Local Governments Playing Defense on Wireless Siting Rules
San Diego County, Calif., fired back at NextG Networks, which argued in a July FCC filing that the county’s siting process for new wireless facilities is “protracted, bureaucratic and replete with hidden, circular and unreasonable requirements.” Delays are the fault of NextG, not the county, the county said. Meanwhile, other local governments are filing early reply comments at the FCC questioning the need for the FCC to take any steps regarding local management of rights of way and wireless facilities siting, as examined in an April notice of inquiry (http://xrl.us/bmeu7w).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
NextG has had an application before San Diego County since May 2010 to install 14 distributed antenna system nodes. “NextG’s assertion that the County is primarily responsible for the delay in processing its application is false,” the county said (http://xrl.us/bmeu6z). “The County has spent approximately four months reviewing the project. NextG, however, has spent approximately ten months gathering and providing the information needed by the County to process the permit application. Thus, the delay is due to tardy and inadequate submittals from NextG, not the actions of the County.” Every step taken by the county has been transparent, the filing said: “It has explained the rationale for each of its requests for information as demonstrated in the Scoping Letter, Iteration Letters, and face-to-face working meetings."
The FCC should not interfere in what are essentially local issues, said Spotsylvania County, Va. (http://xrl.us/bmeu8r). “Spotsylvania County has established considerable expertise applying its policies to protect and further public safety, economic development, and other community interests,” the county said. “By adoption of rules in this area, the Commission could disrupt this process at substantial cost to local taxpayers and to the local economy.”
"We believe it is vitally important that the Federal Communications Commission continue to enable local governments to use their local land use authority to control the safety, location, and appearance of telecommunications facilities in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of residents and businesses,” said Morrisville, N.C. (http://xrl.us/bmevbs).
Washington, D.C., which was criticized in the NextG filing for a “slow and problematic local permitting processes,” also took exception in a filing by D.C.’s State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). “Telecommunications companies routinely submit applications to the DC SHPO for review of proposed installations, and we believe these reviews are accomplished without undue burden on applicants,” the office said. From the start of 2009 through Sept. 15, carriers filed 250 applications requiring DC SHPO review, the filing said (http://xrl.us/bmeva9): “A total of 3 percent of these reviews were completed within 5 calendar days of submittal; 51 percent were completed within 15 calendar days; 11 percent were completed within 30 calendar days; and only 7 percent required more than 30 calendar days.”