11432 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Commission notes that the scope of the 

revisions in this Report and Order is limited and 

that it declines to adopt at this time any of the other 

proposals submitted by commenters or advanced by 

the Commission in its Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking. See, e.g., Letter from Claude Aiken, 

President and CEO, WISPA, to Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 17–79 (filed Aug. 

27, 2018); Updating the Commission’s Rule for 

Over-the-Air Reception Devices, WT Docket No. 19– 

71, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 

2695 (2019) (Notice). 

2. On page 86033, first column, first 

full paragraph, in line 5 and 6, ‘‘third 

quarter of CY 2020’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘second quarter of CY 2020’’. 

3. On page 86035, third column, first 

partial paragraph, in line 4, the year 

‘‘CY 2018’’ is corrected to read ‘‘CY 

2021’’. 

4. On Page 86063, Table 42, in the 

entry for HCPCS code Q4222, under the 

column for ‘‘Final CY 2021 High/Low 

Cost Assignment,’’ ‘‘Low’’ is corrected 

to read ‘‘High’’. 

5. On page 86154, Table 59, in the 

entry for CPT code 0404T, under the 

column ‘‘Final CY 2021 ASC Payment 

Indicator,’’ ‘‘G2’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘J8’’. 

6. On page 86165, Table 60, in the 

entry for CPT code 0404T, under the 

column ‘‘Final CY 2021 ASC Payment 

Indicator,’’ ‘‘G2’’ is corrected to read 

‘‘J8’’. 

7. On page 86175, third column, after 

the first partial paragraph, add the 

following text: 

On April 10, 2018, OMB issued OMB 

Bulletin No. 18–03 which superseded 

the August 15, 2017 OMB Bulletin No. 

17–01. On September 14, 2018, OMB 

issued OMB Bulletin 18–04 which 

superseded the April 10, 2018 OMB 

Bulletin No. 18–03. A copy of OMB 

Bulletin No. 18–04 may be obtained at 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/ 

uploads/2018/90/Bulletin-18-04.pdf. We 

are utilizing the revised delineations as 

set forth in the April 10, 2018 OMB 

Bulletin No. 18–03 and the September 

14, 2018 OMB Bulletin No. 18–04 to 

calculate the CY 2021 ASC wage index 

effective beginning January 1, 2021.’’ 

8. On page 86176, third column, first 

full paragraph, in line 10, the figure 

‘‘0.8591’’ is corrected to read ‘‘0.8547.’’ 

9. On page 86182, in footnote 107, the 

url ‘‘https://www.cms.gov/ResearchStatistics-DataandSystems/ComputerData-and-Systems/IDR/index.html’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘https://www.cms.gov/ 

Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/ 

Computer-Data-and-Systems/IDR’’. 

10. On page 86192, in footnote 110, 

the url ‘‘https://www.qualitynet.org/asc/ 

data-submission#tab2’’ is corrected to 

read: ‘‘https://www.qualitynet.org/asc/ 

ascqr/participation#tab2’’. 

11. On page 86273, second column, 

third full paragraph, in lines 7 and 8, 

the figure ‘‘0.2 percent’’ is corrected to 

read ‘‘2.6 percent’’. 

12. On page 86282, second column, in 

the first paragraph under ‘‘2. Estimated 

Effects of CY 2021 ASC Payment System 

Changes,’’ in line 10, the figure 

‘‘0.8591’’ is corrected to read ‘‘0.8547.’’ 

Dated: February 19, 2021. 

Wilma M. Robinson, 

Deputy Executive Secretary to the 

Department, Department of Health and 

Human Services. 

[FR Doc. 2021–03852 Filed 2–22–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4120–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Part 1 

[WT Docket No. 19–71; FCC 21–10; FRS 

17395] 

FCC Modernizes Siting Rule for Small 

Hub and Relay Wireless Antennas 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal 

Communication’s Commission 

(‘‘Commission’’) updates its rule for 

over-the-air reception devices (OTARD) 

to expand its coverage to include hub 

and relay antennas that are used for the 

distribution of broadband-only fixed 

wireless services to multiple customer 

locations, regardless of whether they are 

primarily used for this purpose, 

provided the antennas satisfy other 

conditions of the OTARD rule. The 

Report and Order will allow fixed 

wireless service providers to bring faster 

internet speeds, lower latency, and 

advanced applications to rural and 

underserved communities in particular. 

DATES: Effective March 29, 2021. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Georgios Leris, Georgios.Leris@fcc.gov, 

Competition & Infrastructure Policy 

Division, Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, (202) 418–1994. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Commission’s Report 

and Order in WT Docket No. 19–71, 

FCC 21–10, adopted on January 7, 2021 

and released on January 7, 2021. The 

full text of this document is available for 

public inspection online at https://

docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC21-10A1.pdf. Documents will be 

available electronically in ASCII, 

Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat. 

Alternative formats are available for 

people with disabilities (Braille, large 

print, electronic files, audio format, 

etc.), and reasonable accommodations 

(accessible format documents, sign 

language interpreters, CART, etc.) may 

be requested by sending an email to 

FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & 

Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202– 

418–0530 (voice), 202–418–0432 (TTY). 

Synopsis 

1. The Commission in this document 

updates its rule for over-the-air 

reception devices (OTARD) to expand 

its coverage to include hub and relay 

antennas that are used for the 

distribution of broadband-only fixed 

wireless services to multiple customer 

locations, regardless of whether they are 

primarily used for this purpose, 

provided the antennas satisfy other 

conditions of the rule.1 By making this 

modest adjustment to the Commission’s 

rule while maintaining the other 

existing OTARD restrictions, it places 

fixed wireless broadband-only service 

providers on similar competitive footing 

with other service providers. This rule 

change should allow fixed wireless 

service providers to bring faster internet 

speeds, lower latency, and advanced 

applications—like the Internet of 

Things, telehealth, and remote 

learning—to all areas of the country, 

and to rural and underserved 

communities in particular. 

2. The Commission’s OTARD rule 

prohibits laws, regulations, or 

restrictions imposed by State or local 

governments or private entities that 

impair the ability of antenna users to 

install, maintain, or use over-the-air 

reception devices. The Commission 

adopted the rule as directed by section 

207 of the Telecommunications Act of 

1996, pursuant to the Commission’s 

authority under section 303 of the 

Communications Act of 1934. The rule 

prohibits restrictions that unreasonably 

delay or prevent installation, 

maintenance, or use of an antenna; 

unreasonably increase the cost of 

installation, maintenance, or use of an 

antenna; or preclude reception of an 

acceptable quality signal. For the 

OTARD rule to apply, the antenna must 

be installed ‘‘on property within the 

exclusive use or control of the antenna 

user where the user has a direct or 

indirect ownership or leasehold interest 

in the property’’ upon which the 

antenna is located. 

3. The original OTARD rule applied 

only to antennas used to receive video 

programming signals, but in the 2000 

Competitive Networks First Report and 

Order the Commission expanded the 

rule to apply to ‘‘customer-end antennas 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 11433 

2Accordingly, the Commission amends 47 CFR 

1.4000 by revision subparagraph (a)(1) and adding 

subparagraph (a)(5) to reflect its clarification to the 

definition of hub and relay antennas. 

used for transmitting or receiving fixed 

wireless signals.’’ The Commission 

found that unreasonable restrictions on 

the placement of customer premises 

antennas disadvantage providers of 

fixed wireless services as compared to 

their wireline competitors and 

unreasonably discriminated among 

providers of functionally equivalent 

services. The Commission defined fixed 

wireless signals as ‘‘any commercial 

non-broadcast communications signals 

transmitted via wireless technology to 

and/or from a fixed customer location.’’ 

The Commission stated that the 

extension of the OTARD rule would 

apply ‘‘only to antennas at the customer 

end of the wireless transmission, i.e., to 

antennas placed at the customer 

location for the purpose of providing 

fixed wireless service . . . to one or 

more customers at that location.’’ The 

Commission reasoned that these 

antennas were customer premises 

equipment and that section 332 of the 

Communications Act did not act as a bar 

to OTARD protection because the 

antennas were not used to provide 

personal wireless services. The 

Commission concluded that it did ‘‘not 

intend the rules to cover hub or relay 

antennas used to transmit signals to 

and/or receive signals from multiple 

customer locations.’’ 

4. In its 2004 Competitive Networks 

Reconsideration Order, the Commission 

revised its previous finding and 

determined that the OTARD rule applies 

to hub and relay antennas that are 

‘‘installed in order to serve the customer 

on such premises,’’ but that it does not 

apply to hub and relay antennas 

designed ‘‘primarily’’ for use as hubs for 

distribution of service to multiple 

customer locations. The Commission’s 

reconsideration responded to a petition 

from a licensee that ‘‘deploy[ed] its 

networks using a ‘point-to-point-topoint’ architecture in which each 

customer device also serv[ed] as a relay 

device.’’ The Commission, noting that it 

had not considered ‘‘those network 

configurations and technologies in 

which customer-end equipment 

performs both functions’’ and offered 

‘‘advanced services,’’ found that, ‘‘[f]or 

the purposes of the OTARD protections, 

the equipment deployed in such 

networks shares the same physical 

characteristics of other customer-end 

equipment, distinguished only by the 

additional functionality of routing 

service to additional users.’’ The 

Commission ‘‘[did] not believe that [the 

Commission’s] rules should serve to 

disadvantage more efficient 

technologies.’’ The Commission 

consequently found that ‘‘the OTARD 

protections would apply to installations 

serving the premises customer that also 

relays signals to other customers, such 

as is typical in mesh networks, but 

would not apply to installations that are 

designed primarily for use as hubs for 

distribution of service.’’ 

5. In 2018, the Wireless Internet 

Service Providers Association (WISPA) 

asked the Commission to update the 

OTARD rule to apply to ‘‘all fixed 

wireless transmitters and receivers, 

regardless of whether the equipment is 

used for reception, transmission, or 

both, so long as the equipment meets 

the existing size restrictions for 

customer-end equipment.’’ WISPA 

argues that extending the OTARD rule 

to all fixed wireless equipment ‘‘would 

be consistent with the original intent of 

OTARD, will accelerate the deployment 

of competitive broadband services in 

markets across the country, and will 

empower consumers to help bring 

competitive wireless broadband to their 

communities by hosting hub sites.’’ 

6. WISPA asserts that updating the 

OTARD rule is necessary to 

accommodate changes in fixed wireless 

architecture. While fixed wireless 

systems historically relied on relatively 

large coverage areas with fewer hub 

sites per customer, ‘‘over time, as both 

the cost of technology fell and 

subscriber data increased, fixed wireless 

providers began to reduce the size of the 

area covered per base station.’’ Because 

of these changes in technology and 

network design, WISPA contends, 

‘‘fixed wireless providers have much 

less choice in where they can locate hub 

sites.’’ WISPA further contends that, ‘‘in 

the absence of Commission action to 

modernize the OTARD rules, fixed 

wireless operators will continue to face 

significant hurdles to siting, 

perpetuating barriers to new investment 

and employment.’’ WISPA further 

argues that the Commission originally 

declined to extend OTARD protections 

to hub sites based on ‘‘its opinion at the 

time that fixed wireless hubs were 

covered under section 332’’ of the 

Communications Act—an opinion that 

WISPA says does not apply to modern 

networks because hub sites used for 

fixed wireless broadband do not 

necessarily include an offering of 

telecommunications service. 

7. In response to WISPA’s letter, the 

Commission issued a Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) seeking 

comment on extending the OTARD 

protections to fixed wireless facilities 

that operate primarily as hub and relay 

antennas, but do not qualify as personal 

wireless service facilities under section 

332(c)(7) because they are not used to 

provide telecommunications services. In 

this Report and Order, the Commission 

updates the OTARD rule to reflect the 

current technological landscape by 

eliminating the restriction that excludes 

some hub and relay antennas from the 

scope of the OTARD protections if they 

are used primarily for the distribution of 

service to multiple customer locations. 

In the 2004 Competitive Networks 

Reconsideration Order, the Commission 

determined that customer-end 

equipment possessing ‘‘the additional 

functionality of routing service to 

additional users’’ (such as a node in a 

mesh network) would not lose OTARD 

protection, so long as the equipment 

was ‘‘installed in order to serve the 

customer on [its] premises,’’ but that it 

‘‘would not apply to installations that 

are designed primarily for use as hubs 

for distribution of service.’’ 

8. The revised OTARD rule applies to 

all hub and relay antennas that are used 

for the distribution of fixed wireless 

services to multiple customer locations, 

regardless of whether they are 

‘‘primarily’’ used for this purpose, as 

long as: (1) The antenna serves a 

customer on whose premises it is 

located, and (2) the service provided 

over the antenna is broadband-only.2

The Commission’s order here does not 

modify any other aspects of the current 

OTARD rule. Thus, the rule’s 

requirements that antennas must be less 

than one meter in diameter or diagonal 

measurement, that they apply to 

property ‘‘where the user has a direct or 

indirect ownership or leasehold 

interest,’’ and that restrictions necessary 

for safety and historic preservation are 

excepted, remain in place. 

9. Policy Considerations. The 

Commission finds that this limited 

expansion of the OTARD rule to fixed 

wireless hub and relay antennas will 

align the Commission’s rules with the 

current fixed wireless technological 

landscape and accelerate the 

deployment of competitive fixed 

wireless services to consumers. The 

record supports the conclusion that the 

fixed wireless technologies have shifted 

from using larger antennas that transmit 

over greater distances—that were in use 

at the time the Commission adopted the 

hub and relay antenna restriction—to 

the use of smaller antennas that are 

located much closer to each other. As 

numerous commenters emphasize, 

today’s fixed wireless networks rely on 

smaller antennas located in close 

proximity to each other. Even in rural 

areas, these networks are deployed in 

11434 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

3This decision is an extension of long-standing 

Commission precedent to apply to antennas used to 

supply unlicensed services so long as the antenna 

is placed on property within the exclusive use or 

control of the antenna user where the user has a 

direct or indirect ownership or leasehold interest in 

the property. 

this way so as to increase broadband 

capacity. These smaller antennas meet 

the OTARD size restriction, but some 

are excluded from OTARD protection 

due to their ‘‘primary’’ function as fixed 

wireless hub and relay antennas. If these 

antennas continue to be excluded from 

OTARD protection, this could prevent 

fixed wireless service providers from 

maintaining or expanding service, 

particularly broadband-only service, as 

changes in technology require more 

dense deployments. 

10. The Commission’s updated rule 

will help spur the rapid deployment of 

fixed wireless networks needed for 5G 

and other fixed wireless high-speed 

internet services. This will benefit 

consumers by offering faster access to 

advanced communications services and 

greater competition among service 

providers. These fixed wireless 

networks rely on the installation of hub 

and relay antennas to transmit and 

receive signals from multiple customer 

locations to overcome propagation 

distance limitations and signal 

obstructions in delivering fixed wireless 

high-speed internet services. Further, 

modern fixed wireless antennas are 

multi-purpose, and can function as 

receivers, repeaters, and transmitters, 

thereby eliminating the distinction 

between fixed wireless hub and relay 

antennas that the Commission 

previously relied on in deciding to 

exclude some of these antennas from 

OTARD protection. As long as the 

antennas meet the other requirements of 

the Commission’s rule, its revised rule 

applies equally to all fixed wireless 

antennas, no matter whether they 

operate primarily as receivers, hubs, or 

relays, or whether they operate on 

licensed or unlicensed spectrum. There 

is no longer any reason to maintain the 

definitional distinction in the 

Commission’s rule between these types 

of antennas and, accordingly, the 

Commission eliminates it.3

11. The Commission’s revision will 

increase competitive parity among fixed 

wireless service providers and other 

service providers. Specifically, 

broadband-only fixed wireless service 

providers that use this equipment will 

now be on similar footing as service 

providers whose services and facilities 

(specifically those offering 

telecommunications services and 

commingled services) qualify for 

protections under sections 253 and 332. 

And it will facilitate the offering of 

advanced services to consumers by 

expanding deployment options and 

reducing costs for fixed wireless service 

providers. Without this change, 

broadband-only fixed wireless service 

providers will continue to face 

significant hurdles to siting, 

perpetuating barriers to new investment 

and deployment. In taking this action, 

the Commission embraces its 

longstanding policy objective of 

promoting competition among 

broadband and video providers and 

giving consumers, including those in 

rural and remote areas, more choices 

among wireless providers, products, and 

services. 

12. The record illustrates that fixed 

wireless service providers face 

unreasonable barriers to deployment. 

The Commission is not persuaded by 

the claim of Local Governments and 

Municipal Organizations that there is no 

evidence that zoning or private 

restrictive covenants have hindered the 

deployment of fixed wireless hub and 

relay antennas, nor by their argument 

that WISPA has offered only anecdotal 

examples of zoning restrictions and 

private restrictive covenants that have 

impacted the installation of hub and 

relay antennas. Rather, based on the 

totality of the record, the Commission 

finds that local zoning laws and reviews 

have discouraged the deployment of 

modern hub and relay antennas and that 

extending OTARD to cover this 

equipment will significantly advance 

deployment. 

13. The Commission’s expanded 

application of the OTARD rule to 

additional fixed wireless hub and relay 

antennas protects against restrictions 

that result in unreasonable delays or 

prevent the installation, maintenance or 

use of this equipment. Starry, a fixed 

wireless broadband-only provider, 

estimates that, if its base stations are 

covered by OTARD, it can activate 25% 

to 30% more sites in the coming year, 

which should enable it to pass more 

than one million additional homes. 

Starry asserts that across all its markets 

it takes on average 100 days to complete 

the permitting process for a single base 

station, which accounts for about 80% 

of the time that it spends in activating 

a site. Another fixed wireless internet 

service provider, Wisp.net, initially 

provided service only to tenants in the 

building where its antenna was located. 

It subsequently was denied a permit to 

operate a wireless hub and relay facility 

to provide fixed wireless service to 

customers outside the range of 

Wisp.net’s original footprint. Many 

consumers filed comments with the 

Commission claiming that Wisp.net was 

their only option for receiving service 

and urging the Commission to grant 

Wisp.net’s petition to expand the 

OTARD rule for hub and relay antennas. 

Similarly, WISPA provides several 

examples of where zoning or private 

homeowner restrictive covenants have 

hindered the deployment of fixed 

wireless hub and relay antennas. By 

updating OTARD, the Commission 

provides fixed wireless broadband 

providers protection from unreasonable 

delays in the installation of fixed 

wireless hub and relay antennas or the 

unreasonable prevention of such 

installations or deployments. 

14. The record also shows that 

restrictions in the application of the 

current rule to hub and relay antennas 

have raised costs for fixed wireless 

providers, which incur excessive 

permitting costs. Az Airnet, a wireless 

internet service provider in Arizona, 

asserts that in some jurisdictions the 

same permit fee applies to both a major 

cellular tower and a small internet relay 

site. New Wave, a wireless internet 

service provider operating in rural 

Illinois, claims that unreasonably high 

permit fees prohibit it from expanding 

its service. Az Airnet, New Wave, and 

other fixed wireless service providers 

will now be protected from 

unreasonable fees. Section 

1.4000(a)(3)(ii) provides that a law, 

regulation, or restriction impairs 

installation, maintenance, or use of 

fixed wireless hub and relay antennas if 

it unreasonably increases the cost of 

installation, maintenance, or use of the 

equipment. Further, section 1.4000(a)(4) 

provides that ‘‘[a]ny fee or cost imposed 

on a user by a rule, law, regulation, or 

restriction must be reasonable in light of 

the cost of the equipment or services 

and the rule, law, regulation or 

restriction’s treatment of comparable 

devices.’’ The Commission’s expanded 

application of the OTARD rule extends 

these protections against unreasonable 

fees to the installation of all covered 

customer premises equipment, even 

equipment whose primary purpose is to 

serve as hub and relay antennas. The 

expanded application of this rule will 

allow fixed wireless service providers to 

install such equipment more quickly, 

efficiently, and at reduced cost, which 

should reduce construction timelines. 

15. The revised OTARD rule provides 

fixed wireless service providers with 

greater certainty and predictability 

because it prohibits restrictions that 

impair the installation, maintenance, or 

use of covered antennas. Google states 

that municipal zoning laws and 

community association rules not only 

have the potential to delay or impede 

antenna installation, but also have the 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 11435 

4The Commission also notes that installations 

under the OTARD rule may not constitute an 

‘‘existing wireless tower or base station’’ for 

purposes of section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 

2012. See Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation 

Act of 2012, Public Law 112–96, Title VI, § 6409(a), 

126 Stat. 156, 232–33 (Feb. 22, 2012) (codified at 

47 U.S.C. 1455(a)); 47 CFR 1.6100(b)(5). Such 

installations may not have been reviewed and 

approved under the local zoning or siting process, 

or under another state or local regulatory review 

process, and therefore future modifications of these 

installations may not qualify for section 6409(a) 

streamlined treatment. 

5The Commission therefore disagrees with the 

National Multifamily Housing Council’s claim that 

Continued 

potential to discourage service 

expansion due to a lack of certainty and 

predictability. Likewise, OUTFRONT 

asserts that fixed wireless service 

providers face uncertain delays and 

costs due to local regulations that 

impact their ability to deploy networks 

efficiently by using all available sites. 

The protections the Commission adopts 

in this document provide broadbandonly service providers with the certainty 

and predictability they need to build out 

and deploy fixed wireless networks. 

16. The Commission’s revised rule 

also enhances the ability of fixed 

wireless service providers to deliver 

reliable high speed internet access to a 

greater number of unserved or 

underserved customers. WISPA cites a 

number of examples where the limits of 

the existing OTARD rule have 

precluded the provision of fixed 

wireless broadband service to areas 

where access is limited or non-existent. 

Common, a wireless internet service 

provider offering service in the San 

Francisco Bay Area, maintains that 

expanding the OTARD rule will enable 

it to deploy more quickly on residential 

rooftops to serve more people in 

suburban neighborhoods that do not 

otherwise have service. Wav Speed, a 

wireless internet service provider, 

claims that extending the OTARD rule 

to cover all fixed wireless hub and relay 

antennas will allow it to serve 

customers in areas where reliable high 

speed internet is unavailable or 

inconsistent, providing customers with 

the educational, vocational, and 

entertainment benefits that a modern 

internet connection permits. Az Airnet 

asserts that there ‘‘is a vast public need, 

especially in rural areas, for the use of 

small rooftops, or towers to bring 

internet service to those that cannot 

currently get it, or can only get 

substandard service.’’ Ionia, a wireless 

internet service provider serving rural 

Ionia County, Michigan, and 

surrounding areas, observes that 

‘‘[z]oning and landlord restrictions 

prevent the installation of equipment 

that would allow the relay of fixed 

wireless signals to nearby residents.’’ 

Ionia indicates that modifying the 

OTARD rule to allow the placement of 

antennas at a customer’s property 

‘‘would allow WISPs to provide high 

speed broadband services to customers 

that currently cannot be reached by 

other means due to terrain or 

vegetation.’’ MJM Telecom states that it 

is hampered by current state and local 

regulations and has ‘‘turned down 

thousands of potential customers due to 

the fact that [it] cannot put up a small 

relay hub site allowing them to receive 

these services.’’ By extending the 

protections of the OTARD rule to fixed 

wireless hub and relay antennas, the 

Commission promotes rural prosperity 

by enabling efficient, modern 

communications among rural 

households, businesses, schools, 

libraries, healthcare centers, and other 

important community institutions. 

17. The record also indicates that 

updating the OTARD rule will enable 

consumers to access competing video 

programming providers. Consumers 

increasingly stream video services over 

the internet, instead of consuming such 

programming through traditional video 

programming services such as cable or 

broadcast. As WISPA indicates, the 

primary benefit of fixed wireless 

antennas is to secure viewers’ access to 

broadband service, which is the world’s 

largest distributor of video programming 

services, including those of traditional 

television stations and networks. 

INCOMPAS agrees that updating 

OTARD to take into account the need 

for hub and relay antennas for 

broadband via fixed wireless networks 

will benefit consumers with better 

online video distribution. CTIA 

provides additional evidence that 

consumers are increasingly relying on 

wireless services for video streaming, 

citing an NTIA internet Use Survey 

indicating that the proportion of 

internet users watching video online has 

grown from 45% in 2013 to 70% in 

2017. CTIA explains that video 

streaming across wireless networks 

requires multiple antennas to receive 

programming, including antennas that 

connect to other antennas or serve other 

customer locations. Reducing 

restrictions on the use of fixed wireless 

hub and relay equipment is therefore 

consistent with the OTARD rule’s 

original goal of increasing consumer 

access to video programing services. 

18. The Commission emphasizes that 

its revision is narrow in scope and that 

it maintains the other existing OTARD 

restrictions.4 For the OTARD rule to 

apply, the antenna must be installed 

‘‘on property within the exclusive use or 

control of the antenna user where the 

user has a direct or indirect ownership 

or leasehold interest in the property’’ 

upon which the antenna is located. The 

OTARD provisions also apply only to 

those antennas measuring one meter or 

less in diameter or diagonal 

measurement. In addition, the OTARD 

rule is subject to an exception for State, 

local, or private restrictions that are 

necessary to accomplish a clearly 

defined, legitimate safety objective, or to 

preserve prehistoric or historic places 

that are eligible for inclusion on the 

National Register of Historic Places, 

provided such restrictions impose as 

little burden as necessary to achieve the 

foregoing objectives, and apply in a 

nondiscriminatory manner throughout 

the regulated area. Given that the 

OTARD rule only applies to antennas 

meeting the rule’s size restriction and 

only to antennas placed in areas where 

the antennas’ user has exclusive use or 

control, the Commission’s rule revisions 

will minimize any potential visual 

impact on properties, which some 

commenters raise. 

19. The Commission finds the 

opponents’ arguments unpersuasive. 

First, the Commission continues to 

recognize property owners’ rights under 

the OTARD rule. Because the 

Commission maintains the ‘‘exclusive 

use or control’’ and ‘‘direct or indirect 

ownership or leasehold interest’’ 

restrictions, fixed wireless service 

providers will still need to negotiate 

agreements with appropriate parties for 

the placement of their antennas in areas 

where the property owner or lessee has 

exclusive use or control. Contrary to the 

assertion of MBC and Real Estate 

Associations, this change does not 

undermine access negotiations. Rather, 

the revision expands OTARD 

protections to a larger class of 

agreements negotiated by property 

owners and lessees, in that the rule will 

cover more fixed wireless equipment 

than was previously allowed. For 

example, the new rule would not apply 

to the placement of hub and relay 

antennas on a building rooftop unless 

the building owner is a customer of the 

provider, or unless a customer other 

than the building owner already has a 

leasehold right to rooftop space and the 

placement is within that customer’s 

exclusive use and control. In the former 

circumstance, to the extent that the 

concern is that application of the rule 

would prevent a building owner from 

charging a market-based rate for 

placement of a hub antenna on the 

rooftop, the Commission notes that will 

not be the case.5 The revised rule will 

11436 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

the ‘‘proposed amendments would grant wireless 

carriers and any other entity that leases rooftop 

space the right to install fixed wireless equipment 

without paying any more in rent or amending any 

other lease terms.’’ NMHC Dec. 3, 2020 Ex Parte 

Letter at 2. The Report and Order continues to 

recognize property owners’ rights under the OTARD 

rule, and rooftop deployments remain unaffected in 

most circumstances. 

6Fixed wireless providers are subject to 

equipment authorization rules that require radio 

frequency (RF) devices to operate effectively 

without causing harmful interference. RF devices 

must be properly authorized under 47 CFR part 2 

prior to being marketed or imported in the United 

States. Fixed wireless providers that use unlicensed 

spectrum are subject to Part 15 rules governing 

unlicensed operation. Part 15 of the Rules allows 

devices employing low-level RF signals to operate 

without individual licenses, provided that their 

operation causes no harmful interference to 

licensed services and the devices do not generate 

emissions or field strength levels greater than a 

specified limit. 

not treat service providers as ‘‘antenna 

users,’’ and their agreements with 

building owners therefore would be 

subject to OTARD protection only if the 

building owner is itself a customer. 

Further, in that case, OTARD would 

serve to protect the antenna placement 

from third-party restrictions and would 

not limit the right of a provider and 

building owner customer to freely 

negotiate the terms of antenna 

placement in an area within the 

building owner’s exclusive use or 

control. If the provider wishes to place 

a device within the leasehold premises 

of a rooftop tenant, the placement 

would not intrude on the building 

owner’s property rights since the 

placement would be located within an 

area the building owner has already 

provided the tenant with a contractual 

right to occupy. In addition, fixed 

wireless hub and relay antenna 

manufacturers and service providers 

that use this equipment must continue 

to comply with other applicable 

Commission regulations, such as RF 

emissions requirements.6

20. The Commission finds that 

potential economic costs of its rule 

change raised by commenters are both 

speculative and negligible. LMC claims 

that the installation of the new antennas 

contemplated in the Notice ‘‘would 

dramatically change the aesthetic of a 

neighborhood and be in contrast with 

their established character.’’ First, 

although there is no ‘‘aesthetics 

exception’’ under the OTARD rule, 

commenters have not provided factual 

support explaining how the 

Commission’s update to the rule would 

cause these harms. Further, the 

Commission maintains the existing 

restrictions in the OTARD rule that 

impose limits on the dimensions and 

location of equipment, so the visual 

appearance of the hub and relay 

equipment and antennas are the same as 

those deployments already covered 

under the OTARD rule. Relatedly, 

NATOA claims that, ‘‘[f]reed from the 

current obligation that the antenna be 

used for the owner or tenant to receive 

services, a property owner or tenant 

could affix an unlimited number of 

antennas anywhere on its property.’’ 

That claim is misplaced, as the 

Commission’s rule revision requires that 

an antenna must be deployed in a 

location where the customer has 

exclusive use or control. Moreover, the 

customer fixed wireless devices, 

including the antennas, are small, and a 

provider may only need a few 

additional units to relay the signals in 

different directions, if and where 

applicable. In addition, the 

Commission’s revision leaves 

unchanged the OTARD rule’s exemption 

and waiver frameworks, which permit 

limiting antenna installations for 

specific reasons. Finally, the 

Commission maintains the historical 

preservation exception in the OTARD 

rule, which limits installations of fixed 

wireless hubs and relays antennas under 

certain circumstances. In these 

circumstances, the Commission 

determines that the limited adjustment 

adopted here is appropriate. 

21. The Commission also finds that 

other arguments raised by commenters 

are unfounded. MBC argues that any 

revision to the OTARD rule would cast 

uncertainty on ‘‘tens of thousands’’ of 

existing rooftop antenna leases. The 

Commission’s revision is narrowly 

focused on hub and relay antennas that 

presently are not covered by OTARD 

and, therefore, rather than disrupting 

commercial and residential lease 

transactions, it should encourage parties 

to negotiate more lease transactions in 

the future. The rule will not affect 

existing rooftop leases unless the 

antenna placement is located in an area 

within the exclusive use and control of 

a customer, in which case the parties to 

the placement agreement would be the 

provider and the customer. The OTARD 

rule does not affect the providercustomer relationship; rather, it 

prohibits certain public and third-party 

restrictions on placements located at the 

customer’s premises. If a property 

owner is the customer, then the terms of 

the placement will be freely negotiable 

without limitation by the OTARD rule. 

Similarly, contrary to Oklahoma Cities’ 

claims, it is implausible that the 

Commission’s changes will spur such a 

large increase in exploitative contracts 

between service providers and 

homeowners and renters that new 

consumer protections are necessary, 

especially because providers might be 

enticed to offer consumers discounts to 

meet the new wording of the OTARD 

rule. Local jurisdictions, however, can 

rely on the provisions of sections 

1.4000(a)(3) and (4) and the safety 

provisions of subsection (b)(1) to protect 

the public as long as their rules meet the 

standards of these sections. Taking into 

consideration all of the above, the 

Commission finds that the clear 

economic benefits of the rule change 

outweigh the negligible, and in some 

cases unfounded, economic costs. 

22. Legal Authority. In the Notice, the 

Commission proposed to rely on the 

legal authority the Commission 

originally relied on in the 2000 

Competitive Networks First Report and 

Order in extending the application of 

the OTARD rule to antennas used in 

connection with fixed wireless services. 

The Commission noted that it in 2000 

assumed all hub sites were ‘‘personal 

wireless service facilities’’ covered by 

section 332(c)(7) of the Act—defined by 

the Act to include only facilities that 

provide ‘‘telecommunications 

services’’—and therefore beyond the 

scope of the Commission’s OTARD 

provisions. The Commission indicated 

that this assumption no longer appeared 

accurate. The Commission therefore 

sought comment on extending relief to 

those relay antennas and hub sites that 

are not ‘‘telecommunications services’’ 

and/or ‘‘personal wireless service 

facilities’’—i.e., those that fall into the 

gap between the Commission’s current 

OTARD provisions and the protections 

of sections 253 and/or 332(c)(7) of the 

Act, and those that WISPA claims are 

needed for modern high-speed 

broadband wireless networks. 

23. The Commission finds that 

modifying the OTARD rule is necessary 

for the effective exercise of its spectrum 

management authority under Title III of 

the Communications Act. Specifically, 

the Commission finds that section 303 

of the Act provides authority for the 

Commission to modify the OTARD rule 

as it applies to fixed wireless devices. 

24. Congress has specifically 

recognized that section 303 provides 

authority to the Commission to adopt 

OTARD rules. While the directive in 

section 207 of the 1996 Act mandated 

the exercise of the Commission’s Title 

III authority only to certain kinds of 

video programming, section 207 

directed the Commission to address 

such video programming using its 

existing authority under section 303. 

Specifically, section 207 states that 

‘‘[w]ithin 180 days after the date of 

enactment of this Act, the Commission 

shall, pursuant to section 303 of the 

Communications Act of 1934, 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 11437 

7For example, among other requirements, fixed 

wireless providers, are subject to equipment 

authorization rules that require radio frequency 

(RF) devices to operate effectively without causing 

harmful interference. RF devices must be properly 

authorized under 47 CFR part 2 prior to being 

marketed or imported in the United States. Fixed 

wireless providers that use unlicensed spectrum are 

subject to Part 15 rules governing unlicensed 

operation. Part 15 of the Rules allows devices 

employing low-level RF signals to operate without 

individual licenses, provided that their operation 

causes no harmful interference to licensed services 

and the devices do not generate emissions or field 

strength levels greater than a specified limit. Fixed 

wireless providers also are subject to current 

OTARD requirements. 

8This exercise of the Commission’s Title III 

authority will thus further promote the 

Commission’s statutory mission of ‘‘mak[ing] 

available, so far as possible, to all of the people of 

the United States . . . a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio 

communication service with adequate facilities at 

reasonable charges,’’ and ‘‘encourag[ing] the 

deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of 

advanced telecommunications capability to all 

Americans . . . by utilizing, in a manner consistent 

with the public interest, convenience, and necessity 

. . . measures that promote competition in the local 

telecommunications market, or other regulating 

methods that remove barriers to infrastructure 

investment.’’ 47 U.S.C. 151, 1302(a). Based on the 

Commission’s findings regarding its authority under 

Title III of the Act, the Commission rejects National 

Multifamily Housing Council’s argument that the 

Commission has no statutory authority to revise the 

OTARD rule. 

9Moreover, the Commission’s action is 

reasonably ancillary to its express authority to 

manage the radio spectrum and related apparatus. 

47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r). Section 4(i) provides that 

‘‘[t]he Commission may perform any and all acts, 

make such rules and regulations, and issue such 

orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be 

necessary in the execution of its functions.’’ Section 

303(r) authorizes the Commission to ‘‘[m]ake such 

rules . . . as may be necessary to carry out the 

provisions of this the Act.’’ As noted above, the 

Commission’s modest expansion of the existing 

application of the OTARD rules to additional hub 

and relay antennas is necessary to address the kinds 

of substantial obstacles to deployment of Title III 

services described above. See United States v. 

Southwestern Cable Co., 392 U.S. 157, 172–78, 180– 

81 (1968). The decision will also provide a levelplaying field for broadband-only fixed wireless 

providers which lack the regulatory protections in 

this regard available only to their competitors under 

sections 253 and 332. See Mobile Communications 

Corp. of America v. FCC, 77 F.3d 1399 (D.C. Cir. 

1996). 

promulgate regulations to prohibit 

restrictions that impair a viewer’s ability 

to receive video programming services 

through devices designed for over-theair reception. . . .’’ As the Commission 

recognized in extending the OTARD 

rule to fixed wireless services in the 

2000 Competitive Networks First Report 

and Order, ‘‘this statutory language 

reflects Congress’ recognition that, 

pursuant to section 303, the 

Commission has always possessed 

authority to promulgate rules addressing 

OTARDs.’’ The Commission has used its 

section 303 authority to limit State and 

local regulation of the placement of 

antennas both before and after section 

207 was enacted. 

25. Courts have held that the 

Commission’s statutory authority 

pursuant to Title III is broad. The 

Commission’s authority under section 

303 allows it, when necessary to serve 

the public interest, to allocate spectrum 

for specific uses, adopt rules governing 

services that use spectrum as well as 

rules applicable to antennas and other 

apparatus, and take action to encourage 

the larger and more effective use of 

spectrum. More generally, the 

Commission may ‘‘[m]ake such rules 

and regulations and prescribe such 

restrictions and conditions, not 

inconsistent with law, as may be 

necessary to carry out the provisions of’’ 

the Act. Fixed wireless service 

providers offer services using spectrum 

and are subject to the Commission’s 

rules governing the use of spectrum.7

Evidence in the record shows that fixed 

wireless service providers seek to 

broaden their offerings of competitive 

broadband internet access services but 

are subject to State, local and private 

restrictions that increase the costs 

associated with deploying service and 

dampen investment. The record shows 

that modifying the OTARD rule to allow 

wireless internet service providers to 

deploy necessary infrastructure more 

readily will serve the public interest and 

promote larger and more efficient use of 

spectrum by increasing siting 

opportunities for wireless internet 

service providers, decreasing costs 

associated with deploying needed 

infrastructure, and encouraging wireless 

internet service providers to deploy 

broadband internet access services in 

additional areas across the country.8

26. Several commenters argue that the 

Commission cannot rely on the 

authority it relied on previously to 

modify the OTARD rule because the 

Commission’s determinations regarding 

its authority in the 2000 Competitive 

Networks First Report and Order were 

based on an ‘‘outdated ancillary 

jurisdiction analysis.’’ The Commission 

acknowledges that the Commission’s 

Competitive Networks Order was issued 

prior to the D.C. Circuit’s decision in 

Comcast v. FCC, 600 F.3d 642 (D.C. Cir. 

2010), which rejected the Commission’s 

reliance on ancillary authority in the 

absence of any express delegation of 

authority. Nevertheless, the 

Commission’s action here is based on its 

well recognized broad authority under 

Title III (most specifically section 303).9

27. The Commission’s action also is 

consistent with the requirements 

imposed upon the Commission in RAY 

BAUM’S Act. RAY BAUM’S Act 

requires the Commission, in the 

Communications Marketplace Report, to 

assess the state of competition in the 

communications marketplace, assess the 

state of deployment of communications 

capabilities, and to assess whether laws, 

regulations, regulatory practices or 

demonstrated marketplace practices 

pose a barrier to competitive entry into 

the communications marketplace or to 

the competitive expansion of existing 

providers of communications services. It 

also requires the Commission to 

describe how it will address ‘‘the 

challenges and opportunities in the 

communications marketplace that were 

identified through the assessments.’’ 

28. The Commission also disagrees 

with commenters who argue that the 

Commission lacks authority to modify 

the OTARD rule because hub and relay 

antennas are already governed by 

section 332 of the Act. Commenters 

such as the Municipal Organizations 

and Local Governments point out that, 

in the 2000 Competitive Networks First 

Report and Order, the Commission 

found that hub and relay antennas were 

outside the scope of customer-end 

equipment covered by the OTARD rule. 

The Municipal Organizations argue that 

because hub and relay antennas are 

covered under section 332(c)(7), no 

other provision of the Act may ‘‘support 

an action that ‘limit[s] or affect[s] the 

authority of a State or local government 

or instrumentality thereof over 

decisions regarding the placement, 

construction, and modification of’ these 

facilities.’’ To the contrary, the 

Commission finds that section 332(c)(7) 

does not bar it from modifying the 

OTARD rule because it does not apply 

to antennas used in connection with the 

broadband-only services many fixed 

wireless providers offer. 

29. Evidence in the record shows that 

wireless internet service providers use 

hub and relay antennas to provide 

services that do not fall within the scope 

of services covered under section 

332(c)(7). With certain exceptions, 

section 332(c)(7) provides for limited 

federal preemption of State and local 

zoning restrictions ‘‘that prohibit or 

have the effect of prohibiting’’ ‘‘the 

provision of ‘personal wireless 

service.’ ’’ ‘‘Personal wireless service’’ is 

defined under section 332(c)(7) to mean 

‘‘commercial mobile services, 

unlicensed wireless services, and 

common carrier wireless exchange 

access services.’’ ‘‘Unlicensed wireless 

service’’ in turn, is defined under 

section 332(c)(7) to mean ‘‘the offering 

of telecommunications services using 

duly authorized devices which do not 

require individual licenses, but does not 

mean the provision of direct-to-home 

satellite services . . . .’’ Section 253 

11438 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

similarly provides for limited federal 

preemption of state and local statute or 

regulations that ‘‘prohibit or have the 

effect of prohibiting’’ ‘‘the ability of any 

entity to provide any interstate or 

intrastate telecommunications service.’’ 

30. Many fixed wireless providers 

offer broadband-only services that are 

outside the scope of these provisions. In 

this Report and Order, the Commission 

takes action to address those hub and 

relay antennas that are used in 

connection with the provision of 

broadband-only services that fall into 

the gap between its current OTARD 

provisions and the protections of 

sections 332(c)(7) and 253 of the Act. In 

response to the request from WISPA for 

clarification about whether the 

Commission’s prior sections 253 and 

332 interpretations cover their offering 

of commingled services, the 

Commission reiterates what it already 

decided and the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals affirmed: The scope of 

Commission preemption over 

commingled services is covered by 

sections 253 and 332 of the Act and its 

implementing regulations. Expansion of 

the OTARD rule to cover commingled 

services thus is unnecessary. 

Accordingly, this Report and Order does 

not address hub or relay antennas that 

are used for such commingled services, 

other than to point out that they are 

covered for preemption purposes under 

sections 253 and 332 of the Act. 

31. The Commission also rejects 

arguments that revising the OTARD rule 

as described herein would constitute a 

taking. The Community Associations 

Institute (CAI) argues that ‘‘a rule 

allowing commercial communications 

equipment to be sited on common 

property without the association’s 

explicit consent is a compelled physical 

occupation of such property’’ and that 

such a rule ‘‘would constitute a taking 

for which compensation must be made.’’ 

The Real Estate Associations contend 

that while the revised rule would not 

say so on its face, its practical effect 

would be to ‘‘give fixed wireless 

providers the ability to install and 

operate equipment without the consent 

of the owner of the property.’’ They 

contend that, even though the hub or 

relay antenna might serve the needs of 

the end-user customer, it would ‘‘also 

have other features that meet only the 

needs of the third-party service 

provider’’ and argue that requiring 

property owners to accept the 

installation of such equipment would 

potentially equate to forced 

acquiescence to subleasing to fixed 

wireless service providers and would 

therefore violate the Fifth Amendment’s 

prohibition on takings. The Commission 

disagrees that the revision to the 

OTARD rule that it adopts in this Report 

and Order would cause such results. 

The OTARD rule does not permit 

service providers to install hub and 

relay antennas on common property 

without a property owner’s consent. The 

modification the Commission adopts is 

narrow and eliminates only the 

restriction that currently excludes some 

hub and relay antennas from the scope 

of the existing OTARD provisions. It 

does not change any other aspect of the 

current OTARD rule, including the 

requirement that, for the OTARD rule to 

apply, the antenna must be installed 

‘‘on property within the exclusive use or 

control of the antenna user where the 

user has a direct or indirect ownership 

or leasehold interest in the property.’’ A 

tenant may allow a wireless service 

provider to place a hub or relay antenna 

on property that is within the tenant’s 

exclusive use or control where the 

tenant has a direct or indirect 

ownership or leasehold interest in the 

property. 

32. In originally extending the 

OTARD rule to fixed wireless services, 

the Commission considered and rejected 

similar arguments that the OTARD rule 

would constitute a taking and 

concluded that, ‘‘there is no 

constitutional impediment to the 

Commission forbidding restrictions on 

the placement of antennas on property 

within the tenant user’s exclusive use, 

where that user has an interest in the 

property.’’ The Commission reiterated 

its explanation from the OTARD Second 

Report and Order that the OTARD rule 

‘‘did not effect a taking of the premises 

owner’s property within the meaning of 

the Fifth Amendment because by 

leasing his or her property to a tenant, 

the property owner voluntarily and 

temporarily relinquishes the rights to 

possess and use the property and retains 

the right to dispose of the property.’’ In 

Building Owners and Managers Ass’n 

Inter. v. FCC, 254 F.3d 89 (D.C. Cir. 

2001), the D.C. Circuit upheld the 

Commission’s extension of OTARD 

protection to the placement of antennas 

on leased premises, rejecting the claim 

that the action effected a per se taking 

‘‘because it enlarges the tenant’s rights 

beyond the contractual provisions of the 

lease, thereby stripping landowners of 

property rights that they rightfully 

reserved. . . .’’ The court held that ‘‘the 

landlord affected by the amended 

OTARD rule will have voluntarily ceded 

control of an interest in his or her 

property to a tenant’’ and having done 

so ‘‘thereby submits to the 

Commission’s rightful regulation of a 

term of that occupation.’’ (Ibid) The 

Commission is not convinced that its 

decision creates a Fifth Amendment 

takings issue, or that the broad 

categories of covered activities cited in 

BOMA should be restricted, simply 

because installation of the hub and relay 

equipment might result in the end user 

receiving money or other compensation 

in exchange for installation of the 

equipment on the premises. Consistent 

with and for the reasons outlined in the 

Commission’s previous determinations, 

it concludes that revising the OTARD 

rule as described herein does not 

constitute a taking. A taking does not 

occur in such cases because, by leasing 

property to the tenant, the property 

owner has voluntarily and temporarily 

relinquished the right to possess and 

use the property and has instead given 

those rights to the tenant. 

33. The Commission also rejects 

arguments premised on the generalized 

concerns about the Commission’s RF 

safety limits and that incrementally 

revising the OTARD rule would 

somehow violate people’s right to 

bodily autonomy or their property-based 

right to ‘‘exclude’’ wireless radiation 

emitted by third parties from their home 

or would violate the Americans with 

Disabilities Act or the Fair Housing Act 

by imposing radiation on individuals in 

their homes. Revising the OTARD rule 

does not change the applicability of the 

Commission’s radio frequency exposure 

requirements, and fixed wireless 

providers must ensure that their 

equipment remains within the 

applicable exposure limits. What is 

more, in 2019, the Commission declined 

to initiate a rulemaking to revise its RF 

emission exposure limits. The 

Commission therefore rejects certain 

commenters’ concerns that the OTARD 

rule revisions will generally lead to 

unsafe RF exposure levels. 

34. Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as 

amended (RFA), requires that an agency 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for notice and comment rulemakings, 

unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule 

will not, if promulgated, have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities.’’ 

Accordingly, the Commission has 

prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) concerning the 

possible impact of the rule changes 

contained in this Report and Order on 

small entities. 

35. Paperwork Reduction Act. This 

document does not contain an 

information collection subject to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), Public Law 104–13. Therefore, it 

does not contain any new or modified 

‘‘information collection burden for 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 11439 

small business concerns with fewer than 

25 employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198. 

36. Congressional Review Act. The 

Commission has determined, and the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget, 

concurs, that this rule is non-major 

under the Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will 

send a copy of this Report and Order to 

Congress and the Government 

Accountability Office pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). 

37. People with Disabilities. To 

request materials in accessible formats 

for people with disabilities (braille, 

large print, electronic files, audio 

format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov 

or call the Consumer & Governmental 

Affairs Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 

202–418–0432 (TTY). 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

38. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice) 

released in April 2019. The Commission 

sought written public comment on the 

proposals in the Notice, including 

comment on the IRFA. No comments 

were filed addressing the IRFA. This 

present Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Report and Order 

39. In the Report and Order, the 

Commission updates its rule for overthe-air reception devices (OTARD) to 

include hub and relay antennas that are 

used for the distribution of fixed 

wireless services to multiple customer 

locations, regardless of whether they are 

primarily used for this purpose, so long 

as the antennas serve a customer on 

whose premises they are located. This 

change is necessitated by the shift away 

from larger antennas spread over greater 

distances to 5G wireless networks with 

dense deployment requirements. 

Today’s fixed wireless networks rely on 

smaller antennas located in close 

proximately to each other. These 

smaller antennas meet the OTARD size 

restriction but are excluded from 

OTARD protection due to their function. 

By updating the OTARD rule to include 

these antennas, the Commission 

recognizes the shift in the fixed wireless 

infrastructure landscape. 

40. The shift in the types of service 

provided by fixed wireless service 

providers also prompts the need for this 

rule change. Specifically, these service 

providers’ offerings are no longer 

commingled with telecommunications 

services and therefore would not 

otherwise receive protection from one of 

the Commission’s preemption schemes. 

In this regard, the Commission’s actions 

level the playing field for fixed wireless 

broadband service providers so that they 

are better able to compete with other 

service providers that already receive 

protection from the Commission’s 

OTARD rule or other preemption 

scheme. By making this modification, 

the Commission places fixed wireless 

broadband providers on similar footing 

with other service providers and 

expands siting options for fixed wireless 

hub and relay antennas. These changes 

will reduce costs and construction 

timelines for new fixed wireless sites. 

They will also provide for alternative 

locations for fixed wireless hub and 

relay antennas to be installed and 

remove market barriers for fixed 

wireless services that otherwise would 

exist. Additionally, the changes adopted 

in the Report and Order will enhance 

the development of broadband services 

and further the Commission’s efforts to 

address the digital divide by helping to 

bring faster internet speeds, lower 

latency, and advanced applications like 

the Internet of Things (IoT), telehealth, 

and remote learning to rural and 

underserved areas, as well as 

throughout the United States. 

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised 

by Public Comments in Response to the 

Interim Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

41. There were no comments filed 

that specifically addressed the proposed 

rules and policies presented in the 

IRFA. 

C. Response to Comments by the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration 

42. Pursuant to the Small Business 

Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the 

RFA, the Commission is required to 

respond to any comments filed by the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration (SBA), and to 

provide a detailed statement of any 

change made to the proposed rules as a 

result of those comments. 

43. The Chief Counsel did not file any 

comments in response to the proposed 

rules in this proceeding. 

D. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities to Which the 

Rules Will Apply 

44. The RFA directs agencies to 

provide a description of, and where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities that may be affected by 

the rules and adopted herein. The RFA 

generally defines the term ‘‘small 

entity’’ as having the same meaning as 

the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small 

organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental 

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. 

45. Small Businesses, Small 

Organizations, Small Governmental 

Jurisdictions. The Commission’s actions, 

over time, may affect small entities that 

are not easily categorized at present. 

The Commission therefore describes 

here, at the outset, three broad groups of 

small entities that could be directly 

affected herein. First, while there are 

industry specific size standards for 

small businesses that are used in the 

regulatory flexibility analysis, according 

to data from the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) Office of 

Advocacy, in general a small business is 

an independent business having fewer 

than 500 employees. These types of 

small businesses represent 99.9% of all 

businesses in the United States, which 

translates to 30.7 million businesses. 

46. Next, the type of small entity 

described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is 

generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise 

which is independently owned and 

operated and is not dominant in its 

field.’’ The Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of 

$50,000 or less to delineate its annual 

electronic filing requirements for small 

exempt organizations. Nationwide, for 

tax year 2018, there were approximately 

571,709 small exempt organizations in 

the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 

or less according to the registration and 

tax data for exempt organizations 

available from the IRS. 

47. Finally, the small entity described 

as a ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction’’ 

is defined generally as ‘‘governments of 

cities, counties, towns, townships, 

villages, school districts, or special 

districts, with a population of less than 

fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census Bureau 

data from the 2017 Census of 

Governments indicate that there were 

90,075 local governmental jurisdictions 

consisting of general purpose 

governments and special purpose 

governments in the United States. Of 

this number there were 36,931 general 

purpose governments (county, 

municipal and town or township) with 

populations of less than 50,000 and 

12,040 special purpose governments— 

independent school districts with 

enrollment populations of less than 

11440 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 

U.S. Census of Governments data, the 

Commission estimates that at least 

48,971 entities fall into the category of 

‘‘small governmental jurisdictions.’’ 

48. Local Exchange Carriers. Neither 

the Commission nor the SBA has 

developed a size standard for small 

businesses specifically applicable to 

local exchange services. The closest 

applicable NAICS Code category is 

Wired Telecommunications Carriers. 

Under the applicable SBA size standard, 

such a business is small if it has 1,500 

or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau 

data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 

firms that operated for the entire year. 

Of that total, 3,083 operated with fewer 

than 1,000 employees. Thus, under this 

category and the associated size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of local exchange carriers 

are small entities. 

49. Wireless Telecommunications 

Carriers (except Satellite). This industry 

comprises establishments engaged in 

operating and maintaining switching 

and transmission facilities to provide 

communications via the airwaves. 

Establishments in this industry have 

spectrum licenses and provide services 

using that spectrum, such as cellular 

services, paging services, wireless 

internet access, and wireless video 

services. The appropriate size standard 

under SBA rules is that such a business 

is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 

employees. For this industry, U.S. 

Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 

there were 967 firms that operated for 

the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms 

employed fewer than 1,000 employees 

and 12 firms employed of 1,000 

employees or more. Thus under this 

category and the associated size 

standard, the Commission estimates that 

the majority of Wireless 

Telecommunications Carriers (except 

Satellite) are small entities. 

50. The Commission’s own data— 

available in its Universal Licensing 

System—indicate that, as of August 31, 

2018 there are 265 Cellular licensees 

that will be affected by its actions. The 

Commission does not know how many 

of these licensees are small, as the 

Commission does not collect that 

information for these types of entities. 

Similarly, according to internally 

developed Commission data, 413 

carriers reported that they were engaged 

in the provision of wireless telephony, 

including cellular service, Personal 

Communications Service (PCS), and 

Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) 

Telephony services. Of this total, an 

estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer 

employees, and 152 have more than 

1,500 employees. Thus, using available 

data, the Commission estimates that the 

majority of wireless firms can be 

considered small. 

51. Non-Licensee Owners of Towers 

and Other Infrastructure. Although at 

one time most communications towers 

were owned by the licensee using the 

tower to provide communications 

service, many towers are now owned by 

third-party businesses that do not 

provide communications services 

themselves but lease space on their 

towers to other companies that provide 

communications services. The 

Commission’s rules require that any 

entity, including a non-licensee, 

proposing to construct a tower over 200 

feet in height or within the glide slope 

of an airport must register the tower 

with the Commission’s Antenna 

Structure Registration (ASR) system and 

comply with applicable rules regarding 

review for impact on the environment 

and historic properties. 

52. As of March 1, 2017, the ASR 

database includes approximately 

122,157 registration records reflecting a 

‘‘Constructed’’ status and 13,987 

registration records reflecting a 

‘‘Granted, Not Constructed’’ status. 

These figures include both towers 

registered to licensees and towers 

registered to non-licensee tower owners. 

The Commission does not keep 

information from which it can easily 

determine how many of these towers are 

registered to non-licensees or how many 

non-licensees have registered towers. 

Regarding towers that do not require 

ASR registration, the Commission does 

not collect information as to the number 

of such towers in use and therefore 

cannot estimate the number of tower 

owners that would be subject to the 

rules on which it seeks comment. 

Moreover, the SBA has not developed a 

size standard for small businesses in the 

category ‘‘Tower Owners.’’ Therefore, 

the Commission is unable to determine 

the number of non-licensee tower 

owners that are small entities. The 

Commission believes, however, that 

when all entities owning 10 or fewer 

towers and leasing space for collocation 

are included, non-licensee tower owners 

number in the thousands. In addition, 

there may be other non-licensee owners 

of other wireless infrastructure, 

including Distributed Antenna Systems 

(DAS) and small cells that might be 

affected by the measures on which the 

Commission seeks comment. The 

Commission does not have any basis for 

estimating the number of such nonlicensee owners that are small entities. 

53. The closest applicable SBA 

category is All Other 

Telecommunications, and the 

appropriate size standard consists of all 

such firms with gross annual receipts of 

$3 million or less. For this category, 

U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show 

that there were 1,442 firms that operated 

for the entire year. Of these firms, a total 

of 1,400 had gross annual receipts of 

less than $25 million and 15 firms had 

annual receipts of $25 million to 

$49,999,999. Thus, under this SBA size 

standard a majority of the firms 

potentially affected by the 

Commission’s action can be considered 

small. 

54. Lessors of Residential Buildings 

and Dwellings. This industry comprises 

establishments primarily engaged in 

acting as lessors of buildings used as 

residences or dwellings, such as singlefamily homes, apartment buildings, and 

town homes. Included in this industry 

are owner-lessors and establishments 

renting real estate and then acting as 

lessors in subleasing it to others. The 

establishments in this industry may 

manage the property themselves or have 

another establishment manage it for 

them. The appropriate SBA size 

standard for this industry classifies a 

business as small if it has $27.5 million 

or less in annual receipts. U.S. Census 

Bureau 2012 data for Lessors of 

Residential Buildings and Dwellings 

show that there were 42,911 firms that 

operated for the entire year. Of that 

number, 42,618 firms operated with 

annual receipts of less than $25 million 

per year, while 142 firms operated with 

annual receipts between $25 million 

and $49,999,999 million. Therefore, 

based on the SBA’s size standard the 

majority of Lessors of Residential 

Buildings and Dwellings are small 

entities. 

55. Property Owners’ Associations. 

This industry comprises establishments 

formed on the behalf of individual 

property owners, to make collective 

decisions based on the wishes of a 

majority of owners. This includes 

associations formed on behalf of 

individual residential condominium 

owners or homeowners. These 

associations may provide overall 

management, publish a telephone 

directory of the owners, sponsor 

seasonal events for the owners, establish 

and collect funds to operate the project, 

enforce rules and regulations, settle 

differences of opinion among residents, 

and make other decisions that are vital 

to the owners. Associations formed on 

behalf of individual real estate owners 

or tenants that provide no property 

management, but which arrange and 

organize civic and social functions are 

included here as well. This industry 

falls within the category of, ‘‘Other 

Similar Organizations (except Business, 

Professional, Labor, and Political 

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 11441 

Organizations)’’ under the U.S. Census 

Bureaus’ NAICS classification system. 

The SBA small business size standard 

for this industry classifies a business as 

small if it has $8 million or less in 

annual receipts. U.S. Census Bureau 

2012 data for this industry show that 

there were 18,347 firms that operated 

for the entire year. Of that number, 

17,818 firms operated with annual 

receipts of less than $5 million per year, 

while 382 firms operated with annual 

receipts between $5 million and 

$9,999,999 million. Therefore, based on 

the SBA’s size standard the majority of 

Property Owners’ Associations are small 

firms in this industry. 

E. Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

56. The revisions to the OTARD rule 

do not impose any new or additional 

reporting, recordkeeping, or other 

compliance obligations. However, the 

number of entities subject to the rule’s 

protections may expand because of the 

Commission’s actions. The revisions 

also will not require small entities to 

hire attorneys, engineers, consultants, or 

other professionals to comply with the 

rule changes. Instead, the Commission 

expect the changes adopted in the 

Report and Order will have a beneficial 

impact on small entities. More 

specifically, the revisions will allow 

small fixed wireless providers to install 

fixed wireless hub and relay antennas 

more quickly and efficiently and at 

lower cost by expanding the class of 

providers whose antennas are subject to 

regulatory protections, although the 

Commission cannot quantify the 

magnitude of these cost savings. 

Further, the OTARD rule revisions will 

reduce construction timelines for new 

fixed wireless sites and reduce barriers 

to entry, which may result in more 

small entities utilizing the OTARD 

rule’s protections and installing fixed 

wireless equipment. 

57. By ensuring that State, local, and 

private restrictions do not delay or 

impede the installation of fixed wireless 

hub or relay antennas, the Commission’s 

actions will benefit small as well as 

other fixed wireless providers by 

creating more siting opportunities and 

spurring investment in and deployment 

of wireless infrastructure. 

Communications services will become 

more readily available in unserved, 

underserved, and rural areas furthering 

the Commission’s efforts to address the 

digital divide. 

F. Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

58. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant, specifically 

small business, alternatives that it has 

considered in reaching its approach, 

which may include the following four 

alternatives (among others): ‘‘(1) the 

establishment of differing compliance or 

reporting requirements or timetables 

that take into account the resources 

available to small entities; (2) the 

clarification, consolidation, or 

simplification of compliance or 

reporting requirements under the rule 

for such small entities; (3) the use of 

performance, rather than design, 

standards; and (4) an exemption from 

coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, 

for such small entities.’’ 

59. In the Report and Order, the 

Commission revises its OTARD rule to 

expand its coverage to include hub and 

relay antennas that are used for the 

distribution of fixed wireless services to 

multiple customer locations, regardless 

of whether they are primarily used for 

this purpose, so long as the antennas 

serve a customer on whose premises 

they are located. By revising the OTARD 

rule to reflect the current technological 

landscape, the Commission’s actions 

should reduce the economic impact for 

small entities that deploy fixed hub and 

relay antennas by reducing the costs and 

time associated with the deployment of 

such infrastructure. 

60. Comments filed by the Wireless 

internet Service Providers Association 

(WISPA) which represents fixed 

wireless providers—including small 

providers serving rural and underserved 

areas, supports the Commission’s 

revision of the OTARD rule stating that, 

‘‘[e]xtending the OTARD rules to fixed 

wireless hub and relay antennas would 

spur infrastructure deployment, 

including deployment of networks that 

involve local relaying in rural and other 

underserved areas and deployment by 

small providers.’’ MJM Telecom a small 

internet service provider and WISPA 

member indicated that under the 

current OTARD rules, ‘‘[w]e have had to 

turn down thousands of potential 

customers due to the fact that we cannot 

put up a small relay hub site[,]’’ and 

requested that the Commission adopted 

the revision to the OTARD rules 

proposed in the Notice and adopted in 

the Report and Order. With the OTARD 

rule change, the Commission has 

removed hurdles to siting which 

imposed barriers to entry, investment 

and deployment for fixed wireless 

providers which is a major step to level 

the playing field for these providers. 

Reduced costs and removal of barriers to 

entry coupled with the opportunity for 

expansion into unserved and 

underserved service areas and increased 

customer revenues for fixed wireless 

providers hold the promise of a 

beneficial economic impact for small 

entities. 

61. Some commenters have concerns 

about an increase in certain costs—such 

as aesthetics (e.g., too many antennas on 

a property) and disruption of existing 

contracts between wireless providers 

and property owners. These 

commenters argued that the current 

OTARD rule should be maintained. In 

considering these arguments, the 

Commission determined that the 

demonstrable economic benefits of the 

rule outweigh the economic costs, 

which are negligible to the extent such 

costs can be substantiated. First, the 

revision will enhance the ability of 

small and other fixed wireless service 

providers to deliver reliable high speed 

internet access to a greater number of 

unserved or underserved customers. 

And there will be fewer restrictions on 

the antennas that customers nationwide 

will be able to place on a property they 

control. The OTARD rule revision will 

also protect small and other fixed 

wireless broadband providers from 

unreasonable delays in the installation 

of fixed wireless hub and relay antennas 

or the unreasonable prevention of such 

installations or deployments. It will also 

provide small and other fixed wireless 

service providers with protections 

against unreasonable fees for the 

installation of hub and relay antennas. 

Further, the prohibition against 

restrictions that impair the installation, 

maintenance or use of covered antennas 

will provide small and other fixed 

wireless providers certainty and 

predictability. In addition, the 

Commission determined that the 

revision will promote competition by 

allowing more small and other fixed 

wireless providers to deploy in areas 

where it would not otherwise be 

economically feasible and to serve 

underserved communities such as rural 

areas, which is consistent with 

Commission policy and in the public 

interest. 

62. The National Association of 

Telecommunications Officers and 

Advisors (‘‘NATOA’’), the National 

League of Cities (‘‘NLC’’), and the 

National Association of Regional 

Councils (‘‘NARC’’), jointly (the 

‘‘Municipal Organizations’’) who 

members include small local 

governments, cities, and towns, opposed 

the OTARD rule change and provided 

some alternative suggestions, which 

11442 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 36 / Thursday, February 25, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

they claim will ‘‘help achieve [the 

Commission’s] goal of improved 

broadband availability.’’ However, these 

alternatives—which the Municipal 

Organizations provide in the context of 

arguing that the Commission lacks 

authority to promulgate its revisions— 

are beyond the scope of this proceeding. 

In addition, these alternatives are not 

mutually exclusive with the actions that 

the Commission takes in the Report and 

Order. 

63. Moreover, with regard to some of 

the concerns raised by the Municipal 

Organizations, the Commission 

emphasizes that, while the Report and 

Order removes the primary use 

restriction on fixed wireless hub and 

relay antennas, it maintains the other 

existing OTARD restrictions. For the 

OTARD rule to apply, the antenna must 

be installed ‘‘on property within the 

exclusive use or control of the antenna 

user where the user has a direct or 

indirect ownership or leasehold interest 

in the property’’ upon which the 

antenna is located. Further, the OTARD 

provisions apply only to those antennas 

measuring one meter or less in diameter 

or diagonal measurement. In addition, 

the OTARD rule is subject to an 

exception for State, local, or private 

restrictions that are necessary to 

accomplish a clearly defined, legitimate 

safety objective, or to preserve 

prehistoric or historic places that are 

eligible for inclusion on the National 

Register of Historic Places, provided 

such restrictions impose as little burden 

as necessary to achieve the foregoing 

objectives, and apply in a 

nondiscriminatory manner throughout 

the regulated area. Given that the Report 

and Order preserves the restrictions on 

the physical dimensions and location of 

equipment, the rule revisions will 

minimize any potential visual impact on 

properties, which some commenters 

raise. The hub and relay equipment 

installed will resemble the equipment 

already covered under the OTARD rule. 

64. Finally, the Report and Order 

continues to recognize property owners’ 

rights under the OTARD rule. Because 

it maintains the ‘‘exclusive use or 

control’’ and ‘‘direct or indirect 

ownership or leasehold interest’’ 

restrictions, fixed wireless service 

providers will still need to negotiate 

agreements with appropriate parties for 

the placement of their antennas. In 

addition, fixed wireless hub and relay 

antenna manufacturers and service 

providers that use this equipment must 

continue to comply with other 

applicable Commission regulations, 

such as mast and RF emissions 

requirements. This places hub and relay 

antennas under the same kinds of 

restrictions as other equipment subject 

to OTARD protections. Localities and 

property owners can continue to rely on 

these provisions for their protection. 

Accordingly, the Commission’s actions 

in the Report and Order removing the 

restriction on fixed wireless hub and 

relay antennas while retaining the other 

existing OTARD restrictions, strikes the 

appropriate balance to minimize the 

economic impact for fixed wireless 

providers, localities and property 

owners who are small entities. 

Ordering Clauses 

65. Accordingly, it is ordered, 

pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 201(b), 

202(a), 205, 251, 253, 303, 316, 332, and 

1302 of the Communications Act of 

1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 

201(b), 202(a), 205(a), 251, 253, 303, 

316, 332, and 1302 and section 207 of 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 

Public Law 104–104, 207, 110 Stat. 56, 

114 that this Report and Order is 

adopted. 

66. It is further ordered that section 

1.4000 of the Commission’s rules is 

amended as specified in the Final Rules, 

and such rule amendments shall be 

effective 30 days after the date of 

publication of the text thereof in the 

Federal Register. 

67. 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. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1 

Administrative practice and 

procedures, Communications 

equipment, Telecommunications. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Final Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 47 CFR part 1 as 

follows: 

PART 1—PRACTICE AND 

PROCEDURE 

Subpart S—Preemption of Restrictions 

That ‘‘Impair’’ the Ability To Receive 

Television Broadcast Signals, Direct 

Broadcast Satellite Services, or 

Multichannel Multipoint Distribution 

Services or the Ability To Receive or 

Transmit Fixed Wireless 

Communications Signals 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 

U.S.C. 2461, unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 1.4000 by revising 

paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A) and (ii)(A) and 

adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1.4000 Restrictions impairing reception 

of television broadcast signals, direct 

broadcast satellite services or multichannel 

multipoint distribution services. 

(a)(1) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) Used to receive direct broadcast 

satellite service, including direct-tohome satellite service, or to receive or 

transmit fixed wireless signals via 

satellite, including a hub or relay 

antenna used to receive or transmit 

fixed wireless services that are not 

classified as telecommunications 

services, and 

* * * * * 

(ii) * * * 

(A) Used to receive video 

programming services via multipoint 

distribution services, including 

multichannel multipoint distribution 

services, instructional television fixed 

services, and local multipoint 

distribution services, or to receive or 

transmit fixed wireless signals other 

than via satellite, including a hub or 

relay antenna used to receive or 

transmit fixed wireless services that are 

not classified as telecommunications 

services, and 

* * * * * 

(5) For purposes of this section, ‘‘hub 

or relay antenna’’ means any antenna 

that is used to receive or transmit fixed 

wireless signals for the distribution of 

fixed wireless services to multiple 

customer locations as long as the 

antenna serves a customer on whose 

premises it is located, but excludes any 

hub or relay antenna that is used to 

provide any telecommunications 

services or services that are provided on 

a commingled basis with 

telecommunications services. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2021–01304 Filed 2–24–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P