<h2>The FCC Plan to Fast-Track Cell Towers Will Strip Local City and State Control Over Cell Towers </h2>
When you submit your comment through this form, it will be filed (uploaded virtually in a batch) to the FCC record online with your name, date, and letter. Comments are due January 15th, 
YOU CAN SUBMIT AFTER 10 PM January 15th, but your comment will be uploaded as an ex parte later, not tonight. As comments are due January 15th, this means they will not be a reply comment. If you are here, please do submit comments. 
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has launched an unprecedented rulemaking that would strip state and local governments of much of their remaining authority over the siting, permitting, and regulation of cell towers and wireless infrastructure nationwide. 
It is the most far-reaching wireless preemption proposal in U.S. history. If adopted, your city or county could lose the ability to:
<ul>
<li>Enforce setbacks that keep towers away from homes and schools</li>
<li>Apply local aesthetic or concealment rules</li>
<li>Charge reasonable cost-recovery fees</li>
<li>Require independent RF compliance testing</li>
<li>Slow or deny projects that are unsafe, poorly sited, or unnecessary </li>
</ul>
The FCC is openly asking whether it should override local zoning rules, preempt setbacks, limit fees, eliminate aesthetic protections, and even federalize disputes through a new “rocket docket.” The agency is also asking whether it should preempt state and local AI regulations if those rules “affect wireless services.” 
This rulemaking would not merely “streamline” deployment—it would federalize land-use decisions, silence local residents, and give wireless companies the power to fast-track towers with minimal oversight. And because federal rules cannot be changed without another full rulemaking, communities could lose these rights permanently. 
The Timeline: Public comments for FCC’s cell tower fast-track plan “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments” <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-67A1.pdf" target="_self"><ins>WT Docket No. 25-276</ins></a> were due December 31, 2025. Reply Comments are due January 15, 2026. 
The way to oppose this is through the public record. Cities, counties, school districts, state associations, and residents must submit comments so that the FCC—and federal courts—can see the full impact of these proposed changes. 
RESOURCES TO LEARN MORE 
<a href="https://ehsciences.org/top-10-health-safety-and-liability-risks-of-cell-towers-near-homes-and-schools/" target="_self"><ins>Top 10 Health, Safety, and Liability Risks of Cell Towers Near Schools and Homes</ins></a>
<a href="https://ehsciences.org/are-cell-towers-safe/" target="_self"><ins>The Health Effects Cell Towers</ins></a>&nbsp;
<a href="https://ehsciences.org/cell-tower-radiation-liability-risk-and-industry-disclosures/" target="_self"><ins>Cell Towers Liability and Risk </ins></a>
<a href="https://ehsciences.org/cell-towers-drop-property-value/" target="_self"><ins>Cell Towers Drop Property Values</ins></a>&nbsp;
<a href="https://ehsciences.org/lawsuit-wireless-radiation-safety/" target="_self"><ins>Landmark Federal Court Decision On Wireless Radiation</ins></a>

Submit Comments to the FCC To Preserve Local Control For Cell Towers in 25-276

We strongly oppose proposals that would fast-track cell towers by preempting local government authority. The FCC’s strict shot clocks and automatic approvals would deny local governments and residents the time needed to properly review cell tower applications, stripping communities of meaningful notice, safety oversight, and input. 

These reply comments support Environmental Health Sciences' filing on December 31, 2025 stating that the  FCC’s proposed rule exceeds its statutory authority because the Telecommunications Act of 1996 explicitly preserves local governments’ zoning power over the placement, construction, and modification of wireless facilities. Federal courts have repeatedly reaffirmed that the FCC cannot rewrite this section through rulemaking. Cities across the country, including San Mateo, Encinitas and others, have demonstrated that their regulations do not block service but simply ensure that wireless deployments occur responsibly with pathways to loosen setbacks if deployment is prohibited. 

Local decision-makers are best equipped to determine where cell towers are located because they have the on-the-ground knowledge of scenic views, environmental constraints, and the historic significance of properties in their districts. Setbacks are critical public-safety tools, helping ensure adequate distance from homes and schools to prevent injuries or property damage in the event of a structural failure, fire, collapse, or falling ice, and to protect environmentally fragile areas and neighborhood character. 

The FCC cannot lawfully preempt local RF-related policies when it has not complied with the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 ruling in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC. Because the Commission has not ensured adequate scientific review or explained how its RF limits protect for children’s unique vulnerabilities, wildlife impacts, long-term and cumulative impacts, or immune, reproductive, and neurological effects, it cannot preempt localities that seek to fill the regulatory gap and FCC failures. 

Blocking local governments from requiring independent RF compliance tests 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 limits are reported and widespread.  Thus, eliminating local oversight in this context is unacceptable, allowing industry assurances to go unchecked and the public without protection.