be removed by the time a post-construction notice period is complete or shortly thereafter. As the intended deployment period grows,however,the applicability of that reasoning erodes. For emergency deployments that may last up to six months or even longer,post- construction notice will generally be warranted, as the Commission has indicated previously.32' Thus,we find that the existing procedure—i.e., site-specific waivers that are generally conditioned on post- construction notice—remains appropriate for emergency towers that will be deployed for longer periods than those covered by the narrow exemption we establish today. 129. Commenters differ on whether and on what terms the Commission should provide that an applicant that deploys a tower pursuant to this exemption may subsequently obtain an extension of the time limit for deployment. AT&T suggests that a single 60-day extension, upon a timely request accompanied by a showing of compelling justification, is appropriate.328 CTIA similarly proposes that, "[t]o ensure the integrity of the 60-day limit, a carrier should only be permitted to keep a tower deployed for more than 60 days pursuant to the exemption"if it(1)submits an extension request at least 10 days prior to the expiration of the initial 60-day period, and(2)provides a"compelling justification in support of keeping the temporary tower deployed for up to an additional 60 days."329 Steel in the Air and West Palm Beach,on the other hand, assert that if a tower is needed for more than 60 days,then"the existing rules should apply"and post-construction notification should be required.330 Minneapolis expresses concern about the exemption being misused as a loophole to provide long-term service or as a bridge to (Continued from previous page) 323 See Mesquite Comments at 2. 324 See Springfield Comments at 8. 325 See CTIA Reply Comments at 4. 326 See Sprint Comments at 7. 327 See Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16717 n.117. 328 See AT&T Comments at 20. 329 CTIA Comments at 9. 330 Steel in the Air Comments at 4;West Palm Beach Comments at 4. 56 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 the eventual establishment of a permanent facility,and says that extensions should not be allowed routinely."' 130. While flexibility is important when compelling cases arise,we recognize that permitting long-term or multiple extensions could invite or allow misuse of the exemption. Therefore,we will permit a single extension of up to 60 days, and only upon a showing that the need to keep the exempted temporary tower in place beyond the initial 60 days is due to changed circumstances or information that emerged after the exempted temporary tower was deployed. 131. Some parties argue that concerns about potential misuse of the exemption justify additional enforcement measures. Mendham asks the Commission to define the consequences that would apply when an applicant uses the exemption for a non-qualifying tower or fails to remove a tower before the exemption expires.331 Springfield asks the Commission to regulate the number of times an exempt temporary tower may be deployed within a single service area in order to prevent abuse of the exemption by consecutive deployments.333 CTIA and PCIA,however,oppose such measures.331 132. We decline to define consequences or to adopt special enforcement mechanisms for misuse of the exemption we adopt today,as we find the Commission's general enforcement mechanisms sufficient. We agree with Springfield,however,that we should adopt a measure to prevent the use of consecutive deployments under the exemption to effectively exceed the time limit.331 We therefore require that at least 30 days must pass following the removal of one exempted temporary tower before the same applicant may rely on the exemption for another temporary tower covering substantially the same service area. While AT&T argues that the Commission should not adopt measures to prevent "speculative abuses,,311 we conclude that this narrow limitation on the consecutive use of the exemption will help to ensure that it applies only to deployments of brief duration, as intended. Further,we are not persuaded by CTIA's argument that such a restriction would interfere with a carrier's flexibility to respond to unforeseen events. 37 The restriction places no limit on the number of exempt towers that can be deployed at any one time to cover a larger combined service area. We also note that our rule provides for extensions of the 60-day period in appropriate cases,which should further ensure that applicants have sufficient flexibility to respond to unforeseen events. 133. We further clarify that under appropriate conditions, such as natural disasters or national emergencies,the relevant bureau may grant waivers of this limitation applicable to defined geographic regions and periods. In addition,a party subject to this limitation at a particular site may still request a site-specific waiver of the notice requirements for a subsequent temporary deployment at that site. 134. To implement the new temporary towers exemption,Commission staff will modify FCC Form 854 to provide a checkbox for applicants to indicate that they are claiming the exemption and to require such applicants to provide documentation that supports such claim. We note that the modification of the form is subject to approval by the Office of Management and Budget(OMB). To ensure clarity, we provide that the exemption will take effect only when the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issues a Public Notice announcing OMB's approval. We further provide that,until the new exemption is effective,the interim waiver of notification requirements for temporary towers remains available. 331 See Minneapolis Comments at 15. 332 See Mendham Comments at 5. 333 See Springfield Comments at 8-9. 334 See CTIA Reply Comments at 3-4;PCIA Reply Comments at 33. 335 See Springfield Comments at 7-8. 336 PCIA Reply Comments at 33. 337 See CTIA Reply Comments at 3-4. 57 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 V. IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 6409(A) 135. In this section,we adopt rules to implement and enforce Section 6409(a)of the Spectrum Act.338 Section 6409(a)provides,in pertinent 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.,339 Ambiguities in many of the terms in this provision and its accompanying definition of"eligible facilities request"are likely to generate disputes about its proper application,which could in turn undermine the goal of Title VI of the Spectrum Act of advancing wireless broadband service for both public safety and commercial users.340 We therefore conclude that it will serve the public interest to establish rules clarifying the requirements of Section 6409(a)and implementing and enforcing this provision.14' The rules we adopt today will provide guidance to all stakeholders on their rights and responsibilities under the provision, facilitate the review process for wireless infrastructure modifications, and accelerate wireless broadband deployment consistent with our statutory responsibilities. A. Background 136. Congress adopted Section 6409 in 2012 as a provision of Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act,which is more commonly known as the Spectrum Act.34z The Spectrum Act required the Commission to allocate specific additional bands of spectrum for commercial use (including the H Block and the AWS-3 band)and to auction and grant new licenses for this spectrum by February 2015.343 The Spectrum Act also authorized the Commission to conduct an incentive auction of broadcast television spectrum in order to make additional spectrum available for commercial broadband service 3aa Finally,the Spectrum Act established the First Responder Network Authority(FirstNet)to oversee the construction and operation of a nationwide public safety wireless broadband network(PSBN) and provided dedicated spectrum and other resources for this purpose, including funding from the proceeds of the auctions that the Spectrum Act required and authorized Sas Congress specifically directed FirstNet to"encourag[e]... leverag[ing] to the maximum extent economically desirable,existing 338 See Spectrum Act§6409(a). 339 Spectrum Act§6409(a)(1). 340 Conference Report at 136. 341 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14274 para.95 342 See,generally,Spectrum Act,Title VI. 343 See Spectrum Act§6401. The H Block auction closed in February 2014,and the Commission issued licenses for construction and operation over H Block spectrum in April 2014. Auction of H Block Licenses in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz Band Closes;Winning Bidder Announced for Auction 96,Public Notice,29 FCC Rcd 2044(WTB 2014);Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Grants H Block(1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz) Licenses,Auction No.96,Public Notice,29 FCC Rcd 4782(WTB 2014). The AWS-3 auction is scheduled for November 2014. Auction of Advanced Wireless Services(AWS-3)Licenses Scheduled for November 13,2014; Notice and Filing Requirements,Reserve Prices,Minimum Opening Bids,Upfront Payments and Other Procedures for Auction 97,Public Notice,29 FCC Rcd 8386(WTB 2014). 344 See Spectrum Act§§6402,6403. See also Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions,Docket No. 12-268,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,27 FCC Rcd 12357(2012); Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions,GN Docket No. 12-268,Report and Order,29 FCC Rcd 6567(2014)(Incentive Auction Report and Order). 345 See Spectrum Act§§6201,6202,6206. See also Implementing Public Safety Broadband Provisions of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012;Implementing a Nationwide,Broadband,Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band; Service Rules for the 698-746,747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands,PS Docket No. 12-94,PS Docket No.06-229,WT Docket No.06-150,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,28 FCC Rcd 2715(2013). 58 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 commercial wireless infrastructure to speed deployment of the network.,146 And it authorized the Commission to"take any action necessary to assist[FirstNet] in effectuating its duties and responsibilities"under the Spectrum Act.341 137. In the context of these goals,Congress included Section 6409,which contributes to the twin goals of commercial and public safety wireless broadband deployment through several measures that promote the deployment of the network facilities needed to provide broadband wireless services. These measures include Section 6409(a), entitled"Facility Modifications,"which has three provisions. As noted above, Subsection(a)(1)provides that"[n]otwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [codified as 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."348 Subsection(a)(2)defines the term"eligible facilities request"as any request for modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves(a)collocation of new transmission equipment; (b)removal of transmission equipment; or(c)replacement of transmission equipment 349 Subsection (a)(3)provides that"[n]othing in paragraph(a) shall be construed to relieve the Commission from the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act or the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.,,3'0 Aside from the definition of"eligible facilities request," Section 6409(a)does not define any of its terms. Similarly,neither the definitional section of the Spectrum Act nor that of the Communications Act contains definitions of the Section 6409(a)terms.311 138. After the adoption of the Spectrum Act,Commission staff received inquiries from service providers,facilities owners,and State and local governments seeking guidance as to how Section 6409(a) should be applied, leading the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to issue a Public Notice in January of 2013 (Section 6409(a)PN).352 Although the Section 6409(a)PN provided interpretive guidance on certain questions,the Bureau left other issues unaddressed,and parties also raised questions and concerns regarding the Section 6409(a)PN guidance itself.353 Therefore,in the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission sought comment on whether to address the provision more conclusively and comprehensively."' The Commission found that it would serve the public interest to seek comment on implementing rules to define terms that the provision left undefined,and to fill in other interstices that may serve to delay the intended benefits of Section 6409(a). The Commission anticipated that, in the absence of definitive guidance,the uncertainties under Section 6409(a)might lead to protracted and costly litigation, adversely affect the timely deployment of the PSBN, and undermine the Spectrum Act's goal of advancing broadband deployment."' In addition,the Commission expressed its belief that the various stakeholders,including State and local governments,FirstNet, Commission licensees, and tower companies,would benefit from having settled interpretations on which they could rely in determining 346 Spectrum Act§6206(b)(1)(C). 347 Spectrum Act§6213. 341 Id. §6409(a)(1). 349 Id. §6409(a)(2). iso Id. §6409(a)(3). 3s'See Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14272-73 para.92(citing Spectrum Act§6001;47 U.S.C. § 153). 352 See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Offers Guidance on Interpretation of Section 6409(a)of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,Public Notice,28 FCC Rcd 1 (WTB 2013)(Section 6409(a)PN). See also Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14273 para.93. 353 See id. at 14275 para.96. 354 See id. 355 See id 59 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 how to comply with the new law. It therefore sought comment on the interpretation of various terms, and on other implementing issues under the provision. The Commission also sought comment on any reasons it should limit or decline to take regulatory action to clarify Section 6409(a)in this proceeding."' 139. In response to the Infrastructure NPRM,a broad range of parties from within the communications industry, including carriers,cable companies,tower companies and other infrastructure providers,wireless equipment providers, and industry associations representing,among others,utilities, broadcasters,and wireless Internet service providers,submitted comments arguing that the Commission should adopt rules clarifying the terms of Section 6409(a)to reduce uncertainty and litigation and to facilitate deployment of broadband services.357 These commenters assert that some jurisdictions have adopted varying and often narrow interpretations of the provision,and that failure to adopt such rules will likely result in an inconsistent patchwork of requirements and undermine the efficiencies the provision was crafted to create. 58 They contend that Commission action is necessary to eliminate ambiguities that have caused delay or denial of applications for broadband facilities deployment.319 140. Most municipality commenters,however, oppose adoption of rules and recommend instead that the Commission encourage the wireless industry and local governments to collaborate on development of best practices.36' They argue that it is not necessary to adopt rules at this time because there is no evidence of a widespread problem in deployment of modified facilities covered by Section 6409(a).36' They also contend that local governments and the wireless industry work well together on siting issues in most cases, and where problems arise,they can be and are addressed on a case-by-case basis.362 They argue that additional informal guidance would address the concerns raised in the Infrastructure NPRM more productively than adopting rules,particularly if the supplemental guidance encouraged cooperative efforts between interested parties and the development of best practices 363 Some localities,however,support adoption of rules,arguing that a clear statement from the Commission would resolve the divergent views of industry and regulatory authorities." 141. Some industry associations have affirmatively committed to working"with municipal government representatives . . .on developing materials and gathering information that will foster a greater understanding of Section 6409(a)and facilitate timely and consistent wireless facility 316 See id. 317 See,e.g., AT&T Comments at 21;AT&T Reply Comments at 12-13;CTIA Reply Comments at 5;PCIA Comments at 24-25;Sprint Comments at 7-8;Verizon Comments at 26-27. 318 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 7;PCIA Comments at 24-25;Verizon Comments at 26-27. 319 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 7;Verizon Comments at 26-27(providing examples of narrow interpretation of the provision by States and local jurisdictions);see also Coconut Creek Comments at 5 (arguing that it is appropriate for the Commission to adopt rules interpreting the Congressional intent behind Section 6409(a)because of the divergent views already taken by industry and local government in the absence of clarity). 361 See, a g, Alexandria et al Comments at 5-13;CA Local Governments Comments at 1;CCUA et al.Comments at 4-5;DC Comments at 7;Fairfax Comments at 6-7;IAC Comments at 2;Long Beach Comments at 1;NATOA et al. Comments at 7-11;NJSLM Comments at 2. 361 See, e.g, CCUA et al Comments at 4, 17-18;see also CA Local Governments Comments at 1;DC Comments at 6(arguing that there is no record of State and local governments being unresponsive to requests for collocations or reasonable modification of existing towers);Fairfax Comments at 6-7(asserting that in the last five years,Fairfax County has approved 99.8%of all collocation applications). 362 See, e.g., CCUA et al. Comments at 4-5. 363 See, e g, Alexandria et al. Comments at 13-22;CCUA et al Comments at 4-5. 364 See, a g., Coconut Creek Comments at 5;MDIT Comments at 2;West Palm Beach Comments at 5. 60 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 modifications."365 In particular,CTIA and PCIA pledge to start working with representative national associations shortly after release of this Report and Order to assist resource-constrained municipalities "during the transition and implementation of any rules the FCC may adopt pertaining to the application review process pursuant to Section 6409(a)."366 They also have committed to distributing best practices to resource-constrained jurisdictions,holding webinars regarding the application process for resource- constrained jurisdictions,and"[p]roviding assistance in drafting a model ordinance and application for reviewing eligible facilities requests under Section 6409(a)."367 Finally,they have committed to "[c]reating a Checklist that local government officials can use to help streamline review processes."368 B. Discussion 142. After reviewing the voluminous record in this proceeding,we decide to adopt rules clarifying the requirements of Section 6409(a),and implementing and enforcing these requirements, in order to prevent delay and confusion in such implementation. As the Commission noted in the Infrastructure NPRM,collocation on existing structures 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.369 We agree with industry commenters that clarifying the terms in Section 6409 will eliminate ambiguities in interpretation and thus facilitate the zoning process for collocations and other modifications to existing towers and base stations 370 Although these issues could be addressed over time through judicial decisions,we conclude that addressing them now in a comprehensive and uniform manner will ensure that the numerous and significant disagreements over the provision do not delay its intended benefits. 143. The record demonstrates very substantial differences in the views advanced by local government and wireless industry commenters on a wide range of interpretive issues under the provision. While many localities recommend that the Commission defer to best practices to be developed on a collaborative basis,371 we find that there has been little progress in that effort since enactment of Section 6409(a)well over two years ago. And while we generally encourage the development of voluntary best practices,we are also concerned that voluntary best practices,on their own,may not effectively resolve many of the interpretive disputes or ensure uniform application of the law in this instance. In light of these disputes,we take this opportunity to provide additional certainty to parties. 144. Authority. We find that we have authority under Section 6003 of the Spectrum Act to adopt rules to clarify the terms in Section 6409(a)and to establish procedures for effectuating its 365 Letter from Jonathan M.Campbell,PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association,and Brian M.Josef,CTIA- The Wireless Association,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Oct. 16,2014 (PCIA and CTIA Oct. 16,2014 Ex Parte). See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1204(a)(10), 1.1203(a)(1). 366 PCIA and CTIA Oct. 16,2014 a Parte at 1. 367 Id. at 2. 368 Id 369 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14274 para.95(citing Sixteenth Competition Report,28 FCC Rcd at 3909 para.331). PCIA estimates that the average cost to build a new tower is between$250,000 and$300,000, whereas the average deployment cost for a collocation is between$25,000 and$30,000. See PCIA Comments,WT Docket 11-186,at 7. 370 See, e.g.,AT&T Comments at 7;Joint Venture Comments at 5;PCIA Comments at 24-25; San Diego PDS Comments at 2; Sprint Comments at 7-8;Verizon Comments at 26-27. 371 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 11;CA Local Governments Comments at 1;CCUA et al.Comments at 4-5;DC Comments at 7;Fairfax Comments at 6-7;IAC Comments at 2;NATOA et al. Comments at 7-11;NJSLM Comments at 2. 372 See, e.g., PCIA Comments at 25-26. See also AT&T Reply Comments at 12-13. 61 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 requirements 373 Section 6003 requires the Commission to"implement and enforce this title as if this title is a part of the Communications Act of 1934,s374 bringing its interpretation directly within several provisions granting the Commission broad authority to promulgate rules implementing that Act 375 As noted above,we also have broad authority to"take any action necessary to assist[FirstNet] in effectuating its duties and responsibilities"to construct and operate a nationwide public safety broadband network."' The rules we adopt reflect the authority conferred by these provisions,as they will facilitate and expedite infrastructure deployment in qualifying cases and thus advance wireless broadband deployment by commercial entities as well as FirstNet. 1. Definition of Terms in Section 6409(a) 145. Section 6409(a)includes a number of undefined terms that bear directly on how the provision applies to infrastructure deployments. Below,we address the meaning of"wireless tower or base station,""transmission equipment,""collocation,"and"substantially changes the physical dimensions." a. Scope of Covered Services 146. Background. We first address the scope of wireless services to which the provision applies through the definitions of both"transmission equipment"and"wireless tower or base station." In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission observed that Section 6409(a)refers to"transmission equipment"without referencing any particular service,and similarly refers generally to a"wireless"tower or base station,rather than specifying towers and base stations used for particular services377 The Commission therefore proposed to find that Section 6409(a)applies to equipment used in connection with any Commission-authorized wireless transmission, licensed or unlicensed,terrestrial or satellite, including commercial mobile,private mobile,broadcast, and public safety services,as well as fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul or fixed broadband 378 The Commission further proposed to define a"wireless"tower or base station to include one used for any such purpose(i.e.,to cover the same scope of services as"transmission equipment")."' 147. Wireless and broadcast industry commenters generally support this proposed interpretation."' For example,NAB argues that an interpretation of Section 6409(a)encompassing broadcast service,towers,and equipment is fundamentally consistent with Congress's intent to improve the facilities application process; it contends further that this interpretation will make broadcast towers more readily available for collocation, especially for public safety communications equipment.38' UTC similarly argues that"[b]ecause of the ubiquity of utility and CII (`critical infrastructure industries') 373 See Spectrum Act§6003. 374 Spectrum Act§6003. 375 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i),201(b),303(r). 376 Spectrum Act§6213,codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1433. 377 Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14277 para. 103. 378 See id. at 14277 para. 104. 379 Id. 380 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 23;CCA Reply Comments at 4-5;Cox Reply Comments at 5;CTIA Reply Comments at 7;ExteNet Comments at 4;Fibertech Comments at 19;NCTA Reply Comments at 3;PCIA Comments at 29-30;Sprint Comments at 8-9;TU Comments at 5;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 5-6;UTC Comments at 12;Verizon Comments at 27. 381 See NAB Reply Comments at 3-4. 62 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 communications networks, operators of small cell and DAS networks can use collocation on these facilities to . . .bring advanced communications capabilities throughout the United States."382 148. Municipal commenters generally favor a narrower scope of covered services.383 Several urge the Commission to interpret the term"wireless"in Section 6409(a)to cover only"personal wireless services"consistent with Section 332(c)(7). 84 In a joint submission of proposed definitions(Local Government Definitions),385 several municipal commenters urge us to find that the provision covers "personal wireless services"and"wireless `public safety services. ,,381 Some municipal commenters object in particular to the inclusion of broadcast services,arguing that treating"broadcast"as a"wireless" service conflicts with the usage of those terms in the Spectrum Act and in other Commission orders.311 149. Discussion. After considering the arguments in the record,we conclude that Section 6409(a)applies both to towers and base stations and to transmission equipment used in connection with any Commission-authorized wireless communications service. We find strong support in the record for this interpretation388 With respect to towers and base stations,we conclude that this interpretation is warranted given Congress's selection of the broader term"wireless"in Section 6409(a)rather than the narrow term"personal wireless service"it previously used in Section 332(c)(7), as well as Congress's express intent that the provisions of the Spectrum Act"advance wireless broadband service,"promoting "billions of dollars in private investment,"and further the deployment of FirstNet.319We find that interpreting"wireless"in the narrow manner that some municipal commenters suggest would substantially undermine the goal of advancing the deployment of broadband facilities and services,390 and that interpreting Section 6409(a)to facilitate collocation opportunities on a broad range of suitable structures will far better contribute to meeting these goals, and is particularly important to further the deployment of FirstNet. As noted above,the Spectrum Act directs the FirstNet authority,in carrying out its duty to deploy and operate a nationwide public safety broadband network,to"enter into agreements to utilize,to the maximum extent economically desirable, existing. . . commercial or other communications 382 UTC Comments at 3. 383 See, e.g.,Alexandria et al.Comments at 26;Coconut Creek Comments at 6;San Antonio Comments at 16; Springfield Comments at 14-15;West Palm Beach Comments at 6. 384 See, e.g., Alexandria et al Comments at 26(arguing that in using the term"wireless,"Congress"was concerned with the sorts of services that are the subject of Section 332(c)(7)"and not,for example,broadcast towers). Sas See Letter from Gerard Lederer,Best Best&Krieger LLP,to Marlene Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed July 21,2014(Local Governments July 21,2014 Ex Parte),Attach.B;Letter from Kenneth S. Fellman,Kissinger&Fellman,P.C.,to Marlene Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed July 17, 2014(CCUA et al July 17,2014 Ex Parte),Attach.A. Because these two sets of definitions are identical,and because their proponents confirmed as much,we refer to them collectively as the"Local Government Definitions." 386 See Local Government Definitions. The Local Government Definitions propose to define"public safety services"in the manner that term is defined in Section 1401(27)of the Spectrum Act,but they do not propose how to define"wireless." 387 See, e.g., Alexandria et al.Comments at 26; San Antonio Comments at 16. 388 See,e.g.,AT&T Comments at 23;CCA Reply Comments at 4-5;Cox Reply Comments at 3-4;NAB Reply Comments at 6;PCIA Comments at 29; Sprint Comments at 8-9. 389 See Conference Report at 136(discussing the purposes of the public safety and spectrum provisions of the Conference substitute,stating that"[t]hese provisions also deliver on one of the last outstanding recommendations of the 9/11 Commission by creating a nationwide interoperable broadband communications network for first responders."). 39'As some commenters note,Section 332(c)(7)defines"personal wireless services"as"commercial mobile[radio] services,unlicensed wireless[telecommunications]services,and common carrier wireless exchange access services." 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7). 63 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 infrastructure;and. . .Federal, State,tribal, or local infrastructure."39' For all of these reasons,we find it appropriate to interpret Section 6409(a)as applying to collocations on infrastructure that supports equipment used for all Commission-licensed or authorized wireless transmissions. 150. We are not persuaded that Congress's use of the term"base station"implies that the provision applies only to mobile service." As noted in the Infrastructure NPRM,our rules define"base station"as a feature of a mobile communications network, and the term has commonly been used in that context."' It is important,however,to interpret"base station"in the context of Congress's intention to advance wireless broadband service generally,including both mobile and fixed broadband services 394 We note,for example,that the Spectrum Act directs the Commission to license the new commercial wireless services employing H Block,AWS-3,and repurposed television broadcast spectrum under "flexible-use service rules"—i.e., for fixed as well as mobile use 39s Moreover, in the context of wireless broadband service generally,the term"base station"describes fixed stations that provide fixed wireless service to users as well as those that provide mobile wireless service 396 Indeed,this is particularly true with regard to Long Term Evolution(LTE), in which base stations can support both fixed and mobile service 397 Accordingly,we find that,in the context of Section 6409(a),the term"base station" encompasses both mobile and fixed services. 391 Spectrum Act§6206(c)(3). We further note Congress's direction to FirstNet that,in issuing requests for proposals to private sector entities for the purposes of building and operating the public safety network,FirstNet should"encourage[e]that such requests leverage,to the maximum extent economically desirable,existing commercial wireless infrastructure to speed deployment of the network." Id at§6206(b)(1)(C). 392 See, e.g, IAC Comments at 5(citing Intergovernmental Advisory Committee to the Federal Communications Commission:Advisory Recommendation Number 2013-9,"Response to Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Guidance on Interpretation of Section 6409(a)of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,"dated July 31,2013 ("IAC Recommendation"),at 3). The IAC Recommendation has been filed in WC Docket No. 11-59 (Aug.2,2013)and is also available at http://www.fcc. ov/encyclopedia/intergovernmental-advisory-committee- comments.). 393 Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14278 para. 107(citing 47 C.F.R.§90.7,which defines"base station"in Part 90 of the Commission's rules as a"station at a specified site authorized to communicate with mobile stations."); 47 C.F.R. §§2.1(c),24.5(defining"base station"as"[a]land station in the land mobile service."). 394 See WISPA Reply Comments at 7. 395 Spectrum Act§§6401(b)(1)(B),6403(codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 1451(b)(1)(B), 1452). 396 See, e g.,Amendment of Part 27 of the Commission's Rules to Govern the Operation of Wireless Communications Services in the 2.3 GHz Band,WT Docket No.07-293,Report and Order and Second Report and Order,25 FCC Rcd 11710,n.92(2010)(stating that,"[i]n fixed WiMAX networks,both the base stations and subscriber stations are stationary during use");Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands,ET Docket No. 04-186,Additional Spectrum For Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band,ET Docket No.02- 380,Second Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order,23 FCC Rcd 16807, 16846 para. 104(2009) (adopting rules to allow unlicensed wireless broadband services,and noting that"[a]fixed system will consist of a permanently located base station transmitting to one or more fixed devices or to personal/portable end user devices");Pacific Wireless,"Fixed Wireless Broadband,"available at http://www.paciflcwireless.com.au/fixed- wireless-broadband.html(noting that"[i]n all wireless networks,base stations do not move—i.e.they are in a fixed location—but in a mobile broadband network,the[Subscriber Unit]can move"). 397 See,e.g.,"PLDT Rolls-Out 5,000 New 4G LTE Base Stations,"available at htip://www.polipychargingcontrol.com/1824-pldt-rolls-out-5-000-new-lte-base-stations(noting one service provider has"deployed nearly 2,000 fixed wireless LTE base stations to serve high-speed wireless broadband services to homes");"LTE to Bring Fixed-Wireless Broadband to Rural Australia,"available at http://www.ericsson.com/news/1520376(noting that"[f]ixed-wireless networks are used to connect stationary points—in this case LTE base stations to several households or businesses"). 64 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 151. We are also not persuaded that we should exclude"broadcast"from the scope of Section 6409(a),both with respect to"wireless"towers and base stations and with respect to transmission equipment. While we acknowledge that the term"wireless providers"appears in other sections of the Spectrum Act that do not encompass broadcast services,39'we do not agree that use of the word "wireless"in Section 6409's reference to a"tower or base station"can be understood without reference to context.399 We therefore interpret the term"wireless"as used in Section 6409(a)in light of the purpose of this provision in particular and the larger purposes of the Spectrum Act as a whole. We find that Congress intended the provision to facilitate collocation in order to advance the deployment of commercial and public safety broadband services,including the deployment of the FirstNet network. We agree with NAB that including broadcast towers significantly advances this purpose by"supporting the approximately 25,000 broadcast towers as collocation platforms.011 We note that a variety of industry and municipal commenters likewise support the inclusion of broadcast towers for similar reasons.411 Finally,we observe that this approach is consistent with the Collocation Agreement and the NPA,both of which define"tower"to include broadcast towers. These agreements address"wireless"communications facilities and collocation for any"communications"purposes. They extend to any"tower"built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any"FCC-licensed"facilities. 02 We find these references particularly persuasive in ascertaining congressional intent, since Section 6409(a)expressly references the Commission's continuing obligations to comply with NEPA and NEPA,which form the basis for these agreements 403 398 See, e.g.,Spectrum Act§6203("Public Safety Interoperability Board"). This section provides that"4 members [of the board]shall be representatives of wireless providers,"of whom two members must represent"national wireless providers,"one must represent"regional wireless providers,"and one must represent"rural wireless providers." We agree that the phrase"wireless providers"in the context of this separate Subtitle B of the Spectrum Act,in establishing a board charged with developing recommended minimum technical interoperability requirements for the nationwide public safety broadband network,was not intended to include providers of broadcast services. See also San Antonio Comments at 16,n.19. San Antonio argues that the Commission has used the terms"wireless"and"broadcast"to refer to two different categories of service,citing the Commission's decisions that distinguish between"wireless"and"broadcast"licensees. The Commission decisions cited by San Antonio are in the context of establishing different regulatory requirements for wireless services and broadcast services,and do not address the context of facilitating access to infrastructure. As discussed further below,for example,the Collocation Agreement uses the term"wireless"broadly to refer to the use of"wireless antenna"for any"communications"purpose,including broadcast. See Collocation Agreement(entitled"National Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas")§I.A(encompassing all antennas for the"purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes"). 399 As the Supreme Court has cautioned,"[m]ost words have different shades of meaning and consequently may be variously construed,not only when they occur in different statutes,but when used more than once in the same statute or even in the same section." Environmental Defense v.Duke Energy Coip., 549 U.S.561,574(2007). Thus,the same word in the same statute"may take on distinct characters from association with distinct statutory objects calling for different implementation strategies." Id. 400 NAB Reply Comments at 3-4(stating that anecdotal evidence suggests that as many as 85%of the approximately 25,000 existing broadcast towers are being used for collocation today). 401 See, ag, Coconut Creek Comments at 6;NAB Reply Comments at 3;NCTA Reply Comments at 2-3; Springfield Comments at 15;West Palm Beach Comments at 5. 402 47 C.F.R.Part 1 App.B(Collocation Agreement)(introductory clause and part I definitions of"collocation"and "tower"). Under the NPA,"tower"is defined as"[a]ny structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting Commission-licensed or authorized Antennas,including the on-site fencing,equipment,switches,wiring,cabling, power sources,shelters,or cabinets associated with that Tower but not installed as part of an Antenna as defined herein." 47 C.F.R.Part 1 App.C§II.A.14(NPA). 403 See Spectrum Act§6409(c). 65 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 152. We further conclude that a broad interpretation of"transmission equipment"is similarly appropriate in light of the purposes of Section 6409(a)in particular and the Spectrum Act more generally.414 The statute's Conference Report expresses Congress's intention to advance wireless broadband service generally,405 and as PCIA states, a broad definition of this term will ensure coverage for all wireless broadband services, including future services not yet contemplated.406 Defining "transmission equipment"broadly will therefore facilitate the deployment of wireless broadband networks and will"minimize the need to continually redefine the term as technology and applications evolve."407 We also note that a broad definition reflects Congress's definition of a comparable term in the context of directly related provisions in the same statute; in Section 6408,the immediately preceding provision addressing uses of adjacent spectrum, Congress defined the term"transmission system"broadly to include"any telecommunications,broadcast, satellite,commercial mobile service, or other communications system that employs radio spectrum."aos 153. We disagree with commenters who contend that including broadcast equipment within covered transmission equipment does not advance the goals of the Spectrum Act 409 While broadcast equipment does not itself transmit wireless broadband signals,its efficient collocation pursuant to Section 6409(a)will expedite and minimize the costs of the relocation of broadcast television licensees that are reassigned to new channels in order to clear the spectrum that will be offered for broadband services through the incentive auction,as mandated by the Spectrum Act 410 Accordingly,we conclude that inclusion of broadcast service equipment in the scope of transmission equipment covered by the provision furthers the goals of the legislation and will contribute in particular to the success of the post-incentive auction transition of television broadcast stations to their new channels. In any event,we note that the language of Section 6409(a)is broader than that used in Section 332(c)(7), and it is therefore reasonable to construe it in a manner that does not differentiate among various Commission-regulated services, particularly in the context of mandating approval of facilities that do not result in any substantial increase in physical dimensions. 154. We further reject arguments that Congress intended these terms to be restricted to equipment used in connection with personal wireless services and public safety services.41 The Communications Act and the Spectrum Act already define those narrower terms,and Congress chose not to employ them in Section 6409(a), determining instead to use the broader term, "wireless." The 404 See., e.g., AT&T Comments at 23;CCA Reply Comments at 4-5;NAB Reply Comments at 3-4;PCIA Comments at 29-31;Sprint Comments at 8-9;TIA Comments at 5;WISPA Reply Comments at 4. 405 See Conference Report at 136. 406 See PCIA Comments at 29. See also, a g.,CCA Reply Comments at 4-5. 407 Towerstream Comments at 10-11;CCA Reply Comments at 5. 401 Spectrum Act§6408. 409 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 26;CA Local Governments Comments at 2-3;CCUA et al Comments at 9;Local Government Definitions. 410 See Incentive Auction Report and Order,29 FCC Rcd 6133,at paras. 1 (establishing rules to,among other thing, reorganize the broadcast television bands in order to"recover a portion of ultra-high frequency(`UHF')spectrum for a`forward auction' of new,flexible-use licenses suitable for providing mobile broadband services"),581 (providing that"[t]he following circumstances may justify an extension of a station's construction deadline: . . . delays faced by broadcast stations that must obtain government approvals,such as land use or zoning approvals"). We further note that Section 6403 allows broadcasters subject to relocation in the incentive auction process to accept,in lieu of reimbursement for relocation cost,a waiver of the applicable service rules to permit the licensee to make flexible use of its assigned spectrum to provide services other than broadcast television services,so long as the licensee provides"at least 1 broadcast television program stream on such spectrum at no charge to the public." Spectrum Act§6403(b)(4)(B). 411 See Local Government Definitions. 66 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 legislative history supports the conclusion that Congress intended to employ broader language. In the Conference Report,Congress emphasized that a primary goal of the Spectrum Act was to"advance wireless broadband service,"which would"promot[e]billions of dollars in private investment, and creat[e]tens of thousands ofjobs."412 In light of its clear intent to advance wireless broadband deployment through enactment of Section 6409(a),we find it implausible that Congress meant to exclude facilities used for such services. b. Transmission Equipment 155. Background. In addition to seeking comment on the scope of services supported by covered"transmission equipment,"the Commission further proposed to define"transmission equipment" to encompass antennas and other equipment associated with and necessary to their operation, including power supply cables and backup power equipment 413 It sought comment in particular on including backup power equipment in light of the public interest in continued service during emergencies. It further sought comment on whether to use the NPA's definition of"antenna"as the definition of"transmission equipment.5A14 156. Industry commenters support the Commission's proposal."' They argue that the definition of"transmission equipment"must include backup power equipment and other power supply equipment in light of the public interest in maintaining uninterrupted service during emergencies."' AT&T recommends that we base the definition on the definition of"antenna"in the NPA,which includes the transmission device and any on-site equipment, switches,wiring,cabling,power sources,shelters,or cabinets. 1 157. Several local government commenters oppose the proposed definition,urging the Commission to limit its scope to electronic components that actually transmit or receive communications signals.418 In particular,they oppose inclusion of backup power generators,arguing that some generators raise environmental,safety and zoning issues more properly suited to a discretionary review process 419 Tempe argues further that backup power equipment should not be included in the definition because it is not"necessary"to wireless operations azo 158. Discussion. We adopt the proposal in the Infrastructure NPRMto define"transmission equipment"to encompass antennas and other equipment associated with and necessary to their operation, including power supply cables and backup power equipment 421 We find that this definition reflects Congress's intent to facilitate the review of collocations and minor modifications, and it recognizes that 412 See Conference Report at 136. 413 Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14277-78 para. 105. 414 Id. at 14278 para. 106. 415 See,e.g.,AT&T Comments at 23;CCA Reply Comments at 4-5;CTIA Reply Comments at 7;Fibertech Comments at 18;PCIA Comments at 29-31; Sprint Comments at 8-9;TIA Comments at 5. 416 See, e.g.,AT&T Comments at 23;PCIA Comments at 29-30; Sprint Comments at 8-9. 417 AT&T Comments at 23. 418 See, e.g., CA Local Governments Comments at 2-3;CCC Comments at 3(arguing"transmission equipment" should not include"ancillary or support equipment that is uninvolved in transmission,such as back-up power generators");CCUA et al. Comments at 9;Coconut Creek Comments at 5-6;Tucson Comments at 5. 419 See, e.g., CA Local Governments Comments at 3;Coconut Creek Comments at 5-6;Fairfax Comments at 7-8; Tucson Comments at 5;West Palm Beach Comments at 5-6. 420 Tempe Comments at 11. 421 Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14277-78 para. 105. 67 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Congress used the broad term"transmission equipment"without qualifications that would logically limit its scope 422 159. We are further persuaded by wireless industry commenters that power supplies,including backup power,are a critical component of wireless broadband deployment and that they are necessary to ensure network resiliency.413 Indeed,including backup power equipment within the scope of "transmission equipment"under Section 6409(a)is consistent with Congress's directive to the FirstNet Authority to"ensure the . . .resiliency of the network.114 Tempe's assertion that backup power is not technically"necessary"because transmission equipment can operate without it is unpersuasive. Backup power is certainly necessary to operations during those periods when primary power is intermittent or unavailable."' We also conclude that"transmission equipment"should be interpreted consistent with the term"antenna"in the NPA and,given that the NPA term encompasses"power sources"without limitation,we find that"transmission equipment"includes backup power sources.426 Finally,while we recognize the concerns raised by local government commenters regarding the potential hazards of backup power generators,we find that these concerns are fully addressed in the standards applicable to collocation applications discussed below 427 160. Therefore,we define"transmission equipment"under Section 6409(a)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,including coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power supply 428 This definition includes equipment used in any technological configuration associated with any Commission-authorized wireless transmission,licensed or unlicensed,terrestrial or satellite, including commercial mobile,private mobile,broadcast, and public safety services, as well as fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul or fixed broadband. C. Existing Wireless Tower or Base Station 161. Background. In addition to seeking comment on the scope of the word"wireless"as used in the phrase"wireless tower or base station,"as discussed above,the Commission sought comment more generally on how to define"existing wireless tower or base station"in order to determine the scope of 422 Id. See also CCA Reply Comments at 4-5;PCIA Comments at 29; Sprint Comments at 8-9;TIA Comments at 5. 423 See, e.g., PCIA Comments at 29-30; Sprint Comments at 8-9;TIA Comments at 5;CCA Reply Comments at 4-5. See also CTIA Comments at 23("Several significant storm-related disasters over the past three years have underscored the importance of infrastructure. . .hardening as[it]relate[s]to wireless carriers'ability to maintain communications at the very time it is needed by public safety to assist recovery efforts and by the public to find out the fates of loved ones."). 424 Spectrum Act§6206(b)(2)(A). See also"Why FirstNet,"available at http://www.firstnet.gov/about/why(stating that"Reliability Must Be Built In"and emphasizing that"[a]s wind speeds rise and electrical power beings to fail, cell sites need ample power backup to address outages"). 425 For a history of the Commission's concerns about the availability of backup power to ensure the resiliency of wireless services,see,generally,Improving the Resiliency of Mobile Wireless Communications Networks,PS Docket Nos. 13-139, 11-50, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 28 FCC Rcd 14373 (2013). 426 See NPA§II.A.1. The NPA defines"antenna"in part as"[a]n apparatus designed for the purpose of emitting radio frequency(`RF')radiation,to be operated or operating from a fixed location pursuant to Commission authorization,for the transmission of writing,signs,signals,data,images,pictures,and sounds of all kinds, including the transmitting device and any on-site equipment,switches,wiring,cabling,power sources,shelters or cabinets associated with that antenna and added to a Tower,structure,or building as part of the original installation of the antenna." Id. 427 See infra,para.202. 428 Spectrum Act§ 6409(a). 68 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 support structures covered by Section 6409(a)."' Based on the existing definitions in comparable contexts in the Collocation Agreement,the NPA,and the Commission's rules,the Commission proposed to define a"tower"as any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting antennas used for any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communications service 430 The Commission proposed to define "base station"as 1a] station at a specified site that enables wireless communication between user equipment and a communications network,including any associated equipment such as,but not limited to,radio transceivers, antennas,coaxial or fiber-optic cable,and regular and backup power supply."431 In addition,recognizing the Commission's efforts to encourage collocations on non-tower structures to enhance capacity for wireless networks'41'and consistent with the Bureau's guidance in the Section 6409(a)PN on the scope of"base station,"the Commission proposed to find that"wireless tower or base station"should be interpreted to encompass structures that support or house equipment that constitutes part of a base station,even if they were not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support 433 Further,the Commission proposed to interpret"base station"as encompassing the relevant equipment in any technological configuration, including DAS.434 162. The Commission also sought comment on how to interpret the term"existing"in this context. It sought comment on whether the term, as applied to"wireless tower or base station,"requires only that a structure exist at the time of a collocation application or whether it also requires that the structure is in use at that time as a tower or base station. In particular,the Commission asked whether an "existing"base station only includes a structure that currently supports or houses base station equipment. It sought comment on which interpretation of the word would both facilitate deployments that are unlikely to conflict with local land use policies and also preserve State and local authority to review construction proposals that may have impacts.431 163. Industry commenters agree that"wireless tower"means a structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting Commission-licensed or authorized antennas.136 Many industry commenters also support interpreting"base station"to include structures that support or house an antenna,transceiver,or other associated equipment that constitutes part of a base station,even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting that equipment. Some industry commenters propose that the definition of"wireless tower or base station"should also include other structures that are"similar to wireless towers"or otherwise suitable for wireless deployment, such as 429 Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14278-80 paras. 107-112. Oso Id at 14278-9 para. 108, 14300 App.A,Proposed Rule§ 1.30001 (b)(6);see also NPA§II.A.14. 431 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14299-302 App.A. 432 See,generally,Implementation of Section 224 of the Act;A National Broadband Plan for Our Future,WC Docket No.07-245,GN Docket No.09-51,Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration,26 FCC Rcd 5240 (2011),a.#'d sub nom.American Elec.Power Service Corp. v.FCC,708 F.3d 183(D.C.Cir.2013)(Pole Attachment Order). 433 Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14278-80 paras. 108, 111. 434 Id at 14279-80 para. 110. As noted above,DAS configuration differs from a traditional base station configuration in that transceiver equipment supporting an antenna is typically located not at the antenna site,but at a remote hub site typically connected to the antenna by fiber-optic cable. See supra, para.31. 431 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14280 para. 111. 436 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 22;PCIA Comments at 34. 431 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 22;AT&T Reply Comments at 10-11;CCA Reply Comments at 5-6;Cox Reply Comments at 3-5;PCIA Comments at 31-32;Sprint Comments at 8-9;TIA Comments at 5;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 6-8;WISPA Reply Comments at 6-7. 69 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 water towers, light stanchions, and utility poles, even if they do not currently house or support transmission equipment 431 164. Industry commenters urge the Commission not to limit the scope of equipment and structures encompassed by the term"base station,"arguing that it should extend to associated equipment buildings, shelters, and cabinets even if they are not located immediately adjacent to the support structure. Sprint further argues that the word"base station"should cover DAS and small cell facilities, consistent with the guidance in the Section 6409(a)PN.aao 165. Municipal commenters suggest narrower definitions. They argue that the definition of "wireless tower"should be limited to structures built for the sole or primary purpose of housing wireless facilities and should not include structures that have not previously been considered wireless towers, such as utility poles, light poles,or buildings.41' Municipal commenters further argue that the term "base station"does not logically apply to any structures at all;they contend that a"wireless tower"is a structure,but a"base station"is a system of transmission equipment distinct from the structure that supports or houses it 442 In addition, some commenters argue that a deployment at a particular site should not be considered a base station unless it includes all the components of a base station. Alexandria et al. thus assert that Section 6409(a)does not apply to most DAS facilities, arguing that DAS providers have stated that their facilities, including the distributed antenna,fiber optic connections,and hub site, do not constitute a"wireless . . .base station"at all except for the radio transmitters and reception equipment at the system's hub443 166. Discussion. We adopt the definitions of"tower"and"base station"proposed in the Infrastructure NPRM with certain modifications and clarifications, in order to give independent meaning to both of these statutory terms, and consistent with Congress's intent to promote the deployment of wireless broadband services. First,we conclude that the term"tower"is intended to reflect the meaning of that term as it is used in the Collocation Agreement. Accordingly,we define"tower"to include any 431 See, e.g., Sprint Comments at 8-9;Verizon Comments at 27-28. See also CCA Reply Comments at 5-6;Cox Reply Comments at 4;NCTA Reply Comments at 3;WISPA Reply Comments at 6-7(arguing that excluding structures such as water tanks and grain silos that are traditionally utilized to support wireless equipment in rural areas would sharply limit the benefits intended by the statute). 439 See, e g, AT&T Comments at 23;Cox Reply Comments at 5. 440 Sprint Comments at 9. See also AT&T Comments at 22;PCIA Comments at 33(asserting that while DAS and small cells may be deployed differently than macrocells,their core components and functionality are the same and they should therefore should be the subject to the same streamlined processing);Verizon Comments at 27-28. 441 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 22-26;Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 9-12;CA Local Governments Comments at 4-6;CCUA et al Reply Comments at 11;DC Comments at 8-9;DC Reply Comments at 7-8;Fairfax Reply Comments at 5;Henderson Comments at 2;CCUA et al. Comments at 7-8;Minneapolis Comments at 12;NATOA et al. Comments at 12-13;NATOA et al Reply Comments at 4;RCRC Comments at 2; San Antonio Reply Comments at 3; St.Paul Reply Comments at 1-2;Tempe Reply Comments at 4. 442 See, e.g, Alexandria et al. Comments at 29;CA Local Governments Comments at 3,7;CCUA et al. Comments at 9;DC Reply Comments at 8-9;NATOA et al. Comments at 12-13;NATOA et al. Reply Comments at 4;PEC Comments at 8-9. See also Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 11 (contending that a"base station"is a"network element in[a]radio access network responsible for radio transmission and reception in one or more cells to or from the user equipment,"not a structure that supports that network element)(internal quotation omitted). 443 Alexandria et al Reply Comments at 12-13,n.34(citing CTC Report at 20)("In a DAS,to the extent that any portion of the system may be considered a`base station,'that base station is limited to the radio transmission and reception equipment in the headend building."). See also Fairfax Comments at 8-9;RCRC Comments at 2; St.Paul Reply Comments at 1-2. 70 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any Commission-licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities 444 167. As proposed in the Infrastructure NPRM,we interpret"base station"to extend the scope of the provision to certain support structures other than towers. Specifically,we define that term as the equipment and non-tower supporting structure at a fixed location that enable Commission-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. We find that the term includes any equipment associated with wireless communications service including,but not limited to,radio transceivers,antennas,coaxial or fiber-optic cable,regular and backup power supply, and comparable equipment." We note that this definition reflects the types of equipment included in our definition of"transmission equipment,"and that the record generally supports this approach"(' For example,DC argues that the Commission should define a base station as"generally consist[ing] of radio transceivers, antennae,coaxial cable,a regular and backup power supply, and other associated electronics."44' TIA concurs that the term"base station"encompasses transmission equipment, including antennas,transceivers,and other equipment associated with and necessary to their operation,including coaxial cable and regular and backup power equipment 448 168. We further find,consistent with the Commission's proposal,that the term"existing. . . base station"includes a structure that,at the time of the application,supports or houses an antenna, transceiver,or other associated equipment that constitutes part of a"base station"as'defined above,even if the structure was not built for the sole or primary purpose of providing such support 449 As the Commission noted in the Infrastructure NPRM,while"tower"is defined in the Collocation Agreement and the NPA to include only those structures built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting wireless communications equipment,the term"base station"is not used in these agreements"' However,we reject the proposal to define a"base station"to include any structure that is merely capable of supporting wireless transmission equipment,whether or not it is providing such support at the time of the application.45' We agree with municipalities' comments that by using the term"existing,"Section 6409(a)preserves local government authority to initially determine what types of structures are appropriate for supporting wireless transmission equipment if the structures were not built(and thus were not previously approved)for the sole or primary purpose of supporting such equipment 452 Some wireless industry commenters also support our interpretation that,while a tower that was built for the primary purpose of housing or supporting communications facilities should be considered"existing"even if it does not currently host wireless equipment,other structures should be considered"existing"only if they support or house wireless equipment at the time the application is filed"' 169. We find that the alternative definitions proposed by many municipalities are unpersuasive. First,we reject arguments that a"base station"includes only the transmission system 444 Collocation Agreement§I.B. 441 Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14300 App.A,Proposed Rule§ 1.30001(b)(1). 446 See,e.g, AT&T Comments at 22;DC Comments at 9;PCIA Comments at 32-33;Sprint Comments at 8-9;TIA Comments at 6. 447 DC Comments at 9. 448 TIA Comments at 6. 449 Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14278-79 para. 108;see also Section 6409(a)PN,28 FCC Rcd at 3. 450 Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14278 para. 107;Collocation Agreement§V.A(referring to"building or non-Tower structure");NPA§II.A.14. See also AT&T Comments at 22;AT&T Reply Comments at 10-11. 451 See, e.g.,NCTA Reply Comments at 3; Sprint Comments at 9;Verizon Comments at 27-28. 452 See,e.g., Coconut Creek Comments at 6;IAC Recommendation at 3; Salem Comments at 10. 453 See, e.g.,AT&T Comments at 22-23;PCIA Comments at 31-32;TIA Comments at 5. 71 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 equipment,not the structure that supports it. This reading conflicts with the full text of the provision, which plainly contemplates collocations on a base station as well as a tower. As noted above, Section 6409(a)defines an"eligible facilities request"as a request to modify an existing wireless tower or base station by collocating on it(among other modifications)asa This statutory structure precludes us from limiting the term"base station"to transmission equipment;collocating on base stations,which the statute envisions,would be conceptually impossible unless the structure is part of the definition as well. We further disagree that defining"base station"to include supporting structures will deprive"tower"of all independent meaning.ass As discussed above,we interpret"base station"not to include wireless deployments on towers. Further,we interpret"tower"to include all structures built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting Commission-licensed or authorized antennas,and their associated facilities,regardless of whether they currently support base station equipment at the time the application is filed. Thus, "tower"denotes a structure that is covered under Section 6409(a)by virtue of its construction. In contrast, a"base station"includes a structure that is not a wireless tower only where it already supports or houses such equipment. 170. We are also not persuaded by arguments that"base station"refers only to the equipment compound associated with a tower and the equipment located upon it. First,no commenters presented evidence that"base station"is more commonly understood to mean an equipment compound as opposed to the broader definition of all equipment associated with transmission and reception and its supporting structures. Furthermore,the Collocation Agreement's definition of"tower,"which we adopt in this Report and Order,treats equipment compounds as part of the associated towers for purposes of collocations;ase if towers include their equipment compounds,then defining base stations as equipment compounds alone would render the term superfluous. We also note that none of the State statutes and regulations implementing Section 6409(a)has limited its scope to equipment and structures associated with towers. 57 In addition,we agree with commenters who argue that limiting the definition of"base station"(and thus the scope of Section 6409(a))to structures and equipment associated with towers would compromise the core policy goal of bringing greater efficiency to the process for collocations. Other structures are increasingly important to the deployment of wireless communications infrastructure; omitting them from the scope of Section 6409(a)would mean the statute's efficiencies would not extend to many if not most wireless collocations, and would counterproductively exclude virtually all of the small cell collocations that have the least impact on local land use. 171. Some commenters arguing that Section 6409(a)covers no structures other than those associated with towers point to the Conference Report,which, in describing the equivalent provision in the House bill, states that the provision"would require approval of requests for modification of cell towers.»459 We do not find this ambiguous statement sufficient to overcome the language of the statute as enacted,which refers to"modification of an existing wireless tower or base station."460 Moreover,this asa Spectrum Act§6409(a)(2). ass See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 29. ash NPA§II.A.14. 457 See, e.g., GA.ST§36-66B("Mobile Broadband Infrastructure Leads to Development Act")(GA BILD Act);MI ST. 125.3514;MO ST 67.5090 et seq.,MO LEGIS S.B.650(2014)("Uniform Wireless Communications Infrastructure Deployment Act");NH Rev Stat§ 12-K:10(2013);NC ST§ 160A-400.50 et seq. ("Wireless Telecommunications Facilities");PA ST 53 P.S. § 11702.1 et seq ("Municipalities-Wireless Broadband Collocation Act");WI ST 66-0404(2014)("Mobile Tower Siting Regulations). asa Infrastructure NPW 28 FCC Rcd at 14278-80 paras. 107-110;AT&T Comments at 22;PCIA Comments at 31- 33; Sprint Comments at 8-9;TIA Comments at 5;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 6-8;WISPA Reply Comments at 6- 7. 459 Conference Report at 133. aeo Spectrum Act§6409(a)(emphasis added). 72 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 statement from the report does not expressly state a limitation on the provision,and thus may reasonably be read as a simplified reference to towers as an important application of its mandate. Therefore,we do not view this language as indicating Congress's intention that the provision encompasses only modifications of structures that qualify as wireless towers. 172. We thus adopt the proposed definition of"base station"to include a structure that currently supports or houses an antenna,transceiver,or other associated equipment that constitutes part of a base station at the time the application is filed 46' Consistent with the Bureau's guidance in the Section 6409(a)PN,we also find that"base station"encompasses the relevant equipment in any technological configuration,including DAS and small cells. 62 We disagree with municipalities that argue that"base station"should not include DAS or small cells 463 As the record supports,there is no statutory language limiting the term"base station"in this manner. Our definition is sufficiently flexible to encompass,as appropriate to Section 6409(a)'s intent and purpose, future as well as current base station technologies and technological configurations,using either licensed or unlicensed spectrum.41 173. While we do not accept municipal arguments to limit Section 6409(a)to equipment or structures associated with towers,we reject industry arguments that Section 6409(a)should apply more broadly to include certain structures that neither were built for the purpose of housing wireless equipment nor have base station equipment deployed upon them.461 We find no persuasive basis to interpret the statutory provision so broadly. We agree with Alexandria et al. that the scope of Section 6409(a)is different from that of the Collocation Agreement,as the statutory provision clearly applies only to collocations on an existing"wireless tower or base station"rather than any existing"tower or structure.""' Further,interpreting"tower"to include structures"similar to a tower"would be contrary to the very Collocation Agreement to which these commenters point us,which defines"tower"in the narrower fashion that we adopt. We also agree with municipalities as a policy matter that local governments should retain authority to make the initial determination(subject to the constraints of Section 332(c)(7))of which non-tower structures are appropriate for supporting wireless transmission equipment;our interpretations of"tower"and"base station"preserve that authority.467 174. Finally,we agree with Fairfax that the term"existing"requires that wireless towers or base stations have been reviewed and approved under the applicable local zoning or siting process or that the deployment of existing transmission equipment on the structure received another form of affirmative State or local regulatory approval(e.g., authorization from a State public utility commission)468 Thus, 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,the governing authority is not obligated to grant a collocation application under Section 6409(a). We further clarify that a wireless tower that does not have a permit because it was not in a zoned area when it was built,but was lawfully constructed,is an"existing"tower. We find that our interpretation of"existing"is consistent with the purposes of Section 6409(a)to facilitate 461 Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14300 App.A.,Proposed Rules §1.30001(b)(1). 462 Id. at 14279-80 para. 110. See also Sprint Comments at 9. 463 See,e.g.,Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 12;Fairfax Comments at 8-9;RCRC Comments at 2. 464 See, e g, CTIA Reply Comments at 12;Sprint Comments at 8-9. 465 See, e.g, PCIA Comments at 31-32; Sprint Comments at 9;Verizon Comments at 27-28;WISPA Reply Comments at 6. See also CCA Reply Comments at 5-6;Cox Reply Comments at 4;NCTA Reply Comments at 3; WISPA Reply Comments at 6-7. 466 Alexandria et al. Comments at 30-31. 467 See e.g., Coconut Creek Comments at 6;IAC Recommendation at 3;Salem Comments at 10. 468 Fairfax Comments at 5;See also Fairfax Reply Comments at 7("A tower or structure illegally constructed is not sanitized by§6409(a)."). 73 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 deployments that are unlikely to conflict with local land use policies and preserve State and local authority to review proposals that may have impacts. First,it ensures that a facility that was deployed unlawfully does not trigger a municipality's obligation to approve modification requests under Section 6409(a). Further, it guarantees that the structure has already been the subject of State or local review. This interpretation should also minimize incentives for governing authorities to increase zoning or other regulatory review in cases where minimally intrusive deployments are currently permitted without review. For example,under this interpretation, a homeowner's deployment of a femtocell that is not subject to any zoning or other regulatory requirements will not constitute a base station deployment that triggers obligations to allow deployments of other types of facilities at that location under Section 6409(a). By thus preserving State and local authority to review the first base station deployment that brings any non-tower structure within the scope of Section 6409(a),we ensure that subsequent collocations of additional transmission equipment on that structure will be consistent with congressional intent that deployments subject to Section 6409(a)will not pose a threat of harm to local land use values. 175. On balance,we find that the foregoing definitions are consistent with congressional intent to foster collocation on various types of structures,while addressing municipalities' valid interest in preserving their authority to determine which structures are suitable for wireless deployment, and under what conditions 469 d. Collocation,Replacement,Removal,Modification 176. Background. The Commission also sought comment on how to define or interpret the terms"collocation,""removal,"replacement,"and"modification"as they are used in the statutory definition of"eligible facilities request.,170 It sought comment on whether to interpret"collocation" consistent with the Collocation Agreement,where it is defined as"the mounting or installation of an antenna on an existing tower,building or structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes."471 It further proposed to interpret a"modification"of a wireless tower or base station to include collocation,removal, or replacement of an antenna or any other transmission equipment associated with the supporting structure, even if the equipment is not physically located upon the structure. 72 In this regard,the Commission observed that the Collocation Agreement similarly construes the mounting of an antenna"on a tower"to encompass installation of associated equipment cabinets or shelters on the ground.` The Commission also sought comment on whether the definition should apply to a request to replace or harden a tower or other covered structure if,for example, replacement or hardening of the tower or structure is necessary to support an otherwise covered collocation ala 177. Industry commenters generally agree with the Commission's proposed definition of "collocation.s47' Several municipalities, on the other hand, argue that the term"collocation"should not include the first wireless installation on a given structure 476 In addition,PCIA and AT&T argue that 469 See, e.g., WISPA Reply Comments at 7. 470 Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14280 para. 113. 471 Id 472 Id. at 14280 para. 114. 473 Id 474 See id. at 14281 para. 115. 475 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 24;PCIA Comments at 36; Sprint Comments at 9-10;TIA Comments at 6. 476 See, e.g., Alexandria et al.Comments at 30-31 (arguing that the definitions in the Commission's programmatic agreements do not define the scope of Section 6409(a));CA Local Governments Comments at 9-11;CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 9-10("Whether a permit request constitutes a`collocation' should depend on whether a legally established wireless use already exists on the structure.");CCUA et al. Comments at 10;CCUA et al.Reply Comments at 11-12;Tempe Reply Comments at 4. 74 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 replacing or hardening a supporting structure should fall under Section 6409(a)if it does not substantially change the physical dimensions of the tower 47 However,Alexandria et al. argue that replacing or hardening of a tower should not be included as an"eligible facilities request"under Section 6409(a).411 178. Discussion. We conclude again that it is appropriate to look to the Collocation Agreement for guidance on the meaning of analogous terms,particularly in light of Section 6409(a)(3)'s specific recognition of the Commission's obligations under NHPA and NEPA. Accordingly,as proposed in the Infrastructure NPRM and supported by the record,we conclude that the definition of"collocation" for purposes of Section 6409(a)should be consistent with its definition in the Collocation Agreement 479 We therefore define"collocation"under Section 6409(a)as"the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes."480 The term"eligible support structure"means any structure that falls within the definitions of"tower"or"base station,"as discussed above. Consistent with the language of Section 6409(a)(2)(A)-(C),we also find that a"modification"of a"wireless tower or base station"includes collocation,removal,or replacement of an antenna or any other transmission equipment associated with the supporting structure. 179. We therefore disagree with municipal commenters who argue that collocations are limited to mounting equipment on structures that already have transmission equipment on them.411 That limitation is not consistent with the Collocation Agreement's definition of"collocation,"and would not serve any reasonable purpose as applied to towers built for the purpose of supporting transmission equipment. Nevertheless,we observe that our approach leads to the same result in the case of"base stations;"since our definition of that term includes only structures that already support or house base station equipment, Section 6409(a)will not apply to the first deployment of transmission equipment on such structures. Thus,we disagree with CA Local Governments that adopting our proposed definition of collocation would require local governments to approve deployments on anything that could house or support a component of a base station482 Rather, Section 6409(a)will apply only where a State or local government has approved the construction of a structure with the sole or primary purpose of supporting covered transmission equipment(i.e.,a wireless tower)or,with regard to other support structures,where the State or local government has previously approved the siting of transmission equipment that is part of a base station on that structure. In both cases,the State or local government must decide that the site is suitable for wireless facility deployment before Section 6409(a)will apply. 180. We find that the term"eligible facilities-request"encompasses hardening through structural enhancement where such hardening is necessary for a covered collocation,replacement,or removal of transmission equipment,but does not include replacement of the underlying structure. We 47 See AT&T Comments at 24;PCIA Comments at 36-37. See also Tucson Comments at 6(arguing that replacement or hardening of a tower should be covered if the tower already supports wireless equipment);UTC Comments at 15. 478 Alexandria et al.Comments at 31;Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 15. See also Tempe Comments at 20-21 (arguing that any new structures,including replacement structures,should be subject to review). 479 Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14280 para. 113. 410 Id. at 14300 App.A,Proposed Rule§ 1.30001(b)(2). As discussed above,"transmission equipment"includes antennas and other equipment associated with and necessary to their operation,including power supply cables and backup power equipment. 411 See, e.g., Alexandria et al Comments at 30-31;CCUA et al.Comments at 10. 482 See CA Local Governments Comments at 10. 483 Thus,as noted above,if a tower or base station equipment was constructed or deployed without proper review or was not required to undergo siting review,the governing authority is not obligated to grant a collocation application under Section 6409(a). 75 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 note that the term"eligible facilities request"encompasses any"modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves"collocation,removal,or replacement of transmission equipment. Given that structural enhancement of the support structure is a modification of the relevant tower or base station,484 we find that such modification is part of an eligible facilities request so long as the modification of the underlying support structure is performed in connection with and is necessary to support a collocation,removal, or replacement of transmission equipment. We further clarify that,to be covered under Section 6409(a),any such structural enhancement must not constitute a substantial change as defined below. 181. We agree with Alexandria et al.,however,that"replacement,"as used in Section 6409(a)(2)(C),relates only to the replacement of"transmission equipment,"and that such equipment does not include the structure on which the equipment is located 485 Even under the condition that it would not substantially change the physical dimensions of the structure,replacement of an entire structure may affect or implicate local land use values differently than the addition,removal,or replacement of transmission equipment, and we find no textual support for the conclusion that Congress intended to extend mandatory approval to new structures. Thus,we decline to interpret"eligible facilities requests" to include replacement of the underlying structure. e. Substantial Change and Other Conditions and Limitations 182. Background. In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission sought comment on whether and how to determine when a collocation or other eligible modification will"substantially change the physical dimensions"of a wireless tower or base station under Section 6409(a)486 The Commission noted that the Collocation Agreement establishes a four-prong test to determine whether a collocation will effect a"substantial increase in the size of a tower,s487 and sought comment on whether to adopt this as the test 414 We note that permitting structural enhancement as a part of a covered request may be particularly important to ensure that the relevant infrastructure will be available for use by FirstNet because of its obligation to"ensure the safety,security,and resiliency of the[public safety broadband]network. ..." Spectrum Act§6206(b)(2)(A). See also"FirstNet,Guiding Principles,"available at http://www.firstnet.gov/about/ ug iding-principles(providing that "FirstNet will harden the network to assist with resiliency during natural disasters,incidents and man-made threats"). In addition to hardening for Public Safety,commercial providers may seek structural enhancement for many reasons,for example,to increase load capacity or to repair defects due to corrosion or other damage. See, e.g., "Refurbishment—Structural Enhancement,"available at http://m.rohnproducts.com/tower-unarade.html. 485 Alexandria et al.Comments at 31 (arguing that replacement of a tower is not a"modification'of it and that Congress knew how to address"replacement'when that was its intent). 486 See Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14281-82 paras. 116-122. 417 Collocation Agreement§I.C. Under this test,a"substantial increase in the size of the tower"occurs if: 1)[t]he mounting of the proposed antenna on the tower would increase the existing height of the tower by more than 10%,or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet,whichever is greater,except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas;or 2)[t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved,not to exceed four,or more than one new equipment shelter;or 3)[t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet,or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance,whichever is greater,except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via cable;or (continued....) 76 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 for a"substantial change"under Section 6409(a)and whether to modify or clarify any of the prongs.488 The Commission further sought comment on how to address situations where the tower or other structure has been previously modified since it was originally approved, and specifically whether to measure any physical change in dimensions resulting from a proposed new modification based on the structure's original dimensions or the existing dimensions taking into account all modifications that have occurred previously.419 The Commission also sought comment on whether the test should differ depending on the type of structure and whether a different test should apply to"stealth structures"—i.e.,those that have been constructed to blend in with their surroundings ago In particular, it sought comment on whether changes that would undermine stealth characteristics should be considered substantial 491 The Commission further sought comment on the recommendation of the Commission's Intergovernmental Advisory Committee(IAC)that the question of substantiality cannot be resolved by applying inflexible numerical rules,but rather must be evaluated in the context of each specific installation and each community's land use requirements and decisions." 183. The Commission also sought comment on whether there are implicit circumstances other than"substantial changes"under which Section 6409(a)would permit a State or local government to deny an otherwise covered request 493 It also sought comment on whether States and localities may impose conditions or require alterations when granting a covered request and,if so,what types of conditions or alterations they could require. In particular,the Commission asked whether States and local governments could require covered requests to comply with State or local building codes and other laws reasonably related to health and safety,and whether States and localities are required to approve an otherwise covered modification of a tower or base station that has legal,non-conforming status,494 or when the modification does not conform to a condition or restriction that the State or locality imposed as a prerequisite to its original approval of the tower or base station.49' The Commission further sought (Continued from previous page) 4)[t]he 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. 488 Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14281-82 paras. 117-19. 489 See id. at 14282 para. 120. 490 Id.at 14282 para. 121. 491 See id. 492 See id. at 14282 para. 122(citing Intergovernmental Advisory Committee to the Federal Communications Commission:Advisory Recommendation Number 2013-9,"Response to Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Guidance on Interpretation of Section 6409(a)of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,"dated July 31,2013 ("IAC Recommendation"),at 2). This document has been filed in WC Docket No. 11-59(Aug.2, 2013)and is also available at h*://www.fcc. og v/encyclopedia/intergovernmental-advisory-committee-comments. Subsequently,the IAC also filed comments on the Infrastructure NPRM. See,generally,IAC Comments. The IAC, comprised of fifteen representatives from local,State,and Tribal governments,advises the Commission on a range of telecommunications issues for which these governments share responsibility with the Commission. See FCC Announces The Reauthorization Of The Intergovernmental Advisory Committee And Seeks Nominations,Public Notice,28 FCC Rcd 14749(2013). 493 Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14283 para. 124. 494 See id. at 14283-84 paras. 124, 126. Legal,non-conforming status refers to a structure that was approved at the time of construction but is not presently in conformance due to subsequent changes to the governing zoning ordinance. Id. 491 See id. at 14283-84 paras. 124, 127. 77 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 comment generally on the legal basis for any of these asserted grounds for potential denial—for example, whether they should be understood as factors under the"substantial change"test.491 184. Industry commenters generally oppose the contextual,subjective approach to determining "substantial change"advocated by the IAC and instead support an objective test based on the Collocation Agreement's four-prong test,on the grounds that it will provide greater certainty and avoid delay.497 Some of these commenters propose modifications to particular prongs of the test 498 Industry commenters also support applying the"substantial change"test as a limit on cumulative increases by comparing changes to the state of the structure at some fixed point in time 499 While some advocate using the same four-prong test for all structures,others argue that the Commission should consider a different test for some or all non-tower structures.500 Several industry commenters agree that modifications that undermine the concealment elements of a stealth facility or defeat a stealth condition should be considered substantial,501 and some argue that we should treat a change as"substantial"if it conflicts with any condition on the structure's original zoning approval.502 Industry commenters generally oppose including 491 Id. at 14285 para. 128. 497 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 24(arguing that a uniform approach to"substantial change"will provide certainty and avoid the delay in broadband deployment that will result from case-by-case determinations);AT&T Reply Comments at 9-10;PCIA Comments at 37; Sprint Comments at 10;Towerstream Comments at 21 (arguing that the IAC approach would be subject to abuse and"would undermine the intended purpose of Section 6409(a)to facilitate the rapid deployment of public safety and commercial wireless broadband networks");Verizon Comments at 29-30; WISPA Reply Comments at 7-8. 498 See,e.g., AT&T Comments at 24(proposing that the test should consider only changes with a visual effect and not equipment concealed from public view through screening or other camouflage techniques);Fibertech Comments at 27(proposing an alternate substantial change test for small cells of 25 cubic feet or less);PCIA Comments at 37- 38(proposing that the Commission apply the test as modified in the NPA,allowing expansion outside the existing tower site that does not expand the boundaries of the leased or owned property 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);WISPA Reply Comments at 7-8. 499 See, e.g., PCIA Comments at 39(proposing all changes be measured from the tower's last zoning approval or the effective date of the rules,whichever is later);Verizon Comments at 29-30(proposing that changes be measured against the structure as of the date the rule becomes effective). 500 See, e.g., CCA Reply Comments at 6(Commission should consider"a secondary set of standards for structures other than those`built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting FCC-licensed antennas and their associated facilities"');UTC Comments at 13 (arguing that the Commission should adopt a"higher threshold"for utility poles, because increases in height exceeding 10%are often necessary to meet utility safety codes);Verizon Comments at 30(arguing that same test should apply to all structures,but that if the Commission adopts a different test for buildings,it should accommodate collocations on the sides or facades of buildings as well as roof-top collocations that extend some allowable height above the roof or that are not visible from the street). In an ex parte letter filed after its comments,Verizon suggests the definition of substantial change for towers should at least apply to utility structures,while a different definition could apply to other non-tower structures. See Letter from Tamara Preiss, Verizon,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Sept. 17,2014,at 2(Verizon Sept. 17,2014 Ex Parte). For non-tower structures,Verizon proposes that the substantial change test allow new facilities to extend"up to six feet wider than the widest point on the structure,"including an appurtenance attached to the structure,and"up to 15 feet above the highest point on the structure(which may be an appurtenance attached to the structure)." See id. Verizon also proposes that,if the Commission adopts a height limitation stated in terms of a percentage of the height of the structure,it should adopt"a minimum allowable height increase"that is"no less than ten feet above[the]highest point of the structure." Verizon Oct.8,2014 Ex Parte,at 3. 501 See, e.g., Crown Castle Comments at 14;PCIA Comments at 39;PCIA Reply Comments at 18-19. sot See, e.g., AT&T Reply Comments at 12, 16. 78 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 other considerations in determining whether a modification is a"substantial change,"such as whether a structure has legal,non-conforming status."' 185. Industry commenters generally agree that States and localities may require or otherwise condition approval of a covered request on compliance with building codes and other non-discretionary structural and safety codes,but they argue that States and localities may not otherwise impose conditions.504 In particular,PCIA argues that States and municipalities may ensure that a modification is consistent with existing stealth requirements,but may not impose new stealth requirements when granting a covered request.s05 186. Most municipalities support the IAC recommendation,arguing that a"substantial change"will mean different things depending on the particular structure and context,and therefore that the analysis does not lend itself to an objective or numerical formula.116 They oppose adoption of the Collocation Agreement's four-prong test or another numerical test, arguing that it will inevitably require approval of modifications that cause significant harms to aesthetics,safety, or other local concerns.507 They further object to any test that considers only"increases in size,"arguing that the test should consider all physical dimensions,including height,width,depth,volume, surface area,weight, and visual impact.50' Many support the test proposed in the Local Government Definitions,which provides that "substantially change the physical dimensions"means to"alter the physical dimensions of a wireless tower or base station in a manner that has a significant impact given the surroundings,characteristics of, and any conditions on,the wireless tower or base station."so9 In support of a context-specific approach, they argue that an objective and mechanical test will discourage States and municipalities from approving 501 See, e.g., Crown Castle Comments at 14;CTIA Reply Comments at 8;Fibertech Reply Comments at 16-17; PCIA Comments at 43-45. 104 See, e.g.,AT&T Comments at 26;AT&T Reply Comments at 11-12;PCIA Comments at 40-41 (supporting requirement of compliance with general building codes or other objective ministerial laws reasonably related to health and safety so long as they are clearly related to structural standards);PCIA Reply Comments at 18; Sprint Comments at 11;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 15-16. But see PCIA Comments at 45(arguing that fall zones and setbacks,while appropriate when approving new towers,should not be grounds for denying an otherwise covered request,because they can be too easily adjusted retroactively to transform compliant towers into legal,non- conforming towers). sos See PCIA Comments at 45-46. '06See,e.g.,Alexandria et al. Comments at 32-33;CA Local Governments Comments at 11-12(arguing that whether modification is a substantial change depends on the character and circumstances of the particular tower or base station;issue therefore does not lend itself to a national standard);CCUA et al.Comments at 11-15; San Antonio Reply Comments at 3, 12-13(arguing that"substantial change"must be"construed in a factual context that includes the historical or environmental surroundings,structural and public safety considerations,and generally applicable zoning requirements"). Certain municipalities support numerical standards,however. See,e.g.,Coconut Creek Comments at 6(arguing that the four-prong test will lend uniformity and certainty to localities'application of Section 6409(a)). Savannah proposes that any increase in height or width be considered substantial. See Savannah Ex Parte at 7. 507 See,e.g.,Alexandria et al. Comments at 33-36;Long Beach Comments at 2;Michaud Comments at 1 (arguing that numerical test ignores"local regulations on visual impact and building codes[and]regulations");Minneapolis Comments at 11-12;MML Comments at 2;NJSLM Comments at 5. 508 See, e.g., CA Local Governments Comments at 14-15;CCUA et al.Comments at 14-15. CA Local Governments also highlight other aspects of the four-prong test as problematic,including exceptions to the size limits to avoid interference or accommodate weather conditions. See CA Local Governments Comments at 15. 509 See, e.g., Local Governments July 21,2014 Ex Parte, Attach.B;CCUA et al. July 17,2014 Ex Parte,Attach.A. 79 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 initial wireless facility deployments,because such deployments, even if unobjectionable on their own, would open the door to potentially objectionable collocations covered by Section 6409(a).510 187. State and local commenters also offer certain considerations that the Commission should incorporate into any test for substantial change. Similar to the position of some industry commenters, many municipalities propose that a change should be treated as substantial if it violates any existing conditions applicable to the tower or base station."" Many also contend that any request subject to Section 6409(a)must nonetheless comply with regulations related to health and safety,such as building, structural or safety codes,arguing that compliance with these codes is a factor in determining whether a change is substantial."' Municipal commenters also agree with industry commenters that"substantial change"should be measured as a cumulative limit on all changes from a fixed point in time but,unlike most industry commenters,they argue that the changes should be measured from the dimensions of the structure as originally approved.513 In addition,the IAC suggests that any change in physical dimensions that would violate a federal law or regulation(such as FAA requirements or Commission RF exposure standards) should be considered substantial.51' Alexandria et al. argue that a proposed change should be considered"substantial" if it would make a facility unsafe, create hazards or environmental harms,render public streets or sidewalks less accessible, damage a historically significant area or structure,expose a "stealth"facility, or otherwise defeat conditions applicable to the original regulatory approval of the underlying tower or base station."' 188. Discussion. After careful review of the record,we adopt an objective standard for determining when a proposed modification will"substantially change the physical dimensions"of an existing tower or base station. Specifically,and for the reasons discussed below,we provide that a modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of a tower or base station if it meets any of the following criteria: (1)for towers outside of public rights-of-way, it increases the height of the tower by more than 10%, or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet,whichever is greater;for those towers in the rights-of-way and for all base stations, it increases the height of the tower or base station by more than 10%or 10 feet, whichever is greater; (2)for towers outside of public rights-of-way, it protrudes from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance,whichever is greater;for those towers in the rights-of-way and for all base stations,it protrudes from the edge of the structure more than six feet; (3)it involves installation of more than the 510 See, e.g., IAC Comments at 5-6. 511 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 41;CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 13-14;CCUA et al. Comments at 13,20;CCUA et al Reply Comments at 12;Henderson Comments at 2;Minneapolis Comments at 11-13;RCRC Comments at 2. 512 See, e.g., Alexandria et al.Comments at 37-39;CCUA et al.Comments at 18;Fairfax Comments at 14-15; NATOA et al Comments at 13; Springfield Comments at 13. 513 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 19;CA Local Governments Comments at 16-17(arguing that a cumulative limit should take the form of a boundary on the physical dimensions of the wireless tower or base station,but not necessarily a limit on the number of changes a wireless service provider may request within that cumulative limit); Coconut Creek Comments at 6-7(arguing that height increase should be calculated from the original tower or structure height prior to any previous additions). 514 See IAC Comments at 5. 515 Alexandria et al.Comments at 42. See also CA Local Governments Comments at 12. Alexandria et al further argue that modifications that would violate load-bearing limits,undermine hardening standards,or violate fall zone or set-back distances should fail the test as well. See Alexandria et al.Comments at 42-43. See also CA Local Governments Comments at 17(arguing that a modification is a"substantial change"if it violates a"generally applicable law");CCUA et al.Comments at 12(arguing that a modification is a"substantial change"if it would create a public safety hazard or otherwise violate any local, State,or Federal law,or negatively impact the aesthetics of a community). 80 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved,but not to exceed four cabinets; (4)it entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site of the tower or base station;(5)it would defeat the existing concealment elements of the tower or base station; or(6)it does not comply with conditions associated with the prior approval of construction or modification of the tower or base station unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height,increase in width,addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding"substantial change"thresholds identified above. We further provide that the changes in height resulting from a modification should be measured from the original support structure in cases where the 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. Beyond these standards for what constitutes a substantial change in the physical dimensions of a tower or base station,we further provide that for applications covered by Section 6409(a), States and localities may continue to enforce and condition approval on compliance with generally applicable building, structural,electrical,and safety codes and with other laws codifying objective standards reasonably related to health and safety. 189. We initially conclude that we should adopt a test that is defined by specific, objective factors rather than the contextual and entirely subjective standard advocated by the IAC and municipalities. As we discuss in detail below,Congress took care to refer, in excluding certain modifications from mandatory approval requirements,to those that would substantially change the tower or base station's"physical dimensions." We also find that Congress intended approval of covered requests to occur in a timely fashion.51' While we acknowledge that the IAC approach would provide municipalities with maximum flexibility to consider potential effects,we are concerned that it would invite lengthy review processes that conflict with Congress's intent. Indeed, some municipal commenters anticipate their review of covered requests under a subjective,case-by-case approach could take even longer than their review of collocations absent Section 6409(a)517 We also anticipate that disputes arising from a subjective approach would tend to require longer and more costly litigation to resolve given the more fact-intensive nature of the IAC's open-ended and context-specific approach. We find that an objective definition,by contrast,will provide an appropriate balance between municipal flexibility and the rapid deployment of covered facilities. We find further support for this approach in State statutes that have implemented Section 6409(a),all of which establish objective standards 518 190. 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 Agreement and NPA should inform our interpretation of similar terms in Section 6409(a). Further, as noted in the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission has previously relied on the Collocation Agreement'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."519 The Commission has also applied a similar objective test to determine whether a modification of an existing registered tower requires public notice for purposes of environmental review.520 We note that some municipalities support 516 See infra,Section V.13.2. 517 See,e.g.,CA Local Governments Comments at 21-22. 518 See infra,n.522. 519 Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14281 para. 117(citing 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 14012 para.46). 120 See 47 C.F.R. § 17.4(c)(1)(B);Environmental Notification Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd at 16720-21 para.53. 81 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 this approach,52' and we further observe that the overwhelming majority of State collocation statutes adopted since the passage of the Spectrum Act have adopted objective criteria similar to the Collocation Agreement test for identifying collocations subject to mandatory approval."' We note as well that there is nothing in the record indicating that any of these objective State-law tests have resulted in objectionable collocations that might have been rejected under a more subjective approach. Therefore,we are persuaded that it is reasonable to look to the Collocation Agreement test as a starting point in interpreting the very similar"substantial change"standard under Section 6409(a). We further decide,however,to modify and supplement the factors to establish an appropriate balance between promoting rapid wireless facility deployment and preserving States' and localities' ability to manage and protect local land-use interests. 191. First,we decline to adopt the Collocation Agreement's exceptions that allow modifications to exceed the usual height and width limits when necessary to avoid interference or shelter the antennas from inclement weather.523 We agree with CA Local Governments that these issues pose technically complex and fact-intensive questions that many local governments cannot resolve without the aid of technical experts;modifications that would not fit within the Collocation Agreement's height and width exceptions are thus not suitable for expedited review under Section 6409(a).524 192. Second,we conclude that the limit on height and width increases should depend on the type and location of the underlying structure. Under the Collocation Agreement's"substantial increase in size"test,which applies only to towers, a collocation constitutes a substantial increase in size if it would increase a tower's height by 10%or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet,whichever is greater.525 In addition,the Collocation Agreement authorizes collocations that would protrude by twenty feet, or by the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance,whichever is greater.121 We find that the Collocation Agreement's height and width criteria are generally suitable for towers, as was contemplated by the Agreement. 193. These tests were not designed with non-tower structures in mind,however,and we find that they may often fail to identify substantial changes to non-tower structures such as buildings or poles, particularly insofar as they would permit height and width increases of 20 feet under all circumstances. Instead, considering the proposals and arguments in the record and the purposes of the provision,we conclude that a modification to a non-tower structure that would increase the structure's height by more than 10%or 10 feet,whichever is greater,constitutes a substantial change under Section 6409(a). 521 See,e.g., San Diego Comments at 3. Other municipalities,including Coconut Creek and West Palm Beach,also support adoption of a standard based on the Collocation Agreement's test. See Coconut Creek Comments at 6;West Palm Beach Comments at 6. 522 See, e.g., GA. ST§36-66B-4(b)(establishing a four-prong test for mandatory streamlined process,barring any increase in height or width and requiring compliance with pre-existing conditions and weight limits);MI ST §125.3514(1)(c)(establishing a four-prong test for"substantial change"similar to the Collocation Agreement test); MO ST§67.5092(13)(establishing a four-prong test for"substantial modification"similar to the Collocation Agreement test);NC.ST§ 160A-400.51(7a)(establishing a three-prong test for"substantial modification," imposing limits on height and width increases and on increases to the equipment compound area);N.J.S.A.40:55 D- 46.2.a.(2)(establishing a three-prong test,including limits on increases to height and compound size and barring any increases in width);PA ST 53 P.S. § 11702.2(establishing a two-prong test for"substantial change");WI ST 66- 0404(1)(s)(establishing a four-prong test for"substantial modification"). 523 See Collocation Agreement§I.C. 524 See CA Local Governments Comments at 15. 525 Collocation Agreement§I.C(1). sea See Collocation Agreement§I.C(3). 82 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Permitting increases of up to 10%has significant support in the record 52' Further,we find that the adoption of a fixed minimum best serves the intention of Congress to advance broadband service by expediting the deployment of minor modifications of towers and base stations. Without such a minimum, we find that the test will not properly identify insubstantial increases on small buildings and other short structures,and may undermine the facilitation of collocation, as vertically collocated antennas often need 10 feet of separation and rooftop collocations may need such height as we11528 Further,the fact that the 10-foot minimum is substantially less than the 20-foot minimum limit under the Collocation Agreement and many State statutes or the 15-foot limit proposed by some commenters provides us additional assurance that our interpretation of what is considered substantial under Section 6409(a)is reasonable.529 194. We also provide, as suggested by Verizon and PCIA,that a proposed modification of a non-tower structure constitutes a"substantial change"under Section 6409(a)if it would protrude from the edge of the structure more than six feet."' We find that allowing for width increases up to six feet will promote the deployment of small facility deployments by accommodating installation of the mounting brackets/arms often used to deploy such facilities on non-tower structures,and that it is consistent with small facility deployments that municipalities have approved on such structures."' We further note that it is significantly less than the limits in width established by most State collocation statutes adopted since the Spectrum Act."' We therefore find that six feet is the appropriate objective standard for substantial changes in width for non-tower structures,rather than the alternative proposals in the record. 195. We decline to apply the same substantial change criteria to utility structures as apply to towers. While Verizon argues in an ex parte that this approach is justified because of the"significant similarities"between towers and utility structures,its own comments note that in contrast to"macrocell 527 See, e.g., PEC Comments at 7-8(proposing that the test allow for one increase of 10%over the initially approved height);Tucson Comments at 9("Typically those increases should be 10%or less than what was originally approved for the facility to receive an expedited review."); San Diego Comments at 3("[I]f a project results in a change of more than 10%beyond the baseline condition,it would be substantial."). 528 See Kenmore Municipal Code,§ 18.60.130("Minor communication facilities—Collocation"),available at http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/Kenmore/html/Kenmorel8/Kenmorel86O.html(requiring support structures to have the"structural strength to allow the collocation of additional antennas from other service providers at the standard 10-foot separation");American Planning Association,Planning and Urban Design Standards,358(2006) ("A 10-foot vertical separation between antennas of different carriers is typically required to avoid interference"); Letter from Tamara Preiss,Verizon,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Oct. 10, 2014(Verizon Oct. 10,2014 Ex Parte)at 2(stating that a minimum allowance of ten feet would"accommodate the height of panel antennas and their mounting brackets,to enable the antennas to clear other structures on roof-tops, such as parapet walls and HVAC facilities—which can limit the coverage provided by the facilities,and to reduce the radiofrequency emissions produced by antennas on the surface of the roof."). 529 MI ST. 125.3514(1)(c)(20 feet or 10%);MO ST 67.5092(12)(same);NH Rev Stat§ 12-K:2(XXV)(same);NC ST§ 160A-400.51(7a)(same);PA ST 53 P.S.§ 11702.1 et seq.(same);WI ST 66-0404(1)(same). 530 See Verizon Oct. 10,2014 Ex Parte at 2;Letter from Jonathan M.Campbell,PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,filed Oct.9,2014(PCIA Oct.9,2014 Ex Parte)at 1-2. 531 See Verizon Oct. 10,2014 Ex Parle at 2(asserting that the six-foot allowance is needed to account for both the width of the antenna panels and the mounting arms that attach the antenna panels to the structure);PCIA Oct.9, 2014 Ex Parte at 1-2(proposing that the mounting of the proposed antenna may protrude six feet or less from the structure). See also, e.g.,Letter from Tamara Preiss,Verizon,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WC Docket No. 11-59,filed May 14,2013(providing dimensions to small-cell and DAS equipment used on poles with depths of 19 or 20 inches);Letter from Colleen Thompson,AT&T,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WC Docket No. 11-59,filed June 17,2013(providing small cell and DAS dimensions reflecting depths of 2.08 inches,3.75 inches, 8.25 inches, 11.2 inches,and 18 inches). 532 See supra,n.529(citing to statutes). 83 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 towers,"utility structures are"smaller sites[.]""' Because utility structures are typically much smaller than traditional towers,and because utility structures are often located in easements adjacent to vehicular and pedestrian rights-of-way where extensions are more likely to raise aesthetic,safety,and other issues, we do not find it appropriate to apply to such structures the same substantial change criteria applicable to towers. We further find that towers in the public rights-of-way should be subject to the more restrictive height and width criteria applicable to non-tower structures rather than the criteria applicable to other towers. We note that,to deploy DAS and small-cell wireless facilities, carriers and infrastructure providers must often deploy new poles in the rights-of-way. Because these structures are constructed for the sole or primary purpose of supporting Commission-licensed or authorized antennas,they fall under our definition of"tower." They are often identical in size and appearance,however,to utility poles in the area,which do not constitute towers."' As a consequence,applying the tower height and width standards to these poles constructed for DAS and small-cell support would mean that two adjacent and nearly identical poles could be subject to very different standards. To ensure consistent treatment of structures in the public rights-of-way, and because of the heightened potential for impact from extensions in such locations,"'we provide that structures qualifying as towers that are deployed in public rights-of-way will be subject to the same height and width criteria as non-tower structures. 196. We agree with commenters that our substantial change criteria for changes in height should be applied as limits on cumulative changes; otherwise, a series of permissible small changes could result in an overall change that significantly exceeds our adopted standards.536 Specifically,we find that 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. 197. We decline to provide that changes in height should always be measured from the original tower or base station dimensions,as suggested by some municipalities. As with the original tower or base station,discretionary approval of subsequent modifications reflects a regulatory determination of the extent to which wireless facilities are appropriate, and under what conditions. At the same time,we decline to adopt industry commenters' proposal always to measure changes from the last approved change or the effective date of the rules.537 Measuring from the last approved change in all cases would provide no cumulative limit at all. In particular,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. Because it is impractical to require parties, in measuring cumulative impact,to determine whether each pre-existing modification was or was not required by the Spectrum Act,we provide that modifications of an existing tower or base station that occur after the passage of the Spectrum Act will not change the baseline for purposes of measuring 133 Verizon Comments at 2-3. See also id at 6(arguing that historic preservation review should distinguish "[macrocells]on large towers from small cells on utility poles"). 134 See, e g, Jefferson Comments at 2(noting that facilities disguised as light poles but constructed for the primary purpose of supporting antennas would"seem to meet the proposed definition of a tower"). 131 See, e.g., St.Paul Reply Comments at 2(stating that,although"St.Paul wishes to leave open the possibility of allowing implementation of DAS or other small scale wireless technology in the public right-of-way,"it is unlikely to pursue that route because of concerns about the impact of potential multiple collocations);see also Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 4. 136 See, e g., Alexandria et al.Comments at 36;Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 19; CA Local Governments Comments at 16;PCIA Comments at 38;Verizon Comments at 29-30. We note that it is unnecessary to impose any cumulative limit on increases to width because,consistent with the Collocation Agreement,all changes in width are measured from the original structure. 137 See,e.g.,PCIA Comments at 39;Verizon Comments at 29-30. 84 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 substantial change. Consistent with our determination above that a tower or base station is not covered by Section 6409(a)unless it received such approval,53'this approach will in all cases limit modifications that are subject to mandatory approval to the same modest increments over what the relevant governing authority has previously deemed compatible with local land use values. We further find that,for structures where collocations are separated horizontally rather than vertically(such as building rooftops), substantial change is more appropriately measured from the height of the original structure,rather than the height of a previously approved antenna. Thus,for example,the deployment of a 10-foot antenna on a rooftop would not mean that a nearby deployment of a 20-foot antenna would be considered insubstantial. 198. Again drawing on the Collocation Agreement's test,we further provide that a modification is a substantial change if it entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site of the tower or base station. As in the Collocation Agreement,we define the"site"for towers outside of 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. For other towers and all base stations,we further restrict the site to that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground. 199. We also reject the PCIA and Sprint proposal to expand the Collocation Agreement's fourth prong,as modified by the 2004 NPA,to allow applicants to excavate outside the leased or licensed premises."' Under the NPA, certain undertakings are excluded from the 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.""' The NPA exclusion from Section 106 review,however, applies to replacement of"an existing communications tower." In contrast,as discussed above, "replacement,"as used in Section 6409(a)(2)(C),relates only to the replacement of"transmission equipment,"541 not the replacement of the supporting structures. Thus,the activities covered under Section 6409(a)are more nearly analogous to those covered under the Collocation Agreement than under the replacement towers exclusion in the NPA. We therefore agree with localities comments that any eligible facilities requests that involve excavation outside the premises should be considered a substantial change,as under the fourth prong of the Collocation Agreement's test.142 200. Based on our review of the record and various state statutes,we further find that a modification constitutes a substantial change in physical dimensions under Section 6409(a)if the change (1)would defeat the existing concealment elements of the tower or base station,or(2)does not comply with pre-existing conditions associated with the prior approval of construction or modification of the tower or base station."' The first of these criteria is widely supported by both wireless industry and 13s See supra,para. 174. 139 See PCIA Comments at 37-38; Sprint Comments at 10. sao NPA§III.B. 141 See supra,para. 181. 142 See, e.g., CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 12;San Antonio Reply Comments at 15. 143 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 37-39;CCUA et al.Comments at 11-15;GA.Code Ann. §36-66B- 4(b)(3)("The proposed modification or collocation shall comply with applicable conditions of approval,if any, applied to the initial wireless facilities and wireless support structure.");Mich.Comp.Laws Serv. § 125.3514(2012) ("The proposed collocation complies with the terms and conditions of any previous final approval of the support structure or compound."). We recognize that issues may arise under these two criteria that do not relate to a change in physical dimensions. For example,a replacement of exactly the same dimensions could still violate concealment elements if it does not have the same camouflaging paint as the replaced facility. We expect,however,that failures to meet these criteria will generally relate to changes in physical dimensions,and taking into account the support in (continued....) 85 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 municipal commenters,who generally agree that a modification that undermines the concealment elements of a stealth wireless facility,such as painting to match the supporting fagade or artificial tree branches,should be considered substantial under Section 6409(a)." We agree with commenters that in the context of a modification request related to concealed or"stealth"-designed facilities—i.e.,facilities designed to look like some feature other than a wireless tower or base station—any change that defeats the concealment elements of such facilities would be considered a"substantial change"under Section 6409(a).545 Commenters differ on whether any other conditions previously placed on a wireless tower or base station should be considered in determining substantial change under Section 6409(a). After consideration,we agree with municipal commenters that a change is substantial if it violates any condition of approval of construction or modification imposed on the applicable wireless tower or base station,546 unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets,or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding"substantial change"thresholds we identify above. In other words,modifications qualify for Section 6409(a)only if they comply,for example,with conditions regarding fencing,access to the site,drainage,height or width increases that exceed the thresholds we adopt above, and other conditions of approval placed on the underlying structure. This approach,we find,properly preserves municipal authority to determine which structures are appropriate for wireless use and under what conditions, and reflects one of the three key priorities identified by the IAC in assessing substantial change."' 201. We agree with PCIA 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 as defined here.54' We accordingly reject municipal arguments that any modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that has"legal,non- conforming"status should be considered a"substantial change"to its"physical dimensions.,,14' As PCIA argues,the approach urged by municipalities could thwart the purpose of Section 6409(a)altogether,as simple changes to local zoning codes could immediately turn existing structures into legal,non- conforming uses unavailable for collocation under the statute."' Considering Congress's intent to (Continued from previous page) the record for including these criteria,we find it appropriate to include them as criteria of the substantial change test. Further,we find that,as with building codes,Congress did not intend to exempt covered modifications from compliance with such elements and conditions or to undermine such conditions,whether or not they affect the physical dimensions of the wireless tower or base station,and that Section 6409(a)in any case permits States and localities to condition a covered request on compliance with such criteria or otherwise require a covered request to meet these criteria. Thus,as discussed below,even if we were not persuaded that a modification that violates one of these criteria should be considered a substantial change,we would nevertheless conclude that States and localities may require covered requests to meet these criteria. 544 See, e.g,, Alexandria et al.Comments at 42;CCA Comments at 5;CCUA et al.Comments at 20;PCIA Comments at 39,46. 545 See, e.g., Coconut Creek Comments at 7;West Palm Beach Comments at 7;see also PCIA Comments at 46 (arguing that for an eligible facilities request involving previously concealed or"stealth"facilities,the modification should qualify as an insubstantial increase as long as the concealment elements are maintained). 546 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 12-13,40-42; CCUA et al.Comments at 20;Henderson Comments at 2; NJSLM Comments at 6;RCRC Comments at 2. 547 See IAC Comments at 5(recommending that any change that would violate the conditions of approval under which the site construction was initially authorized should be considered a substantial change in physical dimensions). 548 PCIA Comments at 43-45. See also Crown Castle Comments at 14;CTIA Reply Comments at 8;Fibertech Reply Comments at 16-17. 549 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 21-23. 550 See PCIA Reply Comments at 18-19. 86 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 promote wireless facilities deployment by encouraging collocation on existing structures,and considering the requirement in Section 6409(a)that States and municipalities approve covered requests "[n]otwithstanding. . . any other provision of law,"we find the municipal commenters' proposal to be unsupportably restrictive."' 202. The record also reflects general consensus that wireless facilities modification under Section 6409(a)should remain subject to building codes and other non-discretionary structural and safety codes."' As municipal commenters indicate,many local jurisdictions have promulgated code provisions that encourage and promote collocations and replacements through a streamlined approval process,while ensuring that any new facilities comply with building and safety codes and applicable Federal and State regulations."' Consistent with that approach on the local level,we find that Congress did not intend to exempt covered modifications from compliance with generally applicable laws related to public health and safety.114 We therefore conclude that States and localities may require a covered request to comply with generally applicable building, structural, electrical, and safety codes or with other laws codifying objective standards reasonably related to health and safety, and that they may condition approval on such compliance. In particular,we clarify 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. 203. We further clarify that eligible facility requests covered by Section 6409(a)must still comply with any relevant Federal requirement,including any applicable Commission,FAA,NEPA, or Section 106 requirements. We find that this interpretation is supported in the record,addresses a concern raised by several municipal commenters and the IAC, and is consistent with the express direction in Section 6409(a)that the provision is not intended to relieve the Commission from the requirements of NEPA and NHPA.555 204. In sum,we find that the definitions,criteria,and related clarifications we adopt for purposes of Section 6409(a)will provide clarity and certainty,reducing delays and litigation, and thereby facilitate the rapid deployment of wireless infrastructure and promote advanced wireless broadband services. At the same time,we conclude that our approach also addresses concerns voiced by municipal commenters and reflects the priorities identified by the IAC.556 We conclude that this approach reflects a reasonable interpretation of the language and purposes of Section 6409(a)and will serve the public interest. 2. Application Review Process,Including Timeframe for Review 205. Background. In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission sought comment on whether Section 6409(a)places any particular limitations on the application filing and review process, and if so, how to implement such limitations."' The Commission proposed to find that State or local governments 551 Spectrum Act§6409(a)(1)(emphasis added). 112 See, e.g., PCIA Comments at 41; Sprint Comments at 11. 113 See, e.g., CCUA et al.Comments at 18. 554 See, e.g., Alexandria et al.Comments at 42;CA Local Governments Comments at 17;CCUA et al.Comments at 25;Gallina Comments at 1;Haddon Heights Comments at 1. 555 See Spectrum Act§6409(a)(3). 556 See IAC Comments at 5. The IAC recommended that any change in physical dimensions constitutes a "substantial change"if it would violate(1)a building or safety code;(2)a federal law or regulation,including environmental law,historic preservation law,Commission RF exposure standards,or FAA requirements;or(3)the conditions of approval under which the site construction was initially authorized. `See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14285-86 para.130. See also Section 6409(a)PN,28 FCC Rcd at 3-4. 87 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 at a minimum may require the submission of applications(so that the State or local government can determine whether Section 6409(a)applies),"'and it sought comment on whether Section 6409(a) warrants rules limiting applicable fees,review procedures, or time for review."' In particular,the Commission sought comment on whether to limit State and local application review to resolving whether the request is in fact covered by Section 6409(a).560 In this regard,the Commission sought comment on whether to impose limits on the kinds of information and documentation that States and localities may require in connection with an application that the applicant asserts is covered by Section 6409(a).561 It specifically sought comment on whether to clarify that,when an applicant asserts that its application falls under Section 6409(a), States and localities may not require the submission of information or documents that are not relevant to determining whether the provision applies."' 206. The Commission further sought comment on whether, in the event it decides to adopt a time limit for State or local review, it should establish 90 days as a presumptively reasonable period of time for reviewing requests or if a shorter period is warranted in light of the narrow scope of review under Section 6409(a).563 It further sought comment on whether a State or municipality may toll the review period if it notifies the applicant in writing that an application is incomplete and specifies the additional information or documentation required to complete the application.164 In addition,given Congress's explicit language that a State or local government"may not deny, and shall approve"a covered application"[n]otwithstanding. . . any other provision of law,"the Commission proposed to preempt the application of any moratoria to covered requests under Section 6409(a).561 207. Industry commenters generally argue that the Commission should adopt procedural restrictions on State or local review of applications subject to Section 6409(a). In particular,many industry commenters propose restrictions on the information that a State or municipality can require in connection with eligible facilities requests.566 Several argue that we should permit States or localities to require only the information needed to confirm that the request is covered under Section 6409(a).567 Some commenters assert that the Commission should expressly clarify that certain types of information— such as information to demonstrate"proof of need"or the business case for the proposed modification, an authorization or a valid lease agreement from the property owner and/or tower owner, and surveys—are not relevant for this narrow purpose.568 Others argue that jurisdictions should not be permitted to impose documentation requirements that vary from or exceed the requirements expressly identified in applicable 558 See id 559 See id at 14286 para. 131. 560 See id at 14286 para. 132. 161 See id at 14286-87 para.133. 562 See id 563 See id. at 14287 para.134. 564 See id. 565 Id. at 14287-88 para.135. 166 See, a g.,AT&T Comments at 25;CCA Reply Comments at 7-8;PCIA Comments at 46-47;PCIA Reply Comments at 20-21;PWA Comments at 2-3;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 12-14;Towerstream Reply Comments at 5-7;WISPA Reply Comments at 9. 567 See, e g., CCA Reply Comments at 7-8;PCIA Comments at 46-47;PCIA Reply Comments at 20-21;WISPA Reply Comments at 9. See also T-Mobile Reply Comments at 13-14. 568 See, e.g., PCIA Comments at 47;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 13-14;see also CCA Reply Comments at 7-8; PCIA Reply Comments at 20-21;PWA Comments at 2-3; Towerstream Reply Comments at 5-6;WISPA Reply Comments at 9. 88 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 regulations.569 CCA argues that,because a deployment of DAS or small-cell wireless technology to serve even a medium-sized city could require hundreds of modification applications,the Commission should adopt a mechanism for applicants to submit multiple modification requests using a single application."' Some industry commenters further argue that the Commission should preempt any unreasonable or non- cost based fees that may be associated with applications covered by Section 6409(a).571 208. Industry commenters also generally urge the Commission to place a time limit on State or local review of an eligible facilities request.572 Many of these commenters argue for a 45-day timeframc,573 while others argue for 60 days.57' These commenters argue that a time period shorter than 90 days is warranted in light of the limited scope of review permitted for such applications and Congress's goal of expediting the facilities siting process 575 They further argue that the timeframe should not in any case exceed 90 days,the presumptively reasonable timeframe for review of collocation applications under the 2009 Declaratory Ruling.576 Some industry commenters propose that 90 days is the appropriate period,177 and Fibertech proposes 90 days for collocations but argues that 45 days should "be adequate for the administrative review for transmission equipment replacement. . . ."578 Many industry commenters also support the Commission's proposals regarding treatment of moratoria under Section 6409(a).579 Further,while many industry commenters agree that the review period should be tolled when a State or locality determines an application is incomplete,they recommend that the Commission set reasonable limits on the ability of States or localities to require additional information or documentation.580 For example,T-Mobile and PCIA argue that tolling is appropriate only if the State or locality notifies the applicant that its application is incomplete within 30 days of its submission, as under the 2009 Declaratory Ruling.ssi 569 See,e.g.,AT&T Comments at 25(arguing that Section 6409(a)"requires State and local jurisdictions to promulgate rules that identify the specific limited documentation that applicants must include to demonstrate that they qualify for Section 6409 approval"and that the Commission should not interpret the provision to permit State and local jurisdictions to"impose[documentation]standards that are inconsistent with State or local laws"). 570 See CCA Reply Comments at 8. See also Towerstream Reply Comments at 6-7("Wi-Fi and small cell technologies,however,often require tens of thousands of facilities sitings to cover a geographic area and provide effective and reliable broadband service"). 571 See, a g., CCA Reply Comments at 7-8;PCIA Comments at 46-49;PWA Comments at 2-3;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 13;WISPA Reply Comments at 9. 172 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 30-31;CTIA Reply Comments at 9;NYSWA Comments at 2;PCIA Comments ii, 48;PCIA Reply Comments at 21-22;Sprint Comments at 10-11;Sprint Reply Comments at 6;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 12-14;Verizon Comments at 31-32;WISPA Reply Comments at 8-9. 573 See, e.g., CTIA Reply Comments at 9;PCIA Comments ii,48;PCIA Reply Comments at 21;Sprint Reply Comments at 6;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 14;Verizon Comments at 31-32;WISPA Reply Comments at 8-9. 574 See, e.g., WISPA Comments at 10. 575 See, e.g.,CCA Reply Comments at 8(arguing that the"circumscribed scope of review"supports a shorter period);CTIA Reply Comments at 9. 576 See, e.g, CCA Reply Comments at 8-9;NYSWA Comments at 2;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 14. See also 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 13995, 13999 paras.4, 18-19. 577 See, e.g., Joint Venture Comments at 7. 578 Fibertech Comments at 31. 579 See, e.g,AT&T Comments at 30; Sprint Reply Comments at 7. 580 See, e.g., PCIA Comments at ii,48; Sprint Comments at 10-11;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 14-15. 581 See PCIA Comments at ii,48;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 14. T-Mobile contends that,whenever a State or locality rejects an applicant's claim that Section 6409(a)applies or finds its application incomplete,the State or (continued....) 89 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 209. Municipal commenters generally oppose the adoption of any procedural requirements. They argue that the statutory provision itself contains no process requirements and,accordingly,that we should not impose any.58' They also contend that placing procedural limits on State or local governments would contravene the principles of federalism under the Tenth Amendment and would result in the incongruous application of nationwide rules to a diverse universe of government entities.58' Regarding application documentation, some municipal commenters assert that in order to process requests,they will require more information than the bare minimum necessary to determine whether the request falls under Section 6409(a).584 Regarding permit review fees,municipal commenters assert that while Section 6409(a)may obviate some review costs, it does not eliminate them altogether,and nothing in the statute requires local authorities to subsidize wireless service providers by internalizing administrative costs 585 210. Municipal commenters generally argue that the maximum review period, if there is one at all,should be no less than the 90-day timeframe for review under the 2009 Declaratory Ruling."' These commenters argue that States and localities must have sufficient time to review proposed changes, particularly in circumstances involving complex technical issues, local environmental and historic preservation concerns,local traffic and economic development patterns, and other concerns that are important to the community.58' Further, commenters assert that the review period must allow for tolling in certain instances, such as when the application is incomplete,the parties mutually consent to extend the (Continued from previous page) locality must inform the applicant in writing in a timely manner,specifying with particularity the reasons for its conclusion. See T-Mobile Reply Comments at 14-16. 582 See,e.g.,CA Local Governments Comments at 18("Section 6409(a)mandates a particular result but not any particular process to achieve that result'and therefore"does not invite the Commission to impose rules on the permit application and review process."). 581 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 45-46;Minneapolis Comments at 15-16;Pennsauken Reply Comments at 1;Tucson Comments at 3. 584 See, a g, CA Local Governments Comments at 19-20("The Commission should reaffirm that State and local governments may legitimately seek information from the carriers to perform their fact finding duties and to confirm compliance with legal requirements in the wireless siting process,"including information relevant to address factual issues under Section 6409(a)and whether the applications"comply with the local requirements");Coconut Creek Comments at 8(arguing that the Commission should impose no document restrictions because municipalities need more than the bare minimum necessary to determine eligibility under Section 6409(a),including information demonstrating compliance with structural standards and information that will enable communities to"analyze deployment of infrastructure and plan for future needs");MDIT Comments at 5-6;West Palm Beach Comments at 8. 585 See, e.g., Alexandria et al Comments at 44-45;CA Local Governments Comments at 20;Minneapolis Comments at 15;PEC Comments at 13. 586 See, e.g., Alexandria et al Comments at 44-45;Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 23-24(arguing that adopting a period shorter than 90 days would be premature because the Commission lacks a record about how Section 6409(a)is operating and"would only be guessing at what time period is reasonable");CA Local Governments at 20-21;Coconut Creek Comments at 8-9;DC Comments at 18;Fairfax Reply Comments at 8; Henderson Comments at 3;NJSLM Comments at 7;San Antonio Reply Comments at 20-22; San Diego Comments at 4;West Palm Beach Comments 8. Alexandria et al. further argue that a local government should be able to defend the reasonableness of any review that extends beyond a 90-day period. See Alexandria et al. Comments at 44-45. 587 See, a g., CA Local Governments Comments at 20-21 (asserting that"(1)no fully developed factual record exists to show that Section 6409(a)review subjects applicants to unreasonable delays and(2)the terms of that statute require local governments to act as factfinders on complex and technical issues");Fairfax Reply Comments at 8; Henderson Comments at 3. See also Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 24;San Diego Comments at 5. 90 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 review period, or the municipality enacts a temporary moratorium to amend or otherwise revise its permit review process,rules,or policies.588 211. Discussion. As an initial matter,we find,consistent with the Commission's proposal, that State or local governments may require parties asserting that proposed facilities modifications are covered under Section 6409(a)to file applications, and that these governments may review the applications to determine whether they constitute covered requests.5S9 As the Bureau observed in the Section 6409(a)PN,the statutory provision requiring a State or local government to approve an"eligible facilities request"implies that the relevant government entity may require an applicant to file a request for approval.590 Further,nothing in the provision indicates that States or local governments must approve requests merely because applicants claim they are covered. Rather,under Section 6409(a),only requests that do in fact meet the provision's requirements are entitled to mandatory approval. Therefore, States and local governments must have an opportunity to review applications to determine whether they are covered by Section 6409(a),and if not,whether they should in any case be granted. 212. However,we further conclude that Section 6409(a)warrants the imposition of certain requirements with regard to application processing,including a specific timeframe for State or local government review and a limitation on the documentation States and localities may require. While Section 6409(a),unlike Section 332(c)(7),does not expressly provide for a time limit or other procedural restrictions,we conclude that certain,limitations are implicit in the statutory requirement that a State or local government"may not deny,and shall approve"covered requests for wireless facility siting. In particular,we conclude that the provision requires not merely approval of covered applications,but approval within a reasonable period of time commensurate with the limited nature of the review,whether or not a particular application is for"personal wireless service"facilities covered by Section 332(c)(7).59' With no such limitation,a State or local government could evade its statutory obligation to approve covered applications by simply failing to act on them,or it could impose lengthy and onerous processes not justified by the limited scope of review contemplated by the provision. Such unreasonable delays not only would be inconsistent with the mandate to approve but also would undermine the important benefits that the provision is intended to provide to the economy,competitive wireless broadband deployment,and public safety. Accordingly,pursuant to our authority to implement and enforce Section 6409(a)described above,we require that States and localities grant covered requests within a specific time limit and pursuant to other procedures outlined below. 213. We find substantial support in the record for adopting such requirements. It is clear from the record that there is significant dispute as to whether any time limit applies at all under Section 6409(a) and, if so,what that limit is. We also note that there is already some evidence in the record, albeit anecdotal,of significant delays in the processing of covered requests under this new provision,which may be partly a consequence of the current uncertainty regarding the applicability of any time limit.-192 588 See, e.g., CA Local Governments Comments at 22-23;Coconut Creek Comments at 8-9;Henderson Comments at 3;NJSLM Comments at 8;West Palm Beach Comments at 8. 589 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14286 para.131. 590 Section 6409(a)PN, 28 FCC Rcd at 3. 59'Implementation of Section 621(A)(1)of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 as Amended by the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992,MB Docket No.05-311,Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,22 FCC Rcd 5101,5137 para.73(2006)("Local Franchising Order"), aff d sub nom.,Alliance for Community Media v.FCC,529 F.3d 763(6th Cir.2008)(finding that"[f]ailure of[a local franchising authority]to act[on a franchise application]within[specified]time frames ... constitutes a refusal to award a competitive franchise"under Section 621(a)(1)of the Communications Act);Section 6409(a)PN,28 FCC Rcd at 4. See also AT&T Comments at 25("Section 6409 is an administrative requirement for an application that is not subject to discretionary review and must be granted in a timely manner."). 592 See,e.g.,Verizon Comments at 31-32. 91 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Because the statutory language does not provide guidance on these requirements,we are concerned that, without clarification, future disputes over the process could significantly delay the benefits associated with the statute's implementation. Moreover,we find it important that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of when an applicant may seek relief from a State or municipal failure to act under Section 6409(a). We find further support for establishing these process requirements in analogous State statutes, nearly all of which include a timeframe for review, as discussed below. Therefore,we adopt the following procedural requirements for processing applications under Section 6409(a).593 214. First,we provide that in connection with requests asserted to be covered by Section 6409(a), State and local governments may only require applicants to provide documentation that is reasonably related to determining whether the request meets the requirements of the provision. We find that this restriction is appropriate in light of the limited scope of review applicable to such requests and that it will facilitate timely approval of covered requests. At the same time,under this standard, State or local governments have considerable flexibility in determining precisely what information or documentation to require. We agree with PCIA,however,that States and localities may not require documentation proving the need for the proposed modification or presenting the business case for it.594 We anticipate that over time,experience and the development of best practices will lead to broad standardization in the kinds of information required."' 215. In addition to defining acceptable documentation requirements,we establish a specific and absolute timeframe for State and local processing of eligible facilities requests under Section 6409(a). 593 Contrary to the suggestion of municipalities,we disagree that the Tenth Amendment prevents the Commission from exercising its authority under the Spectrum Act to implement and enforce the limitations imposed thereunder on State and local land use authority. These limitations serve to preempt the operation of state law,not to"compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898,900(1997). They do not require State or local authorities to review wireless facilities siting applications,but rather preempt them from choosing to exercise such authority under their laws other than in accordance with Federal law—i.e.,to deny any covered requests. See Cellular Phone Taskforce v FCC, 205 F.3d 823,96-97(2d Cir.2000). See also City of Arlington v.FCC, 133 S.Ct. 1863, 1873(2013)(dispute about FCC shot clock rules implementing Section 332(c)(7)"has nothing to do with federalism,"as that provision"explicitly supplants state authority"). Compare Petersburg Cellular Partnership v.Board of Supervisors of Nottoway County, 205 F.3d 688,716(4th Cir.2000) (King,J.,dissenting),with'id. at 699-705(Niemeyer,J.,separate opinion). Similar arguments with respect to similar remedies were rejected by the Commission in its Local Franchising Order,22 FCC Rcd at 5161-62 para. 136. Such arguments were also made by State and local authorities on judicial review of that Order. See Brief of Petitioners, City of Tampa et al.,Alliance for Community Media v.FCC,No.07-3391 (6th Cir.Nov. 1,2007),at 20-24;Reply Brief of Petitioners,City of Tampa et al.,Alliance for Community Media v.FCC,No.07-3391 (6th Cir.Nov. 1, 2007),at 12-13;Brief of the Dept.of the Public Advocate,Division of Rate Counsel,Alliance for Community Media v.FCC,No.07-3391 (6th Cir.July 18,2007),at 15-17;Reply Brief of the Dept.of the Public Advocate,Division of Rate Counsel,Alliance for Community Media v.FCC,No.07-3391 (6th Cir.Oct.4,2007),at 15-16. The Sixth Circuit rejected these arguments without discussion. See Alliance for Community Media v.FCC,529 F.3d 763 (6th Cir.2008). 594 See PCIA Reply Comments at 20-21. 595 As discussed above,even as to applications covered by Section 6409(a),State and local governments may continue to enforce and condition approval on compliance with non-discretionary codes reasonably related to health and safety,including building and structural codes. We find that municipalities should have flexibility to decide when to require applicants to provide documentation of such compliance,as a single documentation submission may be more efficient than a series of submissions,and municipalities may also choose to integrate such compliance review into the zoning process. See Coconut Creek Comments at 8(arguing that requiring a separate documentation submission to demonstrate compliance with structural codes will introduce further delay);HEAL Comments at 14 ("Cities should be able to require full applications,primarily because submission of full applications up front will provide for speedier processing of all applications and,on the whole,decrease costs for all parties."). Accordingly, we clarify that our documentation restriction does not prohibit States and local governments from requiring documentation needed to demonstrate compliance with any such applicable codes. 92 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 We find that a 60-day period for review, including review to determine whether an application is complete,is appropriate. In addressing this issue,it is appropriate to consider not only the record support for a time limit on review but also State statutes that facilitate collocation applications. Many of these statutes impose review time limits,thus providing valuable insight into States' views on the appropriate amount of time. Missouri,New Hampshire, and Wisconsin, for example,have determined that 45 days is the maximum amount of time available to a municipality to review applications,196 while Georgia,North Carolina,and Pennsylvania have adopted a 90-day review period,including review both for completeness and for approval.59' Michigan's statute provides that after the application is filed,the locality has 14 days to deem the application complete and an additional 60 days to review.598 With consideration of the time periods adopted in these statutes,and for the further reasons discussed below,we find it appropriate to adopt a 60-day time period as the time limit for review of an application under Section 6409(a). 216. We find that a period shorter than the 90-day period applicable to review of collocations under Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act is warranted to reflect the more restricted scope of review applicable to applications under Section 6409(a). We further find,however,that a 60-day period of review,rather than the 45-day period proposed by many industry commenters,599 is appropriate to provide municipalities with sufficient time to review applications for compliance with Section 6409(a), because the timeframe sets an absolute limit that—in the event of a failure to act—results in a deemed grant.600 Thus,whereas a municipality may rebut a claim of failure to act under Section 332(c)(7)if it can demonstrate that a longer review period was reasonable,that is not the case under Section 6409(a). Rather, if an application covered by Section 6409(a)has not been approved by a State or local government within 60 days from the date of filing,accounting for any tolling, as described below,the reviewing authority will have violated Section 6409(a)'s mandate to approve and not deny the request, and the request will be deemed granted. 217. We further provide that the foregoing Section 6409(a)timeframe may be tolled by mutual agreement or in cases where the reviewing State or municipality informs the applicant in a timely manner that the application is incomplete. As with tolling for completeness under Section 332(c)(7)(as discussed later in this Report and Order),an initial determination of incompleteness tolls the running of the period only if the State or local government provides notice to the applicant in writing within 30 days of the application's submission. We also require that any determination of incompleteness must clearly and specifically delineate the missing information in writing,similar to determinations of incompleteness under Section 332(c)(7), as discussed below 601 Further,consistent with the documentation restriction established above,the State or municipality may only specify as missing information and supporting documents that are reasonably related to determining whether the request meets the requirements of Section 6409(a). 218. The timeframe for review will begin running again when the applicant makes a supplemental submission,but may be tolled again if the State or local government provides written notice to the applicant within 10 days that the application remains incomplete and specifically delineates which of the deficiencies specified in the original notice of incompleteness have not been addressed. The s96 See MO ST§67.5100.2;NH Rev Stat§ 12-K:10(2013);WI ST§66-0404(3)(b),(c)(providing for up to 5 days to determine completeness of application and up to 45 days to review). 197 See GA ST§36-66B-4(d);NC ST§ 160A-400.53;PA ST 53 P.S.§11702.4(b)(2). The North Carolina statute provides a municipality up to 45 days to determine completeness,and then an additional 45 days for review,for a total of up to 90 days. See NC ST§ 160A-400.53. 59s See MI ST 125.3514(2). 599 See supra,para.208. 600 See infra,para.226. 601 See infra,Section VI.B.1. 93 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 timeframe for review will be tolled in this circumstance until the applicant supplies the relevant authority with the information delineated. Consistent with determinations of incompleteness under Section 332(c)(7)as described below,any second or subsequent determination that an application is incomplete may be based only on the applicant's failure to provide the documentation or information the State or municipality required in its initial request for additional information.112 Further, if the 10-day period passes without any further notices of incompleteness from the State or locality,the period for review of the application may not thereafter be tolled for incompleteness. 219. We further find that the timeframe for review under Section 6409(a)continues to run regardless of any local moratorium. This is once again consistent with our approach under Section 332(c)(7),as discussed below, and is further warranted in light of Section 6409(a)'s direction that covered requests shall be approved"[n]otwithstanding. . . any other provision of law.""' 220. Some additional clarification of time periods and deadlines will assist in cases where both Section 6409(a)and Section 332(c)(7)apply. In particular,we note that States and municipalities reviewing an application under Section 6409(a)will be limited to a restricted application record tailored to the requirements of that provision. As a result,the application may be complete for purposes of Section 6409(a)review but may not include all of the information the State or municipality requires to assess applications not subject to Section 6409(a). In such cases,if the reviewing State or municipality finds that Section 6409(a)does not apply(because,for example, it proposes a substantial change),we provide that the presumptively reasonable timeframe under Section 332(c)(7)will start to run from the issuance of the State's or municipality's decision that Section 6409(a)does not apply. To the extent the State or municipality needs additional information at that point to assess the application under Section 332(c)(7),it may seek additional information subject to the same limitations applicable to other Section 332(c)(7)reviews,as discussed below. We recognize that,in such cases,there might be greater delay in the process than if the State or municipality had been permitted to request the broader documentation in the first place. We find,however,that applicants are in a position to judge whether to seek approval under Section 6409(a), and we expect they will have strong incentives to do so in a reasonable manner to avoid unnecessary delays. Finally, as we proposed in the Infrastructure NPRM,we find that where both Section 6409(a)and Section 332(c)(7)apply, Section 6409(a)governs, consistent with the express language of Section 6409(a)providing for approval"[n]otwithstanding" Section 332(c)(7)and with canons of statutory construction that a more recent statute takes precedence over an earlier one and that "normally the specific governs the general."boa 221. Beyond the guidance provided in this Report and Order,we decline to adopt the other proposals put forth by commenters regarding procedures for the review of applications under Section 6409(a)or the collection of fees. We conclude that our clarification and implementation of this statutory provision strikes the appropriate balance of ensuring the timely processing of these applications and preserving flexibility for State and local governments to exercise their rights and responsibilities. Given the limited record of problems implementing the provision,further action to specify procedures would be premature. 3. Remedies 222. Background. In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission sought comment on the remedies that should be available to applicants in cases where a State or locality fails to act on an 602 See infra,Section VI.13.1. 603 Spectrum Act§ 6409(a)(1);see also infra§VI.B.2(discussing application of moratoria to timeframes for review under Section 332(c)(7)and the 2009 Declaratory Ruling). 604 Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14290 para. 143. See also,e.g.,Long Island Care at Home,Ltd. v. Coke, 551 U.S. 158, 170(2007). 94 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 application covered by Section 6409(a)or issues a decision adverse to the applicant."' The Commission sought comment on whether,for example, it should provide that a covered request is"deemed granted" by operation of law if a State or local government fails to act within a specified period of time,and if so, how a deemed granted remedy should operate and how it should be enforced 606 It also sought comment on any alternative remedies to provide recourse in cases of State or municipal inaction, including whether the Commission should preempt State or local authority after a specified period of time.607 With regard to adverse decisions,the Commission sought comment on whether it should adopt a deemed granted rule applicable in these cases as well. It further proposed to permit applicants to file petitions for declaratory ruling with the Commission in cases,of alleged violations of Section 6409(a),and sought comment on whether to adopt special procedures for such petitions. 223. Many industry commenters support adoption of a deemed granted remedy if a State or municipality fails to act on an application covered under Section 6409(a)within a specified period of time,608 and some propose that this remedy should apply to application denials as well.609 PCIA further proposes that if an applicant requires an actual permit,the applicant should have the option of either(1) informing the State or municipality of the deemed grant and requesting issuance of the permit or(2) seeking a court order directing the State or municipality to issue the permit 610 AT&T recommends that the applicant should have the burden of notifying the State or local government that its application is deemed granted under the rule, and that the State or local government would then have the opportunity to file a challenge with the Commission within 14 days arguing that the application is not covered by Section 6409(x). Under AT&T's proposal,if no challenge is filed within the 14-day period the application would conclusively be deemed granted."' 224. Industry commenters contend that Section 6003 of the Spectrum Act and various provisions of the Communications Act authorize the Commission to adopt a deemed granted remedy,and they argue that doing so would not present constitutional concerns."' They argue that a deemed granted remedy is necessary to effectuate congressional intent to expedite covered applications,and that judicial and administrative remedies are costly and time-consuming and would impede applicants' ability to 605 See Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14288-90 paras. 137-143. 606 Id. at 14288 para. 137. 607 See id. at 14289 para.139. Eos See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 26-28;AT&T Reply Comments at 3-4, 14-15;CCA Reply Comments at 8-9; CTIA Reply Comments at 1-2,8-10;Fibertech Reply Comments at 19;NYSWA Comments at 2;PCIA Comments at 50-53;Sprint Comments at 11;Sprint Reply Comments at 6;Towerstream Reply Comments at 5-7;Verizon Comments at 31-33. PCIA proposes that the deemed grant should apply in cases of a failure to act on an"eligible facilities request." PCIA Comments at 50. It is not clear from its comments whether,in this context,PCIA means an"eligible facilities request"generally as that term is used in Section 6409(a)(i.e., any request for collocation, removal,or replacement of transmission equipment on an existing wireless tower or base station)or whether PCIA refers to the subset of eligible facilities requests that require mandatory approval(i.e.,covered requests). Given that PCIA asserts that the"plain language of Section 6409(a)requires states and localities to approve all EFR applications without exception and without discretionary review,"PCIA Comments at 40,we interpret its use of the term to refer to covered requests. 609 See,e.g.,AT&T Reply Comments at 3-4;PCIA Comments at 51-52. We note that commenters do not specifically describe how or to what extent a deemed grant would apply in the context of a denial. 610 See PCIA Comments at 50. 611 See AT&T Comments at 26-27. 612 See,e.g.,PCIA Comments at 51-53. 95 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 deploy wireless facilities.113 Several industry commenters also argue that applicants should be permitted to bring complaints alleging violations of Section 6409(a)to the Commission through petitions for declaratory ruling or otherwise,either challenging a State or municipal action on a specific application or alleging that a particular State or local requirement violates the provision."' 225. Municipal commenters addressing this issue oppose a deemed granted remedy and argue that the courts should resolve Section 6409(a)disputes."' These commenters argue that a deemed granted remedy would contravene the Tenth Amendment as well as the approach developed in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling.116 For support,these commenters assert that such a remedy would pose an unnecessary intrusion into State and local governments' longstanding zoning authority and would be inconsistent with traditional notions of Federal and state jurisdiction.617 Municipal commenters further contend that resolving Section 6409(a)disputes via Commission action rather than in court—whether through the Commission's adoption of a deemed granted approach or its review of specific applications— would conflict with the Commission's stated intention not to become a"national zoning board."618 They argue as well that the Commission lacks expertise in zoning disputes,that requiring adjudication at the Commission would significantly and unreasonably burden municipalities,and that local courts are better equipped to identify applicable precedents and assess the particular facts and circumstances of individual disputes 619 Alexandria et al argue that Section 6409(a)neither specifies a judicial cause of action nor directs the Commission to review disputes, and that Congress is therefore"best understood to have elected to rely on existing avenues of relief.i620 They therefore propose that applicants follow the normal state-law procedures for challenging local zoning decisions or that they seek judicial review under Section 613 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 8,25-26;CTIA Reply Comments at 1-2,7-8;Verizon Comments at 32-33. See also PCIA Comments at 50(arguing that deemed grant is a"reasonable and appropriate way of enforcing"the"shall approve"requirement). 614 See,e.g.,AT&T Comments at 27-28;Fibertech Comments at 33;Towerstream Comments at 27-28;Towerstream Reply Comments at 7. 615 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 45-48;Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 25-28;CA Local Governments Comments at 24-26;CA Local Governments Reply Comments at iv, 19-23;Ca1WA Reply Comments at 3, 10-11;CCA Reply Comments at 9-10;Coconut Creek Comments at 9;DC Comments at 20;IAC Comments at 2;RCRC Comments at 4;San Antonio Reply Comments at 3-4,21-23; Springfield Comments at 16;Tucson Comments at 9-10;West Palm Beach Comments at 9. 616 See, a g., Alexandria et al Comments at 46-47;Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 27-28;CA Local Governments Comments at 25-26;Coconut Creek Comments at 9;Fairfax Comments at 19; San Antonio Reply Comments at 3-4;Tucson Comments at 10;West Palm Beach Comments at 9. Some commenters also contend that a deemed granted remedy would violate the Due Process Clause. See, e.g., Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 25- 28;Springfield Comments at 16. 617 See, e.g, Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 27-28;Coconut Creek Comments at 9;DC Comments at 20; Fairfax Comments at 19;San Antonio Reply Comments at 22;Tucson Comments at 10;West Palm Beach Comments at 9. 618 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 47-48;Fairfax Comments at 19-20;Tucson Comments at 10. 619 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 47-48;CA Local Governments Comments at 24(asserting an"express Congressional intent to allow federal courts to craft individualized remedies"),27-28;CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 19-20;CCUA et al.Comments at 15;Coconut Creek Comments at 9;IAC Comments at 2;RCRC Comments at 4;San Antonio Reply Comments at 23;Tucson Comments at 10. Commenters point out that localities generally do not have Washington,D.C.-based counsel available for representation before the Commission. See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 47-48;CCUA et al. Comments at 15;Coconut Creek Comments at 9;IAC Comments at 2("Localities should not be required to incur the expense of retaining legal counsel in Washington, D.C.and traveling long distances to defend local zoning decisions"),8(noting in particular the costs and burden on smaller communities);RCRC Comments at 4;Tucson Comments at 10. 620 Alexandria et al. Comments at 47. 96 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 332(c)(7),which they believe"has proven effective."621 Coconut Creek argues that Section 6409(a) disputes should be raised through causes of action brought in court under Section 332(c)(7).622 226. Discussion. After a careful assessment of the statutory provision and a review of the record,we establish a deemed granted remedy for cases in which the applicable State or municipal reviewing authority fails to issue a decision within 60 days(subject to any tolling,as described above)on an application submitted pursuant to Section 6409(a). We further conclude that a deemed grant does not become effective until the applicant notifies the reviewing jurisdiction in writing,after the time period for review by the State or municipal reviewing authority as prescribed in our rules has expired,that the application has been deemed granted. 227. Our reading of Section 6409(a)supports this approach. The provision states without equivocation that the reviewing authority"may not deny, and shall approve"any qualifying application.623 This directive leaves no room for a lengthy and discretionary approach to reviewing an application that meets the statutory criteria; once the application meets these criteria,the law forbids the State or local government from denying it. Moreover,while State and local governments retain full authority to approve or deny an application depending on whether it meets the provision's requirements,the statute does not permit them to delay this obligatory and non-discretionary step indefinitely. In this Report and Order,we have defined objectively the statutory criteria for determining whether an application is entitled to a grant under this provision. Given the objective nature of this assessment,then,we conclude that withholding a decision on an application indefinitely,even if an applicant can seek relief in court or in another tribunal,would be tantamount to denying it,in contravention of the statute's pronouncement that reviewing authorities"may not deny"qualifying applications. We therefore find that the text of Section 6409(a)supports adoption of a deemed granted remedy,which will directly serve the broader goal of promoting the rapid deployment of wireless infrastructure. We note as well that our approach is consistent with other Federal agencies' processes to address inaction by State and local authorities.' 228. As noted above,many municipalities oppose the adoption of a deemed granted remedy primarily on the ground that it arguably represents an intrusion into local decision-making authority.625 We fully acknowledge and value the important role that local reviewing authorities play in the siting process,and,as the Commission stated in the Infrastructure NPRM,"our goal is not to `operate as a m national zoning board. ,,121 At the sae time,our authority and responsibility to implement and enforce Section 6409(a)as if it were a provision of the Communications Act obligate us to ensure effective enforcement of the congressional mandate reflected therein. To do so,given our"broad grant of rulemaking authority,,621 the importance of ensuring rapid deployment of commercial and public safety wireless broadband services as reflected in the adoption of the Spectrum Act,and in light of the record of disputes in this proceeding,as well as the prior experience of the Commission with delays in municipal 621 Id. 622 See Coconut Creek Comments at 9. See also CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 23,27-28;CCUA et al. Reply Comments at 5; San Antonio Reply Comments at 3-4,21-22;Tucson Comments at 9-10. 623 Spectrum Act§6409(a)(1). 624 See, e.g.,42 C.F.R. §438.56(e)(2)(Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services rule providing that an application to disenroll from a Medicaid managed care plan shall be"considered approved"if not acted on by a State agency within the regulatory deadline). See also 47 U.S.C. § 160(c)(petition for forbearance deemed granted if Commission fails to deny within the regulatory deadline). 625 See supra,para.225. 626 See Infrastructure NPRM,28 FCC Rcd at 14276 para.99(quoting Preemption of Local Zoning or Other Regulation of Receive-Only Satellite Earth Stations,CC Docket No. 85-87,59 Rad.Reg.2d(P&F) 1073,para.39 (1986)). 627 City of Arlington v.FCC, 133 S.Ct. 1863, 1874(2013). 97 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 action on wireless facility siting applications that led to the 2009 Declaratory Ruling,we conclude it is necessary to balance these federalism concerns against the need for ensuring prompt action on Section 6409(a)applications.628 We therefore adopt this approach in tandem with several measures that safeguard the primacy of State and local government participation in local land use policy,to the extent consistent with the requirements of Section 6409(a). First,we have adopted a 60-day time period for States and localities to review applications submitted under Section 6409(a)."9 While many industry commenters proposed a 45-day review period based on the non-discretionary analysis that the provision requires,63'we have provided more time in part to ensure that reviewing authorities have sufficient time to assess the applications. 229. Second,we are establishing a clear process for tolling the 60-day period when an applicant fails to submit a complete application,thus ensuring that the absence of necessary information does not prevent a State or local authority from completing its review before the time period expires 631 230. Third, even in the event of a deemed grant,the Section 106 historic preservation review process—including coordination with State and Tribal historic preservation officers—will remain in place with respect to any proposed deployments in historic districts or on historic buildings(or districts and buildings eligible for such status).632 231. Fourth,as explained below,a State or local authority may challenge an applicant's written assertion of a deemed grant in any court of competent jurisdiction when it believes the underlying application did not meet the criteria in Section 6409(a)for mandatory approval,would not comply with applicable building codes or other non-discretionary structural and safety codes,or for other reasons is not appropriately"deemed granted.,133 232. Finally,and perhaps most importantly,the deemed granted approach does not deprive States and localities of the opportunity to determine whether an application is covered;rather, it provides a remedy for a failure to act within the fixed but substantial time period within which they must determine,on a non-discretionary and objective basis,whether an application fits within the parameters of Section 6409(a). 233. We emphasize as well that we expect deemed grants to be the exception rather than the rule. To the extent there have been any problems or delays due to ambiguity in the provision,we anticipate that the framework we have established, including the specification of substantive and procedural rights and applicable remedies,will address many of these problems. We anticipate as well that the prospect of a deemed grant will create significant incentives for States and municipalities to act in a timely fashion. 628 See 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Red at 14004-06 paras.32-34. See also,e.g.,T-Mobile Comments, Sullivan Decl.at 1-5(stating that"wireless siting permit issues are so prevalent that T-Mobile has had to bring or defend more than 300 lawsuits in state and federal courts,"and describing several disputes over land use regulation of wireless facility modifications,including two cases that remain pending in trial court after more than three years), 3("Even in the absence of litigation,T-Mobile experiences substantial delays in obtaining local approvals to collocate on existing towers and base stations,or to modify such facilities as part of the company's modernization efforts"). 629 See supra,para.216. 630 See supra,para.208. 631 See supra,paras.217-219. 632 See supra,para. 88(excluding collocations from Section 106 review under certain circumstances,but not when they would be located on buildings that are listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register or in or near a historic district). 633 See,e.g.,infra,paras.234-236. 98 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 234. With respect to the appropriate forum for redress or for resolving disputes, including disputes over the application of the deemed grant rule,we find that the most appropriate course for a party aggrieved by operation of Section 6409(a)is to seek relief from a court of competent jurisdiction. Although we find that we have authority to resolve such disputes under our authority to implement and enforce that provision,we also find that requiring that these disputes be resolved in court,and not by the Commission,will better accommodate the role of the States and local authorities and serve the public interest for the reasons the municipal commenters identify and as discussed below 634 235. A number of factors persuade us to require parties to adjudicate claims under Section 6409(a)in court rather than before the Commission. First,we find that Commission adjudication would impose significant burdens on localities,many of which are small entities with no representation in Washington,D.C. and no experience before the Commission. The possible need for testimony to resolve disputed factual issues,which may occur in these cases,would magnify the burden. We are also concerned that the Commission may simply lack the resources to adjudicate these matters in a timely fashion if we enable parties to seek our review of local zoning disputes arising in as many as 38,000 jurisdictions,thus thwarting Congress's goal of speeding up the process 631 We also agree with municipalities that the Commission does not have any particular expertise in resolving local zoning disputes,whereas courts have been adjudicating claims of failure to act on wireless facility siting applications since the adoption of Section 332(c)(7).636 236. Accordingly,we require parties to bring claims related to Section 6409(a)in a court of competent jurisdiction. Such claims would appear likely to fall into one of three categories. First,if the State or local authority has denied the application,an applicant might seek to challenge that denial. Second,if an applicant invokes its deemed grant right after the requisite period of State or local authority inaction,that reviewing authority might seek to challenge the deemed grant. Third,an applicant whose application has been deemed granted might seek some form of judicial imprimatur for the grant by filing a request for declaratory judgment or other relief that a court may find appropriate. In light of the policy underlying Section 6409(a)to ensure that covered requests are granted promptly, and in the self- interest of the affected parties,we would expect that these parties would seek judicial review of any such claims relating to Section 6409(a)expeditiously. The enforcement of such claims is a matter appropriately left to such courts of competent jurisdiction. However,given the foregoing Federal interest reflected in Section 6409(a), it would appear that the basis for equitable judicial remedies would diminish significantly absent prompt action by the aggrieved party. In our judgment,based on the record established in this proceeding,we find no reason why(absent a tolling agreement by parties seeking to resolve their differences)such claims cannot and should not be brought within 30 days of the date of the 634 Section 6003 of the Spectrum Act,47 U.S.C. § 1403,directs us to enforce the provisions of Title VI as though they were part of the Communications Act. We adopt the approach described in the text—namely,adjudication in court rather than before the Commission—pursuant to our well-established discretion in matters of enforcement, including in determining whether it is appropriate for the Commission to resolve a controversy. See National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners'Petition for Clarification or Declaratory Ruling That No FCC Order or Rule Limits State Authority to Collect Broadband Data,Memorandum Opinion and Order,25 FCC Rcd 5051,5053 para.5(2010)(noting that the Commission has broad discretion whether to issue a ruling to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty);Heckler v. Chaney,470 U.S.821,831 (1985)("[A]n agency's decision not to prosecute or enforce,whether through civil or criminal process,is a decision generally committed to an agency's absolute discretion.");New York State Dept. of Law v. FCC,984 F.2d 1209, 1213(D.C.Cir. 1993)(upholding the Commission's exercise of its enforcement discretion)(citing Heckler,470 U.S.at 831). 631 See "Government Organization Summary Report:2012,"available at bgp://www2.census.gov/jzovs/cog/al2 org,pdf(finding 38,910 general purpose local governments). See also CA Local Governments Comments at 11. 636 As we note in connection with Section 332(c)(7),see infra,para.284,a party pursuing a claim under Section 6409(a)may seek injunctive relief,which may be appropriate in many cases in light of Congress's goal of advancing wireless broadband service. See Conference Report at 136. 99 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 relevant event(i.e.,the date of the denial of the application or the date of the notification by the applicant to the State or local authority of a deemed grant in accordance with our rules). 4. Non-application to States or Municipalities in Their Proprietary Capacities 237. Background. In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission sought comment on the IAC's argument that the Section 6409(a)mandate applies only to State and local governments acting in their role as land use regulators and does not apply to such entities acting in their capacities as property owners.637 In its Recommendations to the Commission,the IAC had asserted that"[w]here . . .a county government, as landlord rather than as land use regulator,has by contract or lease chosen, in its discretion,to authorize the installation of an antenna on a county courthouse rooftop of certain exact dimensions and specifications, Section 6409 does not require the county, acting in its capacity as landlord rather than its capacity as regulator of private land use,to allow the tenant to exceed to any extent those mutually and contractually agreed-upon exact dimensions and specifications."638 The Commission proposed to adopt this interpretation,and sought comment on how to determine in which capacity a government is acting and whether to address how Section 6409(a)applies where both capacities are implicated."' 238. Although T-Mobile argues that Section 6409(a)does not distinguish between situations in which a local government is acting as a municipal authority or as a proprietary landlord,640 the record otherwise reflects near unanimity in support of the IAC's recommendation 641 Certain industry commenters argue,however,that municipal regulation of the public rights-of-way constitutes action by a government in its regulatory capacity rather than its proprietary capacity.642 Municipal commenters argue,by contrast,that there is no need at this time to further define what is or is not proprietary action.643 239. Discussion. As proposed in the Infrastructure NPRMand supported by the record,we conclude that Section 6409(a)applies only to State and local governments acting in their role as land use regulators and does not apply to such entities acting in their proprietary capacities. As discussed in the record, courts have consistently recognized that in"determining whether government contracts are subject to preemption,the case law distinguishes between actions a State entity takes in a proprietary capacity— actions similar to those a private entity might take—and its attempts to regulate.,,614 As the Supreme Court has explained, "[i]n the absence of any express or implied implication by Congress that a State may not manage its own property when it pursues its purely proprietary interests, and when analogous private conduct would be permitted,this Court will not infer such a restriction."bas Like private property owners, local governments enter into lease and license agreements to allow parties to place antennas and other wireless service facilities on local-government property,and we find no basis for applying Section 6409(a)in those circumstances. We find that this conclusion is consistent with judicial decisions holding 637 See Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14285 para. 129. 638 Id (citing IAC Recommendations at 3). 639 See id. 640 See T-Mobile Reply Comments at 19. 641 See, a g., Alexandria et al Comments at 49-51;CA Local Governments Comments at 16-17;Coconut Creek Comments at 7-8;CTC Reply Comments at 8;DC Comments at 19;DC Reply Comments at 14;Fairfax Comments at 15-16;IAC Comments at 2;Minneapolis Comments at 11-12;NATOA et al. Reply Comments at 3;NJSLM Comments at 7;PCIA Reply Comments at 22;VA DOSP Comments at 4-6. 642 See, e.g.,PCIA Reply Comments at 22;T-Mobile Reply Comments at 19. 643 See,e.g,Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 3. 644 See, e g, Alexandria et al Comments at 49(citing American Airlines v.Dept. of Transp.,202 F.3d 788,810(5th Cir.2000)). 645 Building&Construction Trades Council of Metropolitan District v.Associated Builders& Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island Inc,507 U.S.218,231-32(1993). 100 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 that Sections 253 and 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act do not preempt"non regulatory decisions of a state or locality acting in its proprietary capacity."646 240. We decline at this time to further elaborate as to how this principle should apply to any particular circumstance in connection with Section 6409(a). We agree with Alexandria et al. that the record does not demonstrate a present need to define what actions are and are not proprietary,and we conclude in any case that such a task is best undertaken,to the extent necessary,in the context of a specific municipal action and associated record 647 Further, as discussed above,there is extensive case law on the application of this distinction in other contexts,including in connection with wireless facility siting applications under Section 332(c)(7),which can provide valuable guidance for its application under Section 6409(a). 5. Effective Date 241. Background. The Commission sought comment on whether,in the event it adopted rules in connection with Section 6409(a),'it should provide a transition period to allow States and localities time to implement the rules in their laws,ordinances,and procedures." The Commission further asked how it could establish a transition period consistent with the provision's requirements and how long any transition period should be bag The record reflects divided views,with industry commenters arguing against a transition period and municipalities arguing for one. While PCIA argues that no transition is necessary for States and localities to implement Section 6409(a)requirements into their laws,"'municipal commenters contend that a transition period would be essential in order for them to accommodate the additional workload involved in updating regulations and procedures. In particular,the IAC urges the Commission to provide that the rules will not take effect until 90 days after publication in the Federal Register, arguing that a transition period is necessary to allow affected State, local,and Tribal governments time to make the necessary changes to their laws and procedures.612 646 Qwest Corp. v City of Portland,385 F.3d 1236, 1240(9th Cir.2004)(recognizing that Section 253(a)preempts only"regulatory schemes");Sprint Spectrum v.Mills,283 F.3d 404,421 (2d Cir.2002)(finding that Section 332(c)(7)"does not preempt nonregulatory decisions of a local governmental entity or instrumentality acting in its proprietary capacity"). 647 See Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 3. We note that this issue has been raised informally by parties in the context of New York City's payphone franchising regulation. See Letter from Robert G.Scott,Jr.,Davis Wright Tremaine LLP,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,filed July 24,2014(Telebeam Ex Parte)at 4(urging the Commission on behalf of Telebeam Telecommunications Corp.to avoid any statement that would"allow the City of New York. ..to evade the wireless siting rules ultimately adopted,through claims that its regulation of public telephones is an exercise of proprietary authority or otherwise"). We take no position on Telebeam's argument in this Report and Order. bas See Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14276 para. 100. 649 See id. 650 See PCIA Comments at 27-28. 651 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 24;CA Local Governments Comments at 29-30(arguing that at least twelve months is necessary to adjust local land use ordinances,policies,and procedures to reflect any new rules adopted as a result of this proceeding);Haddon Heights Comments at 2; San Diego Comments at 3. 652 See Letter from Kenneth S.Fellman,Intergovernmental Advisory Committee,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary, FCC,WT Docket No. 13-238,filed Oct. 8,2014(IAC Oct.8,2014 Ex Parte),at 1-2(asserting that it will be necessary to educate staff and elected officials throughout the country of the substance of the Order and the changes that might be required once local codes are reviewed in light of the Commission's guidance). See also Letter fromYejin Jang,National Association of Counties,to Marlene H.Dortch,Secretary,FCC,WT Docket No. 13-238, filed Oct. 10,2014(NACo Oct. 10,2014 Ex Parte),at 1 (asserting that the effective date should be no earlier than 90 days after publication and that in implementing such changes to existing State and local laws and requirements, States and municipalities would need time for appropriate action,such as providing notice for official meetings and (continued....) 101 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 242. Discussion. Based on our review of the record,we are persuaded that a transition period is necessary and appropriate. We agree with certain municipal commenters that affected State and local governments may need time to make modifications to their laws and procedures to conform to and comply with the rules we adopt in this Report and Order implementing and enforcing Section 6409(a), and that a transition period is warranted to give them time to do so.653 We therefore conclude,as proposed by the IAC and other parties,that the rules adopted to implement Section 6409(a)will take effect 90 days after Federal Register publication. VI. SECTION 332(C)(7)AND THE 2009 DECLARATORY RULING 243. In this section,we address questions related to Section 332(c)(7)and the Commission's 2009 Declaratory Ruling.114 In particular,we clarify when a siting application is considered complete for the purpose of triggering the presumptively reasonable timeframes for local and State review of personal wireless service facilities siting applications under the 2009 Declaratory Ruling,and we also clarify how the presumptively reasonable timeframes apply to local moratoria and DAS or small-cell facilities. We find that these actions will resolve ambiguities and thus enable both industry and State and local jurisdictions to expedite personal wireless service facilities siting and facilitate the provision of advanced wireless services across the country. 244. With regard to certain other issues,after review of the record,we decline to take action at this time. Specifically,we decline to further clarify or amend the test for determining which applications must be reviewed under the shorter 90-day period applicable to collocations under the 2009 Declaratory Ruling,to hold that preferences for the placement of wireless facilities on municipal property are per se unlawful under Section 332(c)(7),or to adopt additional remedies beyond the one articulated in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling for failures to act in a timely manner under Section 332(c)(7). A. Background 245. Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act,adopted as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996,generally preserves State and local authority over"personal wireless service facilities"siting,while also placing important limitations on that authority.655 Three of these limits involve substantive restrictions. The first, Section 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(I), states that municipal regulation of the placement,construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities"shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services.,656 A second substantive limit provides that a State or local government's siting regulations"shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services.,617 The third provides that a State or (Continued from previous page) agenda,informing the public,providing'opportunity for comment,gathering public input and testimony,and,in some instances,action by state legislatures to support local compliance with the Commission's order). 653 To the extent existing State and local laws conflict with our rules implementing Section 6409(a),they will no longer apply once the rules take effect. 654 See,generally,47 U.S.C.§332(c)(7);2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd 13994. 655 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(A)(stating that,"[e]xcept as provided in this paragraph,nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over decisions regarding the placement,construction,and modification of personal wireless services facilities"). Personal wireless services are defined as"commercial mobile services,unlicensed wireless services,and common carrier wireless exchange access services."47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(C)(i). As discussed above,in 2012,Congress expressly modified this preservation of local and State authority by enacting Section 6409(a),which requires local or State governments to approve certain types of facilities siting applications"[n]otwithstanding section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 [codified in substantial part as Section 332(c)(7)] . . .or any other provision of law. . . ." Spectrum Act§ 6409(a)(1). See supra,Section V. 656 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I). 657 Id. at§332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). 102 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 local government may not regulate the siting of personal wireless service facilities"on the basis of the environmental effects of[RF] emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions."658 Section 332(c)(7)(B)also imposes procedural obligations on State and local governments, including a requirement that they must act on requests for personal wireless service facilities sitings"within a reasonable period of time.,659 246. Section 332(c)(7)also sets forth a judicial remedy for violations of the provision, stating that"[a]ny person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local government" that is inconsistent with the requirements of Section 332(c)(7)"may,within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction.,,660 The provision further directs the court to"decide such action on an expedited basis.,661 While the statute makes this judicial remedy available for any violation of Section 332(c)(7),it also provides that applicants may petition the Commission for relief in one circumstance—where they are adversely affected by a State or local government's action or failure to act based on the effects of RF emissions.662 247. In 2009,the Commission adopted a Declaratory Ruling663 in response to a petition requesting clarification on two points:what constitutes a"reasonable period of time"after which an aggrieved applicant may file suit asserting a failure to act under Section 332(c)(7), and whether a zoning authority may restrict competitive entry by multiple providers in a given area under Section 332(c)(7)(13)(i)(II),664 In the 2009 Declaratory Ruling,the Commission interpreted a"reasonable period of time"under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(ii)to be 90 days for processing collocation applications, and 150 days for processing applications other than collocations.66' The Commission further determined that failure to meet the applicable timeframe presumptively constitutes a failure to act under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v),enabling an applicant to pursue judicial relief within the next 30 days.666 248. The Commission also defined certain circumstances that would warrant adjustments to the presumptive deadlines,including when the applicant fails to submit a complete application or to file necessary additional information in a timely manner.667 Specifically,the Commission stated that"when applications are incomplete as filed,the timeframes do not include the time that applicants take to respond 658 Id. at§332(c)(7)(B)(iv). 659 Id. at§332(c)(7)(B)(ii). In addition,Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iii)provides that"[a]ny decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a request to place,construct,or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record."Id at §332(c)(7)(B)(iii). See T-Mobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell,731 F.3d 1213(11th Cir.2013)cert.granted 134 S.Ct. 2136(2014). 660 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). 661 Id 662 See id. 663 See 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd 13994. 664 Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance,Petition for Declaratory Ruling of CTIA–The Wireless Association,WT Docket No.08-165, filed July 11,2008(CTIA Petition). In its petition,CTIA also requested that the Commission find that a State or local regulation that requires a variance or waiver for every wireless facility siting violates Section 253(a)of the Communications Act. 47 U.S.C. §253(a). The Commission denied this request due to a lack of a specific controversy. See 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 14019-20 paras.66-67. 665 See id. at 14012 para.45. 666 See id. at 14005 para.32, 14012 para.45. 667 See id.at 14010 para.42. 103 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 to State and local governments' requests for additional information.,668 This automatic tolling,however, applies only if a zoning authority notifies an applicant within the first 30 days that its application is incomplete.669 In addition,the Commission clarified that the presumptive deadlines for acting on siting applications could be extended beyond 90 or 150 days by mutual consent, and that such an agreement would toll the commencement of the 30-day period for filing suit.671 249. Finally,addressing Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II)'s direction that States and localities shall not regulate in a manner that prohibits or has the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services,the Commission found that this provision prohibits a State or local government from denying a personal wireless service facility siting application solely because service is available from another provider.671 250. On December 17,2009, a Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification(Petition)was filed by the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors,the United States Conference of Mayors,the National League of Cities,the National Association of Counties, and the American Planning Association(Petitioners). 72 In August of 2010,the Commission adopted the 2010 Shot Clock Reconsideration Order, in which it denied the requests to reconsider certain of its conclusions.673 251. In 2012,the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the 2009 Declaratory Ruling in its entirety,674 deferring to the Commission's conclusion that it had jurisdiction to address these issues. In 2013,the United States Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision, finding that judicial deference under Chevron applies to an agency's determination of the scope its own statutory jurisdiction.675 252. Subsequent to the Supreme Court's decision,the Commission released the Infrastructure NPRM. While stating that the Commission would not generally revisit the 2009 Declaratory Ruling,it 668 Id. at 14014 para.52. 669 See id.at 14014-15 para.53. 670 See id. at 14013 para.49. 671 See id.at 14016 para.56. 672 See Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance,Petition for Reconsideration or Clarification,WT Docket No.08-165,filed Dec. 17,2009. Also on December 17,2009,Petitioners filed an Emergency Motion for Stay pending Commission action on their petition. See Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance,Emergency Motion for Stay,WT Docket No.08-165,filed Dec. 17,2009. On January 29, 2010,WTB denied the stay request. See Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance,WT Docket No.08-165,Order,25 FCC Rcd 1215 (WTB 2010)(2010 Stay Denial Order). 673 See,generally,Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance,WT Docket No.08-165, Order on Reconsideration,25 FCC Rcd 11157(2010) (2010 Reconsideration Order). 674 See City of Arlington v.FCC,668 F.3d 229(5th Cir.2012),affd, 133 S.Ct. 1863(2013). 675 See City of Arlington, 133 S.Ct.at 1874("[T]he preconditions to deference under Chevron are satisfied because Congress has unambiguously vested the FCC with general authority to administer the Communications Act through rulemaking and adjudication,and the agency interpretation at issue was promulgated in the exercise of that authority.");see Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v.NRDC, Inc.,467 U.S.837(1984). 104 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 sought comment on six discrete issues arising under Section 332(c)(7)and the 2009 Declaratory Ruling:67. (1)whether and how to clarify when a siting application is considered complete for the purpose of triggering the 2009 Declaratory Ruling's shot clock;(2)whether to clarify that the presumptively reasonable period for State or local government action on an application runs regardless of any local moratorium; (3)whether the 2009 Declaratory Ruling applies to DAS and small-cell facilities; (4) whether to clarify the types of actions that constitute"collocations"for purposes of triggering the shorter shot clock; (5)whether local ordinances establishing preferences for deployment on municipal property violate Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I); and(6)whether to adopt an additional remedy for failures to act in violation of Section 332(c)(7).67 B. Discussion 253. In order to add greater efficiency to the siting process—for the municipal and State entities that must review applications,for the applicants that file them, and for the tribunals that resolve disputes—we clarify how the 2009 Declaratory Ruling applies in some but not all of the contexts we identified in the NPRM. The record demonstrates that these clarifications will promote the deployment of infrastructure necessary for advanced wireless broadband services while preserving both State and municipalities' front-line roles in the siting process. We discuss each of the six issues on which the Commission sought comment below. 1. Completeness of Applications 254. Background. The 2009 Declaratory Ruling held that,when an application is incomplete as filed,the shot clock timeframe does not include the time the applicant takes to respond to a State or local government's request for additional information,provided that the State or locality makes its request within 30 days of the application's submission.678 255. The 2009 Declaratory Ruling did not,however,define when a siting application should be considered"complete"for this purpose. PCIA has asserted that,as a result,some jurisdictions have repeatedly requested additional information to toll the shot clock and delay application processing.679 In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission sought comment on whether to clarify when a siting application is considered complete for the purpose of triggering the 2009 Declaratory Ruling timeframe and,if so,how that should be determined. 256. Several industry commenters argue that the 2009 Declaratory Ruling needs clarification in this area, and they suggest specific approaches.680 Crown Castle and PCIA,for example,propose that a request for additional information should toll the shot clock only if it: (1)is in writing, (2)delineates any information alleged to be missing,and(3)specifies the particular subsection of the applicable code that requires the applicant to submit the information.68' Crown Castle further proposes that the clock should continue running if a jurisdiction requests information not specifically identified in the zoning application's requirements. 82 Municipalities generally oppose these clarifications."' 676 See Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14293 para. 152. 677 Id at 14293-96 paras. 153-162. 678 See 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 14014 paras.52-53. 679 PCIA and DAS Forum NOI Comments,WC Docket No. 11-59,at 14. 610 See, e.g, Crown Castle Comments at 15-17;ExteNet Comments at 6-7;PCIA Comments at iii,54-55;PCIA Reply Comments at iii,28. 681 See Crown Castle Comments at 17;PCIA Comments at iii,54-55. 682 See Crown Castle Comments at 17. 683 See, e.g., Alexandria et al.Comments at 57-58;Alexandria et al Reply Comments at 30-35;CA Local Governments Comments at 31-32;Coconut Creek Comments at 10;DC Comments at 23;Fairfax Comments at 25; (continued....) 105 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 257. Discussion. We find that we should clarify under what conditions the presumptively reasonable timeframes may be tolled on grounds that an application is incomplete. We take this action not only to provide clarity in connection with a State's or municipality's first request for additional information in connection with a particular application,but also in situations where a State or municipality makes repeated requests. Indeed,the 2009 Declaratory Ruling did not address how such repeated requests would toll the timeframes. For example,while the 2009 Declaratory Ruling provided that a State or municipality must notify the applicant of incompleteness within 30 days,it did not indicate whether that restriction applies where the State or municipality, after receiving additional data,determines at some point after the first 30 days that the application remains incomplete. We find that this ambiguity has undermined the effectiveness of the timeframes.684 258. As an initial matter,we note that under the 2009 Declaratory Ruling,the presumptively reasonable timeframe begins to run when an application is first submitted,not when it is deemed complete.685 Accordingly,to the extent municipalities have interpreted the clock to begin running only after a determination of completeness,that interpretation is incorrect. 259. Further,consistent with proposals submitted by Crown Castle and PCIA,686 we clarify that,following a submission in response to a determination of incompleteness, any subsequent determination that an application remains incomplete must be based solely on the applicant's failure to supply information that was requested within the first 30 days. The shot clock will begin running again after the applicant makes a supplemental submission. The State or local government will have 10 days to notify the applicant that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original notice delineating missing information. In other words, a subsequent determination of incompleteness can result in further tolling of the shot clock only if the local authority provides it to the applicant in writing within 10 days of the supplemental submission, specifically identifying the information the applicant failed to supply in response to the initial request. Once the 10-day period passes,the period for review of the application may not thereafter be tolled for incompleteness. 260. We further provide that, in order to toll the timeframe for review on grounds of incompleteness, a municipality's request for additional information must specify the code provision, ordinance,application instruction, or otherwise publically-stated procedures that require the information to be submitted.687 This requirement will avoid delays due to uncertainty or disputes over what documents or information are required for a complete application. Further,while some municipal commenters argue that"[n]ot all jurisdictions codify detailed application submittal requirements because doing so would require a code amendment for even the slightest change,,,688 our approach does not restrict them to reliance on codified documentation requirements. (Continued from previous page) Mendham Comments at 6; Springfield Comments at 17-18;Steel in the Air Comments at 10;Tempe Comments at 30;West Palm Beach Comments at 10. 684 Some commenters cite certain instances in which local authorities have significantly delayed action on applications through successive unrelated data requests. See,e.g,Crown Castle Comments at 15-16(asserting one instance in which Crown Castle went before a local reviewing board eight times,and that"with each review the Town alleged new and different`deficiencies'with the permit applications");PCIA Comments at 55 n.182 (asserting that in one case,"a second notice of incomplete application was provided to a member over five months after the date of the initial application");see also AT&T Comments,WC Docket No. 11-59,at 15-16. 685 See 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 14014 para.52(providing that the"timeframes do not include the time that applicants take to respond to State and local governments'requests for additional information"). 686 See Crown Castle Comments at 17;PCIA Comments at 54-55. 611 See, e.g, Crown Castle Comments at 17;PCIA Comments at iii,54-55. 688 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 35. 106 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 261. Beyond these procedural requirements,we decline to enumerate what constitutes a "complete"application. We find that, as some commenters note, State and local governments are best suited to decide what information they need to process an application.689 Differences between jurisdictions make it impractical for the Commission to specify what information should be included in an application. 262. We find that these clarifications will provide greater certainty regarding the period during which the clock is tolled for incompleteness. This in turn provides clarity regarding the time at which the clock expires, at which point an applicant may bring suit based on a"failure to act." Further,we expect that these clarifications will result in shared expectations among parties,thus limiting potential miscommunication and reducing the potential or need for serial requests for more information. Accordingly,these clarifications will facilitate faster application processing,reduce unreasonable delay, and accelerate wireless infrastructure deployment. 2. Moratoria 263. Background. In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission sought comment on whether and how the presumptively reasonable timeframes under Section 332(c)(7)apply to delays in processing applications that result from a local moratorium that is,when a State or local government freezes all siting applications across the board while,for example,it updates applicable zoning regulations.691 We proposed to find that the presumptively reasonable period continues to run regardless of any local moratorium.691 We alternatively sought comment on whether a moratorium should toll the shot clock and, if so,whether the tolling period for moratoria should be limited in some manner.692 264. Industry commenters generally argue that moratoria should not suspend the shot clock,693 while localities argue that they should.694 On a more granular level,UTC proposes prohibiting moratoria over 6 months,695 while municipal commenters disagree 696 265. Discussion. We clarify that the shot clock runs regardless of any moratorium. This is consistent with a plain reading of the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, which specifies the conditions for tolling and makes no provision for moratoria. Moreover,our conclusion that the clock runs regardless of any moratorium means that applicants can challenge moratoria in court when the shot clock expires without State or local government action,which is consistent with the case-by-case approach that courts have generally applied to moratoria under Section 332(c)(7).697 This approach,which establishes clearly that 689 See, e.g., CA Local Governments Comments at 31. See also Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 31-32; Coconut Creek Comments at 10;DC Comments at 23;Fairfax Comments at 25;Mendham Comments at 6; Steel in the Air Comments at 10;Tempe Comments at 30;West Palm Beach Comments at 10. 690 See Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14294 para. 155. 691 See id. at 14294 para. 156. 692 See id. at 14294 para. 157. 693 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 30;Crown Castle Comments at 15;ExteNet Comments at 7-8;PCIA Comments at iii,55;PCIA Reply Comments at iii,27-28;UTC Comments at 16. 694 See, e.g., Alexandria et al.Comments at 53-56;Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 36-37;CA Local Governments Comments at 32-34;Coconut Creek Comments at 8-10;LOC Comments at 5;Steel in the Air Comments at 8-10;West Palm Beach Comments at 8-10. See also Fairfax Comments at 25. 695 See UTC Comments at 16. See also Coconut Creek Comments at 10; Steel in the Air Comments at 10;West Palm Beach Comments at 10. 696 See, e.g., Alexandria et al.Comments at 55;Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 37. 697 See,e.g,Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Village of Itasca,Illinois, 503 F.Supp.2d 928,935(N.D.I11.2007) (finding that moratoria,some of which were extended formally or informally,were effectively complete prohibitions on the expansion of plaintiffs telecommunications facilities);Masterpage Communications, Inc. v. Town of Olive, (continued....) 107 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 an applicant can seek redress in court even when a jurisdiction has imposed a moratorium,will prevent indefinite and unreasonable delay of an applicant's ability to bring suit. 266. Some commenters argue that if moratoria do not toll the presumptively reasonable periods,this would discourage local governments from updating their regulations.698 Similarly, others contend that this approach would, in effect,improperly require municipal staff to simultaneously review and update their regulations to adapt to new technologies while also reviewing applications 699 We recognize that new technologies may in some cases warrant changes in procedures and codes,but we find no reason to conclude that the need for any such change should freeze all applications. We are confident that industry and local governments can work together to resolve applications that may require more staff resources due to complexity,pending changes to the relevant siting regulations, or other special circumstances. Moreover,in those instances in which a moratorium may reasonably prevent a State or municipality from processing an application within the applicable timeframe,the State or municipality will, if the applicant seeks review,have an opportunity to justify the delay in court. We therefore clarify that the shot clock continues to run regardless of any moratorium. 267. We decline at this time to determine that a moratorium that lasts longer than six months constitutes aper se violation of the obligation to take action in a reasonable period of time. Although some have argued that a six-month limit would"discourage localities from circumventing the intent of the Commission's shot clock rules,"700 others disagree, and the record provides insufficient evidence to support a per se determination at this juncture.701 Given our clarification that the presumptively reasonable timeframes apply regardless of moratoria, any moratorium that results in a delay of more than 90 days for a collocation application or 150 days for any other application will be presumptively unreasonable. The courts are well situated to assess whether such moratoria are in fact reasonable on a case-by-case basis, including when the moratorium extends for six months or longer. 3. Application to DAS and Small Cells 268. Background. In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission noted that some jurisdictions have adopted the view that the shot clocks do not apply to DAS or small-cell deployments.702 The Commission proposed to clarify that to the extent DAS or small-cell facilities, including neutral-host deployments shared by more than one carrier,are or will be used for the provision of personal wireless services,their siting applications are subject to the same presumptively reasonable timeframes and other requirements as applications related to other personal wireless service facilities.7os 269. Several industry commenters support our proposal,arguing that DAS and small-cell applications are covered by the 2009 Declaratory Ruling and are subject to the same timeframes as other (Continued from previous page) NN,418 F.Supp.2d 66,78(N.D.N.Y.2005)(finding that delay was unreasonable where a moratorium lasted more than two years,was extended at least once without explanation,and prohibited Masterpage from applying for more than one year);Sprint Spectrum, L P v City of Medina,924 F.Supp. 1036, 1039-40(W.D.Wash. 1996)(finding a six-month moratorium was reasonable). See also CA Local Governments Comments at 34. 698 See, e.g, Coconut Creek Comments at 8, 10; Steel in the Air Comments at 8, 10;West Palm Beach Comments at 8, 10. 699 See, e.g, Alexandria et al.Comments at 55. 700 See, e.g., UTC Comments at 16. See also Coconut Creek Comments at 10; Steel in the Air Comments at 10; West Palm Beach Comments at 10. 701 See, e.g., Alexandria et al.Comments at 55;Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 36-37. 702 See,e.g.,PCIA and DAS Forum NOI Comments,WC Docket No. 11-59,at 13,47(asserting that the 2009 Declaratory Ruling timeframes have not been applied to DAS projects in some jurisdictions due to the lack of clarity or consensus regarding their applicability). 703 See Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14295 para. 158. 108 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 covered applications.704 Other commenters support the proposal with modifications. Some,for example, argue that the shot clocks apply,but also that the applicable timeline should be adjusted if a single DAS deployment entails more than 10 antenna siting applications,in light of the greater review and processing burden.705 Coconut Creek proposes that we apply a shot clock only when a DAS deployment will support multiple providers,but not where it is designed to support only one.706 Some municipalities disagree with our proposal altogether, arguing that the 2009 Declaratory Ruling timeframes do not apply to DAS or small cells,707 while others assert this issue does not require any additional clarification. 08 270. Discussion. We clarify that to the extent DAS or small-cell facilities, including third- party facilities such as neutral host DAS deployments,are or will be used for the provision of personal wireless services,their siting applications are subject to the same presumptively reasonable timeframes that apply to applications related to other personal wireless service facilities. We note that courts have addressed the issue and,consistent with our conclusion,have found that the timeframes apply to DAS and small-cell deployments.709 271. Some commenters argue that the shot clocks should not apply because some providers describe DAS and small-cell deployments as wireline,not wireless,facilities.710 The City of Eugene, Oregon,for example,argues that the Commission should not consider DAS a personal wireless service because one DAS provider has argued that its service is"no different from,and indeed competes directly with,the fiber-based backhaul/private line service provided by Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers.""' This argument is not persuasive. Determining whether facilities are"personal wireless service facilities" subject to Section 332(c)(7)does not rest on a provider's characterization in another context;rather,the analysis turns simply on whether they are facilities used to provide personal wireless services.712 Based on our review of the record,we find no evidence sufficient to compel the conclusion that the characteristics of DAS and small-cell deployments somehow exclude them from Section 332(c)(7)and the 2009 Declaratory Ruling. For similar reasons,we reject Coconut Creek's argument that the shot clocks should apply only to neutral host deployments. 704 See, e.g., CalWa Comments at 3-4;CTIA Comments at 21-22;CTIA Reply Comments at 12;ExteNet Comments at 4,7;Fibertech Comments at 33-34;Fibertech Reply Comments at 20-21;PCIA Comments at 55-56;PCIA Reply Comments at iii,28; Sprint Comments at 12. 705 See, e.g., Coconut Creek Comments at 10;Steel in the Air Comments at 10;West Palm Beach Comments at 10. See also CA Local Governments Comments at 34(arguing that a 150-day review period is necessary for DAS collocations because antennas will typically be installed on poles that do not,prior to the installation,host any personal wireless service equipment);Fairfax Comments at 27-28(arguing that,due to the number of nodes proposed with many DAS systems and the fact that they are not collocations, 150 days is an appropriate time for processing applications). 706 See Coconut Creek Comments at 10;Steel in the Air Comments at 10;West Palm Beach Comments at 10. 707 See, e.g., Eugene Comments at v, 16-17;San Antonio Comments at v-vi, 18-20; San Antonio Reply Comments at 18-19;see also Tempe Comments at 30(arguing that the shot clock should not apply to DAS and small-cell installations"where the wireless antenna portion will be going on a support structure that does not currently house a wireless facility"). 708 See, e.g., Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 39;Fairfax Comments at 27-28. 709 See,e.g.,Crown Castle NG East Inc. v. Town of Greenburgh,2013 WL 3357169(S.D.N.Y.2013),aff'd,552 Fed.Appx.47(2d Cir.2014). 70 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 38-39;Eugene Comments at v, 16-17; San Antonio Reply Comments at 18-19. 71 Eugene Comments at 16. 712 See, e.g., Alexandria et al.Comments at 58-59;Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 38;CTIA Comments at 21- 22. 109 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 272. Some commenters suggest revising our proposal on the grounds that the unique qualities of DAS and small-cell systems require longer timeframes for municipal review.73 We decline to adjust the timelines as these commenters suggest. We note that the timeframes are presumptive,and we expect applicants and State or local governments to agree to extensions in appropriate cases. Moreover,courts will be positioned to assess the facts of individual cases—including whether the applicable time period "t[ook] into account the nature and scope of[the] request"—in instances where the shot clock expires and the applicant seeks review.714 We also note that DAS and small-cell deployments that involve installation of new poles will trigger the 150-day time period for new construction that many municipal commenters view as reasonable for DAS and small-cell applications.715 Accordingly,we find it unnecessary to modify the presumptive timeframes as they apply to DAS applications. 4. Definition of Collocation 273. Background. In the 2009 Declaratory Ruling,the Commission held that the presumptively reasonable timeframe for review of personal wireless facility siting applications is 90 days for"collocation"applications and 150 days for all other applications.76 It further determined that an application is a request for collocation for purposes of the Section 332(c)(7)shot clock if it seeks authorization to place an antenna on an existing structure and does not involve a"substantial increase in . . . size,"as that phrase is defined in the Collocation Agreement.717 274. In the Infrastructure NPRM,the Commission sought comment on whether to revise the test for a"substantial increase in size"under Section 332(c)(7)and the 2009 Declaratofy Ruling to reflect the test we adopt in this Report and Order for a"substantial change in physical dimensions"under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act."$ 275. We received a wide array of comments on this question. Some commenters propose that we harmonize the two tests completely,719 others oppose any revisions to the current rule,720 and others suggest some specific revisions. Some,for example, oppose formal harmonization but support a"plain language"approach to defining"collocation,"721 while another supports defining"substantial increase"to include changes to both the collocation site and any associated ground equipment.722 Still others contend that the collocation definition should apply to mounting an antenna on any structure, including utility 713 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 60;Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 39;CA Local Governments Comments at 34;Coconut Creek Comments at 10;Fairfax Comments at 27-28; Steel in the Air Comments at 10; West Palm Beach Comments at 10. 714 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(ii). 715 See, e.g, CA Local Governments Comments at 34;Fairfax Comments at 28. 716 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 14012 para.45. 717 Id. at 14012 para.46. 718 Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14293-94 para. 153. 719 See, e.g, AT&T Comments at 28-29;Coconut Creek Comments at 9-10;Fibertech Comments at 34(arguing that if Commission expands the 2009 Declaratory Ruling to collocations on existing base stations,it should adopt the same"substantial change"test as Fibertech proposed for Section 6409(a));PCIA Comments at iii,53-54;Steel in the Air Comments at 9-10;UTC Comments at 16;West Palm Beach Comments at 9-10. 720 See, e.g., MDIT Comments at 7;Springfield Comments at 17. 721 See, e.g., CA Local Governments Comments at 30(proposing to define"collocation"as a wireless facility placed at a location shared with an existing wireless tower or other wireless structure);Fairfax Comments at 23-24 (proposing to define"collocation"as an installation of additional antennas on an existing wireless facility that already supports one or existing antennas,with no substantial change in the existing facility's physical dimensions). 722 Tempe Comments at 30. 110 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 poles,723 while another expressly opposes this approach.724 Another proposes to include aggregate limits in the"substantial change"definition to avoid the cumulative impact that can result from successive changes that are individually insignificant.725 276. Discussion. After reviewing the record,we decline to make any changes or clarifications to the existing standard established in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling for applying the 90-day shot clock for collocations. In particular,we decline to apply the"substantial change"test that we establish in this Report and Order for purposes of Section 6409(a). We observe that Sections 6409(a)and 332(c)(7)serve different purposes,and we accordingly find that the tests for"substantial change"and"substantial increase in size"are appropriately distinct 726 More specifically,the test for a"substantial increase in size"under Section 332(c)(7)affects only the length of time for State or local review,while the test we adopt under Section 6409(a)identifies when a State or municipality must grant an application. This is a meaningful distinction that merits a more demanding standard under Section 6409(a). 277. In further support for this conclusion,we note that while the two statutory provisions overlap in many cases,some collocation applications covered by Section 332(c)(7)do not constitute "eligible facilities requests"for purposes of Section 6409(a). Moreover,as noted above, Section 6409(a) covered requests extend to any"wireless"tower or base station modification,not just"personal wireless service"facilities. Considering that these provisions cover different(though overlapping)pools of applications, it is appropriate to apply them differently. Further,we find no compelling evidence in the record that using the same test for both provisions would provide significant administrative efficiencies or limit confusion, as some have argued.727 We therefore preserve distinct standards under the two provisions. 5. Preferences for Deployments on Municipal Property 278. Background. Some municipalities have established preferences for siting wireless facilities on municipal property.728 PCIA argues that these preferences violate Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I),729 which states that regulation of the placement, construction,and modification of personal wireless service facilities"shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services.030 PCIA contends that preferences for placing wireless facilities on municipal property unreasonably discriminate among providers by limiting the siting flexibility of subsequent wireless entrants in a given area.731 The Infrastructure NPRM sought comment on PCIA's contention.732 723 See, e.g., ExteNet Comments at 6;Fibertech Comments at 34;Fibertech Reply Comments at 20-21;Joint Venture Comments at 8. 724 See Alexandria et al.Reply Comments at 38. 725 Pennsauken Reply Comments at 1. 726 MDIT Comments at 7("Maryland believes that there are substantial differences between the parties contemplated in 332(c)(7). . .and 6409(a). . . . As a result,the State believes that the test for`substantial change in physical dimensions' in 6409 should be distinct from the test for`substantial increase in size'under 332."). 727 See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 28-29;Coconut Creek Comments at 10; Steel in the Air Comments at 10;West Palm Beach Comments at 10. 728 See,e.g.,Seattle Resolution 29344,available at http://clerk.seattle..gov/—archives/Resolutions/Resn 29344.pdf, which allows City facilities to be used for wireless communication facilities.See CCUA et al. Comments at 18-19. 729 See PCIA and DAS Forum NOI Comments,WC Docket No. 11-59,at 43-44. 730 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(i)(1). 731 See PCIA and DAS Forum NOI Comments,WC Docket No. 11-59,at 44. 732 See Infrastructure NPRM, 28 FCC Rcd at 14295 para. 160. 111 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 279. Most commenters, including many municipal commenters and also some industry commenters, argue that municipal property preferences are not per se unlawful under Section 332(c)(7).733 For example,Fairfax argues that location preferences are not impermissibly discriminatory because they apply equally to all applicants and because there are many valid reasons for such preferences.734 Some commenters agree with Fairfax that the Commission cannot reach aper se conclusion because there are valid reasons for such preferences,735 and others assert that the courts,not the Commission,must decide whether a municipal preference is unreasonably discriminatory on a case- by-case basis.736 Many industry commenters,on the other hand, argue that municipal property preferences are unlawfully discriminatory under Section 332(c)(7)737 and that they violate the statute by effectively prohibiting the provision of wireless services.731 280. Discussion. We find insufficient evidence in the record to make a determination that municipal property preferences are per se unreasonably discriminatory or otherwise unlawful under Section 332(c)(7). To the contrary,most industry and municipal commenters support the conclusion that many such preferences are valid.719 For example,some commenters assert that such preferences are not unlawfully discriminatory as a general matter,but that they can violate Section 332(c)(7)if they effectively"pressure"applicants to use municipal property or are coupled with ordinances making it too onerous to site anywhere else.740 As an example,PCIA describes a situation where a member company had difficulty siting due to a municipal property preference that coupled high municipal lease fees with onerous regulations,making it difficult to site on non-municipal property.741 As PCIA's argument suggests,however,determining whether a particular municipal property preference violates Section 332(c)(7)depends on the specific details of the preference and related requirements.742 We note that available court precedent further supports the conclusion that the validity of preferences is an inquiry best suited to resolution on a case-by-case basis.743 Therefore,consistent with the majority of comments on 733 See, e g., Alexandria et al Comments at 56-57;Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 40-41;CA Local Governments Comments at 34-35;CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 24-25;Coconut Creek Comments at 10;DC Comments at 23;Eugene Comments at vi,23-24;LOC Comments at 5;Steel in the Air Comments at 10; San Antonio Comments at vii,25-28; San Antonio Reply Comments at 23-25;West Palm Beach Comments at 10. 734 See Fairfax Comments at 26-27(citing diminished visual impact of telecommunication facilities,potential to join publicly managed communication systems with commercial wireless service antennas,greater continuity of telecommunications facilities,improved buffering from adjacent residential uses,and enhanced cell phone service in more remote parts of the County as valid reasons for preferences). 715 See, e g., Alexandria et al Reply Comments at 41 (asserting municipal preferences encourage wireless deployments by making municipal property available where options may be limited);CA Local Governments Comments at 35(asserting that benefits to municipal preferences include reduced aesthetic impact,fewer land use restrictions,and quicker application approval process);CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 25. 736 See, e.g, Alexandria et al. Comments at 56-57;CA Local Governments Comments at 35;CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 24-25;DC Comments at 23. 717 See, e.g, PCIA Reply Comments at iii,28-29;UTC Comments at 17. 738 See, e.g, PCIA Comments at iii,56;see also 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). 739 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 56-57;CA Local Governments Comments at 34-35;CA Local Governments Reply Comments at 24-25;CTIA Comments at 20;DC Comments at 23;PCIA Comments at 56. 740 See, e.g., CTIA Comments at 20-21;PCIA Comments at iii,56. 741 See PCIA Comments at 56,n.183. We note that St.Paul,the municipality in question,has challenged PCIA's assertions regarding the preference. See St.Paul Reply Comments at 1. See also MACTA Reply Comments at 2. 742 See, e.g, Alexandria et al Comments at 56-57;CA Local Governments Comments at 35;DC Comments at 23. 741 See, e g., T-Mobile Northeast LLC v.Falx fax County Bd. of Sup'rs,672 F.3d 259(4th Cir.2012). 112 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 this issue,we decline at this time to find municipal property preferences per se unlawful under Section 332(c)(7). 6. Remedies 281. Background. In the 2009 Declaratory Ruling,the Commission considered whether an application should be deemed granted when a State or local government fails to take action before the shot clock expires. The Commission declined to establish this remedy.' Noting that Section 332(c)(7) expressly establishes a judicial remedy,the Commission concluded that"this provision indicates congressional intent that courts should have the responsibility to fashion appropriate case-specific remedies.,,14' The Commission also declined to suggest that a reviewing court should presumptively issue an injunction granting the application,noting that"case law does not establish that an injunction granting the application is always or presumptively appropriate when a`failure to act' occurs.04' The Commission further noted that in cases where injunctions were granted,courts did so"only after examining all the facts in the case."747 Although the Commission declined to adopt a presumption that the court should issue an injunction granting the application, it recognized that injunctions granting applications may be appropriate in many cases.748 282. The Infrastructure NPRM noted that some parties have asked the Commission to revisit this issue. In response,the Commission sought comment on whether to adopt remedies beyond the judicial remedy described in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling.749 283. Commenters are split on the issue,with industry supporting a deemed granted remedy750 and municipalities opposing the idea.751 Industry generally asserts that a deemed granted remedy is necessary to help ensure that States and localities act within the prescribed timelines,752 and that the Commission has ample authority to adopt such a remedy.753 State and local governments disagree, 744 See 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Red at 14009 para.39. 745 Id. 746 Id. 747 Id. 748 See id. 749 See Infi-astructure NPRM, 28 FCC Red at 14296 para. 162. Iso See, e.g., AT&T Comments at 8,30-31;Ca1Wa Comments at 3-4;Ca1Wa Reply Comments at 3-11;Crown Castle Comments at 15-18;CTIA Comments at 19;CTIA Reply Comments at 1-2,8-9;ExteNet Comments at 4; Fibertech Comments at 34-35;Joint Venture Comments at 8;PCIA Comments at iii,56-59;PCIA Reply Comments at iii,26,29-32;Sprint Comments at 12;Sprint Reply Comments at 7-8;UTC Comments at 17;UTC Reply Comments at 6-7. 751 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Comments at 51-53;Alexandria et al Reply Comments at 41-44;CA Local Governments Comments at 35-36;Coconut Creek Comments at 9-11;Cornelius Comments at 5-6;DC Comments at 22;Eugene Comments at v, 18-20;Fairfax Comments at 21-23;Fairfax Reply Comments at 9-10;Happy Valley Comments at 5-6;NATOA et al. Reply Comments at 7;Orange Reply Comments at 6;Oregon City Comments at 6; RCRC Comments at 4; San Antonio Comments at vi,20-23;San Antonio Reply Comments at 19-20;Springfield Comments at 19-20; Steel in the Air Comments at 9-11;West Palm Beach Comments at 9-11. 752 See, e.g, AT&T Comments at 30-31;CalWa Reply Comments at 10-11;Crown Castle Comments at 18;CTIA Reply Comments at 8-9;PCIA Comments at 56-57;PCIA Reply Comments at 30-31. 753 See, e.g., Crown Castle Comments at 18-19;CTIA Comments at 19-20;CTIA Reply Comments at 9-10;PCIA Comments at 57-58;PCIA Reply Comments at 32. 113 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 arguing that the Commission lacks authority to adopt a deemed granted remedy,75'that the deemed granted remedy raises Constitutional concerns,75'that failures to comply with the shot clock timelines require fact-specific inquiries from courts,75'and that there is no convincing evidence that a deemed granted remedy is warranted.757 284. Discussion. After reviewing the record,we decline to adopt an additional remedy for State or local government failures to act within the presumptively reasonable time limits. We also note that a party pursuing a"failure to act"claim may ask the reviewing court for an injunction granting the application. As the 2009 Declaratory Ruling noted,751 courts have considered, and in many cases granted, such relief.759 Moreover, Congress recognized the importance of expeditious action with regard to the application process and infrastructure deployment,by directing the court to"hear and decide such action on an expedited basis.s760 While the propriety of prompt injunctive relief should be a matter for the courts to decide in light of"the specific facts of individual applications,,711 such relief may be appropriate in many cases in light of the balance of equities, including the public interest reflected in the statute of promoting rapid but responsible wireless facility deployment.762 Moreover,in the case of a failure to act within the reasonable timeframes set forth in our rules,and absent some compelling need for additional time to review the application,we believe that it would also be appropriate for the courts to treat such circumstances as significant factors weighing in favor of such relief. 754 See, e g, Alexandria et al Comments at 51-53;Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 41-44;Eugene Comments at v, 18-20;Fairfax Comments at 21-22;Fairfax Reply Comments at 9-10;San Antonio Comments at vi,20-23; San Antonio Reply Comments at 19. 755 See, e.g., Coconut Creek Comments at 10-11;Steel in the Air Comments at 10-11;West Palm Beach Comments at 10-11. 756 See, e g, Cornelius Comments at 5-6;Happy Valley Comments at 5-6;Mendham Comments at 6;Oregon City Comments at 6. 757 See, e.g., Alexandria et al. Reply Comments at 42;CA Local Governments Comments at 36;Fairfax Reply Comments at 8-9;NATOA et al. Reply Comments at 7. 758 See 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 14009 para.39. 759 See Cellular Telephone Company v The Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490,497(2d Cir.1999)(finding that Section 332(c)(7)does not specify a remedy for violations and that a majority of district courts have held that the appropriate remedy is injunctive relief in the form of an order to issue the relevant permits);Bell Atlantic Mobile of Rochester L.P. v. Town of Irondequoit,848 F.Supp.2d 391,403 (finding that further municipal review would serve no useful purpose and would cause additional delay in the applicant's ability to provide service,and that a mandatory injunction was therefore an appropriate remedy);Preferred Sites, LLC v. Troup County,296 F.3d 1210, 1222(11th Cir.2002)(finding that an injunction ordering a municipality to issue a permit is an appropriate remedy for a violation of Section 332(c)(7));Nat'l Tower, LLC v.Plainville Zoning Board of Appeals,297 F.3d 14,21-22 (1st Cir.2002)(finding that an injunction directing a zoning board to authorize construction is the proper remedy for most violations of Section 332(c)(7));Omnipoint Communications,Inc. v Planning&Zoning Com'n of Town of Wallingford,83 F.Supp.2d 306,312(D.Conn.2000)(finding that remand to board would not be appropriate as that would create further delay,especially in light of the multiple hearings that had already spanned many months). See also Omnipoint Communications MB Operations, LLC v. Town of Lincoln, 107 F.Supp.2d 108, 120-121 (D.Mass. 2000);Masteipage Communications,Inc. v. Town of Olive,418 F.Supp.2d 66, 81 (N.D.N.Y.2005). 760 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7)(B)(v). 7612009 Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd at 14009 para.39. 762 See 2009 Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd at 13994 para. 1. 114 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 285. With respect to this Report and Order,a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis(FRFA)is contained in Appendix C. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,the Commission has prepared a FRFA of the expected impact on small entities of the requirements adopted in this Report and Order. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order,including the FRFA,to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. B. Paperwork Reduction Act 286. This Report and Order contains revised information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget(OMB)for review under Section 3507(d)of the PRA. OMB,the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition,we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,Public Law 107-198,see 44 U.S.C.3506(c)(4),we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition,we have described impacts that might affect small businesses, which includes most businesses with fewer than 25 employees,in the FRFA in Appendix C,infra. C. Congressional Review Act 287. The Commission will send a copy of this Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act(CRA), see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES 288. ACCORDINGLY,IT IS ORDERED,pursuant to sections 1,2,4(i), 7,201,301, 303, 309,and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Sections 6003, 6213,and 6409(a)of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,Pub.L.No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156,47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 154(1), 157,201,301,303,309,332, 1403, 1433,and 1455(a), Section 102(C)of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,as amended,42 U.S.C. §4332(C),and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §470f,that this Report and Order IS HEREBY ADOPTED. If any section, subsection,paragraph, sentence,clause or phrase of this Report and Order or the rules adopted herein is declared invalid for any reason,the remaining portions of this Report and Order and the rules adopted herein SHALL BE severable from the invalid part and SHALL REMAIN in full force and effect. 289. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Parts 1 and 17 of the Commission's Rules ARE AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B, and that these changes SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, except for Section 1.40001,which SHALL BE EFFECTIVE 90 days after publication in the Federal Register;provided,however,that those rules and requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date. 115 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 290. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and 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. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H.Dortch Secretary 116 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 APPENDIX A List of Comments and Replies Comments Short Title Aaron Baker/City of Mesquite,Nevada Mesquite ACUTA-The Association for Information Communications Technology Professionals ' ACUTA Adirondack Council;Adirondack Mountain Club; Citizen's Campaign for the Environment;The Mohawk Hudson Land Conservancy;New York Public Interest Research Group;Parks and Trails New York. Adirondack Council Adirondack Park Agency APA Alex Hempton/City of San Diego San Diego American Cultural Resources Association ACRA American Public Works Association APWA Arkansas Historic Preservation Program AHPP Association of American Railroads AAR AT&T Services Inc. AT&T Ben Mule Mule Borough of Bloomingdale Bloomingdale California Coastal Commission CCC California Wireless Association Ca1WA Carolinas Wireless Association CarWA CCUA,RCC,Tacoma, Seattle,King County,CML and AWC CCUA et al. City of Alexandria,Virginia; City of Arlington,Texas;City of Bellevue, Washington;City of Boston,Massachusetts;City of Davis,California; City of Los Angeles,California;Los Angeles County,California; City of McAllen,Texas;Montgomery County,Maryland;City of Ontario, California;Town of Palm Beach,Florida;City of Portland,Oregon; City of Redwood City, California; City of San Jose,California;Village of Scarsdale,New York; City of Tallahassee,Florida;Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues; Georgia Municipal Association;International Municipal Lawyers Association;and American Planning Association Alexandria et al. City of Chicago Chicago City of Coconut Creek Coconut Creek City of Cornelius,OR Cornelius City of Des Moines,Iowa Des Moines City of Eugene, Oregon Eugene City of Happy Valley,OR Happy Valley City of Henderson Henderson City of Huntsville,Alabama Huntsville City of Long Beach Long Beach City of Mount Vernon and Mount Vernon Planning Board Mount Vernon City of Mountlake Terrace Mountlake Terrace City of New York/DoITT NYC City of Oregon City, OR Oregon City City of Portland Portland City of Salem Salem City of San Antonio,Texas San Antonio City of Springfield Springfield City of Tempe,Arizona Tempe 117 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 City of West Palm Beach,FL West Palm Beach Commonwealth of Virginia Department of State Police Virginia DOSP Corey M. Conover/City of Minneapolis Minneapolis County of San Diego Planning&Development Services San Diego San Diego PDS Crown Castle Crown Castle CTIA-The Wireless Association CTIA David Ellertson Ellertson David Lindsay/Society for American Archeology SAA Dennis Michaud Michaud Diana Tang/City of Long Beach Long Beach District of Columbia DC Donald G. Everist Everist EMR Policy Institute EPI Erik Hein-NCSHPO NCSHPO ExteNet Systems,Inc. ExteNet Fairfax County Fairfax Fibertech Networks,LLC Fibertech Intergovernmental Advisory Committee IAC Jefferson County, Colorado Jefferson Jennifer Imo/City of High Point High Point John P. Gallina Gallina John Strand-Strand Consult Strand Joint Venture: Silicon Valley Joint Venture Joseph Saldibar/Colorado State Historic Preservation Office COSHPO Karen Jackson Jackson Kenneth Coppage/Maryland Department of Information Technology MDIT League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, and SCAN NATOA CA Local Governments Maja K.Haium/League of Oregon Cities LOC Mark Epstein/Ohio Historic Preservation Office OHPO Mendham Borough Planning Board Mendham Michael R. Schaffert/City of Phoenix Phoenix Missouri Municipal League MML Naj Wikoff Wikoff NATOA,NACo,NLC,USCM NATOA et al. Nettie Richardson for Lee County Lee New Jersey State League of Municipalities NJSLM New York State Wireless Association NYSWA California Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation CAOHP Padre Dam Municipal Water District Padre Dam Passaic County Planning Board Passaic PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association&The HetNet Forum PCIA Pennsylvania Wireless Association PWA Piedmont Environmental Council PEC Piroschka Glinsky/City of Tucson Tucson Planning Board of the Borough of Haddon Heights,NJ Haddon Heights QUALCOMM Incorporated QUALCOMM Rama Communications,Inc. Rama Riverside County Office of Education RCOE Rural County Representatives of California RCRC Sprint Corporation Sprint Steel in the Air,Inc. Steel in the Air Stephen A.McFadden,M.S. McFadden 118 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Steven Magee Magee Sweetwater Authority Sweetwater Telecommunications Industry Association TIA Towerstream Corporation Towerstream Town of Hillsborough,California Hillsborough Utilities Telecom Council UTC Valley Center Municipal Water District VCMWD Verizon and Verizon Wireless Verizon Wireless Internet Service Providers Association WISPA Reply Comments Short Title American Petroleum Institute API Association of American Railroads AAR AT&T Services Inc. AT&T Borough of Glen Gardner Planning and Zoning Board Glen Gardner Brian Wahler Wahler California Wireless Association Ca1WA CCUA,RCC,Tacoma, Seattle,King County,CML and AWC CCUA et al. Cherry Hill Township,NJ Cherry Hill City of Alexandria,Virginia; City of Arlington,Texas; City of Bellevue, Washington; City of Boston,Massachusetts;City of Davis,California; City of Los Angeles,California;Los Angeles County,California; City of McAllen,Texas;Montgomery County,Maryland;City of Ontario, California; Town of Palm Beach,Florida; City of Portland,Oregon;City of Redwood City, California; City of San Jose,California;Village of Scarsdale,New York; City of Tallahassee,Florida;Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues;Georgia Municipal Association; International Municipal Lawyers Association; and American Planning Association Alexandria et al. City of Eugene,Oregon Eugene City of Mesa,Arizona Mesa City of Saint Paul St.Paul City of San Antonio,Texas San Antonio City of Tempe,Arizona Tempe Coalition of Texas Cities CTC Competitive Carriers Association CCA County of Orange,California Orange Cox Communications,Inc. Cox CTIA-The Wireless Association CTIA District of Columbia DC Eric Alan DelaPena DelaPena Fairfax County,Virginia Fairfax Fibertech Networks,LLC Fibertech League of California Cities,California State Association of Counties, and SCAN NATOA CA Local Governments Minnesota Association of Community Telecommunications Administrators MACTA National Association of Broadcasters NAB National Cable&Telecommunications Association NCTA NATOA,NLC,NACo,USCM NATOA et al. Nina Beety Beety Paul Benoit/City of Astoria Astoria PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association&The HetNet Forum PCIA 119 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Sprint Corporation Sprint State Wireless Association Presidents SWAP T-Mobile USA,Inc. T-Mobile Towerstream Corporation Towerstream Township of Pennsauken Pennsauken Utilities Telecom Council UTC Wireless Internet Service Providers Association WISPA 120 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 APPENDIX B Final Rules For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 C.F.R. Part 1 and Part 17 as follows: PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE 1. The authority citation for Part 1 is amended to read as follows: AUTHORITY: 15 U.S.C. 79,et seq.;47 U.S.C. 151, 154(1), 1540), 155, 157, 160,201,225,227,303, 309,332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452,and 1455. 2. Section 1.13 06 is amended by revising NOTE 1 and adding NOTE 4 to read as follows: § 1.1306 Actions which are categorically excluded from environmental processing. NOTE 1: The provisions of§ 1.1307(a)requiring the preparation of EAs do not encompass the mounting of antenna(s)and associated equipment(such as wiring,cabling, cabinets,or backup-power), on or in an existing building,or on an antenna tower or other man-made structure,unless § 1.1307(a)(4)is applicable. Such antennas and associated equipment are subject to § 1.1307(b)and require EAs if their construction would result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable health and safety guidelines cited in§ 1.1307(b). The provisions of§§ 1.1307(a)and(b)do not encompass the installation of aerial wire or cable over existing aerial corridors of prior or permitted use or the underground installation of wire or cable along existing underground corridors of prior or permitted use, established by the applicant or others. The use of existing structures or corridors is an environmentally desirable alternative to the construction of new facilities and is encouraged. The provisions of§§ 1.1307(a)and(b)do not encompass the construction of new submarine cable systems. NOTE 4: Unless § 1.1307(a)(4)is applicable,the provisions of§ 1.1307(a)requiring the preparation of EAs do not encompass the construction of wireless facilities, including deployments on new or replacement poles,if: 121 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 (a)the facilities will be located in a right-of-way that is designated by a Federal, State, local, or Tribal government for communications towers, above-ground utility transmission or distribution lines,or any associated structures and equipment; (b)the right-of-way is in active use for such designated purposes;and (c)the facilities would not (1)increase the height of the tower or non-tower structure by more than 10%or twenty feet, whichever is greater,over existing support structures that are located in the right-of-way within the vicinity of the proposed construction; (2)involve the installation of more than four new equipment cabinets or more than one new equipment shelter; (3)add an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge of the structure more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the structure at the level of the appurtenance,whichever is greater(except that the deployment may exceed this size limit if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via cable);or (4)involve excavation outside the current site, defined as the area that is within the boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the deployment or that is in proximity to the structure and within the boundaries of the utility easement on which the facility is to be deployed, whichever is more restrictive. Such wireless facilities are subject to § 1.1307(b)and require EAs if their construction would result in human exposure to radiofrequency radiation in excess of the applicable health and safety guidelines cited in § 1.1307(b). 3. Section 1.1307 is amended by adding a NOTE to paragraph(a)(4)to read as follows: § 1.1307 Actions that may have a significant environmental effect,for which Environmental Assessments(EAs)must be prepared. 122 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 NOTE: The requirements in paragraph(a)(4)of this section do not apply to: (a)The mounting of antennas(including associated equipment such as wiring,cabling, cabinets,or backup-power)on existing utility structures(including utility poles and electric transmission towers in active use by a"utility"as defined in Section 224 of the Communications Act,47 U.S.C.224,but not including light poles,lamp posts,and other structures whose primary purpose is to provide public lighting)where the deployment meets the following conditions: (1)All antennas that are part of the deployment fit within enclosures(or if the antennas are exposed,within imaginary enclosures)that are individually no more than three cubic feet in volume, and all antennas on the structure, including any pre-existing antennas on the structure,fit within enclosures(or if the antennas are exposed,within imaginary enclosures)that total no more than six cubic feet in volume; (2)All other wireless equipment associated with the structure, including pre-existing enclosures and including equipment on the ground associated with antennas on the structure,are cumulatively no more than seventeen cubic feet in volume, exclusive of (i)Vertical cable runs for the connection of power and other services; (ii) Ancillary equipment installed by other entities that is outside of the applicant's ownership or control, and (iii)Comparable equipment from pre-existing wireless deployments on the structure; (3)The deployment will involve no new ground disturbance; and (4)The deployment would otherwise require the preparation of an EA under paragraph(a)(4)of this section solely because of the age of the structure; or (b)The mounting of antennas(including associated equipment such as wiring, cabling,cabinets,or backup-power)on buildings or other non-tower structures where the deployment meets the following conditions: (1)There is an existing antenna on the building or structure; (2)One of the following criteria is met: 123 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 (i)Non-Visible Antennas. The new antenna is not visible from any adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces and is added in the same vicinity as a pre-existing antenna; (ii) Visible Replacement Antennas. The new antenna is visible from adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces,provided that(A)it is a replacement for a pre-existing antenna,(B)the new antenna will be located in the same vicinity as the pre-existing antenna,(C)the new antenna will be visible only from adjacent streets and surrounding public spaces that also afford views of the pre-existing antenna, (D)the new antenna is not more than 3 feet larger in height or width(including all protuberances)than the pre- existing antenna,and(E)no new equipment cabinets are visible from the adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces; or (iii) Other Visible Antennas. The new antenna is visible from adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces,provided that(A)it is located in the same vicinity as a pre- existing antenna,(B)the new antenna will be visible only from adjacent streets and surrounding public spaces that also afford views of the pre-existing antenna,(C)the pre- existing antenna was not deployed pursuant to the exclusion in this subsection(§ 1.13 07(a)(4),Note(b)(2)(iii)),(D)the new antenna is not more than three feet larger in height or width(including all protuberances)than the pre-existing antenna, and(E)no new equipment cabinets are visible from the adjacent streets or surrounding public spaces; (3)The new antenna complies with all zoning conditions and historic preservation conditions applicable to existing antennas in the same vicinity that directly mitigate or prevent effects,such as camouflage or concealment requirements; (4)The deployment of the new antenna involves no new ground disturbance; and (5)The deployment would otherwise require the preparation of an EA under paragraph(a)(4)of this section solely because of the age of the structure. For purposes of this Note, a non-visible new antenna is in the"same vicinity"as a pre-existing antenna if it will be collocated on the same rooftop,fagade or other surface. For purposes of this Note, a visible new 124 Federal'Communications Commission FCC 14-153 antenna is in the"same vicinity"as a pre-existing antenna if it is on the same rooftop,fagade,or other I surface and the centerpoint of the new antenna is within ten feet of the centerpoint of the pre-existing antenna. For purposes of this Note,a deployment causes no new ground disturbance when the depth and width of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth and width by at least two feet. 4. Part 1 is amended by adding Subpart CC as follows: Subpart CC—State and Local Review of Applications for Wireless Service Facility Modification 1.40001 Wireless Facility Modifications (a) Purpose. These rules implement§ 6409 of the Spectrum Act(codified at 47 U.S.C. 1455),which requires a State or local government to approve any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station. (b) Definitions. Terms used in this section have the following meanings. (1) Base Station. A structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables Commission-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined in this subpart or any equipment associated with a tower. (i)The term includes,but is not limited to,equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private,broadcast,and public safety services,as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. (ii)The term includes,but is not limited to,radio transceivers,antennas, coaxial or fiber- optic cable,regular and backup power supplies,and comparable equipment,regardless of technological configuration(including Distributed Antenna Systems and small-cell networks). (iii)The term includes any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the State or local government under this section, supports or houses equipment described in paragraphs(b)(1)(i)-(ii)of this section that has been 125 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process, or under another State or local regulatory review process,even if the structure was not built for the sole or r primary purpose of providing such support. (iv)The term does not include any structure that,at the time the relevant application is filed with the State or local government under this section,does not support or house equipment described in paragraphs(b)(1)(i)-(ii)of this section. (2) Collocation. The mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes. (3) Eligible Facilities Request. 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. (4)Eligible Support Structure. Any tower or base station as defined in this section,provided that it is existing at the time the relevant application is filed with the State or local government under this section. (5)Existing. A constructed tower or base station is existing for purposes of this section if it has been reviewed and approved under the applicable zoning or siting process,or under another State or local regulatory review process,provided that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built,but was lawfully constructed,is existing for purposes of this definition. (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. 126 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 (7) Substantial Change. A modification substantially changes the physical dimensions of an eligible support structure if it meets any of the following criteria: (i)for towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, it increases the height of the tower by more than 10%or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet,whichever is greater;for other eligible support structures,it increases the height of the structure by more than 10% or more than ten feet,whichever is greater; (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. (ii)for towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, it involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet,or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance,whichever is greater;for other eligible support structures,it involves adding an appurtenance to the body of the structure that would protrude from the edge of the structure by more than six feet; (iii)for any eligible support structure, it involves installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved,but not to exceed four cabinets; or,for towers in the public rights-of-way and base stations,it involves installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there are no pre-existing ground cabinets associated with the structure,or else involves installation of ground cabinets that are more than 10%larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure; (iv)it entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site; 127 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 (v)it would defeat the concealment elements of the eligible support structure; or (vi)it does not comply with conditions associated with the siting approval of the construction or modification of the eligible support structure or base station equipment, provided however that this limitation does not apply to any modification that is non- compliant only in a manner that would not exceed the thresholds identified in § 1.40001(b)(7)(i)-(iv). (8) Transmission Equipment. Equipment that facilitates transmission for any Commission- licensed or authorized wireless communication service,including,but not limited to,radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, and regular and backup power supply. The term includes equipment associated with wireless communications services including,but not limited to,private,broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. (9) Tower. Any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any Commission- licensed or authorized antennas and their associated facilities, including structures that are constructed for wireless communications services including,but not limited to,private,broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul,and the associated site. (c) Review of Applications. A State or local government may not deny and shall approve any eligible facilities request for modification of an eligible support structure that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such structure. (1) Documentation Requirementfor Review. When an applicant asserts in writing that a request for modification is covered by this section, a State or local government may require the applicant to provide documentation or information only to the extent reasonably related to determining whether the request meets the requirements of this section. A State or local government may not require an applicant to submit any other documentation, including but not limited to documentation intended to illustrate the need for such wireless facilities or to justify the business decision to modify such wireless facilities. 128 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 (2) Timeframe for Review. Within 60 days of the date on which an applicant submits a request seeking approval under this section,the State or local government shall approve the application unless it determines that the application is not covered by this section. (3) Tolling of the Timeframe for Review. The 60-day period begins to run when the application is filed,and may be tolled only by mutual agreement or in cases where the reviewing State or local government determines that the application is incomplete. The timeframe for review is not tolled by a moratorium on the review of applications. (i) To toll the timeframe for incompleteness,the reviewing State or local government must provide written notice to the applicant within 30 days of receipt of the application, clearly and specifically delineating all missing documents or information. Such delineated information is limited to documents or information meeting the standard under paragraph(c)(1)of this section. (ii) The timeframe for review begins running again when the applicant makes a supplemental submission in response to the State or local government's notice of incompleteness. (iii) Following a supplemental submission,the State or local government will have 10 days to notify the applicant that the supplemental submission did not provide the information identified in the original notice delineating missing information. The timeframe is tolled in the case of second or subsequent notices pursuant to the procedures identified in this paragraph(c)(3). Second or subsequent notices of incompleteness may not specify missing documents or information that were not delineated in the original notice of incompleteness. (4) Failure to Act. In the event the reviewing State or local government fails to approve or deny a request seeking approval under this section within the timeframe for review(accounting for any tolling),the request shall be deemed granted. The deemed grant does not become effective until the applicant notifies the applicable reviewing authority in writing after the review period has expired(accounting for any tolling)that the application has been deemed granted. 129 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 (5) Remedies. Applicants and reviewing authorities may bring claims related to Section 6409(a) to any court of competent jurisdiction. PART 17—CONSTRUCTION,MARKING,AND LIGHTING OF ANTENNA STRUCTURES 5. The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs.4,303,48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended;47 U.S.C. 1545 303. Interpret or apply secs. 301, 309,48 Stat. 1081, 1085 as amended;47 U.S.C.301,309. 6. Section 17.4 is amended by revising paragraphs(c)(1)(v)and(c)(1)(vi),and adding paragraph (c)(1)(vii)to read as follows: § 17.4 Antenna structure registration. (c) (v)For any other change that does not alter the physical structure, lighting,or geographic location of an existing structure; (vi)For construction,modification,or replacement of an antenna structure on Federal land where another Federal agency has assumed responsibility for evaluating the potentially significant environmental effect of the proposed antenna structure on the quality of the human environment and for invoking any required environmental impact statement process,or for any other structure where another Federal agency has assumed such responsibilities pursuant to a written agreement with the Commission(see §1.131 l(e)of this chapter); or (vii) For the construction or deployment of an antenna structure that will(A)be in place for no more than 60 days,(B)requires notice of construction to the FAA,(C)does not require marking or lighting under FAA regulations, (D)will be less than 200 feet in height above ground level, and(E)will either involve no excavation or involve 130 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 excavation only where the depth of previous disturbance exceeds the proposed construction depth(excluding footings and other anchoring mechanisms)by at least two feet. An applicant that relies on this exception must wait 30 days after removal of the antenna structure before relying on this exception to deploy another antenna structure covering substantially the same service area. 131 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 APPENDIX C Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended(RFA),'the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis(IRFA)of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the clarifications and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding(Infrastructure NPM.2 The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the Infrastructure NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. None of the comments filed in the proceeding addressed the IRFA. Because we amend our rules in this Report and Order,we have included this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis(FRFA)which conforms to the RFA 3 To the extent that any statement contained in this FRFA is perceived as creating ambiguity with respect to our rules,or statements made in preceding sections of this Report and Order,the rules and statements set forth in those preceding sections shall be controlling. A. Need for,and Objectives of,the Report and Order 2. In this Report and Order,we take important steps to promote the deployment of wireless infrastructure,recognizing that it is the physical foundation that supports all wireless communications. The Report and Order adopts and clarifies rules in four specific areas in an effort to reduce regulatory obstacles and bring efficiency to wireless facility siting and construction. We do this by eliminating unnecessary reviews,thus reducing the burden on State and local jurisdictions and also on industry, including small businesses. In particular,we update and tailor the manner in which we evaluate the impact of proposed deployments on the environment and historic properties. We also adopt rules to clarify and implement statutory requirements related to State and local government review of infrastructure siting applications, and we adopt an exemption from our environmental public notification process for towers that are in place for only short periods of time. Taken together,these steps will further facilitate the delivery of more wireless capacity in more locations to consumers throughout the United States. Our actions will expedite the deployment of equipment that does not harm the environment or historic properties, as well as recognize the limits on Federal, State,Tribal, and municipal resources available to review those cases that may adversely affect the environment or historic properties. 3. First,we adopt measures to refine our environmental and historic preservation review processes under NEPA and NHPA to account for new wireless technologies, including physically small facilities like those used in Distributed Antenna System(DAS)networks and small-cell systems that are a fraction of the size of macrocell installations. Among these,we expand an existing categorical exclusion from NEPA review so that it applies not only to collocations on buildings and towers,but also to collocations on other structures like utility poles. We also adopt a new categorical exclusion from NEPA review for some kinds of deployments in utilities or communications rights-of-way. With respect to NHPA,we create new exclusions from Section 106 review to address certain collocations that are currently subject to review only because of the age of the supporting structure. We take these steps to assure that, as we continue to meet our responsibilities under NEPA and NHPA,we also fulfill our 'See 5 U.S.C. §603. The RFA,see 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 See 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,Amendment of Parts 1 and 17 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice Procedures for Processing Antenna Structure Registration Applications for Certain Temporary Towers,2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations,WT Docket Nos. 13-238, 13-32,WC Docket No. 11-59,Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,28 FCC Rcd 14238, 14240, 14304-17 App.B (2013)(Infrastructure NPR 3 See 5 U.S.C. § 604. 132 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 obligation under the Communications Act to ensure that rapid, efficient,and affordable radio communications services are available to all Americans.4 4. Second,regarding temporary towers,we adopt a narrow exemption from the Commission's requirement that owners of proposed towers requiring antenna structure registration(ASR) provide 30 days of national and local notice to give members of the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed tower's potential environmental effects. The exemption from notification requirements applies only to proposed temporary towers meeting defined criteria, including limits on the size and duration of the installation,that greatly reduce the likelihood of any significant environmental effects. Allowing licensees to deploy temporary towers meeting these criteria without first having to complete the Commission's environmental notification process will enable them to more effectively respond to emergencies,natural disasters, and other planned and unplanned short-term spikes in demand without undermining the purposes of the notification process. This exemption will"remove an administrative obstacle to the availability of broadband and other wireless services during major events and unanticipated periods of localized high demand"where expanded or substitute service is needed quickly.' 5. Third,we adopt rules to implement and enforce Section 6409(a)of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012(Spectrum Act).6 Section 6409(a)provides, in part,that"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."' By requiring timely approval of eligible requests,Congress intended to advance wireless broadband service for both public safety and commercial users.' Section 6409(a)includes a number of undefined terms,however,that bear directly on how the provision applies to infrastructure deployments, and the record confirms that there are substantial disputes on a wide range of interpretive issues under the provision. We accordingly adopt rules that clarify many of these terms and enforce their requirements,thus advancing Congress's goal of facilitating rapid deployment. These rules 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 and promoting advanced wireless broadband services. 6. Finally,we clarify issues related to Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act and the Commission's 2009 Declaratory Ruling.' Among other things,we explain when a siting application is 4 47 U.S.C. § 151. 'See Amendment of Parts 1 and 17 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Public Notice Procedures for Processing Antenna Structure Registration Applications for Certain Temporary Towers;2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations,RM-11688,WT Docket No. 13-32, Order,28 FCC Rcd 7758 para. 1 (2013) (Waiver Order). 6 See Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012,Pub.L.No. 112-96,§6409(a), 126 Stat. 156(2012). We refer hereinafter to the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 as the"Spectrum Act." We note that Section 6409(a)has since been codified in the Communications Act as 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a). However,for consistency with the Infrastructure NPRM,we will continue to refer to it as Section 6409(a). 7 Spectrum Act§6409(a)(1). 8 See H.R.Rep. 112-399,at 136(2012)(Conference Report). We note that much of the Conference Report describes provisions in the House or Senate bills,and is not necessarily representative of Congressional intent in passing the Spectrum Act. The portions of the Conference Report that are cited in this Report and Order pertain expressly to the Act as passed. 9 47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7);Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(b)to Ensure Timely Siting Review&to Preempt Under Section 253 State&Local Ordinances That Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals As Requiring A Variance,WT Docket No.08-165,Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd 13994(2009)(2009 Declaratory Ruling). Because our clarifications of the 2009 Declaratory Ruling are themselves merely interpretive rulings,we note that the RFA does not apply to them. See Central Texas Telephone Co-op.,Inc. v.F.C.C.,402 F.3d 205,211 (2005). Nevertheless,we address them in this analysis. 133 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 complete so as to trigger the presumptively reasonable timeframes for local and State review of siting applications under the 2009 Declaratory Ruling, and how the shot clock timeframes apply to local moratoria and DAS or small-cell facilities. These clarifications will eliminate many disputes under Section 332(c)(7),provide certainty about timing related to siting applications(including the time at which applicants may seek judicial relief), and preserve State and municipal governments' critical role in the siting application process. 7. Taken together,the actions we take in this Report and Order will enable more rapid deployment of vital wireless facilities, delivering broadband and wireless innovations to consumers across the country. At the same time,they will safeguard the environment,preserve historic properties,protect the interest of Tribal Nations in their ancestral lands and cultural legacies, and address municipalities' concerns over impacts to aesthetics and other local values. B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA 8. No commenters directly responded to the IRFA. Some commenters raised issues of particular relevance to small entities, and we address those issues in this FRFA. C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 9. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010,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. 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 Rules Will Apply 10. The RFA directs the Commission to provide a description of and,where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that will be affected by the rules,if adopted.10 The RFA generally defines the term"small entity"as having the same meaning as the terms"small business," "small organization,"and"small government jurisdiction."" In addition,the term"small business"has the same meaning as the term"small business concern"under the Small Business Act." 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.13 11. The Report and Order adopts rule changes regarding local and Federal regulation of the siting and deployment of communications towers and other wireless facilities. Due to the number and diversity of owners of such infrastructure and other responsible parties, including small entities that are Commission licensees as well as non-licensees,we classify and quantify them in the remainder of this section. 10 5 U.S.C. §603(b)(3). "Id. §601(6). 'Z Id. § 601(3)(incorporating by reference the definition of"small business concern"in 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." 5 U.S.C. §601(3). 13 15 U.S.C.§632. Application of the statutory criteria of dominance in its field of operation and independence are sometimes difficult to apply in the context of broadcast television. Accordingly,the Commission's statistical account of television stations may be over-inclusive. 134 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 12. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions Our action may, over time,affect a variety of small entities. To assist in assessing the Report and Order's effect on these entities,we describe three comprehensive categories—small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions—that encompass entities that could be directly affected by the rules we adopt.14 As of 2010,there were 27.9 million small businesses in the United States, according to the SBA.15 A"small organization"is generally"any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.,16 Nationwide,as of 2007,there were approximately 1,621,315 small organizations.17 Finally,the term"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.slS Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that there were 89,527 governmental jurisdictions in the United States.19 We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as"small governmental jurisdictions."20 Thus,we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small. 13. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellites The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: "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 phone services, paging services,wireless Internet access, and wireless video services."21 The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless Telecommunications Carriers(except Satellite). In this category, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.2' For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.23 Of this total, 1,368 firms had 24 employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or more. 14 See 5 U.S.C. §601(3)-(6). 15 See Small Business Administration,Office of Advocacy,"Frequently Asked Questions,"available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/FAQ_Sept 2012.pdf. 16 5 U.S.C. §601(4). 17 INDEPENDENT SECTOR,THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC&DESK REFERENCE(2010). 's 5 U.S.C. §601(5). 19 U.S.CENSUS BUREAU,STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES:2011,Table 426(2007). 20 The 2007 U.S.Census data for small governmental organizations are not presented based on the size of the population in each such organization.There were 89,476 local governmental organizations in 2007.If we assume that county,municipal,township,and school district organizations are more likely than larger governmental organizations to have populations of 50,000 or less,the total of these organizations is 52,095.As a basis of estimating how many of these 89,476 local government organizations were small,in 2011,we note that there were a total of 715 cities and towns(incorporated places and minor civil divisions)with populations over 50,000. CITY AND TOWN TOTALS:VINTAGE 2011—U.S.Census Bureau,available at http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/index.html. If we subtract the 715 cities and towns that meet or exceed the 50,000 population threshold,we conclude that approximately 88,761 are small. U.S.CENSUS BUREAU,STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES:2011,Tables 426,427(data cited therein are from 2007). 21 U.S.Census Bureau,2012 NAICS Definitions:517210 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers(except Satellite), http://www.census.gov/cai-bin/ss sd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2012. 22 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS code 517210). 23 U.S.Census Bureau,Table No.EC0751 SSSZ5,Information•Subject Series-Establishment and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the United States:2007(NAICS code 517210), http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/productview.xlitml?pid=ECN 2007 US 51SSSZ5. 24 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees;the largest category provided is for firms with 1000 employees or more. 135 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 According to Commission data,413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony,including cellular service,PCS,and Specialized Mobile Radio(SMR)telephony services.25 Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees 26 Consequently,the Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small. Thus,using available data,we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small. 14. 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.27 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.28 There are a variety of methods used to license the spectrum in these rule parts,from licensing by rule,to conditioning operation on successful completion of a required test,to site-based licensing,to geographic area licensing. Under the RFA,the Commission is required to make a determination of which small entities are directly affected by the rules we adopt. Since all such entities are wireless,we apply the definition of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers(except Satellite),pursuant to which a small entity is defined as employing 1,500 or fewer persons 29 Many of the licensees in these services are individuals, and thus are 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 under an SBA definition that might be directly affected by the Report and Order. 15. Public Safety Radio Services. Public safety radio services include police,fire,local government,forestry conservation,highway maintenance,and emergency medical services. There are a total of approximately 127,540 licensees within these services. Governmental entities30 as well as private businesses comprise the licensees for these services. All governmental entities in jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000 fall within the definition of a small entity.s' 16. Private Land Mobile Radio. Private Land Mobile Radio(PLMR)systems serve an essential role in a range of industrial,business, land transportation, and public safety activities. These radios are used by companies of all sizes operating in all U.S.business categories that operate and maintain 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 phone services,paging services,wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.32 The SBA has not developed a definition of small entity specifically applicable to PLMR licensees due to the vast array of PLMR users. However,the Commission believes that the most appropriate classification for 25 See Federal Communications Commission, Trends in Telephone Service(Sep.20 10)at Table 5.3,available at hiip://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf(Trends in Telephone Service). 26 See id. 27 47 C.F.R.Part 90. 28 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 C.F.R. Part 95. 2913 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS Code 517210. 30 47 C.F.R. § 1.1162. 31 5 U.S.C. §601(5)-(6). 32 http://www.census.eov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2007%20NAICS%2OSearch. 136 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 PLMR is Wireless Communications Carriers(except satellite). The size standard for that category is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees33 For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 11,163 establishments that operated for the entire year.34 Of this total, 10,791 establishments had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 372 had employment of 1000 employees or more.35 Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard,the Commission estimates that the majority of PLMR licensees are small entities that may be affected by our action.36 17. Similarly,according to Commission data,413 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony,including cellular service,PCS, and SMR telephony services 37 Of these,an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees38 Consequently,the Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small. Thus,using available data,we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be considered small. 18. The Commission's 1994 Annual Report on PLMRs39 indicates that at the end of fiscal year 1994 there were 1,087,267 licensees operating 12,481,989 transmitters in the PLMR bands below 512 MHz. Because any entity engaged in a commercial activity is eligible to hold a PLMR license,the rules we adopt could potentially impact every small business in the United States. 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,the Commission defines"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 40 "Very small business"is defined as an entity that,together with its affiliates,has average annual gross revenues of not more than$3 million over the preceding three calendar years. 1 The SBA has approved these definitions. 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. 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 indicates that,as 33 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS Code 517210. 34 U.S.Census Bureau,Subject Series':Information,Table 5,"Establishment and Firm Size:Employment Size of Firms for the United States:2007 NAICS Code 517210"(issued Nov.2010). 3s See htW://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN 2007 US 51SSSZ2&prod ge=table. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees;the largest category provided is for firms with"1000 employees or more." 36 See id. 37 See Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3. 38 See id. 39 Federal Communications Commission,60th Annual Report,Fiscal Year 1994. ao See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems,WT Docket No.97-81,Report and Order, 15 FCC Red 11956, 12008 para. 123 (2000). al Id. 42 See Letter from Aida Alvarez,Administrator,Small Business Administration,to Thomas Sugrue,Chief,Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,FCC(June 4, 1999). 137 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 of April 16,2010, of the 11,653 total MAS station authorizations, 10,773 authorizations were for private radio service. In addition, an auction for 5,104 MAS licenses in 176 EAs was conducted in 2001.as 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. 20. With respect to the second category,which 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 applicable definition of small entity in this instance appears to be the"Wireless Telecommunications Carriers(except satellite)"definition under the SBA rules.44 Under that SBA category,a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.45 For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 11,163 establishments that operated for the entire year.46 Of this total, 10,791 establishments had employment of 99 or fewer employees and 372 had employment of 100 employees or more.47 Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard,the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers(except satellite)are small entities that may be affected by our action.as 21. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Broadband Radio Service systems—previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service(MDS)and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Service 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).41 In connection with the 1996 BRS auction,the Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average annual gross revenues of no more than$40 million over the previous three calendar years.50 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. We previously estimated that of the 61 small business BRS auction winners,based on our review of licensing records,48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 43 See"Multiple Address Systems Spectrum Auction Closes,"Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21011 (2001). 44 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS Code 517210. 45 Id. 46 U.S.Census Bureau,Subject Series:Information,Table 5,"Establishment and Firm Size:Employment Size of Firms for the United States:2007 NAICS Code 517210"(issued Nov.2010). 47 See http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN 2007 US 51SSSZ2&prod Type--table. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer employees;the largest category provided is for firms with"100 employees or more." 48 See id. 49 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 3090)of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding,MM Docket No.94-131,PP Docket No.93-253,Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9593 para.7(1995). So 47 C.F.R. §21.961(b)(1)(1996). 138 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 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." 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's rules or the Commission's rules. In 2009,the Commission conducted Auction 86,which involved the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas.52 The Commission established three small business size standards that were used in Auction 86: (i)an entity with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceeded$15 million and did not exceed$40 million for the preceding three years was considered a small business; (ii)an entity with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceeded$3 million and did not exceed$15 million for the preceding three years was considered a very small business;and(iii)an entity with attributed average annual gross revenues that did not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years was considered an entrepreneur.53 Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses.54 Of the 10 winning bidders,two bidders that claimed small business status won four licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses;and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses. We note that, as a general matter,the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. 22. In addition,the SBA's placement of Cable Television Distribution Services in the category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is applicable to cable-based educational broadcasting services. Since 2007,Wired Telecommunications Carriers have been defined as follows: "This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice,data,text,sound,and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies."ss Establishments in this industry use the wired telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services,such as wired telephony services, including VoIP services;wired(cable)audio and video programming distribution; and wired broadband Internet services. Establishments providing satellite television distribution services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.56 The SBA has determined that a business in this category is a small business if it has 1,500 or fewer employees." Census data for 2007 shows that there were 3,188 firms in this category that operated for the duration of that years$ Of those,3,144 had fewer than 1000 employees,and 44 firms had more than 1000 employees. " 47 U.S.C. §3090). Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of Section 3090)of the Communications Act of 1934,47 U.S.C. §3090). For these pre-auction licenses,the applicable standard is SBA's small business size standard of 1500 or fewer employees. 52 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,AU Docket No. 09-56,Public Notice,24 FCC Rcd 8277(2009). ss Id. at 8296. sa 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). 55 U.S.Census Bureau,2012 NAICS Definitions:517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers, httn://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naies/naicsrch?code=5171 10&search=2012. 56 Id s�See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201 (NAICS code 517110). ss U.S.Census Bureau,Table No.EC0751 SSSZ5,Information-Subject Series-Establishment and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the United States:2007(NAICS code 517110), http://factfinder2.census.izov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN 2007 US SISSSZ5. 139 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard,the majority of such firms can be considered small. In addition to Census data,the Commission's Universal Licensing System indicates that as of July 2013,there are 2,236 active EBS licenses. The Commission estimates that of these 2,236 licenses,the majority are held by non-profit educational institutions and school districts,which are by statute defined as small businesses." 23. 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.60 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 61 These definitions have been approved by the SBA.62 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. 24. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category"comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting studios and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.i63 The SBA has created the following small business size standard for such businesses: those having$38.5 million or less in annual receipts 64 The 2007 U.S.Census indicates that 2,076 television stations operated in that year. Of that number, 1,515 had annual receipts of$10,000,000 dollars or less, and 561 had annual receipts of more than$10,000,000. Since the Census has no additional classifications on the basis of which to identify the number of stations whose receipts exceeded$38.5 million in that year,the Commission concludes that the majority of television stations were small under the applicable SBA size standard. 25. Apart from the U.S. Census,the Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,387.65 In addition, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Advisory Services,LLC's Media Access Pro Television Database on March 28,2012,about 950 of an estimated 1,300 commercial television stations(or approximately 73 percent)had revenues of$14 million or less.66 We therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities. s9 The term"small entity"within SBREFA applies to small organizations(nonprofits)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). 6° 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 C.F.R. §90.1103. 61 Id. 62 See Letter from Aida Alvarez,Administrator,Small Business Administration to Thomas J.Sugrue,Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,FCC(Feb.22, 1999). 63 U.S.Census Bureau,2012 NAICS Definitions,"515120 Television Broadcasting,"at http://www.census.gov./cgi- bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch. 64 13 C.F.R. § 121.201;2012 NAICS code 515120. 65 See Broadcast Station Totals as of June 30, 2014,Press Release(MB rel.July 9,2014)("July 9, 2014 Broadcast Station Totals Press Release"),at hlWs://apps.fcc.gov/edocs public/attachmatch/DOC-328096A1.pdf. 66 We recognize that BIA's estimate differs slightly from the FCC total given supra. 140 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 26. We note,however,that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition,business(control)affiliations67 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, an element of the definition of"small business"is that the 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 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 to that extent. 27. In addition,the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational(NCE)television stations to be 395.68 These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small entities.69 28. There are also 2,414 LPTV stations, including Class A stations, and 4,046 TV translator stations.7' 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. 29. Radio Broadcastinz. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small business if it has no more than$35.5 million in annual receipts.71 Business concerns included in this category are those "primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public."72 According to review of the BIA Publications,Inc.Master Access Radio Analyzer Database as of November 26,2013,about 11,331 (or about 99.9 percent)of 11,341 commercial radio stations have revenues of$38.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The Commission notes,however,that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above definition,revenues from business(control)affiliations73 must be included. This estimate,therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected,because the revenue figure on which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. 30. In addition, an element of the definition of"small business"is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. The Commission is unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific radio station is dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may apply does not exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on this basis and therefore may be over-inclusive to that extent. Also,as noted, an additional element of the definition of"small business"is that the entity must be independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it can be difficult to assess this criterion in the context of media entities and the estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent. 31. FM translator stations and low power FM stations. The rules and clarifications we adopt could affect licensees of FM translator and booster stations and low power FM(LPFM)stations, as well 67"[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 to power to control both." 13 C.F.R. §21.103(a)(1). 68 See July 9, 2014 Broadcast Station Totals Press Release. 69 See,generally,5 U.S.C. §§601(4),(6). 70 See FCC News Release,Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31,2013(rel.January 8,2014), http://transition.fcc. ovg_/Daily Releases/Daily Business/2014/db0108/DOC-325039A1.pdf. 71 13 C.F.R§ 121.201,2012 NAICS code 515112. 72 U.S.Census Bureau,2012 NAILS Definitions: 515112 Radio Broadcasting,http://www.census.gov/cgi- bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=515112&search=2012. 73 See n.14. 141 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 as potential licensees in these radio services. The same SBA definition that applies to radio broadcast licensees would apply to these stations. The SBA defines a radio broadcast station as a small business if such station has no more than$38.5 million in annual receipts 74 Currently,there are approximately 6,155 licensed FM translator and booster stations and 864 licensed LPFM stations.75 Given the nature of these services,we will presume that all of these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. 32. 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.76 These definitions were approved by the SBA." 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.78 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.79 33. Satellite Telecommunications. Two economic census categories address the satellite industry. Both establish a small business size standard of$32.54 million or less in annual receipts.80 34. The first category, "Satellite Telecommunications,""comprises establishments 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.s81 Census Bureau data for 2007 show that 607 Satellite Telecommunications establishments operated for that entire year.82 Of this total, 533 had annual receipts of under$10 million, and 74 establishments had receipts of$10 million or more.B3 Consequently,the 74 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS Code 515112. 75 See News Release,"Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31,2009"(rel.Feb.26,2010),available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edoes public/attachmatch/DOC-296538A1.pdf269784Al.doc. 76 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,ET Docket No.98-206,Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614,9711 para.252(2002). 77 See Letter from Hector V.Barreto,Administrator,U.S. Small Business Administration,to Margaret W.Wiener, Chief,Auctions and Industry Analysis Division,Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,FCC(Feb. 13,2002). 78 See"Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Spectrum Auction Closes,"Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 1834(2004). 79 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). 80 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS Codes 517410,517919. $' U.S.Census Bureau,2007 NAICS Definition,517410 Satellite Telecommunications. 82 See http:Hfactfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/isf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN 2007 US 51SSSZ1&prod Type--table. ss See id. 142 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action. 35. The second category,"All Other Telecommunications,"comprises"establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry,and radar station operation. 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. Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet protocol(VoIP)services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry."84 For this category, Census data for 2007 shows that there were a total of 2,639 establishments that operated for the entire year.85 Of those,2,333 operated with annual receipts of less than$10 million and 306 with annual receipts of$10 million or more.86 Consequently,the Commission estimates that a majority of All Other Telecommunications establishments are small entities that might be affected by our action. 36. Non-Licensee Tower Owners. 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 on FCC Form 854.87 Thus,non- licensee tower owners may be subject to the environmental notification requirements associated with ASR registration,and may benefit from the exemption for certain temporary antenna structures that we adopt in the Report and Order. In addition,non-licensee tower owners may be affected by our interpretations of Section 6409(a)of the Spectrum Act or by our revisions to our interpretation of Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act.88 37. As of September 5, 2014,the ASR database includes approximately 116,643 registration records reflecting a"Constructed"status and 13,972 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.89 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 we adopt. 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,and that nearly all of these qualify as small businesses under the SBA's definition for"All 84 See b=://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517919&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search. 85 See htt.p:Hfactfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN 2007 US 51SSSZ4&_prod Tae--table. "See id. 87 47 C.F.R. §§ 17.4(a), 17.7(a)-(b). 88 See supra,Sections IV,V. 89 We note,however,that approximately 13,000 towers are registered to 10 cellular carriers with 1,000 or more employees. 143 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Other Telecommunications."90 In addition,there may be other non-licensee owners of other wireless infrastructure, including DAS and small cells,that might be affected by the regulatory measures we adopt. We do not have any basis for estimating the number of such non-licensee owners that are small entities. E. Description of Projected Reporting,Recordkeeping,and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities 38. This Report and Order adopts a narrow exemption from the Commission's requirement that owners of proposed towers requiring ASR registration provide 30 days of national and local notice to give members of the public an opportunity to comment on the proposed tower's potential environmental effects. The exemption from the notice requirements applies only to applicants seeking to register temporary antenna structures meeting certain criteria that greatly reduce the likelihood of any significant environmental effects. Specifically,proposed towers exempted from the Commission's local and national environmental notification requirement are those that(i)will be in use for 60 days or less, (ii)require notice of construction to the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA),(iii)do not require marking or lighting pursuant to FAA regulations,(iv)will be less than 200 feet in height,and(v)will involve minimal or no excavation. 39. As noted above,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 on FCC Form 854.91 An applicant seeking to claim the temporary towers exemption from the environmental notification process must indicate on its FCC Form 854 that it is claiming the exemption for a new,proposed temporary tower and demonstrate that the proposed tower satisfies the applicable criteria.92 While small entities must comply with these requirements in order to take advantage of the exemption, on balance,the relief from compliance with local and national environmental notification requirements provided by the exemption greatly reduces burdens and economic impacts on small entities. 40. The applicant may seek an extension of the exemption from the Commission's local and national environmental notification requirement of up to sixty days through another filing of Form 854, if the applicant can demonstrate that the extension of the exemption period is warranted due to changed circumstances or information that emerged after the exempted tower was deployed. The exemption adopted in this Report and Order is intended specifically for proposed towers that are intended and expected to be deployed for no more than 60 days, and the option to apply for an extension is intended only for cases of unforeseen or changed circumstances or information. Small entities,like all applicants, are expected to seek extensions of the exemption period only rarely and therefore,any burdens or economic impacts incurred by applying for such extensions should be minimal. F. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,and Significant Alternatives Considered 41. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in developing 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)the clarification,consolidation,or simplification of compliance and 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 90 13 C.F.R. § 121.201,NAICS Code 517919. Under this category,a business is small if it has$30 million or less in annual receipts. 91 47 C.F.R. §§ 17.4(a), 17.7(a)-(b). 92 See 47 C.F.R. § 17.4(c)(vii). 144 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 entities.s93 This FRFA incorporates by reference all discussion in the Report and Order that considers the impact on small entities of the rules adopted by the Commission. In addition,the Commission's consideration of those issues as to which the impact on small entities was specifically discussed in the record is summarized below. 42. The actions taken in this Report and Order encourage and promote the deployment of advanced wireless broadband and other services by tailoring the regulatory review of new wireless network infrastructure consistent with the law and the public interest. We anticipate that the steps taken in this Report and Order will not impose any significant economic impacts on small entities,and will in fact help reduce burdens on small entities by reducing the cost and delay associated with the deployment of such infrastructure. 43. In this Report and Order,the Commission takes action in four major areas relating to the regulation of wireless facility siting and construction. In each area,the rules we adopt and clarifications we make will not increase burdens or costs on small entities. To the contrary,our actions will reduce costs and burdens associated with deploying wireless infrastructure. 44. First,we adopt measures with regard to our NEPA process for review of environmental effects regarding wireless broadband deployment that should reduce existing regulatory costs for small entities that construct or deploy wireless infrastructure, and will not impose any additional costs on such entities. Specifically,we clarify that the existing NEPA categorical exclusion for antenna collocations on buildings and towers includes equipment associated with the antennas(such as wiring, cabling,cabinets, or backup-power), and that it also covers collocations in a building's interior. We also expand the NEPA collocation categorical exclusion to cover collocations on structures other than buildings and towers, and adopt a new NEPA categorical exclusion for deployments, including deployments of new poles,in utility or communications rights-of-way that are in active use for such purposes,where the deployment does not constitute a substantial increase in size over the existing utility or communications uses. We also adopt measures concerning our Section 106 process for review of impact on historic properties. First,we adopt certain exclusions from Section 106 review, and we clarify that the existing exclusions for certain collocations on buildings under the Commission's programmatic agreements extend to collocations inside buildings.These new exclusions and clarifications will reduce environmental compliance costs of small entities by providing that eligible proposed deployments of small wireless facilities do not require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment. 45. Second,we adopt an exemption from the Commission's requirement that ASR applicants must provide local and national environmental notification prior to submitting a completed ASR application for certain temporary antenna structures meeting criteria that makes them unlikely to have significant environmental effects. Specifically,we exempt antenna structures that(1)will be in place for 60 days or less;(2)require notice of construction to the FAA; (3)do not require marking or lighting under FAA regulations;(4)will be less than 200 feet above ground level; and(5)will involve minimal or no ground excavation. This exemption will reduce the burden on wireless broadband providers and other wireless service providers, including small entities. 46. Third,we adopt several rules to clarify and implement the requirements of Section 6409(a)of the Spectrum Act. In interpreting the statutory terms of this provision, such as"wireless tower or base station,""transmission equipment,"and"substantially change the physical dimensions,"we generally do not distinguish between large and small entities,as the statute provides no indication that such distinctions were intended, and such distinctions have been proposed. Further,these clarifications will help limit potential ambiguities within the rule and thus reduce the burden associated with complying with this statutory provision,including the burden on small entities. Generally,however,we clarify that Section 6409(a)applies only to State and local governments acting in their regulatory role and does not apply to such entities acting in their proprietary capacities. 93 5 U.S.C.§603(c). 145 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 47. With regard to the process for reviewing an application under Section 6409(a),we provide that a State or local government may only require applicants to provide documentation that is reasonably related to determining whether the eligible facility request meets the requirements of Section 6409(a)and that,within 60 days from the date of filing(accounting for tolling), a State or local government shall approve an application covered by Section 6409(a). Where a State or local government fails to act on an application covered under Section 6409(a)within the requisite time period,the application is deemed granted. Parties may bring claims under Section 6409(a)to a court of competent jurisdiction. We decline to entertain such disputes in a Commission adjudication,which would impose significant burdens on localities,many of which are small entities with no representation in Washington, D.C. or experience before the Commission. Limiting relief to court adjudication lessens the burden on applicants in general,and small entities specifically. 48. Lastly,we adopt clarifications of our 2009 Declaratory Ruling,which established the time periods after which a State or local government has presumptively failed to act on a facilities siting application"within a reasonable period of time"under Section 332(c)(7)of the Act. Specifically,we clarify that the timeframe begins to run when an application is first submitted,not when it is deemed complete by the reviewing government. Further, a determination of incompleteness tolls the shot clock only if the State or local government provides notice to the applicant in writing within 30 days of the application's submission, specifically delineating all missing information. Following a submission in response to a determination of incompleteness, any subsequent determination that an application remains incomplete must be based solely on the applicant's failure to supply missing information that was identified within the first 30 days. These clarifications will provide greater certainty in the application process and reduce the potential or need for serial requests for more information. Accordingly,these clarifications will facilitate faster application processing,reduce unreasonable delay,and reduce the burden on regulated entities, including small businesses. 49. We also clarify that to the extent DAS or small-cell facilities,including third-party facilities such as neutral host DAS deployments, are or will be used for the provision of personal wireless services,their siting applications are subject to the same presumptively reasonable timeframes that apply to applications related to other personal wireless service facilities under Section 332(c)(7). We clarify further that the presumptively reasonable timeframes run regardless of any applicable moratoria, and that municipal property preferences are not per se unreasonably discriminatory or otherwise unlawful under Section 332(c)(7). Finally,we conclude that the explicit remedies under Section 332(c)(7)preclude adoption of a deemed granted remedy for failures to act. These clarifications reduce confusion and delay within the siting process which in turn reduces the burden on industry and State and local jurisdictions alike,which may include small entities. G. Federal Rules that Might Duplicate,Overlap,or Conflict with the Rules 50. None. H. Report to Congress 51. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA(or summaries thereof)will also be published in the Federal Register. I. Report to Small Business Administration 52. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,Reference Information Center,will send a copy of this Report and Order, including this FRFA,to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. 146 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN TOM WHEELER Re. In the Matter ofAcceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, WTDocket No. 13-238;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, WC Docket No. 11-59;2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations, WT Docket No. 13-32. Last month's record-setting launch of the new iPhone is just the latest reminder that our appetite for new mobile technologies appears to be insatiable. Mobile innovation is not only delighting U.S. consumers,it's a major force in driving economic growth,boosting U.S.competitiveness,and enabling solutions to challenges like education and health care. As the demand for wireless technologies increases,so does the need for greater coverage and wireless network capacity. According to recent reports from the wireless industry,wireless data consumption has grown 732 percent since 2010. And Cisco forecasts that global mobile data traffic will increase 11-fold between 2013 and 2018. The Commission has been hard at work to make more licensed and unlicensed spectrum available to keep up with the growing demand. But making more spectrum available for broadband is just part of the Commission's wireless agenda. High-speed mobile broadband also requires high-speed broadband buildout. However,the regulatory burdens associated with deployments can be expensive and time-consuming. This Order takes concrete steps to immediately and substantially ease those burdens. The Order recognizes that a technological revolution with regard to infrastructure deployment has changed the landscape. The current rules for deploying infrastructure were drafted at a time when antennas were huge and bolted to the top of enormous towers that were designed and built for the purpose of supporting those big antennas. Today,new Distributed Antenna System(DAS)networks and other small-cell systems use components that are a fraction of the size and can be installed—unobtrusively—on utility poles, buildings,and other existing structures. The Order we adopt today accounts for that change by crafting a more efficient process for small deployments and other installations that do not trigger concerns about environmental protection or historic preservation. The Order also implements federal statutory directives that are intended to make State and local review more efficient for wireless deployments and modifications. At the same time,the Order preserves our commitment to safeguard the essential roles that State,local, and Tribal governments play in this process. For instance,the Order preserves local governments' authority to adopt and apply the zoning,safety, and concealment requirements that are appropriate for their communities. 147 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 Taken together,the rules we adopt today lay the groundwork for delivering more wireless capacity in more locations to consumers throughout the United States—while staying true to our statutory obligations to protect the environment and historic properties, and with sufficient safeguards to protect local land-use priorities as well as safety and aesthetic interests. This Order builds on previous Commission efforts to make the regulatory approval processes for wireless infrastructure more efficient and effective. In August,we substantially reformed tower lighting and marking requirements,which greatly eased compliance burdens for tower owners without any adverse impact on aviation safety. And we have already started additional discussions with government and non-governmental stakeholders to further facilitate review processes and encourage collocations on existing towers. In particular,we intend to further tailor our historic preservation review process by working with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation(ACNP)to implement broader fast-track federal reviews for small-scale wireless deployments. Thank you to the Wireless Bureau for your continued dedication to promoting broadband infrastructure deployment. 148 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN Re: In the Matter ofAcceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, WT Docket No. 13-238;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, WC Docket No. 11-59;2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations, WT Docket No. 13-32. When considering how best to help wireless companies meet the explosive consumer demand for mobile services,the FCC focuses a lot on its upcoming AWS-3 and incentive auctions. The reality is that,in order to meet our ever growing communications needs,carriers cannot just acquire spectrum. They must also deploy that spectrum using a hardened,robust mobile infrastructure,which includes antennas and base stations. Too often,the process of obtaining the necessary approvals from federal, state, and local governments to deploy can be both expensive and time-consuming. Today's Order seeks to address these shortcomings by bringing about more efficiency to the process of approving wireless facilities. Since 1974,the FCC's environmental and historical review procedures have excluded collocations of antennas from most of the requirements,recognizing the benefits of using existing structures over constructing new ones. Today, in order to facilitate faster deployment of wireless infrastructure,we expand that categorical exclusion to include: equipment associated with the antennas(such as wires,cables, and backup-power equipment), utility poles and electric transmission towers that meet certain conditions, and collocations within a building. We also adopt a 60-day period of review,before a collocation application can be deemed granted,pursuant to Section 6409(a)of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. I was able to support this time period for two reasons. First,my colleagues agreed to move the effective date for the rules adopted here,from 30 days to 90 days after Federal Register publication. Second, last night, CTIA and PCIA agreed to make a number of commitments that could help resource constrained municipalities,transition to the new streamlined rules we are adopting today. Specifically,those associations will work in good faith towards the following goals: Informing resource-constrained municipalities of best practices,used by other jurisdictions that are able to review and approve applications in fewer than 60 days; Providing webinars and contacts to provide education and assistance,to these municipalities regarding the application process; Providing assistance in drafting a model ordinance and application,for reviewing eligible facilities requests under Section 6409(a);and Creating a checklist,that local government officials can use,to help streamline review processes. I commend those organizations for making those commitments. By making these changes to our rules,we anticipate spurring greater deployment of new technologies, such as small cells and Distributed Antenna Systems,which multiply wireless capacity within existing spectrum resources. For example, deploying ten small cells in a coverage area that can be served by a single macrocell could result in a tenfold increase in capacity. Small cells can also be deployed relatively easily on utility poles,street lamps,water towers,or rooftops--a big reason why they are becoming so popular. We also adopt an exemption from the rule,that tower owners must give the public 30 days' notice to comment on a proposed tower's potential effects to the environment and to historic sites. This exemption 149 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 applies only to proposed temporary towers that meet certain criteria. Specifically,those towers must be in use for 60 days or less;be shorter than 200 feet in height; involve minimal or no excavation;and not require FAA marking or lighting. This exemption will allow communications companies,to respond more effectively to emergencies,and other planned and unplanned short-term spikes in demand. Finally,I wish to thank Roger Sherman, Chad Breckinridge,Patty Robbins,Peter Trachtenberg,Won Kim,Mania Baghdadi,and Michael Smith as well as my wireless legal advisor Louis Peraertz for providing us with such an excellent item. 150 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL Re: In the Matter ofAcceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, WTDocketNo. 13-238;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, WC Docket No. 11-59;2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations, WT Docket No. 13-32. If you want a wireless revolution,you need an evolution—in infrastructure. Mindful of this truth,today the Commission significantly evolves its policies for wireless facilities siting. That means we streamline many aspects of our tower siting rules to help encourage the deployment of wireless infrastructure. But what we do goes well beyond traditional towers. That's because the rules we put in place today are our first steps to encourage deployment of infrastructure that is absolutely critical for the next generation of wireless service-5G. This is a good thing. Because the race to 5G is on. And in the next generation of wireless networks, traffic will change. We will see more data traveling wirelessly than ever before—between people, between people and machines,and between machines themselves. To accommodate all of this traffic,we will need to look anew at spectrum that is way,way up there—well beyond our traditional 3 GHz boundary for mobile broadband. But the physics of these far-off frequencies are different. They have smaller waves,multiplying our need for antenna systems. That means we need different infrastructure here on the ground. That means exploring new technologies like massive multiple-input,multiple output antenna arrays and hetnets that could change how we think about network topology. That means we need to start with new policies to support deployment of Distributed Antenna Systems and small cells. That is a critical part of what we do here today—and I am pleased to support it. Some revolutions begin with a bang—but this one starts with the heavy lift of hard work. So thank you to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau for your efforts to evolve our wireless siting policies and for your commitment to support infrastructure deployment—both in this generation of technology and the next. 151 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER AJIT PAI Re: In the Matter ofAcceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, WT Docket No. 13-238;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, WC Docket No. 11-59;2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations, WT Docket No. 13-32. Removing barriers to wireless infrastructure deployment has been one of my top priorities since joining the Commission. Two years ago,I laid out a plan to do just that. It called on the Commission to modernize our environmental and historic preservation rules by exempting most distributed antenna systems(DAS)and small cell technologies, curb local moratoria on the approval of new infrastructure, and make clear that our shot-clock rules apply to DAS and small cells.' Five months ago,I reiterated those proposals and urged the Commission to adopt a deemed-granted remedy for violations of section 6409 of the Spectrum Act and objective standards for determining the types of modifications that qualify for treatment under that section? Now,I'll be the first to admit that infrastructure isn't always the most glamorous issue. Discussing categorical exclusions under the National Environmental Policy Act isn't as exciting as thinking about multi-billion dollar spectrum auctions. But wireless infrastructure is just as important as spectrum. Consider one figure: $35 billion. That's how much,on average,wireless operators are expected to invest on an annual basis in mobile broadband infrastructure.' That translates into hundreds of towers, thousands of base stations, and a vast network of microcells,picocells, and DAS. And with today's Order,we're going to stretch those dollars farther. That will mean broader coverage,greater capacity, and ultimately better wireless broadband services for consumers. It's a simple relationship,really. Lower costs mean greater deployment. But for far too long and in far too many places,a web of municipal, state,and federal regulations has entangled those trying to build infrastructure. Delays,needless paperwork, and moratoria all mean higher costs and accordingly less deployment. Additionally,many of these regulations ignore the realities of modern wireless technology, so some places apply the rules for constructing a 200-foot tower to swapping out a 3G antenna for a 4G one. That disserves the public interest. And if left in place,rules like this could delay the use of the AWS-3 and 600 MHz spectrum we'll soon be auctioning off and slow the build-out of FirstNet. That's why I'm pleased we're removing some of these barriers today, and I'm grateful that the Order includes many of my initial proposals. For example,the Order amends our environmental and historic preservation rules to make it easier to deploy small cells and collocate antennas on existing structures. The Order also makes it clear that our shot-clock rules apply to small cells and DAS and that local moratoria cannot be used to make an end run around those rules. And it adopts a bright-line test for determining which equipment modifications qualify for section 6409's deemed-grant remedy and makes clear that an applicant can start building on day 61 if a municipality doesn't act on its application. 'See Remarks of Commissioner Ajit Pai at CTIA's MobileCon(2012),http://go.usa.gov/wMG9. 2 See Remarks of Commissioner Ajit Pai at PCIA's 2014 Wireless Infrastructure Show(2014), https:Happs.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-327172AI.pdf. 'Alan Pearce,Ph.D.,J.Richard Carlson,MBA,Michael Pagano,Ph.D., Wireless Broadband Infrastructure A Catalyst For GDP And Job Growth 2013-2017(Sept.2013). 152 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 These are no small changes. American consumers stand to benefit in a big way. Today's Order will make it easier for carriers both large and small to maintain,upgrade,and expand their coverage and capacity. I would also like to thank my colleagues for agreeing to accept some of my suggested changes that have improved the item. For example,the Order now provides greater relief to those seeking to deploy small-scale technology by expanding the permitted size of collocations that qualify under the categorical exclusions we adopt today. Similarly,the Order now provides that cabling and other non-telecom equipment do not count against providers when they collocate on a utility structure. And I appreciate the Order's discussion of the benefit of injunctive relief in cases where localities don't comply with the Commission's shot clock. I also would like to thank Commissioner O'Rielly in particular for the important role he played in securing other positive changes to the item. Critically,the actions we take today lie well within our statutory authority. For example,in both section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act and section 6409 of the Spectrum Act,Congress has clearly and specifically granted the Commission the power to remove barriers to wireless infrastructure deployment. Moving forward,there is more to be done. In 18 to 24 months—but I hope sooner—we'll have a new programmatic agreement that will further streamline the process for deploying small cell technologies. And once we have some experience in the field with a deemed-granted remedy for infrastructure deployment,I hope we consider extending that remedy to our section 332 shot clock. But this does not obscure the fact that today's Order is a solid step in the right direction. Finally,I would like to thank the FCC's talented staff for all of their hard work on this item,most especially:Mania Baghdadi, Chad Breckinridge, Saurbh Chhabra,Monica DeLong, Stephen Delsordo, Jennifer Flynn,Ivy Harris,David Horowitz,Don Johnson,Aliza Katz,Won Kim,Lee Martin, Sade Oshinubi,Bill Richardson,Patty Robbins,Roger Sherman,Michael Smith,Jeff Steinberg,Joel Taubenblatt,Pdter Trachtenberg,and Morasha Younger. I also want to acknowledge the dedicated efforts that PCIA,CTIA,and many players in the infrastructure industry have made to bring these issues to the fore. Finding ways to make it easier to deploy wireless infrastructure is not the easiest of tasks,but it is essential so that all Americans can enjoy the benefits of wireless broadband. 153 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O'RIELLY Re: In the Matter ofAcceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, WT Docket No. 13-238;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, WC Docket No. 11-59,2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations, WT Docket No. 13-32. I am very pleased to support the item before us to facilitate the deployment of wireless infrastructure. It is disappointing,however,that we had to go to such great lengths to get where we are today. But that is not a slight on the Chairman or the Commission. By way of background, section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was designed to ensure a thoughtful process to deal with disagreements between local and state governments and wireless communications providers.' Many weeks of negotiations between interested parties resulted in a statutory provision that many thought provided a reasonable compromise and outcome. It balanced the market demands of wireless companies—and their then predominately voice consumers—with the interests of localities. Unfortunately, as soon as the ink was dry on the Telecom Act, some state and local governments went to work to undermine,and in some cases, completely ignore the siting provisions in the statute. The same entities that previously struck a deal continued to impede the placement of wireless towers in their jurisdictions. We saw some impose siting moratoria, claiming that such restrictions were not a violation of the statute. We saw certain localities stretch out zoning meetings for months,require excessive documentation, intentionally delay decisions, fail to provide written rejections based on the facts,and generally do everything possible to maintain barriers to siting. And the scope of the blocking did not just focus on larger or new towers; it also extended to adjustments or additions of antennas to existing towers. I have observed years of court filings and cases containing weak arguments as to why action on a particular siting application was unnecessary or not required. On point,the Supreme Court is expected to soon consider what qualifies as "in writing"under the statute and the timing for providing the reasons for denying an application! Is it really too much to ask for a locality to provide written justification for denying an application at the same time it provides the reasons for denying the application? Or for a locality to spell out the exact reasons for a denial? Must an applicant get a denial one day and be forced to fish through a record issued on another to find the reasons? Of course not. Such disruptive practices did not go unnoticed. After years of excuses, Congress acted as part of what is commonly referred to as the Spectrum Act.' The provisions of the law,which we act upon today, provide extensive responses to lessons learned from the practices of certain state and local governments. The overall message delivered was the gig is up. Congress provided what I believed to be very clear direction to remove barriers to the siting, installation and modification process. The benefits of today's item will be great, and our action is essential to the development of the future of wireless communications. As wireless data continues to grow annually at a furious pace,'more ' Telecommunications Act of 1996§704,47 U.S.C. §332(c)(7). 2 T-Mobile South,LLC v.City of Roswell,731 F.3d 1213(11`h Cir.2013),cert granted 134 S.Ct.2136(2014). 3 Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012§6409(a),47 U.S.C. § 1455. 'One wireless provider calculated its mobile data traffic growth at 30,000 percent between 2006 and 2012. HetNet Forum Seminar Presentation,Small Cell Acceleration,at 21 (July 29,2013),http://www.thedasforum.org/wp- (continued....) 154 Federal Communications Commission FCC 14-153 wireless infrastructure is needed to carry such traffic and deploy new wireless services.By removing specific practices that are unnecessary obstacles,simplifying numerous provisions in our rules and providing clarity on exactly how the Commission will implement the statutory provisions,we set the stage for an easier wireless antenna siting process. This will facilitate the hundreds of thousands of sitings in the future and greatly expand wireless service capacity and coverage. To put this in perspective, comments in the record by PCIA suggest that one provider is in the process of trying to deploy 10,000 new macro-cells,40,000 small cells and 1,000 distributed antenna systems(DAS).' Our action today is especially important for unlicensed spectrum use,and small cell and DAS siting. I have been promoting more unlicensed spectrum allocations in a number of spectrum bands. Licensed spectrum networks unload a large portion of traffic onto unlicensed networks,which also must receive approvals to place equipment. Small cell and DAS deployments are also crucial because they can expand capacity and coverage of existing wireless networks. The growth of unlicensed use and small cells means more wireless infrastructure is going to be needed. Simply put,we are going to need more towers and more antennas,and fewer legal obstacles by state and local governments. More importantly,we need to keep in mind the types of wireless communications that can be aided by our action. As we know from other proceedings,today's wireless devices are used to communicate in times of emergency,keep in touch with friends and families,expand broadband options for an array of people, among other purposes. The Commission must remain focused on the needs of the American consumer. Lastly, let me be clear that I see a great deal of difference between the action we take today and the effort to override state and local protections on municipal-owned and operated networks.The most important distinction is that Congress spoke directly to wireless infrastructure but not to muni-broadband. Over the years,there have been numerous efforts in Congress to address the muni-broadband issue,but those efforts were never enacted. I thank the Chairman for moving this item and incorporating many of my edits and the staff for all of their hard work. (Continued from previous page) content/uploads/2013/07/HetNet-Forum-Small-Cell-Acceleration-Seminar-Presentations.pdf,cited in Comments of PCIA—The Wireless Infrastructure Association and the HetNet Forum,WT Docket No. 13-238,at 3 n.7(Feb.3, 2014)("Comments of PCIA"). Mobile data traffic in the U.S.in 2013 was 51 times the amount in 2008. See Cisco, VNI Mobile Forecast Highlights, 2013-2018, United States—2013 Year in Review, http://www.cisco.com/assets/sol/sp/vni/forecast_highlights—mobile/index.html#-Country(filtering by United States and 2013 Year in Review)(last visited Oct. 16,2014). Annual wireless data usage more than doubled between 2012 and 2013 from approximately 1.47 trillion Megabytes to 3.23 trillion Megabytes. CTIA-The Wireless Association, Your Wireless Life,Annual Wireless Industry Survey,http://www.ctia.org/your-wireless-life/how-wireless- works/annual-wireless-industry-survey(last visited Oct. 16,2014). s Comments of PCIA at 3. 155 4 CENTEROCK ROAD WEST NYACK, NY 10994 ® psoo awz. : a APT ENGINEERING 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE PHONE:(860)-663-1697 KILLINGWORTH,CT 06419 FAX: (860)-663-0935 (.r. WWW.ALLPlOINTSTECH.COM r^„•. ^ APPROVALS I' � _�}{ LANDLORD:- DATE:'•:` RF ENGINEER: DATE: f -'• I+.I r� i* a.r ''�il 7 PERMITTING DO CUMENTS NO DATE REVISION ueeyL @o 6171LPi%},!FUL 0 09/26117 FOR REVIEW: SMC r` k j T G��I � I F 1 C �s r_ 1 09/291'87 ATTORNEY REVISIONS: SMC 2 10/13/17 RF REVISIONS:RCB A7 E L u uo Dvq U H u F 1�As I 6 opcup °le��.'y 3 U 7 uo ,+ 5 � 6 t COMPLY WITH ALL CODES Of j NEW YORK STATE & TOWN CODES AS REQUIRED ANQ�CONDITIONSOF / JJ $0 L „1TdA J HO � F ROAD SOUTHOLD TOV'N PLANIIV�G BOARDu u -— mmy 1194 p`� ftr7l 77"'y P'71'771771 Pr,Illrm 9 DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OF RECORD DRAWING INDEX SITE INFORMATION PR COOF: SCTT M. CHASEMP: APOENGINEERSNG P E at ADD: 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE T-1 TITLE SHEET & INDEX VZW SITE NAME: "CUTCHOGUE 2” KI'LLINGWORTH, CT 06419 `�P�r�, xt VZW LOCATION CODE: 171056 OWNER: VERIZON NEW YORK (F/K/A NEW YORK VZW PROJECT CODE: 02006159147 SP-1 SITE PLAN PROJECT LOCATION: 31775 MAIN ROAD, ADDRESS:PO BOX 10522060MPANY) CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 IRVING,TX 75015-2206 A-1 PLANS, ELEVATION & DETAILS as SITE SITE TYPE/DESCRIPTION: REMOVE (2) 10-FOOT DISH ANTENNAS FROM EXISTING MONOPOLE. INSTALL (12) NOTE: `t NEW PANEL ANTENNAS, (12) NEW RRH'S, (3) NEW MDB'S ON NEW 4 SIDED ITlS A ViO�LATION OF NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145,SECTION A-2 ANTENNA PLAN & DETAILS PLATFORM W/ QUAD BRACKET MOUNT ON EXIST. POLE. ADD (1) NEW TELCO 7209(2)FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS MESA CABINET TO NEW 20'-4"x32'-6" (660 SF) COMPOUND AREA W/ 8' CHAIN ACTING UINDER THE DIRECTION OF A S' Coster Heppner; LINK FENCE & GREEN PRIVACY SLATS AND EQUIPP,4ENT CABINETS, 10KW LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR a4 f'ur, ralIIrWNATURAL-GAS POWERED DC-GENERATOR & (4) GPS UNITS ON 10'x12' LAND ANY WAY.SURVEYOR, ANRTEM BEARING THE SEAL CONCRETE PAD W/ STEEL CANOPY. {4) EXISTING BOLLARDS TO REMAIN, ADD (6) OF AN ENIGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR IS I`ol tapirs NEW CONCRETE-FILLED BOLLARDS AROUND COMPOUND AREA. EXISTING ALTERED,,THE ALTERING ENGINEER OR I;i��I�c�N�n °, tl,, LAND SURVEYOR SHALL AFFIX TO THE FENCE TO BE FINISHED W/ GREEN PRIVACY SLATS. ITEM HIS SEAL AND THE NOTATION "ALTERED BY"FOLLOWED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER: VERIZON NEW YORK SIGNATURE AND THE DATE OF SUCH (F/K/A NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY) ALTERATIION,AND A SPECIFIC PO BOX 152206, IRVING, TX 75015-2206 DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION. r�.' VERIZON WIRELESS AT LEASING CONTACT: ROB MONTELEONE "CUTCHOGUE 2" XX (516) 316-4626 L._ SITE 31775 MAIN ROAD, CONSTRUCTION CONTACT: KENNY UHLL ADDRESS: CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 (631) 256-2108 APT FILING NUMBER: NY141300 ENGINEER CONTACT: ROBERT C. BURNS PROJECT CODE: 02006159147 (860) 663-1697 x206 LOCATION CODE: 171056 LATITUDE: 41° 01' 10.27" N ZVn�CM—KU DRAWN BY: RCB } LONGITUDE: 720 28' 48.49" W DATE: 09126!17 CHECKED BY: SMC ELEVATION: 15.78' N.G.V. DATUM 1988 _ DISTRICT: 1000 -_..,w... VICINITY MAP SECTION: 97 BLOCK: 5 SCALE:1" =500' LOTs: 11 SHEET TITLE: ZONING JURISDICTION: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONE: B (GENERAL BUSINESS) TITLE SHEET & INDEX APPLICANT: VZW PROJECT ATTORNEY: POWER/GAS PROVIDER: TELCO PROVIDER: DIG SAFELY NEW YORK: GOVERNING CODEs: SHEET NUMBER: o "F NkEn VERIZON AMATO LAW GROUP, PLLC PSE&G (800) 436-7734 VERIZON: (914) 741-8300 (800) 962-7962 2015 IBC W/ 2016 NYS UNIFORM CODE SUPPLEMENT �P�� M. C& X00%\. 4 CENTEROCK RD. ATTN: DENISE VISTA, ESQ. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE �� WEST NYACK, NY 10994 SUITE 901TIA-222-G 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD U.i GARDEN CITY NY 11530 , (516) 227-6363 -,n ,Q07860 �/s 1000-96-3-9 GREENHOUSE BULK TABLE LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF PHC REALTY LLC TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: - 31775 MAIN ROAD CUTCHOGUE, NY ZONE AC DISTRICT 1000, SECTION 97, ®_j in 4 CENTEROCK ROAD LOT 11: WEST NYACK, NY 10994 _� ® �©_1 �J-�. -� ®._1 �--1- !�'�, r"'� ��, � BLOCK 5 ZONE B ��, N 47706'20` E 12055' ZONED B (GENERAL BUSINESS) - ITEM: ALLOWABLE: EXISTING: NEW: WIRELESS COMM. FACILITY SPACE AREA(SF) 1,000 SF NA 120 SF APT ® TOWER HEIGHT(FT) 80' "90' NC ENGINEERING �- MAXIMUM HEIGHT (FT) (2) STORIES/35' 17± 9'-4°± 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE PHONE:(860)-663-1697 FRONT YARD (FT) 100' MAX 54'± NC KILLINGWORTH,CT 06419 FAX: (860)-663-0935 _ REAR YARD (PRIMARY/ACCESSORY F I� � )( T) 35' 5171± NC WWW.ALLPOIINTSTECH.COM N V O SIDE YARD (PRIMARY/ACCESSORY)(FT) 25' 42'± 35'±- APPROVALS WOODED O Z BOTH SIDE YARDS (FT) 50' 96'± 89'± LANDLORD: DATE: m MIN. LOT AREA(SF) 30,000 134,332 SF NC ® (T) MIN. LOT WIDTH (FT) 150' 200' NC RF ENGINEER: DATE: � MIN. LOT DEPTH (FT) 150' 651'± ' CD ^, - NC PERMITTING DOCUMENTS l J MAX. % LOT COVERAGE 30% 12.2% 12.5% NO DATE REVISION 0 09/26/17 FOR REVIEW: SMC w0 O Z 1 09/29/17 ATTORNEY REVISIONS: SMC 2 10/13/17 RF REVISIONS:RCB IM CE 3 EXISTING w STRUCTURE � Z 7; 00 Q EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY 5 o < m wQ NA = NOT APPLICABLE NC = NO CHANGE 6 SITE PLAN NOTES: ® QZ 1) PROPERTY OWNER: VERIZON OF NEW YORK x Z = (f/k/a 'NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY') QPO BOX 152206 IRVING, TX 75015-2206 I LIBRE 5743; PAGE 67 x 2) NEW USE: INSTALLATION OF PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICES FACILITY ON EXISTING C0 90'± AGL MONOPOLE W/NEW GROUND EQUIPMENT AT THE BASE OF THE TOWER; I ® 3) BOUNDARY &TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION TAKEN FROM MAP ENTITLED" x +I +I BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY OF PROPERTY SITUATE CUTCHOGUE, wr--x--I �` TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK" PREPARED BY LO x �-- off- x `n BARRET, BONACCI AND VANWEELE, PC OF HAUPPAUGE, NY DATED 02/26/09. 4) NO ADDITIONAL PARKING IS NEW, AS THE NEW GROUND FACILITY INSTALLATION IS UNMANNED &VISITED APPROXIMATELY ONCE/MONTH FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE. x 13 EXISTING PARKING SPACES OCCUPY THE SITE. ACCORDINGLY, THE NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT ADVERSELY CHANGE OR AFFECT TRAFFIC PATTERNS; ® D ! D 5) SUBJECT BUILDING ON-SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN ZONE X FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION x (FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP#360813 COMMUNITY PANEL 163 of 1026). 6) NEW EQUIPMENT SPACE WILL BE OUTFITTED WITH A 150W EXTERIOR LIGHT(RAB DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OF RECORD #H101 B W/PAR38)(SEE SHEET C-1 FOR DETAILS) 7) NO STORMWATER DRAINAGE, WATER SUPPLY, SEWAGE DISPOSAL, REFUSE PROF: SCOTT M. CHASSE P.E. 1000-97-5-12 O D w STORAGE, IS REQUIRED, AS THE NEW INSTALLATION IS FOR AN UNMANNED COMP: APT ENGINEERING SHOPPING CENTER o FACILITY; ADD: 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF 7 8) NO COMMERCIAL SIGNS OR SECURITY GRILLS/GRATES ARE NEW; KILLINGWORTH, CT 06419 SEROTA CUTCHOGUE LLC x 'n 9) ALL NEW UTILITIES FOR NEW EQUIPMENT WILL BE PROVIDED FROM NEARBY SERVICES CURRENTLY SERVICING THE SITE; OWNER: VERIZON NEW YORK cn 10) NO DUST, FUMES, ODORS, OR VIBRATIONS WILL OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THE NEW (F/K/A NEW YORK x INSTALLATION. ADDRESS: TELEPHONE COMPANY) PO BOX 152206, IRVING, TX 75015-2206 0 T x NOTE: It I IT IS A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145,SECTION Z x LEGEND 7209(2)FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS I CONCRETE CURB UTILITY POLE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A ' i'< : LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR x DROP CURB o BOLLARD LAND SURVEYOR,TO ALTER AN ITEM IN I WALL —x—x- CHAIN LINK FENCE ANY WAY.IF AN ITEM BEARING THE SEAL EDGE OF PAVEMENT —n—o— STOCKADE FENCE OF AN ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR IS 1 OVERHEAD WIRES -o—� FENCE OTHER ALTERED,THE ALTERING ENGINEER OR A-1 LAND SURVEYOR SHALL AFFIX TO THE EXIST. PROPERTY I ® STRUCTURE - MANHOLE 4�4W TOP/BOTTOM OF CURB ITEM HIS SEAL AND THE NOTATION LINE (TYP.) m STRUCTURE -TELEPHONE • +00.00 SPOT ELEVATION "ALTERED BY"FOLLOWED BY THE x Q� STRUCTURE - DRAINAGE CONCRETE SIGNATURE AND THE DATE OF SUCH 5'± WATER VALVE ^' TREE LINE ALTERATION,AND A SPECIFIC - WATER METER ■ MONUMENT DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION. tY FIRE HYDRANT ww.,::.9::';';7is<p s; HEDGE VERIZON WIRELESS AT DRAINAGE INLET Q `: TREE / '_` LL ® "CUTCHOGUE 2" NEW VERIZON WIRELESS I x I I I O O I I SIGN HANDICAP PARKING 35' TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY J _ i I I O F>Z}PRKINGLSGl�iQ1F�EJNT SITE 31775 MAIN ROAD, W/EXISTING 90'± AGL MONOPOLE w I ` ADDRESS: CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 & NEW 10'x12' EQUIPMENT PAD W/ I I o Q Q STEEL CANOPY I < 149'± 1 7--, oC Z APT FILING NUMBER: NY141300 c� l 1 STORY w U- Q 1000-97-5-8 rc = I bEXISTTING ATION PROJECT CODE: 02006159147 x I BUILDING NEW U/G TELCO SERVICE (TYP) 42'± 161'+ 0 0 � Z I LOCATION CODE: 171056 "i7<, T O ( VZW CM: KU DRAWN BY: RCB chi ; 0 z Itvk �x llI k I mN Z Q I EXISTING EXISTING DRIVEWAY ACCESS ~ w - ® I z STRUCTURE I I DATE: 09/26/17 CHECKED BY: SMC 54'± Q EXISTING SHRUBS f ~�� EXISTING j NEW UNDERGROUND UTILITIES +t ,;, EXISTING STRUCTURE EXISTING @ 5'AWAY FROM EXISTING x w & +I TRANSFORMER I ON-SITE U/G DRAINAGE �I °p It ( I I STRUCTURE SHEET TITLE: �r I STRUCTURES O w t o I I u - ---- -- -- ------------- -- -- --- ® LO —E ( 1000-97-5-9 - --- E —E —E g E COMMERCIAL a, .. .. _ _ I + SITE PLAN EXISTING TELCO C S 49°38'50° W --- POLE (NYT #545) 200.00' - - - - --- --- - -- , NEW U/G }"' NEW U/G GAS ELECTRICAL SHEET NUMBER: H8a SERVICE (TYP.) SERVICE (TYP.) SITE PLAN *� OMNC�yO'9G�`� ------_._ --- -- ----- MAIN ROAD SCALE : 1" =40'-0.. � r- cG 1000-103-1-19.12 - --- _ FARM 1 1000-103-1-19.3 FARM w _ ozn 4 CENTEROCK ROAD WEST NYACK, NY 10994 APT ENGINEERING 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE PHONE:(860)-663-1697 KILLINGWORTH,CT 06419 FAX:(860)-663-0935 W W W.ALLPOI NTSTECH.COM APPROVALS LANDLORD: DATE: RF ENGINEER: DATE: PERMITTING DOCUMENTS NO DATE REVISION 0 09126/17FOR REVIEW: SMC 2 1 09/29/17 ATTORNEY REVISIONS: SMC A-2 2 10/13/17 RF REVISIONS: RCB 12-6" - 4 SIDED WIRELESS 3 LOW PROFILE PLATFORM 4 W/QUAD BRACKET 5 MOUNT (COMMSCOPE 6 P/N #MC-PK121-4-13 W/ UNIVERSAL TOP RAIL K{T NEW PLATFORM TOP RAIL COMMSCOPE P/N (BEYOND) #MC-TR4-12) NEW ANTENNA j MOUNTING PIPE NEW MDB &RRH LOCATION (1) NEW MDB MOUNTED TO NEW ANTENNA MOUNT - AT EA. SECTOR (TOTAL OF 3) i _ _ ANTENNA @ 87'-10"± AGL NEW GPS UNIT NEW VERIZONN P1-1/4 STD. STANDARD PIPE �•� ®- i WIRELESS ANTENNA -------------- (V2) 230° / EXIST. 90'± AGL (2) A325 BOLTS 12'-6" - 4 SIDED WIRELESS N ! ' /' MONOPOLE (V3) 30° ___ DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OF RECORD LOW PROFILE PLATFORM - 1 " (TYP) W/QUAD BRACKET MOUNT 6x6x6Bo BENT PLATE OQ QO IV- (COMMSCOPE P/N 3 PROF: SCOTT M. CHASSE P.E. COMP: APT ENGINEERING 1 #MC-PK12L4-B W/ CANOPY FRAME ADD: 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE i UNIVERSAL TOP RAIL KIT KILLINGWORTH CT 06419 i, (4) NEW RRH'S COMMSCOPE P/N MOUNTED TO NEW #MC-TR4-12) ANTENNA MOUNT OWNER: VERIZON NEW YORK AT EA. SECTOR (F/K/A NEW YORK (TOTAL OF 12) 2 ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL 3 GPS UNI�TM�OADDRESS: TELEPHONE COMPANY) PO BOX 152206, A-2 SCALE : %2" SCALE UNT IRVING, TX 75015-2206 NOTE: ' IT IS A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE i i EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145,SECTION 7209(2) FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR,TO ALTER AN ITEM IN ANY WAY.IF AN ITEM BEARING THE SEAL OF AN ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR IS NEW VERIZON WIRELESS ANTENNA ALTERED,THE ALTERING ENGINEER OR (TOTAL OF 12) LAND SURVEYOR SHALL AFFIX TO THE ITEM HIS SEAL AND THE NOTATION "ALTERED BY"FOLLOWED BY THE SIGNATURE AND THE DATE OF SUCH ALTERATION,AND A SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION. (V1) 120' VERIZON WIRELESS AT "CUTCHOGUE 2" ANTT�N�AM�O UNTIN�GP�L AN SITE 31775 MAIN ROAD, ADDRESS: CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 A_2 SCALE : APT FILING NUMBER: NY141300 PROJECT CODE: 02006159147 LOCATION CODE: 171056 VZW CM: XU DRAWN BY: RCB DATE: 09/26/17 CHECKED BY: SMC SHEET TITLE: ANTENNA PLAN & DETAILS SHEET NUMBER: -`OF NEW W C/ygs c. GO A=2 4 (y" -^� D Rfr7q�\7[E D APR 218 TO Oa SOUTJJOLD U04 CENTEROCK ROAD WEST NYACK, NY 10994 ,. G d SII =— —_=- [.. I�'.'•U`;ii - t'i�r', .. "i..J. .. ,: APT 1 4. F". ,',� C,r::i:'TC ENGINEERING R C2'v''FIFL111__-%i 4 (�, rpar::r%All co�.IsT i�e_trt KIL IUNGWORTOHO CT 064E9 PHOAX (8860)-663-1697 0)-663-0935 r '�RK TF I�!;i, ',{ +�x:�€E�.E I"-OFt WWW.ALLPOINTSTECH.COM L;F.SIi i e ��R ca :S 1 FtuC"i ION ERF, HS. APPROVALS HYAUM N E w "IkyF 0 Ril rl%- COMPLY WITH ALL CODES OF LANDLORD: DATE NEW YORK STATE.& TOWN CODES RF ENGINEER: DATE: AS REQUIRED AND�'�CONDITIONS OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS NO DATE REVISION M\j , �Q�j�00TO�"�')�,�'`,`.NSEOARd 0 06/22/15 FOR REVIEW: RCB � �" A3 7 ; _ �� 1 07/02/15 REVISE ANTENNAS: RCB uo uli """"""" ' `� 2 05/25/16 EQUIPMENT REVISIONS: RCB � � — 3 03/20/18 ATTORNEY REVISIONS: RCB �( 4 03/23/18 FOR PERMIT: RCB 4«..- _._.. _... ..r 6 1 7�c—:n 41 t� l r 'AD U W� M r 0 U r� Al 9 r- ELECTatCp'�iNSPEC�t�R�lltRft� I DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OF RECORD DRAWING INDEX SITE INFORMATION PROF: SC {$��'� COMP: APTO ENGINEERSNG P.E. ADD: 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE T-1 TITLE SHEET & INDEX VZW SITE NAME: "CUTCHOGUE 2" KILLINGWORTH, CT 06419 VZW LOCATION CODE: 171056 OWNER: VERIZON NEW YORK VZW PROJECT CODE: 02006159147 (F/K/A NEW YORK SP-1 SITE PLAN PROJECT LOCATION: 31775 MAIN ROAD, ADDRESS:TELEPHONE COMPANY) PO BOX 152206, CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 IRVING,TX 75015-2206 A-1 PLANS, ELEVATION & DETAILS st Ctl $-��i , ` SITE TYPE/DESCRIPTION: REMOVE (2) 10-FOOT DISH ANTENNAS FROM EXISTING MONOPOLE. INSTALL (12) N07fE: `"�� NEW PANEL ANTENNAS, (12) NEW RRH'S, (3) NEW MDB'S ON NEW 4 SIDED IT IS A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE EDWCATION LAW ARTICLE 145,SECTION A-2 ANTENNA PLAN & DETAILS PLATFORM W/ QUAD BRACKET MOUNT ON EXIST. POLE. ADD (1) NEW TELCO 7209 (2) FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS MESA CABINET TO NEW 20'-4"x32'-6" (660:t SF) COMPOUND AREA W/ 8' CHAIN ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A C ' r Hsi peer LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR � � �'' A-3 SITE DETAILS LINK FENCE & GREEN PRIVACY SLATS AND EQUIPMENT CABINETS, 10KW ' F tslaatNATURAL-GAS POWERED DC-GENERATOR & (4) GPS UNITS ON 10'x12' LAND SURVEYOR,TO ALTER AN ITEM IN ANY WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE SEAL CONCRETE PAD W/ STEEL CANOPY. (4) EXISTING BOLLARDS TO REMAIN, ADD (6) OF AN ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR IS " dtl1r+t Cll. rr NEW CONCRETE-FILLED BOLLARDS AROUND COMPOUND AREA. EXISTING ALTERED, THE ALTERING ENGINEER OR „ r ►�II�r�?„' ., C-1 EQUIPMENT SPACE DETAILS FENCE TO BE FINISHED W/ GREEN PRIVACY SLATS. LANID SURVEYOR SHALL AFFIX TO THE :' ITEIIN HIS SEAL AND THE NOTATION PROPERTY OWNER: VERIZON NEW YORK ”ALTTERED BY” FOLLOWED BY THE S-1 STRUCTURAL DETAILS SIGNATURE AND THE DATE OF SUCH ' �� (F/K/A NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY) DESCR PT ON OFDTHE ALTERATION. �� M-1 MECHANICAL PLAN & DETAILS PO BOX 152206, IRVING, TX 75015-2206 LEASING CONTACT: ROB MONTELEONE VERIZON WIRELESS AT E-1 ELECTRICALiTELCO PLAN & DETAILS (516) 316-4626 "CUTCHOGUE 2" SITE 31775 MAIN ROAD, , ' CONSTRUCTION CONTACT: KENNY UHLL ADDRESS: CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 E-2 GROUNDING PLAN & DETAILS (631) 256-2108 APT FILING NUMBER: NY-141-300 ENGINEER CONTACT: ROBERT C. BURNS PROJECT CODE: 02006159147 N-1 NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS (860) 663-1697 x206 LOCATION CODE: 171056 LATITUDE: 41° 01 ' 10.27" N VZVW CM: KU DRAWN BY: KRS r LONGITUDE: 720 28' 48.49" W DATE: 06/22/15 CHECKED BY: RCB ELEVATION: 15.78' N.G.V. DATUM 1988 DIVISION: 1000 SECTION: g7 VICINITY MAF BLOCK: 5 SCALE: 1"=500' LOTs: 11 SHEET TITLE: ZONING JURISDICTION: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONE: B (GENERAL BUSINESS) TITLE SHEET & INDEX APPLICANT: VZW PROJECT ATTORNEY: POWER/GAS PROVIDER: TELCO PROVIDER: DIG SAFELY NEW YORK: GOVERNING CODEs: SHEET NUMBER: VERIZON AMATO LAW GROUP, PLLC PSE&G (800) 436-7734 VERIZON: (914)-741 -8300 (800) 962-7962 2015 IBC W/ 2016 & 2017 NYS UNIFORM CODE SUPPLEMENTS ,�,��`��SOF 4 CENTEROCK RD. ATTN: DENISE VISTA, ESQ. NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE IR co oft M. �� 0 WEST NYACK, NY 10994 SUITE 901 TIA-222-G 666 OLD COUNTRY ROAD I—mi zZ �G �. �9m �" r,l GARDEN CITY, NY 11530 (516) 227-6363 1000-96-3-9 GREENHOUSE I BULK TABLE LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF REALTY LLC TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: PHC I f(7nv 31775 MAIN ROAD CUTCHOGUE, NY o[ ••� wau ZONE AC NEW COMPOUND DISTRICT 1000, SECTION 97, 4 CENTEROCK ROAD FENCE W/GREEN BLOCK 5 EXISTING EDGE LOT 11: WEST NYACK, NY 10994 ®� ©-_L_�" I-�, I I-�-�,�"�, ��"'�� I PRIVACY SLATS 8, OF DRIVEWAY ZONED B (GENERAL BUSINESS) ZONE B -o,. N 47°06'20"E I20'�� /5'I 6"THICK ITEM: ALLOWABLE: EXISTING: NEW: 3/4" CRUSHED STONE ' (ASTM C33 SIZE No.57) WIRELESS COMM. FACILITY SPACE AREA (SF) 1 ,000 SF NA 120 SF APT ® - GRADE TO DRAIN -•r `• � TOWER HEIGHT (FT) 80' *90' NC GINEERING rvs: :s?x'i ; -i �..+nT.'k w.,.i.?i•i•'7h`ti....>`t. EN 4' ywrr MAXIMUM HEIGHT(FT) (2) STORIES/35' 17'± 9'-4"± \y>;_.•4„r;1,'.s�Y.'i^�,.-.i.w:F�.•:.r:Y.-r�� .si�^. Sy_i.• ''� ,�::i•.. STABILIZATION FABRIC 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE PHONE:(860)-663-1697 ' ON COMPACTED FRONT YARD (FT) 1 00' MAX 54'± NC KILLINGWORTH,CT 06419 FAX:(860)-663-0935 REAR YARD (PRIMARY/ACCESSORY)(FT) 35' 517'± WWW.ALLPOINTSTECH.COM N SUBGRADE(MARAFI 500X NC N O OR Equal) SIDE YARD (PRIMARY/ACCESSORY)(FT) 25' 42'± 35'± APPROVALS WOODED O Z LIMIT BOTH SIDE YARDS (FT) 50' 96'± 891± z OF mTO EDGE MIN. LOT AREA (SF) 30,000 134,332 SF NC LANDLORD: DATE: STONE OF EXIST DRIVE MIN. LOT WIDTH (FT) 150' 200' NC RF ENGINEER: DATE: ® rn ^DCOi"�POU N D DETAIL MIN. LOT DEPTH (FT) 150' 651'± NC CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS � ` MAX. % LOT COVERAGE 30% 12.2% 12.5% SP-1 SCALE : N.T.S. NO DATE REVISION 0 06/22/15 FOR REVIEW: RCB ® w0 Z 1 07/02/15 REVISE ANTENNAS: RCB � Cc 2 05/25/16 EQUIPMENT REVISIONS: RCB m 3 03/20/18 ATTORNEY REVISIONS: RCB w EXISTING 4 03/23/18 FOR PERMIT: RCB � � Q STRUCTURE _ �n Cc 0 Q EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY 5 rn tc U_ ril NA = NOT APPLICABLE NC = NO CHANGE 1#6 0w0G �- 0 o .6 1" REBAR FOR SITE PLAN NOTES: Z Z BAG REMOVAL 1) PROPERTY OWNER: VERIZON OF NEW YORK x _ Z O FROM INLET (f/k/a'NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY) J Z PO BOX 152206 IRVING, TX 75015-2206 I ' - Q LIBRE 5743; PAGE 67 LO 2) NEW USE: INSTALLATION OF PERSONAL WIRELESS SERVICES FACILITY ON EXISTING 00 x rn 0) 90'± AGL MONOPOLE W/ NEW GROUND EQUIPMENT AT THE BASE OF THE TOWER; LJO 3) BOUNDARY &TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION TAKEN FROM MAP ENTITLED " BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHICAL SURVEY OF PROPERTY SITUATE CUTCHOGUE, +I x D xr TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY STATE OF NEW YORK" PREPARED Y C\j -� 2"x2"x3/4" p BARRET, BONACCI AND VANWEELE, PC OF HAUPPAUGE, NY DATED 02/26/09• LO ... x RUBBER BLOCK x 4) NO ADDITIONAL PARKING IS NEEDED, AS THE NEW GROUND FACILITY INSTALLATION SILTSACK IS UNMANNED &VISITED APPROXIMATELY ONCE/MONTH FOR ROUTINE x MAINTENANCE. 13 EXISTING PARKING SPACES OCCUPY THE SITE. ACCORDINGLY, EXPANSION THE NEW DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT ADVERSELY CHANGE OR AFFECT TRAFFIC Q ® I RESTRAINT 1/4" t> PATTERNS; NYLON ROPE v 5) SUBJECT BUILDING ON-SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN ZONE X FLOOD ZONE DESIGNATION x (FIRM FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP #360813 COMMUNITY PANEL 163 of 1026). DESIIGN PROFESSIONALS OF RECORD I 6) NEW EQUIPMENT SPACE WILL BE OUTFITTED WITH A 150W EXTERIOR LIGHT(RAB #H101 B W/PAR38)(SEE SHEET C-1 FOR DETAILS) PROF: SCOTT M. CHASSE P.E. ® � x w 0 7) NO STORMWATER DRAINAGE, WATER SUPPLY, SEWAGE DISPOSAL, REFUSE COMIP: APT ENGINEERING 1000-97-5-12 STORAGE, IS REQUIRED, AS THE NEW INSTALLATION IS FOR AN UNMANNED SHOPPING CENTER I o p ADD: 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF r` r 6 FACILITY; KILLINGWORTH, CT 06419 � •> � 8) NO COMMERCIAL SIGNS OR SECURITY GRILLS/GRATES ARE NEW; SEROTA CUTCHOGUE LLC x co NOTE: o. 9) ALL NEW UTILITIES FOR NEW EQUIPMENT WILL BE PROVIDED FROM NEARBY OWNER: VERIZON NEW YORK I U) REGULAR FLOW = 40 GAL./MIN./SF p p D SERVICES CURRENTLY SERVICING THE SITE; (F/K/A NEW YORK ' HIGH FLOW = 200 GAL./MIN./SF 10) NO DUST, FUMES, ODORS, OR VIBRATIONS WILL OCCUR AS A RESULT OF THE NEW ADDRESS:TELEPHONE COMPANY) x D n p: INSTALLATION. PO BOX 152206, I> ^ IRVING, TX 75015-2206 x D NOTE;: Ln o IT IS A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE co EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145, SECTION Z x LEGEND 7209 (2) FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A 2 S I 7��C�K DETAIL CONCRETE CURB UTILITY POLE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR SCA — DROP CURB o BOLLARD LAND, SURVEYOR,TO ALTER AN ITEM IN x WALL —x x- CHAIN LINK FENCE ANY WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE SEAL EDGE OF PAVEMENT —o—D- STOCKADE FENCE OF AN ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR IS 1 OVERHEAD WIRES ---o-0 FENCE OTHER ALTERED, THE ALTERING ENGINEER OR x � A-1 ..:. l STRUCTURE - MANHOLE LAND SURVEYOR SHALL AFFIX TO THE EXIST. PROPERTY I ® TOP/BOTTOM OF CURB ITEM THIS SEAL AND THE NOTATION (p STRUCTURE - TELEPHONE •+00.00 SPOT ELEVATION "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY THE LINE (TYP.) m STRUCTURE- DRAINAGE CONCRETE SIGNATURE AND THE DATE OF SUCH x ® WATER VALVE ^' ,_;»,.!.,° . TREE LINE ALTERATION,AND A SPECIFIC 5+ ® WATER METER ■ MONUMENT DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION. x - - - - - - FIRE HYDRANT Ie,:: HEDGE DRAINAGE INLET TREE VERIZON WIRELESS AT I / x —� w ® SIGN HANDICAP PARKING "CUTCHOGUE 2" NEW VERIZON WIRELESS I x 00 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITY 35 I ( cc z� fARKINGLIAliLLPO�JNT SITE 31775 MAIN ROAD, W/EXISTING 90'± AGL MONOPOLE wI I o J w O I ADDRESS: CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 & NEW 10'x12' EQUIPMENT PAD W/ I I Q � I I 1. SET POSTS AND EXCAVATE I 2. STAPLE THE WIRE MESH 149'± [[ Z APT FILING NUMBER: NY-141-300 STEEL CANOPY I LO O O I A 6" X 6"TRENCH, SET II FENCING TO END POST II aC w Q 1000-97-5-8 II Oil 1 STORY r w POST DOWNSLOPE. PROJECT CODE: 02006159147 t I rn 2 = GAS STATION I x ~ wl I BUILDING o 2 O -j �:,,.,, NEW U/G TELCO SERVICE (TYP) 2 42'± w it I LOCATION CODE: 171056 E-1 1611± o O O z UPSLOPEO FOR STABILITY I WIRE FENCING - �I Q I Z Ix OI I O z N I EXISTING I AND SELF CLEANING VZW CM: KU DRAWN BY: KRS 1 I STRUCTURE I I I I DATE: 06/22/15 CHECKED BY: RCB EXISTING DRIVEWAY ACCESS 54± I I \ I x � ,..,•! - ., „ � ' MIN. EXISTING SHRUBS �O 1w, t I,..ry<.._.}...• EXISTING EXISTING NEW UNDERGROUND UTILITIES +i EXISTING STRUCTURE STRUCTUREEXISTING @ U AWAY FROM EXISTING 2 1 w aco �+I TRANSFORMER ' I STRUCT RE SHEET TITLE: ON-SITE U/G DRAINAGE E-1 M-1 I cnl to I I I 3. ATTACH FILTER FABRIC TO 4. BACK FILL THE TRENCH I STRUCTURES p ® w 0 I ( I �J THE WIRE FENCING AND �i AND COMPACT THE II --- E —E —E —E —E ( 1000-97-5-9 EXTEND IT TO THE TRENCH. EXCAVATED SOIL. II ® O COMMERCIAL II II :'' :— - •.. _ - SITE PLAN FILTER FABRIC i� COMPACTED BACK FILL I� EXISTING TELCO O S 49°38'50"W °" POLE (NYT#545) 200.00' 2 NEW U/G / SHEET NUMBER: ��10 1_OF/�" NEW U/G GAS 1 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN \ \ II \�� , \ I � � �e�`��P ✓� E-1 SERVICE(TYP.) �40I'T M SERVICE (TYP.) M_i MAIN ROAD ' SCALE : 1" =40'-0" , n N -- - _ -- — — = m ». m 1000-103-1-19.12 — — — — — — 3 SED111IIENTATION CONTROL BARRIER N >> FARM 1000-103-1-19.3 FARM - - - - - - 8603 13 �� NOTE: ALL ANTENNA's, RRH's, MDB's, PLATFORM, & ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES ARE TO BE PAINTED NEW VERIZON WIRELESS (12) PANEL ANTENNAS A NEUTRAL COLOR THAT IS IDENTICAL TO OR X (120°, 230°, 30°) W/(12) RRH'S &(3) MDB'S MOUNTED CLOSELY COMPATIBLE WITH THE COLORS OF THE larwq , �I ON NEW 4 SIDED PLATFORM W/QUAD BRACKET 1 EXISTING 90'± AGL MONOPOLE W/(2) SUPPORTING STRUCTURE EXISTING DUMPSTER AREA MOUNTED TO EXISTING 90'± AGL MONOPOLE W/ A-2 10-FOOT DISH ANTENNAS REMOVED ANTENNA ti @ 87'-10"± AGL 4 CENTEROCK ROAD WEST NYACK, NY 10994 NEW VERIZON WIRELESS 3 PHASE 6 I NEW VERIZON WIRELESS 20'-4"x32'-6" (660± SF) LICENSED 2&5 200A METER AND DISCONNECT EXISTING PARKING AREA W/8' CHAIN LINK FENCE &GREEN PRIVACY SLATSq-3 120/208V ON UTILITY BACKBOARD A-3 �. STALL (TYP 12PL) � � } APT . NEW VERIZON WIRELESS EQUIPMENT I ENGINEERING CABINETS, 1 OKW NATURAL-GAS POWERED 1 NEW TELCO MESA CABINET 3 DC-GENERATOR & (4) GPS UNITS ON 10'x12' C-1 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE PHONE:(860)-663-1697 E-1 I CONCRETE PAD W/STEEL CANOPY (L_ KILLINGWORTH,CT 06419 FAX:(860)-663-0935 � X WWW.ALLPOINTSTECH.COM APPROVALS EXISTING BOLLARD (TYP.4-PL) &(5) r4 I 9 HYBRID CABLES ROUTED W/IN NEW CONCRETE-FILLED BOLLARDS A_3 EXISTING TOWER W/NEW ENTRY & LANDLORD: DATE: S-1 EXIT PORTS RF ENGINEER: DATE: NEW VERIZON WIRELESS 20'-4"x32'.6" 2 NEW TELCO MESA CABINET 3 I .c CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS (660± SF) COMPOUND AREA W/8'CHAIN &5 X EXISTING FENCE E-1 G I -j EXISTING FENCE NO DATE REVISION LINK FENCE & GREEN PRIVACY SLATS A_3 W/STAIRS TO BE FINISHED 0 06/22/15 FOR REVIEW: RCB NEW VERIZON WIRELESS 3 PHASE 6 I is W/ GREEN 1 07/02/15 REVISE ANTENNAS: RCB 200A METER AND DISCONNECT PRIVACY SLATS 2 05/25/16 EQUIPMENT REVISIONS: RCB 120/208V ON UTILITY BACKBOARD A-3 EXISTING BOLLARD (TYP. 4PL) &(6) 4 3 03/20/18 ATTORNEY REVISIONS: RCB NEW CONCRETE-FILLED BOLLARDS A-3 X X 4 03123/18 FOR PERMIT: RCB EXISTING FENCEF-F I NEW U/G GAS SERVICE 5 X 6 W/STAIRS I 1 FROM EXISTING GAS T MAIN TO NEW VERIZON M-1 WIRELESS EQUIPMENT A-1 r E x SPACE (TYP.) w .) 0'-0" GRADE MAIN ROAD I I w 15.78' N.G.V. LL NEW VERIZON WIRELESS EQUIPMENT X DATUM 1988 E!r EE� AS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GAS GA GAS— ' EXISTING T —T —T —T T T —T —T —T —T —T —T —T —T —T —T —T CABINETS, 1 OKW NATURAL-GAS 1 CO AS W 1-STORY E —E -E -El E E —E -E -E -E -E —E EXISTING EXISTING TELCO POWERED DC-GENERATOR &(4) GPS C-1 BUILDING TRANSFORMER POLE (NYT#545) UNITS ON 10x12' CONCRETE PAD W/ UNDERGROUND STEEL CANOPY I w - SUBJECT SITE: UTILITIES @ NEW UNN AWAY FROM 1 1 NEW VERIZON 1 NEW U/G/ELECTRIC SERVICE FROM 1 NEW TELCO SERVICE FROM EXISTING, 31775 MAIN ROADWIRELESS ICE EXISTING TRANSFORMER TO NEW DEMARC (EXISTING POLE NYT#545)TO APPROX. LOCATION OF Q EXISTING ON-SITE U/G M-1 MAINTAIN 5' CLEARANCE X A-3 BRIDGE E-1 UTILITY BACKBOARD E'1 NEW TELCO MESA SPAN CABINET(TYP) EXISTING DRYWELL- 2 0 u� CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 DRAINAGE STRUCTURES SP-1 , (V3) 30° DIVISION: 1000; SECTION: 97; BLOCK: 5; 2 LOT: 11 ZONING JURISDICTION: TOWN OF 2 �\ w SOUTHOLD- ZONE: B (GENERAL BUSINESS) < EXISTING FENCE SECTION (V2) 230° I _ w TO BE REMOVED 16 0 8 16 32 � � 2 SOUTHERN ELEVATION 7 1 NEW VERIZON WIRELESS ICE BRIDGE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OF RECORD NEW VERIZON WIRELESS (12) PANEL ANTENNAS (120°, 230°, 30°) W/(1 2) RRH'S & I w - " W/(3) 6x12 HYBRID CABLES ROUTED A-1 SCALE :%6"= " IN FEET)1 inch= 16 ft. PROF: SCOTT M. CHASSE P.E. (3) MDB'S MOUNTED ON INEW 4 SIDED 1 < I A-3 WITHIN POLE TO ANTENNAS COMP: APT ENGINEERING 2 MAINTAIN 5' CLEARANCE AROUND EXISTING PLATFORM W/QUAD BRACKET MOUNTED A-2 w � DRYWELL- INSTALL SILTSACK EROSION CONTROL NOTE: NEW UNDERGROUND UTILITIES &EQUIP. ADD:'. 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE TO EXISTING 90'± AGL MONOPOLE W/ I SP-1 SLAB @ 5'AWAY FROM EXISTING ON-SITE U/G KILLINGWORTH, CT 06419 ANTENNA @ 87'-10"± AGL Q w EXISTING 90'± AGL MONOPOLE W/(2) EXISTING BOLLARD (TYP. 4PL) &(6) 4 DRAINAGE STRUCTURES OWNER: VERIZON NEW YORK II G 9 10-FOOT DISH ANTENNAS REMOVED EXISTING FENCE TO BE FINISHED II (V1) 120° W/GREEN PRIVACY SLATS NCONCRETE-FILLED BOLLARDS A-3EXISTING FENCE TO BE FINISHEDW/GREEN PRIVACY SLATS I I S-1 AND PORTED TOP & BOTTOM FOR (F/K/A NEW YORK w VERIZON CABLING ADDRESS:TELEPHONE COMPANY) ° NEW VERIZON WIRELESS 20'-4"x32'-6" PO BOX 152206, +I ~ Q I O-- REMOVE EXISTING ( 2) 230 (660± SF) LICENSED AREA W/8'CHAIN 2 1 IRVING, TX 75015-2206 NEW UNDERGROUND UTILITIES @ 5' 2 X I 0 w CONCRETE WHEEL STOP LINK FENCE &GREEN PRIVACY SLATS A-3 SP-1 NEW UNDERGROUND AWA`( FROM EXISTING ON-SITE U/G I 1 2 UTILITIES @ S AWAY FROM NOTE': DRAINAGE STRUCTURES E-1 M-1 E-1 EXISTING ON-SITE U/G IT IS A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE w CONNECT NEW FENCE TO NEW SILT FENCE (TYP) 3 DRAINAGE STRUCTURES EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145,SECTION 1 I I EXISTING FENCE @ CORNER SP-1 7209 (2) FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS M-1 I ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A EXISTING SIDEWALK a........•..,, NEW & WIDE CHAIN LINK 5 LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR EXISTING DRIVEWAY ~ O GATE W/GREEN PRIVACY LAND SURVEYOR, TO ALTER AN ITEM IN U) w EXISTING A_3 EXISTING II X c� I EXISTING U/G TANK DRIVEWAY DRIVEWAY SLATS t- -� ANY WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE SEAL EXISTING w NEW OF AN ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR IS NEW TELCO SERVICE FROM EXISTING, 1 w TRANSFORMER I I 3 TELCO ALTERED, THE ALTERING ENGINEER OR DEMARC (EXISTING POLE NYT #545) I ® E_i MESA LAND SURVEYOR SHALL AFFIX TO THE W/TELCO MESA SPAN CABINET(TYP.) E-1 I U I w ® ® Y ® CABINET ITEM THIS SEAL AND THE NOTATION X t X X X X X X ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY THE I � w m .. II NEW U/G/ELECTRIC SERVICE FROM ❑ NEW VERIZON WIRELESS 3 SIGNATURE AND THE DATE OF SUCH NEW U/G GAS SERVICE FROM I EXISTING TRANSFORMER TO NEW 1 w 16.00 GPS UNIT TYP 4PL D 16.00 ALTERATION, AND A SPECIFIC EXISTING GAS MAIN TO NEW VEI ZON 1 w UTILITY BACKBOARD E-1 '; _ \ ( ) A-2 X i DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION. cf) EXISTING FENCE SECTION 5'± EQUIPMENT SPACE(fYP) M 1 � L E E —E —E —E —E —E —E —E —E —E —E —E —E —E W �rv' u. .xt .ice'?, �r TO BE REMOVED ( p VERIZON WIRELESS AT .F — _ _ A, Co I m "CUTCHOGUE 2" " — I I OH Q --_ — .� X — — — — — —® 17'± m SITE 31775 MAIN ROAD, " ADDRESS: CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 OH X I I o OH DI - V1 9712 BAT p o W D NEW GAS METER (FINAL LOCATION TO I m APT FILING NUMBER: NY-141-300 EXISTING SIDEWALK ( ) 120 I I << MAIN ROAD CAB BACKUP ( - Z BE DETERMINED BY UTILITY COMPANY) I w X I p PROJECT CODE: 02006159147 Q � EXISTING U/G GAS ,� � � g �/.,XXXXI O m E�:ISTING TELCO POLE(NYT#545) �-y-� X I I I LOCATION CODE: 171056 SERVICE ALONG EXISTING 90'± AGL MONOPOLE W/(2) 10-FOOT . A` EDGE OF ROAD CURB DISH ANTENNAS REMOVED AND PORTED TOP & 9 .r ( I �\ 2o'-a"± ' m VZW ICM: KU DRAWN BY: KRS NEW VERIZON WIRELESS EQUIPMENT NOTE: ALL ANTENNA's, RRH's, MDB's, PLATFORM, & BOTTOM FOR NEW VERIZON CABLING S_i a CABINETS, 1 OKW NATURAL-GAS ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCE'S ARE TO BE PAINTED "" r _ �' I 1 POWERED DC-GENERATOR &(4) GPS m DATE: 06/22/15 CHECKED BY: RCB A NEUTRAL COLOR THAT IS IDENTICAL TO ORp, t ; ___ - - I C_1 UNITS ON 10'x12' CONCRETE PAD W/ CLOSELY COMPATIBLE WITH THE COLORS OF THE " `. _P TELCO I STEEL CANOPY SUPPORTING STRUCTURE 1 PARTIAL SITE PLAN I I DISC NEW VERIZON WIRELESS (12) PANEL ANTENNAS PANEL PANEL A-1 SCALE :Y16" = 1'-0.. (120 , 230 , 30 ) W/(12) RRHS &(3) MDB'S - - - F- X m � - - - MOUNTED ON NEW 4 SIDED PLATFORM W/QUAD 1 X FE \ SHEET TITLE: BRACKET MOUNTED TO EXISTING 90'± AGL A_2 (V3) 30° 16 0 8 16 32 MONOPOLE W/ANTENNA rL @ 87'-10"± AGL E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T E/T IE PLANS NEW VERIZON WIRELESS ICE BRIDGE W/(3) 5'± X EXISTING FENCE TO BE FINISHED 6x12 HYBRID CABLES ROUTED WITHIN POLE 1 X EXISTING FENCE SECTION ELEVATION & ( IN FEET)1 inch= 16 ft. W/GREEN PRIVACY SLATS TO ANTENNAS (NEW ENTRY &EXIT PORTS A_3 TO BE REMOVED REQUIRED) X 4 IF f I DETAILS 16.25 �- 3l'-6"± 16'± 16.25 SHEET NUMBER: �OF 3 ENLARGED COIUIPOUND PLAN �^ G°�� M• c�' n i G NEW VERIZON WIRELESS = rn Z s wy{ m t •• _ .. NOTE: ALL ANTENNA's, RRH's, MDB's, PLATFORM, & r - �` 6 3 PHASE 200A METER AND ® = cZn rn ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES ARE TO BE PAINTED 2 a 8 A NEUTRAL COLOR THAT IS IDENTICAL TO OR A-3 DISCONNECT 120/208V ON Y q CLOSELY COMPATIBLE WITH THE COLORS OF THE UTILITY BACKBOARD ( IN FEET)1 inch= 4 ft. SUPPORTING STRUCTURE F SSION "`� 2 TOP A-2 COMSCOPE NHH-65A-R2B werf 7.1•' 12'4-SIDED FORTRESS QUAD 35.1 Ibs PLATFORM MOUNT W/ 6 NEW MDB MOUNT 4.59 SF 4 CENTEROCK ROAD 2 WALKWAYS (SITEPR01 P/N A-2 11.9" -� WEST NYACK, NY 10994 A_2 #F4P-12W W/ HANDRAIL RAIL KIT SITEPR01 P/N NEW PLATFORM TOP RAIL (BEYOND) #F4P-HRK12) 1► NEW ANTENNA MOUNTING PIPE (TYP 12PL) APT ENGINEERING (1) NEW MDB IF 8 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE PHONE:(860)-663-1697 6 MOUNTED TO NEW NEW RRH EQUIPMENT MOUNT KILLINGWORTH,CT 06419 FAX:(860)-663-0935 ANTENNA MOUNT EQ C 2 WWW.ALLPOINTSTECH.COM A-2 AT EA. SECTOR ALIGN ANTENNA W/PLATFORM ss.s" ss.s" APPROVALS / (TOTAL OF 3) 8 - _ ANTENNA A-2 @ 87'-10"± AGL L: 4 LANDLORD: DATE: O Q EXIST. 90'± AGL Eo V_0" 0 A 2 NEW GPS UNIT RF ENGINEER: DATE: MONOPOLE NEW VERIZON ANTENNA X PCTEL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS -s" (TYP) �� O O°- MAX. 4 MOUNTED TO NEW PLATFORM, 2 P1-1/4 STD. STANDARD PIPE GPS-TMG-HR-26N (V2) 230° A_2 (4) PER SECTOR,TOTAL OF (12) NO DATE REVISION (V3) 30° 12' 4-SIDED FORTRESS QUAD (2) A325 BOLTS 3.2" 0 06/22/15 FOR REVIEW: RCB PLATFORM MOUNT W/ Y4" "U" BOLT (TYP.) O O WALKWAYS SITEPR01 P/N 1 07/02/15 REVISE ANTENNAS: RCB ( 6x6x6x% BENT PLATE s.0" 2 05/25/16 EQUIPMENT REVISIONS: RCB #F4P-12W W/HANDRAIL RAIL I-- 11.8" 7.1" (- 3 03/20/18 ATTORNEY REVISIONS: RCB / (4) NEW RRH'S KIT SITEPR01 P/N CANOPY FRAME FRONT SIDE �- 4 03/23/18 FOR PERMIT: RCB MOUNTED TO NEW #F4P-HRK12) 5ANTENNA MOUNT NHH-65A-R2B 5 q'2 6 AT EA. SECTOR (TOTAL OF 12) 2 ANTENNA MOUNTING DETAIL W�� S UNIT MOUNT PANEL ANTENNASGPS UNITS E : N.T.S. 4 ANTENNA DETAILS lr FRONT SIDE PLAN FRONT SIDE PLAN FRONT SIDE PLAN FRONT SIDE PLAN ,� - - 7.s" T T 7.2" s.s° H Tl oDl _Al__I ' 13.3" 13.3" � 20.9" 20.9" � � ' �p 12" 21.4" 21.4" I 11.6" 11.8- I- 12" it N N 11.6"Lj 5 7 " NEW VERIZON .� 11.81 �' �' t ,�- 12" -�' �' NOKIA AIRSCALE B5 RRH (OR EQUAL) 19.2" 4 12 6.8 WIRELESS ANTENNA ��, �, RRH 4x40W 850-LTE(160W) . OO A_2 (TOTAL OF 12) REMOTE RADIO HEAD (RRH) Q ° NOTE: ALL ANTENNA's, RRHs, MDB's, PLATFORM, & � 10.3" ASSOCIATED APPURTENANCES ARE TO BE PAINTED ALCATEL LUCENT B13 RRH (OR EQUAL) ALCATEL LUCENT B66a RRH (OR EQUAL) ALCATEL LUCENT B25 RRH (OR EQUAL) WxDxH=1 1 .6"x6.5"x13.3" (35.3 Lbs) ° O O DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OF RECORD A NEUTRAL COLOR THAT N IDENTICAL TO OR (V1) 120° RRH 2x60W 700 LTE-C RRH 2x9OW AWS RRH 2x6OW PCS COLOR: GRAYGo CLOSELY COMPATIBLE WITH THE COLORS OF THE REMOTE RADIO HEAD (RRH) REMOTE RADIO HEAD (RRH) REMOTE RADIO HEAD (RRH) ° ° PROF: SCOTT M. CHASSE P.E. SUPPORTING STRUCTURE WxDxH=11.8"x7.5"x20.9" (55.6 Lbs) WxDxH=1 2.0"x6.8"x26.6" (64.0 Lbs) WxDxH=12.0"x7.2"x21.4" (51 .0 Lbs) COMP: APT ENGINEERING COLOR: GRAY NOTES: COLOR: GRAY COLOR: GRAY 15'7 15.7" ADD: 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE r ANTENNA MOUNTING P LANNOTE: 1 . DIMENSIONS SUBJECT TO CHANGE BASED UPON AVAILABILITY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. FRONT BOTTOM KILLINGWORTH, CT 06419 1) RRH=REMOTE RADIO HEAD 2. MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED RRH CLEARANCES: FRONT: 36"; SIDES: 12"; BOTTOM: 24" RAYCAP RxxDC-3315-PF-48 OWNER: VERIZON NEW YORK A_2 SCALE : N.T.S. 2) MDB=MAIN DISTRIBUTION BOX 3, SFPs ARE PROTOCOL SPECIFIC. THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN RRHs AND BBUs ARE CPRI MAIN DISTRIBUTION BOX (MDB) (F/K/A NEW YORK CONNECTIONS, AND REQUIRE CPRI SFP (ON BOTH ENDS). THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN BBUs WxDxH = 15.73"x10.25"x19.18" (16.0 Lbs) ADDRESS:TELEPHONE COMPANY) AND 7705 ARE ETHERNET AND REQUIRE ETHERNET SFP (ON BOTH ENDS.) (OR EQUAL) PO BOX 152206, �/� 6 MAIN DISTRIBUTION BOX IRVING, TX 75015-2206 5 RRH EQUIPMENT- A-2 SCALE: 1"= 11%0" NOTE: A-2SCALE :Y2" = 1'-0" IT IIS A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145, SECTION 72109 (2) FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR Hybrid LAND SURVEYOR,TO ALTER AN ITEM IN 4-Antennas 4-RRH 1-5/8" HORIZONTAL UNISTRUT, ANY WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE SEAL ANTENNA PIPE PART#P1 OOOT ATTACHED TO OF AN ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR IS ' XPOL MPOL " XP°� 3/8" DIA FLAT WASHER (TYP) XPOL A6° " ASS " Also 1 ANTENNA PIPES CUT TO ALTERED,THE ALTERING ENGINEER OR 3/8" DIA U-BOLT P HE M;EX Pat MFX Pott hiEX Port ?.;'. � ) REQUIRED LENGTH P FOR LAND SURVEYOR SHALL AFFIX TO T Nix Pori a U-BOLTS TO BE SIZED 3/8" DIA NUT (fYP) Antenna' Antenna', Ahtenna AntEnn ACCORDING TO CHANNEL NUT WITH SPRING, IT M HIS SEAL AND THE NOTATION "ALTERED BY FOLLOWED BY THE ANTENNA PIPE 1-5/8" HORIZONTAL UNISTRUT PART#P1008 �. ,; UNISTRUT, PART#P1000T SIGNATURE AND THE DATE OF SUCH NOTES: .... :::; .:; >.,. DIAMETER ALTERATION,AND A SPECIFIC (1) CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE MECHANICAL DOWNTILT BRACKETS ° ' .-�: ` ATTACHED TO ANTENNA 3/8" DIA FLAT WASHER (TYP) DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION. 2 CONTRACTOR TO FIELD VERIFY ALL CABLE LENGTHS PRIOR TO ORDERING NEW CABLE. (TYP. EACH SECTOR) "` .> PIPES CUT TO REQUIRED (3) VERIFY CABLE DIAMETER WITH VERIZON WIRELESS PRIOR TO ORDERING Se � ,, SR f sa / LENGTH (TYP FOR 2) / 3/8" DIA BOLT(TYP) .. Sb Z S i Sfi (4) CONTRACTOR SHALL CONFIRM GPS ANTENNA MODEL AND CABLE WITH VERIZON WIRELESS 5a RIZON WIRELESS AT (5) CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL WEATHERPROOF CAPS ON ALL UNUSED PORTS, SWEEP TEST THE UNUSED 1PART VERTICAL UNISTRUT, "CUTCHOGUE 2" i i ' (MAX) �- � PART#P1000T CUT TO PORTS/ANTENNAS, AND PROVIDE RESULTS IN SWEEPS PACKAGE. ' REQUIRED LENGTH P SITE 31775 MAIN ROAD, 1 1 L-4-----i -+-_----i T i 4' (TYP.) -I / (TYP) ADDRESS: CUTCHOGUE NY 11935 SECTOR: ALPHA BETA GAMMA DELTA EPSILON ZETA i '--_ -_ --------- 5 RRH (PCS) BASE COLOR: WHITE BLUE GREEN WHITEBLK STRIPE WHITE/RED STRIPE WHITE/GRN STRIPE 850: GRAY GRAY GRAY GRAY GRAY GRAY A-2 (QTY VARIES) / APT FILING NUMBER: NY-141-300 LTE-C: RED RED RED RED RED RED + + + I + \ / PROJECT CODE: 02006159147 PCS LTE: LIGHT BLUE LIGHT BLUE LIGHT BLUE LIGHT BLUE LIGHT BLUE LIGHT BLUE PCS: PURPLE PURPLE PURPLE PURPLE PURPLE PURPLE \ + , , � � + / � LOCATION CODE: 171056 AWS: YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW YELLOW i i + i i + i - J SEPARATION AS GPS: BROWN + + + � „ REQUIRED TO VZW CM: KU DRAWN BY: KRS T'.. 3 e' '� A ?�+ 7 1 �. ' SUPPORT R"" "9' REMOTE RADIO DATE: 06/22/15 CHECKED BY: RCB ANTENIiNA DATA PR" °°" a HEAD UNITS (RRHs)AS PER MANUFACTURER'S NEW ANTENNA SPECIFICATIONS °P� _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SPECIFICATIONS SECTOR MODEL QTY E- M- ANTENNA CABLE CABLE AZIMUTH SHEET TITLE: D - TILT D -TILT STATUS SIZE LENGTH ALPHA 700-LTE: COMSCOPE NHH-65A-R2B 1 0° 0° NEW 110'± 120° RRH (AWS) 5 RRH (850) 5 5 RRH (LTE) 850-LTE: COMSCOPE NHH-65A-R2B 1 00 00 NEW (1)6x12A-2 (QTY VARIES) (QTY VARIES) A_2 (QTY VARIES) A_2 ANTENNA PLAN AVJS-LTE: COMSCOPE NHH-65A-R2B 1 0° 0° NEW HYBRID CABLE PCS-LTE: COMSCOPE NHH-65A-R2B 1 0° 0° NEW & DETAILS NOTES: BETA 700-LTE: COMSCOPE NHH-65A-R2B 1 0° 00 NEW 110'± 230° 1. ALL EXPOSED UNISTRUT ENDS TO BE CAPPED WITH UNISTRUT CAP (MODEL#P2860-10). 850-LTE: COMSCOPE NHH-65A-R2B 1 00 00 NEW (1)6x12 2. ONLY 1-5/8" UNISTRUT TO BE USED FOR RACK CONSTRUCTION. AWS-LTE: COMSCOPE NHH-65A-R2B 1 0° 0° NEW HYBRID CABLE ane"^F, 3. EXTEND UNISTRUT AS NEEDED BASED ON LENGTH OF ANTENNA SECTOR. DO NOT SHEET NUMBER: `\`�`�\��tu�i+��t""++n�rrni�� PCS-LTE: COMSCOPE NHH-65A-R2B 1 O° O° NEW CANTILEVER UNISTRUT FOR MORE THAN 24' BEYOND ANTENNA MAST. .0 .'0,� F�OF NF n 4. FOR SPANS GREATER THAN 5'-0" USE UNISTRUT PART#P1001T. 'IV c -\T M. GAMMA 700-LTE: COMSCOPE NHH-65A-R2B 1 0° 00 NEW 110'± 30° ® /� - C 8'50-LTE: COMSCOPE NHH-65A-R2B 1 0° 0° NEW (1)6x12 8 RRH EQUIPMENT ANTENNA MOUNT \fi AGO y9m 9� Z r ' AWS-LTE: COMSCO�E NHH-65A-R2B 1 0° 0° NEW HYBRID CABLE �t f► A.2 SCALE :%2` = 1'.0" R► PCS-LTE: COMSCO'ENHH-65A-R2B 1 0° 0° NEW ANTENNA CABLING SCHEMATIC <- GPS PCTEL GPS-TMG-HR-26N (4) NEW (4)Y2" 20'± N/A A-2 SGALE : N.T.S. �T8 0 w � nzanv 4 CENTEROCK ROAD NOTE: , WEST NYACK, NY 10994 PAINT PIPES, BRIDGE PANEL, AND COLUMN TOP TO MATCH COLOR OF EXISTING BUILDING FACADE Ilkr APT BRIDGE CHANNEL SUPPORT J-HOOKS ENGINEERING @NON-SPLICE CHANNEL POINTS 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE PHONE:(860)-663-1697 BRIDGE CHANNEL BOLTS BRIDGE CHANNEL 6" KILLINGWORTH,CT 06419 FAX:(860)-663-0935 PIPE, CONCRETE ED SPLICE CHANNEL AT PIPE HEAD (M/V B501 OR B502 6" ASTEEL RETE FILLED & WWW.ALLPOINTSTECH.COM OR EQUAL) EXTENSION ARM (TYP) PAINTED TRAFFIC YELLOW APPROVALS PIPE HEAD FOR BRIDGE CHANNEL MICROFLECT#81275 WAVEGUIDE (TYP) (3) STRANDS LANDLORD: DATE: BARBED WIRE 12' O.C. (TYP) FENCE POST RF ENGINEER: DATE: HANGER BRACKET ANCHOR BOLT TOP RAIL 4' MN No. E31910 , COLUMN MICROFLECT# CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS GALV. OR EQUAL 8126X(10') STRETCHER EXTENSION ARMS (16 HANGERS BAR NO DATE REVISION d PIPE HEAD 1 GRADE SUPPORTED) FINISHED 0 06/22/15 FOR REVIEW: RCB HOOKBOLTS / DIAGONAL ROD W/ _ 1 07/02/15 REVISE ANTENNAS: RCB / DIRECT BURIAL STEEL TURNBUCKLE o 3 2 05/25/16 EQUIPMENT REVISIONS: RCB PIPE COLUMN IPE COLUMN TOP RAIL 3 03/20/18 ATTORNEY REVISIONS: RCB Bl 30 (1 O)ECT No. BASE PLATE TOP of •� 4 03123/18 FOR PERMIT: RCB 8130 1 _' •� 101M BOTTOM TENSION WIRE 6' CHAIN LINK FACILITY BARBWIRE 5 FABRIC W/ GREEN EXTERIOR 3'-6 SNAP-IN SIDE POUR CONCRETE 6 SIDE PRIVACY SLATS •' � �'- • / HANGER GROUND LEVE ENCASEMENT (CLASS A) 1'"AGL (SLOPED (TYP) TENSION ALL AROUND EDGES) t ' 4' AB WIRE GRADE GRADE 3 (MAX.) ;, ,:: NOTE: IN PAVED AREAS A-3 LINE POST HOLD TOP OF FOOTING 3'-4" •'` CHAINLINK FABRIC W/ FOOTING I Z 6" BELOW FIN, GRADE MIN. !,f: DIRECT BURIAL GREEN PRIVACY SLATS N,. M 48 EMBEDMENT ''` k,•.j�. FOOTING -t/2" (MAX.) LINE POST �— 12" — MIN. t".,, }} INDICATES EXISTING CLEARANCE FOOTING '• •l�•:;•.:� 4" CONCRETE (WHERE FROM GRADE BELOW PIPE APPLICABLE)(ATTACH �'• . ::' BASE W/3/4"0 HILTI HY150 ANCHORS - 4" EMBEDMENT) s" �1 2"- (MIN.) CABLE BRIDGE & COAX HANGER DETAIL 2 CHAIN-LINK FENCING DETAIL (Z)SECTION VIEW 4 BOLLARD DETAILSCALE : N.T.S. A-3 SCALE : N.T.S. SCALE : T.S. A_3 SCALE : N.T.S. DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OF RECORD PROF: SCOTT M. CHASSE P.E. COMP: APT ENGINEERING ADD: 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE KILLINGWORTH, CT 06419 OWNER: VERIZON NEW YORK (F1K/A NEW YORK ADDRESS:TELEPHONE COMPANY) PO BOX 152206, IRVING, TX 75015-2206 NOTE: IT IS A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145, SECTION EXTENSION ARM (TYP) 3" SCH. 40 PIPE SET IN 12"0, 7209 (2) FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS 42" DEEP CONCRETE PIERS (PIPE ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A (3) STRANDS EMBEDMENT TO WITHIN 4"OFF 3'_6" LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR BARBED WIRE IPEIR BOTTOM)(SEE 4/A-3, SIMILAR) I LAND SURVEYOR,TO ALTER AN ITEM IN 6' ANYWAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE SEAL GATE POST NEW UTILITY SERVICE OF AN ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR IS STRETCHER +««F ,.,� TOP RAIL NEW BACKBOARD ALTERED, THE ALTERING ENGINEER OR ''"'"""""**"'�""' M*"'"'""' s LAND SURVEYOR SHALL AFFIX TO THE BAR /4 MARINE-PLY UTILITY ITEM! HIS SEAL AND THE NOTATION BACK-BOARD SEE E-1 1._6„ (nP) "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY THE FOR DIAGONAL SIGNATURE AND THE DATE OF SUCH ROD W/STEEL FORK 15/8" UNISTRUT W/)/2" DETAILS ALTERATION,AND A SPECIFIC U-BOLT CONNECTIONS DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION. TURNBUCKLE LATCH 8'-0" 7' WITH VERIZON WIRELESS AT BOTTOM LOCK NEW LESSEE TRAN S CABINET , TENSION AND DISCONNECT ON H FRAME "CUTCHOGUE 2" WIRE SITE 31775 MAIN ROAD, GROUND LEVEL ADDRESS: CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 EXISTING F7 APT FILING NUMBER: NY-141-300 1-1/2" (MAX) GRADE I PROJECT CODE: 02006159147 CHAINLINK FABRIC W/ LINE POST LOCATION CODE: 171056 GREEN PRIVACY SLATS FOOTING VZW CM: KU DRAWN BY: KRS L _J L —1 DATE: 06/22/15 CHECKED BY: RCB 5 FENCE & GATE DETAIL 6 UTILITY BACKBOARD SHEET TITLE: A_3 SCALE : N.T.S. SITE DETAILS SHEET NUMBER: OF/V `^coGOAT M. cy 0.9 m �t '" m w ® ym r W �0�8 03 NEW GALV. STEEL 3 NEW GALV. STEEL 3 zuo CANOPY W/LIGHTS C-1 CANOPY W/LIGHTS C-1 NEW GPS UNIT 4 NEW GPS UNIT r4 - 2 NEW DISCONNECT 4 CENTEROCK ROAD (TYP. OF 4) A_2 2' (TYP. OF 4) A_2 2 0_1 SWITCH (BEYOND) WEST NYACK, NY 10994 NEW 1OKW NATURAL NEW 10KW NATURAL 2 NEW GAS-POWERED DC-GENERATOR W/ 5 1\ GAS-POWERED 5 BATTERY VERTICAL ENCLOSURE (BEYOND) M-1 DC-GENERATOR W/ M_1 G1 BACKUP 2 NEW PTC & VERTICAL ENCLOSURE NEW BATTERY 2 C-1 NEW APT NEW 10'x12' 4 NEW RADIO BACKUP (BEYOND) G1 ! CABINETS ENGINEERING 1&5 C-1 CABINET CONCRETE NEW DISCONNECT 2 9't 9't 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE PHONE:(860)-663-1697 S-1 NEW PTC & NEW RADIO 4 KILLINGWORTH,CT 06419 FAX:(860)-663-0935 EQUIPMENT PAD SWITCH (BEYOND) C_1 2 TELCO CABINETS CABINET C-1 WWW.ALLPOINTSTECH.COM 1 a NEW 1 OKW NATURAL C_1 (BEYOND) hh NEW GPS UNIT 4 G1 5 GAS-POWERED NEW 10'x12' 1 &5 1 APPROVALS F 4 _ DC-GENERATOR W/ NEW 10'x12' CONCRETE 1 &5 (TYP. ) A_2 M 1 CONCRETE S 1 EQUIPMENT PAD LANDLORD: DATE: VERTICAL ENCLOSURE EQUIPMENT PAD S-1 NEW RF ENGINEER: DATE: BATTERY 2 GRADE GRADE BACKUP C-1 ®— — — —� CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Er t2' � 10 NO DATE REVISION 9712 • BAT � Y � - ('1b EASTERN ELEVATION 0 06/22/15 FOR REVIEW: RCB NEW RADIO 4 CAB BACKUP ow 1 a SOUTHERN ELEVATION Gi 1 07/02/75 REVISE ANTENNAS: RCB CABINET C_1 l 0 C_1 2 05/25/16 EQUIPMENT REVISIONS: RCB lb 1 1 1 d 3 03/20/18 ATTORNEY REVISIONS: RCB 10'-0" C-1 NEW GPS UNIT 4 4 03/23/18 FOR PERMIT: RCB � NEW GALV. STEEL 3 TYP. OF 4) A_2 5 NEW TELCO 2 // ( CANOPY W/LIGHTS C-1 CABINET C_1 1 6 NEW GPS UNIT 4 PROPOSED GALV. STEEL 3 TELCO 2 NEW DISCONNECT TYP. OF 4 CANOPY W/LIGHTS NEW POWER 2 I PANEL PANEL ( ) A-2 C-1 DISC C-1 SWITCH 2' 2' CABINET C-11 — — — — — — NEW 1 OKW NATURAL FE 3 NEW GALV. STEEL NEW 10KW NATURAL GAS-POWERED 5 NEW C-1 CANOPY V. LIGHTS NEW BATTERY 2UN DC-GENERATOR W/ M-1 5 GAS-POWERED VERTICAL ENCLOSURE 4 RADIO BACKUP (BEYOND) C-1 M_1 DC-GENERATOR W/ C-1 CABINET 12'-0^ 5't VERTICAL ENCLOSURE NEW BATTERY 2 (BEYOND) NEW POWER 2 BACKUP (BEYOND) C-1 2 NEW DISCONNECT CABINET C 1 9.t C-1 SWITCH s'f NEW PTC & 2 TELCO CABINETS C_1 NEW RADIO 4 1s'f CABINET(BEYOND) C-1 ^1c 1&5 NEW 10'x12' CONCRETE NEW 10'x12' C-1 NEW DISCONNECT 2 NEW TELCO 2 S-1 EQUIPMENT PAD 1 &5 CONCRETE SWITCH O_1 S 1 EQUIPMENT CABINET C-1 PAD GRADE GRADE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OF RECORD 10, PROF: SCOTT M. CHASSE P.E. 12 ---i COMP: APT ENGINEERING 1 d WESTERN ELEVATION ADD: 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE 1c NORTHERN ELEVATION KILLINGWORTH, CT 06419 G1 C-1 OWNER: VERIZON NEW YORK �10 ' X 12' EQUIPMENT PAD TIKEANEW YORK ADDRESS:TELEPHONE COMPANY) SCALE :1/4" = 1'-0" 2'-1 9/16" PO BOX ALCATEL-LUCENT RV NG, TX 75015- 2206 9712 LIGHTRADIO ° ° OUTDOOR CABINET(S) NOTE: IT IS A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE SMALL CABINET EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145,SECTION 2'-5 1/2 ' Hx26.9"Wx25.6"Dx29.5" 154.3 Ibs. 720'9 (2) FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS 6'-2%2' SWI: COMPACT CABINET ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A 1 . 15A. 120V, 50OW SINGLE POLE 4 1 �� t �� Hx41"Wx25.6"Dx29.5" 198.4 lbs. LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR 2'-2" HOUR TIMER: LEVITON o 0 ---I 2'-s" ---I 3 1/4 3-1 4 PLINTH EXTENDED LAND SURVEYOR,TO ALTER AN ITEM IN MANUFACTURING CO., INC. L (EXTENDED) _ _ Hx10.8"Wx25.6"Dx29.5" ANY WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE SEAL 2'-3 1/2" —{ C6x13 I—I MODEL#LTB12-1 LZ OF.AN ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR IS I 0—K 2. OUTLET BOX: RAB LIGHTING INC. ALTERED, THE ALTERING ENGINEER OR a 9 1/2" DISCONNECT K.B. MODEL#B3B LAND SURVEYOR SHALL AFFIX TO THE 1 0 0 1 1'-1d'- SWITCH IPLAN _ 3. WEATHERPROOF COVER: RAB ITEIM HIS SEAL AND THE NOTATION `O " LIGHTING INC. MODEL#TCB j BAT 1 � PLAN I lap ®l I ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY THE 3'-8" ,SIGNATURE AND THE DATE OF SUCH BACKUP 1 N 1 I� Y "A 2'-1 9/16" 2'-5 1/2" I / �"'� l o o l I 1 1 °A" I 1 . FIXTURES (1 TOTAL): SHIELDED, I ALTERATION,AND A SPECIFIC — 1 I 4 I PROPERLY AIMED RAB LIGHTING DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION. 1 S_1 INC. MODEL # H101 B W/PAR38, PLAN VIEW I // 1 150W BULBS REQUIRED VERIZON WIRELESS AT L- �I 2. OUTLET BOX: RAB LIGHTING INC. SMALL "CUTCHOGUE 2" PLAN - MODEL #B3B CABINET r 13. WEATHERPROOF COVER (1 PER SITE 31775 MAIN ROAD, 09 2'-2" 2'-s" °+°1 FIXTURE): RAB LIGHTING INC. ADDRESS: CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 1'-1°^ I — 2'-3 3/4" N � MODEL#R3TB co m I 1Yz" 20 GA. X APT FILING NUMBER: NY-141-300 U TYPE ^B^ U PROJECT CODE: 02006159147 _T IGALV. MTL DECK 6'-6 3/4 6'-6 3 4 ' 1'-1 1/4^ tYs" SLOPE LOCATION CODE: 171056 COMPACT CABINET vzw CM: KU DRAWN BY: KRS "AllDATE: 06/22/15 CHECKED BY: RCB 5'-0" 4'-11^ DISCONNECT S 1/4" 4'-2 5/1f SWITCH 1Y .A.. S� Y 1 1 r 0 0 0 3'-4 3/4" OPLINTH PLINTH � I 0O0 AJ A (EXTENDED) (EXTENDED) L® I— — _ — K.B � ( = — ��J SHEET TITLE: I C6x13 LJ FRONT SIDE 2'-49/s° � S�/�/1 I.LEVATION I� t'-8" FRONT —'� 8 SIM. OUTDOOR CABINET EQUIPMENT SPACE SIDE FRONT %"0 CONDUIT WITH (2) #12AWG 1 DETAILS Hx60 Wx26 Dx22" BATTERY BACKUP AND (1) #12 GROUND E_, NOTES: 4 9712 LIGHTRADIO (ONE (1) TOTAL) C-'I SCALE :/2' = 1 -o 1 . ELEVATIONS REFERENCE T/CONCRETE SHEET NUMBER: 2. K.B. = KNEE BRACE (1) L2x2xY4" `��°s�\�P�E OF 2 E U I P M E NT AREAs C-� SCALE : N.T.S. WAE �n�Y LIGHTING n® Z sop oppop, Romp" �o�7 (4)%"0 HILTI HIT-Z ROD W/ HILTI HIT-HY 200 ADHESIVE �" 6" 4 CENTEROCK ROAD ANCHOR (55/g" MIN. EMBED.) 4" WEST NYACK, NY 10994 Y4 12-0" 4" 5'-6" 6'-0" f �. 6., a.. (MIN.) 6.. i APT 4" ENGINEERING (MIN.) 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE PHONE:(860)-663-1697 HSS 2Y2x2Y2xY4 �p KILLINGWORTH,CT 06419 FAX:(860)-663-0935 6x6x5/g" R WWW.ALLPOINTSTECH.COM a" 4" (MIN.) (MIN.) ® — — ys ® APPROVALS 2 BASE PLATE LANDLORD: DATE: S-1 SCALE : 1Y2"= 1'-0" ANCHORS 924" O.C. MAX O± RF ENGINEER: DATE: STAGGER FROM CENTER CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 6"THICK NEW VERIZON WIRELESS CANOPY b 0 3/4" CRUSHED STONE 10'x12' 6"THICK 4,000 PSI 8 OUTLINE -' o NO DATE REVISION PSI CONCRETE 6x6 W1 .4/1.4 WWF 6" (MIN.) 4,000 ( ) __-_ S-1 ZL I 1Y2 20 GA. TYPE 'B HAUNCHED CONCRETE SLAB ABOVE GALVANIZED MTL DECK 0 06122/15 FOR REVIEW: RCB e ° d- 2 HILTI KWIK-PRO SELF DRILLING i I 1 07/02/15 REVISE ANTENNAS: RCB JX. X j0-�� X•=� X x` Yc� °�-r- 'X I I W8x24 ° n �'-S" 2 05/25116 EQUIPMENT REVISIONS: RCB SCREW S-MD 12-24x1Y4 HWH I 1 3 03/20/18 ATTORNEY REVISIONS: RCB a: S-1 #5 KWIK COTE @ 8" O.C. (TYP.) I I 4 03/23/18 FOR PERMIT: RCB ALUMINUM GUTTER .•�j�� \ 8.. COMPACTED C6 �---- ® — -- — — ® 5 GRAVEL \\// //% HSS 2Y2x2Y2xY4" 00 2'-9Ya" 6 HSS 2Y2x2Y2xY4 (4) %"O HILTI HIT-Z ROD W/ 73/a' to 6" 10° 10" 6" Y4 HILTI HIT-HY 200 ADHESIVE 6 EQUIPMENT SEE PLAN 6x6x%,, R ANCHOR (55/8" MIN. EMBED.) 4 GUTTER SECTION GENERATOR 7 BOLTING ISOLATOR PAD 2'-0" 2'-0' S-1 PATTERN 1 EQUIPMENT PAD v• 5,000 PSI $-1 SCALE : 3�q"= 1'-0" (TYP. OF 4) S-1 NON-SHRINK GROUT SCALE : 1/z"= 1'-0" __ 1 4 X — 6x6 W1.4/1.4 WWF _ 5 EQUIPMENT PAD EXIST. BACKFILL \ \\ C-1 SCALE : %q" 8" COMPACTED \\ GRAVEL /A 3 BASE PLATE GENERAL: 1 . WORK IS TO BE ACCOMPLISHED ON AN EXISTING IN-SERVICE POLE. COORDINATE WORK AND TAKE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OF RECORD S,1 SCALE : 1"= 1'-0" PRECAUTIONS TO AVOID DISRUPTION OF EXISTING FACILITIES. „ 2. CAUTION - CUTTING HOLES IN THE MONOPOLE SHAFT PROF: SCOTT M. CHASSE P.E. INSTALL (3) VALMONT 6 x WEAKENS THE SHAFT IN THAT AREA UNTIL INSTALLATION IS COMP: APT ENGINEERING 12" HAND HOLE RIMS, P/N COMPLETE WITH PORT RIMS WELDED IN PLACE. IT IS THE ADD: 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE HHR612-G, 120°APART CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO PROPERLY SUPPORT THE KILLINGWORTH, CT 06419 85'± AGL POLE DURING PORT RIM INSTALLATION, I.E. TEMPORARY GUYS, CRANE, ETC. APT RECOMMENDS WORK BE OWNER: (FIKIAVERIZON NEW YORK F1K1A NEW YORK PERFORMED UNDER CALM WIND CONDITIONS. ADDRESS:TELEPHONE COMPANY) 3. EXERCISE EXTREME CAUTION TO AVOID DAMAGE TO PO BOX 152206, EXISTING CABLES AND EQUIPMENT DURING RIM IRVING, TX 75015-2206 INSTALLATION. USE OF TORCH TO CUT HOLES IS PROHIBITED. A A 4. VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO FABRICATION. NOTE: 5. COMPLETE INSTALLATION ONE PORT AT A TIME. IT IS;A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE 6. PERFORM ALL WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145, SECTION 10'± AGL LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL CODES. 7209 (2) FOR ANY PERSON,UNLESS INSTALL (1) VALMONT ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A 10Y2"x 25Y2" HAND HOLELICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR RIM, P/N HHR1025-G 8'± AGL STRUCTURAL STEEL: 1Y2" 20 GA. TYPE LAND SURVEYOR, TO ALTER AN ITEM IN "B" GALVANIZED HILTI K�.NIK-PRO SELF 1 . STEEL FABRICATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE ANY'WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE SEAL MTL DECK DRILLING SCREW S-MD REQUIREMENTS OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL OF AN ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR IS 12-24x1Ya HWH #5 KWIK CONSTRUCTION AND ALL APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES. OR TYP Y4 COTE @ 8" O.C. (TYP.) 2. WELD IN ACCORDANCE WITH AWS D1.1 USING CERTIFIED LANDALTEU THE ALTERING ENGINEER E LAND SURVEYOR SHALL AFFIX TO THE 6' R16x4x3/8" EXIST. WELDERS AND E80XX ELECTRODES PER THE ATTACHED ITEM HIS SEAL AND THE NOTATION NOTE: VERIFY BOLT HOLEr_j WELD WELD PROCEDURE. 3. HAND HOLE RIMS TO BE VALMONT 6"X 12" RIM, P/N "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY THE 3" V-1 07/16" 1'-73/a" V-83/16" 69�s" PATTERN WITH SPRING C6 C6 JOINT SIGNATURE AND THE DATE OF SUCH HHR612-G & 10Y2" X 25Y2" RIM, P/N HHR1025-G OR APPROVED ISOLATOR BASE PLATE AND _ _ — _ — _ EQUAL. ALTERATION,AND A SPECIFIC _CD GENERATOR MANUFACTURERSy 18" 18" R5x9x6/8" 4. STRICTLY FOLLOW ATTACHED VALMONT INSTALLATION DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION. r PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION /4 ]18" 18"F_ o- PROCEDURES. F --- ---- ------------ rL W8X24 �'+� +�,� B B 5. REPAIR GALVANIZED COATING AFFECTED BY WELDING VERIZON WIRELESS AT -------- ----_ —_°--------0- /8 10 SPRING ISOLATOR BASE t �' "CUTCHOGUE 2" AND/OR GRINDING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM A-780 r\ ao 9712 BAT 7 1 1 1 PLATE (MSS-2E-1000) . R15x5x3/8" (ATTACHED). o I I VARIES (SEE PLAN) SITE 31775 MAIN ROAD, r CAB CAB r 7 3/4" i i ADDRESS: CUTCHOGUE NY 11935 T ---------- ----- - --------A- FE W8X24 I I (4)5/8 0 HILTI HIT-Z ROD W/ y TYP. ' F ° ° HILTI HIT-HY 200 ADHESIVE /4 i APT FILING NUMBER: NY-141-300 LV HSS 2Y2x2/2xY4 ---------- ----- ------------ I ANCHOR (55/8" MIN. EMBED.) 3 ELEVATION O 1 Scale:Y2" = 1'-0" PROJECT CODE: 02006159147 T FRONT 1 -2 FRONT T 4 1/a" — CONC. EQUIP. PAD I LOCATION CODE: 171056 1/4 FASTEN W8x24 BEAMS TO CONCRETE SLAB W/5/8'O HILTI VZW CM: KU DRAWN BY: KRS HAS THREADED ROD W/ HILTI HIT HY200 ADHESIVE ANCHOR E /a" / 2Y2" MIN. EMBED. @24" O.C. TAGGER FROM CENTER DATE: 06/22/15 CHECKED BY: RCB ( ) ( MAX)) >> �/2„ � .__. �/ NEW ENTRY INSTALL NEW EXIT HAND HOLE 7 ISOLATOR BASE PLATE s CANOPY SUPPORT HAND HOLE RIMS, P/N ES +N RIM, P/N E UIPMENT BOLTING PATTERN HHR612-G, 120°APART HHR1025-G 1 SCALE : %2"= 1'-0" S-1 SCALE : %q"= 1'-0" SHEET TITLE: 1/4 — STRUCTURAL +I DETAILS SECTION A-A SECTION B-B Scale:Y2" = V-0" Scale:Y2" = 1'-0" SHEET NUMBER: �a�""�v OF M 9 TOWER PORTS ��C. e� OST M. Cy �•` �G 9n SCALE : NTS = nN _ m - aa. rn ® z q, O o�8 p3 'cFSS I , NEW GAS METER (FINAL LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BY UTILITY TO SURFACE2 D RESTORATION REQUIRED TO COMPANY) MATCH EXISTING CONDITIONS M-1 III-III=III-III=III-11 MECHANICAL NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS 4 CENTEROCK ROAD : .X X — 1 . THE MECHANICAL SUBCONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE ALL WORK TO BE V1/EST NYACK, NY 10994 6" WIDE METAL CORE U/G PERFORMED WITH THE GENERAL AND ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS. ANY WORK X WARNING TAPE W/ DONE BY THIS CONTRACTOR WHICH INTERFERES WITH WORK BY OTHERS AND "CAUTION BURIED UTILITY WHICH WAS NOT FIRST COORDINATED SHALL BE REMOVED AND RELOCATED AT LINES" @ V-0" BELOW CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. -Ilk 5 NEW VERIZON WIRELESS 2. THIS CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFICATION OF ALL UTILITIES AND APT 10KW, NATURAL GAS APPROVED COMPACTED THE PLACEMENT OF ALL EQUIPMENT PRIOR TO THE START OF HIS WORK. NO EXTRAS APT ° M-1 POWERED DC-GENERATOR DRY BACKFILL (95% MAX WILL BE ALLOWED DUE TO EQUIPMENT LOCATION CHANGE FROM THAT ON THE 7ENGINEERING • DENSITY) COMPACTION PER 3-6.. DRAWING. X ASTM D1557 IN 8" LIFTS SADDLEBROOK DRIVE 3. IT IS THE INTENT THAT THE WORK SHALL BE COMPLETE IN EVERY RESPECT AND KILLINGWORTH,,CT 064PHONE:H 9 $ ($0)-663-0935 60)-663-1697 AS W •a•:; •. A THAT ANY MATERIAL OR WORK NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED OR SHOWN ON THE WWW.ALLPOINTSTECH.COM • 12" SAND COVER OVER PIPE '� +I DRAWINGS, BUT NECESSARY TO FULLY COMPLETE THE WORK, SHALL BE PROVIDED. APPROVALS NOTE: 1" GAS PIPE WITH 20 MIL ;0o: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENGAGE THE 4. THE LOCATION OF SOME ITEMS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS MAY BE APPROXIMATE POLYETHYLENE SLEEVE p. Q b- LANDLORD: DATE: SERVICES OF AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY � AND THE OWNER SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE MINOR REVISIONS BEFORE THE - LOCATING COMPANY TO LOCATE ALL CORROSION PROTECTION aa'r °titi,�o• ti>ya ad,�c WORK IS INSTALLED WITHOUT ADDITIONAL COST. RF ENGINEER: DATE: UNDERGROUND EQUIPMENT IN THE •o�: °•' �t'�bf X I l i 7" SAND BED FROM MAIN ` � TRENCHING AREA TO AVOID ANY DAMAGE. TO METER PIT; 1'-0" MIN IN 5. THIS CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH AND INSTALL ALL NECESSARY VALVES, AND ALL CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS CONTROL DEVICES REQUIRED FOR PROPER COMPLETION OF UTILITY PIPING. < , - 2. HAND EXCAVATE WITHIN 5'OF EXISTING ROCK. NO DATE REVISION UNDERGROUND UTILITIES (V.I.F.) MAINTAIN 6. ALL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH 2015 PLUMBING CODE, MECHANICAL 0 06/22/15 FOR REVIEW: RCB 18" MIN. CLEARANCE. CODE, AND FUEL GAS CODE OF NEW YORK STATE W/2017 UNIFORM CODE sXXA, TRENCH WIDTHSUPPLEMENTS. 1 07/02/15 REVISE ANTENNAS: RCB co 1'-6" (GAS) 2 05/25/16 EQUIPMENT REVISIONS: RCB 7. INCLUDE ALL UTILITY COSTS (INCLUDING GAS SERVICE TO METER) AND SUBMIT FOR 3 03/20/18 ATTORNEY REVISIONS: RCB ix ITYPICAL DETAIL NEW GAS SERVICE THROUGH PSE&G CALL CENTER (800)436-7734. VERIFY GAS 4 03/23/18 FOR PERMIT: RCB EXISTING 90'± AGL MONOPOLE GAS TRENCH DEMAND IS 211,000 BTU/HR AT 7 TO 11 INCHES W.C. (13.9 MAXIMUM INCHES W.C. AT 5 GENERATOR). 6 co SCALE : N.T.S. 8. ALL BELOW GROUND GAS PIPING SHALL BE POLYETHYLENE (PE) PLASTIC PIPE OR TUBING PE 2406 (MEDIUM DENSITY YELLOW) OR PE 3408 (HIGH DENSITY BLACK) CONFORMING TO ASTM D2513. SPECIFICATIONS FOR THERMOPLASTIC GAS a— 0 PRESSURE PIPE SYSTEMS SHALL BE USED. X � 9. PE PLASTIC PIPING MAY NOT BE USED FOR GAS PIPING INSIDE OR BENEATH 2" BITUMINOUS CONCRETE BUILDINGS, OR FOR VENTING GAS PRESSURE REGULATORS. cm PAVEMENT 10. THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE USED FOR PE FITTINGS: ----------------------- - ASTM D2683 SPECIFICATION FOR SOCKET TYPE POLYETHYLENE FITTINGS O I' c FOR OUTSIDE DIAMETER CONTROLLED PE PIPE AND TUBING. G D X 3" COARSE GRAVEL OR d ° - ASTM D3261 SPECIFICATION FOR BUTT FUSION POLYETHYLENE (PE) PLASTIC d CRUSHED STONE BASE FITTINGS FOR POLYETHYLENE (PE) PIPE AND TUBING. - ASTM F1055 STANDARD SPECIFICATION FOR ELECTROFUSION TYPE PE - FITTINGS FOR OUTSIDE DIAMETER CONTROLLED PE PIPE AND TUBING. NEW 1" U/G GAS SERVICE FROM ::&&&4) EXISTING GAS MAIN TO NEW VERIZON ® EXISTING'COMPACTEb . - DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OF RECORD M-� WIRELESS EQUIPMENT SPACE(TYP) SUBBASE Q PROF: SCOTT M. CHASSE P.E. " COMP: APT ENGINEERING ADD: 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE KILLINGWORTH, CT 06419 ---=� OH OWNER: VERIZON NEW YORK H (F/KlA NEW YORK ADDRESS:TELEPHONE COMPANY) PO EXISTING U/G GAS �Q NOTES: BOX 152206, IR SERVICE ALONG / "� 1 . SUBBASE MAY CONSIST OF NATIVE MATERIALS IF FOUND IRBOX TX 75015-2206 EDGE OF ROAD CURB R ACCEPTABLE BY THE ENGINEER. SUBGRADE TO BE COMPACTED TO NOTE: 95% MAX. DRY DENSITY. GAS ROUTING PLAN 2. SUBBASE IS TO BE FREE FROM DEBRIS & UNSUITABLE MATERIALS. IT ISA VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE 3. RECYCLED CONCRETE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR GRAVEL OR ENGINE EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE SECTION SCALE :%6" = V-0" CRUSHED STONE BASE. 2-� UN EXHAUST 7209 (2) FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS ENGINE EXHAUST _ ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A 2 PAVEMENT SECTION HOT AIR EXHAUST • -7 LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR LANDND SURVEYOR,TO ALTER AN ITEM IN SERVICE O o 2'-7" ANY WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE SEAL N.T.S. GUARDED EMERGENCY p DOOR 0 . o OF AN ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR IS STOP SWITCH .,5'-11 ALTERED, THE ALTERING ENGINEER OR I �3/`�6 GUARDED LOCKING (4))/2"0 LAND SURVEYOR SHALL AFFIX TO THE HANDLE ' MOUNTING 4'-1 3/$- ITEM HIS SEAL AND THE NOTATION 1, HOLES "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY THE COLD AIR INLET SIGNATURE AND THE DATE OF SUCH PLAN ALTERATION,AND A SPECIFIC BRAIDED STAINLESS (4)Y2`0 MO DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION. FLEXIBLE CONNECTOR, HOLES SIZE PER ENGINE ENGINE SHUTDOWN SOLENOID BY NOTICE: NO WORK (SITE) WILL BE PERMITTED UNTIL ENGINE EXHAUST VERIZON WIRELESS AT GENERATOR MANUFACTURER ADEQUACY OF SERVICE IS DETERMINED BY GAS UTILITY -� ��e "CUTCHOGUE 2" REDUCER PROVIDER - CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE DETERMINATION FRONT HOT AIR EXHAUST -- - VENT REGULATOR, FULL SIZE WITH SERVICE PROVIDER (MAIN ACCESS) SITE' 31775 MAIN ROAD, TO EXTERIOR OF ENCLOSURE REMOVABLE DOOR .ADDRESS: CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 1" SHUTOFF COORDINATE GAS PIPE PENETRATION (SERVICE ACCESS) a/2" INTO ENCLOSURE WITH MANUFACTURER. 3 1" NATURAL GAS TO s'-11 g3/1s APT (FILING NUMBER: NY-141-300 1" NATURAL GAS M-1 GENERATOR. PRESSURE REGULATOR FIXED DOOR PROJECT CODE: 02006159147 (BY SERVICE PROVIDER) R (4)%2"Q1 MOUNTING SERVICE VALVES NOTE: LOCATION CODE: 171056 M HOLES (TYP 2PL) MINIMUM DISTANCES AWAY CONNECTION TO EXISTING GAS FROM ANY OBSTRUCTION: VZW CM: KU DRAWN BY: KRS CONNECT TO CARBURETOR SERVICE BY PSE&G. - FRONT: 2'-4" 3'-3' DATE: 06/22/15 CHECKED BY: RCB - SERVICE SIDE: V-6" - BACK &SIDE: 6" s "a'-i 3/s" GAS GAS GAS GAS—� EXISTING GAS SERVICE� SERVICE SIDE FROM STREET POLAR POWER INC. METER INSTALLED. LABEL"VERIZON"GENERATOR COORDINATE WITH PSE&G HAVE GAS 1 OkW NATURAL GAS—POWERED GENERATOR SHEET TITLE: NOTE: INSTALL COMPONENTS IN ACCORDANCE MODEL. # 8220K—DG972-102, W/GENERATOR MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS. 120/208V, 30, GO HZ W/ VIBRATION ISOLATORS (VMC MSS-2E-1000) MECHANICAL PLAN & DETAILS 3 GENERATOR CONNECTION DETAIL 4 GAS SERVICE CONNECTION/RISER DIAGRAM 5 GENERATOR SCHEMATICS M-� SCALE : N.T.S. M-1SCALE : N.T.S. M-� SCALE :Y4.'= 1'-0" SHEET NUMBER: �xP�E OF NF�� ` AGO"T M. C,y9 O z "5 OC iu p3 I O EXISTING TELCO POLE LIPA APPROVED UTILITY METER BOX (NYT#545) NEW 3/4" MARINE-PLY LABELED "VERIZON" UTILITY BACK-BOARD WQQ 200A/3P NEMA 3R FUSIBLE DISC. SWITCHif U01 x X 3" SCH. 40 PIPE SET IN 12"0W/200A FRN FUSES 3 nv 42" DEEP CONCRETE PIERS (PIPE 1-5/8" UNISTRUT W/ 1/2" CANOPY LIGHTING &SWITCH C-1 EMBEDMENT TO WITHIN 4" OFF U-BOLT CONNECTIONS 4 CENTEROCK ROAD x PIER BOTTOM) WEST NYACK, NY 10994 T T NEW UTILITY SERVICE I—E =x x — STRUCTURE BACKBOARD11 5 4 19 19 3 7 9 12 Lu x NEW VERIZON WIRELESS .I 6 3 PHASE 200A METER AND 1 E-2 DISCONNECT 120/208V PENDING 16 PP-1 TELCO A P T w 'I TELEPHONE x 3 COMPANY M MSB ENGINEERING NEW TELCO MESA CABINET '' MESA SPAN VZW 9712 EZBFo ~ •x E-1 r CABINET MTENB BAT 10 KW DC 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE PHONE:(860)-663-1697 INSTALLED BY W�AC GENERATOR KILLINGWORTH,CT 06419 FAX:(860)-663-0935 I R w — """' ? VERIZON 14 E GFI RECT GFI® WWW.ALLPOINTSTECH.COM I I £ € APPROVALS 1] w X i 22 n TV-- G GFI G I 1 LANDLORD: DATE. x U EQUIPMENT PAD Lu ° r ' RF ENGINEER: DATE: TO EQUIP. #2G GROUND RING I--2 CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS w EXISTING 90'± AGL MONOPOLE NO DATE REVISION w � � 0 06/22/15 FOR REVIEW: RCB _2 #2G 1 07/02115 REVISE ANTENNAS: RCB 6 6 5 x 21 10 I w 18 13 17 14 2 05/25/16 EQUIPMENT REVISIONS: RCB 1 20 15 3 03/20/18 ATTORNEY REVISIONS: RCB (1) NEW 120V, 20A 1-POLE NEMA 3R DISCONNECT SWITCH LABELED "MESA" 4 03/23/18 FOR PERMIT: RCB w NOTES: 5 1 1. GROUND [MTS]TO GROUND BAR (2) 1"C 2#10 + #12G TO "MESA" DISCONNECT AND CABINET FROM PANEL 6 w 2.. GROUND GENERATOR TO GROUND RING WITH 2 #2 AWG BOARD PP-1 �- GROUND WIRES (METER & ENCLOSURE). 0— 0 (3) (2) SINGLE MODE FIBER CABLES WITH LC-SC JUMPER (VIF), 2" LIQUID TIGHT x I w UTILITY RISER�11 �BACKBOARD FLEXIBLE METAL CONDUIT (LFMC) WITH SPARE PULL LINE LABELED BOTH ENDS. E-1 SCALE w (4) MANUAL TRANSFER SWITCH IN POWER PP-1 INTERSECT CABINET. 1 (5) 250A, 50V DC NEMA 3R BREAKER Lu (6) (2) 250 KCMIL, (1) #4AWG G, IN 2" PVC DC FEEDER (MINIMUM, INCREASE O DUE TO VOLTAGE DROP IF APPLICABLE). x I w Fwl (7) PLUG RJ45 CONNECTOR INTO PORT LABELED "5-8" IN THE eAMoB. w EXISTING 300KVA (9) (4) PR 24GA ALARM WIRES, 1" LIQUIDTIGHT FLEXIBLE METAL CONDUIT 1 TRANSFORMER w (LFMC) WITH RJ45 CONNECTOR FOR 9712 PORT. w NEW U/G/ ELECTRIC SERVICE FROM ( (10) ONE (1)3/4"C TO EZBFo WITH (4) #12,#12G TWO (2) CIRCUITS FOR BATTERY 1 2&4 EXISTING TRANSFORMER TO NEW w HEATER AND GENERAL CONVENIENCE RECEPTACLE. ~ x w E-1 UTILITY BACKBOARD (1 1) (2) #12, #12G IN 3/4"C TO DC LIGHTING THROUGH TIMER SWITCH TO — LE E F—E —E —E —E —E —E —E —E —E —E —E —E —E -• ELECTRICAL SYSTEM CANOPY LIGHTING. DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OF RECORD SYMBOL SIZE, IN. MATERIAL APPROX. RUN LENGTH, FT* (12) BUS BAR CONNECTION ON EZBFo CABINET WITH TWO HOLE LONG PROF: SCOTT M. CHASSE P.E. BARREL TERMINAL LUGS (%4' HOLES WITH 5/8" SPACING). COMP: APT ENGINEERING _ OH POWER E 2 PVC 290 OH (13) TENSILE ( PAIR ADD: 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE OH MAIN DISTRIBUTION VERIZON TELCO T 4 PVC 60 COPPER AND (1) 6 AIR POTs LINE TO NEW TELEPHONE CSC CABINET. KILLINGWORTH, CT 0641 9 "EXISTINGTELCO VOLTAGE 120/208V VOLTAGE 120/208V GROUND G #2 SBTC 350 (14) (3) #3/0 + (1) #4G IN 2"0 PVC. OWNER: VERIZON NEW YORK (F/K/A NEW YORK POLE (NYT#545) 2&4 NEW TELCO SERVICE FROM EXISTING, PHASE 3 PHASE 3 EMERGENCY (15) 12 PR SINGLE MODE FIBER CABLES IN 4" PVC WITH LC-SC JUMPER (V.I.F.). ADDRESS:TELEPHONE COMPANY) E-1 DEMARC (EXISTING POLE NYT#545)TO GENERATOR EG 2 PVC 25 MAIN ROAD AMPS 1 600 AMPS 200 (16) EXISTING 300 KVA TRANSFORMER.TAP SECONDARY SIDE OF PO BOX 152206, „A NEW TELCO MESA SPAN CABINET(TYP) TRANSFORMER WITH NEW VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICE FEEDER. IRVING, TX 75015-2206 LENGTHS ARE ESTIMATES; CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY IN FIELD. (17) EXISTING 1600 A 208/120V 30 TO BUILDING; 4 SETS 500kCMIL, 4"CONDUIT NOTIE: EACH. IT IS A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145, SECTION (18) EXISTING 15KV PRIMARY ELECTRIC SERVICE. 72091 (2) FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS PARTIAL SITE PLANACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A (19) (2) #12, #12G IN 3/4"C TO TELCO AND 9712 GFI GENERAL CONVENIENCE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR SCALE :%s"= 1'-0'• RECEPTACLE. LAND SURVEYOR, TO ALTER AN ITEM IN ANY WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE SEAL 5'-6^ (20) #2 CU GND TO SHELTER GROUNDING ELECTRODE SYSTEM. OF AN ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR IS ALTERED, THE ALTERING ENGINEER OR TRENCH ELECTRICAL - 1'-2" --I- 3'-2" V-2" (21) (2) #6, #6G, 1"C TO 9712 MTENB CABINET. LAND SURVEYOR SHALL AFFIX TO THE 4 FINISHED GRADE, CONDUIT 120V ITEM HIS SEAL AND THE NOTATION UNDISTURBED20A FEEDER 2'-8 7/8" (22) SIZE ALL BRANCH BREAKERS IN PP1 PER NEC AND PER BRANCH CIRCUIT "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY THE SOIL. E-1 MATCH EXISTING — V-11" CONDUCTORS INDICATED. SIGNATURE AND THE DATE OF SUCH GROUND WIRE ALTERATION,AND A SPECIFIC DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION. AREA INSIDE MOUNTING FRAME 1'A31 V-1 3/4" 1 _3' 2" BITUMINOUS CONCRETE 11=�I-III I I I= 7 I I I=III FR NT III—III—III III—III—III- SHOULD BE FILLED W/GRAVEL 1'-10 PAVEMENT �I—III—III - III—III=_II FLUSH TO THE TOP 2'-4 1/2" 2'-3" VERIZON WIRELESS AT MOUNTING - III—III—II III—III=ISI OF THE CONCRETE PAD. "CUTCHOGUE 2" -I I I-III„ III-III- FRAME 6" WIDE METAL CORE U/G (2)-4" CONDUITS PLACED SITE 31775 MAIN ROAD, D N WARNING TAPE W/"CAUTION FROM CARRIER SIDE OF CONCRETE PAD OR STRONGWELL BOX a : ° ADDRESS: CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 m CSC TO HAND HOLE. 2' a a. z BURIED UTILITY LINES" 5•-8^ a v 1 3" COARSE G1 AVEL OR a v APT FILING NUMBER: NY-141-300 CARRIER CARRIER FRONT OF v 4 CRUSHED STONE BASE BACKFILL WITH SUITABLE "A g 14 � MATERIAL COMPACTED TO 95% GRADE LEVEL HAND HOLE INDIVIDUAL CARRIER CABINET 1 PROJECT CODE: 02006159147 e::::'::::...::..:::::.: :'.•:• •:• MAXIMUM DENSITY (ASTM D (CHANNEL GRADE LEVEL CONDUITS TERMINATING ELECTRICAL LOCATION CODE: 171056 L _TA _ IN HAND HOLE. (TYP.) ENTRANCE VZW CM: KU DRY.AWN B KRS • '�', ' •� ::.:.Y CARRIER C 1557) BOX GLB1730 OR EQUAL.) 2ARRIER 32>, 2 EXISTING`COMPACTEIb .;. r.: BACKFILL (SAND)(SEE ® SUBBASE. DATE: 06/22/15 CHECKED BY: RCB ° EARTHWORK SPEC: N-1) ' NOTES: =I I I I III I I' NOTES: USE HUB TEMPLATE TO ALIGN 1 . THE CLEAN FILL SHALL PASS THROUGH A - MIN ' MIN MIN CONDUITS. (SUPPLIED W/MOUNTING 5•. 3/8" MESH SCREEN AND SHALL NOT FRAME). CONDUITS SHOULD EXTEND t— CONTAIN SHARP STONES. OTHER BACKFILL PROVIDE TWO 2"SCHEDULE 40 PVC ELECTRIC 7.5" ABOVE CONCRETE PAD. I 5'-6" '`' / SHEET TITLE: SHALL NOT CONTAIN ASHES, CINDERS, CONDUITS (1-ACTIVE FOR NEW VERIZON WIRELESS NOTES: SHELLS, FROZEN MATERIAL, LOOSE DERBIES SERVICE FEEDER AND 1-SPARE WITH PULL ROPE) 1 . HUB FABRICATING PAD BASE P/N80738 OR STONES LARGER THAN 2" IN MAXIMUM 2. ALL CONCRETE TO BE 4000 psi @ 28 DAYS & IAW ACI STDS. NOTES: MAY CONSIST OF NATIVE MATERIALS IF FOUND DIMENSION. 'WHERE EXISTING JTILITIES ARE PROVIDE TWO 4 SCHEDULE 40 PVC COMMUNICATION 3. 6x6-W4.Ox 4.0 WELDED WIRE MESH. ELECTRICAL/TELCO LIKELY TO BE ENCOUNTERED. (TELEPHONE, F/O) CONDUITS WITH 200 LB MIN. TENSILE MESA SPAN AREA FINAL CONFIGURATION 4. APPROXIMA 1 E WEIGHT OF FOUNDATION IS 1000 LBS. ACCEPTABLE BY THE ENGINEER. SUBGRADE TO BE COMPACTED TO STRENGTH PULL TAPE. TELEPHONE COMPANY WILL TO BE DETERMINED BY TELCO PROVIDER. 5. AS AN OPTION, CHAMFERED CORNERS MAY BE FINISHED W/ 95% MAX. DRY DENSITY. PLAN & DETAILS 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL HAND DIG AND SUPPLY AND INSTALL TELEPHONE LINES. AN EDGING TOOL. 2. SUBBASE IS TO BE FREE FROM DEBRIS &UNSUITABLE MATERIALS. PROTECT EXISTING UTILITIES. 6. STRONGWELL BOX MAY BE USED IN LIEU OF PAD 3. RECYCLED CONCRETE MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR GRAVEL OR 3. EXISTING PAVEMENT SHALL BE SAW-CUT CRUSHED STONE BASE. SHEET NUMBER: �\\��`�``P��,OFPNF�L PRIOR TO TRENCH EXCAVATION CP Go�i c0�° 4. MINIMUM EQUIVALENT 3-90 DEG ELBOWS. 3 M ESA S PAN CABINET PAD DETAILS 4 PAVEMENT SECTION ^ � M. y9 y 2 u SCALE � INSTALL PROPERLY SIZED HANDHOLE RE N C 1 1 E_1 SCALE : N.T.S. E-1 ENCLOSURE(S)AS REQUIRED. LOCATE PER UTILITY T - z �J OWNER. INSTALL AND LABEL HANDHOLE - N COVER PER (EIEC AND UTILITY. E-1 SCALE : N.T.S. m0 �09k 078F03 BOND TO UTILITY BACKBOARD SUPPORT POST-TYP GALVANIZED STEEL GROUND BUS O o 0 0 0 O O O o O O O O O O O o O uo�>i 6 BAR EMC 24" PATTERN "C" EMSGC Q o O o 0 0 O O 0 O Q Q o 0 o O 0 0 O o O Q GRADE NEW UTIILITY BACKBOARD A-3 7/16#14424B (OR EQUAL) 0 0 O 0 0 O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MRUM MGB AGB/EGB BELOW EXOTHERMIC WELD 4 CENTEROCK ROAD FROSTLINE WEST NYACK, NY 10994 BUS BAR ATTACHMENT GROUNDING SPECIFICATIONS: NOTES: MGB: AGB/EGB: Ej NEW TELCO MESA 3 MTS MT-572 (OR EQUAL) 1)ALL CONDUCTORS #2/0 W/2 HOLE LUGS. 1) MGB = MASTER GROUND BAR 1) GROUND RING 1) EXISTING GROUND RING CABINET E_1 2) ALL FIELD SIZED LUGS MUST CONFORM W/ 2)AGB = ANTENNA GROUND BAR 2) SPARE 2) MASTER GROUND BAR PROPOSED CONCRETE PADN \ EMA STANDARDS. 3) EGB = EXTERIOR GROUND BAR 3) BATT BACKUP 3) GPS COAX RING GROUND x -x -x -x -x -x -x x -x _ x _x�x 3) NO WELDS TO GROUND BAR. 4) DC GENERATOR 4) GPS MOUNTS #2 AWG SBTC 4) DOUBLE UP COAX GROUND LEADS ON BACKSIDE - - - - - - - -�- 5) POWER PANEL 5) COAX GROUND KITS APT 2 GROUND BAR MOUNTING DETAIL OF GROUND BAR ONLY AS NECESSARY. 6)TELCO PANEL 6) ANTENNA MOUNTS GROUND ROD COPPERWELD X I 5) 24" STEEL GROUND BUS BAR: EMC # 'C' EM SGC 7) 9712 CAB 7) HVAC UNITS & FRAMES 5/ROUND LONG ENGINEERING I I E-2 SCALE :NTS 14424B- 4"x24"x7/16" (OR EQUAL) 8) SPARE WHERE SPECIFIED x I 9) GROUND RING 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE PHONE:(860)-663-1697 KILLINGWORTH,CT 06419 FAX:(860)-663-0935 ii WWW.ALLPOINTSTECH.COM X I I FUSED PRIMARY AND INTRUSION ALARM CONTACT 3 G RO U N D BARS APPROVALS NEW VERIZON WIRELESS 11 I SECONDARY INDICATOR LAMPS FLUORESCENT LAMP E_2 SCALE: N.T.S. 4 GROUND ROD DETAIL 20'-4"x32'-6" (660± SF) 7&8 i COMPOUND AREA W/8' LANDLORD: DATE: I I I E_2 SCALE: N.T.S. RF ENGINEER: DATE: CHAIN LINK FENCE AND GATE E-2 MANUAL TRANSFER W/GREEN PRIVACY SLATS x I i ® Z� SWITCH CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS 200A MAIN J NO DATE REVISION BOND TO FENCE X POWER BREAKER 24RU ADJUSTABLE 1 ,000 BTU AIR F_ 01 06/22/15 FOR REVIEW: RCB I i o o CONDITIONER FABRIC SUPPORT El 11 ° 15 AMP GFI EQUIP. RACK O 1 07/02/15 REVISE ANTENNAS: RCB POST @ 12"ABOVE xIr GRADE-TYP o° 2'. 05/25/16 EQUIPMENT REVISIONS: RCB - - - - - - - - - - GROUND EACH PVC, GALV. STEEL OR REINF. 3 03/20/18 ATTORNEY REVISIONS: RCB I I I CANOPY POST TO 0 CONCRETE TEST WELL WITH I � � MULTIPOINT O GROUND RING ® J 4 03/23/18 FOR PERMIT: RCB #2 AWG TINNED ( GROUND BAR w REMOVABLE COVER INSTALLED SOLID COPPER x I I FUSED CONTACTS m FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADE 5 EQUIPMENTI I I I FOR POWER/FAILURE 8"-12"0 6 GROUND RING I I INDICATOR Z 42 POSITION LOAD 38"x21" PLYWOOD � �- - _ �- _ ( TELCO BOARD (2) 6' WIDE 7 I CENTER _ _ _ ACCESS GATE E_2 i I I AC TO TELCO CABINET .I � I � GROUND LEAD BOND ACCESS GATE I , \ I I r TO GATE SUPPORT I Z TrF- x I I I \\ i I PRIMARY AND BACKUP HEAVY DUTY POST VIA 4/0 TINNED M TEST LOOP 12" SUPPRESSORS FLEXIBLE GATE I . I GROUND BAR x BELOW GRADE MAX. BONDINGI - EASY ACCESS N TINNED AWG #2 SOLID JUMPER-TYP 2X xi `■- - - - - - i MOUNTING PANEL ACCESS DOOR _ �- xI x I �I ' 2&3 MASTER POWER PP-1 TELCO EXOTHERMIC WELD (TYP) BOND EACH CABINET& 9 X I ` I E_2 GROUND BAR NOTE: z � COPPER-CLAD STEEL GROUND PPC TO MGB E-2 I ( I 1) CONTRACTOR SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO FURNISH AND INSTALL AC&TELCO SUPPRESSION CABINET ROD MIN. 8' LONG, MIN. DIA. 5/8" 2) CABINETS SHALL BE MANUFACTURED BY INTERSECT NEW VERIZON 1 0 i 3) THE AC CABINET SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH INTEGRAL MANUAL TRANSFER SWITCH AND MCP 120 TA 10M DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OF RECORD WIRELESS ICE BRIDGE E-2 SURGE SUPPRESSOR PROF: SCOTT M. CHASSE P.E. s GROUND SYSTEM TESTING WELL COMP: APT ENGINEERING BOND TO TOWER I , / , 5 POWER AND TELCO CABINETS GROUND BUS I I I E-2 SCALE : N.T.S. E_2 SCALE: N.T.S. CABINETS- ADD: 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE KILLINGWORTH CT 06419 BOND TO TOWER PER MANUFACTURERSI I NOTES: OWNER: VERIZON NEW YORK SPECIFICATIONS-TYP I I I 1) VERTICAL POST SHALL BE BONDED TO THE RING @ EACH CORNER & (F/K/A NEW YORK / I I @ EACH GATE POST. AS A MINIMUM ONE VERTICAL POST SHALL BE ADDRESS:TELEPHONE COMPANY) EXITING GROUND I I BOND ICE BONDED TO THE GROUND RING IN EVERY 100'-0" STRAIGHT RUN OF FENCE. PO BOX 152206, RING (V.I.F.) ) BRIDGE I 2) HORIZONTAL POLES SHALL BE BONDED TO EACH OTHER. IRVING, TX 75015-2206 4- — — — — — SUPPORT I 3) BOND EACH HORIZONTAL POLE/ BRACE TO EACH OTHER &TO EACH EXISTING 90'± POST (TYP) I VERTICAL POST THAT IS BONDED TO THE EXTERIOR GROUND RING. N10TE: \ J ITIS A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE AGL MONOPOLE \ / EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145,SECTION \ _ J VERTICAL POST IS VERTICAL POST NOT 7209 (2) FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS \- - - - - - - - - - CONNECTED TO RING CONNECTED TO RING ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR EXOTHERMIC WELD EXOTHERMIC WELD LAND SURVEYOR,TO ALTER AN ITEM IN A ® (TYP) GROUND ROD -5/8" x 10'W/EXOTHERMIC WELD CONNECTION .) (TYP.) ANY WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE SEAL NEW OIF AN ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR IS EXIST. GROUND RINGS @ EQUIPMENT AILTERED, THE ALTERING ENGINEER OR ■ EXOTHERMIC WELD CONNECTION #2 AWG #2 AWG MIN. 6" BELOW FROST LINE GROUND RINGNEW LAND SURVEYOR SHALL AFFIX TO THE #2 AWG SBTC GROUND EQUIPMENT ITEM HIS SEAL AND THE NOTATION TEST GROUND WELL 6 SBTC (TYP.) SBTC (TYP.) WIRE (VIF) / "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY THE E-2 / (TYP. - SEE NOTE) SIIGNATURE AND THE DATE OF SUCH / AILTERATION,AND A SPECIFIC GROUNDING PLAN 9 EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION. LE :3/6"= 1'-0" E-2 GROUND E-2 SCA EXOTHERMIC WELD / VERIZON WIRELESS AT FOR CABLE BRIDGE / \ "CUTCHOGUE 2" DETAILS SEE SHEET A-2 SITE 31775 MAIN ROAD, #2 AWG GROUNDS RING NOTES: GROUND RING-] #2 CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 1)THE #2 AWG, SBTC, FROM THE RING GROUND SHALL BE EXOTHERMICALLY WELDED #2 AWG SBTC SBTC (TYP.) #2 AWG'SBTC TO THE POST ABOVE GRADE. CABLE TO CABLE GROUND LEAD APT FILING NUMBER: NY-141-300 2) BOND EACH HORIZONTAL POLE/ BRACE TO EACH OTHER &TO EACH VERTICAL POLE EXOTHERMIC WELD FROM TOP OF / PROJECT CODE: 02006159147 30 AT D JUMPER SHATO THE LL R GROUND BE #4/O AWG(WELDING CABLE OR FLEXIBLE COPPER BRAID s FENCE GROUNDING DETAIL TOWER AGB / / �' / LOCATION CODE: 171056 BURNDY TYPE "B"W/SLEEVES ON EACH END DESIGNED FOR EXOTHERMIC WELDING. E_2 SCALE: N.T.S. WAVEGUIDE / VZW CM: KU DRAWN BY: KRS CADWELD /TS TO FOCAL POINT / ^T/ T DATE: 06/22115 CHECKED BY: RCB (TYP.) ""`"""""' BASED ON THOMAS & BETI j MMNFM1MtMiFf /v MNtMNMi1d41Fa NNtIHF►FMMiM #2 AWGGROUND HALO / CAT. #: WIRE SIZE: DIE #: BOLT SIZE: EXTERIOR /NEW ICE / BCW (TYP.) 54205 #6 AWG 24 1/4" 2&3 GROUND BRIDGE GROUND 54207 #2 AWG 33 1/4" E-2BAR 54260 #2/0 AWG 45 1/2" UNIT EGB / RING @ MIN 42" bgs / #2 AWG SOLID BARE TINNED SHEET TITLE: BOND TOWER D #2 SBTC / / COPPER GROUND WIRE CADWELD NOTES: (NP) FROM EGB TO / / 2&3 MASTER 1) PROVIDE BOLTS, SPLIT ® NEW TOWER / / E-2 GROUND BAR GROUNDING PLAN (NP) LOCKWASHERS & NUTS ® GROUND / 1 O FOR ALL CONNECTIONS. RING. r CONNECT ALL GROUND & DETAILS 2) REMOVE PAINT w/POWER1 / LEADS EXOTHERMICALLY TO CABLE TO CABLE I PAINTED ; CADWELD DRILL COMPLETELY & GRINDING SURFACE / NEW OR EXISTING GROUND RINGS EQUIPMENT , tD NOTE: SCHEMATICS SHOWN ARE TYPICAL. ACTUAL BIT BEFORE BONDING. TREAT w/ PANEL, ETC. SIDE uy ,r #2 AWG BCW (TYP.) NO-OX or EQUAL&TOUCH-UP s \ - EQUIPMENT ORIENTATION MAY VARY FROM THAT SHEET NUMBER: W GROUND RING #2 AWG BC (MIN 18" BELOW ROUGH GRADE) AROUND PAINTED SURFACE w/ i SHOWN. REFER TO SHEEP C-1 FOR OF NFIy RUST INHIBITING PAINT TO MATCH E SITE SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT CONFIGURATION. ca "I GDT M. Cti9 yp�" EXISTING. (TYPICAL FOR ALL 7 V' GATE GROUNDING DETAIL SURFACES TO BE BONDED) / EXISTING TOWER TYPICAL ® Z E_2 SCALE: N.T.S. 9 HOLE (V.I.F.,E LUG BONDS /~ GROUND RING W 2 O _ �o GROUNDING SCHEMATIC E-2 SCALE :NTS E-2 �o7, 8 0 GENERAL CONDITIONS STRUCTURAL CONNECTION BOLTS SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM ALL ARC AND GAS WELDING SHALL BE DONE BY A LICENSED SQUARE PERCENT PASSING BY WEIGHT GROUNDING ANTENNA&CABLE NOTES: DEMOLITION SPECIFICATION AND NOTES: A325.ALL BOLTS SHALL BE 3/4"DIAMETER MINIMUM AND AND CERTIFIED WELDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH AMERICAN MESH BANK GRAVEL BANK GRAVEL PROCESSED MATERIALS: 11 IT IS THE CONTRAC'TOR'S SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO COMPLY WITH SHALL HAVE MIN.OF TWO BOLTS, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE WELDING SOCIETY. SIEVES FILL BASE AGO BASE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH AND INSTALL ALL REMOVE AND LEGALLY DISPOSE OF ITEMS EXCEPT THOSE ALL APPLICABLE FEDERAL,STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES, ON THE DRAWINGS. LOCK WASHERS ARE NOT PERMITTED FOR PASS 5" 100 #6 THWN SHALL BE STRANDED#6 COPPER WITH GREEN TRANSMISSION CABLES,JUMPERS,CONNECTORS, INDICATED TO BE REINSTALLED,SALVAGED,OR TO REMAIN -1 FEEG PERMIT CONDITIONS AND SAFETY CODES DURING CONSTRUCTION. A325 STEEL ASSEMBLIES. ALL WELDING SHALL BE DONE USING E70XX ELECTRODES AND PASS 3-1/2' 100 90-100 THWN INSULATION SUITABLE FOR WET INSTALLATIONS. GROUNDING STRAPS,ANTENNAS, MOUNT AND HARDWARE. THE OWNER'S PROPERTY. - WELDING SHALL CONFORM TO AISC AWS D1.1.UPON THE PASS 2-1/4" 100 ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR n%l THE ENGINEER IS NOT:A GUARANTOR OF THE INSTALLING NON-STRUCTURAL.CONNECTIONS FOR STEEL GRATING MAY COMPLETION OF WELDING,ALL DAMAGE TO GALVANIZED PASS 2' 95-100 #2 THWN SHALL BE STRANDED#2 COPPER WITH THWN FOR DAMAGE UPON DELIVERY.JUMPERS SHALL BE SUPPLIED PROTECT CONSTRUCTION INDICATED TO REMAIN AGAINST CONTRACTOR'S WORK;RESPONSIBLE FOR SAFETY IN,ON OR USE 5/8"DIAMETER GALVANIZED ASTM A 307 BOLTS UNLESS COATING SHALL BE REPAIRED. PASS 1-1/2" 55-100 55-95 INSULATION SUITABLE FOR WET INSTALLATIONS. AT ANTENNAS AND EQUIPMENT INSIDE SHELTER. DAMAGE AND SOILING DURING DEMOLITION WHEN ABOUT THE WORK SITE;IN CONTROL OF THE SAFETY OR OTHERWISE NOTED. PASS 1" COORDINATE LENGTH OF JUMPER CABLES WITH VERIZON PERMITTED,ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED TO A SUITABLE, 4 CENTEROCK ROAD ADEQUACY OF ANY BUILDING COMPONENT,SCAFFOLDING,OR USE PRECAUTIONS AND PROCEDURES PER AWS D1.1 WHEN PASS 3/4" 50-75 WIRELESS. COORDINATE AND VERIFY ALL OF THE MATERIALS PROTECTED STORAGE AREA DURING DEMOLITION AND THEN ALL STEEL MATERIAL EXPOSED TO WEATHER SHALL BE WELDING GALVANIZED METALS. PASS 1/4" 25-60 25-60 25-45 #2 BARE TINNED SHALL BE SOLID COPPER TINNED ALL TO BE PROVIDED WITH VERIZON WIRELESS PRIOR TO CLEANED AND REINSTALLED IN THEIR ORIGINAL LOCATIONS. OTHER RELATED WORK AIDS;OR RESPONSIBLE FOR GALVANIZED AFTER FABRICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM PASS#10 15-45 15-45 BURIED WIRE SHALL MEET THIS CRITERIA. SUBMITTING BID AND ORDERING MATERIALS. WEST NYACK, NY 7 0994 SUPERINTENDING THE WORK. A123"ZINC(HOT-DIPPED GALVANIZED)COATINGS"ON IRON TOUCH-UP ALL DAMAGED GALVANIZED STEEL WITH COLD-ZINC, PASS#40 2-25 5-25 5-20 DEMOLISHED MATERIALS SHALL BECOME THE THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PIROVIDING ALL PERMITS, "GALVANOX•", 'DRY GALV""."ZINC-IT-'OR APPROVED EQUAL,IN ALL LUGS SHALL BE 2-HOLE, LONG BARREL,TINNED SOLID AND STEEL PRODUCTS PASS#100 0-10 0-10 2-12 AFTER INSTALLATION,THE TRANSMISSION LINE SYSTEM CONTRACTOR'S PROPERTY AND SHALL BE REMOVED FROM INSPECTIONS,TESTING AND CERTIFICATES NEEDED FOR LEGAL ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S GUIDELINES. TOUCH-UP PASS#200 0-5 0-5 COPPER UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. LUGS SHALL BE SHALL BE PIM/SWEEP TESTED FOR PROPER INSTALLATION THE SITE WITH FURTHER DISPOSITION AT THE CONTRACTOR'S ALL BOLTS,ANCHORS AND MISCELLANEOUS HARDWARE DAMAGED NON-GALVANIZED STEEL WITH SAME PAINT APPLIED IN THOMAS AND BETTS SERIES 548##be OR EQUIVALENT(I.E., AND DAMAGE WITH ANTENNAS CONNECTED.CONTRACTOR OPTION. OCCUPANCY OF THE FINISHED PROJECT. SHOP OR FIELD. EXPOSED TO WEATHER SHALL BE GALVANIZED IN FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE FREE OF ORGANIC MATERIAL,ICE, #2 THWN-54856BE;#2 SOLID-54856BE;AND#6 THWN- TO OBTAIN LATEST TESTING PROCEDURES FROM VERIZON THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO REVIEW THIS COMPLETE ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM A153"ZINC COATING(HOT-DIP)ON ANCHORS: TRASH AND DEBRIS. 54852BE). WIRELESS PRIOR TO BIDDING. COMPLY WITH GOVERNING LOCAL,STATE AND FEDERAL PLAN SET AND VERIFY THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN IN IRON AND STEEL HARDWARE." NOTIFICATION REGULATIONS BEFORE STARTING DEMOLITION. m THESE PLANS AS THEY RELATE TO HIS WORK PRIOR TO EXPANSION ANCHORS SHALL BE USED WHERE ATTACHING TO SEDIMENTATION&EROSION CONTROL ALL HARDWARE,BOLTS,NUTS,WASHERS,AND BELLEVILLE ANTENNA CABLES SHALL BE COLOR CODED AT THE 1 SUBMITTING PRICE.SIGNIFICANT DEVIATIONS FROM WHAT IS DAMAGED GALVANIZED SURFACES SHALL BE REPAIRED BY WASHERS SHALL BE 18-8 STAINLESS STEEL. EVERY FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: COMPLY WITH HAULING AND DISPOSAL REGULATIONS OF TOUCHING UP ALL DAMAGED GALVANIZED STEEL WITH COLD CONCRETE.MASONRY MOUNTS SHALL HAVE INJECTION CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING - AT THE ANTENNAS. AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION7 ENGINEERING SHOWN AFFECTING THE WORK SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY ADHESIVE ANCHORING. CONNECTION SHALL BE BOLT-FLAT TO THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. ZINC,"GALVANOX","DRY GALV",'ZINC IT",OR APPROVED SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION. EROSION CONTROL WASHER-BUSS-LUG-FLAT WASHER-BELLEVILLE - AT THE WAVE GUARD ENTRY PLATE BOTH SIDES OF THE EQUIVALENT,IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S EXPANSION BOLTS SHALL BE HILTI KWIK BOLT 3 OR APPROVED MEASURES,IF REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION,SHALL BE WASHER-NUT IN THAT EXACT ORDER. BACK-TO-BACK EQUIP.SHELTER WALL. BUILDING COMPONENTS TO BE DEMOLISHED SHALL BE DETAILS INCLUDED IN THIS PLAN SET ARE TYPICAL AND APPLY TO GUIDELINES.TOUCH UP DAMAGED NON GALVANIZED STEEL EQUAL.MINIMUM EMBEDMENT 4 INCHES. IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LOCAL GUIDELINES FOR LUGGING, BOLT-FLAT WASHER-LUG-BUSS-LUG-FLAT JUMPER CABLES AT THE EQUIPMENT ENTER. VACATED AND THEIR USE DISCONTINUED BEFORE START OF 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE PHONE:(860)663- 1697 SIMILAR CONDITIONS. WITH SAME PAINT APPLIED IN SHOP OR FIELD. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL. WASHER-BELLEVILLE WASHER-NUT, IN THAT EXACT ORDER, DEMOLITION. KILLINGWORTH,CT 06419 FAX:(860)-663-0935 INJECTION ADHESIVE ANCHORING IN MASONRY WITH VOIDS IS ACCEPTED WHERE NECESSARY TO CONNECT MANY LUGS SYSTEM INSTALLATION: WWW.ALLPOINTSTECH.COM EXISTING ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL FIXTURES, PIPING, CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH AWS CODE FOR SHALL BE HILTI HIT HY-70 OR EQUAL WITH THREADED ROD AND LIMITS OF CLEARING AND GRUBBING SHALL BE CLEARLY TO A BUSS BAR, STACKING OF LUGS,BUSS-LUG-LUG,IS THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL CABLES AND STORAGE OR SALE OF REMOVED ITEMS OR MATERIALS WIRING AND EQUIDMENT OBSTRUCTING THE WORK SHALL BE PROCEDURES,APPEARANCE AND QUALITY OF WELDS,AND SCREEN TUBES TO THE FOLLOWING BASE MATERIALS. MARKED BEFORE COMMENCING WITH SUCH WORK. NOT ACCEPTABLE. ANTENNAS TO THE MANUFACTURER'S AND VERIZON'S ON-SITE WILL NOT BE PERMITTED APPROVALS REMOVED AND/OR RELOCATED AS DIRECTED BY THE WELDING PROCESSES SHALL BE QUALIFIED IN ACCORDANCE SPECIFICATIONS.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGER.TEMPORARY SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS WITH AWS"STANDARD QUALIFICATION PROCEDURES." ALL BRICK WITH HOLES: SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL(SEC)MEASURES THE PROCUREMENT AND INSTALLATION OF THE FOLLOWING: ARRANGE DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES SO AS NOT TO INTERFERE WELDING SHALL BE DONE USING E70XX ELECTRODES AND SHOWN SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO LAND CLEARING, WHERE CONNECTIONS ARE MADE TO STEEL OR DISSIMILAR - ALL CONNECTORS,ASSOCIATED CABLE MOUNTING, WITH THE OWNER'S ON-SITE OPERATIONS MUST BE COORDINATED WITH OWNER. SPACE ANCHORS 2 COMPLETE BRICKS APART MINIMUM. LANDLORD: DATE: WELDING SHALL CONFORM TO AISC AND D1.1.WHERE FILLET MAINTAIN 2 COMPLETE BRICKS OR 16 INCHES EXCAVATION OR GRADING OPERATIONS REQUIREMENTS OF METALS,A THOMAS AND BETTS DRAGON TOOTH WASHER AND GROUNDING HARDWARE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DILIGENTLY PROTECT THE EXISTING WELD SIZES ARE NOT SHOWN,PROVIDE THE MINIMUM SIZE FROM FREE EDGES(WHICHEVER IS LESS). LOCAL WETLAND AGENCY SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO MODEL DTW###SHALL BE USED BETWEEN THE LUG AND - WALL MOUNTS,STANDOFFS,AND ASSOCIATED VERIFY THAT ALL UTILITIES HAVE BEEN DISCONNECTED AND RF ENGINEER: DATE: BUILDING/SITE CONDITIONS AND THOSE OF ANY ADJOINING PER TABLE J2.4 IN THE AISC'MANUAL OF STEEL EMBEDMENT.3-1/2 INCHES MINIMUM EARTHWORK OPERATIONS. THE STEEL,BOLT-FLAT WASHER-STEEL-DRAGON TOOTH HARDWARE. CAPPED, BUILDINGS/SITES AND RESTORE ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY HIS CONSTRUCTION"13TH EDITION.AT THE COMPLETION OF WASHER-LUG- FLAT WASHER-BELLEVILLE WASHER-NUT. - y2"HELIAX ANTENNA JUMPERS OF APPROPRIATE ACTIVITIES TO THE:PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION. WELDING,ALL DAMAGE TO GALVANIZED COATING SHALL BE HOLLOW CONCRETE BLOCK: IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN SEC LENGTHS. PERFORM INSPECTIONS AS THE DEMOLITION PROGRESSES I CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS REPAIRED.SEE NOTE ABOVE. USE 50%MORE ANCHORS THAN SHOWN IN DETAIL MEASURES THROUGHOUT DURATION OF PROJECT UNTIL ALL CONNECTIONS,INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR,SHALL BE TO DETECT HAZARDS RESULTING FROM SAID ACTIVITIES, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SAFEGUARD AGAINST:CREATING A FIRE SPACING:ONE ANCHOR MAXIMUM PER BLOCK CELL DISTURBED LAND IS THOROUGHLY VEGETATED. MADE WITH THOMAS AND BETTS KPOR-SHIELD". COAT ALL ANTENNA CABLES SHALL BE FOAM DIELECTRIC COAXIAL NO DATE REVISION HAZARD,AFFECTING TENANT EGRESS OR COMPROMISING THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY INCORRECTLY MAINTAIN 12"SPACING FROM FREE EDGES WIRES BEFORE LUGGING AND COAT ALL SURFACES BEFORE CABLES AS SPECIFIED BY VERIZON WIRELESS MAINTAIN EXISTING UTILITIES INDICATED TO REMAIN IN BUILDING/SITE SECURITY MEASURES. FABRICATED, DAMAGED OR OTHERWISE MISFITTING OR EMBEDMENT:THROUGH FACE FAILURE OF THE SEC SYSTEMS SHALL BE CORRECTED CONNECTING. - BASE STATION ANTENNAS: SERVICE AND PROTECT THEM AGAINST DAMAGE DURING 0 06/22/15 FOR REVIEW: RCB NONCONFORMING MATERIALS OR CONDITIONS TO REMEDIAL IMMEDIATELY AND SUPPLEMENTED WITH ADDITIONAL -- FOR CABLE RUNS UP TO 100 FEET,USE%8 CABLE. DEMOLITION OPERATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL DEBRIS AND OR CORRECTIVE ACTION.ANY SUCH ACTION SHALL REQUIRE INJECTION ADHESIVE ANCHORING IN SOLID MASONRY AND MEASURES AS NEEDED THE MINIMUM BEND RADIUS SHALL BE 8 INCHES FOR#6 -- FOR CABLE RUNS GREATER THAN 100 FEET,USE 1 07/02/15 REVISE ANTENNAS: RCB CONSTRUCTION WASTE FROM THE SITE EACH DAY.WORK AREAS ENGINEER REVIEW. GROUT FILLED BLOCK SHALL BE HILTI HIT HY-200 OR EQUAL WITH WIRE AND SMALLER AND 12 INCHES FOR WIRE LARGER 1%"CABLE. DO NOT INTERRUPT EXISTING UTILITIES SERVING OCCUPIED SHALL BE SWEPTAND MADE CLEAN AT THE END OF EACH WORK THREADED ROD.MAINTAIN 12 INCHES BETWEEN ANCHORS AND TOPSOIL SHALL BE SPREAD TO FINISH GRADES AND SEEDED - OR OPERATING FACILITIES EXCEPT WHEN AUTHORIZED IN 2 05/25/16 EQUIPMENT REVISIONS: RCB CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE AND RE-INSTALL ALL FIRE ALL FREE EDGES.MINIMUM SPACING BETWEEN ANCHORS IS 8 AS SOON AS FINISHED GRADES ARE ESTABLISHED.STRAW THAN#6 GPS ANTENNAS: WRITING BY THE OWNER. PROVIDE TEMPORARY SERVICES DAY. -- FOR CABLE RUNS UP TO 200 FEET,USE%8"CABLE. 3 03/20/18 ATTORNEY REVISIONS: RCB PROOFING AS REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION. INCHES. MULCH,JUTE NETTING OR MATS SHALL BE USED WHERE THE DURING INTERRUPTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES,AS THE CONTRACTOR'S HOURS OF WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE NEW SEED IS PLACED. ALL CONNECTIONS TO THE GROUND RING SHALL BE -- FOR CABLE RUNS GREATER THAN 200 FEET,USE WITH LOCAL CODES AND ORDINANCES AND BE APPROVED BY DESIGN,FABRICATION AND ERECTION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL ANCHORS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURER'S CADWELD'" 15/8"CABLE. ACCEPTABLE TO THE OWNER. 4 03/23/18 FOR PERMIT: RCB OWNER. SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL RECOMMENDATIONS AND SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED IN MORTAR VEGETATIVE SEEDING- PROVIDE NOT LESS THAN 72 HOURS NOTICE TO OWNER IF 5 CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS. JOINTS AREA TO BE SEEDED SHALL BE LOOSE AND FRIABLE TO A BOND THE FENCE TO THE GROUND RING AT EACH CORNER, MINIMUM BENDING RADIUS FOR COAXIAL CABLES: SHUTDOWN OF SERVICE IS REQUIRED DURING CHANGEOVER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE DEPTH OF 3".TOPSOIL SHALL BE LOOSENED BY RAKING OR AND AT EACH GATE POST WITH#2 SOLID TINNED WIRE - /8",RMIN- 15" 6 CONSTRUCTION MANAGER IF ASBESTOS IS ENCOUNTERED THE STEEL STRUCTURE IS DESIGNED TO BE SELF-SUPPORTING GRATING SHALL BE ATTACHED USING FOUR GRATING CLAMPS OR DISKING BEFORE SEEDING.APPLY 50 Lbs.OF DOLOMITIC CADWELD" BOTH ENDS - 1%", RMIN=25" LOCATE,IDENTIFY, DISCONNECT,AND SEAL OR CAP OFF DURING THE EXECUTION OF HIS WORK.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL AND STABLE AFTER COMPLETION. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S Y4 FILLET WELDS PER SECTION LIMESTONE AND 25 Lbs OF 10-10-10 FERTILIZER PER 1000 SF. INDICATED UTILITIES SERVICES SERVING STRUCTURES TO BE CEASE ALL ACTIVITIES WHERE THE ASBESTOS MATERIAL IS FOUND SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE ERECTION PROCEDURE HARROW LIME AND FERTILIZER INTO LOOSE SOIL. GROUND KITS SHALL BE SOLID COPPER STRAP WITH#6 CABLE SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A MINIMUM NUMBER OF DEMOLISHED. UNTIL NOTIFIED BY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER TO RESUME HIS AND SEQUENCE AND TO INSURE THE SAFETY OF THE BUILDING SITE GENERAL APPLY COMMON BERMUDA AND RYE GRASS AT 50 Lbs/ACRE. WIRE AND 2-HOLE COMPRESSION CRIMPED LUGS. BENDS WHERE POSSIBLE.CABLE SHALL NOT BE LEFT OPERATIONS. AND ITS COMPONENT PARTS DURING ERECTION. USE CYCLONE SEED DRILL CULTIPACKER SEEDER OR UNTERMINATED AND SHALL BE SEALED IMMEDIATELY AFTER ARRANGE TO SHUT OFF INDICATED UTILITIES WITH THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW CONDITIONS OF ALL APPLICABLE HYDROSEEDER(SEED&FERTILIZER SLURRY)FOR STEEP FERROUS METAL CLIPS WHICH COMPLETELY SURROUND BEING INSTALLED, OWNER AND UTILITY COMPANIES. THERMAL&MOISI"URE PROTECTION SHOP DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED BY THE CONTRACTOR PERMITS AND WORK IN ACCORD WITH OSHA REGULATIONS. SLOPES. IRRIGATE UNTIL VEGETATION IS COMPLETELY THE GROUNDING CONDUCTOR SHALL NOT BE USED. AND SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO ESTABLISHED. ALL CABLE CONNECTIONS OUTSIDE SHALL BE COVERED DO NOT START DEMOLITION WORK UNTIL UTILITY FIRE-STOP ALL PENETRATIONS FOR ELECTRICAL CONDUITS OR FABRICATION. THESE PLANS DEPICT KNOWN UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES, WITH WATERPROOF SPLICING KIT. DISCONNECTING AND SEALING HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. GUIDE CONDUITS AND/OR PIPELINES.THE LOCATIONS FOR THESE ELECTRICAL GROUND BARS SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED WITH WAVCABLING THROUGH BUILDING WALLS,FLOORS AND CEILINGS SHALL BE FIRESTOPPED WITH ACCEPTED MATERIALS TO ALL STEEL ELEMENTS SHALL BE INSTALLED PLUMB AND LEVEL. ELEMENTS ARE BASED UPON VARIOUS RECORD DRAWINGS PRE-DRILLED HOLE DIAMETERS AND SPACINGS.GROUNDAVAILABLE.THE CONTRACTOR IS HEREBY ADVISED THAT THESE BARS SHALL NEIITHER BE FIELD FABRICATED NOR NEW CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXACT LENGTH AND DIRECTION CONDUCT DEMOLITION OPERATIONS AND REMOVE DEBRIS MAINTAIN THE FIRE RATING OF THE EXIST.,ASSEMBLY.ALL FILL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY EXIST.ELECTRIC SERVICE TYPE OF TRAVEL IN FIELD PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. TO ENSURE MINIMUM INTERFERENCE WITH ADJACENT MATERIAL SHALL E SHAPED,FITTED AND PERMANENTLY CONCRETE: DRAWINGS MAY NOT ACCURATELY DEPICT AS-BUILT LOCATIONS AND CAPACITY AND ORDER NEW ELECTRIC SERVICE FROM HOLES DRILLED. GROUND LUGS SHALL MATCH THE HOLE AREAS,OTHER OCCUPIED AREAS,COMMON AREAS SECURED IN PLACE. FIRESTOPPING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN AND OTHER UNKNOWN STRUCTURES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LOCAL ELECTRIC UTILITY,WHERE APPLICABLE. SPACING ON THE BAR HARDWARE DIAMETER SHALL BE CABLE SHALL BE FURNISHED WITHOUT SPLICES AND WITH THROUGHOUT BUILDING, THEREFORE DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF EXISTING MINIMUM 3/8 INCH. ACCORD WITH ASTM E814. ALL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE DONE IN UNDERGROUND ELEMENTS AND EXCAVATE WITH CARE AFTER CONNECTORS AT EACH END. WALKWAYS,PARKING LOTS,AND ROADWAYS. ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE(ACI) ALL ELECTRICAL WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORD WITH ALL HILTI CP620 FIRE FOAM or 3M FIRE BARRIER FILL,VOID OR CAVITY CODES 301 &318, LATEST REVISION. CALLING MARKOUT SERVICE AT 1-800-272-4480 48 HOURS APPLICABLE CODES,AND SHALL BE ACCEPTABLE TO ALL GROUNDING SOLACE RESISTANCE IS NOT TO EXCEED 5 TYPICAL WOVEN WIRE FENCING NOTES DO NOT CLOSE OR OBSTRUCT STREETS,WALKS,OR OTHER MATERIAL OR ACCEPTED EQUAL SHALL BE APPLIED IN BEFORE DIGGING,DRILLING OR BLASTING AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION.WHERE A CONFLICT OHMS.NOTIFY CONSTRUCTION MANAGER IF GROUNDING ADJACENT OCCUPIED OR USED AREAS WITHOUT PERMISSION ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND FOUNDATION WORK SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ALL EXISTING ACTIVE SEWER,WATER,GAS,ELECTRIC,FIBER EXISTS BETWEEN CODES,PLAN AND SPECIFICATIONS,OR RESISTANCE LEVEL CAN NOT BE MET. (INSTALL FENCING PER ASTM F-567,SWING GATES PER ASTM FROM OWNER. IF REQUIRED, PROVIDE FOR ALTERNATE ASSOCIATED UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES(UL)SYSTEM MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNS AND SPECIFICATIONS. AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION,THE MORE STRINGENT F-900) ROUTESNUMBER. OPTIC,AND OTHER UTILITIES WHERE ENCOUNTERED THE WORK,SHALL BE PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES,AND WHERE AUTHORITIES SHALL APPLY.RE ALL CABLE TRA"(AND/OR PLATFORM STEEL SHALL BE AROUND CLOSED OR OBSTRUCTED TRAFFIC WAYS. ALL CONCRETE USED SHALL BE 4000 PSI(28 DAY COMP REQUIRED FOR THE PROPER EXECUTION OF THE WORK,SHALL BE BONDED TOGETHER WITH JUMPERS(#6 IN EQUIPMENT GATE POST,CORNER,TERMINAL OR PULL POST 2 1/2"O FIRESTOPPING SHALL BE APPLIED AS SOOV AS PRACTICABLE STRENGTH).THE CONCRETE MIX SHALL BE BASED ON USING RELOCATED AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERS. EXTREME CAUTION CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LABOR,MATERIALS, ROOM, #2 ELSEWHERE AND HOMERUN) SCHEDULE 40 FOR GATE WIDTHS UP through 6 FEET OR 12 CONDUCT DEMOLITION OPERATIONS TO PREVENT INJURY TO AFTER PENETRATIONS ARE MADE AND EQUIPMENT INSTALLED. THE FOLLOWING MATERIALS AND PARAMETERS: SHOULD BE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR WHEN EXCAVATING OR INSURANCE,EQUIPMENT, INSTALLATION,CONSTRUCTION FEET FOR DOUBLE SWING GATE PER ASTM-1`1083. PEOPLE AND DAMAGE TO ADJACENT AREAS,BUILDINGS, TOOLS,TRANSPORTATION,ETC.,FOR A COMPLETE AND AND/OR FACILITIES TO REMAIN ENSURE SAFE PASSAGE OF FIRESTOPPED PENETRATIONS SHALL BE LEFT EXPOSED AND MADE PROVIDE SAFETY TRAINING FOR THE WORKING CREW.THIS WILL PORTLAND CEMENT. ASTM C150,T1 PIER DRILLING AROUND OR NEAR UTILITIES CONTRACTOR SHALL PROPERLY OPERATIVE SYSTEM ENERGIZED THROUGHOUT SITE GENERAL LINE POST:2"O SCHEDULE 40 PIPE PER ASTM-F1083. PEOPLE AROUND DEMOLITION AREAS. AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION BEFORE APPLYING FINISHES AGGREGATE: ASTM C33, 1 INCH MAX INCLUDE,BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO A)FALL PROTECTION,B) AND AS INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS AND AS SPECIFIED CONTRACTOR SH&,LL FOLLOW CONDITIONS OF ALL CONCEALING SUCH PENETRATION.FIRESTOPPING MATERIAL WATER: POTABLE CONFINED SPACE ENTRY,C)ELECTRICAL SAFETY,AND D) HEREIN AND/OR OTHERWISE REQUIRED. APPLICABLE PEI;'11TS AND WORK IN ACCORD WITH OSHA GATE FRAME: 1 1/2"O SCHEDULE 40 PIPE PER ASTM-1`1083. PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR SHORING, DESIGN PROFESSIONALS OF RECORD CERTIFICATES SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF ADMIXTURE. NON-CHLORIDE TRENCHING&EXCAVATION. BRACING,OR STRUCTURAL SUPPORT TO PRESERVE STABILITY REGULATIONS. TOP RAIL&BRACE RAIL: 1 1/2"O SCHEDULE 40 PIPE PER INSPECTION. AIR: 6%* ALL ELECTRICAL CONDUCTORS SHALL BE 100%COPPER AND AND PREVENT MOVEMENT,SETTLEMENT,OR COLLAPSE OF SLUMP: 4 INCH UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE IF NECESSARY,RUBBISH,STUMPS,DEBRIS,STICKS,STONES,AND SHALL HAVE TYPE THHN INSULATION UNLESS INDICATED ASTM-F1083 PERIPHERAL STRUCTURES AND/OR AREAS. PROF: SCOTT M. CHASSE P.E. ANY BUILDING ROOF PENETRATION AND/OR RESTORATION SHALL OTHER REFUSE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AND OTHERWISE. THESE PLANS DEPICT KNOWN UNDERGROUND COMP: APT ENGINEERING BE PERFORMED SO THAT ROOF WARRANTY IN PLACE IS NOT 'ALL CONCRETE EXPOSED TO FREEZING WEATHER SHALL DISPOSED OF LEGALLY. STRUCTURES,CONDUITS AND/OR PIPELINES.THE FABRIC: 12 GA.CORE WIRE SIZE 2"MESH,CONFORMING TO USE WATER MIST,TEMPORARY ENCLOSURES,AND OTHER COMPROMISED.CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR OWNER'S CONTAIN ENTRAINED AIR PER ACI 211 TABLE 4.2.1 OF ACI CONDUIT SHALL BE THREADED RIGID GALVANIZED STEEL OR LOCATIONS FOR THESE ELEMENTS ARE BASED UPON ASTM-A392. SUITABLE METHODS TO LIMIT THE SPREAD OF DUST AND ADD: 3 SADDLEBROOK DRIVE ROOFING CONTRACTOR TO PERFORM ANY AND ALL ROOFING 318-05. ALL EXISTING INACTIVE SEWER,WATER,GAS,ELECTRIC,FIBER EMT WITH ONLY COMPRESSION TYPE COUPLINGS AND VARIOUS RECORD DRAWINGS AVAILABLE,THE DIRT. COMPLY WITH GOVERNING ENVIRONMENTAL KILLINGWORTH, CT 06419 WORK IF SO REQUIRED BY EXIST.ROOF WARRANTY.OTHERWISE, OPTIC,OR OTHER UTILITIES,WHICH INTERFERE WITH THE CONNECTORS,ALL MADE UP WRENCH TIGHT. CONTRACTOR IS.HEREBY ADVISED THAT THESE DRAWINGS TIE WIRE. MINIMUM 11 GA.GALVANIZED STEEL AT POSTS AND PROTECTION REGULATIONS. ROOF SHALL BE MADE WATERTIGHT WITH LIKE CONSTRUCTION AS ALL REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE ASTM A515,OR 60 EXECUTION OF THE WORK,SHALL BE REMOVED,AND/OR MAY NOT ACCURATELY DEPICT AS-BUILT LOCATIONS AND RAILS. A SINGLE WRAP OF FABRIC TIE AND AT TENSION WIRE SOON AS PRACTICABLE AND AT COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION. (DEFORMED)UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. WELDED WIRE CAPPED,PLUGGED OR OTHERWISE DISCONTINUED AT POINTS ALL BURIED CONDUIT SHALL BE MINIMUM SCH.80 PVC OTHER UNKNOWN STRUCTURES.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BY HOG RINGS SPACED MAX 24"INTERVALS DO NOT CREATE HAZARDOUS OR OBJECTIONABLE OWNER: VERIZON NEW YORK FABRIC SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM A185 WELDED STEEL WIRE WHICH WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE EXECUTION OF THE UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE,OR AS PER LOCAL CODE THEREFORE DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF EXIST. CONDITIONS,SUCH AS ICE,FLOODING,AND POLLUTION, (F/K/A NEW YORK ALL PENETRATIONS INTO AND/OR THROUGH BUILDING EXTERIOR FABRIC UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.SPLICES SHALL BE CLASS WORK,SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS. UNDERGROUND ELEMENTS AND EXCAVATE WITH CARE TENSION WIRE:7 GA.GALVANIZED STEEL. WHEN USING WATER. B'AND ALL HOOKS SHALL BE ACI STANDARD UNO. ADDRESS:TELEPHONE COMPANY WALLS SHALL BE SEALED WITH SILICONE SEALER. REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE COLD BENT WHERE REQUIRED MANAGER. PROVIDE FLEXIBLE STEEL CONDUIT OR LIQUIDTIGHT FLEXIBLE AFTER CALLING MARING, SERVICE AT 1-800-272-4480 48 BARBED WIRE: DOUBLE STRAND 12-1/2"O D TWISTED WIRE REMOVE AND TRANSPORT DEBRIS IN A MANNER THAT WILL PO BOX 152206, AND TIED(NOT WELDED). CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRING OR REPLACING STEEL CONDUIT CONDUIT TO ALL VIBRATING EQUIPMENT, HOURS BEFORE DIGGING,DRILLING OR BLASTING. TO MATCH W/FABRIC 14 GA,4 PT.BARBS SPACED ON PREVENT SPILLAGE ON ADJACENT SURFACES AND AREAS. WHERE CONDUIT,4ND CABLES PENETRATES FIRE RATED WALLS IRVING, TX 75015-2206 AND FLOORS,FIRE GROUT ALL PENETRATIONS IN ORDER TO STRUCTURES OR UTILITIES DAMAGED BY HIS OPERATIONS INCLUDING HVAC UNITS,TRANSFORMERS, MOTORS,ETC.,OR THE FOLLOWING MINIMUM ALL EXIST.ACTIVESEWER,WATER,GAS,ELECTRIC,FIBER APPROXIMATELY 5"CENTERS. CONCRETE COVER SHALL BE MAINTAIN THE FIRE RATING USING A LISTED FIRE SEALING DEVICE WHERE IS EQUIPMENT IS PLACED UPON A SLAB ON GRADE. OPTICAND OTHER UTILITIES WHERE ENCOUNTERED IN THE CLEAN ADJACENT AREAS AND IMPROVEMENTS OF DUST, , PROVIDED FOR REINFORCING STEEL UNLESS SHOWN CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXISTING PAVED AND GRAVEL GATE LATCH. DROP DOWN LOCKABLE FORK LATCH AND DIRT AND DEBRIS CAUSED BY DEMOLITION OPERATIONS. NOTE: OR GROUT. OTHERWISE ON DRAWINGS: SURFACES,CURBS,LANDSCAPE AND STRUCTURES AND ALL BRANCH CIRCUITS AND FEEDERS SHALL HAVE A WORK,SHALL BE PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES,AND WHERE LOCK, KEYED ALIKE FOR ALL SITES. RETURN ADJACENT AREAS TO CONDITION EXISTING BEFORE IT IS A VIOLATION OF NEW YORK STATE RESTORE SITE TO PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION WITH AS SEPARATE GREEN INSULATED EQUIPMENT GROUNDING REQUIRED FOR THE PROPER EXECUTION OF THE WORK, START OF DEMOLITION. SUBMITTALS: CONCRETE CAST AGAINST EARTH=3 IN. GOOD,OR BETTER,MATERIALS.NEW MATERIALS SHALL MATCH CONDUCTOR BONDED TO ALL ENCLOSURES,PULLBOXES, SHALL BE RELOCATED AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEERS. LOCAL ORDINANCE OF BARBED WIRE PERMIT REQUIREMENT EDUCATION LAW ARTICLE 145, SECTION 1. CONTRACTOF TO SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS PRIOR TO CONCRETE EXPOSED TO EARTH OR WEATHER: EXISTING THICKNESS AND TYPE. ETC. EXTREME CAUTION SHOULD BE USED BY THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE COMPLIED IF REQUIRED. USE METHODS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE DEMOLITION WITHIN 72019 (2) FOR ANY PERSON, UNLESS FABRICATION TO ENGINEER FOR REVIEW. #6 AND LARGER=2 IN. WHEN EXCAVATING OR PIER DRILLING AROUND OR NEAR LIMITATIONS OF GOVERNING REGULATIONS. ACTING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A 2. ALL BUILDING CONNECTION POINTS ARE TO BE CENTERED #5 AND SMALLER = 1 1/2 IN THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SHORE ALL TRENCH EXCAVATION CONDUIT AND CABLE WITHIN CORRIDORS SHALL BE UTILITIES.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SAFETY TRAINING HEIGHT=U VERTICAL+ 1'BARBED WIRE VERTICAL OVER BEARING WALLS. CONCRETE NOT EXPOSED TO EARTH OR WEATHER OR NOT GREATER THAN 5 FEET IN DEPTH OR LESS WHERE SOIL CONCEALED AND EXPOSED ELSEWHERE,U ON FOR THE WORKING CREW.THIS WILL INCLUDE,BUT NOT BE DIMENSION. LOCATE DEMOLITION EQUIPMENT THROUGHOUT THE LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER OR 3 NOTIFY ENGINEER FOR INSPECTION PRIOR TO CLOSING CAST AGAINST THE GROUND: CONDITIONS ARE DEEMED UNSTABLE.ALL SHEETING AND/OR LIMITED TO A)FALL PROTECTION,B)CONFINED SPACE BUILDING AND REMOVE DEBRIS&MATERIALS SO AS NOT TO LAND SURVEYOR, TO ALTER AN ITEM IN PENETRATIONS. SLAB AND WALL=3/4 IN. SHORING METHODS SHALL BE DESIGNED BY A PROFESSIONAL ELECTRICAL MATERIALS INSTALLED ON ROOFTOP SHALL BE ENTRY,C)ELECTRICAL SAFETY,AND D)TRENCHING& IMPOSE EXCESSIVE LOADS ON SUPPORTING WALLS,FLOORS, BEAMS AND COLUMNS=1 1/2 IN, ENGINEER. LISTED FOR NEMA 3R USE.-AND ALL WIRING WITHIN A EXCAVATION. OR FRAMING ANY WAY. IF AN ITEM BEARING THE SEAL CONTRACTORS SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS VENTILATION DUCT SHALL BE LISTED FOR SUCH USE.IN DISPOSE OF DEMOLISHED ITEMS AND MATERIALS PROMPTLY. FAN ENGINEER LAND SURVEYOR IS IN THE FIELD PRIOR TO FABRICATION AND ERECTION OF ANY A 3/4 IN.CHAMFER SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXPOSED THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING GENERAL WIRING METHODS WITHIN A DUCT SHALL BE AN MC MATERIAL.THE ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED OF ANY EDGES OF CONCRETE,UNO,IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACI 301 GROUNDWATER LEVELS IN THE VICINITY OF EXCAVATIONS TO CABLE WITH SMOOTH OR CORRUGATED METAL JACKET AND , , ,DEBRIS,STICKS,STONES, IF NECESSARYRUBBISHSTUMPS ON-SITE STORAGE OR SALE OF REMOVED ITEMS IS ALTERED, THE ALTERING ENGINEER OR SECTION 4.2.4. PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEW WORK. HAVE NO OUTER COVERING OVER THE METAL JACKET. AND OTHER REFUSE SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE PROHIBITED. LAND SURVEYOR SHALL AFFIX TO THE ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.CONDITIONS WHICH PRECLUDE COMPLETION THE WORK IN GROUNDWATER SHALL BE DRAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH INTERLOCKED ARMOR TYPE OF MC CABLE IS NOT AND DISPOSED,OF LEGALLY. LOCAL SEDIMENTATION&EROSION CONTROL GUIDELINES ITEM HIS SEAL AND THE NOTATION CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED IN A UNIFORM MANNER AND ACCEPTABLE FOR THIS APPLICATION.CONTRACTOR CAN DEMOLISH CONCRETE AND MASONRY IN SMALL SECTIONS. DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL CONSOLIDATED IN PLACE. ALSO USE TYPE MI CABLE IN THE VENTILATION DUCT ALL EXIST. INACTIVE SEWER,WATER,GAS,ELECTRIC,FIBER "ALTERED BY" FOLLOWED BY THE EXCAVATION CONFORM TO LAI-EST EDITION OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PROVIDED IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY OUTER COVERING OVER OPTIC,OR OTHER UTILITIES,WHICH INTERFERE WITH THE REMOVE AIR-CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT WITHOUT SIGNATURE AND THE DATE OF SUCH STEEL CONSTRUCTION'SPECIFICATION FOR THE CONCRETE FOOTINGS SHALL BE CAST AGAINST LEVEL, THE METAL EXTERIOR.) EXECUTION OF THE WORK, SHALL BE REMOVED,AND/OR RELEASING REFRIGERANTS CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE ONLY AREAS SHOWN IR BE CAPPED,PLUGGED OR OTHERWISE DISCONTINUED AT ALTERATION,AND A SPECIFIC DESIGN,FABRICATION AND ERECTION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL FOR COMPACTED,NON-FROZEN BASE SOIL FREE OF STANDING MODIFIED HEREIN AND ONLY TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED TO SHED WIRING DEVICES SHALL BE SPECIFICATION GRADE,AND POINTS WHICH V^JILL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE EXECUTION BREAKUP AND REMOVE CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE, DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERATION. BUILDINGS. OVERLAND WATER FLOW AWAY FROM SITE.ALL MADE SLOPES WIRING DEVICE COVER PLATES SHALL BE PLASTIC WITH OF THE WORK,SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED SHALL NOT BE STEEPER THAN 3:1 (HORIZ.VERTICAL),UNO. ENGRAVING AS SPECIFIED CONSTRUCTIONI MANAGER. STEEL SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROLS SHOWN AND REMOVE BELOW-GRADE CONSTRUCTION,INCLUDING VERIZON WIRELESS AT SPECIFIED SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BEFORE STRIPPING EXISTING GROUNDING SYSTEM RESISTANCE SHALL NOT EXCEED 5CONTRACTOR I FOUNDATION WALLS,TO AT LEAST 24 INCHES BELOW REPLACING STRI MATERIALS: VEGETATION. OHMS.IF THE RESISTANCE VALUES IS EXCEEDED,NOTIFY I RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIRING OR UTILITIES DAMAGEDD BY HIS GRADE. "CUTCHOGUE 2" WIDE FLANGE ASTM A572,OR 50 ORGANIC MATERIAL AND DEBRIS SHALL BE STRIPPED AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTION. OPERATIONS. TUBING ASTM A500,OR B BREAK UP BELOW-GRADE CONCRETE SLABS IN SECTIONS NO SITE 31775 MAIN ROAD STOCKPILED BEFORE ADDING FILL MATERIAL. s PIPE ASTM A53,GR B COORDINATE WITH BUILDING MANAGEMENT BEFORE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT EXIST. PAVED AND GRAVEL LARGER THAN 24 INCHES SQUARE 33.PROMPTLY REPAIR NO FILL OR EMBANKMENT MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED ON LANDSCAPE AND STRUCTURES AND BOLTS ASTM A325 PERFORMING ANY WORK INVOLVING EXIST.SYSTEMS OR DAMAGES TO ADJACENT FACILITIES CAUSED BY DEMOLITION ADDRESS: CUTCHOGUE, NY 11935 SURFACES,CURBS, GRATING TYPE GW-2(1"x3/16"BARS) EQUIPMENT IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT,IF ANY, FROZEN GROUND. FROZEN MATERIALS,SNOW OR ICE SHALL RESTORE SITE TO PRE-CONSTRUCTION CONDITION WITH AS MISC. METALS ASTM A36 NOT BE PLACED IN ANY FILL OR EMBANKMENT. DE OTHER TENANTS A WITHIN THE BUILDING,AND MI GOOD,OR BET:-ER,MATERIALS.NEW MATERIALS SHALL PATCH TO PRODUCE SUITABLE SURFACES FOR NEW APT FILING NUMBER: NY-141-300 ALL STEEL SHAPES SHALL BE HOT-DIPPED GALVANIZED IN DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE TIME FOR PERFORMING THIS MATERIALS WHEN REPAIRING EXISTING SURFACES. ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM A123 WITH A COATING WEIGHT OF 2 ALL FILL SHALL BE PLACED IN ONE FOOT LIFTS AND COMPACTED WORK. MATCH EXIST. THICKNESS AND TYPE. OZ/SF. IN PLACE.STRUCTURAL FILL SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 95%OF EXTEND RESTORED,EXPOSED FINISHES OF PATCH SURFACES I PROJECT CODE: 02006159147 ITS MAXIMUM DRY UNIT WEIGHT TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO VISIT THE SITE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SHORE ALL TRENCH EXCAVATION INTO ADJOINING CONSTRUCTION IN A MANNER THAT DESIGN,FABRICATION AND ERECTION OF STRUCTURAL STEEL ASTM D1557. PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE GREATER THAN 5 FEET IN DEPTH OR LESS WHERE SOIL ELIMINATES EVIDENCE OF PATCHING AND RESURFACING. I LOCATION CODE: 171056 SHALL CONFORM TO CURRENT AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL EXTENT OF THE EXIST. CONDITIONS. CONDITIONS ARIEDEEMED UNSTABLE.ALL SHEETING CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS. EXCAVATIONS FOR FOOTINGS SHALL BE CUT LEVEL AND/OR SH09INIG METHODS SHALL BE DESIGNED BY A DO NOT BURN DEMOLISHED MATERIALS. VZW CM: KU DRAWN BY: KRS TO THE REQUIRED DEPTH AND TO UNDISTURBED SOIL.REPORT ALL CONDUCTOR ENDS SHALL BE TAGGED AND ELECTRICAL PROFESSIONAL!ENGINEER. THE STEEL STRUCTURE IS DESIGNED TO BE SELF-SUPPORTING UNSUITABLE SOIL CONDITIONS TO THE CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT LABELED WITH ENGRAVED IDENTIFICATION TRANSPORT DEMOLISHED MATERIALS OFF OWNER'S AND STABLE AFTER COMPLETION. IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S MANAGER. PLATES. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING PROPERTY AND LEGALLY DISPOSE OF THEM I DATE: 06/22/15 CHECKED BY: RCB SOLE RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE ERECTION PROCEDURE GROUNDWATER!LEVELS IN THE VICINITY OF EXCAVATIONS AND SEQUENCE AND TO INSURE THE SAFETY OF THE BUILDING TRENCH EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE BACKFILLED AT THE END OF CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL CONTROLS WIRING TO PROTECT ADIJACENT PROPERTIES AND NEW WORK. PROMPTLY SUBMIT A WRITTEN REPORT TO THE ENGINEER AND ITS COMPONENT PARTS DURING ERECTION. EACH DAY. AND ALARM TIE-INS. GROUNDWATER!SHALL BE DRAINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SHOULD UNANTICIPATED STRUCTURAL,ELECTRICAL,OR LOCAL SEDIMENTATION&EROSION CONTROL GUIDELINES. MECHANICAL CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED. THE SHOP DRAWINGS ARE TO BE CHECKED BY THE CONTRACTOR SURPLUS MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE. SUBMITTED REPORT SHALL INCLUDE SUFFICIENT DETAIL AND SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO CABLE TRAY REGARDING THE EXTENT AND NATURE OF THE CONDITION. FABRICATION. TOWER FOUNDATION EXCAVATION,BACKFILL AND COMPACTION SHALL BE IN ACCORD WITH TOWER MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNS CABLE TRAY SHALL BE MADE OF EITHER CORROSION DHE OLITIMAL HOURS OF ON W K SHALL BE LIMITED TO SHEET TITLE: ALL STEEL ELEMENTS SHALL BE INSTALLED PLUMB AND LEVEL AND SPECIFICATIONS RESISTANT METAL OR WITH A CORROSION RESISTANT TOWER MANUFACTURER'S DESIGNS SHALL PREVAIL FOR MATERIAL FINISH. MAINTAIN BUILDING SECURITY TO ADJACENT AND COMMON TOWER. AREAS DURING DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT NATIVE GRAVEL MATERIAL MAY BE USED FOR TRENCH BACKFILL CABLE TRAY SHALL BE OF LADDER TRAY TYPE WITH FLAT UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS FROM ENTERING THE SITZ= NOTES & CONNECTIONS: WHERE SELECT MATERIAL IS NOT SPECIFIED.GRAVEL MATERIAL COVER CLAIVir,ED TO SIDE RAILS. FOR CONDUIT TRENCH BACKFILL SHALL NOT CONTAIN ROCK DUE CARE SHALL BE TAKEN SO THAT THE EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS CONNECTIONS SHALL BE DESIGNED BY THE FABRICATOR AND GREATER THAN 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER. CABLE LADDER SHALL BE SIZED TO FIT ALL CABLES IN AND ITS INSTALLATION ARE HANDLED IN A MANNER THAT CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF ACCORD WITH NEC AND NEMA 11-15-84. WILL NOT AFFECT FIRE SAFETY OR CREATE A FIRE HAZARD. THE AISC MANUAL OF STEEL CONSTRUCTION.CONNECTIONS BANK OR CRUSHED GRAVEL SHALL CONSIST OF TOUGH, SHALL BE PROVIDED TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF DURABLE PARTICLES OF CRUSHED OR UNCRUSHED GRAVEL TYPE 2 CONSTRUCTION UNLESS OTHERWISE DETAILED. FREE OF SOFT,THIN,ELONGATED OR LAMINATED PIECES AND CABLE LADDER TRAYS SHALL BE NEMA CLASS 12A BY PW MEET THE GRADATION. INDUSTRIES, INC.OR EQUAL. SHEET NUMBER: o"'` ...4 i 'vilk r DESIGN CONNECTIONS AT BEAM ENDS FOR 10 KIPS(MIN). 11,1 OF NFy�' PROCESSED AGGREGATE BASE SHALL CONSIST OF COURSE AND CABLE LADDER TRAY SHALL BE SUPPORTED IN CONNECTIONS SHALL BE MADE USING 3/4"ASTMA325 BOLTS FINE AGGREGATES COMBINED AND MIXED SO THAT THE ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS. C2 010 M. (+y O,A RESULTING MATERIAL CONFORMS TO THE GRADATION COURSE 9 (SNUG TIGHT OR SLIP CRITICAL)OR WELDS. IF TENSION = /� G @x SN ff CONTROL BOLTS ARE USED,CONNECTIONS SHALL BE AGGREGATE SHALL BE EITHER GRAVEL OR BROKEN STONE AND ALL WORKMANSHIP SHALL CONFORM TO THESEF4 0 DESIGNED FOR SLIP CRITICAL BOLT ALLOWABLE LOAD VALUE11 S. FINE AGGREGATE SHALL CONSIST OF SAND. REQUIREMENTS AND ALL LOCAL CODES AND STANDARDS m CC TO ENSURE SAFE AND ADEQUATE GROUNDING SYSTEM. ® Z Tr' W . 11 USE THE LARGER OF 1/4"FILLET WELDS OR MINIMUM SIZE PER -"_*'. W �r AISC REQUIREMENTS WHERE NO WELD SIZE IS SHOWN ON THE i� -' DRAWINGS. ? >lk0 () h I .. l "o�°\•