Tall Tower with Single Cell

A taller tower can have similar signal coverage strength compared to multiple smaller towers

Multiple Smaller Towerswith Multiple Cells

* FDV = Amount of data a cell site can provide before users start to experience problems

represents the limits set by VZW

represents the actual data recorded for that day

represents the average of the data recorded for that day

represents the trend of that average data

Proposed NextG

Distributed Antenna SystemGreenburgh, NY

Proposed & On-Air

Metro PCS Sites

Proposed Metro PCS Sites With

In-Vehicle Coverage Pattern

Proposed DAS Node Location

On Air or Approved MetroPCS Sites With

In-Vehicle Coverage Pattern

LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE

Figure 2

APPROX. SCALE:1 in. = 3,400 f

0

NYD6338N

NY6028

NY6030

NY

S TH

RU

WA

Y

NYS TH

RUW

AY

WESTCHESTER

CROSSEXP’WAY

I-287

SPR

AIN

BR

OO

K P

AR

KW

AY

SAW

MIL

L R

IVER

PA

RK

WA

Y

BR

ON

X R

IVER

PA

RK

WA

Y

NYD6340

NYD6335

NYD6336

NYD6334

NYD6339

NYD6333

NYD6332

NYD6330

NYD6329

NYD6328

NYD6327

NYD6320

NYD6324

NYD6323NYD6325

NYD6326NYD6322

NYD6321

NYD6331

NYD6337

NY6043

NY6046 (Proposed NextG Hub Site)

NY6048

NY6049

NY6027

NY6047

NY6034

NY6044

NY6045

253 Garth Road

Source: American Tower Corp. (2011 Utility Telcom Forum, Pennsylvania Wireless Association).

hdrinc.com

Wireless Telecommunications Facilities - Risk Assessment, Perception, and Communication (P-129) –Michael Musso, PE, HDR, Mahwah, NJ

TECHNOLOGY

• How cell phones work….

• Issues / reviews: (add bullets)

° Siting / justifi cation

° Visual impacts

° Other NEPA (T&E, historic / cultural resources)

° FAA

° Health: RF emissions / structural design

TRENDS

• Trend #1: capacity need vs coverage

• Trend #2: wireless base station upgrades (2.5 GHz)…

° 4G, “LTE”

° Co-location on existing structures

• Trend #3: More facilities – closer to ground / consumers; lower power

° SMALL CELL SITES / DAS

FEDERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS

• Local laws / limitations

° Legal actions

• TCA 1996

• 2009 Shot Clock

° Limits municipal review

° “Complete” application

• 2012 TRA

° Substantial changes

• Oct 2014 FCC treatise

° Small cell sites, ROWs

RISK COMM AND PERCEPTIONS:

• Assessed in case law

• FCC / Federal vs municipal powers

• Categorically excluded issues:

° RF emissions (some)

° Interference

• Perspectives:

° Wi Fi and cell phone / devices vs base station tower in neighborhood

° Property values

CONTACT INFORMATION

Michael Musso, PE, MS, MPH1 International Boulevard, Suite 1000Mahwah, NJ 07495D 201.335.9412 M 845.304.9639

REFERENCES

HEALTH STUDY INFO:

• OET bulletin 56 and 65 exhibits

• FCC, FDA, WHO…

• Conclusions so far…

• On-going studies

FCC. Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields: Guidelines for Cellular and PCS Sites (Concumer Guide). 10/22/2014 update. FCC. Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. O" ce of Engineering & Technology (OET) Bulletin 65. August 1997.

CTIA, The Wireless Association. www.cellphonehealthfacts.com

Title 47 USCS. February 2012. “TRA”

Title 47 USCS. February 2012. “TRA” IARCFCC. Report and Order FCC 14-153. Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies Acceleration of Broadband Deployment; Expanding the Reach and Reducing the Cost of Broadband Deployment by Improving Policies Regarding Public Rights of Way and Wireless Facilities Siting; and 2012 Biennial Review of Telecommunications Regulations. October 21, 2014.FCC. Questions and Answers about Biological E$ ects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.

O" ce of Engineering & Technology (OET) Bulletin 56. August 1999.New York State Department of State. Planning and Design Manual for the Review of Applications for Wireless Telecommunication Facilities. March 2001.

FCC. Declaratory Ruling FCC 09-99. November 18, 2009 (“Shot Clock” ruling). WHO

Abstract

The use of and reliance on mobile devices and technologies has become a way of almost all facets of everyday life. To accommodate the growing demands for wireless services - communications and various types of high speed data transfers - the number of base station antennas on cell towers, rooftops and other structures, and in buildings continues to increase rapidly. Only a short time ago, the commercial wireless carriers focused the siting of base station facilities in communities to provide an initial footprint of coverage. Today, increases in call and data tra" c (and consumer demands) has shifted focus to capacity, where supplemental cell sites and upgrades of early generation equipment are increasingly being deployed in many markets. This presentation provides a general overview of the evolution of wireless technologies in the U.S., and highlights emerging technologies used by the major wireless carriers to meet demands. The roles of lead community agencies (such as municipal Planning or Zoning Boards) tasked with conducting “due diligence” reviews of proposed wireless telecommunications facilities are discussed, including the elements of interest to the citizens these agencies represent. In terms of risk assessment and risk perceptions, health and safety considerations such as radio frequency (RF) emissions will be presented, including a summary of industry and independent research on RF exposure levels associated with base station facilities. Federal Laws - and their interplay with local reviews and decision making - continue to present interesting challenges to lead agencies and risk communication.

Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure

f = frequency in MHz * = Plane-wave equivalent power density

FrequencyRange(MHz)

Electrical FieldStrength (E)

(V/m)

Magnetic FieldStrength (H)

(A/m)

Power Density(S)

(mW/cm2)

Averaging Time| E | 2, | H | 2 or S

(minutes)

0.3 - 1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30

1.34 - 30 824/F 2.19/F (180/F2)* 30

30 - 300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30

300 - 1500 -- -- F/1500 30

1500 - 100,000 -- -- 1.0 30

wirelessRA.indd 1 12/3/2014 7:35:35 AM

hdrinc.com

Wireless Telecommunications Facilities - Risk Assessment, Perception, and Communication (P-129) –Michael Musso, PE, HDR, Mahwah, NJ

WIRELESS BASE STATIONS

• Approximately 250,000 cell sites in the U.S., including cell towers, antennas on rooftops, water tanks, utility lines, and other structures (CTIA, 2010).

• Wireless Telecommunications Facilities come in various shapes and sizes and support 1 or more commercial carrier that services a given area.

• “Not Just Voice Anymore”. Increasingly, wireless technology supports numerous devices that provide infrastructure for making phone calls, sending emails and text messages, surfi ng the internet, and downloading data. There are governmental initiatives for E-911 and wireless broadband. All of this requires additional bandwidth and capacity in the wireless networks that support these activities.

• Issues / Local Technical Reviews and Permits / Controversies:

° o Siting of new cell towers

» Location / justifi cation of need;

» Planning for more carrier co-location (“if you build it, will they come ?”)

» Visual Impacts

» NEPA reviews (T&E, historic / cultural resources)

» FAA (height; striping / lighting)

° Health & Safety: RF Emissions, Structural Design

° Powers granted to local authorities / municipalities during review and siting

TRENDS IN WIRELESS FACILITIES • Trend #1: Capacity vs Coverage

° Old 200 ft tower being split into multiple, smaller cells (shorter towers each with lower power and smaller coverage than original, but collectively more e" cient to handle data and manage capacity)

• Trend #2: Wireless Facility Upgrades / Modifi cations

° Replacing old equipment with new technology (800 MHZ, 1900 MHZ frequency bands)

° “4G”, LTE (“5G” by 2018 ?)

° Frequency Spectrum Auctions (600 MHz;700 MHz; 2.5 GHz)

• Trend #3: “More Antennas, Closer to Users”

° Small Cell Sites; Distributed Antenna Systems

° Existing technology used for years indoors (malls, airports) and in dense urban canyons to provide concentrated outdoor coverage is now wending its way into suburbia

FEDERAL RULES & REGULATIONSFederal mandates and FCC directives limit – but do not fully remove – a local authority’s ability to review and act on an application for a wireless telecommunications facility. Some signifi cant Federal actions:

• Telecommunications Act (TCA) of 1996. Section 704

• Local governments “shall act on any request for authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within a reasonable period of time;”

• Local government denials of applications for personal wireless service facilities “shall be in writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record;”

• No local government can regulate “on the basis of the environmental e$ ects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission’s (Federal Communications Commission [FCC]) regulations concerning such emissions” (including RF emissions and interference);

• Any person adversely a$ ected by a local government’s decision or failure to act may “commence an action in any court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an expedited basis.”

• FCC “Shot Clock” Declaratory ruling of 2009. FCC 09-99

• FCC determined that it possessed the authority and broad discretion to defi ne what constitutes a presumptively “reasonable period of time” for a local zoning authority to act on a wireless antenna siting application.

• 90/150 Rule: the FCC determined that a presumptively reasonable period of time to act on a wireless siting application is 90 days for co-location applications and 150 days for all other applications – i.e., the 90/150 Rule.

• Excluded from the 90/150 day calculation are “incomplete” applications. However, if an application is incomplete, the municipality must notify the application within 30 days of submission.

• Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Action (TRA) of 2012. Section 6409

• Mandates that state and local governments must approve an eligible facilities request for the modifi cation of an existing wireless tower or base station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such tower or base station.

• Eligible facilities request means any request for modifi cation of an existing wireless tower or base station that involves –

(A) collocation of new transmission equipment;

(B) removal of transmission equipment; or

(C) replacement of transmission equipment

and that does not meet FCC’s defi nition of “substantial change” (e.g., increasing existing tower height by more than 10%).

• FCC Treatise (October 2014). FCC 14-153. To be adopted

• Further defi nes “substantial change”, and encourages deployment of small cell sites.

•

• Addresses Right-of-Way siting of antennas and small cells (utility poles), and local authority’s role in review and permitting.

RADIO FREQUENCY (RF) HEALTH INFORMATION: • Radio Frequency is a form of non-ionizing radiation. According to the National Cancer

Institute and other organization, radiofrequency energy, unlike ionizing radiation, does not cause DNA damage in cells, and it has not been found to cause cancer in animals or to enhance the cancer-causing e$ ects of known chemical carcinogens in animals.

• At a cell site, the total radio frequency (RF) power that can be transmitted from each transmitting antenna depends on the number of radio channels (transmitters) that have been authorized by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the power of each transmitter. INSERT EQUATIONS BELOW OR NEAR HERE

• FCC OET Bulletins (1990’s) describe Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) Limits for General Public and Occupational exposures to RF. Applicable for evaluating wireless telecommunications facilities. Criteria based on antenna power and frequency. ADD CHART NEAR HERE

• The FCC’s safety standards were derived from the recommendations of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). The FCC consulted with and obtained support for the safety standards from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).

Insert fcc quote in di$ erent font (or as an image). Include web reference at bottom

“Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS installations, especially those with tower-mounted antennas, have shown that ground-level power densities are thousands of times less than the FCC’s limits for safe exposure. This makes it extremely unlikely that a member of the general public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of FCC guidelines due solely to cellular or PCS base station antennas located on towers or monopoles. When cellular and PCS antennas are mounted at rooftop locations it is possible that a person could encounter RF levels greater than those typically encountered on the ground. However, once again, exposures approaching or exceeding the safety guidelines are only likely to be encountered very close to and directly in front of the antennas.”

http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html#Q16

• Other technologies that use radio frequency include portable radios, cordless phones, baby monitors, radio broadcasting, and Wi-Fi and Bluetooth devices.

• STUDIES:

° WHO / International (cell phones) –

° The electromagnetic fi elds produced by mobile phones are classifi ed by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as possibly carcinogenic to humans based on limited evidence from human studies [Interphone], limited evidence from studies of radiofrequency energy and cancer in rodents, and weak mechanistic evidence (from studies of genotoxicity, e$ ects on immune system function, gene and protein expression, cell signaling, oxidative stress, and apoptosis, along with studies of the possible e$ ects of radiofrequency energy on the blood-brain barrier).

° National Cancer Institute’s (NCI’s) Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, which tracks cancer incidence in the United States over time, found no increase in the incidence of brain or other central nervous system cancers between 1987 and 2007, despite the dramatic increase in cell phone use in this country during that time . Similarly, incidence data from Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden for the period 1974–2008 revealed no increase in age-adjusted incidence of brain tumors. A 2012 study by NCI researchers, which compared

WHO will conduct a formal risk assessment of all studied health outcomes from RF fi elds exposure by 2016.

WIRELESS FACILITY SITING ISSUES, RISK COMMUNICATION AND PERCEPTIONSo Increased acceptance / dependence on wireless devices.o The number of cell phone users has increased rapidly. As of 2010, there were more than 303 million subscribers to cell phone service in the United States, according to the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association. This is a nearly threefold increase from the 110 million users in 2000. o Real or perceived increase in personal safety with being connected.

o Explosion in consumer use and Federal mandates drive trends in wireless telecommuni-cations facility proliferation.

o Health studies on wireless facilities generally “negative”, but studies continuing (mainly on phones and wireless devices).

o But still opposition to wireless telecommunications facilities. o Opposition based on perceived health issues. Electro-sensitive individuals ?o Tower on the hill vs. rooftop antennas vs. antenna on utility pole outside bedroom win-dow. Who favors / opposes which alternative ?o Opposition for a variety of other reasons that municipal authorities may otherwise ana-lyze (zoning code compliance, property values, aesthetic impacts). But authorities are losing ability to do so.

o Based on Federal mandates – and case law to be played out – the local / municipal role in future wireless facility siting may be increasingly diminished. Wireless carriers are coop-erative with municipal requests, Site Plan reviews, and permit processes, but have incentives to avoid substantial changes, work in ROWs, and take on other approaches to avoid time and cost for municipal reviews (“time is money”).

o Is something missing ? FCC guidance on evaluating exposures from wireless telecommu-nications facilities (1996) was developed prior to the boom in the use of wireless devices and the advent and/or widespread use of Bluetooth and Wi-Fi technologies, small cell sites, and technology upgrades that have been deployed. Is an update or re-evaluation needed given the changes to the wireless infrastructure that surrounds us ?

wirelessRA.indd 2 12/3/2014 7:35:39 AM