In particular, the FCC is seeking an opinion on updating the NEPA exclusion for co-locations and on adopting a new categorical exclusion from the NEPA review for minor cell deliveries. The FCC also invites commentators to discuss the potential effects of DAS and small cell systems on historical characteristics, in order to assist the Commission in determining whether it should deviate from the normal historic monument conservation audit provided for in Section 106 of the NHPA for these technologies. 5V. 47 U.S.C No. 332 (c) (7). In the 2009 explanation decision, the Commission found that the addition of an antenna to an existing tower or other structure constitutes co-location within the meaning of Section 332, point c) (7), where it does not result in a “significant increase in the size of a tower” within the meaning of the merger agreement. The FCC invites its opinion on the rules to clarify and implement the requirements of Section 6409 (a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (“Spectrum Act”), which stipulates that a state or local government must not refuse and approve any installation requesting an amendment to an existing radio tower or base station that does not significantly alter the physical dimensions of a such a tower or station. 3 applications from eligible organizations include requests for co-location and requests to remove or replace existing equipment. The FCC notes that co-location – where wireless devices are placed on existing structures instead of creating new support structures – is often the most efficient, fastest and most cost-effective way to expand wireless coverage and capacity, and also reduce the environmental and other impact of new wireless facilities. 6 During the implementation of Section 332, the FCC set a 90-day deadline for processing location requests requesting co-locations and 150 days for all other requests.
In the 2009 explanation decision, it was decided that a state or local government`s time frame for processing an application would be met until the applicant completes his or her application in response to a request for additional information made within the first 30 days, but does not seek to define when a job application should be considered “complete” for this purpose. Wireless entities claim that some jurisdictions delay processing by requesting additional information on several occasions. The FCC provides specifics on the keywords in Section 6409 (i.e. “transmission devices,” “wireless,” “wireless or existing base station,” “co-location,” “distance,” “replacement” and “substantial changes in physical dimensions”), which could affect local monitoring and authority to use wireless devices on existing facilities and structures. The FCC invites its opinion on whether certain disputes or issues that have arisen should be applied, as did the Commission`s 2009 statement on the implementation of Section 332 (c) (7) of the Communications Act4. whether the terms “co-location” and “significant expansion” of Section 332 (c) (7)5 should be interpreted in the same way as item 6409 (a) and to determine when an application to request the delay of finding 2009 6 is considered complete and, if so, how it should be determined.