Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
M-95-0711
w ® 1CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA P Z INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO : Honorable Mayor and Members DATE : SEP 18 1995 FILE of the City Commission SUBJECT: Appeal of Special Exception for cellular tower at 749 N.W. 5th Ave. FROM : REFERENCES: Ces o Agenda Item, City Commission City ENCLOSURES Meeting of July 13, 1995 BACKGORUND INFORMATION At the April 27, 1995 City Commission meeting, the above referenced Special Exception appeal was continued for ninety days in order for the City Administration to investigate other alternate sites, including the Administration Building at 275 N.W. 2 Street. Upon conducting an on -site tour of the City Administration building, referenced above, and an interpretation by the Zoning Administrator (attached hereto), the Administration and Cellular One have informally agreed that the installation of the proposed cellular transmission antenna on the Administration Building is feasible; all applicable building codes are in compliance and from a zoning standpoint, a Class II Special Permit is all that is required for the transmission antenna to be placed on a building within the G/I Zoning District. RECOMENUATION Based on the discussion at the April 27th Commission meeting, the building and zoning infozmation specified above, and an agreement by the applicant for the Special Exception for a cellular communication site at 749 N.W. 5th Avenue, the Commission may wish to follow the following course of action: 1) make an affirmative decision on the appeal of the Zoning Board's decision to grant the above referenced Special Exception and deny the application, or ask the applicant to withdraw the application; and then 2) direct the administration to begin negotiations with the applicant, following all applicable city regulations, ordinances and policies for the placement of the antenna on the city building. The only remaining issue to be resolved in order to actually implement the placement of the transmission antenna on the building, is whether a revokable permit or a lease agreement is more appropriate. The City Cammdssion should instruct the administration as to which option suits the city best. 95- g 1.1 CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Lourdes Slazyk, Planner III Planning, Buildin�,�a�Zoning FROM uan C. Gonzalez Acting Zoning Admini Planning, Building DATE : June 30, 1995 FILE artment SUBJECT : Cellular Relay Antennas 275 NW 2nd Street Zoning G/I REFERENCES: ENCLOSURES: ing Department Pursuant to a request concerning placing Cellular Relay Antennas on the roof of the Don Hickman Building (275 NW 2nd Street), please be advised of the following. The current zoning designation of the aforementioned site is G/I (Government and Institutional). The G/I zoning designation allows line -of -sight rely devices for telephonic communication by a Class II Special Permit. Therefore, the proposed cellular relay antennas on the mentioned building are permissible by a Class II Special Permit. cc: Zoning File Central File 1 3 95- 711 __j CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM 1 TO Santiago Jorge -Ventura DATE : June 19, 1995 FILE Deputy Director and I Chief Building 4f f icial SUBJECT : Cellular Telephone jTransmission Towers irWea`ffL'_._rrnandez 749 NW 5 Avenue FRO REFERENCES: Chief Hearing Boards Division Planning, Building and Zoning Dept • ENCLOSURES: For your information and follow through, I am enclosing a copy of the memorandum dated May 19, 1995, from Joseph McManus, former Deputy Director of Planning, Building and Zoning Department to you on the aforementioned matter. We need your comments if any, by June 27, 1995 in order to include them in the package.that will be reviewed by the City Commission on July 13, 1995. cc: Sergio Rodriguez, Assistant City Manager Planning, Building and Zoning Dept. Ron E. Williams, Assistant City Manager General Services Administration L CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Ron E. Williams Assistant City Manager General Services Administration FR ^� Ter ' a L. Fer n e z Chief Hearing Boards Division DATE : June 19, 1995 FILE SUBJECT : Cellular Telephone Transmission Towers REFERENCES 7 4 9 NW 5 Avenue Planning, Building and Zoning Dept • ENCLOSURES: For your information and follow through, I am enclosing a copy of the memorandum dated May 19, 1995, from Joseph McManus, former Deputy Director of Planning, Building and Zoning Department to Santiago Jorge -Ventura on the aforementioned matter. We need your comments if any, by June 27, 1995 in order to include them in the package.that will be reviewed by the City Commission on July 13, 1995. cc: Sergio Rodriguez, Assistant City Manager Planning, Building and Zoning Dept. Santiago Jorge -Ventura, Deputy Director and Chief Building Official Planning, Building and Zoning Dept. 6 %,i i r UF- MIAMI, 1-LUHIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM To Ron E. Williams DATE May 26, 1995 FILE Assistant City Manager/Director General Services Administration &, Cellular Telephone Transmission Solid Waste Department sua,ECT: Antenna: Administration ' Building FROM : -' REFERENCES: SeYnnin2a, 'guez AsCity Manager/Director ENCLOSURES: P1 Building and Zoning Department I understand that, as a result of an on -site tour of the Hickman Administration Building, 275 NW 2nd Street, by representatives of your department and Cellular One, it is feasible to locate a cellular telephone transmission antenna on the roof. Therefore, I request that, before moving ahead to bid a lease or ex cute a revocable permit with Cellular One, that this proposal be referred to Santiago Jorge -Ventura, Building Official/Deputy Director and Juan C. Gonzalez, Acting Zoning Administrator of the Planning, Building and Zoning Department, for conformity with the South Florida Building Code and Zoning Ordinance. For your .information, I have enclosed a memorandum on this subject directed to Santiago Jorge -Ventura in his capacity as Building Official. SR/rj Attachment cc: Santiago Jorge -Ventura Deputy Director/Building Official Planning, Building and Zoning Department Joseph W. McManus, Deputy Director Planning, Building and Zoning Department ao,lr .Administrator oning Department Waldemar Lee, Assistant City Manager/Director Department of Public Works C.A. Gimenez, Chief Fire -Rescue Department Eduardo Rodriguez, Director Office of Asset Management & Capital Improvement Donald E. Benjamin P.O. Box 015802 Miami, FL 33101 Lucia A. Dougherty, Esq. Greenberg, Traurig 1221 Brickell Ave Miami, FL 33131 q t of txa� Ok SERGIO RODRIGUE AI Director May 24, 1995 Mr. Charles Danger, P.E./Director Building Code Compliance Department 140 West Flagler Street - Suite 1603 Miami, FL 33130 RE: HAZARDS FROM CELLULAR TELEPHONE TRANSMISSION TOWERS AND ANTENNAS Dear Mr. Danger: CESAR N. ODIO City Manager For your information and follow through, I am enclosing a copy of the memorandum dated May 19, 1995 from Joseph McManus, Deputy Director of the Planning and Zoning Division of this department, requesting a response from the Board of Rules to the two (2) questions in the enclosed memorandum. Your usual cooperation is greatly appreciated. very truly yours, Santiago Jorge -Ventura, A.I.A. Deputy Director and Chief Building Official Enclosure cc: Sergio Rodriguez, Assistant City Manager Waldemar Lee, Director/Public Works Department Chief Carlos Gimenez, Director/Fire Department, Joseph McManus, Deputy Director/PBZ PLANNING, BUILDING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT L CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA... INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO Santiago Jorge:_�Yentura May 19, 1995 Building Official/Deputy Director DATE: FILE Planning, Building and Zoning Department Hazards From Cellular sua,Ecr Telephone Transmission Towers and Antennae FROM Jo McManus REFERENCES D puty Director Planning, Building and Zoning DepartmentENCLosuREs 'It is requested that you refer the following questions to the Metro Dade County Board of Rules and Appeals: 1. "Does radiofrequency radiation exposure from cellular tele hone transmission .towers and antennae constitute a clear and present danger to the public health so that construction of such devices should be prohibited as hazardous?" 2. "If not, should national standards limiting radiofrequency radiation exposure from cellular telephone transmission towers be referenced in Section 4106, Radiation Protection, Special Hazards, of the South Florida Building Code?" The national standards for limiting radiofrequency radiation exposure to humans are not contained in Section 4106 Radiation Protection, Special Hazards, or in Section 4502, Definitions and\Standards, Electrical Equipment and Wiring of the South Florida Building Code. BACKGROUND There has been growing public concern that microwave emissions (radiofrequency radiation) from cellular telephone transmission facilities (towers and antennae) may pose a risk to public health. Antennae are typically located on structures or, transmission towers from 6Q to 150 feet in height, operate in the electromagnetic' spectrum on separatPgave length bands in the 800 to 900 megahertz range, transmitting at up to 75 watts in urban areas. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the responsible federal agency has proposed to adapt a new national standard - ANSI/IEEE C95. 1-1992 "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3kHz to 300 GHz," approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) to evaluate the environmental effects of radiofrequency radiation from FCC regulated facilities. In 1993, the City of Miami amended the Zoning Ordinance with Ordinance 1135 to specifically include cellular telephone transmission towers and antennae as principal or accessory uses, either by right or as conditional uses, depending on the district. - i K I 1 Since that_times--►the following chronology has occurred: Event Date 1. The Miami City Commission passed July 22, 1994 Resolution 94-590 instructing the Administration to engage a consultant to evaluate health hazards from cellular telephone transmission towers. 2. Responding to a request, the FCC transmitted a November 4, notice of proposed rule -making with the intent 1994 to adopt new national standards for evaluating environmental effects of radiofrequency radiation from FCC regulated facilities (See Exhibit 1). 3. The Metro Dade County Commission denied March 23, 1995 a 78' high cellular telephone transmission tower at SW 67th Avenue and Coral Reef Drive proposed by Bell South Mobility by a vote of 6-4. Professor Mark Hagman of.Florida International University opposed the project (See Exhibit 2). 4. Cellular One presented a series of studies demonstrating that a proposed.tower at 749 NW 5th Avenue met the FCC safety standards (See Exhibit 3). Under a City of Miami/Florida International University contract, Dr. Tadeusz M. Babij prepared a report "Report on Radio Frequency Hazard and Interference for Proposed Cellular Telephone Communication Tower - Site M159 (749 NW 5th Street)." (March 2, 1995) The report said that the site met FCC standards (See Exhibit 4). The Zoning8oard reviewed the two raWts (above) March 6, 1995 and approved the project 7-0. 5. On appeal, the Miami City Commission continued April 27, 1995 the item for 90 days, after reviewing the FIU/Babij report and testimony from Professor Mark Hagman of FIU, and instructed the Administration to investigate other sites including the Administration Building. (See Exhibit 5). -2- r� { Attachments 1 cc: Sergio Rodriguez fAssistant City Manager Waldemar Lee; Director j Department of Public Works i C.A. Gimenez, Chief Fire -Rescue Department JJ/95:87 i i r j i i -3- w/o attachments w/o attachments w/o attachments r 0401 L 7_ONIN6 FACT SHEET I W�Ai W10 114M AMPHYAWHIR 104 1 NiA /0 OW 1) Aiemlk A Harlh 40 feel of lots 9 and 10, Block 48, MAP OF MIAMI (8-41) PROC. 110ort P. Odom, Ir"we J6 univurbity Drive Mutation, F1 43304 V-1 WHOM Cammerc0l, Adrienne F. Pardo, Esq., Agent Greenberg Traurig, PA 1221 Brickell Avenue Miami, Fl. 33131 HIPOW AporiAl Woption as listed in Ordinance No. 11000, as amended, the Zoning Ordinance it Wo City of NOW Article 4, Section 401, Schedule of District Regulations, C-1 WWWO Wourviol, Conditional Principal Uses, for a transmission tower in vonnucjion with a cellular communication site; zoned C-1 Restricted Commercial. NAMN00A)INT PLAININO, ULUU A IQNIN6 ApprovAl, PUBLI( KORK'Sk No woauent&. PLAI AYO VNIE1 NjA UADE CQQKK )RANAPOR)AHOK Xv coannits. EKWURKENIXI KISIORS, W AN) 0E.3. CAnd NQ: 41A List Waring Date; VA Faund: N/A liolation[s) WW; N,A livkyting Aw0on: NjA AlWas it ur NVOINUMPHdole WSW 0"; N/A Hily Fine; SU.00 Lien Recorded On: 40 MAI A&* To We: NA CER UK: No i�i '4:ith0,Avf) ay. caa Ygfaiwscrativn froa the Zoning Suard Agenua if September 19, 1994. Continued QW.Mobir V 104 Zoning Sqaru Waring CO Pebruar-y 6, 1995. Con-tinued Prow Phoruary 6. W95 to Noinh 6, 1995. ANALISIS, Pqr C% WWWWO ReWuCion 94-190, jaced A& Zd, 1994. the Vanning, Widi-ni; ana Ewing Ueg4rtw4ot retained in AWL WS&WE A WiUdEe ceiluiar communication faciTities wittli .pyL tQ napipaa: SWUM xhlCil -eqUjaEe UU*vble safety lazards for iearby residents (see- 00000yan mi"Undw ittachN. The, Cull= 1WOW Hanuares are conrainea in a letter, Nom the FCC dOW Vembur 4, L994 kactapheu). Appruvai of this prooposaj 'S based.0a the atudy 'Report Jai 1d4iQfreqwdoq nazaru don intpriertace 'or Quoused Cal luiar 7eiennunw Communrication 7awer, - Site 4119, Waal, Witicida, jar y 2, 1995) urepdred ay or. -aumusz ganty Assuctate. Orafessar, %Wa WWOW00a: VWQrsity, SEE AHACHED REPORT, zuspq 3q,o WILLA& C i 1 f Womblijium. WKWAHUM AU"dty raricau `0C ;WJ1Lh5 'n anic" a Nag. germit must to corilnea, :Res, la, 11g.451 zbe OvurEuwu Advisarl, 3aard.- "Q tow, OU 1 it t 95 cu ju 7; 13195. ?ramLca 7113/95 cn. 15- 10 t eflo. —1 N.W . r at.h ' >t.r eet. Fl 33136 r1arch 7, 1c-3-D5 Mrs. Teresit.a Fernandez Chief,, Hearing Boards 275 NX Lnd Avenue r1iami, Fl : , ,pr��� r�al of Special Permission for construction of tower for cellular phone transmission at -^ 74ci N.W . 5th Avenue by the Zoninc#= Board on March b, 1995 De;-:jr Mrs. Fernandez., Following our conversation today i hereby submit by this facsimile letter toappeal the above decision b the Zoning Board. The'O ert.own Advisory Board will continue to be concerned about the possible health hazards that may be caused bythe electronicor nuclear frequencies transmitted from this tower located in this residential community. The construction of this tower in the middle of our community that is making every effort to transform itself and to revitalize and rebuild is unconcionable and may hurt the efforts for new housing that is being planned to be built in the neighborhood. The offer by the cellular phone people to landscape and buffer the vicinity is Comr � �endab le but shortshighted.. it is somewhat presumptious because they have ignored the efforts of the community to re-establish itself as a vibrant and lining community that wants to rebuild and attract people, especially the young professionals, back to O ert.o•,, trn to make it. aliv e again. In any event, while they may have discussed their ideas with City of Miami officials, they have not. t. alkled with the ��vert���wn Advisory Board or the Overto ern Interim Planning Council. 9b-- � ' I its proposed tower does i iot. br-ing a—n re;:�jlist.ic ec onot-nic: benefits to Overt-o-tip -n. It des not. cre,it e any jobs or assists any of the businesses in Clv ertown. it. is not like an electrical transformer which inspite of its p'ci ;��ib1e hazards does directly provide a benefit. for the co' M' �unit.y. The proposed tower will just stand there sticking OUt like a sore thumb. It. will do nothing for 0%, erto'�,,vn. The construction of this tower is unacceptable. We will urge the C:it'.;e' Commission to reverse the decision r i f the Zoning Board. I have noted that the appeal will be heard before the City Commission on April :22?, 1,� 9S. If there is any change, please call me at. 579 Q- 048 which is also a Fax Sincerely, Donald F. Even ja Chairman, Civ ert ow n Advisory Board cc: Mayor Stephen Clark Y'ice Mayor J. L. Plummer Commissioner Miller Dawkins Commissioner Willy Gort ��ommis sio ner Victor de � f urre City Man-NL er Cesar Odio Overt -own Advisor, Board Overt own Interim Planning Council Ministers of Overto n Churches 95- - 11 If Mr. George E. Barket offered the following Resolution and moved its adoption. RESOLUTION ZB 019-95 AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTORS SET FORTH IN SECTION 1305 OF ORDINANCE 11000, THE ZONING BOARD GRANTED THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION AS LISTED IN ORDINANCE NO. 11000, AS AMENDED, THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, ARTICLE 4, SECTION 401, SCHEDULE OF DISTRICT REGULATIONS, C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL, CONDITIONAL PRINCIPAL USES, FOR A TRANSMISSION TOWER IN CONNECTION WITH A CELLULAR COMMUNICATION SITE LOCATED AT 749 NW 5 AVENUE LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS THE NORTH 50 FEET OF LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK 48, MAP OF MIAMI SUBDIVISION (B-41) PUBLIC RECORDS OF DADE COUNTY; ZONED C-1 RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL. Upon being seconded by Mrs. Ileana Hernandez the motion was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Mses. Basila, Hernandez & Morales. Messers. Barket, Milian, Crespo and Moran Ribeaux. NAYES: None. ABSENT: Messers. Carman and Luaces. Ms. Fernandez: Motion carries 7-0. March 6, 1995 Zoning Board Item# 1 El 9 si --11- 1 ZONING BOARD ACTION ON PETITION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION that the request on agenda item be (denied) (granted),in that' the requirements of Section 2305 (were) (were no isfied by relevant evidence in the record of the public hearing• a) as stated in the City's findings of fact, or / bY/ as demonstrated by the petitioner, or mac) on the basis of the followings ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Zoning Board, in its decision to (grant) (deny) the special exception, shall make written findings that the applicable requirements of this Zoning Ordinance, Section 2305, (have) (have not) been met. Circle appropriate conditions: 139S.1 Ingress and Eorees. Due consideration shall be given to adequacy of ingress and egress to the property and structure and uses thereon, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, and access in case of fire and emergency. 1305.2 offstreet Parkin and Loadin Due consideration shall be given to offstreet parking and loading facilities as related to adjacent streets, with particular reference to automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, internal traffic flow and control, arrangement in polation to access in case of fire or other emergency, and screening and landscaping. 1303.3 Refuse and service areas. Due consideration shall be given to the location, scale, design, and screening of refuse and service areas to the manner in which refuse is to be stored; and to the manner and timing of refuse collection and deliveries, shipments, or other service activities, as such matters relate to the location and nature of uses on adjoining properties and to the location and character of adjoining public ways. 1305.4 Siting and Ughtinga. Due consideration shall be given to the number, size, character, location and orientation of proposed signsy and of proposed lighting for signs and premises, with particular reference to traffic safety, glare, and compatibility and harmony with adjoining and nearby property and the character of the area. f 1303.5 Utilities. Due consideration shall be given to utilities required, with particular reference to availability and capacity of systems, location of connections, and. potentially adverse appearance or other adverse effects on adjoining and nearby property and the character of the area. 1305.6 Drainage Due consideration shall be given for drainage, with particular reference to effect on adjoining and nearby properties and on general drainage systems in the area. Where major drainagr volumes appear likely and capacity of available systems is found marginal or inadequate, consideration shall be given to possibilities for recharge of groundwater supply on the property, temporary retention with gradual discharge, or other remedial measures. 1305.7 Preservation of natural features. Due consideration shall be given to provision for the preservation of existing vegetation and geological features whenever possible. 1305.8 Control of potentially adverse effects generailZ. In addition to consideration of detailed elements indicated above, as appropriate to the particular class or kind of special permit and the circumstances of the particular case, due consideration shall be given to potentially adverse effects generally on adjoining and nearby properties, the area, the neighborhood, or the City, of the use or occupancy as proposed, or its location, construction, design, character, scale or manner of operation. Where such potentially adverse effects are found, consideration shall be given to special remedial measures appropriate in the particular circumstances of the case, including screening or buffering, landscaping, control of manner or hours of operation, alteration of use of such space, or such other measures as are required to assure that such potential adverse effects will be eliminated or minimized to the maximum extent reasonably feasible, and that the use of occupancy will be compatible and harmonious with other development in the area to a degree which will avoid substantial depreciation of the value of nearby property. Date Item �k t T^.. B' Gn _ y.4b 00r -----� b w •��2. a : C' kK a roan. �► . . r 20. r �^-N W..r.....� I II •.- � - b••. w'2i 47T'xriit .r' r Ft CULMER WLLAS N W�ene�.�"w eQ N/ V* � GjJO Ti1ACT .�•. R-3 n Y IN, -11111 KOM 11111m allill Illigi11111. illll li i wJ I• ITuII• t• 1 t I,, I.,lie �Ir�nlnitol �u�a4nlwll•It[�I1�1•�n�t•{q It It Is 1• Is CRIANCt 50•A•t I N:1N. 5 5T i rw - �• -EPw at s • r • . . . r I I• • • r • f 11 Ira ales I• n If a :0 5 II It Ib I. Ib I. 11 I. I• a• �I 1! u a I1 Is o � ���•�`-��� f 4 6 q. • T • b• b b 1 10 •• T • f p `h\�t ` p N .II R� `E pCt ��\ror� ~�(�� earl tb . •ZIIUIrI.n1• N. W. R gb �1 A��. r 4. T 1 b LUMMUS PARK s t. ° .J I I R 13 14 1 I/ It Ir •y` •� \ �w, '�O TRACTS 3.IEG/l NW 2 3 -- M ................ ------------- ------------------------------------------------ 51. DIRECT CITY MANAGER TO RETAIN AN .EXPERT IN THE APPROPRIATE TECHNICAL FIELD TO REPORT TO THE CITY AND AGREE TO TESTIFY AS REQUIRED BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE CITY BOARDS AND/OR CITY COMMISSION IN CONNECTION WITH THE POSSIBLE RISKS AND/OR EFFECTS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELDS (ON THE TRANSMISSIONS) AND POSSIBLE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH ONGOING CONSTRUCTION OF NEW TRANSMISSION TOWERS AS IT CONCERNS THE HEALTH / SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF INDIVIDUALS RESIDING WITHIN RANGE OF SUCH ELECTROMAGNETIC EMISSIONS. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vice Mayor Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, is it possible to bring up two pocket items, or wait until later? Mayor Clark: Go right ahead, right now. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Is Ms. Pancinia (phonetic) here? (INAUDIBLE COMMENT NOT INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD.) Vice Mayor Dawkins: Four o'clock? OK. I have, Mr. Mayor, at one time, we discussed the liability of placing those towers in the community, and the Manager asked for some legal means . to do it. Commissioner Plummer: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, cellular phones. Vice Mayor Dawkins: And I'd like to pass a resolution which says: "A resolution authorizing and directing the Citv Manager to retain an expert in the appropriate technical field to tender a report to the City or agree to testify before appropriate City boards and the City Commission on the effect of electromagnetic transmissions and the construction of associated transmission towers on the health, safety and general welfare of individual and property which may be located within the range of such transmissions or construction activity." And I so move. Commissioner Plummer: Second the motion. I would appreciate, Mr. Dawkins, I think it would be very appropriate that this resolution be sent to the FCC (Federal Communications Commission), .and ask them to please comment, because they are the ones who actually license these people, and I think they should be aware of the concern expressed by this Commission in this motion. Vice Mayor Dawkins: I'll accept the amendment to the motion. Mayor Clark: All right. All in favor, signify by saying "aye." All Commissioners (Collectively): Aye. Mayor Clark: Opposed, like sign. So ordered Cast a unanimous ballot. a� 155 July 26, 1994 9 5 — s/ :. The following resolution was introduced by Vice Mayor Dawkins, w,..) moved its. adoption: RESOLUTION NO. 94.590 A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO RETAIN AN EXPERT IN THE APPROPRIATE TECHNICAL FIELD TO TENDER A REPORT TO THE CITY OR AGREE TO TESTIFY BEFORE APPROPRIATE CITY BOARDS AND THE CITY COMMISSION ON THE EFFECT OF ELECTROMAGNETIC TRANSMISSIONS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF ASSOCIATED TRANSMISSION TOWERS ON THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND GENERAL WELFARE OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROPERTY WHICH MAY BE LOCATED WITHIN THE RANGE OF SUCH TRANSMISSIONS OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO TRANSMIT A COPY OF THE HEREIN RESOLUTION TO THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, FOR COMMENT. (Here follows body of resolution, omitted here and on file in the Office of the City Clerk.) Upon being seconded by Commissioner Plummer, the resolution was passed and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner Wifredo Gort Commissioner Victor De Yurre Commissioner J. L. Plummer, Jr. Vice Mayor Miller J. Dawkins Mayor Stephen P. Clark NAYS: None. ABSENT: None. !may 156 July 26,1994 05- 711 E ......................... ---....................................................................................... 61. (A) DISCUSSION CONCERNING STRONG OPPOSITION BY -RESIDENTS FROM THE MODEL CITY AREA TO ONGOING CONSTRUCTION AND PROPOSED ERECTION OF A NEW BELL SOUTH MOBILITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. (See labels 66, 75. See also, related afternoon informal meeting with residents of Model City area concerning said issue.) (B)BRIEF COMMENTS CONCERNING REQUEST FOR STREET CLOSURE IN CONNECTION WITH THE OPENING OF PLANET HOLLYWOOD (MAY 15, 1994). (See label 72) Commissioner Gort: We've got to go back to this... Vice Mayor Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, at 2 o'clock, some people are coming down here for the antenna on 7th Avenue. They'll be here at 2 o'clock. Nobody knew we were going to finish, so we need to decide, you know, what we are going to do for that. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Clark: Well, what is the big discussion about? Vice Mayor Dawkins: Mr. Mayor, will you tell him. Mr. Manager, will you tell the Mayor. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Gort. Mr. Cesar Odio (City Manager): I will do this, I will recommend - strongly recommend - that we stop the construction, and the installation of the antenna in that location. My people tell me that, in fact, it will hurt... Vice Mayor Dawkins: The residents and anybody else who passes by. Mr. Odio: And we should, in fact, check any other antennas that may be of the same type. Mayor Clark: Well, you've got the authority to do that as a Manager with your department. Mr. Odio: Yes, sir. I'm going to do that. But we are trying... I told Sergio Rodriguez yesterday to try to stop... Mayor Clark: Who's the applicant? Mr. Odio: ... the erection of that antenna. Vice Mayor Dawkins: The residents. Wait a minute. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Mayor, I, myself; I have a problem also. My understanding is that I'm to bring here a pocket item that needs to do with the Planet Hollywood. And I wanted people to be notified and have ample time to be hem. So I'd like to bring it back at 2 o'clock. Commissioner Plummer: I need my emergency item. Commissioner De Yuan: Well, we are not coming back this afternoon. Them is nothing else to come back for. 135 May 5,1994 L Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Jones, I need my emergency item. Mayor Clark: Today? Nobody is coming back. Commissioner De Yurre: We are not coming back. A. Quinn Jones III, Esq. (City Attorney): I have it. All I need is... Commissioner De Yurre: Now what... Vice Mayor Dawkins: OK. You all may not come back, but Vic, I'm coming back because we told them at the last meeting to meet with the Manager, and come back at this meeting. OK. Mayor Clark: I wasn't here. Vice Mayor Dawkins: No, I know you weren't. See, but that's what we told them. Mr. Odio: We met, and I agreed with them. And my staff tells me it will hurt people. And we have to stop this antenna from going up. Mayor Clark: Who was putting this antenna up? Vice Mayor Dawkins: South Mobility. Mr. Odio: Bell South Mobility. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Bell South Mobility. Mr. Odio: I think they should be a good citizen, and withdraw their request. If not, we should use public health. Commissioner Plummer: Well... Commissioner De Yurre: Mr. Mayor, if you allow me, I'll talk with Steve Helfman, the attorney representing them. And, in fact, we spoke about it already. And I think they would be in a position to go ahead and not do it. So, I'll give them a call now, and see if we get some resolutions before 2 o'clock. And that will take care of that matter. Mayor Clark: I won't be here at 2 o'clock. Commissioner Plummer: We are not coming back. Commissioner De Yurre: We are not. What I'm saying just so that when they... Vice Mayor Dawkins: I am. Commissioner De Yurre: ... if those people do come... Vice Mayor Dawkins: I am because we told the people to come back, and they got two bus loads of people coming down here. So you all... Commissioner Plummer. Well, can you call them and tell them that what they need is already been taken care of? 136 May 5, 1994 95— �1$ L Vice Mayor Dawkins: No, you call them. Commissioner Plummer: No, I don't know how. I mean... Vice Mayor Dawkins: OK. Well, what do you want from me? Commissioner Plummer: Well, you knew of the buses. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Yeah, I'll pay for the buses. Commissioner Plummer: Go get your battleship. Vice Mayor Dawkins: OK. No problem. OK. But I will be here. Me and Mr. Gort will be here. Commissioner Plummer: OK. No, I'll come back if it's necessary. Commissioner De Yurre: You guys can be here, I'll take care of it before, and then that will be that. Commissioner Plummer: Well, my concern happens to be what about all the rest of the antennas? That's... Mr. Odio: We need to review that. Commissioner Gort: We need to check the City ordinance. Vice Mayor Dawkins: That's why we need to discuss it when we get here. And, Mr. Mayor... Commissioner Plummer: You believe it. Vice Mayor Dawkins: ... Mr. Manager, through the Mayor to the Manager, through the Mayor to the Manager... Mayor Clark: Mr. Manager. Vice Mayor Dawkins: ...will you have somebody from Bell South Mobility here to talk to all of us? . Mr. Odio: At 2 O'clock today? Vice Mayor Dawkins: Yes, sir. Mr. Odio: Yes, I'll try to find someone. Via Mayor Dawkins: OK. All right. Thank you, sir. Mayor Clark: All right, let's go back to this item we deferred. 137 33 May 5,1994 0r 1�1'11It1 Mr. Rolle: What happened to the waivable fee? .Anything you can waive on the equipment? Mayor Clark: What is your pocket? Please. Mr. Rolle: This is two or three thousand dollar thing? Commissioner Plummer: No Cuba Libre. Mr. Rolle: No, we don't sell that. You just want the... END OF DISCUSSION -- NO ACTION TAKEN 66. (Continued) DISCUSSION CONCERNING STRONG OPPOSITION BY RESIDENTS FROM THE MODEL CITY AREA TO ONGOING CONSTRUCTION AND PROPOSED ERECTION OF A NEW BELL SOUTH MOBILITY TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD. (See label 61A, 75. See also, related afternoon informal meeting with residents of Model City area concerning said issue.) Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Mayor. Commissioner De Yurre: If I may? Let me wrap this up. Commissioner Plummer: Go ahead. Commissioner De Yurre: Mr. Mayor. Mayor Clark: You can do it at anytime. Not tomorrow. I can't do it tomorrow. First part of the week. Commissioner Plummer: Go ahead, Victor. Commissioner De Yurre: Mr. Mayor, I just spoke with Steve Helfman, the attorney representing... f Mayor Clark: Yes. Commissioner De Yurre: ...the - was it Bell South - and they say that they will take down whatever is there. That they will not build any antenna. That they are going to comply with our desires. And that he's going to prepare a letter and fax it to me to the neat few minutes to that effect. Vice Mayor Dawkins: OK. Tell him - also, Mr. Manager, you didn't hear this. Commissioner Plummer: Yeah. Vice Mayor Dawkins: You can tell him, also, that two blocks from there there is another one. What are they going to do with that one? OK. 144 May 5,1994 15 — 7 � Mayor Clark: They build these towers out there? Vice Mayor Dawkins: Yes, sir. Two blocks from there, there is another one. So now this one... Commissioner De Yurre: Is that one theirs? Is it theirs, also, or not? Vice Mayor Dawkins: Yes. Mayor Clark: What does this tower do, it exudes radiation? Vice Mayor Dawkins: Yes, radiation. Mayor Clark: Well. OK. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Tell Steve to be here at 2 o'clock. Commissioner De Yurre: They are trying to avoid... their agreement to do away with it. Vice Mayor Dawkins: I can't avoid it, Victor. I've got bus loads of people coming down here. You can't tell these people don't come down here to be heard. Commissioner De Yurre: But what is the reason for coming down? Is it to not to have this antenna built? Mr. Cesar Odio (City Manager): Exactly. To stop that one antenna. Commissioner De Yurre: OK. So, they are getting that already. So why do they need... I mean, I understand that they already planned to come down, but if they are getting what they want. Mayor Clark: They are coming down. Vice Mayor Dawkins: They are coming down, Victor. That's all. Commissioner De Yurre: OK. Well, we can just read the... Mayor Clark: What is your pocket? Commissioner De Yurre: ...OK, well, we can just read the letter into the record and that will be that. END OF DISCUSSION -- NO ACTION TAKEN 145 May 5,1994 L INFORMAL MEETING WITH A GROUP OF CONCERNED MODEL CITY RESIDENTS, HELD IN THE CITY CHAMBERS (MAY 5, 1994, AT 2:25 P.M.) IN CONNECTION WITH AN ITEM FROM THE MORNING SESSION TO CONVEY TO THE RESIDENTS BELL SOUTH MOBILITY'S DECISION TO ABANDON ONGOING CONSTRUCTION OF THEIR NEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA IN THE MODEL CITY AREA, PEURSLANT TO RESIDENTS' REQUEST. City Commissioners present: Vice Mayor Miller J. Dawkins, Commissioner J.L. Plummer, Jr., and Commissioner Wifredo Gort. Also present: Sergio Rodriguez, Assistant City Manager; Joel Maxwell, Assistant City Attorney; Matty Hirai, City Clerk, and Walter Foeman, Assistant City Clerk. Commissioner Plummer: What are we doing? I. CLARIFYING STATEMENTS BY VICE MAYOR DAWKINS TO CONVEY TO MODEL CITY RESIDENTS THAT BELL SOUTH MOBILITY HAD AGREED TO IMMEDIATELY ABANDON ONGOING CONSTRUCTION/ERECTION OF ITS NEW TELECOMMUNICATIONS ANTENNA TOWER AT N.W. 56 STREET, PEURSLANT TO STRONG CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY AREA RESIDENTS. (See labels 61A, 66 & 75) Vice Mayor Dawkins: Ladies and gentlemen, at one time, Mr. Fauntroy and others came to us to protest the building of a tower, and we decided to see how to remove it, and what have you. Because of the efforts of the homeowners' group and Mr. Fauntroy, the company that owns the tower says that they will move it, but... And all of that was done this morning. But since we told you to come down here and be heard, I felt it no more than right for us, this Commission, to keep its commitment to you, because when you were here last Thursday, we, the Commission, distinctly told you, go talk with the Manager, find out how we can resolve this, and put it on the agenda for next Thursday. That was the direction to the Manager. Yet, when the agenda came out, we were told that you were not on the agenda, because the agenda was printed I said, "Fine, we will pocket" - not Miller Dawkins - the City Commission will pocket item it, because we promised the citizens we would hear them. This morning, when I suggested that since we finished at 11 o'clock, that we come back at 2 o'clock to hear you, you can see who's here. So with that, supposedly, a tower is going to be dismantled and removed. Mr. Fauntroy, who... is Mr. Fauntroy the spokesperson? If Mr. Fauntroy will come to the mike, we'll let the Administration explain to you and the others who are here, you know, what happened, and then each of us will have something to say about what we're doing. Mr. City Manager. Mr. Sergio Rodriguez (Assistant City Manager): This morning, Mr. Steve Helfman, representing Bell South Mobility, put on the record that the company wanted to be good neighbors, and that they will remove the tower, and that they would not continue with the efforts to build a tower in that location, and that, officially, they announced over here that the tower would not be built. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Why did they concede not to build the tower? Mr. Rodriguez: I believe it was basically because they realized that there was opposition by the neighbors, after it had been brought to the attention of the Commission in the previous meeting. They were invited to attend the meeting that we had this week with you all on Tuesday, and they were advised of the concerns that were expressed by the neighbors in the area, and by the Commission, and they voluntarily agreed to remove the plans for the tower in the area. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Is it not a fact that the Administration -nude an examination and found 4�6 that the tower may be health damaging? 164 May 5,1994 ;fir;_ � -1 V 1�, Mr. Joel Maxwell (Assistant City Attorney): Mr. Vice -Mayor, for the record, Joel Maxwell of the City Attorney's Office. I don't believe that the Administration came to those conclusions or made those kinds of studies, and I don't think it would be appropriate at this time for the City Manager to indicate on the record that such did occur. Vice Mayor Dawkins: OK. I hear you, Mr. City Attorney, but I also need to put in the record that what is happening, because from time to time, individuals say things, and then when you come back, they're suing the City. And when they sue the City, we, the citizens, pay for it. So if there's to be a lawsuit, you know, I want it clearly understood, you know, why we're doing this and how it came about. Now, if you're doing it simply because the citizens said do it, and they didn't want it, that's fine. But whatever reasons, you make sure that you can defend them and us in court. Mr. Maxwell: Well, that's the reason that I made the statement I made just now, Mr. Vice Mayor. We have not been given empirical studies that conclusively prove that the microwave emissions over there do cause a health problem. We heard the same rumors and speculation that you have. The action this morning, in my understanding, was a voluntary action on the part of Southern Bell. It wasn't prompted by the City in any way. Commissioner Plummer: Bell Mobility, Bell Mobility. Mr. Maxwell: Excuse me? _ Commissioner Plummer: Bell Mobility. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Wait now, hold it. Mr. Maxwell: Bell Mobility. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Back up, Mr. City Attorney. The actions taken by Bell South were not voluntary... Mr. Maxwell: When I say "voluntary," I mean the City didn't make them do it. They did it, as the City Manager just pointed out... Vice Mayor Dawkins: No, no. But the citizens complained. Mr. Maxwell: Correct. Vice Mayor Dawkins: And they decided to do it. They did not voluntarily come in and say, "We're going to do this." Mr. Maxwell: OK. Well, I stand corrected. It was a semantics issue here. What I'm saying is that they did it as a result of community pressure. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Legally, I can understand where you covered all of us. Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. Vice Mayor Dawkins: All right. Go ahead, Mr. Fauntroy, please, sir. Mr. Roy Fauntroy: Well, first, we want to thank you for hearing us. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Hold the mike up to you, Mr. Fauntroy, please. 1 3 165 May 5,1994 9" 1,*�, _I R Mr. Fauntroy: First, we want to thank you for hearing us, and to say that if anyone sues the City Commission, they're suing the people, and that we will respond to that as. people of this City, and support you. But we think that the meeting that we held, that it was a good faith effort to move the antenna, and to satisfy the wishes of the community that spoke out, and we're looking forward to that continuous support from the Commission when it comes to our concerns in the community. And I wondered if there's anybody who wanted to - had anything to say at this point from the community. Vice Mayor Dawkins: I think each of them should either introduce themselves... Mr. Fauntroy: Yes. Vice Mayor Dawkins: ... and get on the record as, you know, who they are and what they are, Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. Fauntroy: OK. Those of you who'd like to... Anyone wants to say anything? If not, we can just introduce ourselves so we'll know who's here. Dr. Earl Wells: Mr. Vice Mayor and members of the Commission... Vice Mayor Dawkins: Pull the mike up, Dr. Wells, please. Dr. Wells: OK. Mr. Vice Mayor and members of the Commission... Vice Mayor Dawkins: You have to give your name and address, Dr. Wells, please. Dr. Wells: My name is Wells, Earl A. Wells, and I live at 401 Northwest 41st Street in Miami. First, I'd like to reiterate what was said previously, and that is that we certainly appreciate the efforts of the Commission in seeing to it that the wishes of the community at large were, indeed, heard. If it's been resolved, that's fine. My only concern - and I said this to the Administration the other night - was that I think this is something that should have been dealt with by the people who represent us, even before any action coming from us. It's very obvious, really, that this antenna that was proposed, was not only detrimental to us, but it was detrimental, really, to the entire community. There's already one tower less than three blocks away from this particular tower which was put up, and we were not notified. Now, the main thing, I think, as citizens of this community, and certainly, as American citizens in general, we feel that we should have been notified. We felt that we were looked over, not taken into consideration, and a permit was issued, when we think that maybe you should have stopped it, even before it got to us. The fact that you've done something about it is fine, but in the future, we would appreciate it very much if, when this kind of thing happens, those of us that you represent, we hope that you would take the appropriate action as you did here, long before it was necessary for us to do what we did. But in any event, I don't want to prolong this. I just want to say thank you very much for everything you've done. You've probably saved countless numbers of lives, children and other people in our particular community. So thanks again for everything that you've done, and we appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Mr. Rodriguez: Commissioner Dawkins, if I may add to the record, the City Commission passed on second reading on March 25th, and it became effective April 25th, an amendment to the ordinance by which in the future, if this size of antenna were to have been applied for in the City, they would not have been able to do it without going through hearings and notification to adjacent property owners. This one, they applied before the law was in effect. So the Commission has taken already some action to address that issue in antennas of this size. We are willing, if you want us to, to look over the whole issue again. It's up... You know, if there's any 166 Max 1994 direction from the Commission. But at this point, this type of antenna will have to come through a special hearing, and will go to the Zoning Board, and can be appealed to the City Commission with notification to adjacent property owners at a radius of 375 feet. But this one went just before the law was in effect. Dr. Wells: Well, we appreciate that very much. I think that would take care of it in the future. Thank you very much. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Commissioner Gort. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Vice Mayor, I wanted to reiterate that, legally, these people complied with all the ordinances and all the laws that we had here, so there was no reason to inform the community about it. I, personally, was not aware that these things... Nor have I seen anyone that has written a document telling me how harmful this thing is. But since you brought it up to us, we took that action. At the same time, we changed the procedure, now, where it would come in front of us if this was to happen again. But at the same time, we would like to know if someone can come up with a document that can tell us that it is harmful and all that, we'll even go beyond that. Right now, nobody has been able to provide that to us, and I think that's very important. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Vice Mayor, as far as I'm concerned, that which was the expression of the community has been acquiesced to, and I think that's really what's important for the instance of today. I think, as Commissioner Gort has said, if there is documented proof that, in fact, that this is the situation, I think that we need to keep that in mind every time that any one of these are ever applied for, because I don't know how many of them there are in the City of Miami now, but I've got to believe there's a lot of them. Mr. Rodriguez: For sure. Vice Mayor Dawkins: I'd like to say, before Mrs. Wells, you know, it's amazing that, as Dr. Wells said, they have to come down here. OK? You can't show me another place in Dade County, let alone in the City of Miami, where two of these towers have been placed less than where these are, no place in Miami. If you can, show it to me. Number two, you can't tell me that Bell South Mobility or anybody would go to Miami Beach, Coral Gables, Bal Harbor, Key Biscayne, and go on, what we consider one of the only commercial corridors that we have, where we could perhaps someday• put a business, and come out to the street, and destroy the commercial corridor by putting a tower. Only in this neighborhood. And as Dr. Wells said, it's about time that somebody somewhere has to start... And I won't... I'll tell the Manager who it is. But Mr. City Attorney, what's the procedure for getting an ordinance or some kind of a resolution brought back authorizing the City Manager to hire a firm to do a study to determine if the waves from the - not the one that they're building - but the waves of the other one create health hazards? What's the procedure? Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Vice Mayor, any Commissioner, including yourself can simply request that the Law Department prepare such a resolution and direct the City Manager to place it on the agenda for the next meeting. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Would you... Is it all right with my other two colleagues, if we instruct the City Attorney to bring such legislation back at the next meeting? Commissioner Plummer: Very definitely. Mr. Maxwell: Yes, sir. No vote would be necessary on that,. *31 167 May 5,1994 05- 711 I Commissioner Plummer: And I think, also, Mr. Vice Mayor, you know, these are all really controlled by a Federal agency. The FCC (Federal Communications Commission) controls all of these. And I think that, in fact, when the Administration is looking into the matter, I think they should contact the FCC and see whether or not they have any kind of studies, or they have any kind of documentation that, in fact, these things are harmful to human beings. I think that that would be important. I'm sure, knowing how the Federal Government operates - they study something to death - that they've had studies done on this, and I think that if you contact them, and try to get a report back from them. You know, what does it hurt to ask? Vice Mayor Dawkins: Mrs. Wells. Ms. Eursla Wells: Thank you very much. My name is Ursula Wells. I reside at 901, but we own property at 5590 Northwest 6th Place, 5575 Northwest 7th Avenue, 5601 and 09 Northwest 7th Avenue, and this is why it's so disturbing. I came up here not so much as to get on record or to introduce myself, but rather, the attorney Maxwell said that nothing was the farthest from their minds because they didn't have any empirical data. And I just wanted to say that we will furnish you some empirical data. Thank you very much. Vice Mayor Dawkins: OK. Mrs. Wells and others, you know, I'd like to say to you, please Find the time to come down here. OK? All of this happens because we don't see nobody. OK? Ms. Wells: That's true, I know. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Now, there's enough of us retired postmen, retired policemen, and my preacher, I pay him every Sunday to preach, and he should find time to come down here. Tell him I said that. OK? But again, we appreciate your bringing this to our attention. And we also will do a study, and, Mrs. Wells, if you will provide each of us with the data that you have, so that somebody won't say they didn't get it. Commissioner Plummer: I would just like to conclude that, yes, you pay your preacher to preach on Sunday, and then six days to pray for your sinful soul. Thank you. Mr. Fauntroy: May I just add quickly that... Vice Mayor Dawkins: Hold it. Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. Fauntroy: ... we gave data on Tuesday night, and yesterday, we delivered information to you. We will do that again, because we do have it. Thank you. Vice Mayor Dawkins: All right. If you give it back to us again, we'll make sure that the City Attorney's Office gets the same information, sir. Mr. Maxwell: Mr. Vice Mayor, maybe I need to clarify exactly what type of information we're talking about. Under the South Florida... Vice Mayor Dawkins: Hold it. You need to hear what he's saying, Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. Maxwell: Under the South Florida Building Code, the only way that the building director can revoke a permit of any kind, or refuse to issue a permit, is if he has expert studies of some kind indicating that there's an imminent harm or danger, and it's not just studies that you may bring us from magazines or scientific studies of that. We would have to actually have an expert tell us. RDVice Mayor Dawkins: OK Thank you. That's why I asked that we take money and hire , somebody to give us a professional study. 168 May 5,1"4 _-J Mr. Maxwell: That's what you'll need. Vice Mayor Dawkins: I don't want them taking the money out of their pocket. Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Vice Mayor, I have one question. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Would you like to buy a cellular phone machine? Vice Mayor Dawkins: OK. Thank you again. THERE BEING NOTHING FURTHER TO DISCUSS ON THIS SUBJECT, THE INFORMAL MEETING WAS CONCLUDED AT 2:43 F.M. 41 169 May 5,1994 05- 7 A Mr. Odio: Yes, sir. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Hold on one minute, Mr. Manager. Commissioner Plummer: Eight and nine because it was deceiving. You have it as consent, it's not... Mr.Odio: No. Vice Mayor Dawkins: OK. Nine has been withdrawn. Are there any other deletions? (INAUDIBLE BACKGROUND COMMENTS NOT ENTERED INTO THE PUBLIC RECORD) Vice Mayor Dawkins: Any additions to the agenda? Hearing none... Commissioner Plummer: I think it would be appropriate, Mr. Vice Mayor, that the memo of the Mayor... he did in fact request that no pocket items come up so that he would have the opportunity to be available for them. So, I don't think... I will not bring up any pocket motions today. Vice Mayor Dawkins: OK. Commissioner Gort: Mr. Vice Mayor, let me ask you a question. My 46derstanding, is that there .is a group of individuals outside that were requesting last time to get in as pocket item. I don't know if you all heard about it. I heard it for the first time today in the radio myself. I don't kno%# if you would like to hear that at the end of the meeting. Vice Mayor Dawkins: OIL I would hope that those individuals would come before a full Commission. The Mayor asked that he would like to be present on any pocket items. So out of respect to the Mayor, I would hope that... Commissioner Plummer. I think we should definitely do that. Commissioner Gort: OIL. I agree with you. Vice Mayor Dawkins: I agree. PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL ITEMS. �B) BRIEF COMMENTS ON RAY FAUN'I'ROY REQUEST TO BE HEARD. 1. Pm eentation: St. John Medical Center health Clinic -- for its contribution of wellbeing to our citizens -- April 16,1994 declared "St. John Medical Center Health Clinic Day." 2. Proclamation: Dia de Luis Mario -- as editor of Diario Las Americas, for having been selected as Cuba's National Poet in Exile, as well as numerous contributions to literature and arts. 4y G7 April 28,1994 3. Commendations: Sgt. John Griffin and Officers Rafael Masferrer, Eladio Paez and Julio Morejon -- Most Outstanding Officers for the Month of January 1994. 4. Commendations: Officers Robin Wims and Torrance Gary -- Most Outstanding Officers for the Month of February 1994. Vice Mayor Dawkins: While he is reloading the camera, the Mayor asked that we hear no pocket items because he isn't here. And you also would be at a disadvantage; you do not have a full Commission. But out of courtesy to the citizens who took time to come down here, we will hear one spokesperson state the objectives, and we will schedule this for a public hearing at the next Commission meeting so that you will have a full Commission to hear your complaint. Next Thursday. Who is going to speak while we are waiting for the camera? Commissioner Plummer: Mr. Vice Mayor, may I ask a question? Vice Mayor Dawkins: Yes, sir. Commissioner Plummer: Is the Administration aware of the problem that they are here to voice about? Mr. Cesar Odio (City Manager): Ray Fauntroy and I have talked about it. Commissioner Plummer: OK. As long as you are aware of that. Mr. Odio: I am aware. Vice Mayor Dawkins: See, Mr. Plummer, being aware is nothing because we have been made aware, and it's still going on. OK. Commissioner Plummer: All right. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Like last Thursday, I mean, last meeting when I complained about putting 160 units of housing near $56 million plan, nobody knows about it. OK. Mr. Fauntroy, would you give us time to present this since she's got the camera. Stay right there, sir. 5. Commendation: Ms. Rolande L Dorancy -- for her dedication / commitment toward well-being olthe needy, especially the Haitian community. 2. PERSONAL APPEARANCE: RAY FAUNTROY TO EXPRESS OUTRAGE AT NUMBER OF CEL I AX AIR ANTENNAS IN THE BLACK COMMUNITY (TIN AVENUE) -- REFER TO C[TY MANAGER. Mr. Ray Fauntroy: Good afternoon. We are here as concerned citizens on the behalf of an unsuspecting community concerned about the cellular antennas being placed on N.W. 7th Avenue and 56th Street. We are outraged that... Vice Mayor Dawkins: Madam Clerk. Pardon me. Did you get his name and address? I know who he is, but for the record. Mr. Fauntroy: Ray Fauntroy. 3 April 28,1994 9J-11 D deb Vice Mayor Dawkins: The address, Mr. Fauntroy. Mr. Fauntroy: 5660 N.W. 7th Avenue. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Thank you. Mr. Fauntroy: We are outraged that the cellular antenna being placed in our community without notice or' permission of the community. We are concerned that there is some questions unanswered about these cellular antennas. One, if there haven't been any studies about the effect on the population of these antennas and what those results were. We are being told that they create a magnetic field which gives cancer and leukemia to the people who live and work around them. We feel that if such a construction is placed in the community, that at least the community ought to have some say in whether it goes in there or not. We went to the Florida Commission on the Environment on Saturday, and one of the questions we asked was, "Why not place. these antennas out on the bay so that they would not be around the population?" And we were told that they were not placed in the bay because of potential danger, the harm that it would reek upon the fish. We are outraged that this antenna is in the process of being constructed in the heart of Liberty City. And we have property owners, citizens of that community who are here with us today to get some answers. We do not want the antenna on 7th Avenue. Vice Mayor Dawkins: OK. Mr. Fauntroy, what would be a good meeting place where these City Commissioners could demand that the Administration meet with the citizens and tell the citizens what I'm concerned... What I need to know is, how did it start? Who gave permission for it to start. Who gave the zoning regulations, or how it got done? I'm a Commissioner, and I don't know. So if you, the citizens... I ]snow you don't know. But somewhere along the line, somebody has to tell us how this got started, how it got to thin point where it looks like it can't be turned around. It didn't just... nobody just didn't go out there, Mr. Fauntroy, with a truck and start to do this. They had to get permits, and what have you, so what we need is for the Administration or somebody to meet with the cities and ask these questions. And then when you come back here Thursday, you will have some answers. And then this Commission can make some decisions, and you can tell us whether you agree with them or not. It does not make sense - to me, now, I don't know about the rest of the Commission - for us to sit up here and wait until next Thursday, and then tell the Administration, "Go out and find out what is wrong, and how this happened" I think that next Thursday, all the questions that you have in the back of your mind, that should have been answered, or they should tell you why they shouldn't answer them, and then you can fell your Commissioner what you want to do. Now, maybe... if you disagree, say so. I have no problem. Mr. Fauntroy: Well, I can tell you, on our research, we've been working on this for over two months. Vice Mayor Dawkins: I know. Mr. Fauntroy: Yes. And we can tell you how it came about firm our perspective. But... Vice Mayor Dawkins: But you did not give them permission. Mr. Fauntroy: Yes, that's what I'm sayig to you. What our concern... we'll do exactly as you've asked us to do. But our concern is that there be no antenna on 7th Avenue, bottom line. And, you know, whatever is necessary for us to achieve that. This community wants... Commissioner Goru Mr. Vice Mayor. 4 April 28,1"4 711 L 8` ro Mr. Fauntroy: ...it stopped. If that means hearings, or whatever we have to do, we'd like to g by the book. We'd like to do it legally, and stop this antenna. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Mr. Fauntroy, you have every reason in the world to stop this antenna. OK. We are the only ones who can't stop nothing in our community. OK. You have a building over here, I mean a spot of land, where they wanted to put some houses on, the community doesn't want... the same units they want to put over there by Northwestern High School. This Commission is considering paying five times what the land is worth to keep from putting those houses in that community. But when it comes to us, I mean, come to that neighborhood, anything goes. So all I'm saying to you is, you know, get you some ammunition and come down here so that I can't tell you go to the Administration because I don't know what we are doing. OK. I mean, I know you've researched it. I know you've asked for it because you've been... for three months you've been telling me about this. Mr. Fauntroy: Yes, sir. Vice Mayor Dawkins: And I've been telling you, "Hey, man, I don't know the answers." So let's let the... Now, maybe some other Commissioner... Commissioner Gort: Mr. Vice Mayor. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Yes, go ahead, Mr. Gort. Commissioner Gort: My understanding is that this was givenf. the permit that might in compliance with the ordinance, and if this antenna has as much harm as it does, somehow we need to change the ordinance so that this will not allowed, not only in your neighborhood, but in any of the neighborhoods. What I would like to see back from the staff for the next meeting is, one, how did they go around getting the permit?- If it's within the City ordinance, then we have to set the code and the zoning code we have to change it to comply with. Two, I'd like to get the report back oD the harmful... on the harass that this of antenna,' or construction, can do within a residential area so that I can take an intelligent decision.: And then if we need to change the ordinance, they should come back also with the change of ordinance to do so. If it's proven to be that dangerous. Commissioner Plummer: OIL Mr. Fauntroy: We havi information... Commissioner Gore No. Let me tell you. The reason I'm asking all of this is because if anything happens in here, and they go according to the ordinance, they can always go to court and all that. So we have to document it, and make sure that we have the right reasons to do the things. Vice Mayor Dawkins: LL. Commissioner Plummer: The only comments that I have is, you know, I understand their plight. I also understand the ordinance. I am concerned about the fist of the illnesses that could be occurring. And I've got to tell you something, not only your particular area, but every area if there is a basis for this kind of a problem... Commissioner Glom: We should have it. Commissioner Plummer. .J think we need to know it because we need to t on it and do something about it. Because it's ridiculous if in fact.. 1know what it is. It's the old 900... WO t 5 '128,1"4 0 o mega7that. that they are talking about which is the old micro ovens, and the data processors, and all ofI've never heard of it being from an antenna, but if it is, we need to know it. Vice Mayor Dawkins: OK. Commissioner Plummer: And I would ask the Administration that when you look into that you can get a lot of that information through the. Communications Department. Vice Mayor Dawkins: OK. Well, I will let you know - for one vote up here - I wouldn't care about the ordinance, I don't care about nothing other than in every other community what is not wanted, we find out how not to do it. It's only in one community you've got to go by the rules and regulations, and what have you. So whatever is what? Whether the ordinance permits it, whether the ordinance does not permit it, these few residents that you see out here live in the City of Miami. And it's those that don't live in the City of Miami, that don't pay no taxes in the City of Miami, who we've been listening to.. So my advice... I mean, where we are, Commissioner, they are putting an antenna on 7th Avenue in the residential neighborhood. Tirst, the neighbors don't want it, so they think it's harmful, so I suggested that they meet with the Administration, and get the answers that they need as to the how it occurred, why it occurred, why we permitted it. And then at the next meeting let the Administration explain to us the conditions of it, and let them explain it, and then we'll act on it because we do not have a full Commission. That's where we are on, Commissioner De Yurre. NOTE FOR THE RECORD: CornmhWoner De Yture ordered the meeting a p.m. Mr.1~auntroy: OK. I have a letter that I'd like to give to the Commission. Should I just give it to them? Vice Mayor Dawkins: No. You want to put it in the records. Mr. Fauntroy: Yes. Vice Mayor Dawkins: OIL. Commissioner Plummer. Thank you. Vice Mayor Dawkins: All right. 'Thank you for ding. Go ahead. Come into the mike, sir. You... Byron Moore: Emmet nit, I was of the opinion... Vice Mayor Dawkins: Pull the mike up, sir, please. Give your name and address, air, please. Mr. Moore: Yes. I'm Byron Moore, and my address is similar to Fauntroy's. I was of the distinct opinion that you suggested that a date be set when the appropriate parties meet with the community to have some sort of decisions by neat Wednesday. Are we going to miss this salient point? Vice Mayor Dawkins: No, I said to meet with the community because next Thursday we meet again, OIL 6 April 28,1"4 Mr. Moore: Yes. Well, isn't a meeting... 1 thought that you suggested, sir, .that the meeting should take place before next Thursday. Vice Mayor Dawkins: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, before next Thursday. Mr. Moore: Aren't some decisions going to be taken as to when the meeting will... Vice Mayor Dawkins: Oh, yes, sir. Mr. Fauntroy and a group will get with the Manager, and tell the Manager where you want him to come and when. Mr. Moore: I beg your pardon. Thank you. You are so kind. Vice Mayor Dawkins: That's all right, sir. No, sir, if we do not get an understanding, we can get nothing done. Mr. Moore: Beautiful. 'Thank you, sir. Vice Mayor Dawkins: All right, sir. All right. Mr. Manager, would you have someone meet with him and set up a date, please, sir. OK. And, Mr. De Yurre, the Mayor asked that since he wasn't here that we take up no pocket items. This was a citizen item. OK. All right. 3. FIRST READING ORDINANCE: ESTABLISH NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND: EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (FY'94) -- APPROPRIATE $368,000 FROM U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) 1994 EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT. i Vice Mayor Dawkins: All right, we are now... Commissioner Plummer. I move item 2. Commissioner Gort: Sec&d. Via Mayor Dawkins: Read the ordinance, Mr. City Auomey, please. Call the roll, Madam Clerk. AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A NEW SPECIAL REVENUE FUND ENTITLED: "EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (FY194)", AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR OPERATION OF SAME IN THE AMOUNT OF $368,000 FROM THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (USHUD) 1994 EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT; CONTAINING A REPEALER PROVISION AND A SEVERABIL ]rY CLAUSE. i Anril ?A 100e L Report on Radiofrequency ELvArd and interference for proposed Cellular Telephone Communication Tower Site M159, Mianu,._' orida Associate PrnWsof Electrical Engineering Department Florida International University De went Electrical and Computer E' g pnghm Tamiaml Campus Miami, FL 33199 2 March,1995 y 05- 711 M NTf PLANNING' o.�". y p �'1tAMt 11.D���+ � ZONINq gEPT: Florida InrernadonajUfi s 10: 41 Mr. Joseph W. McManus Planning, Building & Zoning Department City of Miami Miami, FL 33233 Re: Cellular Telephone Tranunission Towers Dear Mr. McManus: 2 March,1995 •0"0'2 9 2 Enclosed is; a final report entitled "Report on Radiof tqueney Hazard and hAwference for Proposed Cellular Telephone Communication Tower - Site M519, Miami, Florida" Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this important matter. Sincere i Dr. Tadeusz M. B 4 Associate Professo Electrical & Computer Engineering Department ,W Department of F,le cnTical & Cotnpurer Engineering - College of Engineering & Design Univusity Park, Miami, Florida 3319916305) 348-2807 • FAX (305) 348-3707 liv -j PREFACE The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has adopted rules for analyzing the effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from FCC -regulated transmitters and facilities on human health and safety. This procedure is explained in the following exerpt from the FCC "Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation" March 11, 1993: "DISCUSSION 8. The Commission's environmental rules are intended to ensure that, consistent with NEPA, any FCC -regulated transmitters and facilities that expose the public or workers to levels of RF radiation that are considered by expert organizations ' to be potentially harmful undergo environmental processing.. The Commission, however, is not -the exper�4agency for evaluating the effects of RF radiation on human health and safety. , Therefore, it uses standards and guidelines developed by those with appropriate expertise-. As noted above, since 1985, the Commission has relied on the 1982 ANSI RF exposure guidelines in connection with its responsibilities under NEPA regarding the evaluation of potential RF environmental hazards. 9. As part of its procedures for periodically reevaluating its standards ANSI has recently approved a new RF exposure standard, in association with the IEEE, that is based on additional research and study in the area of RF effects. In view of ANSI's adoption of this revision of the 1982 RF exposure guidelines, we believe that it is now incumbent upon us to consider updating the RF exposure standards specified in our rules. We are, therefore, proposing to replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines with the new 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines (ANSIgIEEE C95.1-1992)• for purposes of evaluating environmental significance. These new guidelines are more up to date with respect to scientifically -based criteria for use in evaluating human exposure to RF radiation. They will ensure that FCC -regulated facilities comply with the latest safety standards for RF exposure...." 14 See, e.g., Report and Order, in Gen. Docket No. 79-144, 100 FCC 2nd at 560. 15 By this proposal, we are not intending to supersede any other federal requirements that RF devices may also be required to comply with. For example, this action does not affect any compliance requirements for microwave ovens with the respect to emission standards established by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. M 5 0 la `�r- 711 Qj� \\\%O�w �0\\ pz�, t=msd5m C, I - Introduction. This report contains an analysis of radio frequency power densities with respect to the proposed cellular radio tower Cell Site M159: 749 N. W. 5th Avenue, Miami, Florida. l :� n-11_ � This document is: (1) A technical evaluation of the report, "Safety Analysis of the Electromagnetic Environment in the Vicinity of a Proposed Cellular Radio Installation, Cell Site M159: 749 N. W. 5th Avenue, Miami, Florida," prepared by Gary Zeman Se.G., CBP, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Munay Hill, New Jersey 07974-0636. dated September 13. 1994, with respect to the national standard, "IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic gelds, 3 Uh to 300 GHz," HZE C95.1- 1991(RevW= of ANSI C95.1-1982), institute of Electricai and Electronics Engineers, W., NY., 27 Aprll 1992 [1]. (2) A recommendation as to whether a "safety analysis should be required, by and expert, for each such cellular telephone transmission tower application." III - Synopsis of Findings. With regard to: (1) The calculated power density levels from the proposed tower, antennas, and equipment, as described in [2] and [3] are well within the currently accepted national safety standard [ 1 ], (2) The recommendation of this report is that a "safety analysis should be required, by an expert, for each such cellular telephone transmission tower application" because of safety considerations, to allay public anxieties, and to satisfy community concerns on matters of electromagnetic radiation. If further specific concerns remain regarding the calculated exposure levels, it will be prudent to measure the actual power density levels upon commencement of radio frequency transmissions. .: y 2 __j I The Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) [1] at radio frequencies including the Cellular Telephone Service are given by the expression: S=f/ 1500 where S is the power density in milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) and f is the radio frequency in Megahertz (K&). The MPE here is•smmd for the Uncontrolled Environment, that is, the environment where individuals have no knowledge or control of their exposure [Section 4.1.2, reference 11. MPE is most stringent at the lowest radio frequency, which in the Cellular Telephone Service corresponds to 868 M & for the fixed site transmitter frequency. Consequently, when several channels are considered, this lowest frequency is used for each channel. In the case under study, the MPE is S = 0.579 mW/cm2. For multiple transmission sources, as is contemplated in the system under study, the power density (mW/cm2) at each frequency is stated in ratio to the MPB at each frequency and summed. To comply with the standard, that sum of the ratios of power density'to the MPE at each frequency must not exceed unity. In the o w.under study we -have conservatively assuraed (a worst case assumption) that each radio frequency equals the lowest frequency (868 MHz). We then summed the individual transmitter power levels and stated the exposure in ratio to the U PE calculated by the above formula. The transmitted power density is.calculated by: a) computing the total transmitter power, b) applying antenna gain (focusing) factors, c) using a fmc-space transmission formula to model radio wave propagation, d) applying a worst caw ground reflection. From [2, 31, the maximum transmitter power is determined as Pt = (1 setup channel,13 AMPS channels, 4 TDMA channels,1 CDPD packet channel) x (4 watts per channel to the antenna) = 76 W or 48.8 dBm (dB relative to one milliwatt). The antenna gain factors, from [3], are shown plotted in Figures 1 and 2. The peak gain In the plots is 12 dBd + 2.14 =14.14 dBi (dB with respect to isotropic radiation). Radiowave propagation is modeled by free space propagation, so the power density (mW/cm2) is given by: Pdcnsit�(R' ) = -10 log [4n(R30.48)2] + P tx + GantcAua( 9) + 6.02 + Padd Aw 52 05- 711 The first term is free space propagation as a function of range R in feet, the second term, PtX, is the power applied to the antenna in dBm (dB with respect to one milliwatt). The third term, Gagne, accounts for antenna gain, and the fourth term includes a worst case, 6.02 dB, ground reflection which doubles the field ,strength. The total radiated power density is adjusted by the additional contribution. Padd, from the antennas pointing in the other two coverage sectors. Distance R, in feet, is measured from the radiation center of the antenna to the field point. We are concerned with the maximum exposure, so the practical field point heights of 6 feet and 26 feet are chosen in the calculations as was done in [2]. 90 0 -90 FTGUR(l;E -1. Radiation pattern of the Antenna under study. The peak of the pattern at minus 3° elevation angle corresponds to a gain of 12 dBd (14.14 dBi). The distance R from the radiation center of the antenna to the field point is determined geometrically from the distance D along a path parallel to the ground, the height of the radiation center Hr and the height above ground of the field point Hf using the formula: R = JD2 + (Hr — Hf )2 From [3], Hr = 58 feet above the ground. The maximum radiation occurs along the three paths parallel to the ground emanating radially from the tower center along azimuth bearings of 0*,12T and 240° which correspond to the desired coverage sectors. If we consider the 0° radial, the main contribution to the exposure occurs from the antenna aimed in the 0° azimuth direction. There is a minor contribution from each of the antennas aimed along the 120° and 240° radials. Since complete three dimensional patterns are not available, the magnitude of those contributions is estimated ftpm the azimuth plane radiation pattern given in [31 and presented here as Figure 2. 53 90 0 270 FIGURE - 2. Azimuth plane radiation pattern of the Antenna under study. The peak of the pattern corresponds to a gain of 12 dBd (14.14 dBi). From Figure 2, it can be seen that the radiation contributions at 1200 and 240° azimuth angles am !-17 dB with respect to on -axis contribution. This means that the power radiated in -the 120° and 2400 sectors will contribute an additional power equal to 10,17110 + 10'17110 = 0.04. or 4% to the radiation of the antenna covering the 0° sector. The total radiated power has consequently been adjusted by a factor of 1.04, or Padd=O.17 dB. The same geometry exists for the 1200 and 240° sectors, so this analysis is applicable to each of the three radiation seders. Fhetioo of WE 0.1 0.01 0.001 0&_ 0 26 ft above graft 6 ft above fade 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Distance from tower base, feet. 5 95 711 ' � 1 FIGURE - 3. Maximum exposure at 6 ft and 26 ft above grade as a fraction of MPE. The calculated radiation exposure as a fraction of the MPE power density for heights above grade of 6 feet and 26 feet are shown in Figure 3. A "Fraction of MPE equal to one" corresponds to the maximum allowable level exposure according to I1). The calculated exposure is in all cases smaller than 2% of the MPH. The highest maximum exposures occur at about 300 feet from the tower for a height of 6 feet (less than 4 µW/cm2), and near 190 feet distance from the tower at a height of 26 feet (less than 10 µWI==). In the main beam, the power density is less than 10 µWOpn2 for distances greater than 180 feet [see reference 2 section 4] only if the maximum reflection contn'bution (6,02 dB) is ignored, With the reflection component, the power density is less than 10 µWlcm2 for distances greater than 270 feet. As a final consideration, we compute the distance from the antenna radiation center along the peak of the antenna radiation pattern, including the hypothetical maximum ground reflection contribution) at which the ratio of power density to MPE just equals unity. °That distance is found to be 35 feet from the radiation center of the antenna along the peak of the main beam. Radio frequency power densities with respect to the installation of a cellular radio tower at the proposed cellular radio tower Cell Site M159: 749 N. W. 5th Avenue, Miami, Florida, were analyzed. With regard to: (1): This report is in agreement with "Safety Analysis of the Electromagnetic Environment in the Vicinity of a Proposed Cellular Radio Installation, Cell Site M 159: 749 N. W. 5th Avenue, Miami, Florida," prepared by Cary Zeman Se.D., CHP, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray 11111, New Jersey 07974-0636, dated September 13,1994 in that the proposed tower,.antennas, and equipment are well within the current applicable standard. The analysis herein is based on calculations involving worst case geometry and power levels. (2): The recommendation of this report is that a "safety analysis should be required, by an expert, for each such cellular telephone transmission tower application" because of safety considerations, to allay public anxieties, and to satisfy community concerns on matters of electromagnetic radiation. If further specific concerns remain regarding the calculated exposure levels, it will be prudent to measure the actual power density levels upon commencement of radio frequency a msmissions. 5 6 Ow Re Egnces 1. "IEEE standard for safety levels with respect to human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," IEEE C95,1-1991(Revision of ANSI C95.1-1982), Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, NY., NY., 27 April 1992. 2. "Seery Analysis of the, Electromagnetic Environment in the Vicinity of a Proposed Cellular Radio Installation, Cell Site MI59. 749 N. W. 5th Avenue, Miami, Florida, Gary Zeman Se.D., CHIP, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, New Jersey 079744 0636, September 13, 1994. 3. "M159 Lummas Park configuration for RF study,"Memo from Ken hatt to Dr. Tadeusz Bab=, February 6,1995. 7 IJj- 711 TADEUSZ M. BAB17 Associate Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Florida International University, University Park Campus Miami, Florida 33199 Phone: (305) 348-2683007; Fax: (305) 348-3707; E-mail: babij@eng.fiu.edu EDUCATION KSc. (1957) and MD. (1968) is EibcWcal Engineering Technical Univetsfty of Wroclaw, Wroclaw. Poland, PRESENT POSMON Associate Proftsm, Department of Eiecu ical and Computer Engin=jng, Florida Intmnational University, since 1984. j PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE f P&c1pal Staff Enginw, Motorola, Inc., Florida Portable Systems Research, Port Lauderdale„ Florida, 1982 to 1984. Visiting Scientist, Food and Drug Administration, Bweau of Radiological Health, Rockv&, Maryland,1979 to 1982. Visiting Professor, University of Mosul, Department of Electrical Engitn=ing, Mosul, Iraq, January to July,1979. Associate Professor, Technical Univarslty of Wroclaw,' Wroclaw, Poland, 1979 to 1959. Visiting Scientist, National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado,1973 to 1974. Research Assistant, Institute of Telecommunications, Poland,1957 to 1959. PROMSSIONAL INTERESTS High-speed digital communications. Industiiallmedical microwave sensors. Microwave technology and materials research Measurement of the complex dielectric constaunt of materials. Measurea nt and numerics! modeling EM near --field components. REVIEWER FDA, IEEE Transactions on Antennas and Propagation. Journal of Microwave Power and E1rctromagne4c Energy, IEEE Transaetions on Elocttonnagnetic Compatibility. Inffff pl Excellence in Research Award, FIU, 1994; Food and Drug Administration, 1987; Golden Cross of Merit for Teaching Achievements, Poland, 1978; Awards of the Minister of Science, Ether Education and Technology,1970, 1975, 1977. PUBLICATIONS More than 120 publications in refereed journals and confer proceedings; 5 U.S. patents;19 Polish patents, Co-author of 2 bow. 711 4 L CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO : To: Zoning Board Members DATE : January 31, 1995 FILE SUBJECT : Cellular One Report LV FROM : Teresita L. Fernandez, Chi REFERENCES: Hearing Boards Planning Building and Zoning DeMCLOSURES : At the request of Greenberg, Traurig, attorneys for Cellular One, the attached report, authorized by Cellular One, is being distributed. This report is not authorized or sponsored by the Planning, Building and Zoning Department and is not the report called for by Resolution 94-590, July 26, 1994. Attached 0 a yy 5, ,.. 7 11 Adrienne Friesner Pardo (305) 579-0683 Hand Delivery �ntcNdrn� I N fl V B I G January 24, 1995 Ms. Teresita Fernandez Clerk, Hearing Boards City of Miami i 275 N.W. 2nd Street Miami, Florida 33128 Re: Cellular One - Zoning Board Agenda of February 6, 1995 Dear Teresita: The above referenced item is scheduled for the February 6, 1995 Zoning Board hearing. Please have the enclosed packages distributed to all Board members prior to the hearing. Thank you very much for your attention. Very truly yours, 'P Adrienne Friesner Pardo cc: Mr. Joe Setticase Mr. Larry Lotterman Lucia A. Dougherty, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG HOFFMAN LIPOFF ROSEN & QUENTEL, P. A. ► ) 1221 BRICKELL AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 305-579.0500 FAX 305-579-0717 MIAMI FORT LAUDERDALE WEST PALM BEACH TALLAHASSEE NEW YORK WASHINGTON, D.C. L .� ZONING BOARD HEARING February 6, 1995 Property: 749 N.W. 5th Avenue CELLULAR ONE EXHIBITS abs 1. Letter from James Futch, State of Florida Department of HRS, with attachments. 2. Map of existing Cellular One tower sites. 3. Biographical Summary of Gary H. Zeman, Sc.D., CHP. 4. Safety Analysis Report prepared by Gary Zeman, Sc.D., CHP, of AT&T Bell Laboratories dated September 13, 1994. Prepared for the property located at 749 N.W. 5 Avenue, Miami, Florida. 5. Letter from Gary Zeman, Sc.D.,, CHP, dated October 11, 1994. 6. Miami Herald Newspaper Article, dated October 15, 1994 concerning Cellular One's involvement with Crimewatch. 7. State of New York Department of Health letter dated July 3, 1994. 8. Federal Communications Commission letter dated September 14, 1992. 9. Article from the Star Ledger dated September 21, 1993. i 10. Article from the EEPA Fact Sheet. 11. RF Exposure Study for Site FL38. I 12. Opinion from In the Matter of Cellular Telephone Company v. Armand Rosenberg, et. al, State of New York Court of Appeals. 13. CTIA Questions and Answers on the Safety of Cellular Phone Transmission Towers. i 14. Congressional Recognition for Cellular One. i 15. Cellular One Facts Report. 3 .j STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES January 10, 1995 Attn: Larry Lotterman Cellular One c/o Lotterman Development Corp. 4275 Aurora St., Ste. D Coral Gables, FL 33146 Dear Mr. Lotterman: This is in response to your phone call concerning the radiological safety of cellular towers (base stations). Attached are pamphlets concerning this subject from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and the U.S. Army.. Environmental Hygiene Agency, and an article from the June 1993 issue of the Health Physics Society's Newsletter. As I explained on the phone, the FCC regulates the use of the public airwaves by the cellular companies, utilizing, in part, a safety standard published by the IEEE. Although Florida does not regulate radiofrequency emissions from cellular base stations, this office has used the IEEE guidelines to assess the safety of radiofrequency/microwave emitters before. The consensus is that the height of these cellular towers, together with their relatively low output power, and the fact that their emissions are directed toward the horizon, provides very good safety protection for the members of the public living near the towers. _ The only .possible exception might be for service personnel working on the towers, in close proximity to the main beam of the energized antennas. Cellular One should be able to demonstrate, either through direct measurement, or through calculations, that the output of its towers are within that allowed by the latest IEEE safety standard (IEEE C95.1- 1991) for the general public. The cellular site report by Gary Zeman of AT&T seems to indicate that the cellular installation proposed for 749 5th Avenue in Miami is below the IEEE limits, as well as those used by several other reputable safety organizations, by a considerable margin. I enjoyed speaking with you and I hope you find this information to be helpful. If you have further questions, please contact me at (904) 487-1004. Attachments Sincerely, James A. Futch Public Health Physicist Office of Radiation Control 1317 WINEWOOD BOULEVARD • TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 323� 0700 - -.. ' S _ - _-1 U.S. Army b i onrnental Hygiene Agency ets the Radiofrequency Radiation from S Cellular Telephones 24•oW 119J ♦ Cellular Telephone ♦ Radiofrequency Radiation ♦ Cancer Cellular telephones have been in use in the United States since 1984 when approximately 100 thousand were subscribed to nationally. By 1993, the tally had surpassed 10 million with almost 10 thousand new cellular tele- phone customers added daily. About 5 million of these units are of the hand-held variety. These hand-held cellular telephones have recently been associated with causing cancer, particularly brain cancer. Flow does a hand-held cellular telephone work? Cellular telephones work almost exactly like conventional home telephones except that they use radiofrequency radiation (RFR) instead of wires to transfer information. The hand-held cellular phone unit is actually a low - power radio set operating in the 800-900 MHz RFR band (part of the TV RFR band). Cellular telephone systems have been developed, primarily in metro- politan areas, to provide immediate mobile access to the national telephone network. The metropolitan area serviced by the cellular telephone system is divided into prescribed `cells." Each cell site is equipped to link the tele- phone network to individual cellular phone users. Industry leaders predict that the next generation of personal communication services will equip individuals to communicate voice and data from anywhere using a hand- held communicator with only one personalized number. The cellular telephone is a big part of that concept. What is RFR and how does it link the phone to the network? RFR is the movement or propagation of nonionizing energy through space, from an RF transmitter to RF receiver, in the form of varying electric (E) and magnetic (H) fields. The RF energy and voice information contained in the RFR from the transmitter (cellular phone) is stored in these E and'H fields. When the'RFR arrives at the cell -site receiver, it is converted to RF voltage and current in the receiver, where the information is removed and trans- ferred into the national telephone network. Conversely, information coming back from the network is transmitted by the cell -site transmitter and is propagated to the cellular phone receiver where the information is removed and heard on the phone. Does RFR cause cancer? No. There is no scientific evidence, even from the most current research, to suggest that RFR causes cancer. Hand-held cellular phones in the United States transmit and receive at 824-850 MHz, which is in the ultra -high l'requency'(UHF)'barid of the electromagnetic spectrum. Scientists catego- rize RFR as nonionizi .g radiation; because it cannot.ionize chemicals (chemical ionization can cause genetic damage or cell mutations, which can cause cancer). Some have suggested that prolonged exposure to low-level RFR produced by cell phones can cause cancer. However, there is no known mechanism by which RFR could initiate cancer at any level. Scientific investigations -continue to explore this issue. Laser Microwave Division U.S. Army Env ronmenta! Hygiene Accncy, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 2I010.5422 DSN 584-46341483•1 cr Commercial 4I0-67I-463414834 Nationally Recognized as the Center ofMatrtred Occupational and Environmental Health Excellence AL M Ymn =4. 1 Dw 02 MR54= What about the reports of brain cancer and cellular phone users? Statistically, the incidence of brain cancer in the United States is 7 cases per 100.000 people. There- fore, we can anticipate that approximately 350 of the 5 million hand-held cellular'phone users will be diagnosed with brain cancer annually. It should be no surprise that some cellular phone users will be diagnosed with brain cancer or that some of the cancer victims will know that other cellular phone users are among that 350 expected cancer victims. Such anecdotal evidence of cancer cases, or even expected clusters of cases, does not prove a cause -effect relationship between cancer and cellular phone usage. People should be wary of such conclusions. Who decides whether cellular phones are safe? Subject matter experts from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Federal Communications Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Cancer Institutes, the Department of Defense, the American National Standards Institute and others continually review the research data to see if there are any potential negative health effects from any physical agents, including RFR. These experts also meet and produce a variety of exposure standards to provide RFR exposure guidelines for manufacturers and users of such devices to assure their safety. Spokesmen for these agencies have all declared publicly that the cellular -telephones conform to published standards. Further, the FDA has the authority to regulate these devices if it seems appropriate to do so in the interest of public safety. For instance, microwave ovens have performance standards regarding RFR leakage to protect the user from possible burns from microwave radiation. There is no such action pending by the FDA at this tinge for cellular phones. What are the RFR control levels, if any, for cellular phones? In the frequency range of cellular telephones (800.900 MHz), there are consensus exposure standards based on the specific absorption rate (SARI) for RFR. This SAR is specified in terms of Watts per kilo- gram (WJkg). The exposure limit for this frequency is chosen to keep the SAR at less than 1.6 Wjkg in any one gram of tissue and 0.08 Wjkg for the entire body. This limit assures that no overheating of tissue will occur. Another RFR control parameter that is related to SAR is the power output of a transmitting device. If a cellular phone power output is limited to less than 0.7 W. then it cannot produce RFR which will exceed the uncontrolled environment permissible exposure limits (PEL.$) or SAR limits, even if operated continuously (typically phones are transmitting 50 percent of the time and receiving 50 percent of the time). Virtually all phone manufacturers limit their phones to less than 0.6 W output. Also, they are likely to further reduce the power output of new phones to extend the life of batteries. Because of these low power output requirements and the incentive to extend battery life, cellular phones do not produce RFR levels which exceed the existing consensus exposure standards for uncontrolled environments. There arc, therefore, no health -related RF restrictions or controls necessary for hand-held cellular telephones. This same standard is used in the United States,. the European Economic Community, Japan, Australia, and other nations. References Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE C95.1-1991, 27 April 1992, "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." Fischetti, M. (1993, June), The Cellular Phone Scare, IEEE Sp ctr m. pp 43-47. Electromagnetic Energy Policy Alliance, Cellular Radio - Cellular Telenhon-� Mobile Communications ThrouLlh - Electromagnetic Enerw, (Fact Sheet No. 4), Washington, D.C.: Author. i"' `" 5 -i fi %J rJ ENTITY POSITION! STATEMENT HUMAN EXPOSURE TO RF EMISSIONS FROM CELLULAR RADIO BASE STATION ANTENNAS 1828 L STRCC•T. W' SUITC 1202, WASHINGTON, DC 20036-5104' (202) 785.0017 We recogni7z public concern for safety of microwave exposure from cellular communications base stations. Guidelines for limiting exposure have been published by the American National Standards Institute, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and other national and international organizations. These guidelines were developed to protect workers and the general population from harmful exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. Based on present knowledge, prolonged exposure at or below the levels recommended in these guidelines is considered safe for human health. Measurements near typical cellular base stations have shown that exposure levels normally encountered by the public are well below limits recommended by all national and international safety standards. Furthermore, public exposure near cellular base stations is not significantly different from the usual "RF background" levels in urban areas, which are produced by radio and television broadcast stations present in every modern community. Therefore, one can. conclude that exposure from properly operating cellular base stations is safe for the general population. There may be circumstances where workers could be exposed to fields greater than the stand: Ids specify. In those cas: generally on rooftops, access can be and should be restricted. This sratement was developed by the Committee on Man and Radiation of the United States Activities Board of The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), and represents the considered judgment of a group of U.S. IEEE members with expertise in the subject field. The IEEE United States Activities Board promotes the career and technology policy interests of the 250,000 electrical, electronics, and computer engineers who are U.S. members of the IEEE. IEEE United States Activities Board Approving Entity Mn-., 7992 DatlJ 5 _ 7,411 j 411 L BACKGROUND The acceptance and use of cellular radios and cellular telephones, which operate in continuous wave mode at carrier frequencies between 825 and 845 MHz (mobile transmitters) and between 870 and 890 MHz (base station transmitters), has increased dramatically during the past few years, To keep up with the demand for available radio channels and to ensure quality of service, there is a continual need for additional cells in many metropolitan areas and their suburbs. The installation of cell site or base station antennas frequently raises concerns about their environmental impact and safety. In addition to commonly asked questions about the aesthetic/visual impact of towers, many communities raise concerns about exposure of the public to radiofrequency energy transmitted by these sites, particularly people who live or work in the vicinity of the antennas. The cell -site antennas are usually located on towers, either free-standing monopoles or lattice type, ranging in height from 30 to 75 meters.,. In many casesit is more convenient to locate antennas on the top or side of other existing structures, such as water tanks or buildings. The antenna height is critical; it must be high enough to provide coverage throughout the cell but low enough to preclude interfering with remote cells. Each cell site contains both transmitting and receiving antennas. The number of antennas depends on the service area, e.g., in an extremely high density service area six transmitting antennas, each with up to sixteen radio channels, could be used. The maximum total effective radiated power (ERP).of,a system would depend on the number of channels authorized at a site. Typically, there are 16 transmitting channels (discrete -frequencies) per cellular antenna. As many as six transmitting antennas (for a total of 96 discrete frequencies) could be used at a given site, but this number is unlikely. Furthermore, all channels would not be expected to be operating simultaneously, thus reducing overall emission levels. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authorizes up to two cellular telephone companies in each service area. Although the FCC permits an ERP up to 500 watts per channel (depending on the geographical area and tower height), the majority of the cell -site in urban and suburban areas operate at ERPs of 100 watts or less per channel. In large cities the cells are small and the ERP is usually 10 watts per channel. The transmitters associated with "microcells," usually located within buildings, railroad stations, etc., operate at ERPs lower than 1 watt. The system is self-limiting in the sense that as the system expands and cells are subdivided, the transmitter power is reduced to prevent interference with remote cells. As with other antennas used for telecommunications the energy from a cell -site antenna is directed toward the horizon in a relatively narrow beam in the vertical plane. As one moves away from the antenna, the power density decreases as the inverse square of the distance, and consequently, the exposure at ground -level in the vicinity of an antenna tower is relatively low compared with the exposure very close to the antenna itself. Measurements made around typical cell -site antenna towers have shown that ground -level power densities are well below limits for the general population recommended by recognized organizations, such as the American National Standards Institute (ANSI-C95.1, 1982), the IEEE (IEEE-C95.1, 1991), the National Council on Radiation. Protection and Measurements, (NCRP, 1986) and the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA, 1988), which range from 2.75-2.97 - - milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm2) for occupational exposure to 0.41-0.45 mW/cm2 for general population exposure at cellular radio frequencies of 825-890 MHz. The maximum exposure levels found near the base of typical cell -site antenna towers are, in fact, lower than all national and international recommended safety limits. These maximum exposure levels occur only at the limited distances close to the base of the tower. For example, data submitted to the FCC showed a maximum measured ground -level power density at the base of a 45 meter tower to be of the order of 0.00002 m7W/cm2 per radio channel, corresponding to 0.002 mW/cm2 for a 96 channel, 100 watts ERP per channel, fully implemented system. The antennas were omni-directional colinear arrays. The maximum was found to occur typically at distances between 18 and 25 meters from the base of the tower. At other points within 90 meters the levels were considerably lower; on average less than 0.0001 mW/cm2 for 96 channels. Similar measurements made in the vicinity of higher towers yielded correspondingly lower values. Measurements show that the power density at distances greater than 60 meters from all commonly used directional and omni=directional cell -site antennas is less than 0.010 mW/cm2 including points in the main beam. RF radiation from nearby cellular base stations does not significantly increase the reported "RF background" levels in urban areas (Tell and Mantiply, 1980). Because of building attenuation, the power density levels inside of nearby buildings at corresponding distances from a cell -site antenna would be from 10 to 100 times smaller than outside (depending on building construction). Thus the maximum levels inside of buildings located near the base of a typical 45 meter cell -site antenna tower will be between 0.0002 and 0.00002 mW/cm2. Measurements made directly in the beam of a roof -mounted omni-directional antenna with sixteen radio channels indicated that the power density was leas than 1 mW/cm2 at a distance of 3 meters from the antenna and less than 0.010 mW/cm2 beyond 50 meters. Thus, in certain areas on the rooftop, depending on the proximity to the antenna, the exposure levels can be higher than those allowed by the safety standards. Access to these areas should be restricted. Measurements show that in rooms directly below roof -mounted installations, the power density levels are considerably lower than roof locations, depending on the construction. For typical construction (e.g., wood or cement block) the attenuation is about a factor of 10. 1 ne power density behind sector (directional) antennas is hundreds to thousands of times lower than in front, and hence, levels are negligible in rooms directly behind walls where sector antennas are mounted on the sides of buildings. In conclusion, measurements and calculations have verified that the power densities associated with cellular radio cell -site antennas to which the public may be exposed are not significantly different from "RF background" levels in urban areas which are produced by radio and television broadcast stations present in every modern community, and are well below the limits recommended by national and international safety standards. Based on this comparison, cellular communications base station emissions are safe for the general population. There are circumstances where workers could be exposed to fields greater than the standards specify. In those cases, generally on rooftops, access should be restricted. 3 Q'5-- 19,1111 REFERENCES: 1. ANSI-C95.1, (1,982), (American National _Standard Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, 300 kHz to 100 GHz). IEEE Standards Dept., Piscataway, New Jersey 2. IEEE-C95.1. (1991), Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz. IEEE Standards Department, Piscataway, New Jersey. 3. IEEE -USA Entity Position Statement, (1990), Human exposure to microwaves and,other radiofrequeney electromagnetic fields. IEEE United States Activities, COMAR, Washington, DC. 4, iRPA. (1988), (Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 100 kHz to 300 GHz). Health Physics, 54(1):115-123. 5. NCRP. (1986), (Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields). Report 86, (Bethesda, MD: National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements) pp.1-382. 6. Tell, R.A. and +Mantiply, E.D., (1980), "Population exposure to VHF and UHF broadcast radiation in the United States," Proc. IEEE 68(1):6-12. A June 1993 HPS Newsletter The Cellular Phone Scare: Standards Can Stem the Controversy Gary Zeman, CHP Murray Hill, New Jerse y To the Editor: This letter is in response to your editorial titled "Don't Keep It A Secret' in the April 1993 issue of the Newsletter, in which you asked, 'Are cellular phones dangerous?' (see Newsletter, April 1993, page 2). The answer- to your question is cellular phones are designed and manufactured to comply with the latest health and safety guidelines for RF energy; and there is good reason to have confidence in those guidelines. The follow- ing questions and answers give more detailed information: What are cellular phones? Cellular telephones are mobile radios that operate at frequencies between 824 to 850 MHz (mobile units) and 869 to 894 MHz (base stations). These frequencies are just above the UHF TV portion of the spectrum, i.e., TV channels 14 through 69 operate at 470 to'800 MHz. In fact, the frequencies used by cellular radio were previously allocated by the FCC to UHF TV channels 70 through 83. Thus, while cellular is a new and growing communications medium, the underly- ing radio technology has been in use for many years. What are cordless phones? -Cordless phones are also radios, but they are different from cellular. Cordless phones are used in and around the home and operate at lower frequencies and at much lower power than cellular to communicate with a telephone base unit which is also located in the home. Because they operate zt extremely low power levels, no questions have been raised about the safety of cordless telephones. What are the health and safety guidelines for RF energy applicable to cellular phones? The work of ANSI/IEEE (ANS92), NCRP (NCR86), and ICNIRP (ICN88) represent the latest science -based safety guidance for RF energy. The ANSI/IEEE standard is a revision of a 1982 standard; earlier versions of the standard were issued in 1974 and 1966. The revisions were formed to take into account new information (e.g., dosimetry) and needs (e.g., separate guidance for controlled and uncontrolled areas). The NCRP and ICNIRP guidelines were developed independent- ly from ANSI/IEEE, but arrived at essentially the same safety guidance. This guidance is expressed in terms of limitations on the power density (watts/cm� to which a person may be exposed and/or on the rate of energy absorption (SAR-%v_atts/kg) in the.body. How do we know that cellular phonies comply with the safety guidelines? Dosimetry studies involving measure- ments or calculations of RF energy have been carried out to establish that cellular technology complies with the safety [tonhnurdJ 5 HPS Newsletter June 1993 standards. For example, cellular phone base stations operating within the parameters of their FCC licenses produce power densities of typically 1 microwatt/cm= in the environment nearby the antennas, and this is within the standard for exposure in uncontrolled environments by a safety margin of over 500-told (PET92). Vehicle -mounted antennas, which operate at 3.5 watts on the roof or trunk of cars, have been shown to meet the SAR safety guidelines for people sitting within or standing near the vehicle (GUY86). Other dosimctry studies (e.g., CLE89) on portable hand-held units provide data demonstrating that at the typical operating power of 0:6 watt, tbese units produce SAR values in the operator's body which are within the limits of the standards. So trdrnt's the controversy? Following the Larry Icing - Live show during the last week in January 1993, the media devoted considerable coverage to a legal suit currently pending in the state of Florida that alleges that a woman's portable cellular phone was somehow involved in her fatal brain cancer. The suit, and the media, seem to have overlooked the fact that there is no evidence that cellular phones are harmful. In fact, in all the thousands of reports that serve as the basis for present day safety guidance, there is no evidence that radiofrequency energy can cause cancer. It is true that a handful of scientists studying -in - vitro cell preparations have reported experimental results which they view as unexplainable and indicative that more research is needed on effects of low-level RF exposure. Historically, research on so-called nonthermal effects of nonionizing radiation has suffered from lack of independent replication and lack of a Comprehensive theory for the mechanisms of action (NRC86). The new and controver- sial work in this field has yet to undergo the replication, verification and extrapolation from the petri dish to the case of real -world health hazards to be recognized by ,the scientific mainstream through the consensus process. Fortunately, according to its members, the ANSI/IEE� committee maintains an active awareness of developments in this area with a view toward updating the standard as needed when new information becomes available. Mat arc federal regulators doing about this? The FCC regulates cellular radio by administering a licensing pro- gram for service providers. FCC licenses limit the maxi- mum operating power of cellular.radio base stations, which ensures that environmental levels of RF energy do not exceed the safety standards for uncontrolled environments (PET92). As far as mobile (vehicle mounted) units and portable (hand-held) units, there are presently no federal regulations that apply. In the absence of federal regula- tions, manufacturers ensure that their products are safe by voluntarily complying with the exposure guidance published by ANSI/IEEE, NCRP and ICNIRP. According to its latest Radiological Health Bulletin, (FDA93), the FDA may become involved in regulating cellular devices. Where can I get more information? The IEEE has recently published an entity posilion statement, 'Human exposure to radiofrequency fields from portable and mobile telephones and other communications devices,' available from: IEEE 1828 L St., N.W,, Ste. 1202 Washington, D.C. 20036 Two excellent sources of general information are, 'Questions and answers about biological effects and potential hazards of radiofrequency radiation,' OET Bulletin No. 56, January 1989, available from: Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering and Technology Washington, D.C. 20554 and 'Fact sheet on cellular radio -cellular telephone' available from: Electromagnetic Energy Policy Alliance 1255 23rd St., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 References ANS92. ANSI/IEEE Standard C95.1.1992. 'IEEE Standard for safety, levels with mspeet to human exposure to radiofroquency electromagnetic fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz.' Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, 345 E. 47th St., New York, NY 10017. CLE89. Cleveland, R.F., and Athey, T.W„ "Specific absorption rote (SAR) in models of the human head exposed to hand-held UHF portabje radios.' Bioeleerromagneriet 10, 173-186; 1989. FDA93. FDA/CDRH, 'Center addresses cellular phone issues.' Radiological Health Bulletin 27, 2.4; Spring 1993. CDRH(HFZ- 30), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Ln., Rockville, MD 20857. GUY86. Guy, A.W., and Chou, C.K., 'Specific absorption rates of energy in man models exposed to cellular UHF mobile antenna fields.' IEEE Transactions on hfierowave Theory and Techniques, MTT 34, 671.680; 1986. 1RP88. IRPAAN1RC, 'Guidelines on limits of exposure to radio - frequency electromagnetic fields in the frequency range from 100 kHz to 300 GHz." Health Physics 54, 115.123; 1988. NCR86. NCRP Report No. 86, "Biological effects and exposur_ criteria for radiofrequcncy electromagnetic fields.' National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 7910 Wood- mont Ave., Bethesda, AID 20814, NRC86. National Research Council, 'Nonthcrmal effects of nonionizing radiation. Final report." National Academy Press, 1996. Available from: National Research Council, 2101 Constitu- tie,i Ave., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418. PET92. Petersen, R.C., and Testagrossa, P.A., 'Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields associated with cellular-rndio cell -site antennas." Bloclectrotrragneries 13, 527-542; 1992. Editors' Note: Thank you, Gary, for providing a very useful summary on cellular -phones. s (04 L INFORMATION ON CELLULAR - RADIO AND RADIOFP-EQUENCY RADIATION **,t�c�r***,r�r,rr****r****,a•*,tt#,r*,�#*,r*,rtf**t*#,r***�**r**.rr�**#,t*t,ir**�,r,� -- FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION OFFICE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY SPECTRUM ENGINEERING DIVISION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 (1) Cellular base stations Cellular communications. systems utilize frequencies in the 800-900 MHz region of the radiofrequency (RF) spectrum. Primary antennas for cellular communications are normally located on towers or rooftops and are referred to as "cellular base stations." Such a station usually contains a number of transmitters for a given cell site. Cellular antennas on towers or other structures are generally located at or near the top of the structure. Side - mounting is also possible. Typical tower heights are 100-200 feet. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authorizes a "wire - line" and "non wire -line" carrier in each given service area. The maximum total effective radiated power (ERP) of a cellular system would depend on the number of channels authorized at a given site. A typical number of transmitting channels at a site would be 16 per antenna, although as many as six antennas could be used. However, such a situation would not be common and would represent a worst -case. Furthermore, all channels would not be expected to operate simultaneously, thus reducing overall emission levels. Although the FCC permits an ERP of up to 500 watts per channel (depending on geographical area and tower height), the majority of cellular base stations in urban and suburban areas operate at an ERP of 100 watts per channel or less. In large cities the antennas used are usually smaller with typical ERPs on the order ..of 10 watts or less per channel. The signal from a cellular base station antenna is essentially directed toward the horizon in a relatively narrow beam in the' vertical plane. For example, the radiation pattern might be compared to a doughnut or pancake. As with all forms of electromagnetic energy, the power density due to a cellular transmitter decreases rapidly (according to an inverse square law). as one moves away from antenna. Consequently, normal ground - level exposure would be much less than exposure very close to a base station antenna. Measurements that have been made around typical cellular base stations have shown that ground -level power densities are well below limits recommended by currently accepted RF and microwave safety standards. roe•. Q. vt6.41 a,. L -7 Pl, 3 At a frequency of 800 MHz, the RF protection guides of the American National Standards institute (ANSI C95.1-1982), used by the FCC and others, recommend that human exposure be limited to a power density of about 2.7 milliwatts per sq. centimeter, (mW/cm2), as averaged over any six -minute period. This level is many times higher than typical RF levels found near the base of typical cellular base station towers. For example, measurement data provided to the FCC by AT&T showed a "worst -case" ground level power density near a cellular base station to be on the order of -0.002 mW/cm2. worst -case calculations (assuming all transmitters "on") show that in order,. to be exposed to the ANSI -recommended levels for cellular frequencies an individual would normally have to be within several feet of the antennas and in the .main transmitting beam. This makes .public exposure in excess of the .ANSI guidelines very unlikely. Potential exposure can also be analyzed with respect to the more restrictive public exposure limits recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) or recently released recommendations of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The NCRP, and IEEE guidelines recommend a limit for public exposure at 800 MHz of about 0.53 mW/cm2, still considerably less than measurements made at ground level around cellular towers. In fact, a worst -case calculation (for 1000 watts ERP) would require exposure in the main radiation beam within about 8 meters (about 26 feet) of an antenna complex in order to exceed this limit. For 500 W the distance would be about 6 meters (just under 20 feet). Once again, such exposures are unlikely given the height above ground of these antennas. It is conceivable that significant RF levels from a high-powered rooftop cellular installation could be present on the rooftop itself. If tpe rooftop were accessible to maintenance personnel or others, then appropriate restrictions might have to be placed on access to areas where RF standards could be exceeded. However, such restrictions should be relatively easy to maintain, and factoring in the time -averaging aspects of safety standards could also be used to reduce potential exposure. -Also, rooftop* cellular antennas normally use significantly lower power than antennas mounted on free-standing towers. . (2) Mobile (vehicle -mounted) antennas Vehicle -mounted cellular radios normally operate using power levels of 3-5 watts, although the FCC's limitation for mobile cellular stations is-7 watts (ERP).' Vehicle -mounted cellular antennas are normally mounted on the roof, on the trunk, or on the rear window. - Measurement studies have indicated that to be exposed to significant RF levels it is necessary to be in fairly close proximity to a typical vehicle -mounted cellular antenna. For example, a study done for AT&T at the University of Washington documented typical and "worst -case" exposure levels and specific absorption rates (SAR) for vehicle occupants and bystanders in the vicinity of vehicle -mounted cellular antennas. Worst -case exposure conditions were considered to occur when an individual was at the closest possible distance from the antenna. Several configurations were tested using both adult and child "phantom" models. The results of this study showed that the highest exposure level (1.9 mW/cm2) occurred with.a female phantom model at a distance of 9.7 cm (3.8 inches) from one of the antennas operating at a power of 3 watts. Although this level approaches the ANSI protection guide for this frequency, the antenna could be driven to approximately 35 W of power before the 8 W/kg partial body threshold of the ANSI guidelines would be exceeded. According to AT&T, the intermittent nature of transmission and the improbability that a person would remain so close to the antenna for any length of time would make such a worst -case exposure very unlikely. The University of Washington study indicated that vehicle occupants are effectively shielded by the metal body. Motorola, Inc., in comments filed with the FCC, expressed the opinion that proper installation of a vehicle -mounted antenna was an effective way of limiting exposure. Motorola recommended installation either in the center of the roof or the center of the trunk. Concern was expressed by Motorola over the commonly -used rear - window mounting of cellular antennas. Maintaining a minimum separation distance of 30-60 cm (1 -2 feet) was recommended to minimize exposure to vehicle occupants resulting from -antenna mismatch for this type of antenna installation. In general, from data gathered to date, it appears that, if properly installed, vehicle -mounted cellular transceivers using 3 watts of power would result in maximum typical exposure levels in or near the vehicle at least ten or more times below the safety limits recommended in 1982 by ANSI. This assumes that the transmitting antenna is at least 15 cm (about 6 inches) or more from vehicle occupants. Also, all accepted safety guidelines incorporate a time -averaging feature, which means that average exposure during a given period (usually 6-30 minutes) must be considered rather than peak exposure. This normally results in still lower values for overall exposure as compared to safety guidelines. 3 i i (3) Hand-held portable radios and telephones The question of the potential health risk to users from portable RF devices such as hand-held walkie-talkies.and cellular telephones often arises. These devices generally operate at power levels of a few watts or less. Most hand-held cellular telephones normally operate using 0.6 watts. ANSI C.95.1-1982 contains an exclusion clause for hand-held RF devices that transmit at frequencies below 1000 MHz and with input power levels of 7 watts or less. This exclusion clause was based on the belief that devices using power levels below 7 watts would not cause specific absorption rates (SAR) in excess of the 0.4 watts per kilogram (W/kg) whole -body threshold or the 8 W/kg partial body threshold established by ANSI for safe exposure. The ANSI partial body.limit w,•.-:s based on an absorption threshold equal to 8 W/kg of tissue as measured over any one gram of tissue. The ANSI exclusion clause is often used as a basis for determining whether a hand-held RF device might constitute a potential hazard. The NCRP recommendations dealing with localized power absorption are also based on a threshold of 8 W/kg, but only for occupational exposure. For the general population, a localized criterion of one -fifth the occupational level, or 1.6 W/kg was recommended by NCRP in 1986. The IEEE guidelines (IEEE C95.1- 1991) also recommend a 1.6 W/kg threshold for spatial peak SAR in "uncontrolled environments." The IEEE'exclusion clause for hand- held RF devices in uncontrolled environments and for frequencies of 800-900 MHz is about 0.7-0.8 watts of power, slightly more than most hand-held cellular devices that use 0.6 watts. Measurements of SAR in models of the human head have been reported in several studies. In general, these studies have shown that the limits recommended by ANSI are unlikely to be exceeded by use of a radio operating at 800-900 MHz with power levels of up to several watts. In one of these studies it was shown that the 8 W/kg level could conceivably be exceeded for a radio operating at 7 watts if the antenna feed -point were located very close (1-2 cm or less) to the user's head or eyes. Nevertheless, it was concluded that the ANSI partial body threshold would probably not be violated because of the low duty factors associated with the use of hand-held radios. If 1.6 W/kg is used as a..threshold, lower -powered radios might cause this level to be exceeded in the worst case. But, once again, when time -averaging is considered actual exposure would likely be acceptable for low -powered radios. In the case of hand-held cellular telephones, although the duty factor is likely to be higher than. that for walkie-talkies, the power level is usually significantly lower-(0.6 W), making excessive exposure unlikely. In addition, hand-held cellular telephones usually have their antennas mounted in such a way that the feed -point is several inches from the head, thus reducing 4 7� exposure further. Studies using cellular telephones reported'by Balzano have indicated that SAR values in human head models are below the exclusion thresholds. A factor that might be the subject of future investigation is the rapid development of -digital technology in the use of mobile communications. Within the next several years most cellular radio communications will begin using a digital mode of transmission. Some concern has been expressed that a pulse -modulated waveform may be more biologically interactive than continuous wave transmissions, although this is not proven. 1.4 111 :4 (1) American National Standards Institute, New York, NY. "American National Standard Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 300 kHz to 100 GHz," (ANSI C95.1-1982). Now under revision; to be replaced by IEEE C95.1- 1991 (below). (2) Balzano Q., Garay 0., and F.R. Steel (1977). ."Energy Deposition in Biological Tissue Near Portable Radio,Transmitters at VHF and UHF." Record of the 27th Annual Conference, IEEE Vehicular Technology Group, Orlando, FL, p. 25-39. (3) Balzano Q., Garay 0., and F.R. Steel.(1978). "Heating of Biological Tissue in the Induction Field of VHF Portable Radio Transmitters. IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech. VT-27(2):51-56. (4) Balzano Q., Garay 0., and F.R. Steel (1978). "Energy Deposition in Simulated Human Operators of 800-MHz Portable Transmitters." IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech. VT-27(4):174-181. (5) Chatterjee I., Gu Y., and O.P..Gandhi. (1985).. "Quantification of Electromagnetic Absorption in Humans from Body - Mounted Communication Transceivers." IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech. VT- 34 (2) :55-62. (8) Cleveland, Jr. R.F., and T.W. Athey (1989). "Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in Models of the Human Head Exposed to Hand - Held UHF Portable Radios." Bioelectromagnetics 10:173-186. (9) Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Washington, D.C. (1987). Second Report and Order, Gen. Docket 79-144, 52 Federal Register 13240, 2 FCC Record 2064, 2 FCC Record 2526. (OVER:) I,( 5 0,5- "711 (10) Guy, A.W., and C.K. Chou (1986). "Specific Absorption Rates of Energy in Man Models Exposed to Cellular UHF -mobile -antenna Fields." IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory and Tech., MTT-34(6): 671- 680. (11) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), New York, NY, IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 28. "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," (IEEE C95.1-1991). Copies may be purchased from IEEE, telephone: 1- (800)-678-IEEE. (12) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), Washington, D.C., U.S. Activities Board, Entity Position Statement (1992). "Human Exposure to RF Emissions from Cellular Radio Base Station Antennas." (13) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), Washington, D.C., U.S. Activities Board, Entity Position Statement (proposed 1992). "Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields from Portable and Mobile Telephones and Other. Communications Devices." (12) National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), Bethesda, MD. "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," NCRP Report No. 86 (1986). Information: NCRP Publications, (301) 657-2652. (13) Petersen, R.C.-and P.A. Testagrossa (1992). "Radio -Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Associated With Cellular -Radio Cell -Site Antennas." Bioelectromagnetics 13: 527-542. r (14) Stuchly S.S., et al. (1985). "Energy Deposition in a Model of Man in the Near Field." Bioelectromagnetics 6: 115-129. 6 05- r611 1 Office of - Federal . Engineering Engineering COmritXkationS �. and Technology - Division Commission QUESATI®NS AND ANSWERS ABOUT. BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS AND POTENTIAL HAZARDS CIF RADIOFREQUENCY ''RADIATION ®ET BULLE`fIN' N®:: 56 Third Edition January 1989 - Federal Communications Commission Office of Engineering & Technology Washington, D.C. 20554 '• INTRODUCTION The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is responsible for licens- ing or.authorizing many of 'the transmitting devices in the United States that use radiofrequency (RF) radiation to provide a variety of important telecommunications.services. Because of its responsibilities in this regard the FCC often receives 'inquiries concerning potential health risks from exposure to the RF radiation emitted by these transmitters. Recent years have witnessed increasing interest and concern on the part of the public with respect to this issue. The expanding use of RF techno- logy has resulted in speculation concerning the alleged "electromagnetic pollution" of the environment -and the potential dangers of exposure to non - ionizing radiation. This publication is designed to provide factual in- formation to the public by answering some of the most commonly asked ques- tions about this complex and often misunderstood topic. WHAT IS RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION? Radiofrequency (RF) radiation is one of several types of electromag- netic radiation. Electromagnetic radiation consists of waves of electric and magnetic 'energy moving -together through space. These waves are gene- rated by. -the movement of electrical charges. For example, the movement of charge, in a transmitting radio antenna, i.e., the alternating current, creates• electromagnetic waves that radiate away from the antenna and can be picked up by- a receiving antenna. Electromagnetic waves travel through space at the speed of light. Each electromagnetic wave has associated with it a wavelength and frequency which are inversely related by a simple mathematical formula: (frequency) times (wavelength) = .the speed of light., Since the speed of light is a fixed number, electromagnetic' waves with high frequencies have short wavelengths and waves with low frequencies have long wavelengths. The electromagnetic "spectrum" includes all of the various forms of electromagnetic radiation ranging from extremely low frequency (ELF) radia- tion (with very long wavelengths) to X-rays and gamma rays which have very high frequencies and correspondingly short wavelengths. In between these extremes lie radio waves, microwaves, infrared radiation, visible light, and ultraviolet radiation. The RF part of the electromagnetic spectrum is generally defined as electromagnetic radiation with frequencies in the range from about 3 kilohertz -to 300 gigahertz. One "hertz" equals one cycle per second. A kilohertz (kHz) is one thousand hertz, a megahertz (MHz) is one million hertz, and a gigahertz is one billion hertz. The diagram below illustrates the electromagnetic spectrum and the approximate relationship between the various forms of electromagnetic radiation. Increasing Frequency --�-�- 1 Hz 1 kHz 1 MHz 1 GHz 1012Hz 1015Hz. 1018Hz 1O21Hz I I I I •I I I I electric radio & TV infrared ultra- X-rays power violet -(ELF) microwaves gamma rays visible light I.--- RADIOFREQUENCY--►i RADIATION WHAT IS MICROWAVE RADIATION? Microwave radiation is a high -frequency form of RF radiation. Micro- wave frequencies occupy the upper part of the RF electromagnetic spectrum, usually defined as the frequency range from about 300 MHz to 300_GHz. The most familiar use of microwave radiation is in household microwave ovens which rely on the principle that microwaves generate heat throughout an object rather than just at the surface. Therefore," microwave ovens can cook food more rapidly than conventional ovens. Other uses of microwaves are: the transmission of telephone and telegraph' messages through low -power microwave relay antennas, military -and -civilian radar systems, the trans- mission of signals between ground stations and satellites, and the trans- mission of signals in certain broadcasting operations. Certain medical devices use microwave frequencies in therapeutic applications of RF-radia- tion. WHAT ARE'TYPICAL USES OF"RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATIOND? Many uses have been developed for RF energy. Familiar applications involving telecommunications include AM and FM radio, television, citizens band (CB) radio, hand-held walkie-talkies, amateur radio, short -wave radio, cordless telephones, and microwave point-to-point and ground -to -satellite -2- 95- 71 __J ...,..-vGAUcommunicazions applications inciuoe micro- wave ovens and radar, as mentioned above. Also important are devices that use RF energy in industrial heating and sealing operations. The latter devices generate RF radiation that rapidly heats the ma 6rial being pro- cessed in the same way that a microwave oven cooks food. These RF heaters and sealers have many uses in industry, including molding plastic materials, gluing wood products, sealing items, such as shoes and pocketbooks, and processing food products. Medical applications of RF radiation include a technique called diathermy that takes advantage of RF energy's ability to heat tissue' below the body!s surface rapidly. The term "hyperthermia" is used in reference to therapeutic RF heating of cancerous tumors. RF energy is also used in the stimulation of bone healing. WHAT IS NON -IONIZING RADIATION, AND HOW DOES IT DIFFER FROM IONIZING RADIATION? The energy associated with electromagnetic radiation depends on its frequency (or wavelength); the greater the frgquency (and shorter the wave- length), the higher the energy. Therefore, x-radiation and gamma radia- tion, which have -extremely high frequencies, have relatively large amounts of energy; while, at the other end of the electromagnetic spectrum, ELF radiation is .less energetic by many orders of magnitude. In between these extremes -lie ultraviolet radiation, visible light, infrared radiation, and RF radiation (including microwaves), all differing in energy content. Of the various forms of electromagnetic radiation, x-radiation and gamma radiation represent the greatest relative hazard because of their greater energy content and correspondingly greater potential for damage. In fact, X-rays and gamma rays are so energetic that they can cause ionization of atoms and molecules and thus are classified as "ionizing" radiation. Ionization is a process by which electrons are stripped from atoms and molecules, producing molecular changes that can lead to significant genetic damage in biological tissue. Less energetic forms of electromagnetic radiation, such as RF and microwave radiation, lack the ability to ionize atoms and molecules and are classified as "non -ionizing" radiation. It is important that the terms-, "ionizing" and "non -ionizing," not be confused when referring to electromagnetic radiation, since their mechanisms of interaction with 'the human body are quite different. Biological effects of (non -ionizing) RF radiation are discussed in a later section. HOW IS RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION MEASURED? Since radiofrequency radiation has both an electric and a magnetic com- ponent, it is often convenient to express intensity of a radiation field in terms of units specific to each component. The unit "volts per meter" (V/m) is used for the electric component, and the unit "amperes per meter" (A/m) is used for the magnetic component. We often speak of an electro- -3- 05- 1*711� _1 magnetic "field," and these units are used to provide information about the levels of electric and magnetic "field strength" at a measurement location. Another commonly used unit for characterizing an RF electromagnetic field is "power density." Power density is most accurately used when the point of measurement is far enough away from the RF emitter to be located in what is referred to as the "far field" zone of the radiation pattern. In closer proximity to the transmitter, i.e., in the "near field." zone,• the physical relationships betw een.'the electric and magnetic components of the field can be complex, and it is best to use the field strength units dis- cussed above. Power density is measured in terms of power per unit area, for example, milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm ). When speaking of frequencies in the microwave range and higher, power density is usually used to express intensity since exposures that might occur would likely be in the far field zone. A detailed discussion of the physics of RF fields and their measurement can be found in Reference 1. WHAT BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS CAN BE CAUSED :BY RF.RADIATION? There is a relatively extensive•.body of published literature concern- ing the biological effects' of RF radiation. The following discussion only provides highlights of current knowledge in this area. Detailed information on this topic can be found in References 2-14. It has been, known for some time that high intensities of RF radiation can be harmful due to the ability of RF energy to heat biological tissue rapidly. This is the principle by which microwave ovens cook food, and exposure to high RF power- densities, i.e., on the order of 100 mW/cm2 or more, can result in heating of the human body and an increase in body temperature. Tissue damage can result primarily because of the. body's inability to cope with or dissipate the excessive heat. Under certain conditions, exposure to RF power densities of about 10 mW/cm2 or more could result in measurable heating of biological tissue. The extent of heating would depend on several factors including frequency of the radiation; size, shape, and orientation of the exposed object; duration of exposure; environ- mental conditions; and efficiency of heat dissipation. Biological effects that result from heating of tissue by RF energy are often referred to -as "thermal" effects. Two areas of the body, the *eyes and the testes, can be particularly susceptible to heating by RF energy because of the relative lack of avail- able blood flow to dissipate the excessive heat load. Laboratory ex- periments have shown that short-term exposure to high levels of RF radiation (100-200 mW/cm2) can cause cataracts in rabbits. Temporary sterility, caused by such effects as changes in sperm count and in sperm motility, is possible after exposure of the testes to high-level RF radiation. It should be emphasized that environmental levels of RF. radiation routinely encountered by the public are far below the levels necessary to - 4 - M produce significant heating and increased body temperature. In fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that 98-99% of the population in seven U.S. urban areas studied is exposed .to less than 0.001 mW/cm2 (Reference 15). However, there may be situations, particularly workplace environments, where RF safety 'standards are exceeded and people could be exposed to potentially harmful levels of RF radiation. In addition to intensity, the electromagnetic frequency of RF radiation is important in determining the relative hazard. At a distance - of several 4 wavelengths from a source' of RF radiation, whole -body absorption of RF energy by humans will occur at a maximum rate when the frequency of the radiation is between about 30 and 300 MHz. Because of -this "resonance" phenomenon, RF safety standards take this frequency dependence into account. Therefore, as discussed in a later section, the most stringent standards are in this frequency range of maximum absorption. At relatively low levels of exposure to RF radiation, i.e., field intensities lower than those that would produce significant and measurable heating, the evidence for production of harmful biological effects is less clear. A number of reports have appeared in the Russian and East European literature claiming a wide range of low-level biological effects. The low- level effects on animals and humans reported in the Soviet and East European literature have included behavioral modifications, effects on .the blood - forming and immunological system, reproductive effects, changes in hormone levels, headaches, irritability, fatigue, and cardiovascular effects. However, further research is -needed to confirm the exis"nee of these effects and to: determine whether they might constitute •a health hazard, particularly with regard to long-term exposure. - In recent .years some' Western scientists have also reported biological effects after exposure of animals and animal tissue to relatively. low -levels of RF radiation. These effects, often referred to as "non -thermal" effects, have included changes in the immune system, neurological effects, behavioral effects, evidence for a link between microwave exposure and the action of certain drugs and compounds, and a "calcium -efflux" effect in brain tissue (discussed below). Experimental results have also suggested that microwaves might be involved in cancer "promotion" under certain conditions. However, contradictory experimental results have also been reported in many of these cases, and further experiments are needed to determine the generality of these effects and whether they constitute a threat to human health. It is possible that "non -thermal" mechanisms exist that could cause harmful biological effects in animals and humans exposed to RF radiation. However, whether this is the case remains to be proven. i One of the "non -thermal" biological effects that appears to be re- producible is the "calcium efflux" effect.' This effect can be .described as the observation that the release of calcium ions from animal brain tissue is enhanced after -exposure to certain low intensities of RF radiation under discrete conditions of frequency and signal modulation.. This effect has been observed at RF levels well below those necessary to produce heating of tissue. The extent to which this effect might indicate a hazard is not -5- ,r_ 7 presently known, and further• research is needed to determine the relevance, if any, of this phenomenon to human health. Another RF biological effect that has received attention is the so- called microwave "hearing" effect. Under certain specific conditions of frequency, signal modulation, and intensity, it has been shown that animals and humans can perceive an RF signal as a buzzing or clicking sound. Although a number of theories have been advanced to explain this effect, the most widely -accepted hypothesis is that the microwave signal produces thermoelastic pressure within the head that is perceived as sound by the auditory apparatus within- the ear. It is important to emphasize that the conditions under which this effect occurs would not normally.be encountered by members of the general public. WHAT ARE SAFE LEVELS FOR EXPOSURE TO RADIOFREQUENCY/HICROWAVE RADIATION? There is disagreement over exactly what levels of RF radiation are "safe," particularly with regard to low levels of exposure. In the Soviet Union and several Eastern` European countries occupational and population exposure standards are generally more restrictive than existing or proposed standards in most Western countries. This discrepancy may be due, at least in part, to the likelihood that Russian and East European standards are based on levels where it is believed no biological effects of any sort would occur, rather than where recognized hazards exist. Western standards generally are based on levels where hazards are known to exist, and a safety* factor is then incorporated to provide sufficient protection. In the United"States there is currently (early 1989) no official, mandatory federal standard for protection of the public or workers from.. potentially hazardous exposure to RF radiation. There is a performance standard established 'by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for microwave ovens, but that standard is.an emission standard (as opposed to an exposure standard) that only defines acceptable levels of RF energy that can be radiated from microw ave'ovens. Until recently the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was developing federal guidelines ("Federal Guidance") for exposure of the public to RF radiation. However, the EPA recently stated its intention to defer that activity indefinitely. A federal RF radiation protection guide for workers was issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). in 1971 but it was later ruled tote advisory only. This protection guide was based on an earlier RF exposure standard recommended by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), a non -government organization that develops recommended standards for a variety of applications. To date, OSHA has not updated its 1971 guideline, although its sister agency, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), has been working on a recommended worker standard for RF exposure for several years. There is currently no indication that N I OSH will issue a recommendation in the near future. -6- Q, "�. In 1982, ANSI issued revised RF protection guidelines based on more recent data on the interaction of RF radiation with the human body. The ANSI protection guide is probably the most widely used' and technically supportable exposure standard available today. As discussed in a later section of this bulletin, the FCC now uses the ANSI protection guides for purposes of evaluating environmental impact from the RF transmitters it regulates. The 1982 ANSI guidelines recommend frequency -dependent exposure limits covering 'RF frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz (Reference 16). The guide- lines incorporate data showing that the human body absorbs RF energy at some frequencies more efficiently than at others. The most restrictive limits are in the frequency range of 30-300 MHz where maximum levels of 1 mW/cm2, as averaged over any six minute Period of exposure, are recommended. The ANSI standard was developed over a period of several years by scientists and engineers with considerable experience and knowledge in the area of RF biological effects and related issues. The recommendations were based on a determination that the threshold for hazardous biological effects was approximately 4 watts per kilogram (4 W/kg) ("W/kg" is an expression for the rate of energy absorption in the body given in terms of the "specific absorption rate" or "SAR"). A safety factor of ten was then incorporated to arrive at the final recommended protection guidelines. • In other words, the protection guides can be correlated with an SAR threshold of about 0.4 W /kg. The guidelines are intended to apply to•non-occupational as well as to occupational exposures. However, ANSI states that because of "limitations in the biological effects data base" the guide indicates upper limits of safe exposure, particularly for the general public. It should be noted that ANSI is currently (early 1989) in the process of revising its 1982 standard in light of more recent data on biological effects. Therefore, •a'''riew ANSI recommendation may be forthcoming in the next one or two years that could be more restrictive with respect to some exposure situations. In particular, the new guidelines could differentiate between exposure of workers and expo- sure of the general public using an approach similar to that followed by other standard -setting organizations (see later discussion). The 1982 ANSI guidelines are summarized in the following table. Note that recommended exposure levels are given in terms of the squares of the electric and magnetic field strengths as well as in terms of power density. For the lower frequencies listed, intensities are best expressed in terms of field strength values, and the indicated power density is essentially a "far field equivalent" power density. At.higher frequencies, and when one is in the "far field" of a radiation source at any frequency, the actual power density is an appropriate unit to use. It is important to remember that. the ANSI standard is a "time -averaged" standard, i.e., it is permissible to exceed the recommended limits for short periods of time as long as the average exposure (over 6 minutes) does not exceed the limits. _ 83 Q L 7 11 AMERICAN NATI02AL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI), 1982 RADIOFREQUENCY PROTECTION GUIDE Electric Field Frequency Strength Range,_ 2 (MHz) (V2/m2) Magnetic Field Strength Power H2 Density (0/m2) (mW/om2) 0.3-3 400,000 2.5 100 3-30 4,000 (goo/f2) 0.025 (9o0/f2) goo/f2 30-300 4,000 0.025 1.0 300-1500 4,000 (f/300) 0.025 (f/300) f/300 1500-100,000 20,000 0.125 5.0 NOTE: f = frequency in megahertz (MHz), E2 = electric field strength squared H2 = magnetic field strength squared V2/m2 = volts squared per meter squared A2/m2 = amperes squared per meter squared mW/cm2 = milliwatts per centimeter squared The 1982 ANSI RF protection guide excludes radiating devices with input powers of seven watts or less that operate at frequencies between 300 kHz and 1000 MHz (1 GHz). The guidelines also state that the exposure limits may be exceeded if exposure conditions can be shown to produce specific absorption rates below 0.4 W/kg, as averaged over the whole body, -or below 8 W /kg, as averaged over any one gram of tissue. Other organizations besides ANSI have issued health and safety stan- dards for RF radiation. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) is a nonprofit corporation chartered by the U.S. Con- gress to develop information and recommendations concerning radiation pro- tection, radiation measurements, and related issues. In 1986, the NCRP issued a report (Reference 11) that contained a review of the literature on biological effects of radiofrequency radiation as well as specific re- commendations'for exposure of workers and the general public. The NCRP exposure guidelines differ from the 1982 ANSI protection guide in -that separate exposure levels are recommended for workers and for the general public. The NCRP recommendations for worker exposure are essen- tially the same as the ANSI recommendations. However, NCRP recommended that the average exposure limits for the public be generally one -fifth that of the limits recommended for workers, although the averaging time specified for public exposure was 30 minutes rather than the 6-minute period for _8_ �' "91 worker exposure. The NCRP noted that its two -tiered recommendation was more traditional and consistent with past NCRP practice in. differentiating between occupational and public exposure by providing fbr a greater margin of safety for the general public. Exposure guidelines have also been issued by the International Radia- tion Protection Association (IRPA) and by the American Council of Govern- mental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). The IRPA guidelines (Reference 17) are similar to the NCRP recommendations in that a greater degree of protec- tion is recommended for the general public than for workers. The ACGIH guidelines (Reference '18) are basically a modified version of the 1982 ANSI guidelines and only apply to workers. Largely because of the lack of guidelines from the Federal Government, some local.and state jurisdictions have adopted, or have considered adop- ting, population and/or occupational standards for RF radiation. Local or state RF standards have been established or proposed in Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. Many of these standards are more restrictive than the 1982 ANSI standard fop exposure of the general public. HOW SAFE ARE MICROWAVE OVENS? The. Center for Devices and Radiological Health *(CDRH), a part of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, has regulated radiation from microwave ovens since 1971. CDRH has established a radiation performance standard for microwave ovens that allows leakage (measured at five centimeters from the oven surface) of 1 mW/cm2 at the time of manufacture and a maximum level of 5 mW/cm2 during the lifetime of the oven. The standard also requires ovens to have two independent interlock systems that prevent the oven from generating microwaves the moment that the latch is released or the door of the oven is opened. On the basis of current knowledge about microwave radiation, CDRH believes that ovens that meet its. standards and are used according to the manufacturer's recommendations are safe for use. IS IT SAFE TO USE AN ELECTRONIC CARDIAC PACEMAKER NEAR A RADIOFREQUENCY DEVICE SUCH AS A MICROWAVE OVEN? In the past there may have been occasional problems due to signals from RF devices interfering with the proper operation of certain implanted electronic pacemakers..• Because pacemakers are electronic devices, they can be susceptible to electromagnetic signals that could cause them to malfunc- tion and thereby incorrectly regulate a user's heartbeat. However, it is doubtful that signals from a microwave oven would be strong enough to cause } such interference. This situation has now been largely remedied by the incorporation of electromagnetic shielding into the design of modern pacemakers. This '5- "a 11 shielding prevents undesirable RF signals from being picked up by the electronic circuitry in the pacemaker. The potential for. the "leads" of pacemakers to pick up RF radiation has also been of some concern, but this does not appear to be a serious problem. Patients with pacemakers should' consult their physician if they believe that they may have a problem related to RF interference. However, there should be no problem of electromagnetic interference from a properly maintained and operated microwave oven. HOW SAFE IS THE RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION EMITTED BY RADIO AND TELEVISION BROADCASTING ANTENNAS? Radio and television broadcast stations transmit their signals via RF electromagnetic waves. These signals can be a significant source of RF energy in the environment since there are currently over 11,000 radio and TV stations on the air in the United States.. Broadcast stations transmit at various RF frequencies, depending on the channel, ranging from about 550 j kHz for AM radio up to about 800 MHz for some UHF television stations. Frequencies for FM radio and VHF television lie in between these two ex- tremes. i Ground -level intensities of the RF electromagnetic fields resulting from broadcast transmissions depend on -several factors, including the type of station, design characteristics of the antenna being used, power trans- mitted to the antenna, height of the antenna,•and distance from the antenna. Calculations can be performed to predict what field intensity levels would exist at various distances from an antenna. Since energy at some frequen- cies is absorbed .by the human body more readily than energy at other fre- quencies, the existence of a possible hazard would depend on the frequency of the transmitted signal as well as the intensity. Public access to broadcasting antennas is normally restricted so that individuals cannot be exposed to high-level fields that might exist near an antenna. Measurements made by EPA and others (References 15 and 19) have shown that RF radiation levels in inhabited areas near broadcasting facil- ities are generally well below levels believed to be hazardous. There have been a few situations around the country where exposure levels have been found to be higher than those recommended by applicable safety standards (e.g., Reference 20). But such case's are relatively rare, and few members of the general public are likely to be routinely exposed to excessive levels of RF radiation from broadcast towers. In unusual cases where exposure levels pose a problem, there are various steps a broadcast station can take to ensure compliance with safety standards.- For example, high -intensity areas could be posted and access to them could be restricted by fencing or other appropriate means. In some cases more drastic measures might have to be considered, such as re- designing an antenna, reducing power, or station relocation. - 10 - Li 95- 711 Maintenance workers are occasionally required to climb antenna struc- tures for such purposes as painting, repairs, or beacon replacement. Both the EPA and OSHA have reported that in these cases it is, possible for a worker to be exposed to hazardous levels of RF radiation if work is per- formed on an active tower or in areas immediately surrounding a radiating antenna (References 21 and 22). Therefore, precautions should be taken to ensure that maintenance personnel are not exposed to hazardous field in- tensit'ies. Such precautions could include temporarily lowering power levels while work is being performed, having work performed only when the station is not broadcasting, using auxiliary antennas while work is performed on the main antenna, and establishing work procedures.that would specify the minimum distance that a worker should maintain from an -energized antenna. IS THERE ANY DANGER FROM POINT-TO-POINT HICROW AYE RELAY ANTENNAS? WHAT ABOUT DISH ANTENNAS USED FOR SATELLITE -EARTH COMMUNICATION? Point-to-point microwave relay antennas transmit and receive microwave signals across relatively short distances. These antennas are usually rectangular or circular in shape and are normally found mounted at the top or midway up a supporting tower. These antennas have a variety of uses such as transmitting telephone and telegraph messages and erving as links between broadcast or cable -TV studios andtheir broadcast antennas. The microwave signals from these antennas travel in a directed beam from a transmitting antenna to a receiving antenna, and dispersion of microwave energy outside of the relatively narrow beam is minimal or in- significant. In addition, these antennas transmit using very low power levels, usually on the order of a few watts or less. Such levels are much lower than power levels used, for example, by broadcast stations. Measure- ments have shown that ground -level power densities due to microwave direc- tional antennas are normally a thousand times or more below recommended safety limits. In fact, an individual would likely have to stand directly in front of such an antenna for a significant period of time in order to be exposed to microwave levels that might be considered harmful. In addition, as an added margin of safety, microwave tower sites are normally made inaccessible to the general public. Satellite -earth stations consist of parabolic "dish" antennas, some as .large as 10 to 30 meters in diameter, that are used to transmit or receive microwave signals via satellites in orbit around the -earth. The satellites receive the signals beamed up to them and, in turn, retransmit the signals back down to an earthbound receiving station. These signals allow a variety of communications services to be performed, including long distance tele- phone service. Since earth -station antennas are directed toward satellites above the earth, the transmitted beams point skyward at various angles of inclination, depending on the particular satellite being.used. Because of the longer distances involved, power levels used to transmit these signals are re- 0 v "�,' 1 1 _.1 latively great when compared.to those used for the microwave point-to-point relay links discussed above. However, as with the microwave relay links, the beams used for transmitting earth -to -satellite signals are relatively narrow and highly directional. In addition, public access to a station site would normally be restricted. For these reasons it would be unlikely that a transmitting earth -station antenna could expose members of the public to hazardous levels of microwaves. Some earth station antennas are used only to receive, RF signals. Since these antennas do not transmit any signals, there would, of course, be no danger of exposure from them. WHAT ABOUT PORTABLE RADIO TRANSHITTERS? IS THERE ANY RISK FROM EXPOSURE TO RF RADIATION TROM HAND-HELD WALKIE-TALKIES, CELLULAR TELEPHONES, VEHICLE - MOUNTED ANTENNAS; OR CORDLESS TELEPHONES? "Land -mobile" communication refers to a variety of communications systems which involve the use of portable RF transmitters.- Police radio, business radio, and cellular radio are a *few examples of these com- munications systems. They have the advantage of providing communications links between various fixed and mobile locations. Cordless telephones are consumer products that also make mobility possible in communication, al- though over shorter distances. _ There are basically three types of RF transmitters associated with land -mobile systems: base -station transmitters, vehicle -mounted trans- mitters, and hand-held transmitters. The antennas used for these various transmitters are adapted for their specific purpose. For example, a base - station transmitter must transmit to a relatively large area, and, there- fore, its antenna would generally be more powerful than a vehicle -mounted or hand-held radio transmitter. Although base -station antennas usually operate with higher power levels than the other types of land -mobile antennas, their powers are still.quite a bit lower than high-powered transmitters such as most radio and television broadcast stations. Land -mobile base -station antennas. are normally in- accessible to the public..sincethey must be mounted at significant heights above ground to provide for adequate signal coverage. Also, many of these antennas transmit only intermittently. For these - reasons, base -station antennas have generally not been of concern with regard to possible hazar- dous exposure to RF rad.iation. Transmitting power levels for vehicle -mounted antennas are generally less than those used by base -station antennas but higher than those used for hand-held units. At least one manufacturer recommends that users and other nearby individuals maintain a distance of a few feet from a vehicle -mounted antenna during transmission. However, studies have shown that this is probably a conservative precaution, particularly when the "duty factor" (percentage of time the antenna is actually transmitting) is taken into account since safety standards are "time -averaged." The extent of any possible exposure would also depend on the actual power level and frequency ,3S __j used by the vehicle -mounted antenna. In general, there is no evidence that there is any safety hazard associated with RF exposure from vehicle -mounted antennas. Hand-held portable radios such as walkie-talkies and cellular radios are generally low -powered devices used to transmit and receive messages over relatively short distances. Because of the low power levels used (usually only a few watts or less) these radios would normally not be considered as possible sources of hazardous exposure to RF fields. However, questions relating to the safety of these devices have arisen because the RF signal is emitted in the immediate vicinity of the user's head and some of these radios use microwave frequencies. At least one manufacturer has conducted extensive tests of hand-held radios operating at various frequencies in order to determine the amount of RF energy that might be absorbed in the head of an individual using one of these devices. The only potential hazard found could occur in the unlikely event that the antenna tip was placed directly at the surface of the eye. Other studies (e.g., Reference 23) have concluded that during routine use of hand-held radios exposures would normally be in compliance with accepted safety guidelines. Significant absorption might occur if the transmitting antenna of the radio were placed within a distance of about 1-2 centimeters (less than an inch) from the head or eye. However, this would be a very unlikely user position, and even if it occurred the overall time -averaged exposure would probably be acceptable. Therefore, if hand-held radios are used properly there is no evidence that they could cause hazardous absorp- tion of RF energy, Cordless telephones are consumer products that use RF energy to com- municate with a telephone "base" unit. These devices operate at very low power levels, and there is no evidence that users experience any .significant RF exposure. WHICH FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES RELATED TO HEALTH EFFECTS*OF RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION? Several agencies ip the, Federal Government have been involved to various degrees in investigating or controlling human exposure to RF. radia- tion. By authority of the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) develops performance standards for the emission of radiation from electronic products including X-ray equipment and other medical devices, television sets, microwave ovens, and sunlamps. As discussed previously, CDRH has established a radiation safety standard for microwave ovens that limits the amount of radiation that an oven can leak throughout its lifetime. However, leakage standards have not been issued for other RF-emitting devices, - 13 - v'J- 7 1. 1 L The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) of the U.S. Department of Labor is responsible for protecting worlrers f1 om exposure to hazardous chemical and physical agents. In 1971, OSHA issued a protection guide for exposure of workers to RF radiation (29 CFR 1910.97). The guide, covering the frequency range between 10 MHz and 100 GHz, stated that expo- sure of workers should not exceed a power density of ten milliwatts per square centimeter (10 mW/cm2) as averaged over any 6-minute period of the workday. However, this guide was later ruled to be only advisory and not mandatory. 'Moreover, it was based on an earlier (1966) American National Standards Institute (ANSI) RF protection guide that'has been superseded by revised versions in 1974 and 1982 (see previous discussion of standards). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has for some years been considering issuing a recommendation for occupational exposure to RF radia- tion that would be transmitted to OSHA for consideration in establishing an. exposure standard for workers. However, at the present time (early 1989) there is no indication from NIOSH as to when'such an official recommendation might be forthcoming. There is currently no official federal standard for exposure of the general public to RF radiation. It is generally agreed that federal responsibility for developing national guidelines for public exposure to non -ionizing radiation rests with the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Until recently, EPA was developing "Federal Guidance" for RF radia- tion that would have recommended safe levels of exposure for the public. If approved, such a recommendation would have been transmitted to other federal agencies for implementation. However, as noted previously, EPA has apparently decided to abandon that effort and to "defer" indefinitely its program dealing with non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation due to budgetary constraints and a lack of resources. At •press• time it was unclear whether that decision might be reversed. WHAT IS THE ROLE OF THE FCC IN EVALUATING POTENTIAL RADIOFREQUENCY HAZARDS? The FCC licenses and approves equipment and facilities that generate RF and microwave radiation. Although the FCC would not knowingly authorize a facility or device that resulted in a health hazard, the FCC's primary jurisdiction does not lie in the health and safety area. Therefore, the FCC must rely on other agencies and organizations for guidance• in these matters. The issue of potential hazards due to RF radiation emitted by FCC - regulated facilities was first addressed by the Commission in a 1979 Notice of Inquiry.- Subsequently, several other items related ' to RF radiation hazards have been approved by the Commission. The FCC's basic policy was outlined in a 1985 Report and Order [50 Fed. Register 11151, 1985). i As an agency of the Federal Government, the FCC has certain re- sponsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) - 14 91Q to consider whether its actions will "significantly affect the quality of the human environment.". Therefore, FCC approval and licensing of facilities and operations.must be evaluated for significant impact on the environment. The 1985 FCC Order made clear that human exposure to RF radiation emitted by FCC -regulated entities is one .of several factors that must be considered in such environmental evaluations. In making the determination that environmental RF radiation would be evaluated, the Commission decided to specify the 1982 ANSI RF radiation protection guides (see. earlier discussion of standards) for use in determin- ing safe levels of exposure for the public and for workers. It was decided that, in view of the lack of an official standard issued by a federal agency such as EPA, the FCC must use what it considered to be the best available standard at the time. The 1982 (non -government) ANSI standard was chosen because it was considered to be widely accepted and technically supportable. Because of the 1985 FCC Order and subsequent adopted items, major RF transmitting facilities under the jurisdiction of the FCC, such as radio and television broadcast stations, satellite -earth stations, and experimental radio stations, are subject to environmental evaluation for compliance with the identified RF health and safety guidelines. Failure to comply with these guidelines could lead to preparation of a formal Environmental Impact Statement and possible r:e jection of an application for a transmitting facility.. Facilities and operations that operate with lower power levels or are judged to offer insignificant environmental risk from RF radiation have been categorically exempted from these. requirements. The FCC's rules on evaluation of environmental RF radiation are found in Section 1.1307(b) of the FCC's Rules and Regulations (47 CFR 1.1307(b)]. Guidelines for compliance with the FCC's rules can be found in an FCC technical bulletin (OST Bulletin No. 65, Reference 24). Subsequent FCC items adopted since the first Order have dealt primarily with which RF sources are sub je.ct to .the RF environmental rule and which are excluded (52 Federal Register 13240, 1987; 52 Federal Register 49032, 1987; 53 Federal Register 28223, 1988; 53--.Federal Register 40918, 19881. WHERE CAN FURTHER INFORMATION BE OBTAINED REGARDING RADIOFREQUENCY RADIATION AND RELATED HATTERS? Within the Federal Government the number of individuals assigned to this area is relatively small, and some agencies are reducing or eliminating personnel in this field. Nevertheless, it' is usually possible to obtain at least some basic information concerning RF transmitters or problems. The following federal agencies should be able'to provide some information and assistance in this area. FDA: Questions about radiation from microwave ovens and other consumer and industrial products can be directed to: Center for Devices and Radiolog- ical Health (CDRH), Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD 20857. - 15 -q16 7 .1.1 __J q-1c. EPA: The Environmental Protection `Agency's Office of Radiation Programs (401 M. St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460 or P.O. Box 98517, Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8517) studies exposure of the public to RF radiation. However, at the present time (early 1989) EPA has apparently decided to phase out .the Washington office that deals with RF exposure and to limit future EPA activities in this area to its Las Vegas office. OSHA/NIOSH: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) Health Response Team (390 Wakara Way, P.O. Box 8137, Salt. Lake City, Utah 84108) has been involved in studies related to occupational exposure to RF radiation in the past. However, OSHA has limited involvement in this area at the present time. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) maintains a limited program for studying exposure of workers to non -ionizing radiation. The address is: NIOSH, Physical Agents Branch, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. FCC: The FCC maintains a limited program in this area. Questions regarding potential RF hazards from FCC -regulated transmitters can be directed to the Spectrum Engineering Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, FCC, Washington, D.C. 20554. In addition to federal agencies, there are other sources of -information and possible assistance regarding environmental RF energy. A few states maintain non -ionizing radiation programs or, at least, some expertise in this field. These state activities are'usually. part of a department of public health or environmental control. Also, the list of references at the end of this bulletin should be consulted for detailed information on speci- fic topics related to RF exposure. A non -government source of -information on RF energy is the Electro- magnetic Energy Policy Alliance (EEPA), an organization that provides educational and other services in this field. EEPA is an association of manufacturers and users of electronic and electrical systems. The group's self -described purpose is "to work for a responsible and rational public policy regarding electromagnetic energy." EEPA's address is: 1255 23rd St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20037. REFERENCES [Reports with NTIS Order Numbers are U.S. Government publications and can be ordered for a fee from the National Technical Irfora:ation Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, WO) 336-47001 (1) "Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields; Properties, Quantities and Units, Biophysical Interaction, and Measurements," NCRP Report No. 67, 1981. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Purchasing information: NCRP Publications, 7910-Wooc.1mont Ave., Suite 1016, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 657-2652. - 16 - 0 5 - 711 (2) "Symposium on Health Aspects of Nonionizing Radiation," Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, Vol. 55 (11), December. 1979. (3) "Biological Effects and Medical Applications of Electromagnetic En- ergy," Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 68 (1), January 1980. p (4) Gandhi, O.P., "Biological Effects and Medical Applications of RF Elect- romagnetic Fields," IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, 30(11):1a31 (1982). r (5) Cleary, S. F., "Microwave Radiation Effects on Humans," BioScience, 33(4): 269 (1983)• (6) Petersen, R.C., "Bioeffects of Microwaves: A Review of Current Know- ledge," Journal of Occupational Medicine, 25(2): 103 (1983). (7) Lerner, E.J., "The Drive to Regulate Electromagnetic Fields," IEEE Spectrum, March 1984, p. 63. i (8) Steneck, N.H., Ed., Risk/Benefit Analysis: The Microwave Case, 1982, San Francisco Press, San Francisco, CA 94101. (9) "Biological Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation," Report -No. EPA- 600/8-83-026F, 1984, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NTIS Order No, PB85-120848. (10) Steneck, NA., The Microwave Debate, MIT Press, 1984, Cambridge, MA. (11) "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electro- magnetic Fields," NCRP Report No. 86, 1986. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Purchasing information: NCRP Publications, 7910 Woodmont Ave., Suite 1016, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 657-2652. (12) Foster, K.R., and A.W. Guy, "The Microwave Problem," Scientific Ameri- can, 255(3): 32 (September 1986). (13) Gandhi, O.P. (ed.), "Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation," IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology, 6(1): 14-58 (March 1987). (14) Yost, Michael G.,, "Nonionizing Radiation Questions and Answers," 1988. San Francisco Press. Copies may be purchased from: San Francisco Press, Inc., Box 6800, San Francisco, CA 94101-6800. (15) Athey, T.W., et ai., "Radiofrequency Radiation Levels and Population Exposure in Urban Areas of the Eastern United States," Tech. Report EPA- 520/2-77-008, 1978, U. S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, (NTIS Order No. PB 292 855). (16) !'American National Standard Safety Level with Respect to Human Expo- sure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields., 300 kHz to 100 Ghz," ANSI C95.1-1982. American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018. Purchasing information: (212) 354-3300. .-17- lid �,5- 71.1 ---j i (17) "Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagn?tic Fields in the Frequency Range from 100 kHz to 300 GHz," Health Physics, 540 ): 115-123 (1988). (18) "Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances in the Work Environment Adopted by ACGIH for 1983-1984; Radio frequency/Microwave Radiation." Ameri- can Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), 1983. ACGIH, 6500 Glenway Ave., Bldg. D-5, Cincinnati, Ohio 45211. (19) Tell, R. A., and E. D. Mantiply, "Population Exposure to VHF to UHF Broadcast Radiation in the United States," Technical Note ORP/EAD 78-5, June 1978, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.. CNTI S order No. PB 284 637). (20) "An Investigation of Radiofrequency Radiation Levels on Lookout Moun- tain, Jefferson County, Colorado," Electromagneties Branch, U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV 89114, February 1987. (21) Curtis, Robert A., "Occupational Exposures to Radiofrequency Radiation j from FM Radio and TV Antennas," in Non -Ionizing Radiation: Proceedings of a Topical Symposium, 1980, ACGIH, Cincinnati, OH 45201. (22) Tell, R. A., "A Measurement of RF Field Intensities in the Immediate Vicinity of an FM Broadcast Station Antenna," Technical Note ORP/EAD-76-2, 1976, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, [NTIS order No. PB 284 6371. (23) Cleveland, R.F., Jr., and T. W. Athey, "Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in Models of -the Human Head Exposed to Hand -Held UHF Portable Radios," Bioelectroma netics, Volume 10(2), 1989 (in press). (24) "Evaluating Compliance.:w.ith FCC -Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure j to Radiofrequency Radiation," OST Bulletin No. 65, 1985, Federal Communi- cations Commission, Washington, D.G. 20554. NTIS Order No. PB86-127081. - 18 - BIOGRAPHICAL SUMMARY (April,1994) GARY H.'L'EMAN, Sc.D., CHP PRESENT POSITION AND ADDRESS% ManaSer, Radiation Protection Product Safety Department AT&T Bell Laboratories 6W Mountain Avenue Mway Hill, NJ 07974 9a8•SSZ•2792 EDUCATION: 1%7 B.A.. Physics. St. Mary'$ College, Winona, MN 1%9 U.S.. Physics, University of Minnesota%, Minneapolis, MN 1976 Sc.D., Radiological Physics, School of Hygrette and Public Health, The Johns Hopkins University. Baltimore, MD CERTIFICATION: Ceaed Health Pbyaieist, American Board of health Physics FROFFMIONAL ACTIVITIES: Member, Health Physics Society Member, U. S. D*t. of Energy Standards Group on Performance Testing of Personnel Dosimeters Member. Public Information Committer, Health Physics Society Member, Nominating Committee, American Academy of Health Physics Associate Member. Conference of Radiation Program Control Directors PRIOR EXPERIENCE; 20 year retiree as I). S. Navy Radiation Health Officer with rank of Commander. 6 years as Radiation Safety Officer of Bethesda Naval Hospital; 9 years in radiation physics and dosimctry; 4 years in management of military R&D Adjunct Associate Professor. Georgetown University Research Assistant Professor, Uniformed Services University of Health Science Consultant/Committer member for NATO. CIRRPC. NASA. NOAA, State of Maryland PUBLICATIONS: Over 20 articles in journals including Radiation Research. Health Physics, Radiation Protection Dosimetry, Radiology, American Journal of Roentgenology, Journal of Neurochemistry, Journal of Microwave Power. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, and others Over 20 government technical reports published by organizations such as NATO. the Naval Research Laboratory, the Naval Surface Warfare Center. and the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute Rig AT&T Bell Laboratories Safety Analysis of the Electromagnetic Environment in the Vicinity of a Proposed Cellular Radio Installation, Cell Site M159: 749 N.W. Sth Avenue, Miami, Florida Radiation Protection and Product Safety Department AT&T Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974-0636 Summary This report is a safety analysis of the electromagnetic environment surrounding the cellular radio site proposed for installation in Miami, FL. The analysis utilizes engineering data provided by CellularOne, together with well -established analytical techniques for estimating the radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields associated with the cellular antennas. Worst -case assumptions were used to ensure safe -side estimates, i.e., the actual values will be significantly lower than the corresponding analytical values. The analysis indicates that the maximum level of RF energy to which the public may be exposed is below all applicable health and safety limits. Specifically, in all normally accessible areas surrounding the monopole, the maximum levels of RF energy associated with the CellularOne antennas will be at least 130 times below the exposure limits of OSHA, ANSI, IEEE, NCRP, and the limits of all states that regulate RF exposure. Prepared for City of Miami, Florida September 13, 1994 IM, 1. Introduction This report was prepared in response to a request from CellularOne for a safety analysis of the radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic environment in the vicinity of a proposed cellular -radio installation, and an opinion regarding the concern for public health associated with long-term exposure in this environment. 2. Technical Data The proposed cellular system, to be located at 749 N.W. Sth Avenue, Miami, FL, will ultirr.ttely consist of three directional transmitting antennas (Swedcom Allgon Model ALP9212N, 3 ° downtilt) mounted on a monopole at an antenna centerline height above grade of approximately 58 ft. Each transmitting antenna will operate at frequencies between 869-894 million hertz (MHz). These frequencies were formerly allocated for UHF television. Six receiving antennas will also be mounted at approximately the same height. A maximum of nineteen transmitters (channels) could be connected to each transmitting antenna. The effective radiated power (ERP) is limited to 50 watts per channel which corresponds to a maximum antenna input power of less than 4 watts per channel. Hence, the actual total radiated power will be less than 76 watts (assuming the maximum number of transmitters are installed and operate simultaneously and continuously, which is rarely, if ever, the case). This is an extremely low power system when compared with other familiar radio systems, such as AM, FM, and television broadcast, which operate upwards of 50,000 watts. (Figure 1 is a diagram of the electromagnetic spectrum which also lists common uses of RF energy.) 3. Environmental Levels of RF Energy The antenna pattern from a cellular -radio antenna is such that the energy is propagated in a relatively narrow beam (in the vertical plane) which is directed toward the horizon. The reason for this is to provide uniform coverage. Hence, levels of RF energy directly under the antennas are not remarkably different from the levels at points more distant. For the case at hand, the maximum potential exposure levels associated with the proposed installation can be readily calculated at any point in a plane at any height above grade. Based on the information provided, and an antenna gain of approximately 14.15 dBi, the maximum power density at any point in a horizontal plane 6 ft above grade will be less than 4 millionths of a watt per centimeter squared (4 µW/cm2) and will be less than 10 µW/cm2 at any point in a corresponding plane 26 ft above grade. The latter is representative of the maximum power density immediately outside of the upper floor of nearby private homes (assuming level terrain). The above values are the theoretical maxima that could occur and are not typical values. The calculations include the effect of field reinforcement from in -phase reflections, and the assumption was made that all transmitters operate simultaneously and continuously (which is not the usual case). Because of the intermittent nature of the transmission from these antennas, the actual time -weighted -average values will be lower than those above. Although the above values are obtained analytically, experience has shown that the technique used is extremely conservative. That is, the measured power density levels have always been found to be smaller than the corresponding calculated levels'. Furthermore, levels inside nearby homes and buildings will be lower than those immediately outside because of the high attenuation of common building 1. Petersen, R.C., and Testagrossa, P.A., Radiofrequency Fields Associated with Cellular -Radio Cell -Site Antennas, Bioelectromagnetics, Vol. 13 No. 6 (1992). _j Cell -site M159: Miami, FL - 3 material at these frequencies and, hence, will not be significantly different from normal ambient levels. 4. Comparison with Standards The table below shows the cellular radio RF power density levels calculated near the cell -site, and the pertinent federal, state and consensus exposure limits for human exposure to RF energy. The various exposure limits range from 550 µW/cm2 (for public exposure) to 10,000 µW/cm2 (occupational exposure), while the corresponding calculated maximum power density levels in the environment around the proposed cell site are 4 µW/cm2 (at 6 ft above grade) and 10 µW/cm2 (at 26 ft above grade). The power density at any distance greater than 180 ft from the antennas will be less than 10 µW/cm2, even in the main beam. Comparison of Radiofrequency Exposure Limits with Calculated Exposure Levels for the Proposed Cellular Radio Antennas Exposure Exposure Limits Organization/Government Agency Population (µW/cm2) Occupational Safety & Health Administration ....................... Occupational 10,000 (OSHA'- 29 CFR 1910.97) American National Standards Institute ................................... Occupational 2,700 (ANSI C95.1 - 1982) Public 2,700 Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineerst..................:. Occupational 2,700 (ANSUMEE C95.1-1992) Public 550 National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements.. ' Occupational 2,700 (NCRP Report 86 - 1986) Public 550 U.S. Federal Communications Commissiontt ....................... Occupational 2,700 (requires FCC licensees to comply with ANSI C95.1-1982) Public 2,700 New Jersey Administrative Code ............................................ Public 2,700 (NJAC 7:2842) Massachusetts Department of Health ...................................... Public 550 (106 CMR 122) New York State, Department of Health .................................. Public 550 (follows NCRP Report 86) Power Density Calculated Levels Near the Proposed Installation (µW/cm2) 6 ft above grade.................................................................................................... < 4 26 ft above grade ................... ............. .......... .................................................. ....< 10 anywhere, greater than 180 ft fr..om the antennas (even in the main beam).......... < 10 t Latest revision of ANSI C95.1 - 1982. tt Because of the low transmitter power, the FCC has categorically excluded cellular•mdio from hazard analyses by the licensee. 95— 7_11 Cell -site M159: Miami, FL - 4 S. Discussion of Health Standards Recently, press coverage has suggested an association between health effects and exposure to magnetic fields from electric -power distribution lines, and from the use of hand-held cellular telephones. This press coverage has heightened concern among some members of the public about the possibility that health effects may be associated with any exposure to electromagnetic energy. Many people feel uneasy about new or unfamiliar technology and often want absolute proof that something is safe. Such absolute guarantees are not possible since it is virtually impossible to prove that something does not exist. However, sound judgements can be made as to the safety of a physical agent based on knowledge of the pertinent scientific literature. This is exactly how health standards are developed. All unequivocal scientific evidence indicates that biological effects associated with exposure to RF energy are threshold effects, i.e., unless the exposure level is sufficiently high the effect will not occur regardless of exposure duration. (Unlike ionizing radiation, e.g., X-rays and nuclear radiation, repeated exposures to low level RF radiation, or nonionizing radiation, are not cumulative.) Thus, it is relatively straightforward to derive safety limits. By adding safety factors to the level at which the most sensitive effect occurs in laboratory animals, conservative exposure guides have been developed to ensure safety. At present, there are close to 10,000 reports in the scientific literature which address the subject of RF bioeffects. These reports, most of which describe the results of epidemiological studies and animal studies, have been critically reviewed by leading researchers in the field and all new studies are continuously being reviewed by various groups and organizations whose interest is developing health standards. These include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the American National Standards Institute, the International Radiation Protection Association under the sponsorship of the World Health Organization, and the National Radiological Protection Board in the UK. All of these groups have recently either reaffirmed existing health standards, developed and adopted new health standards, or proposed health standards for exposure to RF energy. For example, in 1986 the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) published recommended limits for occupational and public exposure 2. These recommendations were based on the results of an extensive critical review of the scientific literature by a committee of the leading researchers in the field of bioelectromagnetics. The literature selected included many controversial studies reporting effects at low levels. The results of all studies selected were weighed and analyzed and an exposure guide of approximately 2,700 µW/cm_ 2 (at cellular -radio frequencies) was recommended for continuous occupational exposure and approximately 550 µW/cm2 for continuous exposure of the public. In July of 1986 the Environmental Protection Agency published a notice in the Federal Register, calling for public comment on recommended guidance for exposure of the public. Three different limits, ranging from approximately 270 to 2,700 µW/cm2, were proposed. Further, the maximum permissible exposure limits proposed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Standards Coordinating Committee SCC-28 (formerly ANSI Committee C95), were approved by 2. Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, NCRP Report No. 86, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, MD. 3. Federal Register, Vol. 51, No. 146, Wednesday, July 30, 1986. __J Cell -site M159: Miami, FL - 5 the IEEE Standards Board on September 26, 19914, and approved by ANSI on. November 18, 1992. These limits, which resulted from an extensive critical review of the scientific literature, are identical to the 1982 ANSI RFPGs5 for occupational exposure and approximately 550 µW/cm2 for exposure of the general public at cellular -radio frequencies. Also in implementing the National Environmental Policy Act6 regarding potentially hazardous RF radiation from radio services regulated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the FCC categorically excluded land mobile services, including cellular radio, from hazard analyses because "individually or cumulatively they do not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment" 7. The FCC pointed out there was no evidence of excessive exposure to RF radiation during routine normal operation of these radio services. Finally, what was formerly the USSR, which traditionally had the lowest exposure guides, revised upward its limits for public exposure. With respect to the proposed cellular -radio system, be assured that the actual exposure levels in the vicinity of the Miami, FL installation will be below any health standard used anywhere in the world and literally thousands of times below any level reported to be associated with any verifiable functional change in humans or laboratory animals. This holds true even when all transmitters operate simultaneously and continuously (which is not the normal operating mode). Power density levels of this magnitude are not even a subject of speculation with regard to an association with adverse health effects. 6. For Further information Anyone interested can obtain additional information about the environmental impact of cellular - radio from: Dr. Robert Cleveland, Jr. Federal Communications Office of Engineering and Technology Room 7002 1919 M Street NW Washington, DC 20554 (202)653-8169 7. Conclusion A safety analysis has been performed with respect to potential public exposure to RF energy in the environment surrounding the proposed cellular installation in Miami, FL. The analysis utilized engineering data provided by CellularOne, together with well -established analytical techniques for estimating the environmental levels of RF energy associated with the cellular antennas. Worst -case assumptions were used to ensure safe -side estimates, i.e., the actual values will be significantly lower than the corresponding analytical values. The analysis indicates that 4. IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, ANSUIEEE C95.1-1992, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, NJ. 5. American National Standard Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 300 kHz to 100 GHz, ANSI C95.1-1982, American National Standards Institute, New York, NY. 6. Although there are no federal limits per se, in order to fulfill its obligation under the National Environmental Policy Act, the FCC requires licensees to comply with the 1982 ANSI C95.1 limits. 7. Action by the Commission February 12, 1987, by Second Report and Order (FCC 87-63), and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 87-64). General Docket No. 79-144. Cell -site M159: Miami, FL - 6 the maximum level of RF energy to which the public may be exposed will meet. all applicable health and safety limits. Specifically, in all normally accessible areas in the neighborhood surrounding the monopole, the maximum levels of RF energy associated with the CellularOne antennas will be at least 130 times below the exposure limits of OSHA, ANSI, IEEE, NCRP, and the limits of all states that regulate RF exposure. Enclosures: Figure 1. Electromagnetic Spectrum q.5 Ij "III ;. jjj _ ]' .p _* N& Non -Ionizing Radiation Ionizing Radiation AM Radio: 535 - 1605 kHz Light CB Radio: 27 MHz Cordless Phones: 49 MHz I t N Ch 2-6: 54 - 88 MHz FM Radio: 86 - 108 MHz Mobile Radio: 150 and 450 MHz l'1 Marine Radio: 160 MHz NCh7-13:174-216MHz TV UHF Ch 14-69: 470 - 800 MHz Cellular Radio: - mobile: 824 - 850 MHz - base station: 869 - 894 MHz Antitheft devices: 10-20 kHz and/or 915 MHz Microwave oven: 915 and 2450 MHz . Intrusion alarms */ door openers: 10.5 GHz Power Microwave radio: 1 - 40 GHz Frequency Satellite Communications: 100 MHz - 275 GHz 10 3 10 6---li-- 10 9 1012----}--101 s 1018 60 Hz 1 kHz 1 MHz 1 GHz Frequency (Hz) 9 5 - 7 1.1 . Ut Lai t�34 14.10 4UO-44bUb4U LU I I MNIIA + UU PAGE 03/04 ATaY dell Lwboratoties Rikdtattan tomtactlon and Preduet $09ty Mpt. Room le-240 NO Mountain Avtutua A0. left a'ae Murray M, K) 07974-0M ON $42.2792 FAX We tier-M$ October It. 1994 Joe 3*dcase McCaw Communications of Florids, Irtc, 1914 Corporate Drive Boyntat Beech, Florida 33426 Dear Mr. setticalm x have reviewed the matakis you seat me that had been distributed to the public regarding the cellular radio base station at 749 N.W, 5th Ave., in Miami. Phase consider the following Information, which is meant to supplement the mom detailed safety analysis report (dated September 14,1994) prepared for this site by my group at AT&T Deli Laboratories. A otllulsr base station is a low power radio facility, The proposed facility will contain three directional transmitting antennas and six racelveroniy Antermas atop a 59 foot tail pole. Each antenna is roughly one by four feet in tit and resembles a stereo speaker. The actual radiated power from the proposed site is 4 watts per radio channel, times nineteen channels. or 76 watts total. For comparison, common hand-held radio iranwAlvers such as used by police And firemen typically operate at power levels of 3 to 7 watts. while vehicle mounted police sand fire radios operas® at from 3 to more than 100 watts, 'thus, cellular radio (as well as police and flit radio) operates at relatively low power when compared to radiated powers of SO= watts and higher from commercial radio and television antennas, Cellular radio base stations operate in the radiofrequency (RP) portion of the electromagnetic specuum between 969-RW million Hertz (M&). This fregdancy range was previously allocated by the Federal Communications Commission for use by LW television as channels 70 to $3, The same safety studies and startd&Kb that apply to U;W television mdiowaves also apply to callutar radio. In fact, many thousands of people have ban exposed throughout their lifetimes to VHF television broadcast signals, and there have WA no verified seiandfic reporu of diseases In these populations attributable to RF fields in the All reliable 3ciendfic evidence suggests that any health effects associated with exposure to R1= energy are threshold effects. i.e.. effects occur only when the exposure intensity is above some threshold. If the exposure intensity is below the threshold, then the effect does not occur. (Sunburn is a. good example of a threshold effem tla a bright summer day, the exposure threshold can be exceeded and a sunburn ocovss. However, no amount of laying outside in bright moonlight will ever cause a sunburn because moonlight is too dim. Similarly, the RF fields in the environment near cellular base stations am far below the threshold for any known health hazard) Health effects studies of RF Gelds have been ongoing since before the 1940's, And thousands of reports have appoitred in the scientific literature. Reviews of these imports to establish safety standards have been carried out. and continue to be carried out by expert paricls established in this country and in others, The most recent reviews are those by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the American National Standards Institute, the World Health 4rganlzation, and fix National Radiological Protection Board (U.K.). While these groups operate independendy, they have arrived at comparable recommendations that represent a growing international consensus on what constitutes safe exposure levels ,for RF fields, Recycled Paper 05- 711 _j Out detailed analysis of the proposed facility (dated September 14, 1994) found that the ItF fields in the environment to which people may be exposed will be less than four millionths of a watt per square centimeter (4 µW/cm) at 6 feet above grade, even at the base of the pole. N a reference, the mou stringent U.S. wJ inwrnadonal exposure standards use 550 µW/cma as tha exposure limit for assessing the safety of cellular radio lnsWIstions. This means that the maximum exposure to people nearby the proposed site will by ova I" times below applicable safety standards. Much of the information you sent to me concerned health effects alleged to occur near high tension powedim, not radio fsailities. The electtMOSnetic energy from cellular radio base stations consists of low ptrwer mlio waves, turd is not similar to that frog+ high tension power lutes. in particular, there is no "liable evidence ft RF fields cause cancer at exposure trivets meeting modem day safety standards. One of the rdaenees listed in dw material you sent to me was Dr. Robert Seeker's 1985 boots The Daly Eestrk. In his more twnt 1990 book titled Cross Currents, Dr. Becker ow a. Vt is my personal opirnton that any total field strength above 0.1 mllliwatts per square centimeter is likely to be harardoutjor widential exposure," While Dr. Becher's safe exposure limit of 0.1 milliwatts per square cendmeter (100 µW/cm2) is even lower than any of the U.S. or international safety standards, the proposed facility in Miami mcots even this very ce wervative limit. Thus, even according to Dr. Backer's guidattoe, the proposed installation must be consideredsafe. Please do not•hethate to call me if you have any further quesdont;. V- Q.IL an A C ed Physicist �I 9 5, - 7 - I I -,r Fernandez, right, will go to any Walt Disney Co. The company was looking for hundreds of volun- 'ight. They were auditioning Friday teers to perform during the game, which will be held at Joe Rob- -ne show that will be staged by The bie Stadium on Jan. 29. � case a throwback to 'SOs The trial touches all the bases of South Florida in the wild 1980s -- a bad cop, dopers, parties and a score settled Miami -style, with a bomb. four decades. Seijas's trial touches all the bases of South Florida during the wild 1980s: a bad cop, dopers. parties and a score settled Miami -style, with a bomb. Negretti's gray Cadillac exploded Dec. 16, 1989, as he left his home for morning services at S Ojaatholic Church. oice e "I felt an explosion," Negretti testified, wearing a dark double- breasted suit with a white pocket handkerchief. "1 looked back and saw flames ... All the glass in the windows were gone. I did what we call in the Army the creeping and crawling to get out." Negretti showed jurors his injuries: a maimed left hand held iloment together by a metal plate and bolts. His right elbow will only bend a little. "My wife's gotta cut the meat for me." he said. "1 cannot tie the tic.' "Have you ever been blown up in the past?" asked Jack Blumen- feld, a second Seijas lawyer. "No." Negretti said. Blumenfeld and Sharpstein want to.convince jurors that someone else tried to kill Negretti. They said South Flor- ida dopers ordered the bombing PLEASESEE TRIAL, 46 IvLaKingf- • crime .ewsy to report .. Company gives phones, air time ByTONYPUCH Herald Staff Writer The program's'part ici pants are as diverse as Dade County: Migrant farmers, public housing residents, retirees and homeown- ers. Armed .with donated cellular phones, . they' are taking to the streets to disconnect crime in: their•.communities. Over the last several' weeks, Cellular, One. has provided . the cellulai .phones. - and 200 min- utes of free ainime a month for an entire year - to crime watchers in ten neighborhoods:.. The directive is simple: Carry them wherever you go and use them only to report suspicious behavior, crimes, or emergency situations. The program's goal is to reduce neighborhood crime by making it easier, safer and faster to report. It should also increase the odds of catching criminals red- handed. The effort officially kicks off this afternoon with a press con- ference at the First Baptist Church of Brownsville, 4600NW 23rd Ave. That's adjacent to where Brownsville resident Char- lie Bells was robbed, shot and killed several months ago as he tried to help an l l-year-old girl he accidentally struck with his car. "We felt it would be'a fitting tribute to Charlie Bells that we announce the program in the area where he was killed," said project director Gerald Rudoff, a Metro -Dade police lieutenant. So far, 35 phones have *been distributed to the crime watch groups, all part of Citizens Crime Watch of Dade County. "I anticipate what you'll find is that each of the neighborhoods will use the system differently to fit the needs and desires in that area," Rudoff said. Ron Robinson, president of the Lakes of Acadia crime watch- ers, has already called in a possi- ble bridge jumper on 1-95, an . intoxicated man laying in the street and several suspicious PLEASESEE PHONES, 413 1T , , , 12 Celebrations in Little Haiti, a visit by President Bill Clinton, --,--,_ ,,.. r'•. .,. .... ,, ,.:,,,_ �,, ,� .....,., �,�„ „nne-i ;nn A11ho (;nlrlan 4B; % THE HERALD, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 15, 1994 F' DIALING IN: Ron Robinson, president of Neighbors against Crime at the Lakes of Acadia in North Dade, talks on a Cellular One phone. Company donates air time, phones to crime watchers PHONES. FROM 1B youths. This thing is better than a gun," Robinson said of the phone's convenience. "Even if the project isn't continued after a year, I'll get a cellular phone if I have to pay for it myself. That thing is great." At Cloverleaf Apartments in North Dade, a crime watch mcm- ber said the phones can heap thwart crack cocaine sales which fuel a rash of property and per- sonal crimes at the complex. "It's _uottcn to the point now where people who need it commit bur- lglary to get the money for it. Somc go out and commit shoot- ings to keep their turf. It just goes on and on," he said. Steve Ellison, a Florida Inter- DEATHS national University graduate stu- dent in criminal Justice, will compare crime statistics in three neighborhoods before and after the project to see if crime decreases. "Hopefully, we'll see a reduc- tion, but I have to be totally objective. 1 can't take sides in this," Ellison said, adding that crime reduction isn't the pro- ject's only yardstick for success. Ellis will also survey residents and project participants about their perceptions of crime and whether their crime watch activi- ties have increased because of the project. A five-year member of the Brownsville Crime Watch group who asked to remain anony- mous, said he's already noticed that members with the phones Cellular One has donated cellular phones to 10 crime watch groups across Dade County. Florida International University Is monitoring the program's effectiveness. ® 163 ST. OPA•LOC _ AIRPOR 75 NW 135 Lu Turn b 27 N J S a q Z a cy 79 ST - Lu °a z ss 0 0� MIAMI 36 ST r9 Y INTERNATIONAL MILE AIRPORT am 9 4l ¢SW8ST. V 13 o w 3 SW 40 S m J I 3L %+ t+ TAMIAlAF-^ Biscayne. AIRPORT SW 136 ST. W 19i ST Legend ISIN® Biscayne Gardens 184 O Cloverleaf Gardens Apts. a ® Norland INr Lakes of Acadia 232 ST W 248 §1 T'""p ® Brownsville HOMESTEADWestwood Apt@. AIR FORCE ® Spring Tree Apts. SW 312 ST. BASE Perrino Gardens Homestead {� Royal Colonial RV Park SW 344 ST. ? M Leisure City Mobile Home Florida Park City TIFFANY GRANTHAM /Herald Stall have become much more dili- They feel more responsible about gent. reporting calls immediately "It makes them feel more rather than going home and for - important. It boosts their spirits. getting about it." Virgin nglis -, to croVvd,"'ie', By BRENT MITCHELL . -�. Herald Staff Writer Hollywood wants'to move the Virgin Mary patherings out of residential neighborhood, but the woman who says she sees the divine visions is wailing for wort: from a higher authority than City Hall. About 1,500 people descendee on Rosa Lopez's home Thursda because they believe the Virgin Mary visits her on the 13th of every month. The crowd ww smaller than Hollywood officials originally feared, but they are bracing for potentially larger throngs on Nov. 13 — a Sunday, To case problems near 66th Avenue and Arthur Street, City Manager Sam Finz has asked Lopez and the nonprofit group organizing the crowds to move to a park, a parking lot or another location with plenty of space. But Lopez said Friday that Jesus told Bomb case an TRIAL, FROM 18 to send a message to one c Negretti's clients, Vicente Her. rcra, who had turned govern- ment informant. But prosecutors Cathy Vogel and Jennifer Frazin said SieJas ordered the bombing. The motive? Negretti• represented Scijas' wife, Carmen, in their divorce. One state witness was Richard Wollferts, a confessed drug traf- ficker who had already blown up a Central Florida man, Sharps- tein said. He testified that Scijas promised him a fishing boat if he vaporized Negrctti. Wolfferts was also known as Rambo. "1 called him Rambo because of the weapons he kept and the camouflage outfits he wore," said A i05 -j • JU9,14-1994 1231S? , FRCti�.00'''8 :,.. DCH CTR FCR EW WjLTli TO M09ka9{s69,'�l ^ P.02 Sl A' TE OF NEW YtaRK DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ' � e:ente� for�viraw►er+u! F{*ahh Z UnhrerxAy P;Aoe . Iww Yonc i��! &ftu At enssS. MA. IWO. 00-K PaUM �i4f► Lee El Ivan Planning Director City of Yonkers ' $i Nepperhsn Road , Yonkers. MY 10701 July s, 1994 RR: 130 Concord Rd. -Yonkers wlrla of rOW NU M U"•.wa*Ito.i41J6 owes► Olaf j1M "W 0454 1 Oswo"w overas ra:.as Catiwo"M Dear Mr. Ellman: t reviewed the information you sent concerning the proposed cellular facility in the City of Yonkers and offer the following comments. Now York State does not rtgulatr r4di0frequaney emissions as this is done by r the Federal Communications Co mission. fhe FCC sets the requirements for the various frequency bands, and considers such questions As exposure of the general public, interference with other services. it". The attached sheet lists sevtral organic;lions which have developed specific radiation protection guidelines " the best Approach for a particuiar facility is to calculate or measure sxposurvs at a point' of interest near the facility and compare these levels to the protection gu Neltnes. For multiple antennas and frequencies this eight be a cooplex process. The NCRP guidelines include continuous exposure to the gAneril population AS well as occupational exposure. The NCRP quidailats vary with frequency from about 200uftx2 (microVatts per square centimeter) in the 30 to 300 MHz r`ngt to about $20 uWlcat at 930 MHz for continuous exposure to the general public. Measurements or calculations should shovel that the guidelines are being met at points of tatarest such as the nearest residences or buildings and show that exposures at more distant locations are well within the guldelint%. The study by AT&T indicates that this facility will be .well be'iowr any applicable radiofrtquency guidelines. Similar facilities are being Installed throughout Now York State to insure continuous phone coverage for cellular phones. Due to the design of these syatims. their relatively low poorer, and their elevation. no on• 1s likely Ln be exposed to a:w level of radiofrequency radiation in excess of a sm ll fraction of the guideline for exposure of the general public. '-"�Jqase contact me if you have any questions on theSQ comments. 9 5 — 1,9111 Fr'M WA CM FOR EW HMTM TO P. C SineRrtiY. . William Condon® CHP Princi pal Radiological Haalth Sptcsalsat Bureau of Envircamtntal Radiation Protection 4 95"- 71 FEDERAL COMMVNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20654 September 14, 1992 Marguerite S. Calyer Chairman Town of Chatham Zoning Board of 1ppeals Town Mall ChAthan Center aeD. 2 Valatie, NY 12284 Dear M.s. Calyer: IN Rafty R&FIR Tot 1300A2 Please accept my apologies for taking so long to respond to your letter of July 29 concerning potential envAron:Antal impact from a cellular transmission facility. Due to illness and travel I as only now catching up on a backlog of correspondence and other work. As you requested I have reviewed the getter from Dr. Zimea of IT&T Bell Laboratories, As far as I can tell %here is nothing in Dr. Zemante letter that appears to be unreasonable or inaccurate. The statements made concerning FCC policy.on cellular radio facilities are correct. . The FCC has adopted rules dealing with human exposure to IF energy. The FCC's rules implementing the National Environzental Policy Act contain a provision for evaluation of potential health risks from RF radiation emitted by FCC -regulated facilities operating with relatively high pourers. As mentioned in the letter, the FCC has excluded from this requirement categories of facilities and operations that would not cause excessive XF exposures because of low -power, intermittent operation, or other factors. Included in this Satter group are laud -mobile communioations systems such as cellular radio. The subject of the biological effects of RF energy is a oomplicated and rather controversial topic. At the present time there is no official standard established by the Federal Government for human exposure to RF radiation. Thore has been activity to develop exposure guidelines, and several non -government organization,, such as the imerican National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the National Counail on Radiation Protection and Measurements (RCRP), have issued various r000mmendations. Sinoe the FCC is not a health and safety agency, we lack the resources to .develop our own guidelines for exposure to RF radiation. Bowever, because of the lack of federal guidelines from other agencies we have chosen to rcl o the non -governmental ANSI radiation protection guidelines LANSI C95.1-1963 ,n mentioned above, for evaluation of environmental RF radiation. no ,05— 711 Marguerite S. Calyer (2) Cellular radio systems utilise trequenoies in the range of 800-900 seaabertz (MHz). At a frequency of 800 MHz, tho ANS:.guidelines recommend tbat human exposure be limited to a power density of about 2.T milliwatta per square oentimster, as averaged over any six-minuto period. Antenna* on towers or Other structures used for cellular communioations are generally located at or near the top -at the structure. seasuse of the relatively low transmitter powers involvedt an individual would generally have to be very close to such antennas (10-20 feet or less -and in the stain transmitted beam) in order to be exposed to high levels of RP energy comparable to those recommended by the safety" guidelines. ss with all forms of electromagnetic energy, the power from a cellular transmitter decreases rapidly (according to an Inverse square law) as one moves away from the antenna. Cansequentlyj norsal exposure would be much less than the recommended safety limits. Measurements made around typical cellular base station towers have confirmed this prediction. Therefore, the F'CC#s position has been that based on current knowledge and safety standards, there is no reason to believe that antennas used as cellular base stations pose a potential health risk to the public. i am enclosing a copy of an FCC publioation that should be of interest to you. This publication, "Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiorrequency Radiation," is designed to answer some of the qu®stions moat frequently asked about non -ionizing electromagnetic radiation and potential health effects. Also enclosed is another publioation, "Nonionising Radiation Questions and Answers," by Michael Q. Yost, that provides detailed information On this topic. x hope that the above information is responsive to your concern'. It you require further W13t&= O or have additional questions please feel free to contact to at (202) 653-8169. Sincerely, J;�tNj Robert F. Cleveland, Jr., Ph.D. Office of Engineering i Technology Federal Coaumuniastions Commission Enclosures R- -- 7.11 ) �3 I , : 1. .. • ',:i � ..1' . '.' • .. 1 t y.y sv.. .j. .. i.rry�'►►p s.�}•••' ,''���li ''' �, �t,f �,/� p..Jy,�J. ..•.r ..w. "•.•:)� ryt. Y?KnW'1•�10 t:••�Yri li /4 •�s, Jug ea��1�1r:uvSy : '!.:i!'st'='''' � +.•:•'�tf��yry,rL•,j•.X:P';, .. �'t:::r60sµn� .ice nl'••s tJ.•�. i' .N,ite[V'• IK',(,f, .ry,``.• t •. fyr,Tor�'`e�(R�Z T:R%S'••'t' ' t ift rf4T. Y t rr �} :r1 •.. '�',•��j7•K'"_.vr y.•. t<v; .;! r u ar 4/�t.�1.•: "'..r''.7.� war• qP.• .., „K.:Yr ' / s i • r:', ,tr yi!M'MtN; B�dS'AAiB µS;"� ,►!#7!''`r�..+;; ;.4.a' �,rlM•.,. �.J ,,. , .:.vide' ra o �ommuNCatton's between l ^ a "' :�ihe pieti6l:w and tre'trucks, accord - A judge la;Flengton has over r~r 'turned the Kh gwood`Township'•idn= -to PIbih•BeA Atiarittc;ls providing ing bo4d's;denlal.ofan appu atiori b ' pac ;crtt�;the tower at no cost to the. is cellular co 'firm 'bd;` i� mI7111niCatlOn.S'; mph• :i,-" .,•, t r .�;; ;�: ` ; '� %^ r• ;build a 200=foot Lowe on the ro �` e:judge iiin't tUid anything in Hof Kingwood Vouiite :Qo; No: ic,, e';r�eord Or the board of ®djusEment Superior,' Courtly , ge ;diaund;� `t0 itv+as detrtmentai,"Roth said. I •Bernhard .ruled the towec•prgposed by' i�i�ard 'gave ha "adew6n ont I Bell Atlantic Mob�le;1ya�emsIpc, wasTbday • following ``arguments by I'an laherebtly be: efit l:use: And Will the ma's attorney, Doug• notbe detriment ptlie < las Olt. The judge:also rkewed than- j I Ibi ple e ; ��.: h gs Wfore the son- .We tibk'tag'`;�er�i�ts 2t trig ea' 'demonstrate for"th in'e�cCffigat�q'aad'• ` �:b6rd in January •and February 18ti :".Ua� Cellular ;Bell At tic'' !'r=pervl�e�l:��>4o92r`�:�.'•�•;1'�k'�,tlln �t:�r1,'��-�•• �}• . We're gratified' chat :the judge should be'broug�t to rural'Hunteidoiir' ,County,"'sald Lee Rotas,";Oe•attorney_; un_'that our: ppucation is'lnher- ;representfng thed. :'com-Ken cial' ;to . the cominunity," 'PAW �rs� :it }. said::I.auitiCard; network 'project Bell AtiaRAfe" a ileac ' m i foi Bell Atlantic Mobile. ' ;portion of the fiie compai� ..'s. ibree- " Uwe portion �k `�Qrwarc! .,to„beginning acre PPe�Y cn Iu%519 to, erectf CtToii .on. the 'aew toover that ,the lower wad pmea ;eIter;k*i,t .thing_diiieh-needed ceIIular serve iThe tower:will D? de..cellulaa� tele•�;'lcuatgmeis and.0ovlde im-' phone service; to: reod'��e`' g��ta' and: blast•,t� pn, i�mergency 'communications nesses in the soutiiWestexd art'Oltbe "`capabilities to:, he. Xingwood Volun•' !county includin ' p�+atg t s' v'��• artiaent'"said Card. "It's an lmpor�ta t ps t�of the cel a e o , pisris'.cQed . foi `a Jular netaiork for the'w>tole area 4Phat. �' ooteei lattice ;tovnez, but the ;it does is open up that atea;to full cej- efgTii vas ;reduced'.to .200 feet. The lulaxcommunicaticna;'"saiiiRoth.��'iZ�fuot•b� 30•toot equipment shelter The fire compaii9'alao`plans to inn= }� '"'t;onstiucted at the We of the •�stall equfpment'on; tbwet to pro- ::totivei''16doiWng'to Roth. '• •�1_';3F.:3`i:1?.;;�t.�j •s'•.:%:V941�,;1�;'+cfbi�C'��^t'r.• •.� • ti,'�•r.. ,. . s � _ Sri.s•.�r.•+e.•'V...`�ilY�'•"..'�9.1i1i... .«...... �V~ .. .. • • .. 1 I ' i r i I i 95- x 203 - aad that any -concerns in that respect were unwarranted. The expects stated that the proposQd cell site would have no effect on washing'. machines, tolepbpne►se radios or televisions. that there would blt no disruption of asay other frequencies. and that there would.;® no effect of any of the transa►issSon& on humans or animals or ;aDi other organisms:. to addition, the experts explained that the additional traffic flowing from the ins tall ation•.of the 0011 sit* would be limited to one vehicle 40eaasing tho':site ones or twice a month for routine maintenaneg. Respoid®nt asserted that -it selected the Children• s Village aite j becausa of its ratural elevation, its location in a heavily wooded area -aid proximity to highways, a.nd the existing water strvatur a, whivhh would mean that Cellular One would not have to CwSate a tower elsewhere. A0611 nt zoning bowed denl4A the use variance, finding that Cellular One offered insufficloAt evidence to establish (1) "that the land•at'issua cannot yiild a r®aoonable return it used only for they purpose allowed by the applicable zoning statute," i (2) "t2sat itv dircumstance (or that, of the Children°s Village) is j due to a uaigUo *ituation and not to 'the general condition o9 the neighborhood•" (3) "that there exists a public necessity for its 1 service. or what the need of the broader public is relating to such rervices or that it is a public utility relating to the seeing ordinanov, w '(4) "the ab9once of possible future hatasds to the Mal th read v►elf are of the cOMUni ty, " and (5) ° the, lack of 51. . -,! k; zec -nce nine. ..4- avo. 203 - . The proposed Cell site is not a permitted use in this zone. Thus, in October 1990. Cellular One .applied for a parmLt to. begin the installation. By letter -dated October 9# 1990s. the Dobbs Ferry SuildLho Inspector informed respondent that its Coll site proposal* had to -be denied because such business was not a pemitted veil:°'ia- the tone. Oil October A; 1990, Cellular One applied tar a use variance, to.-'*6nstruct tht tail site on the Children's Village property. h series of public bearings regarding respondent's application ooiU"nced on November 14, 1990•and continued an January 9r IDOL and February 13, 1991. Daring the hearings* the Chairman of tht.Zoning board Questioned the authority of the Board to, grant, the varianci, is 1 ight of this Court I x holding in . 9.1 _Ctso v st®inhi,lbor (282 KY .71) . 8e also inquired about alternate' s!-Ok and required the subaLOsion of the lease botween Children's Village and Cellular one. Several people who owned None• near the L`hildron's village site raised concerns about noise, and health risks. Cellular One objected to'the submission of tho lease and its viewing by the ?Ublies, but subsoquentlyR surrendered it to the ChaL=an. In Addition, respondent argued that other alternative sites gore not suitable, and. that the holding' in Matter of Q tg did not apply to its variance request since St is a "public* utility." Cellular i One also Offer d'expert testimony to show that the granting of ; the epplltation will have no negative Impact on the neighborhood 203 :espendent to expand and fill'Qaps in its service aros. Presently, due.'to the large intervals between its oxlating antennae, Mpondent cannot ®dequately transmit or receiv® call• is the area of the proposed site. Calls of respondent'o customers in that area are often intozupted or disconnected dies to the searaity of antennas, and interference from static. in addition, c"S*•talk and inttrAodulatlon render inaudible calls i that are connected. on september 26, 11900 pvssuant to a lease agre*ment, Cellular One leased approximately a00 square test of land from Chil'dron's village. The lease agreezont allowed respondent to. establish and operate tbs cell site on the grounds. The proposed cell site involves the installation of niia cellular: antennas, maasuriny tour feet one inch by approximately -ton inches, whiob would be attached to an existing ievanty•foot lister tower. The ante== would not increase the 'height of the grater tower.. A one-story 16 feet by 28 foot - modular bulldtnq Would house colter equipment adjacent to the ,sator tower. Located at approximately 400 to 500 feet from the nearest private residential dwelling, the'wattr tower would also be at a higher elevation then residential dwellings in the area* In addition, the proposed site regvirss the enhancement of an existinq dirt road to facilitato access to the site, and the installation. of tenting. The- Children t s village site is located in %he q (fdncatfonal District) Zone under the Dobbs Ferry Zoning Code# 40 :ill l - - • - - ^ ' - - • - - ' -2- N 203 ' service .Law S 2117 3 ; Transportation Corporation Law S 25) and a lblic utility. *c=PanV (Public Service Law S a j 23 )', age, so, vslldga Law S.5=52416) (defining public utility services Lo include talopbbne services)). Cellular one is licensed by the "doral Co munications Commisvi,oa (rCC) and the New York Public Service Cotamissi*A (?SC) to provide cellular telephone service to subscribers tbi"ghout the Now York -New Jersey metropolitan area. ^fie FCC has authorized respondent "to establish a new cellular system ope *tLng on frequency plock A in the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Tolecommication 9 Service" to serve the Now York retropolitan area, The PBC has issued respondent a certificato i of public. convenience and necessity, as in required for every telephone corporation (Public $vrvicQ taw g SS) . in additio>7• abe PSC is authorized to prescribe respondent's ser`►iCe and rate standards (imp Public service z0aw i 92) , cellular one operates more than 100 call sites with over 3500 transmitters SA the Now "Ork•Naw Jersey area. on July 20. 1990, Cellular Otte informed the Dobbs Ferry Planning Uoard of its proposal to establish a cellular telephone 'cell site an the 200-acre grounds of CUldrer's Yiilage, a not - for -profit corporation licensed to provide treatment and A box* for neglected children. Erection of the, cell site would enable Public earvice Law S 2 (a3) states that the terse "Volic Utility company" applies to "one. or more persons or corporations opperating an Agency or agencies for public seswiee, and who or which is or are subject to the juriaidietion, 'supervision and rognlatiosas prescribed by or pursuant to this chapter." L Abu of iRm Vork xcurt •off:.. ; 2 N04; 203 Ie the Hatter -of Cellular "1,ephone .*WV&ay, d/b/a ' Ca2lulaz one, . Resp�dent • V. Armand Rosw1bsrg, at al.. a►ppellas�ts • OPINION Michard M. Cardalla, for. Uants. Ord T. Male, for ran -VOUdeat. ' The Childran°s village,, Yao..E and Now York Plannieg roderations. AFL SALUR• . The priftry issue on this appeal is whether' the siting of a cellular telephone faclut-y "a llfies as a %public utility" use Vari&nco QacceptiOn yndsr .a,�at�er of C nse11dUed MI efl. c = rtsv York v Nbf M" (as W24L Respondent Cellular Telephone Ccapany (Cellular One), formerly known as Metro One, is a*, telephone 'corporation* (Public 711 F 5:-� L� ='C c•t _ �r.� i!'d�. ''l:_ c:. ,ova '•"C. LCC Experience Related to the Rio -hazards of Radio FMUI%encg,FI ure Since LCC believes that bio-effects of RF exposure concerns its clients, it has kept abreast of biohazard related issues in the cellular industry and has been studying electromagnetic radiation and its environmental effects during the past four years. LCC personnel involved in this area have compiled and analyzed existing studies on electromagnetic radiation while remaining informed of continually evolving standards. Studies and information have come from various sources such as the IEEE (The Institute i of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.). ANSI (American National Standards Institute), NCRPM (National Council of Radiation Protection and Measurement), EEPA (Electromagnetic Energy Policy Alliance), EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), GEMS (Bio-Electromagnetic Society) as well as numertrus interviews and conversations with medical doctors and researchers. On the basis of this expertise, LCC has gmmerated technical reports and analysis for its clients. The company has evaluated different technologies (AMPS. GSK CDMA, TDMA) in the contact of RF exposure and presented the findings in various reports. In addition LCC's Cellular Institute has presented seminars on biological effects of electromagnetic radiation to engineers, acquisition personnel and real estate managers of cellular operation companies. The seminars explore in detail issues like strategies for combating questions on RF exposure, standards and guidelines, methods for calculating power densities, etc. We have also completed the AF Else ,may for different j cellular base station configurations. Listed below are same of the clients for whom LCC engineers have performed .Environmental Impact Study and .appeared ,as "expert witnesses" at city council meetings.. McCaw Bell Atlantic Mobile Cellular One Of Chicago LACTC Metro One Further details about these studies are available on request. ?0� T 1 G 4950 70d ! Q7' � 5EE2aL" F . . Prorde of LCC, L.L.C. LCC, L.L.C., was founded in 1983 during the genesis of modem cellular telephony. Over the past decade, the company has become a worldwide leader in providing mobile radio engineering services, RF design, network management software and sophisticated field measurement tools. With over 300 employees, 60% of whom are RF engineers, LCC is the world's largest communications consulting firm. The company has proven its expertise by developing innovative products that are easily integrated to client needs. These products provide mobile radio operators with a complete portfolio of tools to design, monitor, troubleshoot, and optimize network performance. LCC, L.L.C., is located in Arlington, Virginia with a subsidiary, Eurofon, in Dusseldorf; Germany. Both locations house complete sales and amar support departments to immediately serve the needs of our worldwide clientele. Due to the firm's strong commitment to customer service, we are successful in providing quality pry and support throughout the world: North America, Latin America, Europe, Afiddle Beat and South Pacific. In addition, LCCs Cellular I odu to provides comprehensive engineering training to its engineers and clients. The Cellular Institute is led by cellular agwrts and faadty members of George Washington University. 5� Lr :4 :4:54 cN _ C i!,I-- 7GZ t:6 4tezku ?:, 14e r c�2SOzC 3G 1. •IEEE Standards For Safety Levels with Respect vo Huston Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromape is Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz (Reference MM C95.1-1991). 2. OST Bulletin 65 - Evaluating Compliance With FCC -Specified Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Radiation (October 1985). 13� ©? ' 94 14 : 50Z FR LCC I f<. eB J16 49-50 TO 14Pi7.—:75t5230EM P.15 The calculations and statements in this report ere true and correct to the best of my knowledge and are based on FCC methods for evaluating exposure compliance. Power density predictions around cellular base stations are based on equations from SOT Bulletin No. 65 (Ref 2). The vertical pattern of the antenna at the site was used to calculate the ERP at awl elevation. if there are any questions please call me at (703) 516-7548. �.�...� I.I Lig Poctseica Prgea 153 v v $ SEr LAS ' C-,4 14:52 FF. LCC- 114:. 703 516 4950 TYJ 140-(Z 565'2@OE30 P. 14 Ties power density is in compliance with the strictest U.S. RF exposure guideline. The above values are the theoretical peak/maximum values that could occur and are not typical values. The calculations from which the enclosed graphs were generated assume the simultaneous and continuous operation of all channels, which is seldom the case. in reality all channels are in operation about 10'/6 of the time., a consideration of which would further reduce the predicted power densities due to the facility. Also note that the exposure within the buildings near this facility will be significantly lower than those outside because of high attenuation of common building materials st these frequencies. AWwugh the above values are obtained theoretically, actual measurements show that the calculated power density is generally greater than corresponding measured levels. Anyone needing furtixx information about the envimnmenW hops of cellular radix can contact the following: Dr. Robert Cleveland FCC Office Of Engineering & Technology Room 7002 1919.M Street, NW Washington, DC 20544 (202) b5341ti9 —I_ POWER DENSITY AT THE GROUND LEVEL SITE F138 Power Denrlty n Diduce from Asteau Stroebm Sim Antaaa'iype: AIUM12 Sed*r V3 10000.000 H.----------------------- 1000.000 100.000 ludmnmt Cdn Paww Dosqr ®10 foot-149.649 µW/cm sq. 10.000 ~ - = :`� 1.000 r � i 0.100 Ir 1 r 11/�tr 0.010 �r rrr Pala Paww ® 230 hd 1.56 µ CM sq. 0.001 � 0� � " M M M C"r&§&& Bletswe fma nrtaea ire bare (ibet) FIGURE 5 0 Transmitter ERP - 50 Watts Pled Center a 48 feet Downtilt 0 deg. 0 of Channel, - 20 - -• - - - - SOWS* a----® IEM (umoontmHed env.) 0 IEEE (coutrolled env.) as SO Wattr (Max gain) POWER DENSITY AT THE GROUND LEVEL SITE FL38 Power Density vs Distaaee from Anna Stnchane Dace. Aabaiaa pet AIUM12 Seder V2 Transmitter ERP - 30 Watts 10000.000 1000.000 100.000 _T*%,M- ' Maxlanun (lain Pbwer beeshy @ 10 feet-149.649 µw/cm sq. 10.000 1.000 0.100 0.010 i Ptak 1'owu Demd ily @ 230 feet .1.56 pW/cma sq. 0.001 scons�������s��� ... .� ..a -4 ..4 N N M M M NI A V �f M Distance from awkwa suwftre bees (fed) FIGURE 8 Rad Center a 48 feet Downtilt 0 des. N of Channels - 20 - - - - - 10wang —ME (nnamnti Hod mv.) —s--- HM (controlled derv.) -0 . 50 Waft (mix gain) 10000.000 1000.000 100.000 l' l lo.000 PUWE% i?ENsrry ra TnE GROJND Y., ni, strE Fim Power Density vs iNata= f ow Antenna Structure Base. Antenna 7lypt: ALM12 Sector V1 Maudmum Gain Power D aWty @ 10 foot-149.649 µW/cm sq. 1.000 I 1 1 ! I � I 0.100 I- I 0.010 I Peak Power Y?wAhy ® 230 feet u 1.56 µW/cM q. Distance from mime rt"nchme Vase (dam FIGURE 3 Transmitter ERP - 50 Watts Rad Center -a 48 fret Downtilt 0 deg. 0 of Channels - 20 ------ soW&tts . ..�. MEE (uncowaolled mv.) — ---- MEE (eoatroued env.) so Watts (nux pin) 5EP e° RF Exnosurt predictions for Rase Station Transmission The enclosed Figure 3 shows power density as a function of distance on the ground level for sector VI in the vicinity of site FL38. The chart sham power density with (1) maximum antenna gain as a factor in the calculation and (2) attenuated gain based on the vertical antenna pattern. Here the worse can scenario has been considered by selecting the maximum number of channels per sector. The graph shows that the peals power density due to sector VI is predicted to occur at about 230 feet from the base of the antenna and is approximately 1.56 µW/ctm2 on the street level. Our theoretical calculations art not valid within approximately 10 feet of the antenna due to signal reflections and other complex RP behavior. Therefore, this range is not depicted on the graphs. The graph also shows that the yam gain power density is predicted to be approximately 149.65 uW/cm2 at 10 feet, the closest calculation point from the antenna base. Actual power density measurements within a few feet of the antenna may approach the nwd=m allowable exposure level and, therefore, the power density should be measured if individuals are not restricted from coming within 10 feet of the antenna. The same results were obtained for sectors V2 and V3. (See the chart Figure 4 and the chart Figure 5) The peak power density at distances beyond 10 feet, assuming all channels in operation and two sectors overlapping, is approximately 3.12 uW/cm2 on the ground level. The greatest maximum gain power density, using the same assumptions, is 299.3 uW/cm2 in the main beam of the antenna. The IEEE uncontrolled environment guidelines, representing the strictest national guideline in the U.S., allows a maximum of 586 uW/cm2 at the cellular frequency range. Thus, the predicted peak power density and the maximum gain power density in this instance are significantly less than the. intudi um permitted exposure level at cellular frequencies. At this level of exposure it appears that the FL39 site abides by the strictest RF exposure guidelines set in the U.S. These calculations represent worst case scenarios of RF exposure. Table 2 below reflects the guidelines proposed by IEEE for uncontrolled cavironment. Maximum Permissible Exposure for Uncontrolled Fanvimnment Table 2 Frequency lunge (MAX) Power Density (S) (MW/Cm� Averaging lime (minutes) 300-3000 f/1 S00 30 at f = 880 Mid, S = .5866 mW/=2 = 586 uW/=2 In geene v4 theoretical calculations as well as field meuwvments have indicated that the powur dwsity produced by cellular fwilities at distances grea w than a few fed from the j .antanna we seve nd orders of magnitude below all standards proposed in the United i States and in most cases below standards proposed anywhere in the world. lad r_ 7.11 E E Q : 100 Zz W w 10 O ww 1 b-W U U_ 0.1 d --J w 614 V/m A/m MAG IC STRENGTH t IS IN MHz FR MAXIMUM POR�ISStRi.E EXPOSURE �;,►: ENGTH IIsPE1 823,0n (UNCONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT) 100 c� z 7.:8 m ; 10 mw/cmt POUR D NSITY 'o e/450 .� 4SO.3✓t1.�G 1 4 �4 W Q.2 in1Y/�m2 � 01 0:073A/m � e feu) 4 e eeelu�-=J, a t�te� 1 _► .11jell , e dJ111111 .4...r,l a 0.003 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10,000 100,000 300,000 FREQUENCY ON MHz FiArAB cImphia Repnesen"an 0t Mauduwm pPm le Axp0ftm in Term at in" atact•Ib~ 4 Dmwtv liote a# VdaoRtaaliad Ilan k I " if? - L MOO 100 10 1 614 VIM CLru 1 R6V FIELD MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE EXPOSURE STRENGTH 9b4z/t (MPE) (CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT) 163 A/m IIA Wm MAGNETIC FIELD STRENGTH l6.vf f IS IN MHt 90 mW/cmx I -�-,..- O.�Q3 A/m �1J1 �,_! _§ e e LW e I fill i ei�� AAA A#%^A AA t1^^ .4^^ E 100 � 1® — Z 0 a � x�x a. l.Vva V.1 ! 1V 1vv lvvv Iv,vvv IVVwVV Jvvvvvv FREQUENCY IN MHz hf At Gnphio Reprenatatlon of bb3dm,mPsvmW@IbbRxpo#m IsTaws ws of Fields and Power DsnstfygbraOaaobvW ammaL �a RF EXPOSURE GUIDELINES FOR EASE STATION TRANSMITTERS AT 870 MWZ FREQUENCY IN SELECTED COUNTRIES w D w I COUNTMES FIGURIC 1 LL M Exposure Guidelines Several institutions, U.S. and international, have proposed Radio Frequency Protection. Guidelines (figure 1). The proposed guidelines can be divided into two categories. hand portable mobile stations and base station transmitters. The guidelines adopted by the FCC are those proposed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Enginew Inc. (Zlr' M) which were subsequently adopted by the American. National Standards Institute. in November 1992. This report is based on IEEE RF Exposure Guidelines. �aiddim far. Pond i aWty of l ac Station In the case of RF exposure from base stations the IEEE uncontrolled eavitonment will be the reference guideline (Refer to Figures A2 and A3). In dds hztra= Ae saxw t Wled environment is a better choice sbwe diere are hOWduals who are wmware of RF Safety Levels with respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency are summarized in Table 1. Maximum Permissible Exposure for Controlled Environment Table 1 Frequency Range (MHz) Power Density (S) (mW/cm2) Averaging Time (minutes) 300-3000 f/300 6 Note f = frequency in megahertz (MI- z) at f = 880 MHz, S = 2.933 mW/cm2 = 2933 µW/cm2 I 44 FF. _ _ _ i hY . 7PI ` 1 G 4 J50 i U i 40 TZ75ESZ!aiIE .30 Controlled environment: Controlled environments are locations where there is exposure that may be incurred by persons who are aware of the potential of RF exposure. V=ntroll!W Wironrnent Uncontrolled environments are locations where there is the exposure of individuals who have no knowledge or control of their exposure. Power Density (5): Power per unit area normal to the direction of propagation, acpmssed in units of milliwatts per square centimeW (mW/cmu or microwatts per square centimeter (uW/cm2). Peak Power Density, The mwdmum instantaneous power density calculated with aftenuating antenna gain as a factor. Mwdm= gail Power : The maximum power density calculated with the i maximum antenna gain used 'as a factor. The maximum gain power dens4 represents the very worst case RF exposure ace ano and may be; a more realistic indicator of power density very near the antenna. � QL Site bformation 1. Site - FL38 The proposed system consists of three directional transmitting antennas (ALP9212 Gain 12 dBd) located at an elevation of 48 feet. 2.Orientation, ERP and Channel Requirement of each sector VI -Orient 0 V2-Orient 120 V3-Orient 240 ERP 50 Watts General Information ERP 50 watts ERP 50 watts 20 Channels 20 Channels 20 Channels In the past three decades more than 600 academic papers have been published in the area of RF exposure. Various international committees as well as U.S. Organization such as The National Council of Radiation Protection (NCRP), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), Institute of Electrical and Electronics (IEEE), etc., have been involved in monitoring these studies and producing safety guidelines for the general public. Radio frequency electroc (RFEM) a xposune is measured in terms of power density and specific absorption rate. Definitions Some important terms used in context of RF exposure are as follows: Maximum Permissible &MMure &eE): The power densities associated with magnetic, electric fields and the induced and contact current to which a person may be exposed without harmful effect and with an acceptable safety factor. Averaging Time: The appropriate time period over which exposure is averaged for the purpose of determining compliance with an NPE. 95- "9 11 I' ... Y / .t' a.• t I. )l,'1k1.Lt fl' K) li • 'i 1 lw 1 .. \ .I 1 . 1 tK N .. lMi , +' ��{< t I , . ' t.i•,j�' N. w q+ /H 4 „ +fir '! 1 f .. •/' ' �Y L. ir' 1 / .. .f'Y y . Pr .. G .. •1•-•.{y' da•1 Ss` ` { t ') ii,f isi / > ) �1 ti;fir s k . a ♦" <u,r,) k <., :1 r t'tk l ? 1 �+ ts'�. '\w Yt N < JT d- i y' ♦ .4 Y SI i + `w•.: •r o v > a tlfn 1 ♦) -:'a :w. . C4u.'r�. t+h. $..w .1,. ..x t- <! >♦_ Y'. t y�Gkb _ �' k;1<>ur I•.' a,. ,l M: i17a ie2 )'a rw w .; 3 v i s{ :j-a':. . � S r) \ i i' !- SJ•♦' !'.'•^R { < 3 i.l..xfr rn Y '>.. ri- - � ♦. , r,< + < / y ) w ,lt < � � y n. T s % ,r. SAr t>✓ r -r . t t -MiiL. 'r,t .. ty f, t. y 1 4' •'.+'yh i .t Jfx A .. Z )ft ,yr L L r.+>S+',{ !). r ♦ / 1 t •.t♦ 'aaL a�rr. v••..+, r.+wlw .v...-,....,,..,,,,.�-....�. ;'- a. — •"f +e. 00--en ;'S?r: t' :''}. (:.f%' ,i .wi.f,),+++Y ";;'; `'t�l..fi'fYS;1:: ,;;:i:I:l+' j.,; M.. �w:;:i':i'.+.J• .^/it t' f..:.;, .�. .�.".%''.'-.. ...."." --- M,-......i,.-*.-.`,**.-.--. * ��"-'...."-�.-.'."'*- ..-'.-.-..�"--`"...".-- -l'",-..."'"-' '.."..-..'-"...-*".--"1, } ' C' �. ..... r•• M/••jii{Sf"JS ♦ �1 - as l Kl' Mr 2 �/.•� 1! V N ^! p 1/t p.{ •Lih SV w. W Y <, airy-1• ) .7• f'. > 0 1Y[J:tI.Y! O•> 1.1 to O 4 s >' :l t •�.< { 4 i rr ) J s r j r l iS. ♦! w A/ J y JSa,..l•) .i: .'� 1 i'I y 'S 'S lij> k'n. Th H'jtCi'x4i J. hNJ' f,. / tT O.�; •Of{{''t >y 1 S /... t t ` 'Y +h Caw -J - 'l < + "i Sf,4 •F. l lt. d i n 9 Y'nv t.s y o , / >el--. .� Y.. t .+ <... �,`r ..O...-.)a_'•i.> I.+y ^� �K1 `4�.. J�. ...... •• .. ... ... ... .._.'. •' .. . ,. r ... ...,...::_ .t ..'.., .d,_...1.. _ .... s._._^sr _ _ _ N .•�.: i., r ♦ . fit : .Z S y: � J..at'1...Yi ♦ �G.:.f^ r i a. -' i y / } �,�,,,i, o e 4v e. .,Nrv..... '!'•tyx a 4w .n . irty w a, ' ! i rr I~ o <. t'<{i. 4Yk S�i1 �1 k: ,t Y�•.•<..:..., ..w w4'Y. tFh�i0.11, r2— ��. vy ,,. ., JS a of Yy Y' 1. t t \ - � >" o.. y r �s s.,! i� f6a.1l ;Y• _ i i " i, � � .{ .>f h ) !r'••t. fir•- .Y ly ii)' 1 N f i, { i h� t.t ii. IN i + "�'L. i v* R. >: +t .•Lk..t. k.�Y+ � Y tia, , ..tYiw'i kY i+l ♦ a ♦ Y r .t �7Y�.. : c t' < +• s Y ia, s.• t•t3 ay) 5 ir. $..�., w s J v +yv �' '... >t;:. > k kt'1 P �lrA.w, N jn w o- y 'y :- , ' fJ' wrw.' !. i �'S.`Y .Y•• Y' � •1p'..'%4 4 W, .aft l Vi t °" !;A .l • r....... a. - 4 a i . w i,^.'.i 's...Y �.. s r f y x `S k;. y,.,�QbX;:A•n w f rrn...a.., . .wt . ,s : . �s>).•�a+[�!„ 'Z':'r.. 1f,/rx• L •< .e s �."f.-Vt ..twy �( ;vy •r a..•1. (,. w.: ..•>roN i!'r4 ��'./^' r. }/=" +/':' '��x_�tfi: - .'.. f:. ,• 'i 'rf f f S. Is, iW )�!`�•t,.t Y P a•� .. !i".tj4'i<..F W S ate. :�+7 Q.. f"!'�' t . •I lS Cxx1 > /lv ..sr f' •SB':f itj ». aZ t ! [,• r•:�r%i.•.�: �, .�re'.s 41.•; :c:>er :�`:Y '..i'y,yrve�i.:,:'. .'r iev. .�y�JL.n •.,J,,.:.t yy fi•�i i ►. ,a>. s » �i" ,,5 ' '--{(n���\ ♦ sl" e. J• :"siF-idnr fM t a{ .,: I'; Cb h n ''(t M"" �j♦ A.7;t!'.t } t.5 n . yC <,•.. ' un:..ra.: `Fi /.< r. 'ii'76 . GF' Lit.;y�'"-- 1 f;l�W� w. 1 N .yit:tZ".r.s a.,ty jYr a ;t:'4.i4�f..i 4 , i 3. 1. tt� 'r .: }� Ct' 't s•wt 1f.i;.M .....:.effYS�nf!)dt Alt/ K"v.r'...� --..•'a .+ s, r/!� • ?'os It w FN: y qs ..-.,^.Y'Q... : i <�.,. 6 f! - ? '. jy n•.a '+JTt!Fi7TM+'rir • 1. 3LVEPffA •S'.' r.,�, .• ,.Lt :R• �Caii' LtR..k9� S'r's� "• �fwtiT �.°.'fi:.R'L..1:." '::4... /t1•et ri :1/`1?�.,wy r �./a is s •yy.+t:.L �r �..t^a x,r .<r..nw i. ' wt:,:' ''-0..k'�:. 'C'iJ:•,9�. 'Y'� , �y, .7Z ( - 2 -.c �. , ..Y sf�A7+?as�. F �F':t ..' w. .••t•' 4I•r. :l. n. .'+« [:GY .r.w ,w i'Y' "Y..� r.iF) .- L ) . ♦ 4,. Cr- �.. !} / ,-. ..?•. 'e•, s'r W r):ef yvn e. 3 \ e / ...s. :<i'A':e�?: _'tC:v4rt.1'.•>r .. •!' ?:/ .i C't,T "`f}:1Mt+1f'}IF<sr wa).�.""�".G't':.":i'w:i ., .1G,r3�l.".�Ir.� vyf. Liy:•!1r w !. {t' rft�v:i:' 4'.J r < ..t• f' kl':7��•,c�r•' 'tOi ").). re,:": •" _t 1N j wh r '.la; 7,'. ril•r"' C . •r :�:::••:o.•�. ..: r t y 4'S4 i� 1:'r.1--?."...�i..Sl�.�'^r +�.. +K '- .i Y%.u. Yxa �. v. bn raT .4' dw b 'Aa '."✓...s i:. •fJ'•a .:..... ++r. [/ >T : t v4 r .i.ce v r. r . a iwkYeFt...A,y. ,. ':. <t k SS"tfj Vt. w.. .., .y .�.. kQ•� '< t' /w ..q t'PN./.� �f7r < f` ) 'S : a4 ✓ i �. S•r >/.i.•. x/... 1 1 1 �. wq H .. Q •{ t a -... (I ttf' i /. S} .. Ri F. +. •1•ttta .- . ...'.rfw!: �Y •., , '" '� 4.; Y .ef'/>+/ -P ytf� wA e.� ;.>1o'" °w ri. '. , '' G.� �) . a M. i ./ t 9 1 < <y ' a ! t••t bn•il "•k✓.. �,. a�i. Y y a++'r '^}} %�, ,yam .y„ R !Y>••4<.. •n✓. t.. :. , t R 1 <>,,r +: !' •:: •`...... :'�;e • :Y .tyi mot" .,,...1 'aTo o 4 :+t• "a•.w . .'! r S } _ ..tl.ft ..r. > ei.^i. ,aY„ .L e..O»nw.a, li"f<t 7 ..1:: r).<.. F.Y••: Y' 'J < a - > Wit/.. e-:ii�'.:e(iCY%1 s '' r SM l- a w, t / Yr•• 'S i '1', OY'w/jkYY, S 'y,�f •oi� . -f: , i. M.. ff r fkYf fIN(yj•!(•f: ., ih t lr ii L.,.y 'A .. !" •7 f. l Y� \ j\ .le .vo > W/, /' `t .ih!•+'<'tK IK; !%JfI ) l III.', o• .r.q .< t. .i.)o a ':'% .J sr S: v k o Y" ' 3 e e?: i• ; - >J - ��w!?`•C .n.. 2e : •i0 :. t'o`Ck'S/'�� t .�Lt, may: t ` .e,••Yj.L n m... i r 1\ $ . +. J t { l i .. - J.1.'.fakf!%y �t<. - : .- .a. r..., Y;:.' 1 ) ��. 1 �.. .Y.>. :lht•� YFG 1 ttq..: •Y1• t fi ♦ /o w • .Y 4 'k 4 r' - J Y >. y, y . Z�.tS �::.• .r" J i. -1./ ti. /. i ' � �. > 4 w t . z ) .}x l ri w b { " ;' S `, 1� (.';♦ :. q .t t a � <v l::i Si r t 7',> S.f♦ '♦� r ..'. n.t <}�`4a. :?•�:<+:'.. .:��. Srr.% ra ° CJ� .a'. i .r f 'kY• ^/ < -0. . i . : t . f :.:' = 41i •sati . e'±>•r , • r !.:i. /•�.. . .. wait • f•'..•. i•1 ^'�,� '.fin �iw� is i. r n ♦ ) +t.1 4r•• a4 wJfr )'"-4 t/ •< t:.s t i w '.ow. s ' w " a:: ' - s r" d t` 1. t t / V ) .. ..... - ., . t .. �; ✓♦ y a t' S•x♦ v : i dr<i wi ••y.f 1 ul - 1 h,�t)f Y .. ' +y i. l 1 a wAl i° ,( . ; a t.. r x ♦ •s/-• <a�> y ,>, s a .t d a ! / Y..- * i! ' I •. y <,' ..t• y r• H < i:` .-:..: +,. :::..: �t n lc v 4 ,Ri ':,,r,:„.�:: y,?...�..,• .t'wit f, 4 : � t t•< 7 'i i' V t s Yr-wf.Nw,» k t. )1 1 G Lf.r h Y fit t N v 'ri`.lK SK^ri ! !.> ♦1.-'.1. f) . Y+• . � • . + . ,., 1 %f l� f lkal < rit r j+.'i d { ! . a' y � 'a + . Y .� .:..... ..: 1.... .. N / y:. . . I a�� :-:-:' .-f- : *:.'.-.' .". .. : . . .. . , r: . . I . . . �:- .. : . —J 119 95;_ s 1.1 CJCT 10 ' 94 13: 56 R 'ROT & PROD SAFETY P.3 installed cellular radio base station antennas will not produce exposure levels considered significant in areas normally accessible to the public. Mobile Cellular Units Two types of mobile cellular antennas are available for vehicles: body mounted and glass mounted. In the glass mounted version, the RF energy is coupled to the antenna by an adaptive box located inside the cat in proximity to the base of the antenna. Since glass is transparent to UHF signals, all of the energy is transferred from the radio, through the glass, to the antenna without the need for holes or exposed coaxial cables required in the body - mounted versions. Each antenna type has been extensively characterized to determine the exposure levels of bystanders and the occupants of the car. In the case of metal body cars, when the cellular antennas are properly installed follow- ing the manufacturer's procedures, exposure of the passengers is at least four hundred times lower than all U.S. guidelines. It has been found experimentally that, when the antenna is mounted outside the vehicle, the metal body of the car provides substantial shielding of the passengers. This is particularly true for roof and glass mounted antennas that are located at the top or near the top of the windshield or back window. Occupants in vehicles with an antenna mounted on the trunk lip, trunk center or fender are also shielded, but to a lesser degree. In all cases, because of the low power emitted by the antenna (3.5 W), exposure of the passengers is at levels well below U.S, safety guide. lipes. There are two groups of unshielded exposure cases: (1) occupants of cars with plastic bodies, and (2) bystanders located very close to fender mounted antennas. Experimen• tal data show that when the distance between a person and a cellular antenna is 20 cm or more, the exposure levels are below U.S. guidelines. It is possible, however, for a bystander to come within 20 cm of certain antenna configurations. In this case, the exposure is sporadic and of brief duration. Time -averaging over any thirty minute period as specified in the guidelines reduces the exposure of the casual bystander to well below the exposure limits. In summary, the experimental data dearly show that the exposure from mobile cellular radios can easily be held below the most recent U.S. exposure guidelines by using present antenna technology and existing, widely employed, installation guidelines. Hand -Held Uults Cellular hand-held (portable) units resemble, in size and form factor, a telephone handset, The antenna is located on the top of the handset and protrudes beyond the head of the user during use, Because the antenna is mounted on top of the handset, there is a distance of about 1.5.5 cm (depending on the specific telephone in valve) between the base of the antenna and the head of the user. The cellular portable unit emits 0.6 W, a power level well below the 2.0 W commonly used for CB (citizens' band) hand-held portable transceivers, and the 6 W commonly used for hand-held marine transceivers. The exposure of the head and body of the user of a cellular hand-held unit has also been measured. The measurements show that the exposure of the user is negligible, i.e., the head (the organ closest to the antenna) is exposed to levels below the most recent exposure guidelines, Conclusions With regard to the safety of exposure to radiofrequency energy from hand-held cellular telephones, mobile telephones and from cell -site antennas, recom- mended exposure limits and guidelines have been published by the American National Standards Institute, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measure• ments, and the International Radiation Protection Association. Prolonged exposure at or below the levels recommended in these guidelines is considered safe for human health. Measurements have shown that routine exposures of users and other persons to cellular telephones and cell -site antennas are below the limits in these standards. Therefore, based on present knowledge, exposures associated with cellular radio are considered to be safe. 1. Q. Balzano, 0. Garay, and F. Steel, "Energy Deposition in Simulated Human Operations of 800 MHz Portable Transmitters," IEEE Transac- tions on Vehicular Technology, Vol. VT. 27, No. 4, Nov.1978. 1 A.W. Guy and CX Chou, "Spe- cific Absorption Rates of Energy in Man Models Exposed to Cellular UHF Mobile -Antenna Fields," IEEE Transac. Lions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, Vol, MTT-34, No. 6, June 1986. 3, Second Report and Order, Genera! Docket No. 79-144, Federal Communications Commission, FCC 87- 63, April 9,1987. 4. R.C. Petersen and P.A. Testagrossa, "Radio -Frequency Electro• magnetic Fields Associated with Cellular -Radio Cell -Site Antennas," Bluekciromagnedd,13:537-542,1992. 5. ANSWEEE Std. C95,1-1991i92, "Standard for Safety Levels with Respect Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," American National Standards Institute, New York, NY,1992, 6. IEEE United States Activities Board, "Human Exposure to Radiofre- quencv Fields for Portable and Mobile Telephones and Other Communication Devices," Entity Position Statement, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, December 2,1992. The Electromagnetic Briergy Polky&mce b a non-proi3t:amoci lion of manu8cturea and users of electrical and electronic systems. EEPA devalops e ucadonal ptugtams, sponsors research and advocatw raaoaal; 'science -based ex{� x= standards on the production and use of non-ioniring electrom wxtic energy. This Pact Sheet Series is part.of its progrun to increase public and government awareim of the importance 6Fnon-ionizing ek=magneticenergy. Unlimited repmducdonoftha materialisgranted; please cnditUPAas thesounx.Thisand otherFactShecaonnon-ionizing electromagnetic er&Wissues am3vadabkatcost:Conact; EEPA.1255Twentv.nirdl mwf ►JAY/Na-th;nmAn Pr�Ma7:ii'+,1.r� 'L )11(en IA-m ¢.s <� 5 --- 15_ "71; I __j mu � rkGD SRFETY P.E Fact Sheet No. 4 CELLULAR RADIO - CELLULAR TELEPHONE Mobile Communications Through Electromagnetic Energy n 1974, action by the Federal Communications Commission increased the radio spectrum available for land mobile communica- tions and allocated certain frequencies to be used for a new nationwide compatible mobile radio system. The FCC's action resulted from the recognition of a large, pent-up demand in many major cities for more mobile telecommunications service. The benefits to the general public of a mobile radio service interconnected to the existing wire -line telephone network, in terms of increased produc- tivity and energy conservation, are obvious. The system that evolved is called cellular radio or cellular tele- phone. The cellular system provides a dramatic increase in available service over previous technology. This is accomplished by dividing a large service area into small geometric "cells," each with its ovrn "cell site" antennas. Since each cell site provides service only within its cell boundaries or within immediately adjacent cells, cells more distant can independently and simultaneously reuse the same radio channels. By design, then, each cell site provides service only over a very small area and, therefore, both the mobile units and the cell site transmit- ters operate at low power levels. Moreover, as the system expands, the cells are subdivided requiring even �lower power levels. simple to use. A mobile operator is not required as in earlier systems. The customer merely dials the number desired and the rest is accomplished automatically. As a vehicle moves from cell to cell, channels are switched automatically, ensuring that the call is not dropped. The signal from the mobile unit is controlled continually to ensure that the mobile unit communi- cates only with that particular cell site which provides optimum signal conditions. Antennas (Cell Sites) The cellular radio system operates in the 8s900 megahertz (MHz) ultra- high -frequency (UHF) band, at frequen. cies formerly used for UHF television broadcast. A ail site usually contains several antennas. Cell site antennas are frequently installed atop 100.150 foot free stand- ing masts. The propagation pattern of the antenna is such that most of the energy is directed toward the horizon and not downward. Thus, the levels of radio frequency energy near the base of a mast or tower are minimal. in order to characterize the electromagnetic environment for these antennas, detailed measurements have been made near antenna systems at points considered important by the public; i.e., points near the base of the mast. in each case, the operating power level was augmented to simulate full capacity maximum power condi. show that the corresponding exposure levels in locations normally accessible to the public are well below the latest safety standards, even under full - capacity maximum power conditions. in some uses, antennas and their supporting structures are located on the roofs of buildings. To assess this Mx of arrangement, measurements were made at head height on a flat roof in the vicinity of a typical omnidirec- donal antenna installation. The measured data were extrapolated to a worst -case situation involving s'unulta- neous transmission from 96 transmit- ters (most antennas have a maximum of 16 channels) which represents the maximum number of channels antici- pated at any single location. Bemuse of the intermittent nature of transmission in an operational system, extrapolations based on an "all -transmitters -on" premise also represent an unrealistic worst -case estimate. The maximum extrapolated levels at head height do not exceed current U.S. exposure guidelines at any point more distant than five feet from the antenna. Additional measurements made within the building immediately below the roof -mounted antenna, and with the transmitter output power adjusted to correspond to 96 transmitters operating simultaneously, revealed a maximum power density that was at least two thousand times lower than U.S. exposure guidelines, in conclusion, the measurements 3 • saternato sites, (i.e. on other than Children's village land) which would ACCOM06ate ICellul&r One°s) need for its business." ThSB• article 78 proceeding-ahal2cogring the board's deta mination followed. Cellular One alleged that the board's actions in debyiug the use variance umare arbitrary and I Caprieiouse unsupported by the record* not supported by substantSal,avidenca. and contrary to law. Cellular One asserted that the -board failed to apply the appropriate standard of public necessity set forts is batter of Coaeol dated �dia N ¢a►an, I • and, instead# erroneously applied the test of unnecessary bALrdshipr applicablo to non -utility applications for use variances. Supreme Court granted the petition and directed appellants to issue Lhe use variance. finding, as a matter of law* that Cellular One is a public utility and that the beard#s iissdinq and conclusions to the contrary were incorrecte and that the board#s decision was *significantly flared in its analysis and conclusf onse and ^ arbi tr&ry and capricious.* The -Appellate i i Divisions affi ►ed. stating that Supreme Court properly determined i that -Cellular One is &•public utility, that the test for a use I variance' set forth its M=Leer' of coflselidated Edison Coe v Jeff _n is applieablt, that Cellular One made a sufficient &bowing to warrant the issuance of the use variance, and that the boards detercainat3oaQ to the contrary was arbitrary and capricious (188 AD2d 648) . This Court, granted leave to appeal. . On this appeal, appellants contend that the dottrmth- ` L ations of 8upr4me court and the Appellato Division unnecessarily expand the test * f or entitlement to a use variance In liatteer 2L ConSalidaatedLdison, Apra, to Lnelude the fael cities .of hli public util.tties't regardless of who&her they provide essential services do -the •,community. Appollante urge that the exception should be uaed do protect only public utilities, such as electric, 9aed4. 'etsam and water corporations, that supply essentia; services which are ooawoaly recognized by the grant of "governmental'type" powers, including the power of eminent domain, monopoly status, And partial zoning exemption for their x9jor fotilities. Respondent argues that the'test in M tear of 0g1&olidatgA Jg _son, guprap applles to all public Utilities, and that It is ® public utiftty within the meaning of the Court's decision in that case, and, thus, it is -entitled t.o thS application of the "public necessity" use Variance test. A "public utility" has been defined to mean "a private business, often a monopoly, which provides services so essential to the public interest as to enjoy certain privileges such as wUnont domain and be subSect to such governmental regulation as fixing of rataa'and standards of tervioe" (2 Anderson. AaOriean Law of Zoning# S 12.32t pp 569-369 [ad edj). Characteristics of the public Utility include (1) the essential nature of tho services offeead which t<ust be taken into account when regulations a*k to limit expansion of facilities which provide the •erpicss, (a) "operatlion) under a franchise, subject to tome tjij 203 measure of public regulation," and (3) logistic problems, such as -he fact that •"lt)he product of the uti.11ty must be piped, wired, or othezw-ite -se:xved to each uses ' * { P �' the supply must be Maintained .at atconstant level. to meet minute -by -minute needj, \ndi (tthe um.,teas no alternative soutce (and'• the supplier commonly has bd:, altsrnative means of drliverp" (i,,,d ; at 569) . w6 -convI ud• that a cel 1 ul a r . to l ophons co:Wany is a ''public utility` as defined here and sgfficiently possasues the chsractoristta outlived above. In addition, the construction of an antenna tower -in a residential district to facilitate the •eupply of cellular tol*phone.sorviee is s "public utility building" within the meaning of a tonlaq ordinance (s,r tep 3datt Of Roses ZAMIL- v jUrd of Bonin® AgglAls for the Totitn ei ° a .AkIp 3.70 71D2d 979) . In Watter of Coneolitlated agJAM ( ), this Court i onated a "pvblte utility" - exception to the test for unnecessary . ;%ardship, Warranting the grant of a use variance, outllned in H tter of Ca to=w Stsinh3lb®r, .a 3n utter of Qnsolidatmd Edison* the • $ontu9 Board of Appeals of the village of Suchanan : sn Jam, g- „o to v SISAMAILMtri the court articulated the factors tat A. zoning 1xMrQ must consider before finding unnecessary hardarhip warranting the grant of a use varianvee The Court steted'that."the record must show that (1) the land in Wastion C&nnot•yield a reasonoble return it used only for a purpose allowed . iA that %one; 2) that the plight of the otmer in due to uniq u'd •clrcuutanees sad not to the general conditions in the neighborhood which may reflect the- unreaeonableness of the zoning ordinaacelitself; and (3) that the use to be authorized by the varganca will not eater the essential character of the locality" (AJU at 76) Iy5 9"- 711 ceniod an application by Consolidated Edison company for a variance tope -the •ctrastrurtion of a wet cooling tower for its nuclear 90herating plant. The Board .determined that no � practical diff1cu1tL6X-:.X* uirinq a variant®,had been shown. Consolidated Edison C44"Y:commencsd an article 7$ proceedingr seeking to annul the board's determination. The Court held the factors outlined • ft'kitter of Otto v • Steinhilbar, su ra, are not appropriaktd *Sire the entity requesting the variance is a public ntiiity. Maj. the Cowart etatodi • tnstead, the utility st show that modification is a pubmuiSc.necessity In that it Is required to render safe and adequate seraiee, and that there are eompslling treasons, economic or otherwise,, . which make it wore feasible to. modify the plant than to use alternative sources of poxes such.as may be pcovidodby oar facillUes tterot 4$ . ' The Court 9tit4W further that '"whore the intrusion or burden on the C®Mnhity is Minimal, the showing - equired by the utility should bs Correspondingly reduced" '(id.). . r of Consolidated Edison, VuPX&V applies to all Public utllitfaa. It also applLax to entirely new sit.ings,of lacilitia®. as Vell as the modification of existing tocilitios. As tie stated in that ease, "t1)t has long been held that a toning b hcd array not. etoeludo a utility from a community where the utility has shown a n®ed for its facil4ti4s" i..d. et &Irk . Z'lle�ce• can be no. question of Cellul®r one's need to erect the call site 0 "- 711 -10- ►..o. &03 to eliminate service gaps in its cellular telephone service area. The prOPssed'osal site will also improvi the transmission &no reception of-ersstinq service. Applitation of our holding in meat•= o_ &69_0lidated Edison, Uprat to aitings of cellular telephone eompaaies, such as Cellular One, permits those companies to.Construct structuras necessary for their operation which are prohibited because of esistSng soninq laws and to -provide the desired services to the surrounding c0MMun1tY. rufthermor*, the test we annovncod in that ease, as well as th roplations of the FCC and the PSC, serve to guard agltinst app#21ant&' concerns about the potential proliferation of siMLI applieat•tons and the inability of beat land us• offiC3als to ' *Xotcise Contfol to protect their eommnities. Mthing in the plain languags of the amendment to section 7-712-b(.2)4 of the village Law supports the conclusion m geetion 77712-b(2)(b)providesm No :such use- variance shall bo qranted by a board Of appears without a showing by•tha applicant that the Applicable Zoning regulation* and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship* in order to prove such ut®ctesary hardship the applicant ®hall demonstrate to tho*board of appeals that (1) under applicable zoning regulations the applicant is deprived at all econo?Uc use or benefit from the propeM in question, which deprivation must be established by competent financial ®videnes) (2) that the alleged hards'hip retatinj to the pryin question is unique, and does not apply to a substantial poart=on of the district or neighborbo®d' (3) that the requested use variance, if granted wi11 not titer the etsentLal aharseter of the n*Lghborhood= and (4) that the alleged hardship has not been self- cteated. -�J.• . �. 203 that the Erogislature intended to overrule Matter of Consolidated d LLop.se ttbn:7-7a2-b(3) makes no reference to a "public utility," andi".In eesance, codlfles the requirements for demonstratino,unhecessary hardship established in Mee ter of otte, sv rurthbrmuo the offecttve data of tha amendment to section 7-1124b'Baas July 1, 1022, long aftsr the zoning board doniod petluohWX variance application and after• petitlaner co=Qftced thL9 article 78 proceedings ps•a#o not persuaded,by appellMS ' argUment that the s0vord suppoAt their conclusion that Cellular one d€d not establiah its:: ®ntitleaaenr to a use variance. a board's d0termQination•-Afnying a vorlanc• will be sustained only It it has a rational bi,its *end- is supported by the record (Ma .°l oor0;3dat eon, 43 NY2d, at SOB, Ma). The vetoed supMta the bandusion that the proposed installation would hav .a n921114ble-lapact on the surroun4$ng neighborhood. It would not aflect'waiMn4 machines# telephone®, radios or telisvisions, and there Would. be no disruption of any other trequencies. Furthermore j, the transmission® from the call site would not affect humans;• Animals ar any other organiamse Mersover, the record Support. -the conclusion that Cellular Ono sustasnod Its burden of proving the r*wisit• public necessity. Cellular one eatabituhed tJ�at the erection of the cell site would enable it to .vm*dy gaps isi''its' service area that cur"ntly prevent it grass Providing adequate sosrvxce to its custom us in the Dobbs terry 14 � -'X 711. � •120 N®. 201 . 1 arla. !so ritAct'kal basis exists for. the. board• s detarmination, Ad the hoard::abased its discration,• as a matter of law, in . r y d4nyinq pstltion*rf s amlication for &: use variance. XC*c ° dimgly. the order of the sneilate Vir►ision should affirmM' -with costs. ; j order atf firmi : %ii.th costs, opinion krr Judge smith. Chlef 001a xay® atad ftdga- :$tense Titonge. Maine akf sanacoaa and Levine concur. 1 j Cocided mves ir. 18. 1913 i I• l i I I I 1f . .. - 2 p i (� TOTAL. �.�3 13 F SENT BY:CELLLLAR ONE isa :10-11-34 : 8:270 ; ARKETING/OPERATIONS" ►3a Cellular Phone Transmission Towers SAFE? 407 375 6528:# 2/12 em vd IY BWWW T" WbWW Fgh". CTIA cWft Tdom nmunicad" IMMy Aesoctelion 1230 Covet 1 Avenue, NA Suite 200 washkow, ®.Q 2DO35 202-MMI TelSOM 202.7e"721 Fax Read On 051- � I SEAT BY : CELL ULIR ONE :10-11-34 : 8 : 28M ; NURKET I NG/OPMAT I ONS, 407 375 6528 : # 3/ 12 FAST FACTS Cellular Transmission Towers of Community interests are considered in locating towers. ✓ All safety standards are met by cellular towers. ✓ Power levels of radio waves from cellular towers are very low, often hundreds of times below the FCC safety limit. ✓ his "cells" get smaller, the power gets even lower. of The power levels of TV and radio station towers are hundreds or thousands of tunes stronger than cellular towers. ✓ Police and fire department radio towers usually generate more power than cellular towers, especially in urban areas. Rest assured. Cellular transmission towers are safe! For more detailed information, tom the page. 153 9"- �11 M F SMT BY-CELLLLV ONE :10-11-94 : 8:28:L11 ;1MEfING/OPERATIONS, 407 375 6528;# 4/12 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Cellular Transmission Towers 1. Are emissions from c eUular towers safe? Yes. Cellular tower meet standards set for exposure to radio -frequency energy and are subject to regular inspection and government regulation. 2. How can we be assured they are safe? The antennas used to broadcast and receive signals to and from cellular telephones are beat at or near the top of a ceUular tower. Typically, this is at a height of 100 to 200 feet above the ground. Since exposure to any electromagnetic energy decreases rapidly with distance, average exposures on the ground can be as little as one thousandth of the safety standard. Power levels at cellular sites am quitar, low, due to the relatively small geographic arras they serve. A cellular tower emits 100 watts of power or less, often as little as 10 wants in urban areas. By compaiison, a television tower emits up to S million watts, while a commercial radio station tower emits up to 100,000 watts. Police and fire department radio towers gamste as much as 500 watts of power. For these reasons and others, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has described excessive exposure from cellular sites as "highly unlikely.' 3. Aren't people living near the towers or walldng past bombarded with dangerous radiation? No. The height of the towers and the fenced -off area around their assures that only low and harmless levels of RF energy reach residents nand passers-by. The FCC says measurennents around transmission towers show levels 'well below limits" rec ommearded in safety standards. 4. What agencies regulate cellular towers? 154 The FCC and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) acre involved in overseeing the construction, siting and performance of cellular towers. The non -governmental American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is the primary organization that sets radio -frequency (RF) exposure limits for cellular sites and other transmission devices and facilities. 9 �I I F a SEJT BY: CEILUAR ONE :1 U-11-94 ; 8 : 28AM ; MARKET I NG/OPMAT IONS, 407 375 6528: # 5/ 12 S. How arc tower sites determined? Site selection is not a random process. Many factors are taken into account, including the views of nearby residents; the overall cellular grid pattern and service area, usage patterns, topography and potential obstructions to the clear, line -of -sight signals needed for maximum quality. In urban and other residential areas, case is taken to choose locations that are as unobtrusive as possible. Relevant safety and environmental concerns are reviewed with the appropriate government agencies. b. Do cellular towers near airports interfere with aviation? As a matter of physical safety, the FCC and FAA maintain stringent regulations on the construction, marking and lighting of cellular towers near airports or in line with runways or flight paths. The FAA requites an extensive review before approving the construction of any cellular towers in arras where airspace or flight panes might be affected. 7. ' After towers are placed into service, what safety practices are observed? To maintain FAA standards. for visibility, towers ate painted in altartating colors of aviation white and aviation orange. Painted surfaces are inspected on a regular basis to check for fading. All togs with aviation warning lights ate required to be equipped with emergency lights and backup power systems. Towns tight bulbs are replaced when they reach 75 pavent of their rated life expectancy and all bulbs on a (given tower are replaced at the same tines. Comprehensive logs are lop on all inspections, maintenance, system failures and bulb replacements. B. What about structural maintenance? Do towees ever collapse? Though other binds of towers have collapsed. this has not been a problem in ties cellular industry. Accidents involving structural defects are virtually unknown. Basic, routine inspection and maintenance helps assure the soundness of these structures. Among the safeguards: 10, Guyed towers are regularly checlmd to make sure they are standing straight, Even slight variances are cause for mandatory, cormdve auction. Guying systems are chocked for loose or missing parts, rust or flaying. Tower foundations are checked for cracks, detrxio`ation or settling. Structural components are checked for cracks, bends, faulty welds and rust. Equipment vulnerable to rodent damage, especially electrical systems, is carefully checked. -Z- 155 O"- 711 F SENT BY : CLL.LLL.att UNL :1 u - l i -y4 : b : ZUA4X I )LU tit 1 11Nw vrMA t t v1N31 4 u 1 010 U040 0 a OIL;? 9. Most towers are constructed of metal. Doesn't that make them perfect lightning rods? Like odw such structures, cellular towers are all fully grounded to guard against property damage or physical injury in the event of a lightning strike. Other pr=ustions sire taken as well. For example, no employees are permitted to work on cellular tower: in &=tening weather. Furthermore, the cellular transmission system is housed in an adjacent facility, separated from the tower. 10. Do cellular carriers put as much effort Into keeping structi►res and grounds attractive as in keeping V eir towers in sound condition? Yes. Cellular operators arc proud members of their communities and strive to be good neighbors. Lawn care, building and grotmds maintenance and other aesthetic functions are important responsibilities that are taken seriously. -3. SENT BY : CELl.LLaR ONE ;10-11-94 ; 8: 290 ; MU(ET 1 N+G/OPEXAT1 ONS— 407 375 6528;# 7/12 7 How Cellular Works FACT SEUM Cellular Transmission Towers • Cellular technology uses very low -power radio waves to transmit and receive telephone calls. Cellular radio waves transmit voice and data communications in the ultra -high frequency (UHF) band, similar to the r4o waves used for television channels 13 and higher. • A city or region is divided into small geographic alms called c lls, each served by its own low -power radio transmitter and receiver. Once a cellular call or data message reaches a transmitter/receiver tower, it Is plugged into the regular land -line phone system. Each cc11 is so small that the a nwxmt of power required by cellular telephones and towers to communicate within that call is very low. Power Generated from Celhdar T raemabsinn Towers • The radio frequency (RF) energy used by cellular towers and cellular telephones is a form of electromagnetic energy known as iron -ionizing," the same land of energy generated by ordinary light and television signals. This is not to be confitsed with "ionizing" radiation, such as x-rays, which can cause damage to biological tissue. • The antennas on a cellular tower generally are located at or near the top — Mpically at a height of 100 to 200 feat. Because radio frequency energy loses power rapidly the farther you get from the transmission point, avarage exposures on the ground are quite low, hundreds and even as thousand times lower than accepted standards for safety. The transmission power levels of cellular towels are very low. A typical tower emits 100 watts of power or less. Those in urban area may cmit as little as 10 watts. In contrast, a television tower emits up to 5 million watts, while a commercial radio station tower operates at up to 100,000 watts. Local police and fire department towers produce up to 500 watts of power. 15� 05== '�:Ii _j qaT By : CELLLLaR ONE ;10 -11-34 ; 8 : 30AM ;MARKET I NG/OPER.tT 1ONS-- 407 375 6528;# 8/12 ]BACKCRC UMER Cevul r Trsansnsission Towers The safety of customers, employees and d:e public is the overriding. concern in the construction and operation of the transmission and reception town that are crucial to the nation's cellular telephone system. In this regard, cellular carriers adhere to stringent .Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) rules governing tower construction, mait►tetwce, and safety. flow CeUWv Wortis Cellular technology uses very !ow -power radio waves to transmit and receive telephone calls. Cellular radio waves transmit voicae and data comtnutticaWO in the ultra -high frequency (UHF) band, similar to the radio waves used for television channels 13 and higher. T'he cellular system works by dividing a city or region, into small geographic areas called cells, each served by its own low -power radio transmitter and raoaiver, 0ttaa a cellular COU or data mange reaches a transmitter/receiver tower, it is plugged into the regular land -line phone system. Each cell is so small than the amount of power n quired by cellular telephones and towers to communicate within that cell is very low. Each cell tower site may have multiple channels to provide service to many callers at once. As a caller drives or otherwise troves across town, the radio-frequarcy (RF) signal from dw portable telephone is automatically passed, from one all site to the next, without inteixupdott. ElectrowavxAk )Energy The radio frequency (RF) energy used by cellular umm and cellular telephones is a Rim of electromagnetic energy known as "non -ionizing," the same " of energy generated by ordinary light and television signals. This is not to be confused with 1ortizing" radiation, such as x-rays, which can cause damage to biological tissue. Like all electrical devices, cellular towers produce electromagnetic fields (EMPs), the invisible lines of force that surround any electric current. These fields are found throughout nature and are evert produced by chemical interactions within the human body. We are constantly being exposed to a variety of such fields from natural and man-made sources. r5 Fi . 1 As the ndonwide cellular system continues to expand to meet growing dzmand, more towers will be needed. Site selection is not a random process. Many factors are taken into careful consideration, including the overall cellular grid and service area, local usage patterns, topography and potential obstructions to the clear radio signals required for reliable, high - quality service, and, of course, the concerns of residextts. The construction of a cellular tower first requires extensive consultation with the local community, zoning officials, the FCC, the FAA, state public service commissions and county and local governments. The FCC and FAA, for example, . have stria requirement& pertaining to the construction, lighting. and marling of cellular towers. The FCC has regulatory authority over safe cellular transmissions. rower buintenaenea Basic, routine inspection and aWntenance help assure ongoing compliance with FCC and FAA regulations and the continued operational and structun4l safety of cellular towe m These towers are inspected on a regular basis to ensure that they we sturdy and strong; beat they arc standing straight; that them are no loose, rusting, fraying or missing parts; that the foundations have no cracks or detariorstion from settling; and that all structural components am free of cracks, beards, faulty welds and rust All towers with aviation warning lights are required to be equipped with eanergency lights and backup power systems. Toter light bulbs are routinely replaced When they nuh iS per+ mt of their life expectancy. Moreover, all bulbs on a given tower are reputed at the same time. QUOTES Cellular Tratamisfon Towers ommm remts am bane been made arouad typical cellular base stations have shown that CMWW- level power duties art well below limit rocamrrended by mrantly accepted RF and microwave safety standards " Federal Comm animdons Cormissiotl, Ofte of Engrinoering and Tom►, Specbum BV=ing Division; "Infbn=mon on Cellulw Radio and Radioiraquency Radiation'; January 1993 (I m'e0 on rite reported thresholds of bioloeicatl cf%cb in the XkMft literature, the ,emn tie wkoo ,s of an standard setting vmvs m the wood cur hang the moat eve of the USSR), wA the form of radio wave modulation, it Is my Winioo thaw ernbdm horn cellular h6lities arc safe and do not pose any threat to the buldr of the wearetal po iott. -.....,.Sow�,����r+e�g{aar�dlle�sss��o.'f-twht modulation u�s'eSpd�,,th�n�+e�yi�s�no soie basis for than to be any health conicerm about VMYWa! Ummmismon fkiliYW INLm m" Arthur W. Guy, Ph.D. Bioelectrvnnagnehca Resc uch Ubo AMY University of Waftgtm Center of Bio g wM aonsa. is alai noth q is the peep reviewed literature would suggest a harmful health coact from wpm= to radiation at the low levels assoc ized with cxp=n to cellular radio wave trwrnissions. This conclusion rests on the expert opinions of the large majority of scientists in the physical, medical, and biologWal sciences. A few scientists and contrbAW3 to the popular nm& may hold contrary views, but the Overwhelming thrust of expert opinion fees a conclusion that cellular radio wave trmurnisssion>s are safe." Dan Justesen, Ph.D. Professor of Neuropsychology, University of Kansas School of Medicine, j Research Caron Scientist, VA Medical Center, Kansas City, Missouri _j I SENT 6Y:CELLLLAR ONE ;10-11-94 8:31AM MARKET NG/OPERATIONS—• 407 375 6528c#11/12 r I I i 1 i i ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY EXPERTS ON THE ISSUE OF CELLULAR TOWER TRANSMISSIONS I • i Eleanor Adair, PhD. John B. Pierce Foundation Laboratories, Yale Laboratories (203) 562-9901 Jerrold Bu*dw& Ph.D. Cliff Associate Prohmor of i A&dop and Radiation Safety Officer Urdvossity of Calif r* Davie Medics! Center (916) 7a4-5620 Arthur W. Guy, Ph.D. Noolociroina�ctics Radearch Laboratory University off Waddvon Ca9tw of ffiioasgineairi 1 (206) 486-6439 Don Justeeeai, Pb.D. ' Professor of Nauop WcholoV Unhwsity of Kansae School of A a&cine; Research Career Sciei>dA VA Medical Center, Ulm City, Missouri (816) 763-4348 (816) 225-7256 95-- "'11 Cq POWER LEVELS FROM TOWERS CID } UHF TV 7mer . 3 MHUOa win FM L Tower . 100AW Wrath AM Radio Tower -50,000 Watts Police & Fire Station Towers 500 �tt� Cella or TOM S00 WmIt's Cellular Tower Actual Power - - - 10-100 Wotts 0r Less H. CN ft... �1iWR�i. {�11�I�YIINp lN;. fb�ups�icMiit I �} 711 F McCaw Receives Congressional Recognition McCaw employees received a special accolade for our immediate and effective reaction to Hurricane Andrew. On September 30,1992, United States Representative Norman D. Dicks (D-WA) made a statement on the floor of the House of Representatives praising McCaw for demonstrating "the true definition of public service." The complete statement was published in the Congressional Record for that date as a permanent part of the history of activity on the floor of the House of Representatives. Framed copies of his statement will soon appear in Miami, the DC Office, and in Kirkland. The full text of the statement appears below. Also, on October 28,1992. McCaw hosted a reception in conjuction with CTIA, Ameritech, GTE and BellSouth to recognize the invaluable contribution of the cellular industry and the support of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") in the aftermath of Hurricanes Andrew and Iniki. In addition to their general expression of appreciation, employees of the four cellular companies nominated particular members of the FCC staff to be recognized for their response above and beyond the call of duty that enabled cellular carriers to provide emergency cellular service in the stricken areas. In appreciation of these efforts and on bel"of the residents in Florida and Hawaii who received emergency communications services, McCaw donated "unique" award plaques: pieces of the Homestead cell site in Miami, a 300 foot tower that blew over during Hurricane Andrew, were mounted on engraved bases and presented to 15 FCC staffers as a souvenir of their recognition. Vol. 138 WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1992 No. 137 I I I J-4,1:ti t t • M(CCAw CELLULAR COMMUNICATIONS EFFORTS. DURING HURRICANE A.mgm' Hon. Norman D. Dicks of Washington IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, September 30,1992 Mr. DICKS. *Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a company from my home State of Washington who recently demonstrated the true definition of public service. McCaw Cellular Communications, based in Kirkland. WA. which operates under the name of Cellular One in many cities across the United States, including several in the S tate of Florida, went above and beyond the call of duty in their efforts to help the victims of Hurricane Andrew. In its wake, -the hurricane left devastation in all of south Florida. Thousands of people were left with noway to communicate to their loved ones that they were alive and safe. McCaw CellularKellular One immediately responded by flying in portable cell sites, technicians. and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of phone equipment, to meet the needs of the many who were without any means of communication. With conventional lard lira rendered unusable. cellular became the only method of practical field communication For example. at Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, McCaw Cellular/Cellular One provided the only method of communication immediately following the storm at this critical site. While sustaining damages, McCaw's cellular system remained functional throughout the storm. In hard hit Dade County the system remained 60 percent opertkmal the day of the storm and 100 percent operational by the end of the week. Both during the storm and the several weeks of cleanup after the hurricane, McCaw Cellula/Celhrlar One contributed over 2,000 phones and over Sl million in relief efforts, such as cellular phones, service. and manpower, so that people could communicate with each other at this most critical time. An example of McCaw's willingness to assist the community was seen when McCaw Cellular/Cellular One provided moving "Calling Centers" to allow victims of the hurricane to make free calls to loved ones around the country. support which will continue throughout the cleanup. In addition, they provided numerous government agencies including the National Guard. the American Red Cross, FEMMA, Florida Department of Insurance, the U.S. Army. the White House Advance Team. and Florida Governor Lawton Chiles office with communications during his dire emergency. In sum, without the efforts of all involved, the relief endeavor might have been as disastrous as the hurricane itself. Without the efforts of our friends at McCaw, this most vital resource might not have been available during this time of dire need. Ho4 3 CELLULAR HE" i7ACTS Published by McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc., a parent company of Cellular One Key facts ® McCaw provided over 2,000 phones to relief workers in South Florida. Despite damage to 18 cell sites, the McCaw system remained operational throughout the storm. ■ McCaw's South Florida office received equipment and technical support from McCaw offices around the country includ- ing: Pittsburgh, New York, Sc auic, Louisiana, Orlando, and Oklahoma. ® A disaster preparedness plan included the purchase of a fuel truck. This enabled technicians to refuel generators and keep the system operating throughout the power outages. ■ McCaw worked directly with numerous relief agencies including:11tc National Guard, the American red Cross, IT-NiA, Florida Dept. of l.aw L'nforccmcnt, Florida Dept. of Insurance, Florida Governor Lawton Chiles office, and the White House advance team. ■ McCaw has contributed over S1 million in equipment, service, and manpower to the relief efforts, including over S20,000 a day in service that will continue throughout the clean-up. McCaw System Remains Operable Throughout The Storm Amidst the hurricane damage in SOULllcrn Florida remained an essential need for cumrnu- nications among disaster relief agencies and (,p 0 ma workers. With conventional land line tele- phones partially or completely disabled, cellular became the only method of communications. While sustaining damages, McCaw's cellular system remained functional throughout the storm. In hard hit Dade County the system remained: • 60 percent operational the day of the storm • 65 percent operational 48 hours following the storm • 100 percent operational by the end of the week. Framework of disaster plan provided key guidance during McCaw's relief efforts According to John Casamassina, VP of Opera- tiOns/Florida, the McCaw Cellular/Cellular One team followed guidelines from a regional disaster preparedness plan. The day before the hurricane hit Miami, the team made preliminary calls to key vendors to guarantee proper back-up equipment was in place. Then to ensure cell site hardware was in good working order, technicians tested and fueled generators and batteries. Fatally, the team worked with the McCaw Cellular/Cellular One office in Orlando to provide back-up for the South Florida business and customer care offices. continued -OFA Published by McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc., a parent company of Cellular One Cellular tests safe for electromagnetic energy Electromagnetic energy has been examined as a possible health concern emitted by cellular towers and cellular telephones. Scientific findings have repeatedly found both the towers and the telephones, in the worst case, to register exposures 15 times smallarthan the recommended ANSI Protection Standards with respect to human exposure. EMF studies continue McCaw and others in the cellular industry are continuing to study 1 MF as it relates to the cellular industry. McCaw comments "We continue to emphasize safety in our product development and usc," said Chairman and Chief Executivc OfCccr Craig 0.McC.aw. "We are committed as a company to continue to showcase cellular as a product that in- creases safety. We will work toward that commitment in all areas of our business." Key points on EMF e Numerous studies have been conducted to assure that cellular equipment and facilities comply with applicable safety guidelines. Research has been con- ducted by: Dr. Quirino Balzano of yiotorola, Dr. Robert Cleveland of the FCC, Dr. Arthur W. Guy of the Center of 13ioengineering at the University of Washington, Dr. Don Justesen of the University of Kansas School of Medi- cine. ♦ Measurements of a cell site with trans- mitter output power adjusted to simulate 96 transmitters operating simultaneously revealed a maximum power density that was at least ten thousand times lower than U.S. exposure guidelines. • Low -powered portable cellular tele- phones expose the user to levels far below existing U.S. protection guides and lower than any foreseeable U.S. regulations. ♦ The FDA (Federal Drug Administration) has stated, "presently, the FDA believes that an adequate margin of safety exists between exposure and harmful effects." For more information contact Bob Radiffe ................(206) 828-8685 Vice President, Corporate Communications or Todd Wolfenbarger ...(206) 828-1851 Director of Corporate Communications ,�•icCaw Cellular Communications, Inc. 5400 Carillon Point Kirkland, WA 98033 (206) 828-8685 Vast Offirc Vax 012125 � G � ittnti, .Vturibn 33101 ) � 1ingmana T_ InuniroU /� Iresidcnt 5it611 KIR Nit uettue vi(/6ly' y/^�y Miami, ]Fluribit 33127 (305) 757-7?.83 April 28, 1994 PRESS RELEASE We citizens are outraged that cellular antennas are being placed in our communities without notice to or permission of the community. we would like to know: first, What benefit these antennas would be to community? second, Why citizens and property owners where not properly notified? third, What studies have been done on the effects of these antennas on the population and what were the results? WE SAY NO TO ANTENNAS IN OUR COMMUNITY. For more information, please contact Ray Fauntroy at (305) 757-7283 /V TA� �rJfi'�p'Yer�eaw� L�l7Le�- Lao ��� #�►� �lhil�rrPn 05 7.11...... A LAY INTERPREI...ION OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN YOL-. COMMUNITY Bell So. Mobility is erecting a cellular antenna at 5663 N.W. 7th Ave. They have already built one on 54th St. between 8th & 9th Ave... WHAT IS A CELLULAR ANTENNA? A cellular antenna is a device made of cavities or cells that is used for radiating or receiving radio waves which when activated, create Magnetic Fields, the strength of which is dependent upon the amount of hertz or frequencies being generated. (Hertz -unit of frequency equal to one cycle per second). These antennae can generate Megahertz (MHz) or 1 million units per second and are fast moving to generate billion & Trillion cycles / second. WHY SHOULD YOU CARE? You should care because of the antenna's capabilities. ASIDE from allowing for the broad expansion of devices that are already on the market such as ---cellular phones, portable computers, beepers, satellite relay station, micro waves and the like, these antennae are capable of: 1. Manipulating populations of PEOPLE 2.' Creating significant abnormalities -physiologically, physiologically and behaviorally. EXAMPLES: a. Mind control b. EXcessive bleeding c. Leukemia d. Brain Tumors e. Stress f. Sterilization (esp. among Males) g. Altering Chromosomes SOME STUDIES DONE 1940-1977--Increase use of micro waves showed an increase of braintumors. 1979--Effects of electro magnetic exposure creates childhood cancers (Dr. Nancy Wertheirmer) 1987--New York power line experiment found considerable effects to behavior and the Central Nervous System. 1975--Dr. Samuel'Epstein, Univ. of Chicago shows increase of specific cancer types due to man-made electromagnetic exposure., I z CANCER TYPE Lymphoma, Myeloma, Melanoma Breast Cancer Testicular Cancer Pancreatic Cancer Kidney Cancer Colon Cancer o INCREASE 100% 31% 97% 20% 142% 63% In conclusion, there are many, many studies done, All with negative outcomes on the effects of electro-magnetic radiation exposure that are ignored, but which tend to eliminate populations of people. SOME REFERENCES Becker, R.O. and Seldem, G., The Body Electric, Morrow Press, 1985, P. British Journal, NATURE, 1955 Microwave News, Sept./Oct. 1988 Saturday Review, "The St. Fled Story of Electric Waves," September 15, Schiefelbein, S., The Invisible Threat, 1979 Brodeur, Paul, "The Zapping of America -Microwaves, their deadly risk and the cover-up." John Wiley & Sons, 1977 110 ;S �` 1,911 MAN—MADE f%ECTROMAaNtrre FrILDS_ANO. rM9A-L-EFFftr Creation of fatigue @tatae. Creation of atata of dedreeaion. Creation of eataracta and aqo aPe616ala. creation off Irritability A►a 6evor etatoa. daneral ol1aretied of "ads. Creation of cdd6uloiv6 boAdVi60. "itariA. Creation of Itatal of edauat a�roaairaA6aa. Creation of Raved 16 CirBadiafl AptAala. Creation of fear and d466r441AtatioA. ereati6n of olaail diaerda'e aM inaoihia. Croatian "rioda of an6rt aiA 11SWUM /WWy 14". Creation of 1"4644 aM NII P. Creation of eataWOd (14044:144) out" (is MA1. Creati6A e# .i616M WIN an 401IMiMt MWIN alum, N®t ON tHE MM ILOU OP i AVI. .. dassaw" I. . C� FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554. IN REPLY REFER TO: November 4, 1994 r......, - •V Sergio Rodriguez BU �y Director, Planning and Zoning Division G .G City of Miami NOV i 6~v 275 N.W. 2nd Street Miami, FL 33128 Office of the CireCt08 Dear Mr. Rodriguez: This is in response to your letter of October 24, 1994, in which you ask for a clarification of FCC policy with respect to cellular radio transmission towers. Our policir on these facilities is essentially unchanged from that expressed in the September 14, 1992, letter that you referenced. However, since that letter was written the FCC has proposed to update the guidelines it uses fbr evaluating radio wave exposure by utilizing the new guidelines designated ANSI/IEEE C95.1- 1992 (also called IEEE C95.1-1991). This proposal is discussed in the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket 93-42 (copy enclosed). In addition, for your information I have enclosed an updated fact sheet on cellular communications facilities and equipment that provides more detailed information on this topic. I hope this information will be helpful. If you have further questions please contact me at (202) 653-8169. Sincerely, i Robert F. Cleveland, Jr., Ph.D. Senior Scientist Office of Engineering & Technology Federal Communications Commission Enclosures (2) ;�^ N } C: cla na Before the FCC 93-142 FWERAL COMI►4CNICATIONS C001ISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Guidelines for Evaluating the ) Environmental Effects of > ET Docket No. 93-62 Radiofrequency Radiation' ) NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE PRXIM Adopted: March 11, 1993; Released: April 8, 1993 Comment Date: August 13, 1993 Reply Date: September 13, 1993 By the Commission: Commissioner Marshall not participating; Commissioner Duggan issuing a sta-vement. 1. By this action, we are proposing to amend and update the guidelines and methods used for evaluating the environmental effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from FCC regulated facilities. Specifically, we are proposing to use the new standard for RP exposure recently adopted by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) in association with the Institute of Electricalt and Electronic Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992.1•: This standard was adopted by ANSI on November 18, 1992, and is generally more restrictive than the 1982 ANSI standard, ANSI C95.1-1982, that is specified currently in our rules for evaluating the environmental effects of RP radiation.2 This proposal could affect a wide variety of radio 1 && ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992.(previously issued by IEEE as IEEE C95.1-1991), "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," approved September 26, 1991 by IEEE, published April 27, 1992 by IEEE. To purchase copies from the IEEE, telephone: (800) 678- IEEE. Adopted by ANSI November 18, 1992. To purchase copies from ANSI telephone (212) 642-4900. See paragraph 34, J , for information on reviewing this document at the Commission. 2 S= ANSI C95.1-1982, "American National Standard Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 300 kHz to 100 GHz," American National F�3 711 L services, e.g., AM, FM, and TV broadcast services;.common-carrier land -mobile services; and private -radio land -mobile services.3 BACKGROUND 2. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires federal agencies to evaluate the effects of their actions on the quality of the human environment.4 To meet its requirements under NEPA, the Commission has adopted rules for evaluating the environmental impact of its actions.5 One of the environmental factors considered under these rules is human exposure to RF radiation from FCC -regulated transmitters and facilities. 3. In 1985, the Commissidn adopted the 1982 ANSI guidelines for use in evaluating the effects of RF radiation exposure on the environmenta6 The Commission found that these guidelines were widely accepted technically and would meet its needs for evaluating environmental RF radiation. The 1982 ANSI RF exposure guidelines were developed by a panel of experts based on the best scientific information available at the time concerning safe levels of exposure to RF radiation for workers and the general public. 4. The Commission's rules now require applicants for certain facilities to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) if the transmitter or facility in question would expose the general public or workers to RF levels in excess of those recommended by the 1982 ANSI guidelines. Examples of facilities which have the Standards Institute, New York, NY. ANSI is a non-profit, privately funded, uginbership organization that coordinates the development of voluAtary national standards in the United States. ANSI has a membership coaaposed of over 1200 companies, 250 professional, technical, trade, labor, and consumer organizations, and approximately 30 government agencies. 3 See Appendix B for a discussion of possible impact of the Commission's adoption of the new ANSVISES guidelines. 4 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. Section 4321, et M. 5 ar& 47 CPR Section 1.1301, AC_.SSQ. 6 fir& ReRort and Order, in Gen. Docket No. 79-144, 100 FCC 2d 543 (1985) and Memorandum Oeinion and Order, 50 Fed. Reg. 38653, 58 RR 2d 1128 (1985). 7 47 CPR Section 1.1307(b). 2 -' sy 1.1 I potential to cause exposures in excess of these guidelines include: radio and television broadcast stations; satellite uplinks; FM booster and translator stations transmitting -in excess of 100 watts; and MDS and ITFS stations transmitting in excess of 200 watts.8 The rules also address other related matters such as the evaluation of multiple transmitter sites.9 5. Many low -power, intermittent, or normally inaccessible RF transmitters and facilities have been categorically excluded from our rules regarding RF radiation evaluation based on calculations and measurement data indicating that they would not cause exposures that would violate the ANSI guidelines under normal and routine conditions of use.10 The Commission has "categorically excluded" such classes of transmitters from routine environmental evaluation with respect to RF radiation.11 Examples of currently excluded transmitters and facilities include: private land - mobile, cellular radio, and amateur radio stations. These exclusions were based primarily on considerations regarding the excluded transmitters, relative low operating power, intermittent operation or inaccessibility.12 6. On November 18, 1992, ANSI adopted a new standard for RF exposure, designated ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992. This new standard contains a number of significant differences from the guidelines 8 ;.d., Note 1. 9 ;,d., Note 2. 10 Ui Second Report and Order, in Gen. Docket No. 79-144, 2 FCC Rcd 2064 (1987); and Erratum, 2 FCC Rcd 2526 (1967). li The Council on Invironmental Quality, which has oversight responsibilities with regard to NEPA, permits federal agencies to categorically exclude certain action from routine environmental processing when the potential for individual or cumulative environmental impact is judged to be negligible. in 40 CFR H1507, 1508.4; an alm, Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 43 Fed. Reg. 55,978 (1978). In response to this provision, the Commission categorically excluded a number of types of facilities. 5= Second Ruort and Order, in Gen. Docket No. 79-144, 2 FCC Rcd 2064 (1987); and Rrr�, 2 FCC Rcd 2526 (1987). 12 Even with respect to facilities that are otherwise categorically excluded from RF environmental processing, such facilities may, if the circumstances so warrant in a particular case, be subject to the Commission's environmental rules. Ul 47 CFR $1.1307 (c) and (d) . 3 ins L and recommendations issued by ANSI in 1982.13 In many, respects the 1992 guidelines are more restrictive in the amount of environmental RF exposure permitted, and they also extend the frequency range under consideration to cover frequencies from 3 kHz to 300 GHz. The new 1992 guidelines specify two sets of exposure recommendations, one for "controlled environments" (usually involving workers) and another for "uncontrolled environments"• (usually involving the general public). The 1982 guidelines specified only one set of exposure limits, regardless of whether the individual exposed was a worker or a member of the general public. 7. The 1992 guidelines also, for the first time, include specific restrictions on currents induced in the human body by RF fields. In addition, the gui.dq�lines contain significant changes in allowable exclusions and power levels permitted for certain low -power devices, such as hand-held radiotelephones and cellular radios. For example, the 1982 guidelines permit exclusion if the input power of the radiating device at frequencies between 300 kHz and 1 GHz is seven watts or less. The 1992 guidelines would _ reduce this power exclusion significantly for devices that operate in uncontrolled environments and for devices that operate on frequencies above 450 MHz in controlled environments. The 1992 guidelines also contain a further restriction that would not permit the application of the power exclusion to hand-held devices where the radiating structure is maintained at 2.5 cm or less from the body. S. The Commission's environmental rules are intended to ensure that, consistent with NBPA, any FCC -regulated transmitters and facilities that e*pose the public or workers to levels of RF radiation that are considered by expert organizations to be potentially harmful undergo environmental processing. The Commission, however, is not the expert agency for evaluating the effects of RF radiation on human health and safety.14 Therefore, it,uses standards and guidelines'developed by those with appropriate expertise. As noted above, since 1985, the Commission has relied on the 1982 ANSI RF exposure guidelines in connection with its responsibilities under NEPA regarding the evaluation of potential RF environmental hazards. 13 For comparison purposes, a summary of major sections of the 1982 and 1992 RF exposure guidelines and exclusions is contained in Appendix A. 14 F, , e-aj, Report and Order, in Gen. Docket No. 79-144, 100 FCC 2d at 560. 4 9. As part of its procedures for periodically reevaluating its standards ANSI has recently approved a new RF exposure standard, in association with the IEEE, that is based on additional research and study in the area of RF effects. In view of ANSI's adoption of this revision of the 1982 RF exposure guidelines, we believe that it is now incumbent upon us to consider updating the RF exposure standards specified in our rules. We are, therefore, proposing to replace the 1982 ANSI guidelines with the new 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992) for purposes of j evaluating environmental significance.15 These new guidelines are more up to date with respect to scientifically -based criteria for use in evaluating human exposure to RF radiation. They will ensure that FCC -regulated facilities comply with the latest safety standards for RF exposure. 10. As noted above, the 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines contain significant differences from the guidelines currently used by the Commission. We recognize that evaluating the biological effects of RF and microwave energy is a complex and controversial subject and that the adoption of new guidelines will raise a number of issues and implementation concerns. These include:<among other things: the definitions of "controlled" and "uncontrolled" environments; new requirements regarding induced and contact RF currents; discontinuities in exposure restrictions in the FM broadcast band; differences between the new guidelines and other RF exposure guidelines; treatment of hand-held'devices; and the impact on existing facilities and devices. These matters are discussed below, and we invite comments regarding them. 11. We also intend to solicit comments from expert health and safety agencies within the Federal Government, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug Administration, the Occupational Sat -sty and Health Administration, and the National Institute $or Occupational Safety and Health. In addition, we plan to confer with the National Teleconvamications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce, in the interest of developing a consistent approach to the treatment of RF exposure environments for the private sector and Federal Government. NTIA has responsibility for authorizing and managing the Federal Governments use of the RF spectrum. 15 By this proposal, we are not intending to supersede any other federal requirements that RF devices may also be required to comply with. For example, this action does not affect any compliance requirements for microwave ovens with respect to emission standards established by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 05- 711 12. The 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines specify two sets of exposure recommendations, those for "controlled environments" 'usually involving workers) and those for "uncontrolled environments" (usually involving the general public). The ANSI/IEEE standard states that 11(clontrolled environments are locations where there is exposure that may be incurred by persons who are aware of the potential for exposure as a concomitant of employment, by other cognizant persons, or as the incidental result of transient passage through areas where analysis shows the exposure levels may be above (the exposure and induced current levels permitted for the general public but not those permitted for persons aware of the potential for exposure)." "Uncontrolled environments" are, "locations where there is the exposure of individuals who have no knowledge or control of their exposure. The exposures may occur in living quarters or workplaces where there are no expectations that the exposure levels may exceed [the exposure and induced current levels permitted for the general public]." 13. Within the general guidance of the definitions of a controlled and an uncontrolled environment, there will be situations where specific determinations must be made as to which definition will apply. We request comment on the criteria to be applied in determining which exposure limits would apply to the various radio operations authorized by the Commission. In general, we believe that because matters of possible health and safety are involved, a conservative approach is appropriate with regard to the evaluation of the effects of RP exposure. Accordingly, where there is any question of possible exposure, of the general public (which might include non -technical employees) to RF radiation, we propose to apply the more conservative guidelines for uncontrolled environments. Wherefore, the guidelines for uncontrolled environments would apply to any transmitters and facilities that are located in residential areas or locations whhere proximity to the RP source may be unrestricted.l Similarly, we would apply the controlled 16 In this regard, we are proposing that as a general policy exposure of non -users due to hand-held devices and amateur radio facilities will be considered as occurring in uncontrolled environments. Exposure of users due to hand-held devices and amateur facilities will also be considered as occurring in uncontrolled environments unless the user is, "aware of the potential for exposure as a concomitant of employment" (e.g., through training or education) or who is otherwise aware of the potential for exposure (as defined by ANSI/IEEE for persons exposed in controlled environments). We ask for comment on whether there are any non -employees who would fall within this 112 6 Oj�� 7'11 L guidelines to those situations where exposure is incidental and transitory, or the exposure is incurred in areas where personnel are aware of the exposure potential. 14. Both the 1982 ANSI and 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines provide exclusions for cases where the protection guidelines, or field strengths, may be exceeded with respect to low power devices. These exclusions are intended to apply to devi es such as, "hand- held, mobile, and marine radio transceivers."1-I The 1982 ANSI guidelines specify an exclusion if it can be shown by laboratory procedures that the exposure conditions do not exceed a certain specific absorption rate (SAIL) or, alternatively, if "the radio frequency input power of the radiating device is seven watts or less.1118 The new 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines also contain exclusions for low -power devices. However, the new exclusions are generally more restrictive and contain standards for both controlled and uncontrolled environments. They also ,define the' power exclusion in terms of "radiated power" rather Gin "input power" as in the 1982 ANSI guidelines. 15. The 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines provide an exclusion based on certain SARs or on the radiated power of the low power device.19 In controlled environments, the standard permits exclusion at frequencies between 100 kHz and 450 MHz if the radiated power of the device is seven watts or less. At frequencies between 450 and 1500 MHz, the radiated power must be limited to 7 (450/f ) watts where f is the frequency in MHz for exclusion. In uncontrolled environments, the standard permits exclusion at frequencies between 100 kHz and 450 MHz if the radiated power of the device is 1.4 watts or less. At frequencies between 450 and 1500 *z,- the radiated power must be limited to latter category, and, it so, who they would be. The term "non- user" refers to other persons in the immediate vicinity of the usdr who do not fit the criteria specified by ANSI/IEEE for controlled environments. 17 U& ANSI/IEES C95.1-1992 (IEEE C95.1-1991), Section 5 ("Explanation"). 18 These exclusions apply at frequencies between 300 kHz and 100 GHz or between 300 kHz and 1 GHz, respectively. JU Section 4.2, ANSI C95.1-1982, gW. Also, see Appendix A. 19 Sra Section 4.2, ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 (IEEE C95.1-1991). Also, see Appendix A. L 1.4(450/f) watts where f is the frequency in MHz.20 . However, the new 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines state that the exclusions based on radiated power do not apply to devices with the radiating structure maintained within 2.5 cm of the body. 16. we are proposing to adopt the exclusions for low -power devices provided in the new 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines.21 As indicated above, we will consider that hand-held portable devices, such as cellular telephones, must comply with the requirements specified for uncontrolled environments.22 Categorical exclusions can be based on either radiated power or specific absorption rate (SAR). Therefore, even if a low -power device does not comply with ANSI/IEEE guidelines with respect to radiated power, it may alternatively comply with the ANSI/IEEE guidelines for SAR. Compliance with the latter guidelines can be demonstrated through appropriate laboratory measurements. 17. As stated above, we note that under the ANSI/IEEE guidelines exclusions based on radiated power would.not apply when the "radiating structure" is within 2.5 cm of the body. We also note that the radiating structure may include parts`rof• the device other than the antenna itself. In these cases manufacturers may instead demonstrate by appropriate measurements that a particular device complies with the exclusion guidelines that are based on SAR. We ask for comment on whether proof of such measurements and compliance should be submitted as part of the equipment authorization process, and, if so, what form such showings should take. 18. For purposes of the exclusions that are based on radiated power, we propose to exclude only those low -power devices that meet the uncontrolled guidelines. However, the exclusions based on SAR could apply aocording to the actual situation or "environment" in whigh a device is used. J. 20 As an illustration, at 800 MHz the new ANSI/IEBB guidelines specify that in "uncontrolled environments" (e.g., general public exposure) in order to be excluded a low -power device could not exceed a radiated power level of 1.4 X (4S0/800) or about 0.79 watts. At 1S00 MHz, the exclusion level would be 0.42 watts. 21 With respect to this issue we note that the Commission has received a Petition for Rule Making, filed February S, 1993, by Ken Holladay, seeking to prohibit the sale of all hand-held telephones and radios that operate between 400 and 1300 MHz pending evaluation of any health risk. We will treat this petition as a comment in the current proceeding. 22 && footnote 16, XUM. IBO Existing Categorical Exclusions 19. As discussed above, the Commission has exempted a number of transmitting facilities and operations from the NEPA requirement for routine evaluation.23 These "categorical exclusions" were based on calculations and measurement data indicating that such facilities and transmitters would not cause RF exposures that would violate the 1982 ANSI guidelines under normal and routine conditions of use. Some of the current categorical exclusions may not be consistent with the provisions of the new 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines. This may be true with regard to certain currently excluded facilities and operations. such as some amateur radio stations and some land -mobile services, both common carrier and private. We, therefore, will review our current categorical exclusions in light of the new guidelines. 20. We request comment, information and analysis relating to the existing categorical exclusions from our RF exposure rules. we intend to address in this proceeding -whether it is appropriate to maintain the individual exclusions, particularly those indicated above, and whether we should re -define r4abse exclusions. We request comment and proposals for any changes to our rules that .,may be necessary to ensure compliance with the RF exposure guidelines, e.g., general power reductions in a service or other restrictive measures. Interested parties are asked to indicate the impact of eliminating an exclusion from the RF exposure rules for specific services, facilities and operations. Such parties are also requested to provide information on how affected facilities and operations could demonstrate compliance with the new guidelines. We also seek proposals and suggestions for alternative plans that would minimize the impact of eliminating exclusions for specific types of transmitting facilities and operations. 21. With respect to occupational exposure, there may be situations where transmitters that have been categorically excluded previously would not cause excessive exposure to members of the general 2ublic, but might present the possibility of exposure of workers to fields in excess of the guidelines. An example might be a relatively high-powered land -mobile or cellular site where workers are in the immediate vicinity (i.e., 23 As set forth in Section 1.1306 of the FCC's rules [47 CFR 51.1306(a)], such transmitting facilities and operations are exempted from requirements for "environmental processing" with respect to RF radiation. This means that applicants for such transmitters are not required to perform an environmental evaluation with respect to RF radiation prior to filing an application with the Commission since there is a presumption that these transmitters would normally comply with the limits set forth in the guidelines. 1gl ,�,_ 71.1 L within a few feet) of a transmitting antenna. How should.'such situations be dealt with? Should categorical exclusions only be limited to situations where thOre is no possibility of excessive worker exposure (for example, when work procedures have clearly been established that preclude working near high-powered, transmitting antennas)? Should certification of such procedures be required for previously excluded transmitters before granting a license or other FCC authorization? 22. The 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines also contain new recommendations regarding the maximum permissible exposure from induced and contact RF currents. 14ie former ANSI guidelines did not address these phenomena. The new induced and contact RF current recommendations require exposure evaluation over the frequency range between 3 kHz and 100 MHz. This new requirement has raised some issues as to how these exposure guidelines would be used in evaluating certain broadcast transmitters. 4 For example, because evaluation is limited to frequencies up!to 100 MHz, the new requirement raises a question on how to treat FM broadcast stations especially with regard to multiple stations at a single site.2A To address this issue, we propose that evaluation for exposure from induced and contact RF currents be carried out by: 1) all FM broadcast stations with carrier frequencies below 100 MHz and 2) all FM broadcast stations regardless of carrier frequency that are located at a single site where one of the stations operates below 100 MHz. We believe that this will ensure that all stations covered by the recommendation are evaluated and that all RF contributions to the exposure at multiple stations sites are considered. We request' comment on this approach a.Ad on other matters concerning this aspect of the new 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines. 24 For example, in letters to the IEEE and ANSI, the firm of Hammett and Edison, Inc., has objected to certain features of the ANSI/IEEE guidelines, especially the discontinuity for induced current limits that occurs at 100 MHz in the middle of the FM broadcast band. $,fig, letter from Dane B. Bricksen, Hammett and Edison, Inc., to Board of Standards Review, American National Standards Institute, dated February 20, 1992. See paragraph 34, infra, for information on reviewing this document at the Commission. MHz. 25 The FM broadcast frequency band is between 88 and 108 10 05- 711 23. The 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines are the most recent recommendations on RF exposure from the scientific and technical community. According to the ANSI and the IEEE, the maximum permissible exposure levels recommended in the guidelines are levels "to which a person may be exposed without harmful effect and with an acceptable safety factor."26 As stated above, we believe that these new standards will provide the Commission with better scientifically -based criteria for use in evaluating human exposure to RF radiation, and ensure that FCC -regulated facilities comply with the latest safety standards for RF exposure. 24. At the same time, we recognize that the 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines, while in some ways more restrictive than the 1982 ANSI standards, permit higher exposure levels Dove 3 GHz than other published exposure recommendations. For example, in "uncontrolled environments," ANSI/IEEE recommends a safe level of 2 milliwatts per square centimeter (mW/cm ) at 3 GHz.fncreasing up to a maximum of 10 mW/cm2 at 15 GHz to 300 GHz. On the other hand, the guidelines issued by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) specify a fixed level of 1 mW/cm2 for exposur of the general public in the frequency range of 1.5 to 300 GHz.�7 In addition, the International Radiation Protection Association's (IRPA) guidelines f® public exposure recommend 1 mW/cm2 between 2 GHz and 300 GHz.4B There are 26 5= ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 (IEEE C95.1-1991) AURZA, definition of "maximum permissible exposure (MPS)." 27 "Biological Hffects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," NCRP Report No. 86, 1986. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. Copies available from: NCRP Publications, 7910 Woodmont Ave., Suite 800, Bethesda, MD 20814; (301) 657-2652. The NCRP is a non- profit corporation chartered by the United States Congress to, ambng other things, develop information and recommendations concerning radiation protection. The NCRP is made up of the members and participants who serve on its various scientific committees. Several government agencies and non -government organizations have established relationships with the NCRP either as "Collaborating Organizations" or through a "special liaison" program for governmental organizations. The FCC maintains an association with the NCRP as a Collaborating Organization. 28 "Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to Radiotrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 100 kHz to 300 GHz," International Non -Ionizing Radiation Committee of the International Radiation Protection Association, Health Physics, 54(1): 115-123 (1988). The IRPA is a non -governmental, 11 additional differences between the ANSI/IEEE recommendations and these other guidelines. We request comment on whether these differences are significant and whether there is a need to adopt exposure requirements different than those contained in the ANSI/IEEE guidelines. 25. We also note that the NCRP guidelines include a special provision with respect to modulated RF carrier frequencies.29 The NCRP suggested a need for caution with respect to exposure to electromagnetic fields with carrier frequencies that are modulated at a depth of 50 percent or greater at frequencies between 3 and 100 hertz, and recommended that stricter exposure limits apply for workers exposed to such fields. This recommendation is apparently due to experimental r sults showing neurophysiological effects of modulated RF fields.38 We invite comment on the importance of this aspect of the NCRP guidelines for protecting workers from adverse RF exposures. Is this modulation restriction important enough to be considered by the Commission in connection with the ANSI/IEEE guidelines? What would be the practical implications of implementation of this provision if it were adopted by the Commission? I 26. we recognize that compliance with the new ANSI/IEEE guidelines could impose new and significant burdens on some licensees and equipment manufacturers. We seek to minimize this impact wherever possible, consistent with the need to implement the important safety protections signified by the RF exposure rules as rapidly as possible. For those facilities and operations that are or will become subject to environmental - processing with respegt to RF radiation, we propose to continue the requirement that duck evaluations be made, and, if necessary, Environmental Assessments filed, at the time of application for a construction permit, license renewal, or other Commission authorization. All such applications submitted after the international organization representing most of the national radiation protection societies in the world. These recommendations form part of the WHO Environmental Health Criteria Programme, which is funded by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Support for IRPA's activities also comes from the International Labour Office and the Commission of the European Communities. 29 ,egg NCRP, XUM, Section 17.4.7 of NCRP exposure guidelines. 30 S= NCRP, sURrA, Section 11.1.2.2 of NCRP exposure guidelines. ig 12 1-r- "' 4 effective date of the new standard would be evaluated in accordance with the new 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines.'31 We request comment on this approach.. We also request comment on how best to treat equipment and facilities that are in use but do not comply with the new guidelines. Should we, for example, require re- submission of certain equipment authorization applications? 27. With respect to showing compliance with current RF guidelines, many of the Commission's application forms contain a question on environmental impact. An example of this question is as follows: "Would a Commission grant of this application be an action which may have a significant environmental effect as defined by Section 1.1307 of the Commission's Rules? If 'YES,' submit the statement as required by Sections 1.1308 and 1.1311." On some, but not all, forms., there is an additional statement: "If 'NO,' explain briefly why not." It has been our experience that a simple "NO" answer to this question may not be sufficient for the Commission to adequately judge, whether there will be a significant environmental impact, particularly with respect to RF radiation exposure. We request comment on whether..the Commission routinely should require more complete documentation or evidence from applicants who claim compliance with environmental RF guidelines. What should this documentation consist of? 28. There are also issues related to the measurement of RF fields and procedures for quantitative determination of exposure. In addition to its revised exposure guidelines, ANSI and IEEE have issued guidelines on measurement procedure for RF electromagnetic fields with respect to hazard assessment.3 Therefore, we are proposing to specify these measurement guidelines for purposes of 31 It is relevant to note that the next renewal cycle for AM and FM radio broadcast stations begins on October 1, 1995 and ends on August 1, 1998. The next complete renewal cycle for television broadcast stations begins on October 1, 1996 and ends on August 1, 1999. The exact date depends on a given station's geographic location. 32 "Recommended Practice for the Measurement of Potentially Hazardous Electromagnetic Fields - RF and Microwave." (IEEE C95.3-1991; also designated ANSI/IEEE C95.3-1992 by the American National Standards Institute). Copyright 1992 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Copies can be ordered from the IEEE, Attn: Publications Sales, 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-1331, (800) 678-IEEE; or from ANSI, (212) 642-4900. See paragraph 34, , for information on reviewing this document at the Commission. " 13.5 0v,_ r 711 L owing compliance with ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992. We request comment these measurement guidelines and any other measurement procedures that may be relevant.', 29. We are also interesting in obtaining data and information on devices that are commercially available for measuring electric and magnetic fields, induced body currents, and contact currents as defined in the recent ANSI/IEEE guidelines? Are there advantages/disadvantages of certain types of equipment and nstrumentation over others? We also request comment on the effectiveness of personal monitors/dosimeters and such things as RF protective clothing in controlling exposure to workers at locations where high RF fields are present. EX -PARTS PRESENTATIONS 30. This is a non -restricted notice and comment rule -making proceeding. Ex 2arte presentations are permitted, except .#iiring the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as: provided4 in the Commission's rules. gr& genet, 47 CFR Sections 1.1202, 1.1203 and 1.1206(a). 31. Pursuant to the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980; 5 U.S.C. Section 603, the -Commission's Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is as follows. A. Reason for action,: Because of the Commission's responsibilities under provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) the Commission must evaluate the significance of its actions on the environment. Since the emission of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from FCC -regulated transmitters is a major environmental effect that must be considered, it is necessary to establish guidelines and thresholds to use in determining whether there is environmental significance. The RF protection guides of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) that the Commission had adopted in 1985 have now been revised, and it is necessary for us to update our guidelines. B. Objective: we are proposing to adopt the newly revised guidelines adopted by ANSI and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) that are designated ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 (previously published as IEEE C95.1-1991). These guidelines will be used for evaluating the significance to public '?r-_ 7.1 health of RF radiation emitted into the environment by. transmitters regulated by the Commission. C. Legal basis: This action is a result of the Commission's legal obligations under the NEPA, 42 U.S.C. Section 4321 et seq. (1976), to provide the means by which to evaluate Commission actions with respect to environmental significance, and it is in furtherance of Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154 (i) , 154 (j ) and 303(r) (1978) . D. Description, potential impact, and number of small entities affected: There may be significant economic impact on small, regulated entities as a result of this action if the new guidelines are officially adopted by the Commission. This is because the new ANSI/IEEE guidelines are more restrictive than previous guidelines and may require additional effort and resources to show compliance or undertake corrective action to bring a transmitter into compliance. This extent of this potential impact will depend on decisions made with respect to categorical exclusion of transmitters from environmental consideration with respect to RF exposure. B. Recording, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements: Although no specific compliance requirements are being described at this time, if the Commission adopts the new guidelines applicants may be required to submit additional documentation as part of a showing with respect to environmental compliance. F. Federal rules which overlap, duplicate, or conflict with these rules: There are none of which we are aware. G. Any significant alternative minimizing impact man small entities and consistent with the stated objective: we might have considered adopting other exposure criteria that might result in less impact on small entities. However, since we are required to use the best available methodology in evaluating environmental significance, the new ANSI/IEEE guidelines appear to offer the most up-to-date and technically -supportable guidance for evaluating RF exposure. • «:4,•, F- +' 32. Accordingly, there is hereby instituted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding to amend Part 1 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. Authority for issuance of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is contained in Sections 4 (i) , 4 (j ) and 303(r) of the Commmications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. Sections 154(1), 154(j) and 303(r)],. and 15 ) ? 0�) tl uj Y L. J Sections 4321-4335 of the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 USC §§4321-4335. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415, 1.419, and 1.430 of the Commission's Rules, interested parties may file comments on or before August 13, 1993 and reply comments on or before September 13, 1993. 33. All relevant and timely comments will be considered by the Commission. To file formally in this proceeding, participants must file an original and four copies of all comments, reply comments and supporting comments. If participants would like each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of their comments, an original and nine copies must be filed. Comments and reply comments should be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20S54. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239) of the Federal Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. 34. For further information concerning this proceeding contact Dr. Robert F. Cleveland, Office of Engineering and T*chnolo97, Spectrum Engineering Division, Mail Stop 1300A2, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20SS4, (202) 653-8169. Copies of the ANSI/IEEE guidelines and other pertinent documents are available for inspection at the FCC during regular business hours. Please call the above number for scheduling. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Donna R. Searcy , Secretary 16 APPENDIX A SULKY OF MAJOR SECPIONS OF ANSI/IEEE GUIDELINES I. ANSI C95.1-1982 Principal sections of ANSI C95.1-1982, "American National Standard Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 300 kHz to 100 GHz," are summarized below with permission. -The complete text should be - consulted for details. This ANSI standard has been copyrighted (1982) by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., (IEEE), New York, N.Y. This standard has now been replaced by ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 (see below). Scope and Purpose: Recommendations are made to prevent possible harmful effects in human beings exposed to electromagnetic fields id' the frequency range from 300 kHz to 100 GHz. These recommendations are intended to apply to non -occupational as well as to occupational exposures. These recommendations are not intended to apply to the purposeful exposure of patients by or under the direction of practitioners of the healing arts. Definitions: Radio frequency protection guides (RFPG). The radio frequency field strengths or equivalent plane wave power densities which should not be exce9ded without (1) careful consideration of the reasons for doing #o, (2) careful estimation of the increased energy deposition in the human body, and (3) careful consideration of the increased risk of unwanted biological effects. Specific absorption rate (SAR). radio -frequency electromagnetic of mass of a biological body. Recommendation: The time rate at which energy is imparted to an element Radio Frequency Protection Guides. For human exposure to electromagnetic energy at radio frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHI, the protection guides, in terms of the mean squared electric (E ) and magnetic (H ) field strengths and in terms of the equivalent plane -wave free -space power density, as a function of frequency, are given in Table 1. 17 For near field exposures, the'only applicable protection guides are the mean squared electric and magnetic field strengths as given in Table 1, columns 2 and 3. For convenience, these guides may be expressed as the equivalent plane wave power density, given in Table 1, column 4. For both pulsed and non -pulsed fields, the power density, the squares of the field strengths, and the values of specific absorption rates (SARs) or input power, as applicable, are averaged over any 0.1 h period. j Tole 1 R31DI0 P'AEQLTENC9f PEOTBGTYQW GOID83 1 2 Freqtiency Electric Field Range Strength (MHz) E2 (V2/m2) 3 4 Magnetic Field Power Strength Density H2 (A2/m2) (mW/cm2) 0.3-3 400,000 2.5 100 3-30 4,000(g00/f2) 0.025(g00/f2) g00/f2 30-300 4,000 0.025 1.0 300-1500 4,000(f/300) 0.025(f/300) f/300 1500-100,000 20,000iL , 0.125 5.0 Note: f - frequency in megahertz (Mz) E2 - electric field squared H2 - magnetic field squared ,V2/m2 - volts squared per meter squared A2/M2 - amperes squared per meter squared mW/cm2 - milliwatts per centimeter squared Exclusions: (1) At frequencies between 300 kHz and 100 GHz, the protection guides may be exceeded if the exposure conditions can be shown by laboratory procedures to produce specific absorption rates (SARs) below 0.4 W/kg as averaged over the whole body, and spatial peak SAR values below 8 W/kg as averaged over any one gram of tissue. (2) At frequencies between 300 kHz and i GHz, the protection guides may be exceeded if the radio frequency input power of the radiating device is seven watts or less. II. ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 (IEEE C25 ti-1991? Some major sections of ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 (also issued by IEEE as IEEE C95.1-1991), "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," are summarized below with permission. This ANSI/IEEE standard has been copyrighted (1992) by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., (IEEE), New York, N.Y. The complete text should be consulted for details. Copies are available from ANSI (telephone: (212) 642-4900] or the IEEE (telephone: (800) 678-IEEE (4333)]. Blectromagnetic Fields (controlled environients) Power Frequency Electric Field Magnetic Field Decsity (9) Range Strength Struxgth E- fi ; H- field Miz) E (V/M) H (A/a) (1tW/ ) 0.003-0.1 614 0.1-3.0 614 3.0-30 1842/f 30-100 61.4 100-300 61.4 300-3000 -- 3000-15,000 -- 15,000-300,000 163 (100, •1, 000,0001* 16.3/f (100; 110,000/f )* 16.3/f (900/f4; 10,009/f2)* 16.3/f (1.0; 101000/f }* 0.163 1.0 -- f/300 -- 10 -- 10 Notes: f - frequency in m (Mz) E - electric field H - tsgnetic field V/m - Volts per meter mW/oen2 - millivatts per camimeter xpLred * These plane -wave equivalent power density values, although not appropriate for near -field conditions, are commonly used as a convenient comparison with MPBs at higher frequency and are displayed on some instruments in use. 19 L Averaging Times for Maximum permissible Rxposure (controlled environments) Frequency Averaging Time Range (minutes) (MHz) 1E12; S; or IH12 0.003-0.1 6 0.1-3.0 6 3.0-30 6 30-100 6 100-300 6 300-3000 6 3000-15,000 6 15,000-300,000 616,00d/fl-2 f - frequency in MHz Induced and Contact Raiiofrequency Currents (controlled envirorakents) . (may not adequately protect against startle reactions caused by transient discharges when contacting an energized object; see complete text for details) Range Frequency mx mn gent (m ali.zays) Cmitact QLrrent (141z) Through both feet Through each Plot 0.003-0.1 2000f 1000f 1000f 0.1-100 200 100 100 f - frequency in M{z 20 Max].ffilam Permissible AMosure Electromagnetic Fields (MPH) for UnCgutrglled'32v_iroDMC= (uncontrolled environments) Frequency Electric Field Nhgnetic Field Power Density (S) Range Strength Strength E-field; H-field MIZ) E (V/m) H (A/m) (nW/cm2) 0.003-0.1 614 163 (100;1,000,0001* 0.1-1.34 614 16.3/f (100; 10,000/fll)* 1.34-3.0 823.8/f 16.3/f (180/f2; 10,000/f2)* 3.0-30 823.8/f 16.3/f (180/f2; 10,00%f% * 30-100 27.5 158.3/fl.668 (0.2; 940,000/f .3 6)* 100-300 27.5 0.0729 0.2 300-3000 -- -- f/1500 3000-15,000 -- -- f/3500 15,000-300,000 -- -- 10 Dotes: f = frequency M megahertz (Ifz) E = electric field H = magnetic field V/m = volts per meter meter nW/off _ tts�per centimeter squared * These plane -wave equivalent power density values, although not appropriate for near -field conditions, are commonly used as a convenient comparison with MPHs at higher frequency and are displayed on some instruments in use. Averaging Time f* lftci� Pexmissible Rxposure (uncontrolled enviroments ) Frequency. Averag ng Time Range (minutes) (MHz) 1812; S Ig12 0.003-0.1 6 6 0.1-1.34 6 6 1.34-3.0 f2/0.3 6 3.0-30 30 6 30-100 30 0.0636f 1.337 100-300 30 30 300-3000 30 -- 3000-15,000 901000/f -- 15,000-300,000 6160000/f2 -- f = frequency in MHz 21 I� 3 05- 71-1 _j Induced and Contact Radiofrequency Currents (uncontrolled' environments). (tray not adequately protect against startle reactions caused by transient discharges when contacting an energized object; see complete text for details) Frequency Range Maxima Current (millimps) Contact Current ;biz) Through both feet_ Through each Foot 0.003-0.1 900f 0.1-100 90 f = frequency in Miz 450f 45 450f 45 Controlled Haviro=ents. At frequencies between 100 kHz and 6 GHz, the MPE in controlled environments for electromagnetic field strengths may be exceeded if: (a) the exposure conditions can be shown by appropriate techniques to produce SARs below 0.4 W/kg as averaged over the whole -body and spatial peak SAR, not exceeding ® W/kg as averaged over any 1 gram of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube), except for the hands, wrists, feet and ankles where the spatial peak SAR shall not exceed 20 W/kg, as averaged over any 10 grams of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube), and (b) the induced currents in the body conform with the MPB [for controlled environments], 4 The SARs are averaged ovdr any 6-minute interval. Above 6 GHz, the relaxation of the MPB under partial body exposure conditions is permitted [see Section 4.4 of IHSB C95.1-1991 or ANSI/IEEE C95.1-19921. At frequencies between 0.003 and 0.1 MHz the SAR exclusion rule, stated above, does not apply. However, the MPH in controlled environments can still be exceeded if it can be shown that the peak rms current density, as averaged over any 1 cm22 area of tissue and 1 second does not exceed 35f mA/cm` where f is the frequency in MHz. Low -Power Devices: Controlled Rixvlrcros t. This exclusion, consistent with (the provisions given above], pertains to devices that emit RF energy under the control of an aware user. This exclusion addresses exposure of the user. For such devices, the exposure of other persons in the immediate vicinity of the user 19L4 22 01 __J will meet the exclusion criterion for the uncontrolled environment. (See below) At frequencies between 100 kHz and 450 MHz, the MPE may be exceeded if the radiated power is 7 watts or less. At frequencies between 450 and 1500 MHz, the MPE may be exceeded if the radiated power is 7(450/f) watts or less where is frequency in MHz. This exclusion does not apply to devices with the radiating structure maintained within 2.5 cm of the body. Uncontrolled Environments. At frequencies between 100 kHz and GHz, the MPE in uncontrolled environments for electromagnetic field strengths may be exceeded if: (a) the exposure conditions can be shown by appropriate techniques to produce SARs below 0..06 W/kg as averaged over the whole -body and spatial peak SAR, not exceeding 1.6 W/kg as averaged over any 1 gram of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube), except for the hands, wrists, Reet and ankles where the spatial peak SAR shall not exceed 4 W/kg, as averaged over any 10 grams of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube) , and (b) the induced currents in the body conform with the MPE [for uncontrolled environments]. The averaging time for SARs is as indicated in [the table for uncontrolled environments]. Above 6 GHz, the relaxation of the MPE under partial body exposure conditions is permitted [see Section 4.4 of IEEE C95.1-1991 or ANSI/IEEE C95.1-19921. At frequencies betweerr�� 0.003 and 0.1 MHz the SAR exclusion rule does not apply. However, the MPH in uncontrolled environments can still be exceeded if it can be shown that the peak rms current density, as averaged over any 1 cm 2 area of tissue and 1 second does not exceed 15.7f mA/cm2 where f is the frequency in MHz. Loeb -Power Devices: Uncontrolled Snvirormumt. This exclusion, consistent with [the provisions given above], pertains to devices that emit RF energy without control or knowledge of the user. At frequencies between 100 kHz and 450 MHz, the MPH may be exceeded if the radiated power is 1.4 watts or less. At frequencies between 450 and 1500 MHz, the MPE may be exceeded if the radiated power is 1.4(450/f) watts or less where f is frequency in MHz. This exclusion does not apply to devices with the radiating structure maintained within 2.5 cm of the body. 23 APPENDIX B PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF IMPACT OF NEW ANSI/IEEE GUIDELINES Broadcast it is difficult to measure the exact impact on the broadcast community due to the complexity of the new standard and the relative lack of information on how certain aspects of the new guidelines can be implemented with respect to broadcast stations. One source that may be helpful is a 1985 report commissioned by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to help determine costs incurred in implementing various radiofrequency "guidance" levels for exposure of the general public in the broadcast community.33 This report included information on broadcaster compliance with field intensity levels comparable to those recommended by the ANSI/IEEE guidelines. However, the EPA report did not consider the impact of the induced current limitations contained in the new guidelines. Furthermore, the report is based on information gathered several years ago, and its database included only approximately 9000 radio stations and 1000 television stations. The report also only addresses single -facility installations and does not consider the cumulative levels of RF energy that may be present at multiple -user sites. (1) AM Radio The EPA report estimated that of approximately 4600 AM stations analyzed, only about 100-500 (about 2-11%) would require corrective action to comply with field intensity levels roughly comparable to the ANSI/IEEE guidelines. However, this is probably an underestimate since compliance with induced current limits for the public and for workers was not considered. Since compliance with induced current l imitations would probably affect AM stations the most of all broadcasters, the actual percentage impacted could be significantly higher than the EPA figure. (2) FM Radio Of,4400 FM radio stations the EPA report estimated that about 750 stations (approximately 17*) would require corrective action to comply with public exposure limits essentially the same as those contained in the ANSI/IEEE 1992 guidelines. However, once again, induced current limitations were not considered, and the actual impact could be greater. 33 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, Washington, D.C. 20460, "An Estimate of the Potential Costs of Guidelines Limiting Public Exposure to Radiofrequency Radiation from Broadcast Sources, Vol.l: Report," EPA 520/1-85- 025, July 1985. 24 (3) Television Only 40 (about W television stations of approximately 1100 analyzed were judged to require corrective measures to comply with revels similar to the ANSI/IEEE thresholds. Since most television stations operate at -frequencies for which there are no induced current limitations, this estimate may be more accurate than those for radio stations. However, induced current limitations would apply for channels 2-6, and there could be additional impact for stations operating at these frequencies. Other Services It appears that the greatest impact of the new guidelines will fall within the broadcast services. For non -broadcast services there is also likely to be some impact, but the extent of that impact will depend largely on which transmitters or services are categorically excluded from environmental processing. Until we have more extensive information on the variables that determine compliance with the guidelines, it is not possible to arrive at exact figures on impact. !� Due -to the more restrictive field intensity levels in "uncontrolled" environments there may be transmitters, now categorically excluded, that could not be justifiably excluded in all cases with respect to the new guidelines. For example, the following table gives "worst -case" estimates of the minimum height above ground for a simple dipole antenna at various power levels that might be required to meet the "uncontrolled" field intensity limits between 100 and 300 MHz. If there are situations where these minimum height requirements are not met, or if there are multiple transmitters at an accessible site with relatively high cumulative power, the limits might be exceeded, and environmental analysis would be required. Estimated 1Kinimus Height to !feet M03:/Im ""=its for Field Intensity (100-300 Ms. •uncontrolled•) at ground level Est. Min. Height Operating Power (ERP) Above Ground (meters) in watts 6 100 g 200 11 500 is 1000 20 2000 25 19"7 ra y— tR9 A Similar tables can be constructed for "controlled environments," for other frequencies, and for other antenna types. However, each situation will be different, and the likelihood of exposures that exceed the guidelines will depend on many factors including accessibility and intermittency of operation, as well as frequency and power. In addition, the new restrictions on induced and contact currents may impact facilities that operate below 100 MHz and may make evaluation of some previously excluded transmitters necessary. The majority of land -mobile transmitters will very likely comply with the ANSI/IEEE guidelines in most environments. However, there may be some situations, e.g., paging or multiple -transmitter sites, where higher powered transmitters may require evaluation. In addition, there may be questions related to compliance with the induced current limitations at HF'frequencies, and compliance with respect to hand-held devices. With respect to satellite communications, there could be compliance problems with respect to transportable earth stations where appropriate restrictions have not been placed on accessibility. However, such situations may be relativiely uncommon. Since main -beam access is usually necessary for excessive exposure from satellite -dish antennas, and since this does not normally occur, -the majority of these transmitters should not cause an exposure problem. J 26 9•r- 71.1 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION OFFICE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY SPECTRUM ENGINEERING DIVISION °•M'' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 November 1994 r r r w r r r r r w r r r r r r r w r r r r w a w w r a w w w w w r r r r w w w w w w w INFORMATION ON HUMAN EXPOSURE TO RADIOFREOUENCY FIELDS FROM CELLULAR RADIO TRANSMITTERS w r r w a w a w r r w r r r r r a a w w r r r a a a r r r a w w• w w r w w a r w w w r (1) Cellular base stations Cellular communications systems use radio frequencies in the 800-900 MHz range of the radiofrequency (RF) spectrum. Primary antennas for cellular transmissions are usually located on towers or rooftops and are referred to as "cellular base stations." Such a station usually contains a number of transmitters for a given site. Cellular antennas on towers or other structures are usually located at or near the top of the structure. Side - mounting is also possible. Typical tower heights are 100-200 feet. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authorizes a "wire -line" and "non wire - line" carrier in each service area. The maximum total effective radiated power (ERP) of a cellular system depends on the number of channels authorized at a given site. The typical maximum number of transmitting channels at a site would be 16 per antenna, and as many as 6 antennas might be used. However, this would not be common and would represent a worst -case. Although the FCC permits an ERP of up to 500 watts per channel (depending on geographic area and tower height), the majority of cellular base stations in urban and suburban areas operate at an ERP of 100 watts per channel or less. In urban areas antennas normally use less power, typically on the order of 10 watts or less per channel. All channels would not be a 'RID acted to operate simultaneously, thus reducing overall emission levels. The signal from a cellular base station antenna is essentially directed toward the horizon in a relatively narrow beam in the vertical plane. For example, the radiation pattern might be compared to a thin doughnut or pancake centered around the antenna. As with all forms of electromagnetic energy, the power density due to a cellular transmitter decreases rapidly (according to an inverse square law) as one moves away from antenna. Consequently, normal ground -level exposure is much less than exposure very close to the actual antenna. Measurements made near typical cellular towers have shown that ground -level power densities are well below limits recommended by RF and microwave safety standards. At a frequency of 800 MHz, the RF protection guides of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI C95.1-1982), used by the FCC and others, recommend that human exposure be limited to a power density of about 2700 microwatts per square centimeter (MW/CM2), as averaged over any six -minute period. This limit is many times greater than RF levels found near the base of typical cellular towers. Measurement data obtained from various sources have consistently indicated that "worst -case" ground -level power densities L near typical cellular tower are on the order of 1 pW/cm2 or less. Worst -case calculations (assuming all transmitters "on") show that in order to be exposed in excess of the recommended levels for cellular frequencies an individual would essentially have to be in the main transmitting beam and within several feet of an antenna operating with relatively high power. This makes it extremely unlikely that a member of the general public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of safety guidelines. Potential exposure can also be analyzed with respect to the more restrictive limits recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA), or the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The IEEE guidelines (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992) have been recently adopted by ANSI to replace the 1982 guidelines mentioned above. The NCRP and ANSI/IEEE guidelines recommend a limit for exposure of the general public for exposure in "uncontrolled" environments) at 870 MHz of about 580 pW/cm2. The IRPA recommends a safe exposure level of 435 NW/cm1. These limits are hundreds or thousands of times more than levels measured at ground level arot?nd typical cellular towers. The FCC has recently proposed adopting the new ANSI/IEEE guidelines for purposes of evaluating environmental RF fields from transmitters such as cellular radio antennas. When cellular antennas are mounted at rooftop locations it is possible that RF levels greater than 1 uW/cm2 could be present on the rooftop itself. This might become an issue if.the rooftop were accessible to maintenance personnel or others. However, as with antennas on towers significant fields are only likely to be encountered very close to the antennas. Even if RF levels were to be higher than desirable on a rooftop, appropriate restrictions could be placed on access. Factoring in the time -averaging aspects of safety standards could also be used to reduce potential exposure. The fact that rooftop cellular antennas normally use lower power than antennas on free-standing towers makes high field levels even less likely. (2)Mobile (vehicle -mounted) antennas Vehicle -mounted antennas used for cellular communications normally operate using maximum power levels of 3 watts. These cellular antennas are typically mounted on the roof, on the trunk, or on the rear window of a car or truck. Measurement studies have indicated that to be exposed to significant RF levels it is necessary to be in fairly close proximity to a vehicle -mounted cellular antenna. For example, a study done for AT&T at the University of Washington documented typical and "worst -case" exposure levels and specific absorption rates ISAR► for vehicle occupants and bystanders in the vicinity of vehicle -mounted cellular antennas. Worst -case exposure conditions were considered when an individual was at the closest possible distance from the antenna. Several configurations were tested using adult and child "phantom" models. The results of this study showed that the highest exposure level 0 900 pW/cm') occurred with a female phantom model at a distance of 9.7 cm (3.8 inches) from one of the antennas operating with a power of 3 watts. Although this level approaches the ANSI protection guide for this frequency, the antenna could be driven to approximately 35 W of power before the 8 watts per kilogram (W/kg) partial -body threshold. of the ANSI guidelines E 95- - 1 Tr* arv, leTI: As'.1E a— mc-tv-va- rrl:- T7: W.:-,- '-URZ 4a, :7+� -me --z- e . , DINT ; Z-7w, —41as ww === MU EMMr.17 T--- Trt-,:-3, r7i== 1�1,wr -1:00tie 'r- 0=03T-- --.. W, vr=enm Vzn=*--,-=rrTez Wnljk teS,,jr. IM eXCMSLTT=- ISV--. rfr Z- T-M-37 K=,�F � 7-h-- 2XSL=%t-- Inw- irersr-,Se 0WO-1, ;*tDw tre Zv*t4 i1MT=,rj-*--= Mermm D'v ANSI'V, TM r-Pear. =rrr ta=tr, f =-nes v-7 r=re z mmum Zw= M- =a= WIT i4ahy it 4tt -5tW rVW*-r Watuez, vffwt-, =Tamm-c YFM =ffftv ;Wcasknes. if *nw*,TWVWM may :ft DOMMEW tMaM, Tn= = UsIMS e ma 'm Inter V==UM -Usti WSVW umc tX, zaltutar AtjojnBE-: a Nr.,W gutoeimn =-.rmiri e:==tar =tauses ta- ria"n-PIL $kr lck�'Wjfpn Inw, ITarromn. OT trauub-l--mt votow 1, MI-m. 7hen exctustar z1ausets urn vr,,tr* 1*W4 1fjW,,O*V4;ft Lw% =Wer loved teiow -rm SZO=ffae L-veis Wault, fi Wisorm= rates MARI M tm-Pm 04 '6=11inwrtast fimim. �-zr ex3m;)%, go-Ti*;-bQ0Y limin 'Vontrolie, &nve=rngTC% is an abam-ition tnresrva Ld zot doatn'Z&V VVIA(M-2) as any WV gims Vf 'tissue.. Ti-4 Wf,.-,RP fe-porrtmeredatepr* dimlin2 w& i=aHzed :MwW abSOr;'fOn we sisc bfts9d t�,eoohojd of P, Vilk.1ij, tut oniy iur O=up8UorAi exPMUM. FX TM 26TWal 'popuistior-, 8 V,OrTjVj-t*dy jimq *f Ono,461th tw q=upVtiWWj jVvgj, or I -S'Wkg is recommended by T-he Tk'* AIMAME 94idefines Siso recommend a I A Wk; trestow for i0calized pbMial-Vy Slip environments. v -the ANSWEEE exciusion Clause for fjorjd-hold RF devices in urw^orrttsofiod metro: and for fr&Wencivs of 900--*W MHz is roto;O'A rj,,7-f).e watts of radiated power, slighoy more t"Um levels Used by most hand-haid f,-"0u* phones to Ma4grurn of 0.6 WEML fAesotgements of SAA in rnAW& of the human head and other snxf*s of SAR cRM"ibufm hove boan roported vsirej both ' walkio-talk:m' portable ratfios and hid cellular telephones, In general, these studies hvvo shown that the BW/kg Firrin recommended by ANSI and 14CRP in occupar6mal or Oronvolled' enveorenerm is urd-tkety to be exce6ded by 44$0 of a radio Oporsting St SOO-9W MHz with power levels of up to several watts. In one of these studies it vas shown that the a W/kg peak level might be exceeded for a hand- 3 C<IV held "push to talk" radio operating at several watts if the antenna feed -point were located very close (1-2 cm or less) to the user's head or eyes. However, it was concluded that the guidelines would still likely be met because of the low duty factors associated with the use of this type of radio. The 1.6 W/kg threshold might be exceeded in the worst case, but when time -averaging is considered 'average exposure levels would likely be below recommended levels for low -powered hand-held radios. For hand-held cellular telephones, although the duty factor (time the phone is actually transmitting in a given period) is likely to be higher than that for walkie-talkies, because the maximum power level is usually significantly lower (0.6 watts), exposure in excess of recommended guidelines is less likely. Studies of human head models using cellular telephones have generally reported that SAR values are below the 1.6 W/kg level as averaged over one gram of tissue. However, some recent studies have reported higher peak levels that suggest the need for further dosimetric studies. Recent publicity over the issue of exposure to RF fields from cellular telephones has resulted in increased public concern. in response to this concern the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA) has begun a multiple -year, multi -million dollar program to award grants to researchers who will investigate this issue. Persons interested in obtaining details about this program should contact the Scientific Advisory Group on Cellular Telephone Research at (202) 833-2800. - Another federal agency with regulatory authority over radiative emissions from cellular telephones is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). With regard to the possible health effects of exposure to RF fields from cellular telephones the FDA issued a "Talk Paper" in 1993. In this statement the FDA said that it did not have enough information at present to rule out the possibility of risk, but if such a risk did exist "it is probably small." The FDA concluded that there is no proof that cellular telephones can be harmful, but if individuals remain concerned several precautionary actions could be taken. These included limiting the time of conversations on cellular telephones to those that are essential and making greater use of telephones with vehicle -mounted antennas where there is a greater distance between the user and the radiating structure. In addition to the FDA, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been investigating the issue of health effects of electromagnetic fields, including RF frequencies. The EPA has established a "hot line" for answering question from the public on' this issue. The number is 1-800- 363-2383. REFERENCES (1) American National Standards institute, New York, NY. "American National Standard Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 300 kHz to 100 GHz," (ANSI C95.1-1982). (2) Balzano Q., Garay 0., and F.R. Steel (1978). "Energy Deposition in Simulated Human Operators of 800-MHz Portable Transmitters." IEEE Trans. Vah. Tech. VT-27(4):174. 4 F� (3) Chatterjee I., Gu Y., and O.P. Gandhi (1985). "Quantification of Electromagnetic Absorption in Humans from Body -Mounted Communication Transceivers." IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech. VT-34(2):55-62. (4) Cleveland, Jr. R.F., and T.W. Athey (1989). "Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in Models of the Human Head Exposed to Hand -Held UHF Portable Radios." Bioelectromagnetics 10:173. (5) Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Washington, D.C. (1987). Second Report and Order, Gen. Docket 79-144, 52 Federal Register 13240, (6) Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Washington, D.C. (1993). Notice of Proposed Rule Making. ET Docket 93-62, 58 Federal Register 19393. (7) Guy, A.W., and C.K. Chou 0986). "Specific Absorption Rates of Energy in Man Models Exposed to Cellular UHF -mobile -antenna Fields." IEEE Trans. Microwave Theory and T3ch., MTT-34(6): 671. (8) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), New York, NY. "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio F equency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," (IEEE C95.1-1991). Adopted by American National Standards Institute as ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992. Information: 1-(800)-678-IEEE. (9) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), Washington, D.C., U.S. Activities Board, Entity Position Statement (1992). "Human Exposure to RF Emissions from Cellular Radio Base Station Antennas." (10) Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), Washington, D.C., U.S. Activities Board, Entity Position Statement (1992). "Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields from Portable and Mobile Telephones and Other Communications Devices." 01) International Radiation Rrotection Association (IRPA), "Guidelines on Limits of Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 100 kHz to 300 GHz." Health Physics. 54:1, pp.•115-123 (1988). 0 2) National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), Bethesda, MD. "Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," NCRP Report No. 86 (1986). Information: NCRP Publications, (301) 657-2652. (13) Petersen, R.C. and P.A. Testagrossa 0 992). "Radio -Frequency Electromagnetic Fields Associated With Cellular -Radio Cell -Site Antennas." Bioelectromagnetics 13: 527. 0 4) Stuchly S.S., at al. 0 985). "Energy Deposition in a Model of Man in the Near Field." Bioelectromagnetics 6: 115-129. (15) U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD 20857. "FDA Talk Paper, Update on Cellular Phones." February 4, 1993. 5 �03 95- 71_i N1 Matt:h 1 1 , 11493 Separate 5t.atement of Commissioner Ervin S. Duggan to Re: Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation 1 support today's action to update the commission's processing standards under the National Envitiinmental Policy Act ,.a-f. 1969. I t ► ope that the parties will provide us useful intortnation both on phe revised 1992 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for radiofrequency (RF) exposure that we propose to adopt and on the procedures we should use in putting that standard into effect. The safety of the services and facilities that we license, and the equipment we approve, are a vital concern. The National Environmental Policy Act requires us -to ensure that our licensing and other regulatory actions do not create adverse health or environmental effects. While we do not have the primary government responsibility in this area (that task belongs to other agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency), the FCC undoubtedly has an obligation to work i closely with the frontline health and safety agencies to ensure the safety of equipment that emits RP radiation. 7:0_4 L -z- It is worth emphasizing here that the FCC has a continuing responsibility to track and take account of any changes in widely - accepted standards regarding RF exposure, such as the revised ANSI%IEEE standard we propose to adopt today. In this connection, the press and public should be aware that the FCC began work on this notice of proposed rulemaking last fall, as soon as the revised ANSI standard was adopted. Our proceeding was launched in the normal course of business--- not as a response to any recent publicity about the safety of FCC -approved equipment This is as it should be; press scares and media hype are poor substitutes for the careful processes of science and government. The FCC and other government agencies, as well as the cellular industry, will work energetically to resolve questions about the safety of all RP devices. Meanwhile, it is important to keep such safety questions in pwtspectivee A_,y new technology presents risks and uncertainties, which must be weighed intelligently against the obvious benefits that new technology brings. Modern life challenges us to balance those risks with courage and calm analysis, and to avoid hysteria. ' r - 711 APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION File Number Within the City generally, or within certain zoning districts, certain structures, uses, and/or occupancies specified in this ordinance are of a nature requiring special and intensive review to determine whether or not they should be permitted in specific locations, and if so, the special limitations, conditions, and safeguartis which should be applied as reasonably necessary to promote the general purposes of this Zoning Ordinance, and, in particular, to protect adjoining properties and the neighborhood from avoidable potentially adverse effects. It is further intended that the expertise and judgement of the Zoning Board be exercised in making such determinations, in accordance with the rules, considerations and limitations relating to Special Exceptions. (See Article 16) Formal public notice and hearing is mandatory for Special Exceptions. The Zoning Board shall be solely responsible for determinations on applications for Special Exceptions. All applications shall be referred to the director of the Department of Planning, Building and Zoning for his recommendations and the director shall make any further referrals required by these regulations. I,•Adrienne F. Pardo ..-hereby' apply to the City of Miami Zoning Board for approval of a Special Exception for property located at NNoorthwe'st 5th Avenue & Sth Street Nature of Proposed Use (Ae specific) for a 56 foot self supPortincT pole (monopole) communication tower In support of this application, the following material is submitted: 1. Two copies of a survey of the property prepared by a State of Florida Registered tend Surveyor. X 2. Four copies oft the site plan showing (as required) property boundaries, existing (if any) and proposed structure(s),, pariNng, landscaping etc; building elevations and dimensions and, computations of tot area and',puilding spacing. X 3. Affidavits disclosing ownership of property covered by application and disclosure of interest form (attach to application). X 4. Certified list of owners of real estate within a 375-toot radius of the outside boundaries of property covered by the application. S. At least two photographs that show the entire property (land and improve- ments). — 6. Other (Specify) CA 0 7 X 7. Fee of $ 1,300 to apply toward the cost of processing: � � _ 19" 1 Special Exceptiop .......................... $650.00 Surcharge equal to applicable fee from item above, not to exceed six hundred and fifty dollars (5650) except from agencies of the city; such surcharge to be refunded to the applicant if there is no appeal from a property owner within three hundred and seventy-five (375) feet of the subject property. (City Code - Section 62-61) STATE OF FLORIDA) SS: COUNTY OF DADE ) 11 Signature ` �_ i Owner or Authorized Agent Nap Adrienne F. Pardo Address 1221 Rrickell Avenue Phone 579-0603 Adrienne F. Pardo , being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the (Door)(Authorized Agent of ;;or)7the real property described in answer to question i1 above; that he has rted the TOF090ing answers and that the same are true and complete; and (if acting as agent for owner) that he has authority to execute this petition on behalf of the owner. Adrienne F. Pardo SWORN TO AND SUISCIPED be me this � day o1 199 My Commission Expires: Personally known. .n lie, State of Florida at Large DAVS N�!'ARY P1 Lr— STATE OF FIA=A w_pMM566ON NO., CC 16M MY COINM ION FA ":OV. 21,t995 0"- 711 A F F 1 0 A V I T STATE OF FLORIDA } } SS COUNTY OF DADE } Before me, the undersigned authority, this day personally appeared Adrienne F. Pardo , who being by me first duly sworn, upon oath, deposes and says: 1. That he is the owner, or the legal representative of the owner, submitting the accompanying application for a public hearing as required by Ordinance 11000 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, affecting the real property located in the City of Miami, as 'described and listed an the pages attached to this affidavit and made a part thereof. 2. That all owners which he represents, if any, have given their full and complete permission for him to agt in their behalf for the change or modifica- tion of a classification or regulation of zoning as set out in the accompanying petition. 3. That the pages attached hereto and made a part of this affidavit contain the current names, mailing addresses, phone numbers and legal descriptions for the the real property of which he is the owner or legal representative. 4. The facts as represented in the application and documents submitted in conjunction with this affidavit are true and correct. Further Affiant sayeth not.. �^ L (Nme) Adrienne F. Pardo Sworn to and Subscribed before a this day of—'7`—`' 1!Z/ Notary State of Florida at Lame Personally Known W- P.r 4*94wn Svaipae? 7FCo d; H DAVIS LIC STATE OF Fl,ORIDA ION NO. CC 163M ION EJ . %'OV. 21,1995 95—� OWNER'S LIST Owner's Name Robert F. Oden,Trusteg Mailing Address 25 University Drive, Plantation, Florida 33324 Telephone Number Legal Description: The North 50 feet of Lots 9 and 10, Block 48, "Map of Miami", according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book B, Page 41 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida. Owner's Nam i Mailing Address Telephone Number Legal Description: Owner's Nast Mailing Address Telephone Number Legal Description: Any other real estate property owned individually, jointly, or severally (by corporation, partnership or privately) within 315 feet of the subject site is listed as follows: Street Address Legal Description NONE Legal Description Street Address Street Address Legal Description A DISCLOSURE OF OWNERSHIP. 1. Legal description and street address of subject real property: Northwest 5th Avenue and 8th Street The North 50 feet of Lots 9 and 101 Block 48, "Map of Miami.", according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book B, Page 41 of the Public Records of Dade County, Florida.. 2. Owner(s) of subject real property and percentage of ownership. Note: City of Miami Ordinance No. 9419 requires disclosure of all parties having a financial interest, either direct or indirect, in the subject setter of a presentation, request or petition to the City Comeission. Accordingly, question /2 requires disclosure of shareholders of corporations, beneficiaries of trusts, and/or any other interested parties, together with their addresses aM proportionate interest. Owner: Robert F. Oden, Trustee Beneficiaries of'Trust: David and Joan Dubov, 50% each 6363 N.W. 23rd Terrace Boca Raton, Florida 33431 3. Legal description and street address of any real property (a) owned by any party listed in answer to question /2, and (b) located within 315 feet of the subject real property. / y ✓ ii� - \.�1 l �. OVNER OR ATTORNEY FOR OWNER Adrienne F. Pardo STATE OF FLORIDA } SS: COUNTY OF DADE } Adrienne F. Pardo , being duty sworn, deposes and says that he is the (Owner) (Attorney for Owner) f the real property described in An~ to question 01, above; tKWhe has read the foregoing answers and that the sane are true and cosplete; and (if acting a9 attorney for owner) that he has authority to execute the Disclosure of Ownership fans on behalf of the owner. Adrienne F. Pardo SWORN TO AND SUDSCR�fp before me this day of 19491l t lic, a",—.LL 904azA�- State of Florida at urge Personally Known. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: JUNE H DAVIS NOTARY pUSLIC STATE OF FLORIDA COMMISSION NO. CC 163009 MY COMMISSION W. NOV. 21.1995