I
106TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 2834
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify State and local author-
ity to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of broadcast
transmission and telecommunications facilities, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEPTEMBER 9, 1999
Mr. SANDERS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the
Committee on Commerce
A BILL
To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to clarify State
and local authority to regulate the placement, construc-
tion, and modification of broadcast transmission and tele-
communications facilities, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find-
ings:
(1) The placement of telecommunications facili-
ties near residential properties can greatly reduce
the value of such properties, destroy the views from
such properties, and reduce substantially the desire
to live in the area.
(2) States and local governments should be able
to exercise control over the placement, construction,
and modification of such facilities through the use of
zoning, planned growth, and other land use regula-
tions relating to the protection of the environment
and public health, safety, and welfare of the commu-
nity.
(3) There are alternatives to the construction of
facilities to meet telecommunications and broadcast
needs, including, but not limited to, alternative loca-
tions, colocation of antennas on existing towers or
structures, towerless PCS-Over-Cable or PCS-Over-
Fiber telephone service, satellite television systems,
low-Earth orbit satellite communication networks,
and other alternative technologies.
(4) There are alternative methods of designing
towers to meet telecommunications and broadcast
needs, including the use of small towers that do not
require blinking aircraft safety lights, break skylines,
or protrude above tree canopies and that are camou-
flaged or disguised to blend with their surroundings,
or both.
(5) On August 19, 1997, the Federal Commu-
nications Commission issued a proposed rule, MM
Docket No. 97–182, which would preempt the appli-
cation of State and local zoning and land use ordi-
nances regarding the placement, construction, and
modification of broadcast transmission facilities. It
is in the interest of the Nation that the Commission
not adopt this rule.
(6) It is in the interest of the Nation that the
memoranda opinions and orders and proposed rules
of the Commission with respect to application of cer-
tain ordinances to the placement of such towers
(WT Docket No. 97–192, ET Docket No. 93–62,
RM–8577, and FCC 97–303, 62 F.R. 47960) be
modified in order to permit State and local govern-
ments to exercise their zoning and land use authori-
ties, and their power to protect public health and
safety, to regulate the placement of telecommuni-
cations or broadcast facilities and to place the bur-
den of proof in civil actions, and in actions before
the Commission and State and local authorities re-
lating to the placement, construction, and modifica-
tion of such facilities, on the person or entity that
seeks to place, construct, or modify such facilities.
(7) PCS-Over-Cable, PCS-Over-Fiber, and sat-
ellite telecommunications systems, including low-
Earth orbit satellites, offer a significant opportunity
to provide so-called ‘‘911’’ emergency telephone serv-
ice throughout much of the United States.
(8) According to the Comptroller General, the
Commission does not consider itself a health agency
and turns to health and radiation experts outside
the Commission for guidance on the issue of health
and safety effects of radio frequency exposure.
(9) The Federal Aviation Administration does
not have adequate authority to regulate the place-
ment, construction, and modification of tele-
communications facilities near airports or high-vol-
ume air traffic areas such as corridors of airspace
or commonly used flyways. The Commission’s pro-
posed rules to preempt State and local zoning and
land-use regulations for the siting of such facilities
will have a serious negative impact on aviation safe-
ty, airport capacity and investment, and the efficient
use of navigable airspace.
(10) The telecommunications industry and its
experts should be expected to have access to the best
and most recent technical information and should
therefore be held to the highest standards in terms
of their representations, assertions, and promises to
governmental authorities.
(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of this Act are as fol-
lows:
(1) To repeal certain limitations on State and
local authority regarding the placement, construc-
tion, and modification of personal wireless service fa-
cilities and related facilities as such limitations arise
under section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act
of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)).
(2) To permit State and local governments—
(A) in cases where the placement, con-
struction, or modification of telecommunications
facilities and other facilities is inconsistent with
State and local regulations, laws, or decisions,
to require the use of alternative telecommuni-
cation or broadcast technologies when such al-
ternative technologies are available;
(B) to regulate the placement, modifica-
tion, and construction of such facilities so that
their placement, construction, or modification
will not interfere with the safe and efficient use
of public airspace or otherwise compromise or
endanger public safety; and
(C) to hold applicants for permits for the
placement, construction, or modification of such
telecommunications facilities, and providers of
services using such towers and facilities, ac-
countable for the truthfulness and accuracy of
representations and statements placed in the
record of hearings for such permits, licenses, or
approvals.
SEC. 2. STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT,
CONSTRUCTION, 
AND 
MODIFICATION 
OF
TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES.
(a) REPEAL OF LIMITATIONS ON REGULATION OF
PERSONAL WIRELESS FACILITIES.—Section 332(c)(7)(B)
of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C.
332(c)(7)(B)) is amended—
(1) in clause (i), by striking ‘‘thereof—’’ and all
that follows through the end and inserting ‘‘thereof
shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers
of functionally equivalent services.’’;
(2) by striking clause (iv);
(3) by redesignating clause (v) as clause (iv);
and
(4) in clause (iv), as so redesignated—
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘30
days after such action or failure to act’’ and in-
serting ‘‘30 days after exhaustion of any admin-
istrative remedies with respect to such action or
failure to act’’; and
(B) by striking the third sentence and in-
serting the following: ‘‘In any such action in
which a person seeking to place, construct, or
modify a telecommunications facility is a party,
such person shall bear the burden of proof, re-
gardless of who commences the action.’’.
(b) PROHIBITION ON ADOPTION OF RULE REGARD-
ING PREEMPTION
OF STATE
AND LOCAL AUTHORITY
OVER BROADCAST TRANSMISSION FACILITIES.—Notwith-
standing any other provision of law, the Federal Commu-
nications Commission may not adopt as a final rule or
otherwise the proposed rule set forth in ‘‘Preemption of
State and Local Zoning and Land Use Restrictions on
Siting, Placement and Construction of Broadcast Station
Transmission Facilities’’, MM Docket No. 97–182, re-
leased August 19, 1997.
(c) AUTHORITY OVER PLACEMENT, CONSTRUCTION,
AND MODIFICATION OF OTHER TRANSMISSION FACILI-
TIES.—Part I of title III of the Communications Act of
1934 (47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
‘‘SEC. 338. STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER PLACE-
MENT, CONSTRUCTION, AND MODIFICATION
OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of this Act, no provision of this Act may be inter-
preted to authorize any person or entity to place, con-
struct, or modify telecommunications facilities in a man-
ner that is inconsistent with State or local law, or contrary
to an official decision of the appropriate State or local gov-
ernment entity having authority to approve, permit, li-
cense, modify, or deny an application to place, construct,
or modify a tower, if alternate technology is capable of
delivering the broadcast or telecommunications signals
without the use of a tower.
‘‘(b) AUTHORITY REGARDING PRODUCTION OF SAFE-
TY AND INTERFERENCE STUDIES.—No provision of this
Act may be interpreted to prohibit a State or local govern-
ment from—
‘‘(1) requiring a person or entity seeking au-
thority to place, construct, or modify telecommuni-
cations facilities or broadcast transmission facilities
within the jurisdiction of such government to
produce—
‘‘(A) environmental studies, engineering re-
ports, or other documentation of the compliance
of such facilities with radio frequency exposure
limits established by the Commission and com-
pliance with applicable laws and regulations
governing the effects of the proposed facility on
the health, safety, and welfare of local residents
in the community; and
‘‘(B) documentation of the compliance of
such facilities with applicable Federal, State,
and local aviation safety standards or aviation
obstruction standards regarding objects effect-
ing navigable airspace; or
‘‘(2) refusing to grant authority to such person
to locate such facilities within the jurisdiction of
such government if such person fails to produce any
studies, reports, or documentation required under
paragraph (1).
‘‘(c) CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section may
be construed to prohibit or otherwise limit the authority
of a State or local government to ensure compliance with
or otherwise enforce any statements, assertions, or rep-
resentations filed or submitted by or on behalf of an appli-
cant with the State or local government for authority to
place, construct, or modify telecommunications facilities or
broadcast transmission facilities within the jurisdiction of
the State or local government.’’.
Æ