**DA 08-2070**

**September 10, 2008**

**WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU GRANTS EXTENSION OF TIME**

**TO FILE COMMENTS ON CTIA'S PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RULING**

**REGARDING WIRELESS FACILITIES SITING**

**WT Docket No. 08-165**

**Comments Due: September 29, 2008**

**Reply Comments Due: October 14, 2008**

On July 11, 2008, CTIA -- The Wireless Association (CTIA) filed a
petition requesting that the Federal Communications Commission
("Commission") issue a Declaratory Ruling clarifying provisions of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act") regarding
state and local review of wireless facility siting applications.[^1]
Specifically, CTIA asks the Commission to "resolve open questions
regarding the time frames in which zoning authorities must act on siting
requests, the importance of competitive entry by multiple providers in
each market, and the impropriety of unduly burdensome requirements
imposed on wireless providers but not on other entities."[^2] On August
14, 2008, the Commission established a pleading cycle for comments on
the CTIA Petition.[^3] The current deadline for comments is September
15, 2008, and the current deadline for reply comments is September 29,
2008.

On August 22, 2008, Montgomery County, Maryland (Montgomery County)
filed a Motion for Extension of Time.[^4] On August 25, 2008, the
National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
(NATOA), the National Association of Counties, the National League of
Cities, and the United States Conference of Mayors (collectively
"Associations") filed a motion to extend the time for filing comments
and reply comments.[^5] On August 26, 2008, the Greater Metro
Telecommunications Consortium and Rainier Communications Commission
filed an amended motion to extend the time for filing comments and reply
comments.[^6] Each of the motions requests a comment period of 90 days
and a reply comment period of 45 days. On August 26, 2008, CTIA filed an
Opposition to Motions for Extension of Time that addresses these three
motions.[^7] On August 29, 2008, Montgomery County, Maryland filed a
Reply to CTIA's opposition to the motions for extension of time.[^8] On
September 8, 2008, the cities of Bar Harbor Islands, Cutler Bay,
Hollywood, Homestead, Miramar, Sunrise, and Weston (collectively
"Florida Cities") filed a Motion for Extension of Time seeking an
additional 30 days to file their comments.[^9] Also on September 8,
2008, the Airports Council International-North America ("ACI-NA") filed
a motion to extend the time for filing comments and reply comments by 30
days and 15 days, respectively.[^10]

In support of their motions, Montgomery County and the Associations note
that NATOA's annual conference takes place immediately after initial
comments are due, and that many attendees are involved in the processes
that the petition addresses.[^11] In addition, the Associations explain
that the current deadline does not allow enough time for them to
complete an analysis and provide comments on the complex legal and
factual issues raised by CTIA's Petition.[^12] The Associations also
indicate that they need additional time to identify local governments
that the Petition alleges to have engaged in certain conduct and to
address those allegations.[^13] Montgomery County further states that
given that the petition rests on factual assertions, and that the
petition seeks to change how Sections 332 and 253 of the Communications
Act[^14] have been applied for the last twelve years, "it is important
that local governments have sufficient time to provide a reasonable
response."[^15] Florida Cities ask for an extension of time to file
their comments due to the effects that Hurricane Ike is likely to have
on them.[^16] ACI-NA also contends that granting an extension will not
harm or otherwise prejudice the Commission or any interested party.[^17]
In its Opposition, CTIA asserts that the comment dates provide adequate
time for parties, and that the motions do not provide an adequate
rationale for an extension.[^18]

We note that it is the policy of the Commission that extensions of time
shall not be routinely granted.[^19] Nevertheless, while the moving
parties have not established good cause for the full extensions that
they request, we find that a short period of additional time will permit
all interested parties to file more thorough and thoughtful comments,
which should lead to a more complete and better-informed record. We thus
find that good cause exists to provide all parties an extension of time
from September 15, 2008 to **September 29, 2008** for filing comments in
this proceeding and from September 30, 2008 to **October 14, 2008** for
filing reply comments in this proceeding.

For further information, contact Michael Rowan of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau at <Michael.Rowan@fcc.gov> or (202) 418-1883.

\- FCC -

[^1]: *In the Matter of 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, WT Docket No. 08-165 (filed July
    11, 2008) (Petition).

[^2]: *Id*. at ii.

[^3]: *Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Petition for
    Declaratory Ruling by CTIA -- The Wireless Association 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*,
    Public Notice, WT Docket No. 08-165, 23 FCC Rcd 12198 (WTB 2008).

[^4]: *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*, Motion for Extension of
    Time, WT Docket No. 08-165 (filed Aug. 22, 2008) (Montgomery County
    Motion).

[^5]: *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*, Motion of the National
    Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors, the
    National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and
    the United States Conference of Mayors to Extend the Time for Filing
    Comments and Reply Comments, WT Docket No. 08-165 (filed Aug. 25,
    2008) (Associations Motion).

[^6]: *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*, Amended Motion of the
    Greater Metro Telecommunications Association and Rainier
    Communications Commission to Extend the Time for Filing Comments and
    Reply Comments, WT Docket No. 08-165 (filed Aug. 26, 2008). The
    Amended Motion corrects a typographical error in an earlier motion
    filed on August 25, 2008.

[^7]: *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*, Opposition to Motions for
    Extension of Time, WT Docket No. 08-165 (filed Aug. 26, 2008).

[^8]: *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*, Reply of Montgomery
    County to CTIA Opposition to Motions for Extension of Time, WT
    Docket No. 08-165 (filed Aug. 29, 2008).

[^9]: *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*, Motion for Extension of
    Time, WT Docket No. 08-165 (filed Sep. 8, 2008) (Florida Cities
    Motion).

[^10]: *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*, Motion of Airports
    Council International-North America to Extend the Time for Filing
    Comments and Reply Comments, WT Docket No. 08-165 (filed Sep. 8,
    2008) (ACI-NA Motion).

[^11]: *See* Montgomery County Motion at 1; Associations Motion at 1-2.
    ACI-NA notes that its annual conference presents a similar conflict.
    *See* ACI-NA Motion at 3-4.

[^12]: Associations Motion at 1.

[^13]: *Id.* at 2-3.

[^14]: 47 U.S.C. §§ 332, 253.

[^15]: Montgomery County Motion at 2.

[^16]: Florida Cities Motion at 1-2.

[^17]: ACI-NA Motion at 4.

[^18]: CTIA Opposition at 2.

[^19]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.46(a).