C.F.R. » Title 47 » CHAPTER I—FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION › SUBCHAPTER A—GENERAL › PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE › Subpart U—State and Local Government Regulation of the Placement, Construction, and Modification of Personal Wireless Service Facilities

47 C.F.R. § 1.6003

Reasonable periods of time to act on siting applications

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Timely action required. A siting authority that fails to act on a siting application on or before the shot clock date for the application, as defined in paragraph (e) of this section, is presumed not to have acted within a reasonable period of time.

(b) Shot clock period. The shot clock period for a siting application is the sum of—

(1) The number of days of the presumptively reasonable period of time for the pertinent type of application, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section; plus

(2) The number of days of the tolling period, if any, pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.

(c) Presumptively reasonable periods of time—(1) Review periods for individual applications. The following are the presumptively reasonable periods of time for action on applications seeking authorization for deployments in the categories set forth in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section:

(i) Review of an application to collocate a Small Wireless Facility using an existing structure: 60 days.

(ii) Review of an application to collocate a facility other than a Small Wireless Facility using an existing structure: 90 days.

(iii) Review of an application to deploy a Small Wireless Facility using a new structure: 90 days.

(iv) Review of an application to deploy a facility other than a Small Wireless Facility using a new structure: 150 days.

(2) Batching. (i) If a single application seeks authorization for multiple deployments, all of which fall within a category set forth in either paragraph (c)(1)(i) or (iii) of this section, then the presumptively reasonable period of time for the application as a whole is equal to that for a single deployment within that category.

(ii) If a single application seeks authorization for multiple deployments, the components of which are a mix of deployments that fall within paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section and deployments that fall within paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section, then the presumptively reasonable period of time for the application as a whole is 90 days.

(iii) Siting authorities may not refuse to accept applications under paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section.

(d) Tolling period. Unless a written agreement between the applicant and the siting authority provides otherwise, the tolling period for an application (if any) is as set forth in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section.

(1) For an initial application to deploy Small Wireless Facilities, if the siting authority notifies the applicant on or before the 10th day after submission that the application is materially incomplete, and clearly and specifically identifies the missing documents or information and the specific rule or regulation creating the obligation to submit such documents or information, the shot clock date calculation shall restart at zero on the date on which the applicant submits all the documents and information identified by the siting authority to render the application complete.

(2) For all other initial applications, the tolling period shall be the number of days from—

(i) The day after the date when the siting authority notifies the applicant in writing that the application is materially incomplete and clearly and specifically identifies the missing documents or information that the applicant must submit to render the application complete and the specific rule or regulation creating this obligation; until

(ii) The date when the applicant submits all the documents and information identified by the siting authority to render the application complete;

(iii) But only if the notice pursuant to paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section is effectuated on or before the 30th day after the date when the application was submitted; or

(3) For resubmitted applications following a notice of deficiency, the tolling period shall be the number of days from—

(i) The day after the date when the siting authority notifies the applicant in writing that the applicant's supplemental submission was not sufficient to render the application complete and clearly and specifically identifies the missing documents or information that need to be submitted based on the siting authority's original request under paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section; until

(ii) The date when the applicant submits all the documents and information identified by the siting authority to render the application complete;

(iii) But only if the notice pursuant to paragraph (d)(3)(i) of this section is effectuated on or before the 10th day after the date when the applicant makes a supplemental submission in response to the siting authority's request under paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section.

(e) Shot clock date. The shot clock date for a siting application is determined by counting forward, beginning on the day after the date when the application was submitted, by the number of calendar days of the shot clock period identified pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section and including any pre-application period asserted by the siting authority; provided, that if the date calculated in this manner is a “holiday” as defined in § 1.4(e)(1) or a legal holiday within the relevant State or local jurisdiction, the shot clock date is the next business day after such date. The term “business day” means any day as defined in § 1.4(e)(2) and any day that is not a legal holiday as defined by the State or local jurisdiction.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case: League of California Cities v. FCC, 118 F.4th 995 (9th Cir. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
League of California Cities v. FCC, 118 F.4th 995 (9th Cir. 2024). “See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003 (c)(1). Siting decisions must be “in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record,” 47 U.”
TowerNorth Dev., LLC. v. City of Geneva (N.D. Ill. 2023). · cites it 2× “¶ 106; 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003 (c)(iv).) Under that time frame, “the City was required to act on TowerNorth’s Applications .”
ExteNet Sys., Inc. v. The City of Cambridge, Massachusetts (D. Mass. 2020). · cites it 2× “The provisions outlined by 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003 (d)(1) codify the FCC’s guidance on how local authorities may toll a shot clock if an application is incomplete.”
Extenet Sys., Inc. v. The Twp. of North Bergen, New Jerseys. (D.N.J. 2022). · cites it 2× “47 C.F.R. § 1.6003 (c)(1)(i). The Parties agree that the Township’s siting authority is Peter Hammer (“Director Hammer”), the Township’s Director of Community Improvement.”
Crown Castle Fiber LLC v. Charleston, City of (D.S.C. 2020). · cites it 2× “47 C.F.R. § 1.6003 (a). The shot clock period is calculated by adding the number of days of the presumptively reasonable time period, as provided later in the regulation, and the number of days of the tolling period, if applicable.”
Crown Castle Fiber LLC v. Charleston, City of (D.S.C. 2021). · cites it 2× “47 C.F.R. § 1.6003 (a). The shot clock period is calculated by adding the number of days of the presumptively reasonable time period, as provided later in the regulation, and the number of days of the tolling period, if applicable.”
Cellco P'ship, d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. City of Elkhart Bd. of Zoning Appeals (N.D. Ind. 2026). · cites it 2× “See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003 (b), (c)(1)(iv). This too is well- trod ground—the court previously addressed similar arguments from Verizon in its order denying the company’s motion to alter or amend the prior decision.”
ColfaxNet, LLC v. City of Colfax (E.D. Cal. 2020). “6 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003 (d)(2)(iii). However, the Shot Clock 7 Ruling also states that the 150 day deadline may be extended by 8 mutual consent of the personal wireless service provider and the 9 local government.”
Extenet Sys., Inc. v. The City of East Orange, New Jersey (D.N.J. 2020). “47 C.F.R. § 1.6003 (d). Defendants still had sixteen days left under the shot clock to take action on the October applications.”
<font Color=\red\">do Not File in This case</font> Transferred to Camden - New Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-18091" (D.N.J. 2024). “47 C.F.R. § 1.6003 (b)-(c). B. This Dispute In 2016, Verizon and Belmar officials began discussing the installation of additional SWFs along the Ocean Avenue public right-of-way; according to Verizon, its cellular wireless network had exceeded capacity, leading to service…”
Cellco P'ship v. City of Elkhart Bd. of Zoning Appeals (N.D. Ind. 2025). “§ 332 (c)(7)(B)(ii), and the FCC instructs that reasonableness is presumed when the petition is acted upon within 150 days, 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003 (b), (c)(1)(iv). The TCA provides for expedited review, 47 U.”
New York Smsa Ltd. P'ship v. The Borough of Spring Lake (D.N.J. 2025). “” 47 C.F.R. § 1.6003 (b)-(c). B. The Borough’s Review Plaintiff contends that it submitted the Application to the Borough on January 26, 2024, after four years of unsuccessfully “trying to engage in substantive discussions with the Borough regarding potential solutions for…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.