2520 MADISON ST DISH WIRELESS 2025-08-08

size is ordinarily excluded from the Commission's required historic preservation review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act(NHPA).5 The Commission later adopted the same definition in the 2009 Declaratory Ruling to determine whether an application will be treated as a collocation when applying Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act of 1934.6 The Commission has also applied a similar definition to determine whether a modification of an existing registered tower requires public notice for purposes of environmental review.' Under Section I.0 of the Nationwide Collocation Agreement,a"substantial increase in the size of the tower"occurs if: 1)[t]he mounting of the proposed antenna on the tower would increase the existing height of the tower by more than 10%,or by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty feet,whichever is greater,except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to avoid interference with existing antennas;or 2) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved,not to exceed four, or more than one new equipment shelter;or 3) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve adding an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower more than twenty feet, or more than the width of the tower structure at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater, except that the mounting of the proposed antenna may exceed the size limits set forth in this paragraph if necessary to shelter the antenna from inclement weather or to connect the antenna to the tower via cable;or 4) [t]he mounting of the proposed antenna would involve excavation outside the current tower site,defined as the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the tower and any access or utility easements currently related to the site. Although Congress did not adopt the Commission's terminology of"substantial increase in size"in Section 6409(a),we believe that the policy reasons for excluding from Section 6409(a)collocations that substantially change the physical dimensions of a structure are closely analogous to those that animated the Commission in the Nationwide Collocation Agreement and subsequent proceedings. In light of the Commission's prior findings,the Bureau believes it is appropriate to look to the existing definition of "substantial increase in size"to determine whether the collocation,removal,or replacement of equipment 5 See 16 U.S.C.§470f,see also 47 C.F.R.§ 1.1307(a)(4) (requiring applicants to determine whether proposed facilities may affect properties that are listed,or are eligible for listing,in the National Register of Historic Places). 6 See Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B)to Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals as Requiring a Variance,WT Docket No.08-165,Declaratory Ruling,24 FCC Rcd. 13994, 14012,para.46&n.146 (2009)(2009 Declaratory Ruling),recon.denied, 25 FCC Rcd. 11157(2010),pet.for review denied sub nom. City of Arlington, Texas v.FCC,668 F.3d 229(5`h Cir.),cert.granted, 113 S.Ct.524(2012);47 U.S.C.§332(c)(7). ' See 47 C.F.R.§ 17.4(c)(1)(B);National Environmental Policy Act Compliance for Proposed Tower Registrations, WT Docket No.08-61,Order on Remand,26 FCC Rcd. 16700, 16720-21,para.53(2011). 2 2