Numerous Organizations and Local Governments Oppose the FCC Cell Tower Fast-Track Rules
In formal filings submitted to the FCC in Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments (WT Docket No. 25-276), a broad coalition of scientific, public health, environmental, consumer, and local government organizations warns that fast-tracking cell towers and wireless infrastructure will increase cell tower health risks, undermine cell tower safety, and strip communities of essential local protections.
Large associations representing cities and counties—including the National League of Cities (NLC), National Association of Counties (NACo), U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM), National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors (NATOA), California State Association of Counties (CSAC), League of California Cities (Cal Cities), and the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)—have formally urged the FCC to withdraw or revise the proposal, warning that accelerated timelines, federal preemption, and “deemed granted” approvals would erode local control, public safety oversight, and democratic accountability while shifting liability and risk onto communities.
Many submissions also document that cell towers bring numerous health and safety risks and U.S. RF radiation exposure limits, unchanged since 1996, are outdated, not science-based, and fail to adequately protect public health, children, or the environment.
Here is a sampling of organization and government submissions you can share with your local government officials. EHS regularly visits the FCC 25-276 docket to see what has been submitted.
As of December 20 2025, over 2,100 comments had been filed, with thousands by members of the public. This page only links to a selection of the comments.
Scientific, Public Health, and Environmental Organizations
International Commission on the Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields
“Cell towers, 5G and wireless infrastructure should not be fast-tracked as this will increase public exposure to RF radiation, an environmental exposure that decades of scientific research has associated with numerous health and environmental harms. U.S. limits on allowable exposures to RF radiation, unchanged since 1996, are not science-based and do not protect the public. Although there are clear financial benefits to wireless carriers in terms of increased profitability, we caution that the FCC’s proposed changes will come at a serious cost to public health and the environment, as well as strip state and local government authority.”
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
“The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) established human exposure limits for cell phones and cellular network RF-EMF in 1996 and they have not been updated despite the dramatic changes in wireless communications in the last 25 years. The FCC is not a health agency and does not have medical or public health experts on staff. In 2021, a federal court ruled that the FCC needed to reexamine their decision to retain the 1996 limits (No. 20-1025, 2021). To date, governmental health and environmental agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Health and Human Services and National Cancer Institutes have not reviewed the totality of the latest science on health effects of EMFs.”
Environmental Health Sciences
Comments Part 1 Environmental Health Sciences, September 18, 2025
“The record before the Commission is clear: the environmental and human health consequences of wireless infrastructure are neither speculative nor remote, but reasonably foreseeable, well documented in the scientific literature, and already observable in both human populations and ecological systems. The FCC should not act to fast track cell towers and wireless infrastructure until the wireless radio-frequency radiation guidelines properly reflect current science and today’s technology.”
December 20, 2025 the Frontiers in Public Health publication “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms” was submitted to the FCC as it details the regulatory capture, industry influence and lack of transparency at the FCC.
Consumers for Safe Cell Phones
“WIRED fiber to and throughout homes, schools and businesses is a superior method of providing faster, safer and more cyber-secure broadband. The FCC should be issuing rules that promote wired access instead of favoring the inferior and more harmful wireless access.”
We strongly urge the FCC not enact the proposed rules in Docket 25-276, misleadingly titled “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments.” This initiative is not about “building America” — it is about stripping away local rights, eliminating public participation, and giving the wireless industry near-total control over the placement of cell towers.
Large Local Governments Associations and Organizations
“Unrealistic timelines, therefore, threaten to silence the very people who must live with the consequences…If applications are rushed through or ‘“deemed granted’” without adequate review, the responsibility for any resulting harm rests not with the applicant, but with the local authority left to deal with the aftermath.”
“Critically, the state of California, through state law and a regulatory framework established by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), has developed resiliency standards such as 72-hour back-up power requirements in the highest fire risk (and, therefore, largely rural) areas of the state, as well as through other means such as network redundancy, network hardening, emergency preparedness planning with a qualified workforce, and coordination with other utilities and emergency responders. These standards exist because many high-risk areas have lived through multiple catastrophic wildfires and because wireless communications often fail at the exact moments communities need them the most.”
“Congress preserved state and local authority for a reason, and communities cannot afford policies that place haste over safety, or uniformity over local judgement. For these reasons, we urge the Commission to withdraw this NPRM”
Note: NLC, NACo, USCM and NATOA also filed Joint Comments on the FCC proceeding, Notice of Inquiry – Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireline Deployments, WC Docket No. 25-253 (which pre-empted local control related to wireline infrastructure) stating, “ As representatives of the level of government closest to the people, local leaders have worked hard to collaborate creatively with federal, state, and private sector partners to bring high-speed, affordable broadband and telecommunications services to all communities.
“The Local Government Associations strenuously object to the Commission’s depiction of local permitting as an obstacle to the provision of wireline telecommunications services. The parties suggesting this are seeking to strip local governments of their ability to responsibly manage public assets in the rights-of-way, while still expecting to have access to rights-of-way that are safe, well-planned, and conducive to technology-neutral competition.”
The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors
“The National Association of Telecommunications Officers and Advisors expressed concerns about question proposing preemption of Local Public Rights of Way (PROW) authority and shot clocks and fees caps that would severely restricting how local governments may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of communications facilities in public rights-of-way and on locally controlled property.”
“Participants shared real-world experiences from their cities, towns and counties with wireline and wireless deployment in their communities that presented public safety risks within their communities and strongly suggested that local governments would better be able to protect their streets, sidewalks, and constituents’ safety with support from the Commission and improved communications and planning from both wireless and wireline provide.”
Cities, Towns and Local Governments
“Cities invest substantial resources to adopt measurable, objective design criteria and wireless siting guidelines that reconcile coverage objectives with neighborhood form. By narrowing ‘“concealment’” to apply primarily to stealth-designed facilities and treating other visual conditions as optional, the proposal would unsettle locally adopted standards, reopen settled approvals, and erode the predictability that applicants and communities rely on.”
“As written, these amendments erode local control, undermine established planning and public investments, contradict the Commission’s own progress narrative, shift costs to local governments, and diminish environmental and community safeguards. Local design review and objective aesthetic standards are essential to maintaining community character. Congress preserved municipal authority to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless facilities so long as such regulation does not prohibit service.”
“By redefining aesthetic and concealment standards as potential barriers, the proposal disturbs that balance and moves toward federal preemption of traditional land use powers.”
“Local standards are not barriers to technology; they are safeguards that ensure new infrastructure integrates with established neighborhoods, protects public welfare, preserves property values, and maintains community character.”
Village of Schaumburg, Illinois
“Local judgment and engineering review are indispensable to safe deployment.”
“Design standards protect visual quality, infrastructure function, and neighborhood character.
The NPRM’s suggestion of applying the small-cell timelines and fee caps from the 2018 order to macro towers overlooks the substantial differences in engineering, safety, and environmental considerations between these facility types. Macro installations often require structural analysis, RF compliance review, fall-zone evaluation, FAA lighting review, and public hearings. Imposing uniform national shot clocks or “deemed granted” outcomes would be inconsistent with the level of scrutiny these facilities require.”
“Local governments have systems in place to ensure that businesses operate safely and meet public health standards, protecting residents and limiting liability since cities are often held responsible when harm occurs. These safeguards strengthen community trust and keep neighborhoods safe. Weakening local control would allow companies to prioritize cost savings over compliance, increasing the risk of property damage, injuries, and lawsuits while shifting the financial burden of negligence onto local governments and taxpayers. It would also reduce residents’ ability to raise concerns directly, ultimately driving up costs, delaying solutions, and eroding community trust and safety.”
The Surveillance Technology Oversight Project
“FCC should not preempt state and municipal AI regulations, because such regulations are critical to the safe and accountable development of AI. The FCC does not have authority under the Communications Act to preempt state and local AI regulations.
Even if the FCC had authority to preempt certain state and local AI regulations under Section 253(a) of the Communications Act, states would still be permitted to enact such regulations under the public safety and consumer protection exceptions in Section 253(b) of that same Act.“
The City of Marietta, GA and Marietta Board of Lights and Water wrote to the FCC, stating:
“…the proposals in this NPRM would eliminate virtually all meaningful local authority, forcing communities to accept unlimited installations with minimal review, inadequate cost recovery, and no ability to protect community character or public assets.
This represents a dramatic shift in the federal-state-local balance that Congress established.”
“The proposal to implement a “deemed granted” remedy for shot clock violations would eliminate due process and could compromise safety of the public.”
“These rules will allow towers to be placed literally anywhere in Encinitas, with no say from my City Council nor our residents. This is unacceptable. We desire to maintain our control over their locations, aesthetic impact, historic impact and removal when no longer in use.”
Environmental Health Sciences also submitted letters to the FCC from federal, state and local officials to ensure there were not the record
Letters from Ohio Representatives to FCC regarding their lack of response to the DC Circuit 2021 Court Order
Elected officials across Ohio—including municipal leaders, state senators, and state representatives—have repeatedly urged the Federal CCC to update its wireless radiation rules, warning that the agency’s human exposure limits “have not been updated since 1996” and may no longer protect public health or the environment. In formal letters to the FCC, Village of Greenhills Mayor David Moore and Ohio State Senators Stephen A. Huffman, Steve Wilson, Louis W. Blessing III, and Catherine D. Ingram joined Ohio State Representatives Tim Barhorst, Ron Ferguson, P. Scott Lipps, Mike Odioso, Michelle Teska, Melanie Miller, Meredith Lawson-Rowe, Kellie Deeter, Jennifer Gross, Jean Schmidt, Diane Mullins, Cindy Abrams, Cecil Thomas, and Adam Mathews in letters regarding the FCC’s failure to modernize its standards. Several lawmakers cited the 2021 U.S. Court of Appeals decision directing the FCC to address evidence related to children, long-term exposure, and environmental impacts, noting that “the FCC has not complied with the court’s order” and that “there is no federal agency tasked with ensuring the safety of cell towers, 5G/6G small cells, and related wireless infrastructure.”
Technical Comments of Sue Present
“The Commission Lacks Statutory Authority to Act as a National Zoning Regulator. The Communications Act does not authorize the Commission to dictate aesthetic standards, redefine “concealment elements,” or eliminate local discretion under the guise of preventing service prohibitions. Section 332 preserves state and local authority except in narrowly defined circumstances. It does not grant the FCC license to micromanage land use or override traditional zoning powers. The NPRM’s sweeping preemption proposals exceed the Commission’s statutory authority, violate principles of federalism, and intrude upon powers reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. Congress did not intend the FCC to function as a national zoning board, and the Commission should not attempt to assume that role now.”