<br />10. What is the test as regards what a City may not do with respect to permitting wireless <br />facilities under the 1996 Telecommunications Act (at (332(c) (47 U.S.C. <br />Answer: The 1996 Telecommunications Act states <br />332(c))(B)(II)(B) LIMITATIONS)? <br />in relevant part that: <br /> <br /> <br />(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and modification of <br />personal wireless service facilities by any State or local government <br />or instrumentality thereof--`(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of <br />.(Emphasis <br />prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services <br />added). <br /> <br /> <br />The plain language of 332(c))(B)(II)(B) does not limit the community’s right to <br />regulate that is not inconsistent with the 1996 Telecom Act and that <br />anything <br />doesn’t have the effect of ‘prohibiting’ service. Specifically it does not limit a <br />community’s right to regulate the location(s), size(s) and type of structure(s) or to <br />require the least visually intrusive facility(s) among those options/alternatives <br />that are not technologically impractical. Notably, the language also says nothing <br />about a community being required to allow an area to be served from a single <br />facility; nor does it say or that not allowing an area to be served from a single <br />facility necessarily has the effect of prohibiting service, per se, i.e. if alternatives <br />exist and can singly or in combination achieve the “approximate” coverage <br />intended, if such is needed to meet the requirements of the community’s <br />regulations. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Sincerely, <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />L.S. (Rusty) Monroe <br />5 <br /> <br />