Fresno’s Failure to Act with Finality Frustrates Wireless Deployment, Violates 1996 Act

In a similar vein, Section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II) of the Communications Act, enacted by Congress as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, states that local regulation of "personal wireless service facilities … shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services" – and subsection (c)(7)(B)(ii) directs a local government to "act on any request for auth. [...] In a 2009 Declaratory Ruling (the "Shot Clock Ruling"), the FCC clarified what is meant by "within a reasonable period of time" by establishing a 150-day "shot clock" governing local review of new siting applications to address "delays in the zoning process [that] have hindered the deployment of new wireless infrastructure." The Supreme Court upheld that decision in 2013's City of Arlington v. [...] Consistent with the Shot Clock Ruling, Verizon Wireless and the City agreed to toll the (1) deadline by which the City must act with finality to February 28, 2022, and (2) the date by which Verizon Wireless must file suit to June 30, 2022 – that is, the day upon which it submitted its Complaint. [...] S.+290&hl=en&as_sdt=4006 The consequence of these drawn-out, serial appeals? A failure to act with finality prior to the expiration of the "shot clock" – and thus a clear violation of Section 332 and the FCC's implementing rules. [...] Town of Stoddard, "[t]he Shot Clock Ruling contemplates not just that a local government will take some action within the deadline, but that it will 'resolve [the] application' before the deadline." It continued: the "150–day deadline … encompasses not only the time it takes a local government to reach an initial decision on an application, but the time it takes to complete the rehearing process ….