Link to 6/16/23 AB-965 Senate Energy, Utilities And Communications Committee Consultant’s Analysis
Link to 5/19/23 AB-965 Assembly Floor Analysis
Link to 5/15/23 AB-965 Assembly Appropriations Committee Consultant’s Analysis
Link to 4/25/23 AB-965 Assembly Local Government Committee Consultant’s Analysis
Link to 4/17/23 AB-965 Assembly Communications And Conveyance Committee Consultant’s Analysis

Assembly Bill 965

Introduced by Assembly Member Juan Carrillo, February 14, 2023

AMENDED IN SENATE JUNE 07, 2023

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 01, 2023

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 24, 2023

AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MARCH 16, 2023

AB-965 History

Date	Action
06/20/23	From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on GOV. & F. (Ayes 17. Noes 0.) (June 20). Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.
06/07/23	From committee chair, with author’s amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on E., U. & C.
05/31/23	Referred to Senate Coms. on E., U. & C. and GOV. & F.
05/23/23	In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
05/22/23	Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 76. Noes 0.)
05/18/23	Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
05/17/23	From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (May 17).
05/02/23	Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
05/01/23	Read second time and amended.
04/27/23	From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 0.) (April 26).
04/25/23	Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
04/24/23	Read second time and amended.
04/20/23	From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (April 19).
04/17/23	(Pending re-refer to Com. on L. GOV.)
04/17/23	Assembly Rule 56 suspended.
03/20/23	Re-referred to Coms. on C. & C. and L. GOV. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.
03/20/23	Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
03/16/23	From committee chair, with author’s amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. Read second time and amended.
03/16/23	Referred to Assembly Coms. on L. GOV. and C. & C.
02/15/23	From printer. May be heard in committee March 17.
02/14/23	Read first time. To print.

AB-965 Bill Text

AB-965, as introduced on Feb 14, 2023

(about 430 words)

SECTION 1. Section 65964.5 of the Government Code is amended to read:

65964.5.

(a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) “Fiber” means fiber optic cables, and related ancillary equipment, including, but not limited to, conduit, ancillary cables, hand holes, vaults, and terminals.
(2) “Local agency” means a city, county, city and county, charter city, special district, or publicly owned utility.
(3) “Microtrench” means a narrow open excavation trench that is less than or equal to 4 inches in width and not less than 12 inches in depth and not more than 26 inches in depth and that is created for the purpose of installing a subsurface pipe or conduit.
(4) “Microtrenching” means excavation of a microtrench.

(b)

(1) The local agency with jurisdiction to approve excavations shall allow microtrenching for the installation of underground fiber if the installation in the microtrench is limited to fiber, unless the local agency makes a written finding that allowing microtrenching for a fiber installation would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety.
(2) Upon mutual agreement, a microtrench may be placed shallower than 12 inches in depth.
(3) To the extent necessary, a local agency with jurisdiction to approve excavations shall adopt or amend existing policies, ordinances, codes, or construction rules to allow for microtrenching pursuant to this subdivision.
(4) Nothing in this section shall supersede, nullify, or otherwise alter the requirements to comply with safety standards, including, but not limited to, the following:
- (A) Article 2 (commencing with Section 4216) of Chapter 3.1 of Division 5 of Title 1.
- (B) Public Utilities Commission General Order No. 128, or a successor standard.

(c) A local agency may impose a fee on an application for a permit to install fiber consistent with Section 50030. The reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged, as that phrase is used in Section 50030, shall be limited to the reasonable costs of the local agency to process and issue the permit and inspect the installation that is the subject of the permit, including any costs incurred if the applicant elects to expedite processing and review.

(d) The Legislature finds and declares that installation of fiber is critical to the deployment of broadband services and other utility services, is a matter of statewide concern, and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this section applies to all cities, including charter cities.

AB-965 was gutted & replaced on Mar 16, 2023

(about 1120 words)

SECTION 1. This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Broadband Permit Efficiency and Local Government Staff Solution Best Practices Act of 2023.

SEC. 2. The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following:

(a) Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order N-73-20 stated that “the COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the extent to which broadband is essential for public safety, public health, and economic resilience.”

(b) The public’s increased reliance on high-speed internet access for remote work, telehealth, emergency response, education, and commerce demonstrates the need for legislation to accelerate the deployment of broadband infrastructure.

(c) The length of time it takes for a local jurisdiction to process permits for broadband projects is among the many factors that can directly impact the length of time it takes before a project can provide high-speed internet service to a local community and get people connected.

(d) Some local jurisdictions approve permits for broadband projects within the federally mandated 60-day timeline. Other jurisdictions take months or years to approve the same type of project, preventing local residents from accessing high-speed internet.

(e) Each local jurisdiction in California has its own permitting process and timeline for broadband projects. Some utilize the industry best practice of permit batching, master permit, programmatic permits, or term permits, which allows large volumes of substantially similar broadband permits to be processed and approved within an expedited timeframe.

(f) California’s Middle-Mile Broadband Initiative is also utilizing this approach. The Department of Technology’s Deputy Director of Broadband stated at the January 20, 2023, Middle-Mile Advisory Committee meeting, “Part of the work of this effort has been to streamline the permitting processes and the Department of Technology, Caltrans, and the state resource agencies have gone to considerable lengths to shorten that timeline.”

(g) The Department of Transportation’s Assistant Deputy Director for the Middle-Mile Broadband Initiative stated at the January 20, 2023, Middle-Mile Advisory Committee meeting, “With this effort, the programmatic permits will cover regional and statewide activities. The outcome and benefits of these programmatic efforts are reduced timelines.”

(h) On January 11, 2023, the Department of Technology’s Deputy Director for the Broadband Middle-Mile Initiative stated, “We’ve also been working with Caltrans to find ways to expedite its State and Federal permitting efforts to again help this project move quickly within those Federal timeframes.”

(i) Both public and private broadband projects are trying to be built as fast as possible since unobligated federal American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-2) funds expire on December 31, 2024.

(j) There are currently over 1,000 broadband permits pending with local jurisdictions in California that would improve internet connectivity for millions of residents.

(k) Requiring that local jurisdictions process groups of substantially similar broadband permits at the same time will be more efficient on the workload of local government staff. Permit fees will still be received by local governments, but staff can more easily process routine, high-volume broadband permits as a group instead of individually to help bridge the digital divide.

(l) A local government in southern California recently consolidated 100 substantially similar broadband permits into one master-permit saving time and allowing the jurisdiction to receive all permit-fees upfront, resulting in 16 miles of fiber being deployed in six weeks, which improved internet connectivity for thousands of Californians.

(m) Given the importance of broadband for public safety, public health, economic growth, education, and job creation, it is in California’s best interest for public and private broadband project permits to be processed as quickly and efficiently as possible.

SEC. 3. Section 65964.3 is added to the Government Code, to read:

§ 65964.3.

(a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) “Batch broadband permit processing” means the simultaneous processing of more than one substantially similar broadband permit application.
(2) “Broadband permit application” means an application or other documents submitted for review by a local agency to permit the construction of broadband infrastructure of any type. Broadband infrastructure includes, but is not limited, to any of the following:
- (A) Fiber.
- (B) Wired or wireless facilities.
- (C) Any other facility used to transport data, video, or voice services by wire or radio.
(3) “Local agency” has the same meaning as the term is defined in Section 65964.5.
(4) “Presumptively reasonable time” means no more than 60 days following submission of a complete broadband permit application, except as modified by a mutual, written agreement between the local agency and the applicant.
(5) “Substantially similar broadband permit applications” means broadband permit applications that are nearly identical in terms of equipment and general design, but not location.

(b) Subject to subdivision (e), a local agency shall undertake batch broadband permit processing upon receiving two or more substantially similar broadband permit applications project sites submitted at the same time. Batch broadband permit processing shall be completed within a presumptively reasonable time.

(c) If a local agency does not approve substantially similar broadband permit applications submitted for batch broadband permit processing pursuant to this section and issue permits, or reject the applications and notify the applicants, within the presumptively reasonable time, all of the permits shall be deemed approved.

(d) The Legislature finds and declares that processing several substantially similar broadband permit applications at the same time processing will allow local governments to still receive permit fees, but staff can more easily process routine, high-volume broadband permits as a group instead of individually to help bridge the digital divide and more quickly connect communities to high-speed internet. This will allow the state to meet the federal broadband funding deadline of December 31, 2024, while creating greater broadband equity amongst communities so more individuals can have access to high-speed internet access for emergency response, remote work, telehealth, education, and commerce.

(e) The requirements of this section shall not apply to eligible facility requests, as defined and governed by Section 1455 of Title 47 of the United States Code.

SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that the efficient approval of broadband permit applications is critical to the deployment of broadband services, is a matter of statewide concern, and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 3 of this act adding Section 65964.3 to the Government Code applies to all cities, including charter cities.

SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.

AB-965 was last amended on June 7, 2023

(About 1,500 words; the highlighted text changes, below, are the most recent additions; the deletions are crossed out ~~in red~~. These changes convinced the California League of Cities, the California State Association of Counties, the Rural County Representatives of California and the Urban Counties of California to change their position on AB-956 from OPPOSE to NEUTRAL.)

SECTION 1.

This act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Broadband Permit Efficiency and Local Government Staff Solution Best Practices Act of 2023.

SEC. 2.

The Legislature hereby finds and declares all of the following:

(c) The length of time it takes for a local jurisdiction to process permits for broadband projects is among the many factors that can directly impact ~~impacts~~ the length of time it takes before a project can provide high-speed internet service to a local community and get people connected.

(d) Each local jurisdiction in California has its own permitting process and timeline for broadband projects. Some utilize the industry best practice of permit batching, master permit, programmatic permits, or term permits, which allows large volumes of substantially similar broadband permits to be processed and approved within an expedited timeframe.

(e) Both public and private broadband projects are trying to be built as fast as possible since unobligated federal American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-2) funds expire on December 31, 2024.

(f) ~~There are currently over 1,000 broadband permits pending with local jurisdictions in~~ Each year, thousands of broadband permit applications are submitted to local jurisdictions throughout California that would improve internet connectivity for ~~millions of residents.~~ residents and businesses.

(g) ~~Requiring that local jurisdictions process~~ Processing groups of substantially similar broadband permits at the same time will be more efficient on the workload of local government staff. Permit fees will still be received by local governments, but staff can more easily process routine, high-volume broadband permits as a group instead of individually to help bridge the digital divide.

(h) Batch broadband permitting processing will allow local governments to more easily process routine, high-volume broadband permits as a group instead of individually to help more quickly connect communities to high-speed internet.

~~(h)~~ (i) Given the importance of broadband for public safety, public health, economic growth, education, and job creation, it is in California’s best interest for public and private broadband project permits to be processed as quickly and efficiently as possible.

SEC. 3. Section 65964.3 is added to the Government Code, to read:

Section 65964.3.

(a) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) “Batch broadband permit processing” means the simultaneous processing of multiple broadband permit applications for substantially similar broadband project sites under a single permit.
(2) “Broadband permit application” means an application or other documents submitted for review by a local agency to permit the construction of a broadband project. ~~A broadband permit application may fall into four subtypes:~~
- ~~(A) Aerial construction.~~
- ~~(B) Trenched construction.~~
- ~~(C) Wireless construction.~~
- ~~(D) Other.~~
(3) “Broadband project” means the proposed facility, including the support structure and any supporting equipment necessary for operation of the proposed facility. A broadband project may be comprised of one or more components, including, but not limited to, a wireless facility, a fiber optic connection, and other supporting equipment, each of which may require separate permits or authorizations by a local agency.
(4) “Local Agency” has the same meaning as the term is defined in Section 65964.5, except that it does not include a publicly owned electric utility that is subject to Part 2 (commencing with Section 9510) of Division 4.8 of the Public Utilities Code, provided that the publicly owned electric utility processes broadband applications, including applications associated with power, consistent with the process established in Section 9511 of the Public Utilities Code.
(5) “Presumptively reasonable time” means the ~~timeframe that~~ timeframe, if any, specified in applicable law within which a local agency must review and resolve an application ~~pursuant to applicable law~~ following submission of a complete broadband permit application. The presumptively reasonable time period may be modified by mutual, written agreement between the local agency and the applicant.
(6) “Substantially similar broadband project sites” means broadband project sites that are nearly identical in terms of equipment and general design, but not location.

(b) Subject to subdivision (e), a local agency shall undertake batch broadband permit processing upon receiving two or more broadband permit applications for substantially similar broadband project sites submitted at the same time by the same applicant. Batch broadband permit processing for wireless broadband projects shall be completed within a presumptively reasonable time ~~for wireless broadband projects subject~~ pursuant to applicable law unless a longer period of time is permitted under the circumstances pursuant to applicable law, including Section 1.6003 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations.

(c) If a local agency does not approve broadband permit applications for substantially similar wireless broadband project sites submitted for batch broadband permit processing pursuant to this section and issue permits, or reject the applications and notify the applicants, within the presumptively reasonable ~~time,~~ time or a longer period permitted under applicable law, all of the permits shall be deemed ~~approved.~~ approved pursuant to Section 65964.1.

(d) The Legislature finds and declares that batch broadband permitting processing will allow local governments to still receive permit fees, but staff can more easily process routine, high-volume broadband permits as a group instead of individually to help bridge the digital divide and more quickly connect communities to high-speed internet. This will allow the state to meet the federal broadband funding deadline of December 31, 2024, while creating greater broadband equity amongst communities so more individuals can have access to high-speed internet access for emergency response, remote work, telehealth, education, and commerce.

(e) The requirements of this section shall not apply to eligible facility requests, as defined and governed by Section 1455 of Title 47 of the United States Code.

(f)

(1) This section does not preclude a local agency from requiring compliance with generally applicable health and safety requirements. Enforcement of applicable health and safety requirements by a local agency shall be initiated by issuance of a written finding that the facility proposed in a broadband permit application would have a specific, adverse impact on the public health or safety. any requirements relating to the design, construction, or location of broadband projects that the local agency is otherwise authorized to impose or enforce under applicable law, including, without limitation, any generally applicable health and safety requirements.
(2) If a broadband permit application is denied, the local agency shall notify the applicant in writing of the reasons for the denial.

(g) Nothing in this section shall supersede, nullify, or otherwise alter the requirements to comply with safety standards, including, but not limited to, both of the following:

(1) Article 2 (commencing with Section 4216) of Chapter 3.1 of Division 5 of Title 1.

(2) The Public Utilities Commission’s General Order No. 128, Rules for Construction of Underground Electric Supply and Communication Systems, or successor rules adopted by the commission.

(h)

(1) A local agency may place reasonable limits on the number of broadband project sites that are grouped into a single permit while undertaking batch broadband permit processing.
(2) A reasonable limit imposed pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be no less than either of the following:
- (A) For a city with a population of fewer than 50,000 or a county with a population of fewer than 150,000, including each city within that county, 25 project sites.
- (B) For a city or county with a population greater than the applicable population described in subparagraph (A), 50 project sites.
~~(h)~~ (3) A local agency may place reasonable limits on the number of broadband project sites that are grouped into a single permit while undertaking batch broadband permit processing. A reasonable limit established pursuant to this subdivision shall be no less than 50 project sites. A local agency may only remove a broadband project site from grouping under a single permit under mutual agreement with the applicant or to expedite the approval of other substantially similar broadband project sites.

(i) A local agency may impose a fee on batch broadband permitting processing consistent with Section 50030. The reasonable costs of providing the service for which the fee is charged, as that phrase is used in Section 50030, shall be limited to the reasonable costs of the local agency to process and issue the permit and to inspect the installation that is the subject of the permit, including any costs incurred if the applicant elects to expedite processing and review. Where limited resources affect a local agency’s ability to ~~accept and review~~ process
applications for a broadband project, including batched applications, ~~the~~ a local agency shall work with the applicant in good faith to resolve ~~such~~ those resource limitations, ~~including, but~~ which may include, but is not limited to, ~~the acceptance of applicant offers to supplement such~~ provision by the applicant of supplemental resources.

SEC. 4.

The Legislature finds and declares that the efficient approval of broadband permit applications is critical to the deployment of broadband services, is a matter of statewide concern, and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Section 3 of this act adding Section 65964.3 to the Government Code applies to all cities, including charter cities.

SEC. 5.

No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code.

CA Govt. Code and Federal CFRs Cited in AB-956

CA Govt. Code §65964.1

(a) A collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility, as defined in Section 65850.6, shall be deemed approved if all of the following occur:

(1) The city or county fails to approve or disapprove the application within a reasonable period of time in accordance with the time periods and procedures established by applicable FCC decisions. The reasonable period of time may be tolled to accommodate timely requests for information required to complete the application or may be extended by mutual agreement between the applicant and the local government, consistent with applicable FCC decisions.
(2) The applicant has provided all public notices regarding the application that the applicant is required to provide under applicable laws consistent with the public notice requirements for the application.
(3)
(A)The applicant has provided notice to the city or county that the reasonable time period has lapsed and that the application is deemed approved pursuant to this section.
(B)Within 30 days of the notice provided pursuant to subparagraph (A), the city or county may seek judicial review of the operation of this section on the application.

(b) This section does not apply to eligible facilities requests.

(c) The Legislature finds and declares that a wireless telecommunications facility has a significant economic impact in California and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is a matter of statewide concern.

(d) As used in this section, the following terms have the following meanings:

(1) “Applicable FCC decisions” means In re Petition for Declaratory Ruling, 24 FCC Rcd. 13994 (2009) and In the Matter of Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd. 12865 (2014).
(2) “Eligible facilities request” has the same meaning as in Section 1455 of Title 47 of the United States Code.

(e) Except as provided in subdivision (a), nothing in this section limits or affects the authority of a city or county over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of a wireless telecommunications facility.

(f) Due to the unique duties and infrastructure requirements for the swift and effective deployment of firefighters, this section does not apply to a collocation or siting application for a wireless telecommunications facility where the project is proposed for placement on fire department facilities.

CA Govt. Code §65850.6

(a) A collocation facility shall be a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit if it satisfies the following requirements:

(1) The collocation facility is consistent with requirements for the wireless telecommunications collocation facility pursuant to subdivision (b) on which the collocation facility is proposed.

(2) The wireless telecommunications collocation facility on which the collocation facility is proposed was subject to a discretionary permit by the city or county and an environmental impact report was certified, or a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration was adopted for the wireless telecommunications collocation facility in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), the requirements of Section 21166 do not apply, and the collocation facility incorporates required mitigation measures specified in that environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration.

(b) A wireless telecommunications collocation facility, where a subsequent collocation facility is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit pursuant to subdivision (a), shall be subject to a city or county discretionary permit issued on or after January 1, 2007, and shall comply with all of the following:

(1) City or county requirements for a wireless telecommunications collocation facility that specifies types of wireless telecommunications facilities that are allowed to include a collocation facility, or types of wireless telecommunications facilities that are allowed to include certain types of collocation facilities; height, location, bulk, and size of the wireless telecommunications collocation facility; percentage of the wireless telecommunications collocation facility that may be occupied by collocation facilities; and aesthetic or design requirements for the wireless telecommunications collocation facility.
(2) City or county requirements for a proposed collocation facility, including any types of collocation facilities that may be allowed on a wireless telecommunications collocation facility; height, location, bulk, and size of allowed collocation facilities; and aesthetic or design requirements for a collocation facility.
(3) State and local requirements, including the general plan, any applicable community plan or specific plan, and zoning ordinance.
(4) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) through certification of an environmental impact report, or adoption of a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration.

(c) The city or county shall hold at least one public hearing on the discretionary permit required pursuant to subdivision (b) and notice shall be given pursuant to Section 65091, unless otherwise required by this division.

(d) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply:

(1) “Collocation facility” means the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas, and related equipment, on, or immediately adjacent to, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility.
(2) “Wireless telecommunications facility” means equipment and network components such as towers, utility poles, transmitters, base stations, and emergency power systems that are integral to providing wireless telecommunications services.
(3) “Wireless telecommunications collocation facility” means a wireless telecommunications facility that includes collocation facilities.

(e) The Legislature finds and declares that a collocation facility, as defined in this section, has a significant economic impact in California and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution, but is a matter of statewide concern.

(f) With respect to the consideration of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions, the review by the city or county shall be limited to that authorized by Section 332(c)(7) of Title 47 of the United States Code, or as that section may be hereafter amended.

Title 47 CFR §1.6003: Reasonable periods of time to act on siting applications.

(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.

(i) 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.