T-Mobile Sues San Francisco for Alleged Permitting Delay
San Francisco will review and respond in court to a T-Mobile lawsuit testing federal deemed-granted rules, a spokesperson for City Attorney Dennis Herrera said Friday. In a complaint (in Pacer) Wednesday at U.S. District Court in San Francisco, T-Mobile sought…
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.
a declaratory ruling affirming deemed-granted status of 16 applications to modify wireless facilities. The carrier said it filed 27 applications between June 24 and Aug. 14 to modify facilities in ways it described as "minor, frequently involving only swapping existing antennas and perhaps adding a small number of new antennas and associated equipment to existing rooftop installations.” T-Mobile said the upgrades are especially needed due to COVID-19 showing the importance of 5G and distance learning. Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act requires the city to act within 60 days, but it hadn't by late October, T-Mobile alleged. The carrier notified the city Oct. 20 that the applications were deemed granted, but since then, San Francisco issued permits for only 11, leaving 16 still unresolved, it said. It may be the first formal action by a wireless company on deemed-granted in California, emailed Tellus Venture Associates President Steve Blum, a consultant for local governments. The case will clarify what the term means “as a practical matter,” he said. “In theory, T-Mobile could have just started construction. Instead, they've taken it to federal court,” which probably will “result in a preemptive ruling that sets the de facto rules" for California, he said. Best Best’s Gail Karish noted the applications all involve changes to rooftop facilities. Local authorities and carriers often disagree how FCC rules for eligible facilities requests (EFRs) apply to rooftop facilities, and if “proposed modifications actually qualify for treatment as EFRs, or should be categorized as a different type of application with a longer FCC shot clock,” said the telecom lawyer for local governments.