STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
Re: In the Matter of Petition for Declaratory Ruling to Clarify Provisions of Section 332(c)(7)(B) to 
Ensure Timely Siting Review and to Preempt Under Section 253 State and Local Ordinances that 
Classify All Wireless Siting Proposals Variance, (FCC Docket No. 09-99, WT Docket No. 08-
165)
One of the challenges we sometimes face at the Commission is harmonizing federal and local 
interests.  Having recently arrived at the FCC from a state commission, I understand both sides of this 
occasionally unavoidable tension.  In my experience, when these interests collide, the most appropriate 
path to resolution can be found in the answer to one simple question:  What outcome is best for 
consumers?
Today’s item, which explains what constitutes a “reasonable period of time” to act on a wireless 
facility siting application, provides a textbook example of the merits of such an approach.  On the one 
hand, states and localities have understandably expressed concern about ceding power over zoning 
decisions – determinations that are clearly within their purview.  On the other hand, the Commission has a 
strong interest in ensuring the timely rollout of robust wireless networks throughout the country, 
especially in light of our statutory obligation to develop a national broadband plan.  By asking ourselves 
what is best for consumers – in this case whether a specified reasonable time period for acting on wireless 
facility siting applications is more advantageous than an unlimited and undefined timeframe – we are able 
to arrive at a decision that, in reality, makes good sense for all parties.
There is simply no reason to allow an interminable process for these applications.  Consumers 
suffer when any governmental body – federal, state, or local – unnecessarily stands in the way of making 
timely determinations that have a direct impact on the quality of their lives.  At the same time, consumers 
are harmed when arbitrary and unreasonable timeframes are imposed that speed up a process, resulting in 
decisions lacking appropriate due process protections or that are based on insufficient evidence.
Today’s compromise preserves, as it must, state and local governments’ roles as the arbiters of the 
merits of wireless service facility siting applications.  It also, based on the record developed, provides the 
presumptively reasonable timeframes required to process these applications.  In fact, the item merely 
adopts the time frames under which many responsible jurisdictions already operate in practice.
The compromise also recognizes, however, that a need has arisen for the Commission to act 
pursuant to its authority under the Communications Act, in order to ensure that other important 
Congressional and Commission goals are achieved.  By giving meaning to the phrase “a reasonable 
period of time,” we are breathing life into a provision of the Act that is essential to our mobile future.  
Consumers rely on all of us – federal, state, and local governments – to be responsible and responsive, 
and by ensuring an orderly siting application process, we are doing just that.
I would like to thank the staff of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of the 
General Counsel for their terrific work on this pro-consumer item.  In developing this fine solution to a 
tricky problem, they have appropriately accounted for all of the legitimate interests involved, and have 
arrived at an answer that will benefit the provision of mobile services in the near future.  I am pleased to 
support this item.  Thank you.