Many states have recognized that wireless communications are an essential ingredient in their future, impacting economics, public safety, education and social development. Because wireless infrastructure deployment is such an important part of the state's overall wireless future, state legislatures may consider legislation that provides more certainty of process in siting wireless infrastructure. PCIA has developed model legislation that encourages collocation on existing facilities and provides municipalities guidelines on how to effectively develop their own wireless siting ordinances. The legislation balances municipalities' concerns about the aesthetic and safety impacts of wireless facilities with citizens' demand for ubiquitous wireless communications. This model legislation, provided complimentary, has been endorsed by both the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

PCIA's model legislation has been used as a guide in developing wireless facilities legislation in California, Florida, Hawaii, Nevada, North Carolina, and Tennessee.

CALIFORNIA: CA SB1627 (enacted 2005)
California's legislation encourages collocations by eliminating the need for "discretionary permits" when collocating on facilities that already have such a permit. Instead collocations on these facilities are permitted by-right with a building permit. When a new facility is issued a discretionary permit, it is an indication that all federal state and local requirements, including California Environmental Quality Review Act requirements, have been met, and the site conforms to all aesthetic and design requirements contained in the community plans. At least one public hearing is necessary before a discretionary permit is issued for a wireless facility, and all permits issued must be valid for at least 10 years absent a showing that there is a need to do otherwise. The legislation prohibits requiring an escrow deposit for removal but does allow for a performance bond reasonably related to actual removal costs. Finally, the legislation prohibits requirements that wireless facilities are limited to sites owned by particular parties.

FLORIDA: FL CH.2005-171 (enacted 2005)
Florida's wireless facility siting legislation officially encourages collocation and provides for by-right collocation when neither the structure height nor ground space is increased and the collocation complies with other applicable regulations. While a public hearing is permitted for appeals of collocation decisions, there is administrative review only of nonconforming collocations and tower replacements of the same height as the original structure.

When siting new wireless facilities, the Florida legislation prevents jurisdictions from inquiring about business decisions or quality of service considerations for proposed collocations. The law also provides parameters for setback requirements, providing that setbacks cannot exceed minimum necessary distance required for structural and locational safety. For residential siting, the law allows jurisdictions to take actions to minimize facilities in residential areas, so long as the limitations do not actually or effectively prohibit wireless service, which would also violate federal law. The jurisdiction is disallowed from inquiring into the facility's compliance with federal law except for certification of compliance with FAA regulations from 14 CFR 77 and FCC authorized spectrum use.

The law provides guidelines on timing and fees as well, giving the jurisdiction 20 days to notify the applicant of any application deficiencies and requiring a decision on a completed application within 45 days. Any fees assessed by the jurisdiction must be reasonably related to actual review expenses.

HAWAII: HI Act 171 (enacted 2007)
Hawaii siting legislation states that collocations on existing structures are a permitted use on Class A or B Agricultural parcels.

NEVADA: 2003, ch. 329, § 8, p. 1860 (enacted 2003)
Nevada law instructs jurisdictions to provide for administrative-level review of wireless facility applications if they meet certain criteria. Jurisdictions are to review wireless facilities applications according to administrative review standards (i.e., avoiding public hearings) if the applications comply with the jurisdiction's land use standards and procedures, and if the applicant itself is an FCC-licensed provider of wireless telecommunications with a Nevada business license. The proposed facility must also be architecturally integrated so that its function as a wireless facility is not "readily apparent." Collocations on existing wireless facilities that are architecturally integrated are also included in this review category, as are collocations on government-owned land that are architecturally integrated (though collocations on public utility property need not be). Any administrative-level denials must be in writing and indicate the element that the application failed to meet.

In all cases, the jurisdiction is prohibited from considering RF emissions as a factor in its review so long as the site is compliant with FCC standards. Requests for sites in the public right of way cannot be denied if the applicant meets all generally applicable right of way standards and does not endanger the public health or safety. Fees for applications for new facilities are assessed based on "actual costs incurred" by the jurisdiction. In the even the jurisdiction denies the application, it shall set forth in writing specifically why it was denied and describe the documents it used to make that decision.

NORTH CAROLINA: NC SB 831 (enacted 2007)
North Carolina wireless facility legislation encourages collocations and streamlines their approval process. When certain collocation criteria are met, collocations are not subject to additional zoning requirements or public hearings. Criteria for this streamlined process include not changing the dimensions of the tower or ground space, ensuring that the tower is in compliance with all original siting requirements, and that the collocation does not create safety issues or exceed the facility's load capacity. In turn for the streamlined process, jurisdictions are able to evaluate the feasibility of collocation as an alternative to building a new facility within the applicant's search ring.

The law also instructs jurisdictions on processing specific elements of new wireless facility siting applications. Applicants for new facilities must be notified within 45 days of any deficiencies in their application, which is also true for collocations. Also, the application review process must be focused on public safety, land development and zoning issues, instead of on the applicant's business judgment to build the facility or perceived customer demand for a facility. If a jurisdiction elects to use a consultant's service in the application process, such fees are set in advance and must be reasonable and customary for that type of review. While the land use permit cannot be conditioned on the requirement that a service provider document commitment to install equipment at the facility, the building permit review process may factor in this consideration.

TENNESSEE: TN CH. 373 (enacted 2005)
Tennessee siting legislation encourages collocation by holding that a jurisdiction cannot regulate placement of additional antennas on existing wireless transmission facilities. Jurisdictions are permitted to regulate collocations when doing so would increase the height of the facility, require lighting, or exceed the local height limit. Applicants cannot be asked to prove the need for increased RF capacity in the area, and jurisdictions cannot make permit denials that would actually or effectively prohibit the provision of wireless services in the area.

Please contact PCIA with any questions on how your state can begin the process of enacting state wireless facilities legislation.

Model State Legislation

California Legislation

Florida Siting Legislation

Hawaii Act 171

Nevada Siting Legislation

North Carolina Siting Legislation

Tennessee Siting Legislation