WPCP 2?BJ.Courier3|w #XP\  P6Q XP#Times New RomanCG TimesTimes New Roman BoldPXX@Times New RomanCG Times#XP\  P6Q XP#2,qK ZCourierTimes New Roman"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN-5.8/7:0U<Right Par 5Right Par 5-` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 6Right Par 6.` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#Right Par 7Right Par 7/` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Right Par 8Right Par 80` hp x (#X` hp x (#0X` hp x (#0` hp x (#2E1(>2$@3$B4lEDocument 1Document 11` hp x (#X` hp x (#X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 5Technical 52` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 6Technical 63` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 2Technical 24 2J5lE6$F7lCH8$HTechnical 3Technical 35 Technical 4Technical 46` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#Technical 1Technical 17 Technical 7Technical 78` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#2S9$K:)M;GO<eQTechnical 8Technical 89` hp x (#X` hp x (# X` hp x (#` hp x (#toc 1toc 1:` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#toc 2toc 2;` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#toc 3toc 3<` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#2Z=S>U?W@vZtoc 4toc 4=` hp x (# !(#  !(# ` hp x (#toc 5toc 5>` hp x (#h!(# h!(# ` hp x (#toc 6toc 6?` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 7toc 7@ 2/cAZB\C^Datoc 8toc 8A` hp x (#!(#!(#` hp x (#toc 9toc 9B` hp x (#!(#B!(#B` hp x (#index 1index 1C` hp x (#` !(# ` !(# ` hp x (#index 2index 2D` hp x (#` !(#B` !(#B` hp x (#2fEacFveGleHraftoatoaE` hp x (#!(# !(# ` hp x (#captioncaptionF _Equation Caption_Equation CaptionG endnote referenceendnote referenceH 2iIgJ}gKhLhhead1 #I'd#2p}wC@ #a1Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfJ$ a2Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfK/` ` ` a3Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfL:` ` `  2lMNiNiOjPIka4Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfME` ` `  a5Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfNP  ` ` ` hhh a6Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfO[   a7Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfPf  2^wQ:lKmKOoKqa8Paragraph R!1. a. i. (1) (a) (i) 1) a)D )DDDFrfQq "i~'^5>I\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\33gggQyyrg>Frgygrr>3>T\>Q\Q\Q>\\33\3\\\\>F3\\\\QX%Xc>0cT>>>0>>>>>>>>\3QQQQQwyQrQrQrQrQ>3>3>3>3\\\\\\\\\\Q\Z\\\g\QQQyQyQycyQtrQrQrQrQ\\\c\c\>3>\>>>\gcc\r3rIr>r>r3\l\\\\y>y>y>gFgFgFgcrMr3rT\\\\\\crQrQrQ\r>\gFr>\t0\\=!=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBT\>Q\\\\\3;\7;\7>>QQ\??n\\pBnnBmgg>Q\7"yyyy\njc\gnn\"i~'^5>g\\>>>\g0>03\\\\\\\\\\>>ggg\yyrF\yrgyy>3>j\>\gQgQ>\g3>g3g\ggQF>g\\\QI(I_>0_j>>>0>>>>>>\>g3\\\\\QyQyQyQyQD3D3D3D3g\\\\gggg\\g\\\\pg\\\QQ_QyQyQyQyQ\\\_\gjF3FgF>Fgg__gy3ySy>yIy3ggg\\QQQgFgFgFg_y^y>yjgggggg_yQyQyQgy>ggFy>\0\\=2=WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNBnnBa\>\\\\\\7>\7>\7>>\\\??n\\pBnnBsgg>\\7"yyyy\nlc\gnn\"i~'^'-KCCp---CK#-#%CCCCCCCCCC--KKKC}`X``XShh3ChX}`hSh`KX````X-%-MC-CK;K;-CK%-K%pKCKK;3-KC`CC;55E-#EM---#------C-K%`C`C`C`C`C``;X;X;X;X;1%1%1%1%`KhChChChC`K`K`K`K`C`C`KgChC`C`CQK`C`C`C`;`;`E`;`cX;X;X;X;hChChChEhChKhM3%3K3-3KlKEEhKX%X/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN%7777777777>>>0eOIIOD>OO%*ODaOO>OI>DOOgOOD%%37%07070%777V7777%*77O77055;%;3%%%%%%%%%%%7O0O0O0O0O0aHI0D0D0D0D0%%%%O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O7O0O7O6O7O7O7>7O0O0O0I0I0I;I0OED0D0D0D0O7O7O7O;O7O;O7%%7%%%7M>;;O7DD,D%D%DO7AO7O7O7O7aOI%I%I%>*>*>*>;D.DD3O7O7O7O7O7O7gOO;D0D0D0O7D%O7>*D%O7E77%%WMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN(BB(37%07777j7#TT7!#TT7T!%%007n&&Bn77lCTn(nBB(A\\>>n%07\n!"IIIITTenn7TnB@;7>lBBn7"i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""CCwm,,,Cw,,,,CCCCCCCCCC,,wCw`Y``YPhh4@hY~`hPh`JY````Y,,,CC,CJ;J;/CJ%,J%mJCJJ;4,JC`CC;CCCC#CCCCC,CCCCCCCCJ%`C`C`C`C`C``;Y;Y;Y;Y;4%4%4%4%`JhChChChC`J`J`J`J`C`C`KhChC`C`CPJ`C`C`C`;`;`C`C`[X;YCYCX;hChChChChChJhJ3%CJCC4JyLCChJX%X5YCY4Y%`Kj`K`JhChCc`;`;`CK3J4K3JCX5X-YC`J`K`J`J`K`J``CX;Y;X;`JYC`JJCYC`C[,CC,,,WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN```CCC,C99CCCCCwwC/CCCCw/,,MMCw##CCQQeCC`CTooJJw,MC~/"``C`L``wwCww&wC,,`Qw``````````,C`CJCw`YC,C`;CM`h[``````````@``````tYQh`9O```````C```````C````C````````````````````````````````````````````,```,```,```,``````````````QYJQJY;Y4Y;h;`;4%h;YJ~J`;YCh;`QQCQCCY;`;YQ`JhQQQ`Yh4Ch``Q;QQQQb,,CCCC`hCCC```Q,QC;,x=x]]xKP}}xxxxxxMk[[}}HHxpppXpuuXmcc`]kuxxx}}}{hccxxxx=cxMxxxHHxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx+=+xxxxx=xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxkkxxxxxxxxhhhhxxuuuuxxmmmhhhh@3Uhxx",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L",tB^ f ^6=U\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==Qs~sm=Gsizbsw===\\=Q\Q\Q=\\33\3\\\\DG3\\\\QQ\Q\0\\\\\=\\\\\\\\\3QQQQQz~QsQsQsQsQ=3=3=3=3\\\\\\\\\\Q\\\\\i\Q\Q}Q}Q~\~\nrQs\s\rQ\\\\\\\=3\\\\=\f\\\r3rBs\u7r3\j\\\\yByBz\cFcFcFb\rBr3s\\\\\\\\uQuQuQ\s\\b\s\\n=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=QKK\\\\\\@\\\\@==__\00\\pp\\\mff=_\@"\_\4\==p=\\f\z\=\Q\iwUzpNm\QQ====psfpfzQsGwQ\Q=3QzffQz\Qpi\p\\sQQzpfppps=\pQpppp==\\\\\\\p=i\Q=Tgnj}}ccyyTjcc;T;TXFu"i~'K2^/5JPP555P5555PPPPPPPPPP55Ptkttk`||>M|kt|`|tYkttttk555PP5PYGYG8PY,5Y,YPYYG>5YPtPPGPPPP*PPPPP5PPPPPPPPY,tPtPtPtPtPttGkGkGkGkG>,>,>,>,tY|P|P|P|PtYtYtYtYtPtPtZ|P|PtPtP`YsPtPsPsFsFtPtPsmjFkPkPjF}P|P|P|P|P|Y|Y=,PYPP>Y\PP|Yj-j@kPk>k,sZsZtY}P|PvsFsFtPZ=Y>Z=YPj@j6kPtYsZtYtYsZtYttPjFkGjFtYkPtYYPkPtPm5PP555WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNtttPPP5PDDPPPPPP8PPPP855\\P))PPbbyPPtPeYY5\P8"ttPt\ttP厎.P55tbtttttttttt5PtPYPtkP5PtGP\t|nttttttttttMttttttkb|tD_tttttttPtttttttPttttPtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt5ttt5ttt5ttt5ttttttttttttttbkYbYkGk>kG|GtG>,|GkYYtGkP|GtbbPbPPkGtGkbtY|bbbtk|>P|ttbGbbbbu55PPPPt|PPPtttb5bPG5ؐJppZ`]mmVVjjvvsp}vvJv]VV3J3Jʀ}}}}}}}}M=f}2K߼*KK9"i~'^+2RII{222IR&2&)IIIIIIIIII22RRRIjajja[rr8Irajr[rjRajjjja2)2UI2IRARA2IR)2R){RIRRA82RIjIIA; ;L2&LU222&222222I2R)jIjIjIjIjIjjAaAaAaAaA6)6)6)6)jRrIrIrIrIjRjRjRjRjIjIjRqIrIjIjIYRjIjIjIjAjAjLjAjmaAaAaAaArIrIrIrLrIrRrU8)8R828RwRLLrRa)aBa2a;a)jRjjRjRrIrIjjAjAjAR8R8R8RLaKa2aUjRjRjRjRjRjRjjLaAaAaAjRa2jRR8a2jIk&II1(1WggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN5XX5NI2IIIIII,2ooI,2mmIo,22III22XIIZo5XX5\zzRR2II{,"aaaaooIoXWOIRXXI"i~'K2^/5JPP|555P5555PPPPPPPPPP55Gtenve_tv5>qevt\tkVevttth555PP5GPGPG5PP,,P,|PPPP;>,PPtPPGGPGP*PPPPP5PPPPPPPPP,tGtGtGtGtGknGeGeGeGeG5,5,5,5,vPtPtPtPtPvPvPvPvPtPtGvPtPtPtPvP\PtFtPtFmFmFnPnPv`cFePePcFtPtPtPtPtPvPvP5,PPPP5PuYPPqPc-c:ePf0c-vP]vPvPsPtPtj:j:kPV=V=V=VPc:c-ePvPvPvPvPvPvPttPfFfFfFvPePvPVPePtP`5PP555WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNtttPPP5GAAPPPPPP8PPPP855SSP))PPbbyPPtP_YY5SP8"ttPtSttP厎.P55tbtttttttttt5PtPYPtkP5PtGP\t|httttttttttJttttttkb|tD_tttttttPtttttttGttttGtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt5ttt5ttt5ttt5ttttttttttttttbeYbYkGe>hGvPtG5,qGkYYvGkPtGtb\PbPPeGtGkbtY|bbbtev5PtttbGbbbbu55PPPPtvPPPtttb5\PG5ؐJppZ`]mmVVjjvvsp}vvJv]VV3J3Jʀ}}}}}}}}M=f}"i~'^'-5CCph---CK#-#%CCCCCCCCCC%%KKK;{`XX`SK``-3`Su``K`XKS``}``S-%-=C-;C;C;-CC%%C%hCCCC-3%CC`CC;@@H-#H=---#--------C%`;`;`;`;`;uWX;S;S;S;S;-%-%-%-%`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`C`;`C`A`C`C`CKC`;`;`;X;X;XHX;`TS;S;S;S;`C`C`C`H`C`H`C-%-C---C]KHH`CS%S5S-S-S%`CO`C`C`C`Cu`X-X-X-K3K3K3KHS8S%S=`C`C`C`C`C`C}``HS;S;S;`CS-`CK3S-`CT#CC,,W]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN0PP0=C-;CCCCC%+eeC(+eeCe(--;;C..PCCQe0PP0OooKK-;Cp("XXXXee{CePMHCKPPC"i~'^'-KCCp---CK#-#%CCCCCCCCCC--KKKC}`X``XShh3ChX}`hSh`KX````X-%-MC-CK;K;-CK%-K%pKCKK;3-KC`CC;55E-#EM---#------C-K%`C`C`C`C`C``;X;X;X;X;1%1%1%1%`KhChChChC`K`K`K`K`C`C`KgChC`C`CQK`C`C`C`;`;`E`;`cX;X;X;X;hChChChEhChKhM3%3K3-3KlKEEhKX%X Y4 yOP-ԍOrdinance No. 741(10).> After the Petition was filed, Meade repealed Ordinance No. 741 and replaced it with  S -Ordinance No. 745.l H Y4 yO-ԍMeade, Kan., Ordinance 745(6) (Jan. 13, 1997) ("Ordinance No. 745").l  S - ` x6.` ` Ordinance No. 745 similarly provides that installers and users of satellite antennas must  SX- xapply for a permit from Meade.9XY4 yO-ԍOrdinance 745(1).9 If the application complies with the requirements of Ordinance No. 745,  S0- xthe Building Official will issue the permit upon payment of a $5.00 application fee.90hY4 yO8!-ԍOrdinance 745(1).9 Under Ordinance  x[No. 745, satellite antennas of 39 inches or less may be installed on the side or rear of a building, the roof,  S- xor in a side or rear yard.=Y4 yOx$-ԍOrdinance No. 745(2).= Such placement is subject to unspecified property setback requirements just"0*&&II*"  S- xas in Ordinance No. 741.9Y4 yOh-ԍOrdinance 741(7).9 Under Ordinance No. 745, an antenna may be installed at an alternative  xlocation if an applicant demonstrates to the Building Official that installation is required at the alternative  S- xlocation in order to receive an acceptable signal.@XY4 yO-ԍOrdinance No. 745(2)(B).@ Satellite antennas of more than 39 inches may be  S- xgroundmounted only in side and rear yards.=Y4 yO-ԍOrdinance No. 745(3).= Groundmounted antennas may not extend more than 14  xfeet above the ground, unless an applicant demonstrates to the Building Official that the extra height is  S8- xnecessary to receive an acceptable signal.@8xY4 yOP -ԍOrdinance No. 745(4)(C).@ As under Ordinance No. 741, under the new Ordinance  S- xantennas must conform to Meade's building and utility codes.@Y4 yO -ԍOrdinance No. 745(4)(B).@ A penalty of up to $500 per day may be  S-assessed against violators of the Ordinance.=Y4 yO -ԍOrdinance No. 745(5).=  S- ` _x7.` ` Petitioner Star Lambert owns Stargate Enterprises ("Stargate"), which is located in Meade,  xKansas. Stargate sells and installs Primestar satellite antennas, which are directtohome satellite antennas  SH - xzmeasuring one meter or less in diameter.H ( Y4 yO- xԍPetition at 13. The Rule applies to "an antenna that is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service,  x;including directtohome satellite services, that is one meter or less in diameter . . ." 47 C.F.R.  1.4000(a)(1). The  {O- xReport and Order concludes that by "direct broadcast satellite service," Congress intended in Section 207 "to include  xnot only [satellite] services that are technically DBS, but also medium power KuBand DTH services , such as that  {O2-offered by Primestar, because they use antennas one meter or less in diameter." Report and Order at  28. Petitioner SBCA is a trade association that includes among  xits members Primestar and other manufacturers, retailers, and distributors of satellite equipment and  xreceiving devices. During the period that Ordinance No. 741 was in effect, Meade notified a few of  S - xStargate's customers that they were in violation of that Ordinance.9 Y4 yOL- xԍPetition at 35; Letter from Dennis Eckhoff, City Clerk/Administrator for the City of Meade, to Jess Saucedo  x(Nov. 13, 1996) (Petition, Exhibit 1, Attachment 1); Letter from Dennis Eckhoff, City Clerk/Administrator for the  xX City of Meade, to Mary Richardson (Nov. 13, 1996) (Petition, Exhibit 1, Attachment 2); Letter from Dennis Eckhoff,  xX City Clerk/Administrator for the City of Meade, to Mary Richardson (Mar. 27, 1996) (Petition, Exhibit 1, Attachment 3).9 After Meade repealed Ordinance No.  xj741 and enacted Ordinance No. 745, Meade informed two of the same Stargate customers that they were  S -in violation of Ordinance No. 745. X Y4 yO"- xԍLetter from Terry Cordes, Attorney for the City of Meade, to Jesse Saucedo and Star Lambert (Jan. 28, 1997)  x(Amendment and Reply, Exhibit C, Attachment 1); Letter from Terry Cordes, Attorney for the City of Meade, to Mary Richardson and Star Lambert (Jan. 28, 1997) (Amendment and Reply, Exhibit C, Attachment 2). "X 0*&&IIx"Ԍ S- ` x8.` ` As permitted under the Rule, Petitioners filed their Petition with the Commission! Y4 yOh- xԍAttached to the Petition as Exhibit C is a Declaration signed by Star Lambert. On February 27, 1997,  xPetitioners submitted a revised copy of Lambert's Declaration, which contained an affirmation that the statements  xwere made under the penalty of perjury. In the Matter of Star Lambert and Satellite Broadcasting Communications Association of America, Declaration of Star Lambert (filed Feb. 27, 1997). and  xserved responsive pleadings on all parties within the time periods set forth in the Public Notice relating  S- xLto the pleading cycle for this Petition.P"Y4 yO-ԍPublic Notice DA 970029 (Jan. 8, 1997).P Nine parties filed responses in support of Petitioners' argument  S- xthat Ordinance No. 741 was preempted by the Rule.#@Y4 yOh - xԍBellSouth Corporation Comments (filed Feb. 7, 1997); Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association  xComments (filed Feb. 7, 1997); DIRECTV, Inc. Comments (filed Feb. 7, 1997); Heartland Wireless Communications,  xInc. Comments (filed Feb. 7, 1997); Media Access Project/Consumer Federation of America Comments (filed Feb.  x7, 1997; Pacific Bell Comments (filed Feb. 7, 1997); Primestar Partners L.P. Comments (filed Feb. 7, 1997); The  xNational Rural Telecommunications Cooperative Comments (filed Feb. 7, 1997); The Wireless Cable Association  xInternational, Inc. Comments (filed Feb. 7, 1997). BellSouth Corporation ("BellSouth") agreed with Petitioners that  xOrdinance No. 741 violates the Rule with respect to both satellite antennas and wireless cable antennas.  x;Nevertheless, BellSouth urged the Commission to hold the Petition in abeyance until the Rule is revised as proposed by BellSouth in its Petition for Reconsideration of the Rule. BellSouth Comments at 1, 4. After the Petition was filed, but before the close  x.of the response period, Meade repealed Ordinance No. 741 and enacted Ordinance No. 745. Petitioners  xthen amended their Petition and contended that Ordinance No. 745, like Ordinance No. 741, should be  S- xzpreempted.A$Y4 yO-ԍAmendment and Reply at 2.A Neither Meade nor any other party filed an opposition to the Petition during the initial  xnresponse period. Learning that Meade's failure to file a response was the consequence of a  x0misunderstanding as to the applicable procedural rules, the Cable Services Bureau granted Meade  xpermission to file its response late, during the period in which reply comments were due. As a result, a  xsecond reply comment period was granted to give Petitioners and other parties an opportunity to address  SH - xMeade's response.I%H Y4 yO- xԍPetitioners and Primestar Partners L.P. ("Primestar") submitted Reply Comments during the first Reply period.  xAll parties were notified by Commission staff by telephone on February 25, 1997, that additional replies would be  xaccepted until close of business on March 3, 1997. Petitioners, BellSouth, Media Access Project/Consumer  xyFederation of American ("MAP/CFA"), and Pacific Bell filed additional replies, in which they reiterated their objections to Meade's Ordinances.I Petitioners and other parties filed additional comments contending that Ordinance  S -No. 745 should be preempted.& PY4 yO - xԍAmendment and Reply; Pacific Bell Comments and Reply Comments; BellSouth Reply Comments; MAP/CFA Reply Comments; Primestar Reply Comments.  S -III.xPosition of Parties  S - ` x9.` ` In their initial Petition, Petitioners challenged all provisions of Ordinance No. 741 as" &0*&&IIj"  S- xprohibited under the Rule, including requirements for permits, specific placements, and penalties.' Y4 yOh- xԍPetitioners contended, among other things, that the restrictions were imposed without regard to whether they  xprevent or substantially degrade the reception of an acceptable quality signal. Petition at 10. Petitioners also claimed  xthat Meade officials verbally threatened to turn off electricity to those antenna users who did not pay the fines assessed against them for failing to remove their antennas pursuant to Ordinance No. 741. Petition at 12.  xlAlthough Meade repealed Ordinance No. 741 while this proceeding was pending, Meade replaced  xOrdinance No. 741 with Ordinance No. 745, which retained similar provisions. Consequently, the parties'  xcontentions regarding Ordinance No. 745 are similar to those raised with respect to Ordinance No. 741.  x/Petitioners contend that Ordinance No. 745, like its predecessor, contains provisions that impair the  xinstallation, maintenance, or use of antennas, and, therefore, is preempted by the Rule. Specifically,  xjPetitioners dispute the legality of the following provisions of Ordinance No. 745: (1) the requirement for  xa permit and permit fee prior to the installation of an antenna; (2) the requirement to demonstrate to the  xBuilding Official that it will not be possible to receive an acceptable quality signal at one of the sites  xauthorized by the Ordinance and obtain the official's prior approval to install an antenna in the front yard,  xkon the front of a building, or at a height greater than 14 feet above ground level; (3) the requirement to  xLcomply with unspecified and allegedly inconsistently enforced setback regulations; (4) the imposition of  xunreasonable penalties of up to $500 per day for violations of the Ordinance; and (5) the general reference to safety concerns as a justification for the restrictions.  S - ` #x 10.` ` In particular, Petitioners and other parties argue that the Rule prohibits permits and other  xprocedural requirements because they amount to an undue burden on the installation process, unless such  SX- xjrequirements are justified by safety or historic preservation considerations.(XY4 yO- xԍAmendment and Reply at 5; Pacific Bell Comments at 24; BellSouth Reply Comments at 3; Primestar Reply Comments at 2; MAP/CFA Reply Comments at 1. They argue that Ordinance  xNo. 745 does not set forth any safety or historic preservation basis to justify its permit or fee requirement.  S- ` B x 11.` ` Petitioners further contend that although it may be permissible for Meade to express a  xpreference for the placement of antennas, the procedure set forth in Ordinance No. 745 amounts to a prior  xapproval process that is impermissible under the Rule because it delays and encumbers the installation  Sh- xprocess.)hY4 yO- xԍAmendment and Reply at 56. Other parties took the same position. BellSouth Reply Comments at 2; MAP/CFA Reply Comments at 1. Petitioners offer as an example of unreasonable expense and delay Meade's requirement that  S@-a Stargate customer dig a ditch in order to install the dish where required by the Ordinance.F*Z@` Y4 {O@- xԍSee January 28, 1997 Letter from Meade City Attorney to Jesse Saucedo, requiring him to "trench a ditch" in  xorder to move the dish from its present location to the location required under Ordinance No. 745. Amendment and Reply at 7 and Exhibit C.F  S- ` x 12.` ` Petitioners and other parties maintain that the provision restricting the height of antennas  S- xis merely a guise for prior approval, which impedes antenna installation.+ Y4 yO$-ԍAmendment and Reply at 6; Pacific Bell Reply Comments at 2; MAP/CFA Reply Comments at 1. They assert that this provision"+0*&&II"  xviolates the Rule because the Commission recognizes that valid safety concerns may exist for roof xMmounted masts that extend more than 12 feet above the roofline, but specifically rejects per se height  S- xlimitations.G,Y4 {O-ԍReport and Order  37.G Pacific Bell emphasizes that the Meade restriction applies to groundmounted antennas and  S-should be preempted under the Rule.I-ZY4 yO-ԍPacific Bell Comments at 5.I  S8- ` x 13.` ` Petitioners declare that the setback regulations are impermissible placement preferences  xbecause Meade has applied them inconsistently among antenna users. They state that Meade has not  xmemorialized its setback requirements but, nevertheless, has invoked those requirements as a basis for  xdirecting antenna users to relocate their antennas, sometimes to locations from which signal reception is  ximpossible. Petitioners also reported that similar placement restrictions are not imposed on comparable  Sp- xdevices.G.ZpY4 {O - xԍPetitioners' March 12, 1997 response to ex parte Request for Information at 12 and Exhibit B. Petitioners  xhave also objected to the reference in Ordinance No. 745 to "building and utility codes" for similar reasons. Amendment and Reply at 78. G In addition, Primestar argues that the setback regulations are preempted because compliance  SH - xis required without concern for the effect, if any, on signal reception.;/ZH Y4 {O- xZԍPrimestar Reply Comments at 2. See Report & Order  20 ("Requirements that antennas be set back from  xthe street could be deemed to impair reception if compliance would mean that the antenna could not receive an acceptable signal.").; According to Petitioners, the result  xhas been that antenna users in Meade have encountered, and will continue to encounter, a confusing,  S -burdensome, and discouraging regulatory regime.R0 . Y4 yO-ԍPetition at 45; Amendment and Reply at 8.R  S - ` 2x 14.` ` Petitioners and other parties contend that the provision of Ordinance No. 745 authorizing  xka fine of up to $500 a day deters antenna installation because it creates the risk of significant financial  xpunishment for even the smallest violation of the Ordinance, and would amount to an unreasonable  S0-increase in the cost of using an antenna.~10 Y4 yO-ԍAmendment and Reply at 7; Pacific Bell Comments at 56; Primestar Reply Comments at 2.~  S- ` `x15.` ` Finally, Petitioners state that the general reference to safety concerns in Ordinance No.  x.745 fails to qualify as "a clearly defined safety objective" under the Rule, and, thereby, is not worthy of  S- xthe exemption provision contained within Paragraph (b)(1) of the Rule.m2N Y4 {O~!-ԍAmendment and Reply at 8; see Pacific Bell Reply Comments at 2.m Pointing to the text of Paragraph  x.(b)(1), Pacific Bell argues that the Rule requires that the safety justification must be clearly stated either  xzin the text of the restriction, its preamble, its legislative history, or "in a document readily available to"@20*&&II"  S- xantenna users."E3Y4 yOh-ԍPacific Bell Comments at 45.E In sum, Pacific Bell states, Meade should not be allowed to shield its regulations behind  S-some undefined "safety" objective.14XY4 {O-ԍId.1  S- ` `x16.` ` In response, Meade claims, among other things, that because it repealed Ordinance No.  x741 on January 22, 1997, the Commission has no basis upon which to adjudicate this dispute, and that,  S8- xaccordingly, the Commission should dismiss the Petition.58Y4 yO - x.ԍIn the Matter of Star Lambert and Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association of America,  yO -Response of the City of Meade, Kansas (filed Feb. 25, 1997 ("Response"). Meade does not set forth any substantive  S- xyjustification for Ordinance No. 741I6BY4 yO - xԍDennis Eckhoff, City Clerk/Administrator for the City of Meade acknowledged that Ordinance No. 741 might  {O - xhave been inconsistent with the Rule. Tom Kuhns, Eckhoff: New city law answers satellite TV concerns, Meade  yO- xwCounty News, January __, 1997, at 1. , ("In all fairness to the other side, (ordinance) 741 and the previous ordinance  xwhich was 699, it did prohibit the placement of dishes in the front yard. . . . And it didn't much matter whether  x,they couldn't get a signal or not any place else. . . . That's what we had to change in our ordinances to comply with  {O-the FCC regulations."), reproduced in Amendment and Reply, Exhibit B.I or Ordinance No. 745, nor does it address the contentions raised by  xKPetitioners and the other parties that Ordinance Nos. 741 and 745 do not comply with the Rule in that they  S-impair installation, maintenance, or use of antennas protected by the Rule.87 Y4 yO-ԍResponse at 12.8  Sp- ` x17.` ` Meade further claims that because Star Lambert did not make her (first) declaration under  SH - xthe penalty of perjury, the Commission should disregard that document.@8H N Y4 {O6-ԍSee supra note 33.@ Meade also disputes the  xallegations that its officials threatened to turn off antenna users' electricity, and asserts that at the time the  x Petition was filed its Planning Commission was preparing new guidelines concerning installation and  xNplacement of antennas. Meade states that it hoped that the revisions would address the concerns Petitioners raised and thus render the Petition moot.  SX- ` x18.` ` In reply, Petitioners and other parties dispute Meade's mootness argument. First, they  x.argue that Ordinance No. 745 and Ordinance No. 741 raise similar issues and appear to conflict with the  S- xMRule.`9Y4 yO -ԍAmendment and Reply at 2; BellSouth Reply Comments at 3.` Second, Petitioners and others argue that local governmental authorities should not be able to  x>evade the petition process by amending or repealing an ordinance after a petition is filed, and then be  xypermitted to argue that the petition is moot. They contend that if the Commission accepts the mootness  xrationale, local authorities could perpetually evade a Commission ruling by revising an ordinance while"p90*&&II"  S- xa proceeding is pending.@:Y4 yOh-ԍSupplemental Reply at 2.@ Petitioners and other parties argue that the Commission should not dismiss a  S-petition as moot unless, and until, the petitioner asks that it be withdrawn.s;XY4 {O-ԍId.; MAP/CFA Reply Comments at 1; BellSouth Reply Comments at 3 n.10.s  S- IV.xDiscussion  S8-x A.` ` Procedural Issues  S- ` nx19.` ` As an initial matter, we reject Meade's contention that the Petition is moot because Meade  x\repealed Ordinance No. 741 while this proceeding was pending. We note that the issues raised in the  x.Petition have not been resolved, but rather, simply appear in different form by the subsequent adoption  xof Ordinance No. 745. Many of the provisions that are the subject of the Petition are present in Ordinance  xNo. 745, including the requirement for permits and prior approval, the presence of fines for violations,  xidentical references to "setback regulations" and "building and utility codes," and the reference to safety  xyconcerns as a justification for the restrictions. As noted above, Meade officials have notified at least two  x0antenna users who were warned pursuant to Ordinance No. 741 that they now are in violation of  xOrdinance No. 745. We agree with Petitioners and other parties that our review process should not cease  x.when one ordinance is replaced with another ordinance with a similar set of requirements. To do so will deprive the industry and consumers of the protections the Rule was clearly designed to afford.  S- ` ox20.` ` Moreover, we note that Ordinance No. 745 properly has been included in the record of  xthis proceeding, and, therefore, appropriately is subject to our review. Petitioners amended their Petition  ximmediately upon receiving notice that Meade had repealed Ordinance No. 741 and replaced it with  xOrdinance No. 745. All parties were on notice of this fact, and had an opportunity to address the validity  xyof Ordinance No. 745. Foremost among the parties, Meade knew of the impending repeal and enactment  xand was afforded several opportunities to justify both Ordinances but chose not to so do. Thus, we do  x.not believe that any party will be prejudiced by our review of Ordinance No. 745 at this time. This case  xpresents us with an opportunity to evaluate the validity of a currently effective local ordinance under the  xRule, and we believe that addressing the issues raised herein will provide valuable guidance in the future to both local authorities and consumers.  SP- ` x21.` ` We also reject Meade's other procedural objection that Ms. Lambert's Declaration should  xbe disregarded on the ground that it was unsworn. The Rule provides that "all allegations of fact  xcontained in petitions and related pleadings before the Commission must be supported by affidavit of a  S- xzperson or persons with actual knowledge thereof."@<Y4 yOb!-ԍ47 C.F.R. 1.4000(f).@ The Commission's rules provide that in lieu of a  xsworn affidavit, a declarant may provide an unsworn declaration subscribed by the declarant as true under  S- xypenalty of perjury and dated.<=zY4 yO$-ԍ47 C.F.R. 1.16. < In view of the fact that a revised copy of Ms. Lambert's Declaration was" =0*&&II"  xfiled with a declaration of its truth under penalty of perjury, we find that she has provided an affidavit  S-meeting the requirements of the Commission's rules.  S-x B. ` ` Ordinance P rovisions  S8-x` ` 1. Permit and fee requirements  S-  S- ` ~x22.` ` We agree with Petitioners and others that the requirement in Ordinance No. 745 that an  xinstaller or antenna user obtain a permit upon written application and the requirement to pay a permit fee of $5.00 before installing an antenna is prohibited under the Rule. Ordinance No. 745(1) provides:  ` x` ` Prior to installing, using, or maintaining a satellite receiving antenna and  ` Gassociated equipment in any district classification or zone outside an  ` Genclosed building the installer or primary benefactor of the proposed  ` installation shall make written application for a permit from the City of  ` eMeade. So as to not unreasonably delay the ability to make or enjoy  ` ssuch installation and the reception of a signal, the Building Official of the  ` City of Meade shall immediately review the application and if the same  ` fcomplies with the following requirements a permit shall be issued  ` forthwith by the Building Official in consideration for the payment of a Five Dollar and no/100 ($5.00) permit fee to the City of Meade, Kansas.x`  S- ` &x23.` ` As noted above, one of the purposes of the Rule is to prohibit restrictions that  xunreasonably delay or prevent antenna installation, maintenance, or use. The Rule is intended to promote  xone of the primary objectives of the Act, which is to make communication services readily available to  S- xthe public at a reasonable expense.> Y4 yO- xԍIn the preamble to the Act, Congress clearly enunciates its goals: "AN ACT To promote competition and reduce  xregulation in order to secure lower prices and higher quality services for American telecommunications consumers  x,and encourage the rapid deployment of new telecommunications technologies." Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996). In our Report and Order, we stated that procedural requirements  xmight act as a barrier between the new technology and the potential consumer because of the  xadministrative delay and the myriad regulatory obstacles that the potential antenna user must hurdle before  S- xbeing able to utilize the new technology.s?Y4 {O-ԍReport and Order  17; 47 C.F.R.  1.4000(a).s We specifically concluded that requirements for permits or fees  x.might prove to be a disincentive for potential antenna users, effectively "preventing" access to the video  SR- xprogramming signals that Congress sought to protect under Section 207 of the Act.@\RBY4 {O4!- x-ԍReport and Order  17. Keeping in line with the Congressional mandate, we concluded that the Rule would  xpreempt procedural requirements, including permits and fees, when they work this kind of disincentive, unless they  {O"-are necessary for purposes of safety or historic preservation. Id.Đ The Commission  x?noted that permits may be permissible when there is a local condition involving safety or historic  x=preservation, but such requirements should be no more burdensome than necessary to achieve the stated" f @0*&&IIM"  S- xpurpose.bAY4 {Oh-ԍReport and Order  17; 47 C.F.R.  1.4000(b).b We note that, under the Rule, the party seeking to impose these requirements is required to  S-carry the burden of demonstrating that its restrictions comport with the Rule.ABZY4 yO-ԍ47 C.F.R.  1.4000(e).A  S- ` x24.` ` The Ordinance sets forth preferred antenna placementsCCXY4 yO- xԍUnder Ordinance 745, satellite antennas of 39 inches or less may be installed on the side or rear of a building,  xthe roof, or in the side or rear yard, ground mounted in the case of yard placement and extending no more than 14 feet above the ground. C and provides that where antennas  xare so placed, siting permission will be granted automatically. However, the Ordinance requires  xprospective antenna users to obtain permits for such placements. Thus, even where a location is per se  S- x=permissible under the Ordinance and raises no safety or historic preservation issues,D Y4 yO -ԍSee the discussion below as to the lack of support for a safety rationale for the Ordinance's provisions. a potential user is  xjrequired to submit a written application for a permit, pay a fee and delay any installation or use until the  xMBuilding Official issues a permit. This subjects the user to delay and expense without reason. While  xsome might argue that the application for a permit is simple, the fee is small and the period of time for  xpermit issuance is mandated to be short, the fact remains that a potential user is required to take these  xsteps in circumstances in which the City has previously determined (by enacting the Ordinance) that it has  xLno quarrel with the proposed placement. Requiring a prospective user to apply for, and then to await, a  xjpro forma permit issuance unreasonably delays installation, and requiring a prospective user to pay a fee  x[for a permit that must, under the terms of the Ordinance be issued automatically, unreasonably increases  S -the cost of installation.AEX Y4 yO- xԍOur determination is not based on the $5.00 amount of the permit fee, but rather on the prohibited requirement  xto obtain a permit prior to installation. In this ordinance there is no justification for the permit regardless of the amount of the fee.A  SX- ` x25.` ` As required by the Rule, Ordinance No. 745 provides that where it is not possible to  S0- xobtain an acceptable signal in a preferred placement location, an alternative placement will be permitted.,FX0 Y4 yO- xԍSee paragraphs 29 and 30 below for discussions as to whether the Ordinance fully provides for situations in  xwhich an alternative placement should be permitted or sufficiently describes acceptable alternative placement locations.,  xHowever, the Ordinance conditions such placement on a prior demonstration to the Building Official that  xan acceptable signal cannot be obtained at a preferred location and on the prior issuance of a permit by  xjthe Building Official for the alternative location. Again, no safety or historic preservation reason is given  S-to justify the need for the demonstration or permit requirements.GY4 yO #-ԍSee the discussion below as to the lack of support for a safety rationale for the Ordinance's provisions. "h jG0*&&II"Ԍ S- ` x826.` ` Where prospective users cannot receive acceptable signals in preferred locations, they have  xjthe same rights under the Rule to place their antennas in alternative locations as other users have to place  xktheir antennas in preferred locations that is, an absolute right of placement absent safety or historic  x.preservation considerations. In the case of the former class of users, alternative locations become per se  xa8pproved locations. Requirements such as prior demonstrations of unacceptable signals and prior issuance  xkof permits are as unreasonable in the case of users who cannot otherwise receive acceptable signals as  x=prior permits for preferred locations are with respect to users who can receive acceptable signals at such locations.  S- ` x27.` ` We note that it appears that prior demonstrations and prior permit requirements for  xalternative placements would only be necessary to prevent such placements by users who can receive  xacceptable signals at preferred locations; that is, by users who are violating the law. It therefore seems  xthat to protect against illegal actions, the Ordinance subjects all lawful users of alternative placements (i.e.  xthose who cannot receive acceptable signals at preferred locations) to unreasonable delay and expense,  xwhich is prohibited by the Rule except when justified as necessary for safety or historic preservation. The  xLAct and the Rule require the City to enforce its preferred placement provisions through methods that do  x/not burden those who have a right to site their antennas at alternative locations. Therefore, the prior demonstration and permit requirements in Ordinance No. 745 cannot stand.  S-x` ` 2.  Antenna Location Requirements.  S- ` _x28.` ` For reasons similar to those discussed above, we agree with Petitioners and others that the  xrequirements in Ordinance No. 745 respecting antenna location are preempted under the Rule. Ordinance No. 745(2)(A) specifies where antennas measuring 39 inches or less may be installed:  ` x` ` Subject to property setback regulations, such antenna and equipment shall  ` be placed and installed on the side or rear of the main building, or in the side or rear yards, or on the roof of the main building.x`  xThe Ordinance also provides that, wherever placed, groundmounted antennas shall not extend higher than  SP- x14 feet above ground level.@HPY4 yO-ԍOrdinance No. 745(4)(C).@ The antenna installer or user may be able to avoid both of these location  xconstraints if "it is reasonably explained or demonstrated to the Building Official that it will not be  S-possible to receive a quality acceptable signal" at any of the officially sanctioned locations.KIXY4 yO-ԍOrdinance No. 745(2)(B) and (4)(C).K  S- ` Cx29.` ` In the Report and Order, we stated that local communities could specify particular  xlocations for the placement of antennas provided those placement specifications do not impair the  Sb- xinstallation, maintenance or use of antennas covered by the Rule.GJbY4 {O#-ԍReport and Order  17.G Meade has specified particular  xlocations that could be in compliance with the Rule, provided restriction to those locations does not": zJ0*&&II "  xunreasonably delay installation, add unreasonably to the cost of installation, maintenance or use, or impair  S- xthe reception of an acceptable quality signal.OKY4 {O@-ԍReport and Order  17 20.O However, as noted above, Meade allows deviation from  xits placement specifications only if an antenna user or installer demonstrates to a Building Official that  x{the installation of the antenna at the location specified by the Ordinance precludes reception of an  xacceptable signal. If the Building Official is convinced by the antenna user or installer's demonstration,  S8-then a permit will be issued.AL8ZY4 yO2-ԍOrdinance No. 745(2)(B). A  S- ` x30.` ` We find that this aspect of Meade's regulation of antennas violates the Rule for two  xreasons. First, the imposition of this demonstration requirement constitutes an unjustified prior approval  S- xyprocess which, as discussed above, is prohibited by the Rule.MY4 {O" -ԍSee paragraphs 2327, supra. See also Report and Order  17; 47 C.F.R.  1.4000(a). Second, subsections (2)(B) and (4)(C) of  xOrdinance No. 745 do not list unreasonable delay and unreasonable cost as acceptable justifications for  SH - xplacing an antenna other than where specified.SNH |Y4 yOd- xԍFor example, the requirement to place an antenna in a side or rear yard, rather than in the front, could result  xiin unreasonable additional cost as well as unreasonable delay if it is necessary to locate, purchase and install more  x;cable or wiring than would be necessary for installation in the front. Similarly, the requirement for roof installation  x<could necessitate finding and hiring a professional installer, thereby producing unreasonable delay and significant additional cost.S Ordinance No. 745 recognizes as a valid exception to  xZits placement restrictions only a demonstration that the required placement interferes with reception. Thus,  x>Meade's regulatory approach fails to recognize that under the Rule, there are two additional types of  ximpairment, delay and cost, which must be acknowledged as valid justifications for placing an antenna  xMother than where the locality prefers. The same rationale and analysis applies to the 14 foot antenna  S - xrestriction.BO , Y4 yOL-ԍOrdinance No. 745(4)(C). B A requirement that an installer or user obtain prior approval in order to exceed the 14 foot  xheight limit also amounts to an unacceptable impairment. No party has suggested that, in this case, the  xheight restriction is safetyrelated. Our Rule requires that a safetybased restriction must spring from a  S- xclearly stated and defined safety objective.GP Y4 {Od-ԍReport and Order  25.G Meade proffers no such basis herein.|QN Y4 {O-ԍSee discussion of Meade's safety rationale in paragraphs 3436, infra. | We conclude,  xLtherefore, that subsections (2)(A) and (B) and 4(C) of Ordinance No. 745 are preempted under the Rule.  S-x` ` 3. Unspecified Setback Regulations and Building Codes  S@- ` #x31.` ` Ordinance No. 745(2)(A) subjects antenna installation to unarticulated "property setback"@ Q0*&&IIr"  S- xregulations."ERY4 {Oh-ԍSee supra paragraph 13.E Ordinance No. 745(4)(B) requires that all antennas and associated equipment must conform  xto unspecified building and utility codes. No citation is given in Ordinance No. 745 for either set of  xregulations, and neither Petitioners nor Meade have described them. If the setback regulations and  xbuilding codes had been specified, they might have been permissible under the Rule if they did not impair  xinstallation, maintenance or use or if they contained a clearly defined safety or historic preservation  xobjective. In the absence of specification with respect to the setback regulations, and in light of  xPetitioners' allegation that these regulations have been used inconsistently and arbitrarily to require  x.antenna users to remove or relocate their antennas, thus causing unreasonable delay and expense, as well  xas impairing reception, we conclude on this record that the reference to these regulations in Ordinance No. 745 is prohibited.  SH -x` ` 4. Penalty Provisions  S - ` x32.` ` We believe that in the absence of an explanation, the provision of Ordinance No. 745 that  xauthorizes the imposition of a $500 per day fine for violations of the Ordinance is prohibited under the  S -Rule.=S ZY4 yO-ԍOrdinance No. 745(5).= Ordinance No. 745(5) provides:  ` x` ` Any person who violates this ordinance, which shall include but not be  ` limited to vendors of satellite receiving antennas and associated  ` uequipment, installers of satellite receiving antennas and associated  ` equipment, owners of real property, real property tenants, architects,  ` (building contractors, or any of their agents, may be punishable by a fine  ` 7not to exceed Five Hundred Dollars and no/100 ($500.00) with each and  ` every day that such violation continues, constituting a distinct and separate offense.x`  S- ` x 33.` ` Meade has offered no explanation or justification for the amount of the fine. We believe  S- xthat penalties of this magnitude are likely to deter installation. In the absence of any acceptable  xjustification for the amount of the penalty at issue, we find that this provision imposes an unreasonable  xrisk of financial penalty that impairs installation, maintenance and use of the antenna because the mere  xprospect of a continuing $500 per day fine may prevent antenna installation altogether. Therefore, we find that Meade's $500 per day fine for violations of its antenna restrictions is prohibited by the Rule.  S-x` ` 5. Safety restrictions  S- ` Rx!34.` ` Finally, we agree with Petitioners and others that Meade has not made the required  xLshowing that the restrictions contained within Ordinance No. 745 are permissible exceptions to our Rule  x=because they are necessary to accomplish a clearly defined safety objective. In a general reference to the denial of permits, Meade Ordinance No. 745(4)(A) refers to public health and safety concerns, as follows: " S0*&&IIe""Ԍ ` x` ` The public health, safety and welfare interests of the inhabitants of the  ` City of Meade shall at all times be taken into consideration prior to the  ` dissuance of any permit and if any of these interests might be jeopardized  ` by the issuance of a permit, the Building Official shall clearly define to the applicant his/her reasons for the failure to issue a permit. x`  S- ` x"35.` ` As noted in the Report and Order, there is an exception under the Rule for "legitimate  S- xzsafety goals . . . that serve a stated safety purpose."GTY4 {OR-ԍReport and Order  24.G We also stated that safety restrictions must be  x.clearly defined in the text, preamble, or legislative history of the restriction, and be no more burdensome  S- xNthan necessary to achieve the articulated objective.GUZY4 {O -ԍReport and Order  25.G In addition, we provided an avenue for local  xgovernments to comply with the Rule, in lieu of having to revise their regulations, by preparing and  x.making "readily available" to antenna users a separate document that describes the safety restriction and  S" -defines the safety objective.1V" Y4 {O-ԍId.1  S - ` x#36.` ` Meade has not stated a specific safety objective in its Ordinance, nor set forth its safety  xpurpose in a separate document. Ordinance No. 745(4)(A) provides a general statement of "health, safety  xand welfare interests," but does not provide the type of specific guidance and clear purpose that we believe  SZ- xis required by the Rule. In particular, we do not believe that Meade has sufficiently identified the type  x[of safety concern it intends to address, and are concerned that the general statement of safety interests is  xyso broad and illdefined that it constitutes little more than a pro forma recitation. Therefore, we find that  xOrdinance No. 745(4)(A) does not qualify for an exception under the Rule because we have no basis upon  S-which to conclude that the restrictions are necessary to accomplish a clearly defined safety objective.W~Y4 yO- xԍWe note that even in the context of clearly defined safety goals, the Rule requires that restrictions be "no more burdensome to affected antenna users than is necessary to achieve the [safety] objectives." 47 C.F.R. 1.4000(b).  Sj- V.xConclusion  S- ` x$37.` ` For the aforementioned reasons, we find that those provisions of Ordinance No. 745 that conflict with the Rule are hereby preempted. "W0*&&II"Ԍ S- VI.xOrdering Clauses  S-  S- ` 3x%38.` ` Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED , pursuant to Section 1.4000(d) of the OvertheAir  xReception Devices Rule, 47 C.F.R.  1.4000(d), and Section 1.2 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R.   xy1.2, that, with respect to Meade, Kansas Ordinance No. 745, the Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by  xStar Lambert and Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association of America, on December 23,  S-1996, as amended on February 24, 1997, is GRANTED .  S- ` x&39.` ` This action is taken by the Chief, Cable Services Bureau, pursuant to authority delegated by Section 0.321 of the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. 0.321. x` `  hhFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  x` `  hhMeredith J. Jones x` `  hhChief, Cable Services Bureau