The FCC approved an order making further changes to wireless infrastructure rules Tuesday, with dissents from Commissioners Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks as expected (see 2010220048). The order addresses equipment compound expansions as part of collocations, clarifying that an infrastructure modification doesn’t cause a “substantial change” if it entails excavation or deployments up to 30 feet outside macro tower compound boundaries (see 2010060060). Commissioner Brendan Carr indicated there were some changes from the draft. The FCC moved quickly, with a Further NPRM OK’d in June (see 2006090060).

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said Tuesday the agency thinks it's on a strong legal foundation for whatever challenge may come after its 3-2 approval of a net neutrality remand order, despite an expected legal challenge or reconsideration petition (see 2010150026). The two Democratic commissioners dissented. There also were full or partial dissents to decisions ending some ILEC unbundling and resale requirements with varying transition periods for different network elements, a robocalls enforcement order wireless infrastructure rules and the 5G Fund creation (see 2010270034). But there was no clash on other orders. No approved order texts were released Tuesday.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai said Tuesday the agency thinks it's on a strong legal foundation for whatever challenge may come after its 3-2 approval of a net neutrality remand order, despite an expected legal challenge or reconsideration petition (see 2010150026). The two Democratic commissioners dissented. There also were full or partial dissents to decisions ending some ILEC unbundling and resale requirements with varying transition periods for different network elements, a robocalls enforcement order wireless infrastructure rules and the 5G Fund creation (see 2010270034). But there was no clash on other orders. No approved order texts were released Tuesday.

Importers GHSP and Brose North America have “no doubt” that the first-filed HMTX Industries-Jasco Products complaint should be one of the designated test cases in the massive Section 301 litigation, argued lawyer Paul Vandevert Friday in a response (in Pacer) to DOJ’s Oct. 19 motion for case management procedures (see 2010200020). All the roughly 3,600 complaints seek to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings and get the tariffs refunded, alleging the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative overstepped its 1974 Trade Act authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Vandevert is among the few to additionally charge USTR with breaching constitutional protections against federal revenue-raising (see 2010040001). “A number of other cases filed,” including from the GHSP and Brose plaintiffs he represents, “have raised claims that are substantively distinct and discrete” from HMTX-Jasco and should also be weighed as possible test cases, he said. Akin Gump's Sept. 30 motion for a three-judge panel made clear HMTX-Jasco was making no constitutional claim (see 2010010043). Vandevert thinks GHSP and Brose were the first to raise the revenue-raising claim and so should also be considered as first-filed test cases, he said. “It is also our understanding that several other plaintiffs in this Section 301 litigation have amended their complaints to adopt and incorporate the revenue raising claims made by GHSP and Brose,” he said. Vandevert emailed us a list Sunday of 22 complaints that Hogan Lovells filed on behalf of various importers. We reviewed them and found that all but one were filed in September and amended Oct. 9 to add the constitutional claim. The 22nd action (in Pacer), filed Oct. 21 on behalf of spices supplier McCormick, raised the argument as an original claim. The Hogan Lovells complaints also add allegations that USTR violated importers' Fifth Amendment due process rights, a claim that Vandevert didn't argue on behalf of GHSP and Brose. USTR deprived importers of due process on Lists 3 and 4A when it failed to "provide a sufficient opportunity for comment" and didn't "adequately explain" its rationale, said all the various Hogan Lovells complaints. USTR's "predetermined decision-making resulted in the unlawful imposition of tariffs on imports covered by Lists 3 and 4A whose value equals $500 billion," they said. USTR didn't respond to questions Monday. Hogan Lovells declined comment.

About 350 SpaceX satellites are in orbit with deployable visors to reduce the reflective light pollution they give off, and Amazon's Kuiper is taking astronomy concerns into consideration in its plans, in design stage for its low earth orbit (LEO) mega constellation. That's according to satellite operators Monday in a Satellite Industry Association/American Astronomical Society virtual panel about an AAS/National Science Foundation report released in August on some possible mitigations (see 2010020036). Jeff Hall, chairman of the AAS Committee on Light Pollution, Radio Interference and Space Debris, said a second report with more policy focus is being planned.

There’s likely to be bipartisan interest in fixing the dysfunctional relationship between the FCC and other federal agencies on spectrum management no matter who wins the Nov. 3 presidential election and control of Congress, telecom officials and others said in interviews. Lawmakers we spoke with expressed interest in ending the brawling, which has hounded President Donald Trump’s administration in recent years. Observers see the issue as an outlier and expect no major shifts in other aspects of U.S. spectrum policy after the election.

Law firm Husch Blackwell doesn't object to DOJ’s proposal to designate the first-filed HMTX Industries-Jasco Products complaint as a test case in the massive Section 301 litigation, but “there is no reason that it should be chosen as the only test case without further analysis,” it said Thursday in a partial opposition (in Pacer) to the government’s Oct. 19 motion for case management procedures (see 2010200020). It told the U.S. Court of International Trade it represents 75 “individually named plaintiffs” of the “approximately 6000 plus” importers seeking to vacate the Lists 3 and 4A tariff rulemakings and get the duties refunded.

The FCC is likely to act this year, perhaps soon after Election Day, on Charter Communications' petition to end two years early some conditions put on it from its Time Warner Cable/Bright House Networks deal (see 2006180050), stakeholders told us. The commission isn't likely to let the issue sit around because Charter and the parties that raised concerns (see 2007230015) are entitled to answers, said a lawyer with an interested client. He said Charter is likely to make a concerted push to get this done before 2021, though that could be shortsighted, because if the White House changes hands, the company might be better off with the conditions as a shield against other regulation.

Crown Castle urged the FCC to approve the draft compound expansions order, set for a commissioner vote Tuesday (see 2010060060). “Amending the FCC’s rules to allow streamlined processing under Section 6409(a) of the Spectrum Act for requests that include ground excavation or deployment up to 30 feet outside the existing site boundaries will dramatically speed up the application process for these siting expansions,” said a filing posted Tuesday in docket 19-250. The impact will be felt immediately, the company said. NATOA earlier raised concerns (see 2010200034) with an aide to Commissioner Brendan Carr.

Congress authorized the FCC to interpret “all provisions” of the Communications Act, including amendments, so the agency can issue a rulemaking clarifying the immunity shield’s scope, General Counsel Tom Johnson blogged Wednesday (see 2010210022). Authority originates from the “plain meaning of” Communications Act Section 201(b), “which confers on the FCC the power to issue rules necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act,” Johnson wrote. Congress inserted Section 230 into the CDA, making clear “rulemaking authority extended to the provisions of that section,” he wrote. Johnson cited Supreme Court decisions by the late Justice Antonin Scalia in AT&T v. Iowa Utilities Board in 1999 and 2013's City of Arlington v. FCC.