This document discusses wireless telecommunications facilities and trends in wireless technology. It provides an overview of how cell phones work and issues around siting facilities, including visual impacts and health concerns regarding radio frequency (RF) emissions. It notes trends toward increasing capacity needs, upgrades to 4G/LTE technology, and deploying more antennas closer to users through small cell sites and distributed antenna systems. The document also summarizes relevant federal rules and regulations governing the review and permitting of wireless facilities, including timelines for local approval under the FCC's shot clock rules and requirements for approving certain modifications under Section 6409 of the 2012 TRA.

1. Tall Tower with Single Cell
A taller tower can have similar signal coverage
strength compared to multiple smaller towers
Multiple Smaller Towers
with 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 System
Greenburgh, 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
NYS
THR
UWA
Y
NY
STH
RU
WA
Y
WESTCHESTER
CRO
SS
EXP
’WA
Y
I-2
87
SPR
AIN
BRO
OK
PAR
KWA
Y
SAW
MILL
RIVE
RPARK
WAY
BRON
XRIVER
PARK
WAY
NYD6340
NYD6335
NYD6336
NYD6334
NYD6339
NYD6333
NYD6332
NYD6330
NYD6329
NYD6328
NYD6327
NYD6320
NYD6324
NYD6323
NYD6325
NYD6326
NYD6322
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 / justification
° 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, MPH
1 International Boulevard, Suite 1000
Mahwah, NJ 07495
D 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.
Office 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 Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.
Office 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 traffic (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
Frequency
Range
(MHz)
Electrical Field
Strength (E)
(V/m)
Magnetic Field
Strength (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

2. 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, surfing 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 / justification 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 efficient to
handle data and manage capacity)
• Trend #2: Wireless Facility Upgrades / Modifications
° 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 & REGULATIONS
Federal 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
significant 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 effects 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 affected 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 define 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 modification 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 modification 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 definition of “substantial change” (e.g., increasing existing
tower height by more than 10%).
• FCC Treatise (October 2014). FCC 14-153. To be adopted
• Further defines “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 effects 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 different 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 fields produced by mobile phones are classified 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, effects on immune
system function, gene and protein expression, cell signaling, oxidative stress, and
apoptosis, along with studies of the possible effects 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 fields
exposure by 2016.
WIRELESS FACILITY SITING ISSUES, RISK COMMUNICATION AND PERCEPTIONS
o 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