Source: https://community.njsba.com/landuselawsection/blogs/gregory-d-meese-esq1/2020/06/29/fcc-adopts-5g-upgrade-order-to-clarify-collocation?ssopc=1
Timestamp: 2020-08-04 20:50:54
Document Index: 481867185

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1455', '§6409', '§6409', '§6409', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 6409', '§ 1455', '§ 1']

Land Use Law Section - Land Use Law Section
FCC Adopts 5G Upgrade Order to Clarify Collocation Requirements by Gregory D. Meese and Edward W. Purcell
By Gregory D Meese, Esq posted 06-29-2020 13:52
On June 9 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took another step on its path to streamline local government review of wireless technology siting by adopting its 5G Upgrade Orderi which further refines and clarifies its previous rulings related to Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (TRA)ii. Section 6409(a) was enacted to expedite State and local government review of requests to modify existing wireless communications facilities. Section 6409(a) provides that "a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station." 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)(1). The FCC adopted its 2014 Infrastructure Orderiii to provide its interpretation of §6409(a) and to establish rules to guide its implementation. In the 5G Upgrade Order, the FCC addressed certain ambiguities that remained with the implementation of §6409(a).
Required Documentation. In the 2014 Infrastructure Order, the FCC circumscribed the information and documentation that a municipality could require in connection with an application under §6409(a). The Order provides that when an applicant asserts in writing that a request for modification is covered by Section 6409(a), a state or local government may require the applicant to provide documentation or information only to the extent reasonably related to determining whether the request meets the requirements of this section. See 2014 Infrastructure Order at ⁋214. A state or local government may not require an applicant to submit any other documentation, including but not limited to documentation intended to illustrate the need for such wireless facilities or to justify the business decision to modify such wireless facilities. Id. This provision has been the subject of some debate among practitioners as many municipalities have been unwilling to simply provide necessary building permits upon request. Instead, some municipalities have required that any proposed modification to an existing facility be justified by the submission of zoning applications, supporting documents and detailed site plans, followed by an appearance before a land use board. The question arises as to whether the shot clock starts upon the initial request or upon the filing of these formal documents required by the locality.
Clarified that the 60-day shot clock commences when the applicant takes the first procedural step required by the local jurisdiction and submits documentation showing that the proposal is an eligible-facilities request in that it complies with Section 6409(a) and the 2014 Infrastructure Order;
Clarified the definition of a “substantial change; and
Issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment regarding excavation or deployment outside the boundaries of an existing tower site.
Increase in Height of Towers. A modification of a tower outside of the public rights-of-way would cause a substantial change if it “increases the height of the tower by more than 10% or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet, whichever is greater.” 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(b)(7)(i). To resolve any confusion as to how the 20-foot distance is measured, the 5G Upgrade Order defines the phrase “separation from the nearest existing antenna” to means “the distance from the top of the highest existing antenna on the tower to the bottom of the proposed new antenna to be deployed above it.” ⁋25. Thus, when determining whether an application satisfies the criteria for an eligible facilities request, localities should not measure this separation from the top of the existing antenna to the top of the new antenna, because the height of the new antenna itself should not be included when calculating the allowable height increase. Rather, under the FCC’s interpretation, the word “separation” refers to the distance from the top of the existing antenna to the bottom of the proposed antenna.
Equipment Cabinets. To help expedite the “upgrade to 5G and for other technological and capacity improvements,” the FCC held that the term “equipment cabinet does not include small pieces of equipment such as remote radio heads/remote radio units, amplifiers, transceivers mounted behind antennas, and similar devices” if they are not used as physical containers for smaller, distinct devices. 5G Upgrade Order, ⁋29-30. In addition, it stated that the maximum number of additional equipment cabinets that can be added is measured for each separate eligible facilities request and is not a cumulative limit. Id.
Concealment. Concealment elements are part of the design of the facility that are intended to make the facility look like something other than a wireless facility. According to the 2014 Infrastructure Order, an installation that defeats the concealment elements of an existing facility would be a substantial change. 47 C.F.R. § 1.40001(b)(7)(v). The 5G Upgrade Order clarifies that “in order to be considered a concealment element, it must have been part of the facility that was approved in the locality’s prior review” and not part of a condition associated with siting approval. ⁋35. To “defeat concealment,” the proposed modification must “cause a reasonable person to view the structure’s intended stealth design as no longer effective after modification.” Id. at ⁋38. For instance, a small increase in the height of a stealth monopine (within the 6409(a) height allowance), would not defeat concealment if it would not cause a reasonable person to view the structure’s intended stealth design (i.e., the design of the wireless facility to resemble a pine tree) as no longer effective after the modification. Id. at ⁋39. In addition, if the prior approval required that the monopine must be hidden behind a tree line, a proposed modification that would make it visible above the tree line would be permitted if it was within the height threshold of 6409(a) because the location of the monopine was a condition of approval, and not part of the concealment element. Id.
Conditions Associated with the Siting Approval. The 2014 Infrastructure Order states that a modification is a substantial increase if “it does not comply with conditions associated with the siting approval” provided this limitation does not apply to any modification that is non-compliant only in a manner that would not exceed the thresholds identified in the rules. 47 C.F.R. 1.6100(b)(7)(vi). The 5G Upgrade Order confirms that (1) the condition must have been an expressed condition of approval and (2) that it cannot be used to prevent modifications specifically allowed and not deemed to be substantial under the rules. ⁋41 “In other words, when a proposed modification otherwise permissible under sections 1.6100(b)(7)(i)-(iv) cannot reasonably comply with conditions under section 1.6100(b)(7)(vi), the conflict should be resolved in favor of permitting the modifications. For example, a local government’s condition of approval that requires a specifically sized shroud around an antenna could limit an increase in antenna size that is otherwise permissible under section 1.6100(b)(7)(i)” and “the size limit of the shroud would not be enforceable if it purported to prevent a modification to add a larger antenna, but a local government could enforce its shrouding condition if the provider reasonably could install a larger shroud to cover the larger antenna and thus meet the purpose of the condition.” Id. at ⁋43.
Gregory D. Meese and Edward W. Purcell are with Price Meese Shulman & D’Arminio, P.C. with offices in Woodcliff Lake and Morristown, New Jersey and White Plains, N.Y.
i Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, In the Matter of Implementation of State and Local Governments’ Obligation to Approve Certain Wireless Facility Modification Requests Under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012 –WT Docket No. 19-250 and RM-11849.
ii Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, title VI (Spectrum Act of 2012), § 6409(a), 126 Stat. 156 (Feb. 22, 2012) (codified as 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a)).
iii 47 CFR § 1.6100; Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, WT Docket No. 13-238 and 13-32, WC Docket No. 11-59, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 12865, 12922-66, paras. 135-241 (2014) (2014 Infrastructure Order), aff’d, Montgomery Cty. v. FCC, 811 F.3d 121 (4th Cir. 2015).