[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 80 (Thursday, June 22, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5664-S5666]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Abraham):
  S. 2767. A bill to authorize the enforcement by State and local 
governments of certain Federal Communications Commission regulations 
regarding use of citizens band radio equipment; to the Committee on 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


                   cb radio interference legislation

 Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to once again 
introduce a bill to deal with the all too common problem of 
interference with residential home electronic equipment caused by 
unlawful use of citizens band, or CB, radios. This is the third 
Congress in which I have offered this legislation. In 1998, it was 
nearly enacted as part of an anti-slamming bill. I hope that this year, 
we can finally put this common sense bill into law.
  The problem of CB radio interference can be extremely distressing for 
residents who cannot have a telephone conversation, watch television, 
or listen to the radio without being interrupted by a neighbor's 
illegal use of a CB radio. Unfortunately, under the current law, those 
residents have little recourse. The bill I am introducing today will 
provide those residents with a practical solution to this problem.
  Until recently, the FCC enforced its rules outlining what equipment 
may or may not be used for CB radio transmissions, how long 
transmissions may be broadcast, what channels may be used, as well as 
many other technical requirements. The FCC also used to investigate 
neighbor's complaints that a CB radio enthusiast's transmissions 
interfered with their use of home electronic and telephone equipment. 
The FCC receives thousands of such complaints annually.
  For the past five years, I have worked on behalf of constituents 
bothered by persistent interference of nearby CB radio transmissions, 
in some cases caused by unlawful use of radio equipment. In each case, 
the constituents have sought my help in securing an FCC investigation 
of the complaint. And in each case, the FCC indicated that due to a 
lack of resources, they no longer investigate radio frequency 
interference complaints. Instead of investigation and enforcement, the 
FCC only provides self-help information which the consumer may use to 
limit the interference on their own.
  This situation is understandable given the rising number of 
complaints for things like slamming. The resources of the FCC are 
limited, and there is only so much they can do to address complaints of 
radio interference.
  Nonetheless, this problem is extremely annoying and frustrating to 
those who experience radio interference. Many residents implement the 
self-help measures recommended by FCC such as installing filtering 
devices to prevent the unwanted interference, working with their 
telephone company, or attempting to work with the neighbor they believe 
is causing the interference. In many cases these self-help measures are 
effective.
  However, in some cases filters and other technical solutions fail to 
solve the problem because the interference is caused by the unlawful 
use of CB radio equipment such as unauthorized linear amplifiers.
  Municipal residents, after being denied an investigation or 
enforcement from the FCC, frequently contact their city or town 
government and ask them to police the interference. However, the 
Communications Act of 1934 provides exclusive authority to the Federal 
Government for the regulation of radio. This preempts municipal 
ordinances or State laws that regulate radio frequency interference 
caused by unlawful use of CB radio equipment. This situation creates an 
interesting dilemma for municipal governments. They can neither pass 
their own ordinances to control CB radio interference, nor can they 
rely on the agency with exclusive jurisdiction over interference to 
enforce the very Federal law which preempts them.
  Let me give an example of the kind of frustrations people have 
experienced in attempting to deal with these problems. Shannon Ladwig, 
a resident of Beloit, WI is fighting to end CB interference with her 
home electronic equipment that has plagued her family for many years. 
Shannon worked within the existing system by asking for an FCC 
investigation, installing filtering equipment on her telephone, 
attempting to work with the neighbor causing the interference, and so 
on. Nothing has been effective.
  Here are some of the annoyances Shannon has experienced. Her 
answering machine picks up calls for which there is no audible ring, 
and at times records ghost messages. Often, she cannot get a dial tone 
when she or her family members wish to place an outgoing call. During 
telephone conversations, the content of the nearby CB transmission can 
frequently be heard and on occasion, her phone conversations are 
inexplicably cut off. Ms. Ladwig's TV transmits audio from the CB 
transmission rather than the television program her family is watching. 
Shannon never knows if the TV program she taped with her VCR will 
actually record the intended program or whether it will contain 
profanity from nearby CB radio conversation.
  Shannon did everything she could to solve the problem and years later 
she still feels like a prisoner in her home, unable to escape the 
broadcasting whims of a CB operator using illegal equipment with 
impunity. Shannon even went to her city council to demand action. The 
Beloit City Council responded by passing an ordinance allowing local 
law enforcement to enforce FCC regulations--an ordinance the council 
knows is preempted by Federal law. The bill I am introducing today 
would allow Beloit's ordinance to stand.

  The problems experienced by Beloit residents are by no means isolated 
incidents. I have received very similar complaints from at least 10 
other Wisconsin communities in the last several years in which whole 
neighborhoods are experiencing persistent radio frequency interference. 
Since I have begun working on this issue, my staff has also been 
contacted by a number of other congressional offices who are also 
looking for a solution to the problem of radio frequency interference 
in their States or districts caused by unlawful CB use. The city of 
Grand Rapids, Michigan, in particular, has contacted me about this 
legislation because they face a persistent interference problem very 
similar to that in Beloit. I am pleased that Senators Levin and Abraham 
join me today in cosponsoring this legislation.
  In all, the FCC receives more than 30,000 radio frequency 
interference complaints annually--most of which are caused by CB 
radios. Unfortunately, the FCC no longer has the staff, resources, or 
the field capability to investigate these complaints and localities are 
blocked from exercising any jurisdiction to provide relief to their 
residents.
  My bill resolves this Catch-22, by allowing states and localities to 
enforce statutes or ordinances prohibiting selected violations of the 
FCC regulations. This gives local law enforcement the ability to 
enforce existing FCC regulations regarding unauthorized CB equipment 
and frequencies while maintaining exclusive Federal jurisdiction over 
the regulation of radio services. It is a commonsense solution to a 
very frustrating and real problem which cannot be addressed under 
existing law. Residents should not be held hostage to a Federal law 
which purports to protect them but cannot be enforced.
  Now this amendment is by no means a panacea for the problem of radio 
frequency interference. It is intended only to help localities solve 
the most egregious and persistent problems of interference--those 
caused by unauthorized use of CB radio equipment and frequencies. In 
cases where interference is caused by the legal and licensed operation 
of any radio service, residents will need to resolve the interference 
using the FCC self-help measures that I mentioned earlier.
  In many cases, interference can result from inadequate home 
electronic equipment immunity from radio frequency interference. Those 
problems can only be resolved by installing filtering equipment and by 
improving the

[[Page S5665]]

manufacturing standards of home telecommunications equipment.
  The electronic equipment manufacturing industry, represented by the 
Telecommunications Industry Association and the Electronics Industry 
Association, working with the Federal Communications Commission, has 
adopted voluntary standards to improve the immunity of telephones from 
interference. Those standards were adopted by the American National 
Standards Institute last year. Manufacturers of electronic equipment 
should be encouraged to adopt these new ANSI standards. Consumers have 
a right to expect that the telephones they purchase will operate as 
expected without excessive levels of interference from legal radio 
transmissions. Of course, Mr. President, these standards assume legal 
operation of radio equipment and cannot protect residents from 
interference from illegal operation of CB equipment.
  This bill also does not address interference caused by other radio 
services, such as commercial stations or amateur stations. I have 
worked with the American Radio Relay League (ARRL), an organization 
representing amateur radio operators, frequently referred to as ``ham'' 
operators, to address a number of concerns that they raised about the 
original versions of my bill. ARRL was concerned that while the bill 
was intended to cover only illegal use of CB equipment, FCC-licensed 
amateur radio operators might inadvertently be targeted and prosecuted 
by local government and law enforcement. ARRL also expressed concern 
that local law enforcement might not have the technical abilities to 
distinguish between ham stations and CB stations and might not be able 
to determine what CB equipment was FCC-authorized and what equipment is 
illegal.
  I have worked with the ARRL and amateur operators from Wisconsin to 
address these concerns. As a result of those discussions, this 
amendment incorporates a number of provisions suggested by the league. 
First, the amendment makes clear that the limited authority provided to 
localities in no way diminishes or affects the FCC's exclusive 
jurisdiction over the regulation of radio.
  Second, the amendment clarifies that possession of a FCC license to 
operate a radio service for the operation at issue, such as an amateur 
station, is a complete protection against any local government action 
authorized by this amendment. Unlike CB operators, amateur radio 
enthusiasts are not only individually licensed by the FCC but they also 
self-regulate. The ARRL is very involved in resolving interference 
concerns both among their own members and between ham operators and 
residents experiencing problems.
  Third, the bill also provides for a FCC appeal process by any radio 
operator who is adversely affected by a local government action under 
this amendment. The FCC will make determinations as to whether the 
locality acted properly within the limited jursidiction this 
legislation provides and the FCC will have the power to reverse the 
action if they acted improperly. And fourth, my legislation requires 
the FCC to provide States and localities with technical guidance on how 
to determine whether a CB operator is acting within the law.
  In addition, the bill has been modified to address concerns raised by 
truckers, who feared that local law enforcement would use reports of CB 
interference to indiscriminately stop and search trucks in the area. 
The bill now provides specifically that local governments may not seek 
to enforce the FCC regulations with respect to a CB radio on board a 
commercial motor vehicle unless there is probable cause to believe that 
someone in the vehicle is operating a CB radio in violation of the 
regulations. This provision should ensure that this new authority is 
not used as a pretext to harass truckers.
  Again, Mr. President, my bill is narrowly targeted to resolve 
persistent interference with home electronic equipment caused by 
illegal CB operation. Under my bill, localities cannot establish their 
own regulations on CB use outside of the already existing FCC 
regulations. This bill will not resolve all interference problems and 
it is not intended to do so. Some interference problems require 
continued attentions from the FCC, the telecommunications manufacturing 
industry, and radio service operators. This bill merely provides 
localities with the tools they need to protect their residents while 
preserving the FCC's exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over the 
regulation of radio services.
  I ask that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                S. 2767

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. ENFORCEMENT OF REGULATIONS REGARDING CITIZENS BAND 
                   RADIO EQUIPMENT.

       Section 302 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     302a) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(f)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a State or 
     local government may enact a statute or ordinance that 
     prohibits a violation of the following regulations of the 
     Commission under this section:
       ``(A) A regulation that prohibits a use of citizens band 
     radio equipment not authorized by the Commission.
       ``(B) A regulation that prohibits the unauthorized 
     operation of citizens band radio equipment on a frequency 
     between 24 MHz and 35 MHz.
       ``(2) A station that is licensed by the Commission pursuant 
     to section 301 in any radio service for the operation at 
     issue shall not be subject to action by a State or local 
     government under this subsection. A State or local government 
     statute or ordinance enacted for purposes of this subsection 
     shall identify the exemption available under this paragraph.
       ``(3) The Commission shall provide technical guidance to 
     State and local governments regarding the detection and 
     determination of violations of the regulations specified in 
     paragraph (1).
       ``(4)(A) In addition to any other remedy authorized by law, 
     a person affected by the decision of a State or local 
     government enforcing a statute or ordinance under paragraph 
     (1) may submit to the Commission an appeal of the decision on 
     the grounds that the State or local government, as the case 
     may be, enacted a statute or ordinance outside the authority 
     provided in this subsection.
       ``(B) A person shall submit an appeal on a decision of a 
     State or local government to the Commission under this 
     paragraph, if at all, not later than 30 days after the date 
     on which the decision by the State or local government 
     becomes final, but prior to seeking judicial review of such 
     decision.
       ``(C) The Commission shall make a determination on an 
     appeal submitted under subparagraph (B) not later than 180 
     days after its submittal.
       ``(D) If the Commission determines under subparagraph (C) 
     that a State or local government has acted outside its 
     authority in enforcing a statute or ordinance, the Commission 
     shall preempt the decision enforcing the statute or 
     ordinance.
       ``(5) The enforcement of statute or ordinance that 
     prohibits a violation of a regulation by a State or local 
     government under paragraph (1) in a particular case shall not 
     preclude the Commission from enforcing the regulation in that 
     case concurrently.
       ``(6) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     diminish or otherwise affect the jurisdiction of the 
     Commission under this section over devices capable of 
     interfering with radio communications.
       ``(7) The enforcement of a statute or ordinance by a State 
     or local government under paragraph (1) with regard to 
     citizens band radio equipment on board a `commercial motor 
     vehicle,' as defined in section 31101 of title 49, United 
     States Code, shall require probable cause to find that the 
     commercial motor vehicle or the individual operating the 
     vehicle is in violation of the regulations described in 
     paragraph (1). Probable cause shall be defined in accordance 
     with the technical guidance provided by the Commission under 
     paragraph (3).''.

 Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor 
legislation being introduced today by my friend from Wisconsin to 
address a problem that is unique to certain areas of Wisconsin and 
Michigan.
  In the Cities of Grand Rapids and Battle Creek, Michigan and in 
several Wisconsin communities, certain individual Citizens Band (CB) 
radio operators are using illegal equipment of a capacity which 
interferes with the home electronic equipment and telephone service of 
their neighbors.
  As a result, these neighbors are forced to buy filters in order to 
screen out the interference, and in some cases the interference is so 
extreme that the filters don't even work. There have also been 
complaints that some of these ``illegal'' CB broadcasters are using 
profanity which is disturbing to the neighbors and interfering with 
legitimate use of CB radios by truckers and others.
  The problem is exacerbated by a lack of Federal resources to stop the 
problem. In recent years, due to budget and staffing cuts, the FCC has 
decreased its enforcement efforts. The legislation being introduced 
today would authorize local jurisdictions to enforce the

[[Page S5666]]

FCC regulations regarding use of citizens band radio equipment, while 
maintaining the FCC jurisdiction over the regulation of radio services.
  The bill provides for an FCC appeal process available to any person 
who believes they are adversely affected by local enforcement action. 
FCC does not object to this approach or to this legislation.
  Mr. President, this legislation offers a simple solution to the 
inability of the FCC, due to insufficient resources, to put a stop to 
illegal CB equipment use in parts of Michigan and Wisconsin. The 
legislation would allow local officials, who are more familiar with the 
specific problems and complaints in their areas of jurisdiction, to be 
authorized to enforce FCC regulations regarding the use of CB radio 
equipment. The legislation has the strong support of local government 
officials in the Michigan communities where CB interference occurs.
  An identical bill has been introduced in the House of 
Representatives. I hope this legislation will be enacted in an 
expedited manner so that local officials will have the ability to stop 
the use of illegal CB equipment that is interfering with legitimate CB 
use and disturbing citizens of the impacted communities.
                                 ______