Ninth Circuit Case 18-72689 et al. — Repeal of FCC 18-111 and FCC 18-133

Aug 12, 2020 Ruling: Case-No-18-72689 City of Portland et al. v FCC

Feb 10, 2020: Argument in US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Pasadena, CA
Source page at Local Govt. v. FCC | 18-72689 | SCHROEDER, BYBEE, BRESS
FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr on the Some of the Impacts of Densified 4G and 5G Infrastructure,
But Only the Upsides, Not the Downsides, including Irreparable Harms from FCC 18-133

So-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs)

The way to think about so-called "small" Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) is that each one is a toxic dump that spews toxic pollution – pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation (RF-EMR) – into bedrooms at levels that are 25 million times higher than needed for five bars on a cell phone.

See this professional measurement of a sWTF in Sacramento, CA. No one would dream of installing toxic dumps throughout residential neighborhoods. That is why localities must retain their local zoning authority to restrict such heavy-polluting industrial WTF equipment only to commercial/industrial zones or to sites at least 2,500 feet from where people live, sleep and heal.

August 12, 2020 Ruling in Case No. 18-72689 City of Portland et al. v FCC

Link to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 18-72689 City of Portland et al. v FCC re: repeal of FCC Orders 18-111 and 18-133. The full video of the oral argument is featured at the top of this page.

The judges ruled:

We therefore hold that the FCC’s requirement in the Small Cell Order that aesthetic regulations be “no more burdensome” than regulations applied to other infrastructure deployment is contrary to the controlling statutory provision. See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(II).

We also hold that the FCC’s requirement that all local aesthetic regulations be “objective” is not adequately explained and is therefore arbitrary and capricious.

We therefore:

  • GRANT the petitions as to those requirements,
  • VACATE those portions of the rule and
  • REMAND them to the FCC.”

On the FCC Order’s 18-133 Proposed 60-day shotclocks, the Ninth Circuit judges wrote:

“It must be remembered that the ‘shot clock requirements create only presumptions’. As under the 2009 Order, if permit applicants seek an injunction to force a faster decision, local officials can show that additional time is necessary under the circumstances.”

FCC Order 18-133: Streamline Small Cell Deployment Order

FCC Order -18-133: (Sept 2018) Streamline Small Cell Deployment Order is only an interpretive, presumptive order; it is not a self-enforcing order. This means that it is only a statement of preferences and it cannot wipe out Ninth circuit case law.

July 23, 2020 Attorney Andrew Campanelli — City Councils’ Hands Are Not Tied
Feb 10, 2020 — FCC Attorney Scott Noveck: FCC Order 18-133 in Not a Self-Enforcing Order

Attorney Andrew Campanelli at 30:29 in this July 23, 2020 video:

"You are probably going to hear someone [on a City Council] say, ‘Oh no, we are preempted, our hands are tied.’ I hear that all the time.

There is a [September 2018] interpretive Order [FCC 18-133] . . . which I think is ineffective . . . Federal courts — for twenty years — have interpreted the language in the Telecommunications Act that says when an effective prohibition occurs. These cases have gone up to the US Courts of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and all the other Circuits.

Federal judges are bound by these [No Significant Gap in Telecommunications Coverage and Least Intrusive Means] tests. So if some [company] wants to claim,

‘you [the City] must give us an approval, even if it violates your code because saying no would be an effective prohibition’,

. . . and you [the City] says no, [the company] would have to file a law suit in Federal court and the Federal judges are bound by the Circuit Court Rulings which say an effective prohibition occurs when the company proves there is a signifcant gap and the proposed installation is the least intrusive means.

The [company] can’t meet that test in the [densified 4G/]5G rollout, so the Wireless Industry went to the FCC and got them to issue a new "interpretive" Order [FCC 18-133] and here is what the Order says . . . after 24 years, we the FCC interpret that that effective prohibition language meaning that applicants don’t have to prove that there is a significant gap in service and they don’t have to prove — contrary to 20 years of Federal Court decisions — they don’t have to prove that their installation is the least intrusive means of remdying that gap. All they have to say is ‘they need this facility at the location they want at the height they want to either improve an existing service or to add a new service.’

I don’t think that has any effect on a town’s ability because . . .

  1. The FCC can’t take away the powers preserved to towns by Congress — it wasn’t intended
  2. The FCC can’t wipe out twenty years of Federal judges’ interpretations
  3. The FCC can’t strip local governments of 20 years of local zoning regulations

The Wireless industry is going from town to town, showing this [FCC 18-133] as gospel and the closest thing I have to a decision on this, so far, is one Federal judge in New York said and I’ll quote him:

‘It is not up to the FCC to put words in the Telecommunications Act that aren’t there.’

So, that’s why I think I am right. I know local towns still have the power to control the placement of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs). To the extent an applicant says ‘You have to give [this permit] to us because of this [September 2018] interpretive Order’ — I don’t think the Order has any effect on the ability of towns to control the placement of Wireless Facilities at all."

Scott Noveck, FCC Attorney on Feb 10, 2020 → https://youtu.be/zoZHNSOibmo?t=35m05s

"The Order doesn’t purport to prevent localities from addressing reasonable aesthetic requirements. In fact we say in the small cell order that aesthetic requirements are permitted . . . a locality could say if a 50-foot pole would be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood, you can’t put up a 50 foot pole."

Scott Noveck, FCC Attorney on Feb 10, 2020 → https://youtu.be/zoZHNSOibmo?t=37m47s

"Localities are still free to craft their own substantive aesthetic requirements"

Scott Noveck, FCC Attorney on Feb 10, 2020 → https://youtu.be/zoZHNSOibmo?t=38m28s

"These Orders [FCC 18-111 and FCC 18-133] are not self-enforcing. They contemplate the need, in many circumstances, for further case-by-case adjudication and in those instances either someone would have to come back to the Commission or go into court."

Scott Noveck, FCC Attorney on Feb 10, 2020 → https://youtu.be/zoZHNSOibmo?t=40m21s

"Nothing in this order is self-enforcing."

Scott Noveck, FCC Attorney on Feb 10, 2020 → https://youtu.be/zoZHNSOibmo?t=40m52s

"Anyone of these specific factual disputes that arise, this Order is designed to provide some clarity and narrow the scope of disputes . . . when there are remaining disputes, nothing about this Order is self-enforcing."

Scott Noveck, FCC Attorney on Feb 10, 2020 → https://youtu.be/zoZHNSOibmo?t=51m44s

"These small cells, though they have much less range than macro towers, they have a fair range."

Note: Noveck’s truthful statement in front of a Panel of Federal judges from the Ninth Circuit agrees with the comments of Lee Afflerbach, RF Engineer for CTC Technology that were entered into the City of Sonoma Public record on Sept 12, 2019:

Lee Afflerbach at 3:10:24 in the video → https://youtu.be/HRYFXx7oNN4?t=3h10m24s

"many people are [wirelessly] streaming video and other services like that . . . each [small] cell is capable of almost putting out the same energy as one macro cell."

Lee Afflerbach at 3:13:22 in the video → https://youtu.be/HRYFXx7oNN4?t=3h13m22s

". . . my staff has probably reviewed several hundred of these small cells in the last year . . . and they are all 4G . . . The radios that they are using are the exact same radios that are up on the macro towers. It’s not a different technology . . . the same boxes as on macro towers. I see them all the time."

Joseph Van Eaton, BBK Attorney for City of Portland et al. on Feb 10, 2020 → https://youtu.be/t_IMrAqwpNk?t=1h10m52s

"What the FCC sees as a generous order, when you look at what the findings of law are, it is actually pretty harsh and the same thing is true with the reasonable aesthetics requirements . . . reasonable is defined as technically feasible . . . and we know from the intevenor’s brief that the intervnor’s view that as they get to install what the want and basically where they want subject to only such minor adjustments as they can make without preventing them from doing that which they want to do, so it doesn’t protect the city . . . ; the Wireless carriers always have the out of technical feasibility."

US Code Title 47 § 253

(a) In general — No State or local statute or regulation, or other State or local legal requirement, may prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the ability of any entity to provide any interstate or intrastate telecommunications service.

(b) State regulatory authority — Nothing in this section shall affect the ability of a State to impose, on a competitively neutral basis and consistent with section 254 of this title, requirements necessary to preserve and advance universal service, protect the public safety and welfare, ensure the continued quality of telecommunications services, and safeguard the rights of consumers.

(c) State and local government authority — Nothing in this section affects the authority of a State or local government to manage the public rights-of-way or to require fair and reasonable compensation from telecommunications providers, on a competitively neutral and nondiscriminatory basis, for use of public rights-of-way on a nondiscriminatory basis, if the compensation required is publicly disclosed by such government.

(d) Preemption — If, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, the Commission determines that a State or local government has permitted or imposed any statute, regulation, or legal requirement that violates subsection (a) or (b), the Commission shall preempt the enforcement of such statute, regulation, or legal requirement to the extent necessary to correct such violation or inconsistency.

US Federal Courts of Appeals Rulings

FCC preemption over local authority was significantly curtailed by DC Circuit Case No.18-1051. The judges accepted the arguments by Steven Wu, Deputy Solicitor General, Office of the Attorney General for New York State and agreed that the FCC had not properly sourced its authority to preempt the states over Wireless broadband service (information services). That means that the FCC now only has preemption for Wireless telecommunications service (the ability to make an outdoor phone call) and only if there is a significant gap in telecommunications coverage.

In addition, the Ninth Circuit Ruling on Case-No-18-72689 City of Portland et al. v FCC is a game-changing one with respect to local control. Both of the following orders . . .

  • FCC 18-133: Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Inv., 33 FCC Rcd. 9088 (2018) (Small Cell Order)
  • FCC 18-111: Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by Removing Barriers to Infrastructure Inv., 33 FCC Rcd. 7705, 7775–91 (2018) (Moratoria Order)

. . . were admitted by FCC attorney Scott Noveck, the one who argued the case on Feb 20, 2020 in Pasadena, CA, to be presumptive and not self-enforcing. That means that these orders are merely statements of preferences by the FCC. In addition, the the Ninth Circuit judges ruled that two important attempted restrictions of local control were deemed unlawful:

1996 Telecommunications Act Conference Report

The 1996 H. R. Conf. Report No.104-458 further states:

"It is not the intent of this provision to give preferential treatment to the personal wireless service industry in the processing of requests, or to subject their requests to any but the generally applicable time frames for zoning decision.”

“ . . . the conferees do not intend that if a State or local government grants a permit in a commercial district, it must also grant a permit for a competitor’s 50-foot tower in a residential district.”

Local communities are the best equipped to make decisions on how to integrate needed Wireline and Wireless services into their unique geographies and economies. Local City Council/Trustee Board Members have taken oath sto provide public safety to its residents. Full stop. This means they must have the authority to regulate the maximum Effective Radiated power emitting from WTFs to cap it at levels that provide sufficient telecommunications services AND that do not ruin the quiet enjoyment of streets. That must be a local decision that can be enforced with local police powers.

So-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) have already caused significant public safety, privacy and property value harms. We have to allow cities to better regulate Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) so these harms do not occur.

Support WE-WANT-IT and VHP Amendments/Bills

Let’s pass bills that place objective data about up-to-date Wireless Carrier-specific signal strength data (in dBm values) in the public record every six months — at no cost to the states or the localities. Every locality should have current, reliable, objective data provided by neutral RF Engineers in order to make the best decisions for regulating the placement, construction, and operations of WTFs within their jurisdictions.

In short, we need to allow localities to regulate the maximum effective radiated power from WTFs so the localities can fulfill their obligations to provide public safety to its residents and protect the quiet enjoyment of streets.

Links to Additional Resources

  • Link to slides of our presentation to you
  • Link to video on the home page of Our Town, Our Choice re: Ionizing radiation vs. Non-ionizing radiation
  • Link to video of top Telecom attorney Andrew Campanelli
  • Link to video of Insurance expert attorney Mark Pollock
  • Link to three legs of the stool that establishes local control over the operations of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs);
  • Link to a 2020 Identification of a 3G/4G/5G National Security threat, proving that Big Wireless has been and continues to sell a defective product/service
  • Link to 2019 DC Circuit Case No. 18-1051: Mozilla et al. v FCC about preemption of local authority
  • Tenth Circuit Case 18-9568 . . . was moved to the Ninth Circuit.
  • Ninth Circuit Case 19-70144 (case opened on Jan 15, 2019; a consolidation of nine separate cases) — including Repeal of FCC 18-111 and FCC-18-133

Some Relevant Documents of the Case(s)

2019-0307-Joint-Opposition-to-FCC-Motion-to-Hold-in-Abeyance:

“There is no evidence suggesting the September Order is anything other than the final result of its decision-making process. The FCC continues to publicly stand by the September Order as adopted. Commissioner Brendan Carr, who has been leading the FCC’s infrastructure efforts, recently highlighted the September Order in a February 5, 2019 speech, asserting that the agency was “not going to slow down” in its infrastructure efforts, and that the September Order (which had at the time been effective for only 22 days, and then only in part) was already impacting local government practices and wireless deployment. There is no reason, therefore, to suppose that further delay will somehow actually resolve the issues raised in these appeals, or that the September Order on appeal here is anything other than the final administrative work.”

Tenth Circuit Motions for Stay of FCC 18-133, the Wireless and Wireline Infrastructure Order

Updated on Jan 9, 2018 @ 1:40 pm ET

January 10, 2019: Appellate Case: 18-9568

Before McHUGH and MORITZ , Circuit Judges.

Petitioners are local governments and other entities with similar interests who seek a stay of an FCC order that is scheduled to take effect in part on Monday, January 14, 2019. The Supreme Court has explained that

“[a] stay is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury might otherwise result. It is instead an exercise of judicial discretion, and [t]he propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circumstances of the particular case.”Nken v. Holder , 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

“The party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Id . at 433-34.

When deciding whether to exercise our discretion to grant a stay, we consider the following four traditional stay factors:

  1. Whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that [it] is likely to succeed on the merits;

  2. Whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay;

  3. Whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and

  4. Where the public interest lies.

Id . at 434 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Supreme Court has indicated that “[t]he first two factors of the traditional standard are the most critical.” Id.

After reviewing all of the parties’ submissions, we conclude petitioners have failed to meet their burden of showing irreparable harm if a stay is not granted. Accordingly, in the exercise of our discretion, we deny petitioners’ motion for stay.

January 10, 2019: Appellate Case: 18-9563

Before BRISCOE, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges

On September 27, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission issued an order entitled Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (the “September Order”). FCC 18-133, 83 Fed. Reg. 51,867 (Oct. 15, 2018). The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation designated this circuit as the court in which to consolidate the various petitions for review of the September Order.

These matters are before us on a Motion to Transfer, filed by the petitioners in City of San Jose, et al. v. F.C.C., et al. , No. 18-9568. The San Jose Petitioners seek to transfer these matters, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(5), to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit where a first-in -time petition for review of an order issued by the FCC on August 3, 2018 is pending. Third Report and Order and Declaratory Ruling, FCC 18-111, 83 Fed. Reg. 46,812 (Sep. 14, 2018) (the “August Order”). The FCC and the United States filed a response opposing transfer and supplemental authority. Sprint Corporation, Verizon Communications, Inc., Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc., CTIA – The Wireless Association®, the Wireless Infrastructure Association, and the Competitive Carriers Association also filed a response opposing transfer. Finally, the San Jose Petitioners filed a reply in support of their motion.

After careful consideration, we conclude that the FCC’s August Order and its September Order are the “same order” for purposes of § 2112(a). Accordingly, the motion to transfer is granted and these matters are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.1

  1. Four petitions for review of the September Order are presently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. See AT&T Services, Inc., v. FCC , No. 18-1294 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 25, 2018); American Public Power Ass’n v. FCC , No. 18-1305 (D.C. Cir. filed Nov. 15, 2018); City of Austin v. FCC , No. 18-1326 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 11, 2018); City of Eugene v. FCC , No. 18-1330 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 12, 2018). As these petitions are not before us, this order does not address them. ↩

The Current Case Numbers and Line Up

A. The Following Parties Are Represented by Best Best & Krieger LLP

  1. City of San Jose, California
  2. City of Arcadia, California
  3. City of Bellevue, Washington
  4. City of Burien, Washington
  5. City of Burlingame, California
  6. Culver City, California
  7. Town of Fairfax, California
  8. City of Gig Harbor, Washington
  9. City of Issaquah, Washington
  10. City of Kirkland, Washington
  11. City of Las Vegas, Nevada
  12. City of Los Angeles, California
  13. County of Los Angeles, California
  14. City of Monterey, California
  15. City of Ontario, California
  16. City of Piedmont, California
  17. City of Portland, Oregon
  18. City of San Jacinto, California
  19. City of Shafter, California
  20. City of Yuma, Arizona
  21. City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
  22. National League of Cities
  23. City of Brookhaven, Georgia
  24. City of Baltimore, Maryland
  25. City of Dubuque, Iowa
  26. Town of Ocean City, Maryland
  27. City of Emeryville, California
  28. Michigan Municipal League
  29. Town of Hillsborough, California
  30. City of La Vista, Nebraska
  31. City of Medina, Washington
  32. City of Papillion, Nebraska, City of Plano, Texas
  33. City of Rockville, Maryland
  34. City of San Bruno, California
  35. City of Santa Monica, California
  36. City of Sugarland, Texas
  37. League of Nebraska Municipalities
  38. City of Austin, Texas
  39. City of Ann Arbor, Michigan
  40. County of Anne Arundel, Maryland
  41. City of Atlanta, Georgia
  42. City of Boston, Massachusetts
  43. City of Chicago Illinois
  44. Clark County, Nevada
  45. City of College Park, Maryland
  46. City of Dallas, Texas
  47. District of Columbia
  48. City of Gaithersburg, Maryland
  49. Howard County, Maryland
  50. City of Lincoln, Nebraska
  51. Montgomery County, Maryland
  52. City of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
  53. City of Omaha, Nebraska
  54. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  55. City of Rye, New York
  56. City of Scarsdale, New York
  57. City of Seat Pleasant, Maryland
  58. City of Takoma Park, Maryland
  59. Texas Coalition of Cities for Utility Issues
  60. Meridian Township, Michigan
  61. Bloomfield Township, Michigan
  62. Michigan Townships Association
  63. Michigan Coalition to Protect Public Rights-Of-Way

B. National Association of Telecommunication Officers is represented by separate counsel

C. Advisors and City of New York is represented by separate counsel

Case No. 19-70123

Case No. 19-70123 Petitioner

  • Sprint Corporation

Case No. 19-70123 Intervenors

  1. City of Bowie, Maryland
  2. City of Eugene, Oregon
  3. City of Huntsville, Alabama
  4. City of Westminster, Maryland
  5. County of Marin, California
  6. City of Arcadia, California
  7. Culver City, California
  8. City of Bellevue, California
  9. City of Burien, Washington
  10. City of Burlingame, Washington
  11. City of Gig Harbor, Washington
  12. City of Issaquah, Washington
  13. City of Kirkland, Washington
  14. City of Las Vegas, Nevada
  15. City of Los Angeles, California
  16. City of Monterey, California
  17. City of Ontario, California
  18. City of Piedmont, California
  19. City of Portland, Oregon
  20. City of San Jacinto, California
  21. City of San Jose, California
  22. City of Shafter, California
  23. City of Yuma, Arizona
  24. County of Los Angeles, California
  25. Town of Fairfax, California
  26. City of New York

Case No. 19-70124

No. 19-70124 Petitioner

  • Verizon Communications, Inc.,

No. 19-70124 Intervenors

  1. City of Arcadia, California
  2. City of Bellevue, California
  3. City of Burien, Washington
  4. City of Burlingame, Washington_xxx
  5. City of Gig Harbor, Washington
  6. City of Issaquah, Washington
  7. City of Kirkland, Washington
  8. City of Las Vegas, Nevada
  9. City of Los Angeles, California
  10. City of Monterey, California
  11. City of Ontario, California
  12. City of Piedmont, California
  13. City of Portland, Oregon
  14. City of San Jacinto, California
  15. City of San Jose, California
  16. City of Shafter, California
  17. City of Yuma, Arizona
  18. County of Los Angeles, California
  19. Culver City, California
  20. City of New York
  21. Town of Fairfax, California

Case No. 19-70125

No. 19-70125 Petitioner

  • Puerto Rico Telephone Company, Inc.,

No. 19-70125 Intervenors

  1. City of Arcadia, California
  2. City of Bellevue, California
  3. City of Burien, Washington
  4. City of Burlingame, Washington
  5. City of Gig Harbor, Washington
  6. City of Issaquah, Washington
  7. City of Kirkland, Washington
  8. City of Las Vegas, Nevada
  9. City of Los Angeles, California
  10. City of Monterey, California
  11. City of Ontario, California
  12. City of Piedmont, California
  13. City of Portland, Oregon
  14. City of San Jacinto, California
  15. City of San Jose, California
  16. City of Shafter, California
  17. City of Yuma, Arizona
  18. County of Los Angeles, California
  19. Culver City, California
  20. Town of Fairfax, California
  21. City of New York

Case No. 19-70136

No. 19-70136 Petitioners

  1. City of Seattle, Washington
  2. City of Tacoma, Washington
  3. King County, Washington
  4. League of Oregon Cities
  5. League of California Cities
  6. League of Arizona Cities And Towns

No. 19-70136 Intervenors

  1. City of Bakersfield, California
  2. City of Coconut Creek, Florida
  3. City of Lacey, Washington
  4. City of Olympia, Washington
  5. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
  6. City of Tumwater, Washington
  7. Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
  8. Rainier Communications Commission
  9. County of Thurston, Washington
  10. City of Arcadia, California
  11. City of Bellevue, Washington
  12. City of Burien, Washington
  13. City of Burlingame, California
  14. City of Gig Harbor, Washington
  15. City of Issaquah, Washington
  16. City of Kirkland, Washington
  17. City of Las Vegas, Nevada
  18. City of Los Angeles, California
  19. City of Monterey, California
  20. City of Ontario, California
  21. City of Piedmont, California
  22. City of Portland, Oregon
  23. City of San Jacinto, California
  24. City of San Jose, California
  25. City of Shafter, California
  26. City of Yuma, Arizona
  27. County of Los Angeles, California
  28. Culver City, California
  29. Town of Fairfax, California
  30. City of New York

Case No. 19-70144

Case No. 19-70144 Petitioners

  1. City of San Jose, California
  2. City of Arcadia, California
  3. City of Bellevue, Washington
  4. City of Burien, Washington
  5. City of Burlingame, California
  6. Culver City, California
  7. Town of Fairfax, California
  8. City of Gig Harbor, Washington
  9. City of Issaquah, Washington
  10. City of Kirkland, Washington
  11. City of Las Vegas, Nevada
  12. City of Los Angeles, California
  13. County of Los Angeles, California
  14. City of Monterey, California
  15. City of Ontario, California
  16. City of Piedmont, California
  17. City of Portland, Oregon
  18. City of San Jacinto, California
  19. City of Shafter, California
  20. City of Yuma, Arizona

Case No. 19-70144 Intervenors

  1. CTIA—The Wireless Association
  2. Competitive Carriers Association
  3. Sprint Corporation
  4. Verizon Communications, Inc.
  5. City of New York
  6. Wireless Infrastructure Association

Case No. 19-70145

Case No. 19-70145 Petitioner

  • City And County of San Francisco,

Case No. 19-70146

Case No. 19-70146 Petitioner

  • City of Huntington Beach

Case No. 19-70146 Intervenors

  1. City of Arcadia, California
  2. City of Bellevue, Washington
  3. City of Burien, Washington
  4. City of Burlingame, California
  5. City of Gig Harbor, Washington
  6. City of Issaquah, Washington
  7. City of Kirkland, Washington
  8. City of Las Vegas, Nevada
  9. City of Los Angeles, California
  10. City of Monterey, California
  11. City of Ontario, California
  12. City of Piedmont, California
  13. City of Portland, Oregon
  14. City of San Jacinto, California
  15. City of San Jose, California
  16. City of Shafter, California
  17. City of Yuma, Arizona
  18. County of Los Angeles, California
  19. Culver City, California
  20. Town of Fairfax, California
  21. City of New York

Case No. 19-70147

Case No. 19-70147 Petitioner

  • Montgomery County, Maryland

Case No. 19-70326

Case No. 19-70326 Petitioner

  • AT&T Services, Inc.

Case No. 19-70326 Intervenors

  1. City of Baltimore, Maryland
  2. City And County of San Francisco, California
  3. Michigan Municipal League
  4. City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
  5. National League of Cities
  6. City of Bakersfield, California
  7. Town of Ocean City, Maryland
  8. City of Brookhaven, Georgia
  9. City of Coconut Creek, Florida
  10. City of Dubuque, Iowa
  11. City of Emeryville, California
  12. City of Fresno, California
  13. City of La Vista, Nebraska
  14. City of Lacey, Washington
  15. City of Medina, Washington
  16. City of Olympia, Washington
  17. City of Papillion, Nebraska
  18. City of Plano, Texas
  19. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
  20. City of Rockville, Maryland
  21. City of San Bruno, California
  22. City of Santa Monica, California
  23. City of Sugarland, Texas
  24. City of Tumwater, Washington
  25. City of Westminster, Maryland
  26. Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
  27. Contra Costa County, California
  28. County of Marin, California
  29. International City/County Management Association
  30. International Municipal Lawyers Association
  31. League of Nebraska Municipalities
  32. National Association of Telecommunications officers And Advisors
  33. Rainier Communications Commission
  34. Thurston County, Washington
  35. Town of Corte Madera, California
  36. Town of Hillsborough, California
  37. Town of Yarrow Point, Washington
  38. City of Arcadia, California
  39. City of Bellevue, Washington
  40. City of Burien, Washington
  41. City of Burlingame, California
  42. City of Culver City, California
  43. City of Gig Harbor, Washington
  44. City of Issaquah, Washington
  45. City of Kirkland, Washington
  46. City of Las Vegas, Nevada
  47. City of Los Angeles, California
  48. City of Monterey, California
  49. City of Ontario, California
  50. City of Piedmont, California
  51. City of Portland, Oregon
  52. City of San Jacinto, California
  53. City of San Jose, California
  54. City of Shafter, California
  55. City of Yuma, Arizona
  56. County of Los Angeles, California
  57. Town of Fairfax, California

Case No. 19-70339

Case No. 19-70339 Petitioner

  • American Public Power Association

Case No. 19-70339 Intervenors

  1. City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
  2. National League of Cities
  3. City of Brookhaven, Georgia
  4. City of Baltimore, Maryland
  5. City of Dubuque, Iowa
  6. Town of Ocean City, Maryland
  7. City of Emeryville, California
  8. Michigan Municipal League
  9. Town of Hillsborough, California
  10. City of La Vista, Nebraska
  11. City of Medina, Washington
  12. City of Papillion, Nebraska
  13. City of Plano, Texas
  14. City of Rockville, Maryland
  15. City of San Bruno, California
  16. City of Santa Monica, California
  17. City of Sugarland, Texas
  18. League of Nebraska Municipalities
  19. National Association of Telecommunications officers And Advisors
  20. City of Bakersfield, California
  21. City of Fresno, California
  22. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
  23. City of Coconut Creek, Florida
  24. City of Lacey, Washington
  25. City of Olympia, Washington
  26. City of Tumwater, Washington
  27. Town of Yarrow Point, Washington
  28. Thurston County, Washington
  29. Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
  30. Rainier Communications Commission
  31. City And County of San Francisco, California
  32. County of Marin, California
  33. Contra Costa County, California
  34. Town of Corte Madera, California
  35. City of Westminster, Maryland

Case No. 19-70341

Case No. 19-70341 Petitioners

  1. City of Austin, Texas
  2. City of Ann Arbor, Michigan
  3. County of Anne Arundel, Maryland
  4. City of Atlanta, Georgia
  5. City of Boston, Massachusetts
  6. City of Chicago, Illinois
  7. Clark County, Nevada
  8. City of College Park, Maryland
  9. City of Dallas, Texas
  10. District of Columbia
  11. City of Gaithersburg, Maryland
  12. Howard County, Maryland
  13. City of Lincoln, Nebraska
  14. Montgomery County, Maryland
  15. City of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
  16. City of Omaha, Nebraska
  17. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
  18. City of Rye, New York
  19. City of Scarsdale, New York
  20. City of Seat Pleasant, Maryland
  21. City of Takoma Park, Maryland
  22. Texas Coalition of Cities For Utility Issues
  23. Meridian Township, Michigan
  24. Bloomfield Township, Michigan
  25. Michigan Townships Association
  26. Michigan Coalition To Protect Public Rights-of-way

Case No. 19-70341 Intervenors

  1. City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
  2. National League of Cities
  3. City of Brookhaven, Georgia
  4. City of Baltimore, Maryland
  5. City of Dubuque, Iowa
  6. Town of Ocean City, Maryland
  7. City of Emeryville, California
  8. Michigan Municipal League
  9. Town of Hillsborough, California
  10. City of La Vista, Nebraska
  11. City of Medina, Washington
  12. City of Papillion, Nebraska
  13. City of Plano, Texas
  14. City of Rockville, Maryland
  15. City of San Bruno, California
  16. City of Santa Monica, California
  17. City of Sugarland, Texas
  18. League of Nebraska Municipalities
  19. National Association of Telecommunications officers And Advisors
  20. City of Bakersfield, California
  21. City of Fresno, California
  22. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
  23. City of Coconut Creek, Florida
  24. City of Lacey, Washington
  25. City of Olympia, Washington
  26. City of Tumwater, Washington
  27. Town of Yarrow Point, Washington
  28. Thurston County, Washington
  29. Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
  30. Rainier Communications Commission
  31. City And County of San Francisco, California
  32. County of Marin, California
  33. Contra Costa County, California
  34. Town of Corte Madera, California
  35. City of Westminster, Maryland

Case No. 19-70344

Case No. 19-70344 Petitioners

  1. City of Eugene, Oregon
  2. City of Huntsville, Alabama
  3. City of Bowie, Maryland

Case No. 19-70344 Intervenors

  1. City of Albuquerque, New Mexico
  2. National League of Cities
  3. City of Brookhaven, Georgia
  4. City of Baltimore, Maryland
  5. City of Dubuque, Iowa
  6. Town of Ocean City, Maryland
  7. City of Emeryville, California
  8. Michigan Municipal League
  9. Town of Hillsborough, California
  10. City of La Vista, Nebraska
  11. City of Medina, Washington
  12. City of Papillion, Nebraska
  13. City of Plano, Texas
  14. City of Rockville, Maryland
  15. City of San Bruno, California
  16. City of Santa Monica, California
  17. City of Sugarland, Texas
  18. League of Nebraska Municipalities
  19. National Association of Telecommunications officers And Advisors
  20. City of Bakersfield, California
  21. City of Fresno, California
  22. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California
  23. City of Coconut Creek, Florida
  24. City of Lacey, Washington
  25. City of Olympia, Washington
  26. City Otumwater, Washington
  27. Town of Yarrow Point, Washington
  28. Thurston County, Washington
  29. Colorado Communications And Utility Alliance
  30. Rainier Communications Commission
  31. City And County of San Francisco, California
  32. County of Marin, California
  33. Contra Costa County, California
  34. Town of Corte Madera, California
  35. City of Westminster, Maryland