Shot Clock Tolling Agreement

Violation of Shot Clocks – State or local inaction until the end of the applicable Shot Clock acts as “inaction” pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v), which allows a carrier to file a lawsuit. Such inaction is also considered an “alleged prohibition” on providing personal wireless services, in violation of section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II). In such cases, the FCC “expects the state or local government to issue all necessary authorizations without further delay.” In cases where no authorization is granted, the FCC believes that “the plaintiff would have a simple case to obtain an expedited remedy in court.” 9. Second, the Commission clarifies that a local government must not delay the triggering of the Shot Clock by defining the `first stage` as a combination or succession of stages and not as a single stage. For example, when a local government defines the first step in its process as a separate consultation with a citizens` association, a historic monuments protection committee and local government staff, an applicant triggers the Shot Clock by taking one of these measures and meeting the second of the criteria (documentation). Once the Shot Clock has begun, it would not pay for the local government to refuse, delay or request a reserging of the application, on the grounds that the local government`s separate consultation requirements have not been met. The Board expects applicants to act in good faith to comply with appropriate measures defined by a local government, which can be completed within the 60-day period, but the local government would be responsible for completing all stages of its process as well as reviewing the content of the proposed facility modification within 60 days. If this is not the case, the application for eligible facilities shall be deemed to have been approved in accordance with the rules of the Commission. In developing this legal framework, the Commission refused to adopt the mobile industry`s very favourable approach to applications that are not regulated within the shotclock deadline. The West District Court for the Western District of New York ruled last month that the City of Kiantone, New York, violated Section 332(c)(7)(B)(b)(ii) of the Communication Act by failing to respond to the Up State Tower`s request to install a new wireless tower within a reasonable period of time. as defined by the FCC`s wireless Shot Clock Order. The city unsuccessfully argued that the 150-day clock for new radio tower applications was paid for by mutual agreement and by notification of incomplete applications. These are not necessary if a memorandum of understanding between the parties on historic real estate has been concluded.

35. The Commission`s environmental legislation transposing the national law on environmental policy categorically excludes any environmental assessment measure, including the preparation of an environmental assessment, with the exception of specific measures related to the construction of installations that may seriously harm the environment. In accordance with Section 1.1307(a) of the Commission`s Regulations, applicants are currently submitting an environmental assessment for entities covered by Start Printed Page 45133, including entities that may impact historic real property protected by the National Historic Preservation Act. Under the Commission`s current procedure, an applicant submits an environmental assessment for facilities that may have an impact on historic land, even if the applicant has entered into an agreement with the parties concerned to address those adverse effects. . . .

Comments are closed.