[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 233 (Thursday, December 3, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78005-78018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-25144]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 1

[WT Docket No. 19-250, RM-11849; FCC 20-153; FRS 17230]


Accelerating Wireless and Wireline Deployment by Streamlining 
Local Approval of Wireless Infrastructure Modifications

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
revises portions of the Spectrum Act of 2012 to provide for streamlined 
state and local government review of modifications to existing wireless 
infrastructure that involve limited ground excavation or deployment of 
transmission equipment. The Report and Order promotes accelerated 
deployment of 5G and other advanced wireless services by facilitating 
the collocation of antennas and associated equipment on existing 
infrastructure while preserving the ability of state and local 
governments to manage and protect local land-use interests.

DATES: Effective January 4, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Georgios Leris, [email protected] 
or Belinda Nixon, [email protected], Competition & Infrastructure 
Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order in WT Docket No. 19-250, RM-11849; FCC 20-153, adopted on 
October 27, 2020, and released on November 3, 2020. The full text of 
this document is available for public inspection online at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. 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 [email protected] or call the Consumer & Governmental 
Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Synopsis

    1. In this Report and Order, the Commission revises its rule to 
provide for streamlined state and local review of modifications that 
involve limited ground excavation or deployment while preserving the 
ability of state and local governments to manage and protect local 
land-use interests. To facilitate the collocation of antennas and 
associated ground equipment, while recognizing the role of state and 
local governments in land use decisions, the Commission revises section 
6409(a) rules to provide that excavation or deployment in a limited 
area beyond site boundaries would not disqualify the modification of an 
existing tower from streamlined state and local review on that basis.
    2. This change is consistent with the recent amendment to the 
Nationwide Programmatic Agreement (NPA) for the Collocation of Wireless 
Antennas (Collocation NPA), which now provides that, in certain 
circumstances, excavation or deployment within the same limited area 
beyond a site boundary does not warrant federal historic preservation 
review of a collocation. In addition, we revise the definition of 
``site'' in section 6409(a) rules in a manner that will ensure that the 
site boundaries from which limited expansion is measured appropriately

[[Page 78006]]

reflect prior state or local government review and approval. The 
Commission's actions in this document carefully balance the 
acceleration of the deployment of advanced wireless services, 
particularly through the use of existing infrastructure where efficient 
to do so, with the preservation of states' and localities' ability to 
manage and protect local land-use interests.
    3. To advance ``Congress's goal of facilitating rapid deployment 
[of wireless broadband service]'' and to provide clarity to the 
industry, the Commission in 2014 adopted rules to implement section 
6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012 (80 FR 1237, January 8, 2015). 
Section 6409(a) provides, in relevant part, that ``[n]otwithstanding 
[47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)] or any other provision of law, a state or local 
government may not deny, and shall approve, any eligible facilities 
request for a modification of an existing wireless tower or base 
station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of 
such tower or base station.'' Among other matters, the 2014 
Infrastructure Order established a 60-day period in which a state or 
local government must approve an ``eligible facilities request.'' (80 
FR 1267, January 8, 2015). The Commission's rules define ``eligible 
facilities request'' as ``any request for modification of an existing 
tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical 
dimensions of such tower or base station, involving: (i) Collocation of 
new transmission equipment; (ii) Removal of transmission equipment; or 
(iii) Replacement of transmission equipment.'' (80 FR 1252).
    4. The 2014 Infrastructure Order adopted objective standards for 
determining when a proposed modification would ``substantially change 
the physical dimensions'' of an existing tower or base station. Among 
other standards, the Commission determined ``that a modification is a 
substantial change if it entails any excavation or deployment outside 
the current site of the tower or base station.'' (80 FR 1254). The 
Commission defined ``site'' for towers not located in the public 
rights-of-way as ``the current boundaries of the leased or owned 
property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements 
currently related to the site,'' (80 FR 1255) and it defined ``site'' 
for other eligible support structures as being ``further restricted to 
that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission 
equipment already deployed on the ground.'' (Ibid).
    5. In adopting the standard for excavation and deployment that 
would be considered a substantial change under section 6409(a), the 
Commission looked to analogous concerns about impacts on historic 
properties reflected in implementation of the National Historic 
Preservation Act and primarily relied on similar language in the 
Collocation NPA. At that time, the Commission considered, but declined 
to adopt, a proposal to exclude from the scope of ``substantial 
change'' any excavation or deployment of up to 30 feet in any direction 
of a site, a proposal that was consistent with an exclusion from 
section 106 review for replacement towers in the Wireless Facilities 
NPA. In reconciling different standards for potentially analogous 
deployments in the NPAs, the Commission reasoned that the activities 
covered under section 6409(a) ``are more nearly analogous to those 
covered under the Collocation [NPA] than under the replacement towers 
exclusion in the [Wireless Facilities] NPA,'' but the Commission did 
not explore the reasoning for the discrepancy between the NPAs, nor did 
it further explain why it chose to borrow from the older NPA instead of 
the more modern one. In addition, the Commission did not make a 
determination that it would be unreasonable to use 30 feet as a 
touchstone for defining what types of excavations would ``substantially 
change the physical dimensions of [an existing] tower or base 
station.'' Rather, the Commission established a reasonable, objective, 
and concrete set of criteria to eliminate the need for protracted local 
zoning review, in furtherance of the goals of the statute, by drawing 
guidance from the consensus represented by the approach taken in the 
Collocation NPA. That same Collocation NPA, however, was recently 
amended to reflect an updated consensus on what might be best regarded 
as a substantial increase in the size of an existing tower, as it 
excludes a collocation from section 106 review if it involves 
excavation within 30 feet outside the boundaries of the tower site.
    6. On August 27, 2019, the Wireless Infrastructure Association 
(WIA) filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling (84 FR 50810, September 
26, 2019) requesting that the Commission clarify that, for towers other 
than towers in the public rights-of-way, the ``current site'' for 
purposes of Sec.  1.6100(b)(7)(iv) is the property leased or owned by 
the applicant at the time it submits a section 6409(a) application and 
not the initial site boundaries. On the same day, WIA also filed a 
Petition for Rulemaking (Ibid) requesting that the Commission amend its 
rules to establish that a modification would not cause a ``substantial 
change'' if it entails excavation or deployments at locations of up to 
30 feet in any direction outside the boundaries of a tower compound.
    7. On June 10, 2020, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (NPRM) that sought comment on two issues regarding the scope 
of the streamlined application process under section 6409(a): (i) The 
definition of ``site'' under Sec.  1.6100(b)(6); and (ii) the scope of 
modifications under Sec.  1.6100(b)(7)(iv). (85 FR 39859, July 2, 
2020). The Commission proposed to revise the definition of site ``to 
make clear that `site' refers to the boundary of the leased or owned 
property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements 
currently related to the site as of the date that the facility was last 
reviewed and approved by a locality.'' The Commission also proposed 
``to amend Sec.  1.6100(b)(7)(iv) so that modification of an existing 
facility that entails ground excavation or deployment of up to 30 feet 
in any direction outside the facility's site will be eligible for 
streamlined processing under section 6409(a).'' The NPRM asked, in the 
alternative, whether the Commission ``should revise the definition of 
site in Sec.  1.6100(b)(6), as proposed above, without making the 
proposed change to Sec.  1.6100(b)(7)(iv) for excavation or deployment 
of up to 30 feet outside the site.'' In addition, the NPRM asked 
``whether to define site in Sec.  1.6100(b)(6) as the boundary of the 
leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or 
utility easements related to the site as of the date an applicant 
submits a modification request.'' Finally, the NPRM asked about 
alternatives to the proposals, costs, and benefits.
    8. After reviewing the record in this proceeding, the Commission 
makes targeted revisions to Sec.  1.6100(b)(7)(iv) and (b)(6) of its 
rules to broaden the scope of wireless facility modifications that are 
eligible for streamlined review under section 6409(a). The Commission 
has considered collocation a tool for advancing wireless services' 
deployment for over three decades. As the Commission noted in the 2014 
Infrastructure Order, collocation ``is often the most efficient and 
economical solution for mobile wireless service providers that need new 
cell sites to expand their existing coverage area, increase their 
capacity, or deploy new advanced services.'' The actions the Commission 
takes in this document will further streamline the approval process for 
using existing infrastructure to expedite wireless connectivity efforts 
nationwide while preserving localities' ability to manage local zoning.

[[Page 78007]]

    9. First, the Commission amends Sec.  1.6100(b)(7)(iv) to provide 
that, for towers not located in the public rights-of-way, a 
modification of an existing site that entails ground excavation or 
deployment of transmission equipment of up to 30 feet in any direction 
outside a tower's site will not be disqualified from streamlined 
processing under section 6409(a) on that basis. In general, Sec.  
1.6100(b)(7) describes when an eligible facilities request will 
``substantially change the physical dimensions'' of a facility under 
section 6409(a). Because the statutory term ``substantially change'' is 
ambiguous, Sec.  1.6100(b)(7) elaborates on the phrase by providing 
numerical and objective criteria for determining when a proposed 
expansion will ``substantially change'' the dimensions of a facility. 
For the reasons explained more fully below, the Commission concludes 
that proposed ground excavation or deployment of up to 30 feet in any 
direction outside a tower's site is sufficiently modest so as not to 
``substantially change the physical dimensions'' of a tower or base 
station, and that this amendment to the Commission's rules thus 
represents a permissible construction of section 6409(a).
    10. In promulgating the initial rules to implement section 6409(a), 
the Commission determined that ``an objective definition'' of what 
constitutes a substantial change ``will provide an appropriate balance 
between municipal flexibility and the rapid deployment of covered 
facilities.'' With respect to excavation and deployment in association 
with modifications to existing structures, the Commission found that 
the appropriate standard for what constitutes a substantial change was 
any excavation or deployment outside of the site boundaries. Here, the 
Commission concludes that a revision to this standard is warranted by 
certain changes since its initial determination: The recent recognition 
by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National 
Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers of 30 feet as an 
appropriate threshold in the context of federal historic preservation 
review of collocations; and the ongoing evolution of wireless networks 
that rely on an increasing number of collocations, where they are an 
efficient alternative to new tower construction, to meet the rising 
demand for advanced wireless services. In light of these changes, the 
Commission concludes that it is reasonable to adjust the line drawn by 
the Commission in 2014 for streamlined treatment of excavations or 
deployments associated with collocations, and in doing so the 
Commission continues to believe that it is appropriate to consider in 
this context the analogous line drawn in the federal historic 
preservation context as a relevant benchmark.
    11. As an initial matter, the Commission recognizes that it relied 
on the Wireless Facilities NPA and Collocation NPA to inform its 
adoption of initial rules implementing section 6409(a). In particular, 
the Commission stated that ``the objective test for `substantial 
increase in size' under the Collocation [NPA] should inform its 
consideration of the factors to consider when assessing a `substantial 
change in physical dimensions,''' and that this approach ``reflects the 
Commission's general determination that definitions in the Collocation 
[NPA] and [Wireless Facilities] NPA should inform the Commission's 
interpretation of similar terms in [s]ection 6409(a).'' With respect to 
excavation and deployment associated with a modification of an existing 
structure, the Commission relied on a provision in the Collocation NPA 
and determined that ``a modification is a substantial change if it 
entails any excavation or deployment outside the current site of the 
tower or base station.'' Further, the Commission considered, but 
declined to adopt, a proposal to exclude from the scope of 
``substantial change'' any excavation or deployment of up to 30 feet in 
any direction from a site's boundaries, which would have been 
consistent with an exclusion from section 106 review for replacement 
towers in the Wireless Facilities NPA. Importantly, the Commission did 
not characterize the 30-foot standard in the Wireless Facilities NPA to 
be an unreasonable choice. The Commission elected to follow the 
language in the Collocation NPA given commonalities between the types 
of deployments referred to in section 6409 and the types of deployments 
covered under the Collocation NPA, as well as input from industry and 
localities.
    12. The Collocation NPA was recently amended, however, to align 
with the Wireless Facilities NPA, reflecting a recognition that, in the 
context of federal historic preservation review, permitting a limited 
expansion beyond the site boundaries to proceed without substantial 
review encourages collocations without significantly affecting historic 
preservation interests. Specifically, on July 10, 2020, the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau Chief (on delegated authority from the 
Commission), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the 
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers executed 
the Amended Collocation NPA to eliminate an inconsistency between the 
Collocation NPA and the Wireless Facilities NPA (85 FR 51357, August 
20, 2020).
    13. The Amended Collocation NPA now provides that, for the purpose 
of determining whether a collocation may be excluded from section 106 
review, a collocation is a substantial increase in the size of the 
tower if it ``would expand the boundaries of the current tower site by 
more than 30 feet in any direction or involve excavation outside these 
expanded boundaries.'' In adopting that change, the Amended Collocation 
NPA stated that, among other reasons, the parties ``developed this 
second amendment to the Collocation Agreement to allow project 
proponents the same review efficiency [applicable to tower replacements 
in the Wireless Facilities NPA] in regard to limited excavation beyond 
the tower site boundaries for collocation, thereby encouraging project 
proponents to conduct more collocation activities instead of 
constructing new towers . . . .'' The parties therefore recognized the 
limited effect that an up to 30-foot compound expansion would impose on 
the site, which is also consistent with the Commission's rationale in 
adopting the replacement tower exclusion in the Wireless Facilities 
NPA. Indeed, in the 2004 Report and Order (70 FR 556, January 4, 2005) 
implementing the Wireless Facilities NPA, the Commission concluded that 
a 30-foot standard was ``reasonable and appropriate,'' and reasoned 
that ``construction and excavation to within 30 feet of the existing 
leased or owned property means that only a minimal amount of previously 
undisturbed ground, if any, would be turned, and that would be very 
close to the existing construction.'' The Commission's decision to 
permit an eligible facilities request to include limited excavation and 
deployment of up to 30 feet in any direction harmonizes its rules under 
section 6409(a) with permitted compound expansions for exclusion from 
section 106 review for replacement towers under the Wireless Facilities 
NPA and collocations under the Collocation NPA.
    14. In that regard, the Commission disagrees with the localities' 
argument that the Collocation NPA ``has no bearing on [this] matter.'' 
The definition of ``substantial increase in size of the tower'' in the 
Collocation NPA was a primary basis for the Commission's decision in 
the 2014 Infrastructure Order to define a substantial change as any 
excavation or deployment outside the boundaries of a tower site. 
Accordingly, the amendment to the

[[Page 78008]]

Collocation NPA to provide that excavations of up to 30 feet of the 
boundaries of a site is not a substantial increase in size provides 
support for the Commission's decision in this Report and Order to once 
again make the section 6409(a) rules consistent with the Collocation 
NPA. Retaining the existing definition despite the amendment to the 
Collocation NPA could create confusion and invite uncertainty.
    15. In addition, the Commission finds that the revised 30-foot 
standard is supported by the current trends toward collocations and 
technological changes that the record evidences while preserving 
localities' zoning authority. Collocations necessarily include 
installing transmission equipment that supports the tower antenna on a 
site. Industry commenters claim that ``[t]he majority of existing 
towers were built many years ago and were intended to support the 
operations of a single carrier.'' Following the 2014 Infrastructure 
Order's promotion of collocations, more towers now house several 
operators' antennas and other transmission equipment, and industry 
commenters assert that, in many cases, any space that was once 
available at those tower sites has been used. As a result, there is 
less space at tower sites for additional collocations without minor 
modifications to sites to accommodate the expansion of equipment 
serving existing operators at the sites and the addition of new 
equipment serving new operators at the sites. As NTCA states, ``[l]ike 
other wireless providers, NTCA members often find that colocations on 
towers require the additional installation of . . . facilities 
necessary to support transmission equipment. This has become 
increasingly difficult as towers built to hold one carrier's facilities 
may be used to support those utilized by multiple wireless providers.'' 
Further, additional space is generally necessary to add the latest 
technologies enabling 5G services, such as multi-access edge computing, 
which requires more space than other collocation infrastructure. Given 
the need for more space on the ground to accommodate a growing number 
of facility modifications, the Commission finds that streamlined 
treatment of limited compound expansions is essential to achieve the 
degree of accelerated advanced wireless network deployment that will 
best serve the public interest. Indeed, WIA states that the 30-foot 
standard ``appropriately provides a reasonable and realistic degree of 
flexibility.'' Further, in light of these developments and the 
recognition of a new compound expansion standard in the context of 
historic preservation review of collocations, the Commission finds it 
reasonable to adjust the line drawn by the Commission in 2014 for 
determining whether limited compound expansion is a substantial change 
that disqualifies a modification from eligibility for streamlined 
treatment.
    16. The Commission also finds that streamlined treatment of limited 
compound expansions will promote public safety and network resiliency. 
For example, the Commission notes that Crown Castle states that more 
than 40 percent of its site expansions in the past 18 months were 
solely for ``adding backup emergency generators to add resiliency to 
the network.'' And WIA states that, ``in many cases, the need for a 
limited expansion of the compound is being driven by public safety 
demands and the desire to improve network resiliency.'' The 
Commission's rule change will also promote public safety in another 
context--industry commenters state that the proposed rule changes will 
ensure expeditious and effective deployment of FirstNet's network, 
which Congress directed to leverage collocation on existing 
infrastructure ``to the maximum extent economically desirable.'' AT&T, 
for example, states that ``many collocations on existing towers being 
performed to build a public safety broadband network for [FirstNet] 
entail site expansions to add generators as well as Band 14 
equipment.'' The Commission therefore agrees with commenters that these 
changes will promote public safety.
    17. The Commission concludes that 30 feet is an appropriate 
threshold. The objective standard the Commission adopts in this 
document is consistent with the current collocation marketplace and 
with the threshold adopted in the Wireless Facilities NPA and recently 
included in the Amended Collocation NPA. In affirming the 2014 
Infrastructure Order, the Fourth Circuit stated that the order 
``provide[d] objective and numerical standards to establish when an 
eligible facilities request would `substantially change the physical 
dimensions' '' of a site. (Montgomery County, Md. v. FCC, 811 F.3d at 
130; see also id. at 131 n.8). Here, the Commission extends those 
objective and numerical standards in a manner that reflects the recent 
recognition of 30 feet as an appropriate standard in the federal 
historic preservation context and the changes in the collocation 
marketplace, which is lacking space for collocations.
    18. The Commission believes that its actions in this document, 
which reflect the Amended Collocation NPA and collocation marketplace 
changes since the Commission's determination in 2014, ``will provide an 
appropriate balance between municipal flexibility and the rapid 
deployment of covered facilities.'' Indeed, the record reflects that 
the deployment of transmission equipment within the expanded 30-foot 
area will be limited, buttressing the Commission's view that 30 feet is 
a reasonable limit to expansion that does not constitute a substantial 
change and therefore should be subject to streamlined review under 
section 6409 and the Commission's implementing regulations. Crown 
Castle states that the 30-foot standard ``will be sufficient to 
accommodate the types of minor equipment additions that Crown Castle 
must often make as part of a collocation or other site modification.'' 
Crown Castle presents several representative examples of proposed minor 
site expansions, which include ``additional equipment, equipment 
upgrades, new collocations, and back-up generator installations.'' 
These examples demonstrate that compound expansions occur as close to 
the tower as possible, as ``customers typically require their equipment 
to be in close proximity to the tower, their other equipment, power 
sources, available fiber, and any back-up power supply.'' These 
examples also demonstrate that construction within a 30-foot perimeter 
of an existing site would not result in what could be considered 
substantial changes to the physical footprint of existing sites, 
especially when considered in conjunction with other limitations in the 
Commission's rules that it is not altering.
    19. Localities generally oppose any revision to the Commission's 
existing ``substantial change'' definition that would enable 
streamlined treatment of modifications involving compound expansion 
outside of a site,\1\ but request

[[Page 78009]]

that, if such changes nonetheless are made, they should be limited in 
certain ways. First, the National Association of Telecommunication 
Officers and Advisors (NATOA) and Local Governments express concern 
that the rule change with respect to compound expansion could be 
interpreted to permit the deployment of new towers within the expanded 
area, and they request that the Commission limit the permissible 
deployment within the expanded area to transmission equipment. The 
Commission agrees that the deployments referenced in Sec.  
1.6100(b)(7)(iv) are deployments of transmission equipment. Under the 
Commission's current rules, any eligible facilities request--a request 
that is eligible for section 6409(a) treatment--must involve the 
collocation, replacement, or removal of transmission equipment. 
Accordingly, any deployment outside the site boundary that is eligible 
for section 6409(a) treatment under Sec.  1.6100(b)(7)(iv), including 
deployments within 30 feet of the site boundary for a tower outside the 
public rights-of-way, would be limited to the deployment of 
transmission equipment, not new towers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To the extent that the localities' opposition to our 
decision rests on the notion that an expansion is only permitted if 
it involves deployment on the existing tower as opposed to within 
the site around the tower, we reject that argument. The 2014 rules 
already permit streamlined treatment of deployments around the tower 
as long as such deployments stay within the current boundaries of 
the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or 
utility easements currently related to the site. See, e.g., 2014 
Infrastructure Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 12949, para. 198; 47 CFR 
1.6100(b)(6). As discussed below, the permissible modifications 
under our new rules would relate only to equipment that 
``facilitates transmission for any Commission-licensed or authorized 
wireless communication service'' from the existing tower, consistent 
with the statute and definitions in Sec.  1.6100. See 47 CFR 
1.6100(b)(8) (defining ``transmission equipment''). Accordingly, the 
deployment of such equipment would clearly impact the equipment 
touching that structure. It is thus more than reasonable for the 
Commission to rely on its statutory authority to classify such 
deployment as a modification of that tower and to expand the 
surrounding area to accommodate such deployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    20. Second, NATOA and Local Governments propose that the site 
boundary from which a compound expansion will be measured should 
exclude easements related to that site. The Commission agrees. The 
definition of ``site'' in the Commission's current rules, for towers 
other than towers in the public rights-of-way, is ``the current 
boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and 
any access or utility easements currently related to the site.'' The 
Commission finds, though, that providing a 30-foot expansion for 
excavation or deployment along an easement related to the site is not 
necessary to meet the goal of facilitating wireless infrastructure 
deployment, because it is more likely that additional equipment will 
need to be placed in a limited area outside the leased or owned 
property rather than outside the easement related to the site. Further, 
excavation or deployment in an area 30 feet outside an easement, which 
could be miles in length, could result in a substantial change that 
would not be entitled to streamlined treatment under section 6409(a).
    21. Third, NATOA and Local Governments request that the Commission 
restrict the size of transmission equipment deployed outside the site. 
The Commission finds that, given the limited types of transmission 
equipment deployed for collocations, such a restriction is not 
necessary to consider excavation or deployment within the 30-foot 
expansion area to be outside the scope of a substantial change. 
Additionally, size restrictions based on current equipment may 
unnecessarily restrict the deployment of future technology, which may 
include larger transmission equipment than currently deployed or 
available. Finally, the other substantial change limitations in Sec.  
1.6100(b)(7) continue to apply to modifications under section 6409(a).
    22. Fourth, NATOA and Local Governments assert that setting a 30-
foot limit on excavation or deployment outside site boundaries, without 
regard to the size of the existing tower site, could permit substantial 
changes to qualify for streamlined treatment. In particular, NATOA and 
Local Governments propose that, to the extent the Commission revises 
its ``substantial change'' definition, the compound expansion standard 
should be ``the lesser of the following distance[s] from the current 
site (not including easements related to the site): a. 20% of the 
length or width of the current site measured as a longitudinal or 
latitudinal line from the current site to the excavation or deployment; 
or b. 30 feet.'' The Commission declines to adopt this proposal 
because, on balance, the potential problems it could create outweigh 
the potential benefits it could achieve. A standard of ``20% of the 
length or width of the current site'' would be difficult to administer, 
given that a site boundary is not necessarily a symmetrical shape. In 
addition, while the record supports the determination that a 30-foot 
expansion would be sufficient to accommodate minor equipment additions, 
the record does not provide support for the determination that the 
``20%'' standard would accomplish this goal. Moreover, adopting the 
``20%'' proposal would provide limited additional benefit in addressing 
the concern raised by NATOA and Local Governments. Because a small 
tower site typically is associated with a small tower that has limited 
space for additional antennas, it is unlikely that operators would need 
to place a significant amount of additional qualifying transmission 
equipment in an area outside the site boundaries. In addition, any 
modification to an existing tower that involves excavation or 
deployment within the 30-foot expanded area will be subject to the 
other criteria in the Commission's rules for determining whether there 
is a substantial change that does not warrant streamlined treatment 
under section 6409(a). Those criteria, which the Commission does not 
alter in this document, provide further limitation on the size or scope 
of a modification that involves excavation or deployment within 30 feet 
of the site boundaries. For example, those criteria limit the 
modifications that would qualify for streamlined treatment by the 
number of additional equipment cabinets and by the increase in height 
and girth of the tower.
    23. The Commission's limited adjustment to the definition of 
substantial change in the context of excavations or deployments is 
further supported by land-use laws in several states. In particular, 
the Commission observes that at least ``eight states have passed laws 
that expressly permit compound expansion within certain limits . . . 
under an exempt or expedited review process.'' Most of these laws allow 
expansion beyond 30 feet from the approved site. As Crown Castle 
states, ``these state laws are a benefit to both the wireless industry 
and local officials. They permit the wireless industry to meet the 
burgeoning network demands while also providing certainty and clarity 
to all involved.''
    24. The Commission finds that the standard it adopted in this 
document continues to be a reasonable line drawing exercise in defining 
``substantial change,'' and it reflects a more appropriate balancing of 
the promotion of ``rapid wireless facility deployment and preserving 
states' and localities' ability to manage and protect local land-use 
interests'' than the Commission articulated in 2014. In that regard, 
the Commission finds that it is in the public interest to modify its 
prior decision on what constitutes substantial change within the 
context of excavation or deployment.
    25. In addition to amending Sec.  1.6100(b)(7)(iv), the Commission 
revises Sec.  1.6100(b)(6) of the Commission's rules to define the 
current boundaries of the ``site'' of a tower outside of public rights-
of-way in a manner relative to the prior approval required by the state 
or local government. In conjunction with Sec.  1.6100(b)(7), Sec.  
1.6100(b)(6) informs when excavation or deployment associated with a 
modification will ``substantially change the physical dimensions'' of a 
facility under section 6409(a). While the word ``site'' does not itself 
appear in section 6409, Sec.  1.6100(b)(7)(iv) uses the term in 
describing when excavation or deployment might be so distant from an 
existing structure that such

[[Page 78010]]

modifications would ``substantially change the physical dimensions'' of 
the facility. In amending its current definition, the Commission 
supplies a temporal baseline against which to measure whether a 
proposed modification would ``substantially'' change the facility. For 
the reasons explained more fully below, the Commission thinks that this 
amendment represents a reasonable construction of the ambiguous 
statutory language; ascertaining whether a modification ``substantially 
changes'' an existing structure requires establishing a baseline 
against which to measure the proposed change. Here, because the 
statutory language involves streamlined approval of modifications to 
existing facilities, it is reasonable, based on the statutory language, 
to measure the boundaries of a site by reference to when a state or 
local government last had the opportunity to review or approve the 
structure that the applicant seeks to modify, if such approval occurred 
prior to section 6409 or otherwise outside of the section 6409(a) 
process. After all, the objective of the statute is to streamline 
approval of additions to structures that were already approved.
    26. Because the Commission's actions in this document permit 
streamlined processing for modifications that entail ground excavation 
or deployment up to 30 feet outside a current site, it finds it 
necessary to clarify and provide greater certainty to applicants and 
localities about the appropriate temporal baseline for evaluating 
changes to a site. While the Commission did not have reason to 
elaborate on the meaning of a current site in the 2014 Infrastructure 
Order, because it defined any excavation or deployment outside a site 
as a substantial change, the Commission did establish other temporal 
reference points for evaluating other substantial change criteria, 
including height increases and concealment elements. The Commission 
therefore bases its revision to the definition of ``site'' on the 
terminology and reasoning articulated by the Commission in those 
related contexts, which have been upheld as a permissible construction 
of an ambiguous statutory provision.
    27. Specifically, in the 2014 Infrastructure Order, the Commission 
found that, in the context of height increases, ``whether a 
modification constitutes a substantial change must be determined by 
measuring the change in height from the dimensions of the `tower or 
base station' as originally approved or as of the most recent 
modification that received local zoning or similar regulatory approval 
prior to the passage of the Spectrum Act, whichever is greater.'' In 
adopting that standard, the Commission noted that ``since the Spectrum 
Act became law, approval of covered requests has been mandatory and 
therefore, approved changes after that time may not establish an 
appropriate baseline because they may not reflect a siting authority's 
judgment that the modified structure is consistent with local land use 
values.'' Similarly, in the Commission's recent Declaratory Ruling (85 
FR 45126, July 27, 2020), it clarified that ``existing'' concealment 
elements ``must have been part of the facility that was considered by 
the locality at the original approval of the tower or at the 
modification to the original tower, if the approval of the modification 
occurred prior to the Spectrum Act or lawfully outside of the section 
6409(a) process (for instance, an approval for a modification that did 
not qualify for streamlined section 6409(a) treatment).''
    28. The Commission finds that it is in the public interest to use 
similar text and reasoning in adopting the revised definition of 
``site'' in this Report and Order. Here, the Commission similarly 
defines what would constitute a substantial change to infrastructure 
that was previously approved by localities under applicable local law--
in this case, in the context of excavation or deployment relative to 
the boundaries of a site. The Commission revises the definition of 
``site'' to provide that the current boundaries of a site are the 
boundaries that existed as of the date that the original support 
structure or a modification to that structure was last reviewed and 
approved by a state or local government, if the approval of the 
modification occurred prior to the Spectrum Act or otherwise outside of 
the section 6409(a) process. Localities assert that the definition of 
``site'' should ensure that the ``facility was last reviewed and 
approved by a locality with full discretion'' and not as an eligible 
facilities request. The Commission agrees with commenters that a site's 
boundaries should not be measured--for purposes of setting the 30-foot 
distance in a request for modification under section 6409(a)--from the 
expanded boundary points that were established by any approvals granted 
or deemed granted pursuant to an ``eligible facilities request'' under 
section 6409(a). The Commission does not agree, however, with 
localities' framing of the definition of ``site'' in terms of the broad 
concept of discretion. First, a standard that relies on whether the 
locality has ``full discretion'' to make a decision would create 
uncertainty in determining whether a particular approval meets that 
standard. Second, non-discretionary approvals could include instances 
where a locality's review is limited by state law rather than by 
section 6409(a), and the Commission does not find it appropriate for it 
to engage in line drawing under section 6409(a) based on potential 
interaction between state and local law.
    29. The Commission declines to adopt the industry's ``hybrid'' 
definition of ``site.'' Specifically, Crown Castle claims that the 
industry has interpreted and relied on the definition of ``site'' to 
mean the boundaries of the leased or owned property as of the date an 
applicant files an application with the locality. The industry 
therefore proposes a hybrid approach, which urges us to define site as 
of ``the later of (a) [the date that the Commission issues a new rule 
under the [NPRM]]; or (b) the date of the last review and approval 
related to said tower by a state or local government issued outside of 
the framework of 47 U.S.C. 1455(a) and these regulations promulgated 
thereunder.'' Adopting that proposal would risk permitting a tower 
owner to file an eligible facilities request even if it may have 
substantially increased the size of a tower site prior to the adoption 
of this Report and Order and without any necessary approval from a 
locality. Indeed, several localities caution against the industry's 
proposal. They raise concerns that adopting the industry's proposed 
definition would create ``unending accretion of [a] site by repeated 
applications for expansion.'' The Commission shares those concerns, and 
finds that its revision addresses them by ensuring that a locality has 
reviewed and approved the eligible support structure that is the 
subject of the eligible facilities request outside of the section 
6409(a) process, while recognizing that the boundaries may have changed 
since the locality initially approved the eligible support structure. 
Further, the Commission maintains the 2014 Infrastructure Order's 
approach that a locality ``is not obligated to grant a collocation 
application under [s]ection 6409(a)'' if ``a tower or base station was 
constructed or deployed without proper review, was not required to 
undergo siting review, or does not support transmission equipment that 
received another form of affirmative State or local regulatory 
approval[.]''
    30. Crown Castle also proposes that, to the extent that the 
Commission revises the definition of ``site'' as proposed in the NPRM, 
it should revise the language to provide that the site boundaries are 
determined as of the date a locality ``last reviewed and issued a

[[Page 78011]]

permit,'' rather than as of the date the locality last reviewed and 
approved the site. Crown Castle claims that, contrary to an approval, a 
``permit . . . applies to a wide variety of processes, and represents a 
tangible and unambiguous event[.]'' The Commission declines to adopt 
Crown Castle's proposal, as the mere issuance of a permit (e.g., an 
electrical permit) does not necessarily involve a locality's review of 
the eligible support structure, and thus would not necessarily provide 
an opportunity for the locality to take into account an increase in the 
size of the site associated with that structure.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Crown Castle's proposal would also introduce more 
uncertainty than it purports to cure. A locality may issue building, 
electrical, or other permits for a site without reviewing the 
eligible support structure on that site. A permit may therefore not 
constitute a ``proper review'' of a site. Review and approval of the 
eligible support structure, on the other hand, provides an 
opportunity for the locality to take into account an increase in the 
size of the site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    31. Accordingly, the Commission revises Sec.  1.6100(b)(6) to read 
as set out in the regulatory text below.
    32. The Commission emphasizes that its revisions to the compound 
expansion provision in Sec.  1.6100(b)(7)(iv) and to the definition of 
``site'' in Sec.  1.6100(b)(6) do not apply to towers in the public 
rights-of-way. The 2014 Infrastructure Order provided for streamlined 
review in more narrowly targeted circumstances with respect to towers 
in the public rights-of-way, and the Commission leaves those 
distinctions unchanged. The Commission has recognized that activities 
in public rights-of-way ``are more likely to raise aesthetic, safety, 
and other issues,'' and that ``towers in the public rights-of-way 
should be subject to the more restrictive . . . criteria applicable to 
non-tower structures rather than the criteria applicable to other 
towers.'' The record reflects agreement by both industry and locality 
commenters that the Commission's rule change to provide for compound 
expansion should not apply to towers in the public rights-of-way. The 
Commission's revised compound expansion rule also does not apply to 
non-tower structures (e.g., base stations), which ``use very different 
support structures and equipment configurations'' than towers.
    33. The Commission also emphasizes that its actions here are not 
intended to affect any setback requirements that may apply to a site, 
and that it preserves localities' authority to impose requirements on 
local-government property. Further, the expansion of up to 30 feet in 
any direction is subject to any land-use requirements or permissions 
that a local authority may have imposed or granted within the allowed 
expansion (e.g., storm drain easement) at the time of the last review 
by a locality. The Commission also clarifies that the revised 
definition of ``site'' does not restrict a locality from issuing 
building permits (e.g., electrical) or approving easements within the 
expanded boundaries (e.g., a sewer or storm drain easement; a road; or 
a bike path). The Commission further clarifies, however, that changes 
in zoning regulations since the last local government review would not 
disqualify from section 6409(a) treatment those compound expansions 
that otherwise would be permitted under its revisions.
    34. While localities raise health and safety concerns with 
modifying the scope of substantial change, the Commission observes that 
the modifications it makes in this document do not affect localities' 
ability to address those concerns. The Commission previously has 
clarified that neither the statute nor its rules preempt localities' 
health and safety requirements or their procedures for reviewing and 
enforcing compliance with such requirements, and the Commission 
reaffirms this conclusion in this document. The Commission emphasizes 
that section 6409(a) ``does not preclude States and localities from 
continuing to require compliance with generally applicable health and 
safety requirements on the placement and operation of backup power 
sources, including noise control ordinances if any.'' The Commission 
finds that its revision strikes the appropriate balance between 
promoting rapid wireless facility deployment while preserving 
localities' local-use authority.
    35. Finally, the Commission disagrees with the contentions of some 
localities that it lacks the legal authority to adopt some or all of 
the rule changes that it promulgates in this document, or that the 
Administrative Procedure Act otherwise precludes such action. 
Localities allege several infirmities. First, Virginia Localities argue 
that Congress limited the Commission's authority to changes to the 
dimensions of towers and base stations only, and not to the underlying 
site. The Commission disagrees with that artificial distinction. A 
tower cannot exist without a site. And ``[t]here is no question that 
[certain] terms of the Spectrum Act . . . are ambiguous,'' including 
what constitutes substantial change to a site. (Montgomery County, Md. 
v. FCC, 811 F.3d at 129; id. at 130). The Fourth Circuit determined 
that the Commission can ``establish[] objective criteria for 
determining when a proposed modification `substantially changes the 
physical dimensions' '' of an eligible support structure. (Id. at 129 
n.5). The Report and Order's revisions to the terms ``site'' and 
``substantial change'' ensure that wireless deployments will continue 
while preserving localities' site review and approval process.
    36. Second, some localities argue that the Commission failed to 
provide the specific rule language in the NPRM and that the NPRM 
contains several ambiguities. Virginia Localities claim that it would 
be ``very difficult to assess the potential practical effects of the 
proposed amendment to the EFR Rule without language to evaluate.'' 
Local Governments claim that, among other issues, the NPRM is ambiguous 
on the operative date of the approval, the operative boundaries of the 
proposed expansion, and whether the definition of ``site'' will provide 
for other eligible support structures. Western Communities Coalition 
claims that the NPRM ``appears to suggest that various rule changes 
might be limited to `macro tower compounds.' ''
    37. These arguments lack merit. The APA requires that an agency's 
notice of proposed rulemaking must include ``either the terms or 
substance of the proposed rule or a description of the subjects and 
issues involved.'' The D.C. Circuit has held that a notice of proposed 
rulemaking meets the requirements of administrative law if it 
``provide[s] sufficient factual detail and rationale for the rule to 
permit interested parties to comment meaningfully.'' (Honeywell 
International, Inc. v. EPA, 372 F.3d 441, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2004) 
(internal quotation marks omitted)). The NPRM in this proceeding did 
just that. Not only did the Commission include the substance of the 
proposed rule and describe the subjects and issues involved, it also 
clearly proposed specific language for the definition of ``site'' and 
the revision to ``substantial change,'' and it offered specific 
alternatives and sought comment on other possible options. The actions 
the Commission takes in this document reflect commenters' responses to 
the NPRM. For example, in response to the Commission's proposed 
definition of ``site,'' it establishes site boundaries as those that 
existed as of the date that the original support structure or a 
modification to that structure was last reviewed and approved by a 
state or local government, if the approval of the modification occurred 
prior to the Spectrum Act or otherwise outside of the section 6409(a) 
process. Furthermore, various changes the Commission is making to the

[[Page 78012]]

proposed language are reasonably foreseeable modifications designed to 
prevent any confusion that the proposed language might have caused 
based on concerns that commenters raised. For example, in defining 
``site,'' the Commission substitutes the term ``eligible support 
structure,'' a defined term, for the proposed use of the word 
``facility,'' which is not defined in Sec.  1.6100 of its rules. 
Further, the NPRM also proposed specific alternatives. All localities 
that allege ambiguities raised meaningful comments and opined on the 
specific rule changes that the Commission adopts in this document.
    38. Third, Local Governments claim that any collocation policy 
modification should be achieved through 47 U.S.C. 332. The Commission 
disagrees. Congress has directed the Commission to ``encourage the 
rapid deployment of telecommunications services,'' including with 
section 6409(a), in which Congress specifically addressed modifications 
of an existing tower or base station ``[n]otwithstanding'' Section 332. 
And the Commission has relied on section 6409(a) to require a 
streamlined review process for modifications of existing towers or base 
stations. Similar to the Commission's actions in the 2014 
Infrastructure Order, the rules it promulgates in this document ``will 
serve the public interest by providing guidance to all stakeholders on 
their rights and responsibilities under the provision, reducing delays 
in the review process for wireless infrastructure modifications, and 
facilitating the rapid deployment of wireless infrastructure, thereby 
promoting advanced wireless broadband services.''
    39. Finally, Western Communities Coalition argues that the comment 
cycle is unusually short. The Administrative Procedure Act and the 
Commission's rules require only that commenters be afforded reasonable 
notice of the proposed rulemaking. Western Communities Coalition 
provides no basis for its view that more than the 30-day time period 
following Federal Register publication (20 days for comments and 10 
days for reply comments), was inadequate here, given that the NPRM 
raised a narrow set of issues that had been subject to prior public 
input in response to WIA's petition for declaratory ruling and petition 
for rulemaking. And no commenter argues that it was prejudiced by the 
comment cycle's length. Indeed, several commenters, including the 
Western Communities Coalition, have been considering these issues on 
the record since at least October 2019. Claims that the NPRM is vague 
or that commenters have had insufficient time to comment are therefore 
contradicted by the record.
    40. Accordingly, the Commission revises the compound expansion 
provision in Sec.  1.6100(b)(7)(iv) and the definition of ``site'' in 
Sec.  1.6100(b)(6). The Commission finds that the revisions it adopts 
in this document will streamline the use of existing infrastructure for 
the deployment of 5G and other advanced wireless networks while 
preserving localities' ability to review and approve an eligible 
support structure.
    41. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 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. Pursuant to the RFA, a Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis is set forth in the Report and Order.
    42. Paperwork Reduction Act. This Report and Order does not contain 
information collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not 
contain any new or modified information collection burden for small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
    43. 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).

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

    44. In the Report and Order, the Commission continues its efforts 
to reduce regulatory barriers to infrastructure deployment by further 
streamlining the state and local government review process for 
modifications to existing wireless towers or base stations under 
section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act of 2012. The Commission's decision 
will encourage the use of existing infrastructure, where efficient, to 
accelerate deployment of 5G and other advanced networks, which will 
enable economic opportunities across the nation. More specifically, the 
Report and Order revises the Commission's rules to provide that the 
modification of an existing tower outside the public rights-of-way that 
entails ground excavation or deployment of transmission equipment up to 
30 feet in any direction outside the site will be eligible for 
streamlined processing under section 6409(a) review. The Report and 
Order clarifies that the site boundary from which the 30 feet is 
measured excludes any access or utility easements currently related to 
the site. It also revises the Commission's rules to clarify that a 
site's current boundaries are the boundaries that existed as of the 
date that the original support structure or a modification to that 
structure was last reviewed and approved by a state or local 
government, if the approval of the modification occurred prior to the 
Spectrum Act or otherwise outside of the section 6409(a) process.
    45. Our rule revisions reflect the recent recognition of 30 feet as 
an appropriate standard in the federal historic preservation context 
and the changes in the collocation marketplace, which is lacking space 
for collocations. This standard is consistent with the current 
collocation marketplace and with the threshold adopted in the Wireless 
Facilities NPA and recently included in the Amended Collocation NPA. 
Further, at least ``eight states have passed laws that expressly permit 
compound expansion within certain limits . . . under an exempt or 
expedited review process.'' Most of these laws allow expansion beyond 
30 feet from the approved site.

B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response 
to the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

    46. 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

    47. 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.
    48. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the 
proposed rules in this proceeding.

[[Page 78013]]

D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply

    49. 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.
    50. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe 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.
    51. 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.
    52. 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 50,000. Accordingly, 
based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, we estimate that at 
least 48,971 entities fall into the category of ``small governmental 
jurisdictions.''
    53. 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 1000 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.
    54. 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 our 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, we estimate that the 
majority of wireless firms can be considered small.
    55. All Other Telecommunications. The ``All Other 
Telecommunications'' category is comprised of establishments primarily 
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as 
satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station 
operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged 
in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities 
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of 
transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications 
from, satellite systems. Establishments providing internet services or 
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied 
telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The 
SBA has developed a small business size standard for ``All Other 
Telecommunications'', which consists of all such firms with annual 
receipts of $35 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 those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual receipts less 
than $25 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to 
$49, 999,999. Thus, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All 
Other Telecommunications'' firms potentially affected by our action can 
be considered small.
    56. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common 
carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio 
services. They also include the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service, 
Millimeter Wave Service, Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), 
the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), and the 24 GHz Service, 
where licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common 
carrier status. There are approximately 66,680 common carrier fixed 
licensees, 69,360 private and public safety operational-fixed 
licensees, 20,150 broadcast auxiliary radio licensees, 411 LMDS 
licenses, 33 24 GHz DEMS licenses, 777 39 GHz licenses, and five 24 GHz 
licenses, and 467 Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services. 
The Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to 
microwave services. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) and the appropriate size 
standard for this category 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 had employment 
of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or 
more. Thus under this SBA category and the associated size standard, 
the Commission estimates that a majority of

[[Page 78014]]

fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.
    57. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of 
these licensees that have more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable 
at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed 
microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business 
concerns under the SBA's small business size standard. Consequently, 
the Commission estimates that there are up to 36,708 common carrier 
fixed licensees and up to 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees 
and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that 
may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies discussed 
herein. We note, however, that the microwave fixed licensee category 
includes some large entities.
    58. FM Translator Stations and Low Power FM Stations. FM 
translators and Low Power FM Stations are classified in the category of 
Radio Stations and are assigned the same NAICs Code as licensees of 
radio stations. This U.S. industry, Radio Stations, comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by 
radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio, 
from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has 
established a small business size standard which consists of all radio 
stations whose annual receipts are $41.5 million dollars or less. U.S. 
Census Bureau data for 2012 indicate that 2,849 radio station firms 
operated during that year. Of that number, 2,806 operated with annual 
receipts of less than $25 million per year, 17 with annual receipts 
between $25 million and $49,999,999 million and 26 with annual receipts 
of $50 million or more. Therefore, based on the SBA's size standard we 
conclude that the majority of FM Translator Stations and Low Power FM 
Stations are small.
    59. Location and Monitoring Service (LMS). LMS systems use non-
voice radio techniques to determine the location and status of mobile 
radio units. For purposes of auctioning LMS licenses, the Commission 
has defined a ``small business'' as an entity that, together with 
controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues 
for the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million. A ``very small 
business'' is defined as an entity that, together with controlling 
interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the 
preceding three years not to exceed $3 million. These definitions have 
been approved by the SBA. An auction for LMS licenses commenced on 
February 23, 1999 and closed on March 5, 1999. Of the 528 licenses 
auctioned, 289 licenses were sold to four small businesses.
    60. Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS). MVDDS 
is a terrestrial fixed microwave service operating in the 12.2-12.7 GHz 
band. The Commission adopted criteria for defining three groups of 
small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for 
special provisions such as bidding credits. It defined a very small 
business as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding 
$3 million for the preceding three years; a small business as an entity 
with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the 
preceding three years; and an entrepreneur as an entity with average 
annual gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three 
years. These definitions were approved by the SBA. On January 27, 2004, 
the Commission completed an auction of 214 MVDDS licenses (Auction No. 
53). In this auction, ten winning bidders won a total of 192 MVDDS 
licenses. Eight of the ten winning bidders claimed small business 
status and won 144 of the licenses. The Commission also held an auction 
of MVDDS licenses on December 7, 2005 (Auction 63). Of the three 
winning bidders who won 22 licenses, two winning bidders, winning 21 of 
the licenses, claimed small business status.
    61. Multiple Address Systems. Entities using Multiple Address 
Systems (MAS) spectrum, in general, fall into two categories: (1) Those 
using the spectrum for profit-based uses, and (2) those using the 
spectrum for private internal uses. With respect to the first category, 
Profit-based Spectrum use, the size standards established by the 
Commission define ``small entity'' for MAS licensees as an entity that 
has average annual gross revenues of less than $15 million over the 
three previous calendar years. A ``Very small business'' is defined as 
an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average annual gross 
revenues of not more than $3 million over the preceding three calendar 
years. The SBA has approved these definitions. The majority of MAS 
operators are licensed in bands where the Commission has implemented a 
geographic area licensing approach that requires the use of competitive 
bidding procedures to resolve mutually exclusive applications.
    62. The Commission's licensing database indicates that, as of April 
16, 2010, there were a total of 11,653 site-based MAS station 
authorizations. Of these, 58 authorizations were associated with common 
carrier service. In addition, the Commission's licensing database 
indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, there were a total of 3,330 
Economic Area market area MAS authorizations. The Commission's 
licensing database also indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, of the 
11,653 total MAS station authorizations, 10,773 authorizations were for 
private radio service. In 2001, an auction for 5,104 MAS licenses in 
176 EAs was conducted. Seven winning bidders claimed status as small or 
very small businesses and won 611 licenses. In 2005, the Commission 
completed an auction (Auction 59) of 4,226 MAS licenses in the Fixed 
Microwave Services from the 928/959 and 932/941 MHz bands. Twenty-six 
winning bidders won a total of 2,323 licenses. Of the 26 winning 
bidders in this auction, five claimed small business status and won 
1,891 licenses.
    63. With respect to the second category, Internal Private Spectrum 
use consists of entities that use, or seek to use, MAS spectrum to 
accommodate their own internal communications needs, MAS serves an 
essential role in a range of industrial, safety, business, and land 
transportation activities. MAS radios are used by companies of all 
sizes, operating in virtually all U.S. business categories, and by all 
types of public safety entities. For the majority of private internal 
users, the definition developed by the SBA would be more appropriate 
than the Commission's definition. The closest applicable definition of 
a small entity is the ``Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite)'' definition under the SBA size standards. The appropriate 
size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it 
has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this category, U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the 
entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus under 
this category and the associated small business size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of firms that may be affected by 
our action can be considered small.
    64. 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

[[Page 78015]]

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.
    65. 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 we 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, we do not collect information as to the number of such 
towers in use and therefore cannot estimate the number of tower owners 
that would be subject to the rules on which we seek comment. Moreover, 
the SBA has not developed a size standard for small businesses in the 
category ``Tower Owners.'' Therefore, we are unable to determine the 
number of non-licensee tower owners that are small entities. We 
believe, however, that when all entities owning 10 or fewer towers and 
leasing space for collocation are included, non-licensee tower owners 
number in the thousands. 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 we seek comment. We do not have any basis for estimating the 
number of such non-licensee owners that are small entities.
    66. The closest applicable SBA category is All Other 
Telecommunications, and the appropriate size standard consists of all 
such firms with gross annual receipts of $38 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 our 
action can be considered small.
    67. Personal Radio Services. Personal radio services provide short-
range, low-power radio for personal communications, radio signaling, 
and business communications not provided for in other services. 
Personal radio services include services operating in spectrum licensed 
under Part 95 of our rules. These services include Citizen Band Radio 
Service, General Mobile Radio Service, Radio Control Radio Service, 
Family Radio Service, Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, Medical 
Implant Communications Service, Low Power Radio Service, and Multi-Use 
Radio Service. There are a variety of methods used to license the 
spectrum in these rule parts, from licensing by rule, to conditioning 
operation on successful completion of a required test, to site-based 
licensing, to geographic area licensing. All such entities in this 
category are wireless, therefore we apply the definition of Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), pursuant to which the 
SBA's small entity size standard is defined as those entities employing 
1,500 or fewer persons. 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 had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 
12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus under this category 
and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of firms can be considered small. We note however, that many 
of the licensees in this category are individuals and not small 
entities. In addition, due to the mostly unlicensed and shared nature 
of the spectrum utilized in many of these services, the Commission 
lacks direct information upon which to base an estimation of the number 
of small entities that may be affected by our actions in this 
proceeding.
    68. Private Land Mobile Radio Licensees. Private land mobile radio 
(PLMR) systems serve an essential role in a vast range of industrial, 
business, land transportation, and public safety activities. Companies 
of all sizes operating in all U.S. business categories use these 
radios. Because of the vast array of PLMR users, the Commission has not 
developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to 
PLMR users. The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses 
business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications. The 
appropriate size standard for this category 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 had 
employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 
employees or more. Thus under this category and the associated size 
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of PLMR Licensees 
are small entities.
    69. According to the Commission's records, a total of approximately 
400,622 licenses comprise PLMR users. There are a total of 
approximately 3,577 PLMR licenses in the 4.9 GHz band; 19,359 PLMR 
licenses in the 800 MHz band; and 3,374 licenses in the frequencies 
range 173.225 MHz to 173.375 MHz. The Commission does not require PLMR 
licensees to disclose information about number of employees, and does 
not have information that could be used to determine how many PLMR 
licensees constitute small entities under this definition. The 
Commission however believes that a substantial number of PLMR licensees 
may be small entities despite the lack of specific information.
    70. Public Safety Radio Licensees. As a general matter, Public 
Safety Radio Pool licensees include police, fire, local government, 
forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical 
services. Because of the vast array of public safety licensees, the 
Commission has not developed a small business size standard 
specifically applicable to public safety licensees. The closest 
applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except 
Satellite) which encompasses business entities engaged in 
radiotelephone communications. The appropriate size standard for this 
category under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 
1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 
show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year. Of 
this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 
had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus under this category and 
the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the 
majority of firms can be considered small. With respect to local 
governments, in particular, since many governmental entities comprise 
the licensees for these services, we include under public safety 
services the number of government entities affected. According to 
Commission records, there are a total of approximately 133,870 licenses 
within these services. There are 3,577 licenses in the 4.9 GHz band, 
based on an FCC Universal Licensing System search of September 18, 
2020. We estimate that fewer than 2,442 public safety radio licensees 
hold these licenses because certain entities may have multiple 
licenses.

[[Page 78016]]

    71. Radio Stations. This Economic Census category ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting aural programs by 
radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio, 
from an affiliated network, or from external sources.'' The SBA has 
established a small business size standard for this category as firms 
having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts. U.S. Census Bureau 
data for 2012 show that 2,849 radio station firms operated during that 
year. Of that number, 2,806 firms operated with annual receipts of less 
than $25 million per year and 17 with annual receipts between $25 
million and $49,999,999 million. Therefore, based on the SBA's size 
standard the majority of such entities are small entities.
    72. According to Commission staff review of the BIA/Kelsey, LLC's 
Media Access Pro Radio Database as of January 2018, about 11,261 (or 
about 99.9 percent) of 11,383 commercial radio stations had revenues of 
$38.5 million or less and thus qualify as small entities under the SBA 
definition. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed 
commercial AM radio stations to be 4,580 stations and the number of 
commercial FM radio stations to be 6,726, for a total number of 11,306. 
We note the Commission has also estimated the number of licensed 
noncommercial (NCE) FM radio stations to be 4,172. Nevertheless, the 
Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have access to 
information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to 
determine how many such stations would qualify as small entities.
    73. We also note, that in assessing whether a business entity 
qualifies as small under the above definition, business control 
affiliations must be included. The Commission's estimate therefore 
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected 
by its action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not 
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, 
to be determined a ``small business,'' an entity may not be dominant in 
its field of operation. We further note, that it is difficult at times 
to assess these criteria in the context of media entities, and the 
estimate of small businesses to which these rules may apply does not 
exclude any radio station from the definition of a small business on 
these basis, thus our estimate of small businesses may therefore be 
over-inclusive. Also, as noted above, an additional element of the 
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be 
independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is 
difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media 
entities and the estimates of small businesses to which they apply may 
be over-inclusive to this extent.
    74. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms 
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other 
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by 
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of 
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite 
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth 
station operators. The category has a small business size standard of 
$35 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For 
this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a 
total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently, 
we estimate that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers 
are small entities.
    75. Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category 
``comprises establishments primarily engaged in broadcasting images 
together with sound.'' These establishments operate television 
broadcast studios and facilities for the programming and transmission 
of programs to the public. These establishments also produce or 
transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television 
stations, which in turn broadcast the programs to the public on a 
predetermined schedule. Programming may originate in their own studio, 
from an affiliated network, or from external sources. The SBA has 
created the following small business size standard for such businesses: 
Those having $41.5 million or less in annual receipts. The 2012 
Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category operated in 
that year. Of that number, 656 had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or 
less, and 25 had annual receipts between $25,000,000 and $49,999,999. 
Based on this data we therefore estimate that the majority of 
commercial television broadcasters are small entities under the 
applicable SBA size standard.
    76. The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial 
television stations to be 1,377. Of this total, 1,258 stations (or 
about 91 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to 
Commission staff review of the BIA/Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro 
Television Database (BIA) on November 16, 2017, and therefore these 
licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. In 
addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed 
noncommercial educational television stations to be 384. 
Notwithstanding, the Commission does not compile and otherwise does not 
have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would 
permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as small 
entities. There are also 2,300 low power television stations, including 
Class A stations (LPTV) and 3,681 TV translator stations. Given the 
nature of these services, we will presume that all of these entities 
qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size 
standard.
    77. We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern 
qualifies as ``small'' under the above definition, business (control) 
affiliations must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely 
overstates the number of small entities that might be affected by our 
action, because the revenue figure on which it is based does not 
include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, 
another element of the definition of ``small business'' requires that 
an entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at 
this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish 
whether a specific television broadcast station is dominant in its 
field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to 
which rules may apply does not exclude any television station from the 
definition of a small business on this basis and is therefore possibly 
over-inclusive. Also, as noted above, an additional element of the 
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be 
independently owned and operated. The Commission notes that it is 
difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media 
entities and its estimates of small businesses to which they apply may 
be over-inclusive to this extent.
    78. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. 
Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint 
Distribution Service (MDS) and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution 
Service (MMDS) systems, and ``wireless cable,'' transmit video 
programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data 
operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio 
Service (BRS) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously 
referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)).
    79. BRS--In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission 
established a small business size

[[Page 78017]]

standard as an entity that had annual average gross revenues of no more 
than $40 million in the previous three calendar years. The BRS auctions 
resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 
493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs). Of the 67 auction winners, 61 met the 
definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations 
authorized prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 
61 small business BRS auction winners, 48 remain small business 
licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA 
authorizations, there are approximately 86 incumbent BRS licensees that 
are considered small entities (18 incumbent BRS licensees do not meet 
the small business size standard). After adding the number of small 
business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not 
already counted, there are currently approximately 133 BRS licensees 
that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the 
Commission's rules.
    80. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 
licenses in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of 
bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross 
revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the 
preceding three years (small business) received a 15 percent discount 
on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross 
revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the 
preceding three years (very small business) received a 25 percent 
discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average 
annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding 
three years (entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its 
winning bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses. 
Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business 
status won 4 licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business 
status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur 
status won six licenses.
    81. EBS--Educational Broadband Service has been included within the 
broad economic census category and SBA size standard for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers since 2007. Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers are comprised of establishments primarily engaged in operating 
and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure 
that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, 
sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission 
facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of 
technologies.'' The SBA's small business size standard for this 
category is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 3,117 firms that operated 
that year. Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 1,000 
employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in 
this industry can be considered small. In addition to U.S. Census 
Bureau data, the Commission's Universal Licensing System indicates that 
as of October 2014, there are 2,206 active EBS licenses. The Commission 
estimates that of these 2,206 licenses, the majority are held by non-
profit educational institutions and school districts, which are by 
statute defined as small businesses.

E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities

    82. The excavation or deployment boundaries of an eligible 
facilities request pose significant policy implications associated with 
the Commission's rules implementing section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act 
of 2012. The Commission believes that the rule changes in the Report 
and Order provide certainty for providers, state and local governments 
(collectively, localities), and other entities interpreting these 
rules. We do not believe that our resolution of these matters will 
create any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance 
requirements for small entities that will be impacted by our decision.
    83. More specifically, the amendment of Sec.  1.6100(b)(7)(iv) to 
allow a modification of an existing site that entails ground excavation 
or deployment of up to 30 feet in any direction outside a tower's site 
does not create any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance 
requirements for small entities. Rather, it permits an entity 
submitting an eligible facilities request to undertake limited 
excavation and deployment of up to 30 feet in any direction. While the 
Commission cannot quantify the cost of compliance with the changes 
adopted in the Report and Order, small entities should not have to hire 
attorneys, engineers, consultants, or other professionals to in order 
to comply. Similarly, the revised definition of ``site'' adopted in the 
Report and Order addresses localities' concerns of ``unending accretion 
of [a] site by repeated applications for expansion'' by ensuring that a 
locality has reviewed and approved the site that is the subject of the 
eligible facilities request, and recognizes that the site may have 
changed since the locality initially approved it. This action does not 
create any new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance 
requirements for small entities. Instead, it prevents entities from 
having to file, and localities from having to receive and review, 
repeated applications for site excavation or deployments. Further, our 
actions providing clarity on the definitions of site and substantial 
change pursuant to the Commission's rules implementing section 6409(a) 
requirements should benefit all entities involved in the wireless 
facility modification process.

F. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    84. 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.
    85. In the Report and Order, the Commission clarifies and amends 
its rules associated with wireless infrastructure deployment to provide 
more certainty to relevant parties and enable small entities and others 
to more effectively navigate state and local application processes for 
eligible facilities requests. These changes, which broaden the scope 
wireless facility modifications that are eligible for streamlined 
review by localities under the Commission's rules implementing section 
6409(a), should reduce the economic impact on small entities that 
deploy wireless infrastructure by reducing the costs and delay 
associated with the deployment of such infrastructure. The Commission's 
efforts to reduce regulatory barriers to infrastructure deployment by 
further streamlining the review process by localities for modifications 
to existing wireless towers or base stations under section 6409(a) 
should also reduce the economic impact on small localities by reducing 
the administrative costs associated with the review process.

[[Page 78018]]

    86. The Commission considered but declined to adopt the industry's 
``hybrid'' definition of ``site.'' Adopting that proposal would risk 
permitting a tower owner to file an eligible facilities request even if 
it may have substantially increased the size of a tower site prior to 
the adoption of this Report and Order and without any necessary 
approval from a locality. It agreed with localities' concerns on the 
industry's proposed definition, and found that our revision addresses 
them by ensuring that a locality has reviewed and approved the eligible 
support structure that is the subject of the eligible facilities 
request outside of the section 6409(a) process, while recognizing that 
the boundaries may have changed since the locality initially approved 
the eligible support structure. It also considered and rejected a 
proposal that would risk creating a loophole whereby a tower owner 
could use the issuance of a permit--which does not necessarily involve 
a locality's review of the eligible support structure, and thus would 
not necessarily provide an opportunity for the locality to take into 
account an increase in the size of the site associated with that 
structure--to justify expansion of the site without proper local 
approval. On balance, the Commission believes the revisions adopted in 
the Report and Order best achieve the Commission's goals while at the 
same time minimize or further reduce the economic impact on small 
entities, including small state and local government jurisdictions.
    87. The Commission also considered, but declined to adopt, NATOA 
and Local Governments proposal that, to the extent the Commission 
revises it ``substantial change'' definition, the compound expansion 
standard should be ``the lesser of the following distance[s] from the 
current site (not including easements related to the site): a. 20% of 
the length or width of the current site measured as a longitudinal or 
latitudinal line from the current site to the excavation or deployment; 
or b. 30 feet.'' The Commission declined to adopt this proposal because 
it concluded that, on balance, the potential problems it could create 
outweigh the potential benefits it could achieve. The Commission 
reasoned that the standard of ``20% of the length or width of the 
current site'' would be difficult to administer, given that a site 
boundary is not necessarily a symmetrical shape. In addition, while the 
record supports the determination that a 30-foot expansion would be 
sufficient to accommodate minor equipment additions, the record does 
not provide support for the determination that the ``20%'' standard 
would accomplish this goal. Moreover, adopting the ``20%'' proposal 
would provide limited additional benefit in addressing the concern 
raised by NATOA and Local Governments. Because a small tower site 
typically is associated with a small tower that has limited space for 
additional antennas, it is unlikely that operators would need to place 
a significant amount of additional equipment in an area outside the 
site boundaries. In addition, any modification to an existing tower 
that involves excavation or deployment within the 30-foot expanded area 
will be subject to the other criteria in the Commission's rules for 
determining whether there is a substantial change that does not warrant 
streamlined treatment under section 6409(a). Those criteria, which the 
Commission does not alter in this document, provide further limitation 
on the size or scope of a modification that involves excavation or 
deployment within 30 feet of the site boundaries.

Ordering Clauses

    88. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i)-(j), 
7, 201, 253, 301, 303, 309, 319, and 332 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, and section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and 
Job Creation Act of 2012, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), 157, 
201, 253, 301, 303, 309, 319, 332, 1455, that this Report and Order is 
hereby adopted.
    89. It is further ordered that this Report and Order shall be 
effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
    90. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer & 
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.
    91. It is further ordered that this Report and Order shall be sent 
to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the 
Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 1

    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

0
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.

0
2. Amend Sec.  1.6100 by revising paragraphs (b)(6) and (b)(7)(iv) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  1.6100   Wireless Facility Modifications.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) Site. For towers other than towers in the public rights-of-way, 
the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the 
tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the 
site, and, for other eligible support structures, further restricted to 
that area in proximity to the structure and to other transmission 
equipment already deployed on the ground. The current boundaries of a 
site are the boundaries that existed as of the date that the original 
support structure or a modification to that structure was last reviewed 
and approved by a State or local government, if the approval of the 
modification occurred prior to the Spectrum Act or otherwise outside of 
the section 6409(a) process.
    (7) * * *
    (iv) It entails any excavation or deployment outside of the current 
site, except that, for towers other than towers in the public rights-
of-way, it entails any excavation or deployment of transmission 
equipment outside of the current site by more than 30 feet in any 
direction. The site boundary from which the 30 feet is measured 
excludes any access or utility easements currently related to the site;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2020-25144 Filed 12-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P