I oppose the proposals in 25-276 and urge the FCC to preserve the authority of local governments to protect the health, safety, and character of their communities.

The proposed shot clocks, automatic approvals, and “deemed granted” remedies would deny local governments and residents the time necessary to review complex cell tower applications, stripping communities of meaningful notice, safety oversight, and public participation. These measures prioritize speed over public safety and democratic process.

The FCC’s proposal exceeds its statutory authority. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 explicitly preserves local zoning authority over the placement, construction, and modification of wireless facilities (47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)). Congress deliberately rejected federal control of land-use decisions and did not authorize the FCC to override local processes through rulemaking. Federal courts have repeatedly affirmed that land-use regulation is a core function of local government. Many cities with setbacks demonstrate that local regulations do not prohibit service, but ensure responsible deployment with flexibility where needed.

Local governments are best positioned to evaluate site-specific risks because they understand local terrain, wildfire hazards, evacuation routes, environmental constraints, and historic and residential contexts. Setbacks and design standards are critical public-safety tools that reduce risks from tower collapse, fire, falling ice, and structural failure, and protect homes, schools, and environmentally sensitive areas. Weakening these safeguards exposes communities to unnecessary risk and shifts liability onto local governments and taxpayers.

The FCC also cannot lawfully preempt local RF-related protections while it remains out of compliance with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 decision in EHT et al. v. FCC. Until RF guidelines are updated, it must preserve local control and withdraw this NPRM.

Re: WT Docket No. 25-276

Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments

Preserve Local Control and Reject Federal Preemption of Community Safeguards

We urge the Federal Communications Commission to preserve state and local control over the siting, placement, construction, and modification of wireless facilities and to reject proposals that would fast-track cell towers by preempting local government authority. Congress deliberately preserved local zoning authority in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, recognizing that land-use decisions are a core function of local government and that communities—not federal agencies or private carriers—bear the real-world consequences of infrastructure siting decisions.

The FCC’s proposed strict shot clocks, automatic approvals, and “deemed granted” remedies would deny local governments and residents the time needed to properly review cell tower applications, stripping communities of meaningful notice, safety oversight, and public participation. These proposals would silence local voices, undermine due process, and force approvals regardless of site-specific risks or community impacts.

The Proposed Rules Exceed the FCC’s Statutory Authority Under the Telecommunications Act

The FCC’s proposal exceeds its statutory authority. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 explicitly preserves local governments’ zoning power over decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities. Congress did not intend to give preferential treatment to the wireless industry or to impose federal timelines that override generally applicable zoning processes

Federal courts have repeatedly reaffirmed that the FCC cannot rewrite Section 332(c)(7) through rulemaking. Courts have also recognized that land-use decisions are among the most important and direct functions of local government, affecting daily life, property values, and community character. The FCC lacks authority to convert conditional use permitting into a ministerial process, override legitimate zoning standards such as setbacks and aesthetics, or compel local governments to approve facilities regardless of fit or safety.

Cities, towns and counties across the country have demonstrated that local regulations do not prohibit service. Instead, they ensure that wireless deployments occur responsibly, with mechanisms to loosen standards when necessary to avoid an effective prohibition. The FCC’s attempt to characterize these safeguards as “barriers” is contrary to both congressional intent and settled law.

III. Fast-Tracking Cell Towers Would Devastate Communities and Undermine Public Safety

Local decision-makers are best equipped to determine where cell towers are located because they have on-the-ground knowledge of scenic views, environmental constraints, wildfire risk, evacuation routes, infrastructure capacity, and the historic significance of properties in their districts. Local zoning standards are not obstacles to technology; they are safeguards that ensure infrastructure integrates safely into existing communities.

Setbacks are critical public-safety tools. They help ensure adequate distance from homes and schools to prevent injuries or property damage in the event of structural failure, fire, collapse, falling ice, or other hazards. They also protect environmentally fragile areas and preserve neighborhood character and property values. Eliminating or weakening these protections would expose residents to unnecessary risks while shifting liability and costs onto local governments and taxpayers.

Shot Clocks and “Deemed Granted” Approvals Violate Due Process and Federalism

The FCC’s proposal to impose accelerated timelines and automatic approvals ignores the realities of local government functioning. Many jurisdictions—particularly small, rural, and resource-limited communities—cannot safely evaluate complex macro tower applications within artificially shortened timeframes.

If applications are rushed through or deemed approved without adequate review, the responsibility for any resulting harm will not rest with the applicant or the FCC, but with the local governments left to manage the aftermath. This approach violates principles of due process, undermines cooperative federalism, and effectively commandeers local governments to carry out a federal regulatory program—an outcome the Constitution forbids.

The FCC Cannot Preempt Local RF Protections While It Remains Out of Compliance With a Federal Court Order

The FCC cannot lawfully preempt local RF-related policies when it has failed to comply with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 ruling in Environmental Health Trust et al. v. FCC. In that landmark decision, the court held that the FCC acted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner by failing to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its 1996 RF radiation exposure limits adequately protect against harmful effects.

The court specifically directed the FCC to address evidence related to children’s unique vulnerabilities, long-term and cumulative exposure, environmental and wildlife impacts, and non-thermal biological effects, including immune, reproductive, and neurological harms. The FCC also must explain how its 1996 limits are still relevant to todays technology and how its compliance tests reflect current exposures. To date, the FCC has not complied with that order and has not cured the deficiencies in its 2019 decision.

Until the Commission completes the required scientific review and provides a lawful, reasoned explanation, it cannot rely on its RF limits to justify preemption of local governments that seek to protect public health and safety in the face of acknowledged regulatory gaps.

Eliminating Local RF Oversight and Independent Testing Is Unacceptable

Blocking local governments from requiring independent RF compliance testing, paid for by the applicants, would leave the wireless industry to self-certify at a time when the FCC has no meaningful monitoring, auditing, or enforcement program. Violations of FCC RF exposure limits are documented and widespread. Eliminating local oversight under these conditions is unacceptable and leaves the public without effective protection while allowing industry assurances to go unchecked. See the Frontiers in Public Health paper “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.”

Local oversight serves as a necessary backstop where federal enforcement is absent. Removing it would exacerbate existing regulatory failures rather than correct them. Taxpayers should not bear this burden. 

Lack of Federal Oversight, Enforcement, and Compliance Bars Further Preemption

The FCC cannot lawfully or responsibly move forward with proposals to fast-track cell towers and wireless infrastructure while it lacks basic systems for oversight, enforcement, and compliance. The Commission does not require routine independent, post-installation RF measurements for cell towers, does not conduct regular audits of base-station emissions, and does not maintain a transparent public database of antenna locations, compliance reports, violations, or enforcement actions. Instead, compliance is largely based on industry self-certification and predictive modeling, despite documented FCC limit exceedances and widespread public complaints. Expanding federal preemption and “deemed granted” approvals under these conditions would eliminate the only remaining layer of meaningful oversight—local review—while leaving the public without protection.

Other countries demonstrate oversight. They operate national RF monitoring and measurement programs, conduct routine audits of wireless sites, and publicly post real-world exposure data. Several countries require post-market compliance testing, maintain public maps of antenna locations and measurements, impose penalties for violations, and apply additional safeguards for sensitive areas such as schools and residential neighborhoods. By contrast, the United States has no comparable nationwide monitoring, auditing, or enforcement framework. Until the FCC establishes independent compliance testing, routine audits with enforcement consequences, and transparent public reporting, it cannot justify stripping local governments of their authority or accelerating approvals for cell towers and wireless facilities.

Link included by reference: Frontiers in Public Health paper “U.S. policy on wireless technologies and public health protection: regulatory gaps and proposed reforms.”

Eliminating Local Authority Over Cell Towers Would Have Devastating Consequences

As a matter of law,  zoning decisions are and should be made by local authorities, which are accountable to and knowledgeable about the communities affected by their decisions. Courts have long recognized that land-use decisions are a core function of local government, with direct and significant impacts on daily life, safety, and property values. Petersburg Cellular Pshp. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 205 F.3d 688, 703 (4th Cir. 2000).

Local governments use their police powers to protect public safety, infrastructure, the environment, neighborhood character, and property values. The NPRM would strip communities of these essential functions by turning local zoning authorities into rubber stamps for wireless deployment. It would convert conditional use permitting into a ministerial process, override legitimate zoning tools such as setbacks and concealment standards, curtail cost recovery, and impose accelerated timelines that silence public participation and overwhelm small and rural jurisdictions.

The resulting loss of control over wireless siting would allow towers and facilities to be placed in residential neighborhoods, near schools, and in environmentally or scenically sensitive areas, placing property values and community character at risk. Meanwhile, local officials would bear the consequences of public disapproval while the FCC remains insulated from accountability. See New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 168–69 (1992). For these reasons, the FCC should abandon the approach contemplated in this NPRM.

VII. Conclusion: Preserve Local Authority and Withdraw the NPRM

The FCC should withdraw or substantially revise the proposals in WT Docket No. 25-276. Congress preserved state and local authority for a reason, and communities cannot afford policies that place haste over safety, uniformity over local judgment, and industry convenience over public welfare.

The Commission should abandon efforts to eviscerate local control and instead comply with binding court orders, update its outdated RF exposure guidelines, and work collaboratively with state and local governments to ensure that telecommunications infrastructure is deployed safely, lawfully, and in the true public interest.