NATOA Eyes ‘Good Compromise’ on Wireless Zoning Issues, Traylor Says

NATOA wants municipalities and providers to work together on wireless siting issues without FCC mandates, Executive Director Steve Traylor said Monday about the Supreme Court’s City of Arlington v. FCC decision (CD May 21 p1). “I think we all have the same goals here,” he said during an association webinar, citing deployment of networks as well as protection of local authority. The focus should be on voluntary best practices, he said. Not all NATOA members will be happy with the compromise the association is planning, nor will industry be completely happy, but that’s the nature of compromise, said Traylor. Expect NATOA to present this “good compromise” publicly later this summer, he told listeners.

One prime focus of the talks is an NPRM the Wireless Bureau hopes to release on such wireless siting issues -- potentially as soon as August, as Spectrum Policy Division Deputy Chief Jeff Steinberg told state and local stakeholders in a webinar in June. “We don’t know what the scope of this proposed rulemaking will be,” said municipal lawyer Joseph Van Eaton of Best Best & Krieger, during the eNATOA talk. Stakeholders should adopt an “expansive view” of what this NPRM might look like, said Traylor, proposing it will touch on many issues and likely will include elements addressing nonconforming towers.

The FCC’s 2009 shot clock order, setting time limits for municipalities in wireless zoning cases, remains in effect. The Supreme Court affirmed the FCC’s authority to keep it in place in May’s ruling in Arlington. Van Eaton participated in the court case on the side of the municipalities, which objected to the FCC’s interpretation of its authority. The crux for several of Van Eaton’s clients involved that jurisdictional interpretation more than the shot clock order itself, he said. The decision will have impacts in communications and beyond, with implications for the FCC’s net neutrality rules as well as the FCC’s ability to affect how state and local governments set rates associated with state and local right of way, Van Eaton said. He credited Chief Justice John Roberts’ “very strong dissent, from our point of view” and said the decision amplifies agencies’ authority. “We were hoping for a different outcome,” Traylor said of the decision. NATOA had joined with parties in filing an amicus brief favoring the municipalities.

State and local advocates should gather anecdotes and reach out to federal officials, whether through NATOA or on their own, they said. “Start getting your stories together -- that’s what resonates,” Traylor said, advocating a unified front. “There’s a lot to be said for showing local governments are not bad actors.” He also credited the importance of success stories involving cooperation. The underlying message to the FCC should be that “you don’t have to regulate everything, you don’t have to establish a rule to address everything,” he said. Van Eaton pointed to “the advantage” of localities meeting with FCC staff and commissioners: “The familiarity’s just not there.” He advocated these local officials help create a record of good information for the federal government in examining these issues. “A lot of times the timing problems are caused by industry,” he said. “From the industry standpoint, the approvals were not coming fast enough,” he said of the frustrations that led to the shot clock order.

Traylor described how in recent years NATOA has helped municipalities engage the FCC in the wireless siting problems that industry points to. One important development was getting providers to include the name of the relevant municipality and the nature of their complaints in their FCC filings, which local advocates such as NATOA then helped to show to the municipalities in question, he said. “Our associations took it upon ourselves to reach out to these folks.” Traylor mentioned instances where municipalities were surprised to hear the complaints. Municipalities then could file with the FCC to give “the full story,” Traylor said.