Wireless Groups Oppose Tower Shot Clock Order Stay
CTIA and PCIA separately asked the FCC to reject an emergency motion for stay of its wireless facility “shot clock” filed Dec. 17 by the National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors and other organizations. Last week, the Wireless Bureau requested comments on the petition, which questions one part of the November shot clock order -- the 30-day review period for local authorities to determine the completeness of a wireless facilities siting request (CD Dec 28 p6). The U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties and the American Planning Association joined NATOA in seeking an emergency stay.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
“The Motion fails to satisfy the high burden required to stay the effectiveness of an order -- indeed it fails to satisfy any of the four stay criteria, much less all four,” CTIA said. “Petitioners have failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits; there is no irreparable harm; and contrary to Petitioners’ claims, others will be harmed in the event a stay is granted, as will the public interest.” Wireless carriers and tower companies would be harmed if the stay is granted, CTIA said. “Eliminating the 30-day window for automatic tolling of an application would re-institute opportunities for continued ‘unreasonable delay’ in resolving applications, would undermine the very purpose of the Declaratory Ruling, and therefore would harm applicants by perpetuating the practices the Commission already has found harm the public interest.”
CTIA also questioned the timing of the request for stay. Although the order was effective upon release, the emergency motion for stay was filed 29 days later, contemporaneously with a petition for reconsideration or clarification, CTIA noted. “If, as Petitioners claim, there is some level of urgency because local governments did not have notice of the 30-day review period for automatic tolling, the Motion should have been filed immediately. Petitioners’ choice to delay the filing strongly indicates the absence of any irreparable harm.”
PCIA said the provision requiring local authorities to review an application within 30 days is a key provision of the order. “Reviewing an application for completeness is a fundamental component of the wireless infrastructure siting process,” the group said. “In fact, the application- completeness review is an area fraught with delays, as PCIA has noted in the record on this proceeding on numerous occasions.”