UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES; No. 20-71765 LEAGUE OF OREGON CITIES; CITY OF GLENDORA, FCC No. CALIFORNIA; CITY OF RANCHO 19-250 PALOS VERDES; CITY OF TORRANCE, CALIFORNIA, OPINION Petitioners, CITY OF COCONUT CREEK, FLORIDA; CITY OF THOUSAND OAKS, CALIFORNIA; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS OFFICERS AND ADVISORS; TOWN OF BRECKENRIDGE, COLORADO,

Intervenors,

v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES V. FCC

Respondents, CTIA - THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION; THE WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION,

Intervenors.

CITY OF SEATTLE WASHINGTON; No. 20-72734 CITY OF BEAVERTON, OREGON; CITY OF CARLSBAD, California; FCC No. CITY OF CERRITOS, California; FCC-20-75 CITY OF CONCORD, California; CITY OF CORONADO, California; CITY OF ENCINITAS, California; CITY OF HERMISTON, California; CITY OF NAPA, California; CITY OF PLEASANTON, California; CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA; CITY OF SAN MARCOS, California; CITY OF SAN RAMON, California; CITY OF SANTA CRUZ, California; CITY OF SOLANA BEACH, California; CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, California; CITY OF TUMWATER, Washington; COLORADO COMMUNICATIONS AND UTILITY ALLIANCE; TOWN OF DANVILLE, California, LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES V. FCC 3

Petitioners, COUNTY OF MARIN, California; SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY, California,

Intervenors,

v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents, WIRELESS INFRASTRUCTURE ASSOCIATION; CTIA - THE WIRELESS ASSOCIATION,

Intervenors.

CITY OF BOSTON, Massachusetts; No. 20-72749 CITY OF BROOKHAVEN, Georgia; CLARK COUNTY NEVADA; CITY FCC No. OF CULVER CITY, California; CITY FCC-20-75 OF EMERYVILLE, California; CITY OF GAITHERSBURG, Maryland; CITY OF GIG HARBOR, 4 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES V. FCC

Washington; TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, California; HOWARD COUNTY, Maryland; CITY OF KIRKLAND, Washington; CITY OF LINCOLN, Nebraska; MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Maryland; CITY OF ONTARIO, California; CITY OF PIEDMONT, California; CITY OF PLANO, Texas; CITY OF PORTLAND, Oregon; CITY OF ROCKVILLE, Maryland; CITY OF LOS ANGELES, California; TEXAS COALITION OF CITIES FOR UTILITY ISSUES; TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE; MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL LEAGUE; PROTEC; U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS,

Petitioners,

v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Federal Communications Commission LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES V. FCC 5

Argued and Submitted July 11, 2023 San Francisco, California

Filed September 13, 2024

Before: Carlos T. Bea, Mark J. Bennett, and Holly A. Thomas, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam Opinion; Partial Dissent and Partial Concurrence by Judge Bennett

SUMMARY*

Federal Communications Commission

The panel granted in part and denied in part a petition for review brought by local governments and municipal organizations challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s 2020 Ruling that purports to interpret and clarify existing legislative rules (the “2014 Order”) adopted to implement section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (the “Spectrum Act”), which requires state and local governments to approve certain requests for modification of wireless communications networks that do not “substantially change” existing wireless facilities. Petitioners challenged the following provisions of the FCC’s 2020 Ruling: (1) the Shot Clock Rule, which cl