WASHINGTON-Sens. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and James Jeffords (R-Vt.), reacting to persistent
complaints that federal law inadequately addresses the impact of antenna proliferation on property values, aesthetics
and health, plan to reintroduce legislation by month’s end that would repeal limited federal pre-emption in the telecom
act and return all tower-siting jurisdiction to local and state authorities.
Rep. Bernie Sanders, an Independent from
Vermont, is expected to offer a companion bill in the House.
The new bill is similar to ones sponsored by the
Vermont congressional delegation in 1997 and 1998. Those measures, owing largely to hostility from industry
lobbyists and Commerce Committee heads in both chambers, went nowhere.
At the same time, strong grass-roots
opposition to increased antenna siting from soccer moms, environmentalists and organized labor has forced lawmakers
and wireless leaders to retreat from efforts to outlaw siting moratoria and to foster tower construction on federal
land.
Along with killing health effects-related limitations on state and local oversight of antenna siting, the Vermont
legislation encourages alternative technologies in lieu of towers; allows state and local governments to require tower
construction applications to be accompanied by documentation showing compliance with applicable state and local
aviation standards; and permits states to deny tower applications for a wireless carrier’s refusal to supply evidence of
compliance with radio-frequency radiation exposure guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission.
Leahy
aides acknowledge passing a stand-alone bill will be difficult and that amending it to another piece of legislation is its
best bet. As such, the Vermont lawmakers plan to solicit support in the coming weeks for House and Senate
cosponsors.
The three Vermont lawmakers and their staff met on Capitol Hill last week with the EMR Network, a
grass-roots group vocally opposed to health-effects pre-emption of local regulation of antenna siting and to what it
considers an inadequate FCC RF safety standard.
EMR Network leaders briefed congressional staff for nearly two
hours late Thursday afternoon on antenna-siting concerns and the need for legislative and regulatory
remedies.
“The telecom act of ’96 unleashed a low-level form of terrorism on citizens and zoning
commissions throughout the U.S.,” said B. Blake Leavitt, a science writer aligned with the EMF Network.
In
addition to the Vermont legislation, the EMF Network said it will lobby against wireless E911 legislation because it
believes the limited liability provision is too broad and could be exploited as a loophole by wireless operators to dodge
lawsuits on a wide range issues arising from tower buildout.
The House passed a wireless E911 bill late last month.
Sens. Conrad Burns (R-Mont.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Commerce Committee, could introduce a
similar wireless E911 bill as early as this week.
“I believe there is little enthusiasm in Congress and the
wireless industry for re-opening the telecom act of 1996,” said Tim Ayers, spokesman for the Cellular
Telecommunications Industry Association. “It is ironic this is being raised at this time when industry and local
communities are working better than ever on these issues. It seems counter-intuitive to what’s going on in the real
world.”
CTIA President Thomas Wheeler, despite failing to persuade the FCC and Congress to give wireless
carriers unfettered authority to site antennas in residential areas and national parks, is fighting to get a strong policy
statement reflecting the view that tower construction is part of a national wireless policy and that it furthers the
competition mandate in the 1996 telecom act.
The wireless provision in the telecom law that Vermont lawmakers
seek to overturn forbids local zoning boards from rejecting antenna-siting applications for health reasons if carriers
comply with the FCC’s RF exposure standard.
The provision was the result of a compromise between industry and
representatives from the National League of Cities, National Association of Counties and others.
