HomeMy WebLinkAbout29-Development Services y
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO—REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: Valerie C. Ross, Director Subject: Conditional Use Permit No. 07-28
(Appeal No. 07-06) –An appeal of the Planning
Dept: Development Services Commission's approval of a
telecommunications facility and associated
Date: January 14. 2008 equipment, on a site located on the north side of
Baseline Street, approximately 245 feet east of
Pennsylvania Avenue in the CG-1, Commercial
General land use district.
MCC Date: February 4, 2008
Synopsis of Previous Council Action: None
Recommended Motion:
That the hearing be closed and that the Mayor & Common Council deny Appeal No. 07-06 and uphold
the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 07-28, based upon the Findings of
Fact contained in the Planning Commission Staff Report, and subject to the Conditions of Approval
(Attachment C to the Planning Commission Staff Report) and Standard Requirements (Attachment D to
the Planning Commission Staff Report).
Y&4;p 6z, Rm-
Valerie C. Ross
Contact person: Waen Messner Assistant Planner Phone: (909) 384-5057
Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: 6
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Description)
Finance:
Council Notes:
Agenda Item No.
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
STAFF REPORT
Mayor& Common Council Meeting of February 4, 2008
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 07-28 (Appeal No. 07-06)
OWNER: APPLICANT: APPELLANT:
Terry Ngu Marcie Brown Father Patricio Guillen
1838 W. Baseline St. OmniPoint Libreria Del Pueblo, Inc.
San Bernardino Communications, Inc. 251 Carousel Mall
CA 92411 3257 E. Guasti Rd. San Bernardino, CA 92411
909.381.1660 Suite 200 909.926.3040
Ontario, CA 91761
949.903.8721
BACKGROUND
This is an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No.
07-28, a permit to construct a "monopalm" telecommunications tower disguised as a palm tree
and associated equipment. The project is located on the north side of W. Baseline Street,
approximately 245 feet east of Pennsylvania Avenue (Exhibit 1 — Location Map). Currently,
there are two existing wireless telecommunications facilities on the subject property. Each
I facility has a monopalm and equipment located inside a block wall enclosure. In addition, the
site was approved to host another carrier with a similar monopalm tower on October 16, 2007.
On November 20, 2007, the Planning Commission approved the proposal to add a 4"' wireless
carrier to the site with CUP No. 07-28 (Exhibit 2 — Planning Commission Staff Report). During
the Planning Commission hearing, two concerned citizens opposed the project, citing the
potential harmful health effects caused by radio frequency (RF) emissions from wireless
facilities (Exhibit 3 — Letter from the Concerned Neighbors Committee and BioInitiative
Report). Planning Staff distributed additional information with regards to the RF emissions to
the Planning Commission (Exhibit 4 — A Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting
Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance, Questions and
Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Fields and Information on Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields from Cellular and PCS
Radio Transmitters).
The Commission conferred with the Deputy City Attorney in attendance at the hearing, and
informed the speakers that they did not have the authority to deny CUP No. 07-28 based on
health concerns related to RF emissions. Then the Planning Commission voted unanimously to
approve the application. Commissioners Dailey, Heasley, Mulvihill, Munoz, Rawls and
Sauerbrun were in attendance. Commissioners Longville, Coute, Durr and Hawkins were absent.
The appellant filed Appeal No. 07-06 on December 4, 2007, to request that the Mayor &
Appeal No. 07-06
Hearing Date: February 4, ?003
Page
Common Council overturn the Planning Commissions approval of the proposed wireless
telecommunications facility.
In the Appeal application (Exhibit 5), the appellant's grounds for appeal are "the detritnental
affects that the project may have or already has [sic] on the health and safety of existing
residents in the adjacent area. " The Planning Commission already informed the public during
the hearing on November 20, 2007 that only the Federal Government has jurisdiction over
decisions based on the environmental effects of RF emissions. The Telecommunications Act of
1996, under Section 704(a)(7)(B)(iv), states:
"No State or local government or instrumentality thereof
may regulate the placement, construction, and modification
of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the
extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's
regulations concerning such emissions."
Pursuant to the above section of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the City of San
Bernardino Planning Commission determined that it did not have the authority to deny CUP No.
07-28 on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.
Although not specifically stated on the appeal application, the Concerned Neighbors Committee
(C.N.C.) also submitted additional information critical of the aesthetic quality of
telecommunications facilities, in general (Exhibit 6). As noted in the Planning Commission Staff
Report (Exhibit 2), the proposed project conforms to Code requirements for the design of
telecommunications facilities, and will add screening and additional landscaping to enhance the
condition of the existing facilities on the project site. The Planning Commission reviewed the
application for conformance to Development Code requirements for the placement and design of
telecommunications facilities, and the application was approved. Along with the C.N.C. letter,
an article titled "IAFF Seeks Study on Health Hazards of Cell Phone Tower Radiation" (Exhibit
6) was also submitted. On January 3, 2008, a representative from the C.N.C. submitted another
additional material titled "Twin Powers of Federal and Municipal Governments in the Ruling of
Wireless Communications as Interpreted by the United States Court of Appeals" (Exhibit 7).
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The appellant paid the processing fee. However, on January 11, 2008, the appellant, as a non-
profit organization, filed a request to refund the S 165.00 processing fee.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Mayor and Common Council deny the Appeal and uphold the
decision of the Planning Commission made on November 20, 2007.
Appeal No. 07-06
Hearing Date: Februan-4, 2008
Page 3
EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map
2. Staff Report to Planning Commission dated November 20, 2007
3. Letter from the Concerned Neighbors Committee (C.N.C.) and
BioInitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public
Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF), submitted
on November 20, 2007 (to be distributed under separate cover)
4. Three articles titled "Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting
Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance,"
"Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" and "Information on Human
Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields from Cellular and PCS Radio
Transmitters," distributed to Planning Commission on November 20, 2007
I (to be distributed under separate cover)
5. Appeal Application received on December 4, 2007
6. Letter from the Concerned Neighbors Committee received on December 4,
2007 and an article titled "IAFF Seeks Study on Health Hazards of Cell
Phone Tower Radiation"
7. An article submitted by the Concerned Neighbors Committee, titled "Twin
Powers of Federal and Municipal Governments in the Ruling of Wireless
I Communications as Interpreted by the United States Court of Appeals" (to
be distributed under separate cover)
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
PLANNING DIVISION
PROJECT: CUP 07-28 (AP 07-06)
LOCATION MAP NORTH
HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2008
Project Site
BASELINE-ST
`,'itv al San oufliardino
EXHIBIT 2
SUMMARY CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO PLANNING DIVISION
CASE: Conditional Use Permit No. 07-28
AGENDA ITEM: 1
HEARING DATE: November 20, 2007
WARD: 6
APPLICANT: OWNER:
Marcie Brown Terry Ngu
OmniPoint Communications, Inc. 1838 W. Baseline Street
3257 E. Guasti Rd., Suite 200 San Bernardino, CA 92411
Ontario, CA 91761 909.381.1660
949.903.8721
REQUEST & LOCATION:
Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a wireless telecommunications
facility consisting of a 70-foot monopalm tower and associated equipment. The project
site is located on the north side of W. Baseline Street, approximately 245 feet east of
Pennsylvania Avenue in the CG-1, Commercial General land use district.
CONSTRAINTS & OVERLAYS:
None
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS:
❑ Not Applicable
0 Exempt from CEQA, Section 15303 - New Construction of Small Structures
❑ No Significant Effects
❑ Potential Effects, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
• Approval
• Conditions
❑ Denial
11 Continuance to:
CUP U7-23
Meeting Date:November 20, 20U7
Page 1
PROTECT DESCRIPTION
The project site is located on the north side of Baseline Street, approximately 245 feet
east of Pennsylvania Avenue, in the CG-1, Commercial General land use district
(Attachment A - Location Nlap). The applicant requests approval of a Conditional Use
Permit under authority of Development Code §19.20.030(C)(7) to construct a 70'0"
wireless telecommunications tower, camouflaged as a monopalm, with associated
equipment (Attachment B - Site Plan and Elevations).
SETTING & SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The site is a rectangular parcel approximately 23,000 square feet in area. To the north of
the site is a single-family neighborhood in the RS, Residential Suburban land use
district. The west side of the parcel is adjacent to two different land use districts.
Approximately 150 feet of the northwest side abuts single-family residences in the RS
district and approximately 310 feet, or the rest of the west side, abuts vacant properties
in the CG-1, Commercial General land use district. The proposed monopalm tower will
be approximately 190 feet east of the nearest existing single-family residence and
approximately 32 feet east of the abutting residential property line. To the east is also a
vacant property in the CG-1. To the south is W. Baseline Street. Currently, the parcel
hosts two existing wireless carriers and will host another carrier that was recently
approved on October 16, 2007, each with a monopalm tower and an equipment
enclosure. The proposed monopalm telecommunications facility will be located directly
south of the southernmost existing monopalm. With the approval of this proposal, the
parcel will have a total of 4 monopalms, surrounded by 9 live palm trees and other
existing trees.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The proposed project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15303 for new construction of small
structures.
FINDINGS & ANALYSIS
1. Is the proposed use conditionally permitted zh7ithin, and would not inhpair the integrity
and character of, the subject land use district and cornplies with all of the applicable
provisions of the Developnient Code?
The proposed 70'0"monopalm is conditionally permitted in the CG-1,
Commercial General land use district under the authority of Development Code
§19.20.030(3)(C)(7) for placement of antennas located within 75 feet from a
property designated residential, or within 75 feet from an existing residence. The
CUP 07-28
Meeting Date: November 20. 2007
Page 2
proposed telecommunications facility will be screened from view by a 6'0" high
decorative block wall (i.e. split face or slump stone) with sandstone cap.
Additional landscape of two 40 to 45-foot new live palm trees will be provided in
s
addition to an existing tree.
The site currently has two existing monopalm towers and equipment enclosures
and was recently approved to have another monopalm tower. All of the facilities
are or will be landscaped by a few live palm trees and shrubs. The proposal of
an additional monopalm telecommunications facility would not alter the
character of the site, and would therefore not impair the integrity and character
of the subject land use district. In addition, The camouflaged
telecommunications facility would comply with the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
2. Is the proposed use consistent with the General Plan?
The proposed tower is consistent with a number of General Plan goals and
policies. General Plan Policy 9.8.1 (Utilities) provides for the continued
development and expansion of telecommunications systems. General Plan Goal
2.2 (Land Use) promotes development that integrates with and minimizes
impacts on surrounding land uses. Operation of the antenna and tower would
not be apparent to the surrounding residential neighborhood, and would provide
for continued development of the wireless telecommunications system. Finally,
the new monopalm would also be consistent with Community Design Policy
5.2.4 for screening of above-ground infrastructure support structures.
3. Is the approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the proposed use in compliance rt,ith the
requirements of the California Environmental Qualihl Act (CEQA) and Section
19.20.030(6) of the Development Code?
The approval of a Conditional Use Permit for the 70'0" monopalm wireless
facility is in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and Development Code
§19.20.030(6), in that the project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15303 for
new construction of small structures.
4. Are there potentially significant negative impacts upon environmental quality and
natural resources that could not be properly mitigated and monitored?
The site is not located within an area identified by the General Plan as having
potentially significant biological resources or other potentially sensitive natural
resources. The property is already disturbed by two existing telecommunication
towers and is surrounded by urban development. No potentially significant
impacts on environmental quality or natural resources can be anticipated to
CUP 07-25
Xlechng Date:Noaenibcr 20, 2007
Page 3
result from the proposed project. Therefore, no environmental mitigation would
be necessary.
�. Are the location, size, design, and operating cliaracteristics of the proposed use compatible
?citli the existing and future land uses within the general area in iN icli the proposed use
is to be located and will it create significant noise, traffic or other conditions or situations
that inay be objectionable or detrimental to otlier permitted uses in the z�icinihj or adverse
to the public interest, liealtli, safety, convenience, or znelfare of the City?
The site currently has two existing monopalm towers, two equipment enclosures
and is landscaped by a few live palm trees. On October 16, 2007, the Planning
Commission approved another monopalm tower and equipment enclosure.
Therefore the proposal is harmonious and compatible with existing
improvement on the project site and future development within the land use
district and general area. Currently, surrounding parcels to the north and
northwest are developed with single-family houses and to the southwest and
east are vacant properties. These surrounding properties are located within
residential and commercial land use districts. Since the proposed project and
related site improvements would be consistent with the existing uses on site, the
proposed monopalm facility would not be detrimental to surrounding uses or
adverse to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.
6. Is the subject site pliysically suitable for the type and densihj/intensihj of use being
proposed?
Although the subject parcel is approximatelv 23,000 square feet in size, it has a
narrow lot width of 50 feet and an extremely long lot depth of 460 feet. Due to
the unusual lot dimensions, this parcel is not suitable for commercial
development. However, the site is sufficient in size for the proposed
telecommunications facility. The intensity of the proposed project would be
negligible and would not negatively affect surrounding properties. The proposed
monopalm site will be accessible by an existing 12' wide paved driveway from
Baseline Street. Therefore, there are no physical constraints or conditions on the
site that would prevent development of the project.
Are there adequate provisions for public access, mater, sanitation, and public utilities and
services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public liealtli and
sa fehy?
The existing site currently- has adequate provisions for public access, water, and
public utilities and services. The proposed use will not create additional
demands for access, water, sanitation, or other public services. All necessary
CUP 0;-2s
,Meeting Date: Noz,etnber20, 2007
Page 4
public and private utilities currently serve the site. Therefore, the proposed use
will not be detrimental to public health and safety.
CONCLUSION
The proposal satisfies all Findings of Fact required for approval of Conditional Use
Permit No. 07-28.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No.
07-28 based upon the Findings of Fact contained in this Staff Report, and subject to the
Conditions of Approval (Attachment C) and Standard Requirements (Attachment D).
Respectfully Submitted,
kt 6 R
Valerie C. Ross
Development Services Director
Waen Messner
Assistant Planner
Attachment A Location Map
Attachment B Site Plan & Elevations
Attachment C Conditions of Approval
Attachment D Standard Requirements
EXHIBIT 5
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Devglgpment Services Department, Planning Division:
✓ ; 300 North "D" Street, 3`d Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
San Ber'nar In0 Phone (909) 384-5057 . Fax (909) 384-5080
Web address: www.sbcity.org
APPLICATION FOR APPEAL
APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE (check one)
0 Development Services Director
O Development/Environmental Review Committee 'P67 — U
Ck Planning Commission
Case number(s): 6/v,ZZ a iZ4 Z 1 art' YP,P m, /J� _ (, 7ra7 e
Project address: .I e_c, i r° _ A
Appellant's name: ;AC 2 i�A z J .;tet //0 �c •./ r f'G fir. �, �: /f, �u� ��e��
Appellant's address: ESL Ftn 42 a_C,-7- L ,�LL ra.r/ Eij VAR �•y C�. �1�l`
Appellant's phone:�z Q ?) epy--/R-6 6
i,, , fIlant's e-mail address: r v d 0, /D !;f 4_1A 96 • L 4 k1-1
Contact person's name:
Contact person's address: a Z7 42„7 �' ,��Al d� �4 ,2c?. QA22!� 4a
Contact person's phone:j�z- f ZI1A'j '(-- 7
Contact person's e-mail address: g k Q . C C, �►-�
Pursuant to Section 19.52.100 of the Development Code, an appeal must be filed on a City application form
within 15 days following the final date of action, accompanied by the appropriate appeal filing fee.
Appeals are normally scheduled for a determination by the Planning Commission or Mayor and Common
Council within 30 days of the filing date of the appeal. You will be notified, in writing, of the specific date and
time of the appeal hearing.
OFFICE USE ONLY
DaLc appeal filed: 04-(l _ G v-7
Received by: A,
1 11104
Mliai9illWi�Wi
REQUIRED INFORMATION FOR AN APPEAL
5r _,A is action being appealed and the date of that action:
All, IrIsmiFC5
�'"��mt�—'�° �+►� �-�1j r�i y C��J C'� �� /ti1 r��d�C/7 L %Tif l,-t/�1t f
Specific grounds for the appeal 4 r 414 4 11n ✓d� n �� n �� ��d�✓�-r
/lt
�ee2�'
�✓Gtr-,
Action sought: 7Le A-�'od -✓c �d Lr, i s J ��Al /R es'L► mod'
D 7 -,2 ,1kry
Sy eaA A N e n v t✓o.vM,e,sc�_
-
/`1/L/1G-C.� S�d7 5��� rJC /h�'O L i s SU/`e /ljJ•ti 1rG/SC jt 'y
/`vl �C✓�j 4-, hc� 5t 7iColy✓� /71e11(:C/ L)V JA ej vc c
A
Additional information: U< N rclo L,eL j ��• i 7 'he ^- e�tie c� /L
w "et
c0• lt�� G t,e'�ap ✓ l� /(,ja-a s/'r�ccM `�lr.n�Cf.��t�-�'
17 0
O N Q.t� V�.�[l�,l?'S � y C� /�- �� �J D ti�I Ltl SC j�`G✓ ALr � 'T� /`X15 T4-� /GG�L/f
! "1� I�� nr 1 ��t lC4J- !e✓��t/t�.-�/ o `riPSiL��x��LV� uiiw'c'_ �'G..ai 4�7�/`eN
—L7 u�l �Dr L i7�i ,SGI/I o�/lS Y if S de &1.4 6,-e taS,
�}S 30 C.Qc.,�'`i a�� o �_� �r,�� }-�' Sf s D:G�� a.z i ��m`d S`C�i w be�5 e✓ S fwa .N
ab e- d t' L A F 1= Sc e!`ki//5-//a all, n//��/Fet[e-!{�li-1-4 d//2 F3r�I [��/C e-
l/
e. -y „�e_✓ rC-d. �� n, .`, �j✓: Sc`I�It v✓t,e �rike, f-1 -4d " t i'e 4-1J41�✓f
(V,ca-d a4 «. fs4c�- ris//A a t��n!mod✓V �. c� i WP4Jf �'r�.� ,��� h.� 241ds
2 r✓y b �✓ w l( 04 7 a k rd.4 Car fe,%.L
ri', � Lr:�►; rle &,i— -'he Site %e M-0 641 .�'�1- e 6o Su e-
tc
i C �yC- tl t.i c� �'v►d A/j,t:hdtu u-v e– �A•�iG-�l o.v�/o �'► ��iGJLI�G L�f �da.e.i Ou c�f�-�-��aJ,
C
Signature of appellant: �,e � _; Date:
11/04
EXHIBIT 6
C.N.C.
Concerned Neighbors Committee
To: Mayor Patrick J. Morris/City Council Persons
And City Planning Commissioners
Dear Mayor Morris, City Council Persons and Planning Co9mmissioners:
This is an additional supplemental information of an Appeal to Conditional
Use Permit No. 07-28 granted to Omnipoint Communications, Inc., to
construct a 70 foot monopalm tower and associated equipment
approximately 32 feet east of an abutting residential single family property
line and other proximities which create an additional unnecessary burden as
a nuisance to neighbors living nearby on 13`h. and Pennsylvania streets —
this facility is not necessary for the adjacent community, since there is
already adequate wireless service in the surrounding neighborhood.
Also, cell monopalm constructions cause loss of property value to the
residences in this area that will constitute a "visual commercial and
residential blight" and would be detrimental to the character and safety of
this neighborhood surrounded within a mile distance to the south near
Arroyo Valley School, to the east by Martin Luther King School, to the west
a recreational area adjacent to Rio Vista School.
All of the mentioned above are residences and educational institutions where
children and families are exposed to the unsightful and visually obtrusive
features that create disturbing noises and display incompatible proportions,
textures and details such as the view of an already cluttered monopalm farm
- low level/long term effects of EMR/ microwave radiation —these
monopalms already have disturbed the area with one giving the appearance
of "a giant gorilla in leotards" and the other like a "huge, ferocious gorilla
with lipstick". A third one has been approved and we are not aware if the
City is monitoring this cluster of microwave radiation instruments for
compliance with FCC/ANSI Standards. We close declaring that the
proposed facility would not further the policies of the City's applicable
General Plan. C
f LAP
�.L.. lact Cis
pct"ol1H�r1 N►wt�f-G
I IN
NON
•
IAFF Seeks Study on Health Hazards of Cell Phone
Tower Radiation
"There currently is no good scientific study that determines whether or not cell
towers on fire stations are hurting our members, so a study must be done,"
says IAFF General President Harold Schaitberger. "Fire fighters are already at
higher risk of injury and illness from the hazards of their job, but we will not
tolerate our members being put in additional danger while at the station housE
from exposure to low-intensity radio frequency and microwave radiation from
these cell towers and antennas."
Until the health effects are truly tested and known, the IAFF believes no
• additional cell towers or antennas should be positioned on or near fire stations
It is the general belief of international governments and of the wireless
telecommunications industry that no consistent increases in health risk exist
FlRr�ac • from exposure to radio frequency radiation. However, it's important to note
Site infix • that these positions are based on non-continuous exposures to the general
Site Search . public to low intensity radio frequency fields emitted from wireless
Ovikie Urrary •
RequestAaslsteme • telecommunications base stations.
"Critical questions concerning the health effects and safety of radio frequency
microwave radiation remain," says Schaitberger. "We want answers, not the
biased opinions of cell phone industry groups."
Most studies on this subject are at least five years old and generally look at th
safety of the phone itself. IAFF is concerned about the effects of living directly
under these stations for a considerable stationary period of time and on a daill.
basis.
The IAFF and its medical team believe a study with the highest scientific merit
and integrity, contrasting fire fighters with residence in stations with towers tc
fire fighters without similar exposure, is necessary to truly determine the
effects of radio frequency radiation on the central nervous system (CNS) and
the immune system, as well as other metabolic effects observed in preliminary
studies.
Biological effects from exposure to low-level radio frequency microwave
radiation have been recognized as markers of adverse health effects.
Internationally acknowledged experts have shown that radio frequency
microwave radiation transmissions of the type used in digital cellular antennas
and phones can have critical effects on cell cultures, animals and humans in
laboratories.
Studies have also found epidemiological evidence of serious health effects at
"non-thermal" levels where the intensity of the radiation was too low to cause
heating, including increased cell growth of brain cancer cells, changes in tumor
growth, more childhood leukemia, changes in sleep patterns, headaches sand
neurological changes, decreased memory, retarded learning, increased blood
pressure and other health hazards.
The IAFF's efforts will attempt to establish a correlation between such biological
effects and a health risk to fire fighters and emergency medical personnel due
to the citing of cell phone antennas and base stations at fire stations and
facilities where they work.
For a full copy of the IAFF report on the potential risk of cell tower radiation,
click here.
International Association of Fire Fighters
1750 New York Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20006 • 202.737.8484 • 202.737.8418 (Fax)
t
3 a
. A4
AaAk
itw �
j;
�'.
$� I1
PP' '
•
r
r
f.
r,
L
1 t9 }
�<
et
I 131hLtreet g r
d
e
EXIS Ing F olMISS
Pro p0 d Faclllty
o L '
Z ;; 1• "I
`o
1'
2
F
°West Bake LIR'e Street Ba ellne,St,"eetlWest Bese'L ne SI eet
AV
a
q
c 2008 Na�lonal ' tephhi;�octety '
77f� P
�c,2008 Europa Technologies -
' p S 200 ele tla$ i •
v
v, 2008 European Spa e Agoncy 1 _�
Polritar 34'07'19 52'N 11:'19'40 7"W Relev 11851t- Streaming '.I. =287211
rn,
�I
�I
z
i
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
---------
I
I I I
I
I
I L d d I Vo ANN I I
1
P Ell mg 8 Q I I I
° W r -- -- ---�
D
I m
m
N -- -- _- __ ['�✓,iMOW'00'E X6'.00' - 1
8
8 — — — — =eawaaw"soo= -----------J�I
I
III _ f4m !iy�3i � I
II g 87
g �z
-- -- --
a I
I
0
I
0
4 1
x
0
Ak
�m
Z o s ggv
a•
D r
z
z N
-
c
P1
o51GTOR A
A
rn
i
2
gs
rn -- - - --- --- ------ ------ ....-- ------------
C93 CEI
W. M z �..
¢s VT
Ld-
Ir
'I _ I
c
m e
mmz
5 N
Zn
o a
3 _ °�
M
_ m
Tmcn � r
c v m
-d z e
-s
O z S H
Z '
O rn
lP
A �
� rn
rn �
i O
O z
z
€mx €
Ao
1 1 ,
s'
Ez
!J —
W
lit
ml, IN
D m = m a o 8 a
W > m ; � TO
Nj
it
m�
z Sp
4
c J-f-Aion_a r � o
V�'s�cc
, ..:- ---------- — School
# c F M0 s i3 # v v.••"
a T
m -
°
-— -——- — —- —
F Q S , �r.�r......r.•�_c.— -------------�—.
t
Is
I :
o ,
I Z t
r F utke E" ckool
o - -
N �1r _ _ - a a€_' - 3
� aA. 9 '`-
�' 'i�g is S0 1 �r�
NE
f � /
e
m I z
4
I
Y i rn
_ I
- -
fj
!R
rn
z j-31
L i•� � r
N 3
Z i w i�a. y
RRsE3 j� 5S
-
I
I F
I
I
_m _
oma
to
a
Z
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Development Services Department ,Y
Interoffice Memorandum
TO: Mayor and Common Council
FROM: Valerie C. Rosh;Director
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 07-28 (Appeal No. 07-06)
DATE: January 22, 2008
COPIES: Rachel Clark, City Clerk; James Penman, City Attorney; Fred Wilson, City
Manager
On November 20, 2007, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 07-28
to allow an additional monopalm telecommunications tower on the north side of Baseline Street,
approximately 245 feet east of Pennsylvania Avenue. An appeal of that action was filed and is
being scheduled for consideration by the Mayor and Common Council on February 4, 2008.
The exhibits in the Request for Council Action are as follows. Since the background information
is extensive, Exhibits 3, 4, and 7 are being distributed early to give you an opportunity to review.
EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map
2. Staff Report to Planning Commission dated November 20, 2007
3. Letter from the Concerned Neighbors Committee (C.N.C.) and
Biolnitiative Report: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public
Exposure Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF), submitted
on November 20, 2007 (to be distributed under separate cover)
4. Three articles titled "Local Government Official's Guide to Transmitting
Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance,"
"Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields" and "Information on Human
Exposure to Radiofrequency Fields from Cellular and PCS Radio
Transmitters," distributed to Planning Commission on November 20, 2007
(to be distributed under separate cover)
5. Appeal Application received on December 4, 2007
6. Letter from the Concerned Neighbors Committee received on December 4,
2007 and an article titled "IAFF Seeks Study on Health Hazards of Cell
Phone Tower Radiation"
7. An article submitted by the Concerned Neighbors Committee, titled "Twin
Powers of Federal and Municipal Governments in the Ruling of Wireless
Communications as Interpreted by the United States Court of Appeals" (to
(�J be distributed under separate cover)
K0
r
Exhibit 3
Conditional Use Permit No. 07-28 (Appeal No. 07-06)
i To: Mayor Patrick J. Morris/City Council Persons
and City Planning Commissioners DEPARIf*,
Dear Mayor Morris, City Council Persons and Planning Commissioners:
Re: Opposition to existing zoning ordinance that grants Conditional Use Permits
to wireless communications companies who recklessly site their microwave
transmitters in close proximity to schools and residential areas.
We the people, concerned residential neighbors in San Bernardino City, oppose the
present zoning ordinance existing for wireless technology and ask for a Moratorium
due immediately on all requests for Conditional Use Permits to install cells that
beam long term low-level radio frequency microwave radiation nearby our schools,
residences and recreational areas. Our understanding is that there are plans to
install more instruments that emit RF radiation disguised in different forms—some
of them are monopalm towers, etc. The current invasion of wireless
communications recklessly install additional monopalm towers in our community
severely alarming and offending us.
It has come to our attention that non-profit Faith Bible Church at 2898 "G" has
plans to request a Conditional Use Permit to construct a wireless communications
facility in their parking space in front of the church within a residential area
adjacent to where residents have their homes.
In addition, Terry D. Neu has applied for another Conditional Use permit No. 07-
28 adding to already existing mono-palm towers - wireless communications facilities
at north side of W. Baseline in the CG-1, Commercial General land district located
at an extremely sensitive close proximity with area residents of 1855, 1865 W. 13'h
St. and other adjoining residential properties.
Moreover,we request that zoning ordinance be responsibly and creatively
restructured to see beyond the minimal mechanical and aesthetic impact
of monopalm towers etc., and we ask that action on a Moratorium be taken as a
precautionary measure against the odorless, tasteless, soundless invisible and
patient EMR (RF) radiation spectrum that increasing evidence reveals a biophysical.
interaction in the human bodies of our children at schools, residences and
recreational areas.
San Bernardino, Ca., November 19, 2007
CONCERNED NEIGHBORS COMMITTEE
1 ei2lci 6 1 8,60
` ^"- � Pl-
VC 53 CtJ C van 5 3 8 -
I -
y,
II
..t
Release Date: August 31, 2007
BioInitiative Report:
A Rationale for a Biologically-based Public Exposure
Standard for Electromagnetic Fields (ELF and RF)
Organizing Committee:
Carl Blackman, USA
Martin Blank, USA
Michael Kundi, Austria
Cindy Sage, USA
Participants:
David Carpenter, USA
Zoreh Davanipour, USA
David Gee, Denmark
Lennart Hardell, Sweden
011e Johansson, Sweden
Henry Lai, USA
Kjell Hansson Mild, Sweden
Eugene Sobel, USA
Zhengping Xu and Guangdin Chen, China
Research Associate
S. Amy Sage, USA
CD
o
c�
� o
K r � r+
rn *�[ to O
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
SECTION 1
SUMMARY FOR THE PUBLIC
Cindy Sage, MA
Sage Associates
USA
Prepared for the BioInitiative Working Group
August 2007
1
BioInitiative: A Rationale for a Biologically-based Exposure Standard
for Electromagnetic Radiation
SECTION i. PREFACE
SECTION ii: TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: SUMMARY FOR THE PUBLIC AND CONCLUSIONS
Ms. Sage
SECTION 2: STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Ms. Sage
SECTION 3: THE EXISTING PUBLIC EXPOSURE STANDARDS
Ms. Sage
SECTION 4: EVIDENCE FOR INADEQUACY OF THE STANDARDS
Ms. Sage
SECTION 5: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON GENE AND PROTEIN
EXPRESSION (Transcriptomic and Proteomic Research)
Dr. Xu and Dr. Chen
SECTION 6: EVIDENCE FOR GENOTOXIC EFFECTS—RFR AND ELF
DNA DAMAGE
Dr. Lai
SECTION 7: EVIDENCE FOR STRESS RESPONSE (STRESS PROTEINS)
Dr. Blank
SECTION 8: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON IMMUNE FUNCTION
Dr. Johansson
1
SECTION 9: EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTS ON NEUROLOGY AND
BEHAVIOR
Dr. Lai
SECTION 10: EVIDENCE FOR BRAIN TUMORS AND ACOUSTIC
NEUROMAS
Dr. Hardell, Dr.Mild and Dr. Kundi
SECTION 11: EVIDENCE FOR CHILDHOOD CANCERS (LEUKEMIAO
Dr. Kundi
SECTION 12: MAGNETIC FIELD EXPOSURE: MELATONIN
PRODUCTION; ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE; BREAST
CANCER
Dr. Davampour and Dr. Sobel
SECTION 13: EVIDENCE FOR BREAST CANCER PROMOTION
(Melatonin links in laboratory and cell studies)
Ms. Sage
SECTION 14: EVIDENCE FOR DISRUPTION BY THE MODULATING
SIGNAL
Dr. Blackman
SECTION 15 EVIDENCE BASED ON EMF MEDICAL THERAPEUTICS
Ms. Sage
SECTION 16: THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE
Mr. Gee
SECTION 17: KEY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND
° PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Dr. Carpenter and Ms. Sage
SECTION 18: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS AND AFFILIATIONS
SECTION 19: GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
SECTION 20: APPENDIX- Ambient ELF and RF levels
Average residential and occupational exposures
SECTION 21: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
2
iv
TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES
CASES
Cellular Phone Taskforce v. FCC,
205 F. 3d 82 (2000...............................16, 18, 19-20
EMR Network v. FCC, 391 F. 3d 269(D. C. Cir. 2004) ..18
STATUTES& REGULATIONS
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 1, 20
OTHER A UTHORITIES
APHA --American Public Health Association -- Policy
Statement #200011, The Precautionary Principle and
Children's Health, APHA Policy Statements adopted by
the Governing Council of APHA; 1948-present,
cumulative, Washington D.C., November 15, 2000; cited
in text as "APHA Policy Statement..........................
.......................................14, n. 12 15, n.14, App. E
Barnett, C.', Paulson J, Who's in Charge of Protecting
Children's Health at School? (Healthy Schools Network,
Inc., 2005); cited in text as "Barnett & Paulson (2005)"
................................................................................16, n. 15
Bernstein, T., Building Healthy, High Performance
Schools: A Review of Selected State and Local Initiatives
(Environmental Law Institute, 2003); cited in text, as
"Bernstein (2003)„ .................................................14, n. 11
' Claire Barnett participated in the preparation of this brief.
v
Bernstein T.,Healthier Schools: A Review of State Policies for
Improving Indoor Air Quality (Environmental Law Institute
2002; cited in text as "Bernstein (2002)".................14, n. 11
Boese, S, Shendell, D., The Healthy and High Performance
School (Healthy Schools Network, Inc. (2004); cited in text as
"Boese & Shendell (2004)".................................3-4, n. 5
Boese, S., Shaw, J., New York State School Facilities and
Student Health, Student Achievement, and Student
Attendance: A Special Data Analysis Report (Healthy
Schools Network, Inc. 2005); cited in text as Boese &
Shaw (2005). ..............................................................4, n. 5
Christensen HC, Schuz J, Kosteljanetz M, Skovgaard
Poulsen H, Boice JD, McLaughlin JK, Johansen C.,
Cellular telephones and risk for brain tumors: A
population based incident case-control study, 64
Neurology 1189-95 (2005); cited in text as "Christiansen
et al. (2005)".............................................................10, n. 9
Coleman M, Beral V.,A review of epidemiological studies
of the health effects of living near or working with
electricity generation and transmission equipment, 17
International Journal of Epidemiology 1-13 (1988); cited
in text as "Coleman et al. (1988)"..............................8, n. 7
Dolk H, Shaddick G, Walls P, Grundy C, Thakrar B,
Kleinschmidt I, Elliott P., Cancer incidence near radio
and television transmitters in Great Britain, 145
American Journal of Epidemiology 1-9 (1997); cited in
text as "Dolk et al. (1997)" ..........................................7, 11
Elder JA., Thermal, cumulative, and life span effects and
cancer in mammals exposed to radiofrequency radiation,
vi
In: Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields:
Beneficial and Harmful Effects. Eds. DO Carpenter,2 S
Ayrapetyan, Vol. 2, pp. 279-295 (Academic Press, Inc.
1994); cited in text as "Elder (1994)" ........................8, n. 7
Elwood JM, Epidemiological studies of radio frequency
exposures and human cancer, 6 Bioelectromagnetics
(Suppl) 563-73 (2003); cited in text as "Elwood (2003)"
..................................................................................10, n. 9
Eulitz C, Ullsperger P, Freude G, Elbert T., Mobile
phones modulate response patterns of human brain
activity, 9 NeuroReport, 3229-32 (1998); cited in text as
"Eulitz et al. (1998)............................................................9
Goldsmith JR., Epidemiologic evidence relevant to radar
(microwave) effects, 105 Environmental Health
Perspectives 1579-87 (1997); cited in text as "Goldsmith
(1997)„ ...............................................................................9
Grayson JK., Radiation exposure, socioeconomic status,
and brain tumor risk in the US Air Force: A nested case-
control study, 143 American Journal of Epidemiology
480-86 (1996); cited in text as "Grayson (1996)"..............7
Hardell L, Mild KH, Carlberg M, Hallquist A., Cellular
and cordless telephone use and the association with brain
tumors in different age groups, 59 Archives of
Environmental Health 132-37 (2000); cited in text as
"Hardell et al. (2004)" .......................................................8
z Dr. David Carpenter participated in the preparation of this brief.
I
V11
Healthy Schools Network, Inc: Lessons Learned (2006),
cited in text as "Healthy Schools Network, Lessons
Learned(2006).......................................................16, n. 15
Hermann DM, Hossmann KA., Neurological effects of
microwave exposure related to mobile communication,
152 Journal of Neurological Sciences, 1-14 (1997); cited
in text as "Hermann & Hossmann (1997)"..............10, n. 9
Huber R, Graf T, Cote KA, Wittmann L, Gallmann E,
Matter D, Schuderer J, Kuster N, Borbely AA,
Achermann P., Exposure to pulsed high frequency
electromagnetic fields during waking affects human sleep
EEG, 11 NeuroReport, 3321-25 (2000); cited in text as
"Huber et al. (2000)..........................................................10
Inskip PD, Tarone RE, Hatch EE, Wilcosky TC, Shapiro
WR, Selker RG, Fine HA, Black PM, Loefler JS, Linet,
MS., Cellular-telephone use and brain tumors, 344 New
England Journal of Medicine 79-86 (2001); cited in text as
"Inskip (2001)...........................................................10, n. 9
ICNIRP, International Commission for Non-Ionizing
Radiation Protection, Standing Committee on
Epidemiology: Ahlbom A, Green A, Kheifets L, Savitz D,
Swerdlow A., Epidemiology of health effects of
radiofrequency exposure, 112 Environmental Health
Perspectives 1741-54 (2004); cited in text as " ICNIRP et
al. (2004)„ .....................................................................9,12
Jackson, T. ed. Clean Production Strategies - Developing
Preventive Environmental Management in the Industrial
Economy (Boca Raton FL: Lewis Publishers 1993); cited
in text as "Jackson (1993)" ....................................15, n. 14
Q
Q
V 111
Khe'fets L, Repachol' M, Saunders R, van Deventer E.,
The sensitivity of children to electromagnetic fields, 116
Pediatrics e303-e313 (2005); cited in text as "Khe'fets
(2005)" ...............................................................................9
Kundi M, Mild KJ, Hardell L, Mattsson M, Mobile
Telephones and Cancer: A Review of Epidemiological
Evidence, 7 Journal of Toxicology and Environmental
Health, Part B 351-84 (2004); cited in text as "Kundi et al.
(2004)„ ...........................................................................8, 9
Lilienfeld AM, Tonascia J, Tonascia S, Libauer CA,
Cauthen GM., Foreign Service Health Status Study:
Evaluation of Health Status of Foreign Service and Other
Employees from Selected Eastern European Post, Final
Report Contract No. 6025-619073 Department of State,
Washington DC. (1978) available from Natl. Tech. Info.
Serv., Springfield, VA; cited in text as "Lilienfeld et al.
(1978)„ .......................................................................8, n. 7
Lonn S, Ahlbom A, Hall P, Feychting M., Mobile phone
use and the risk of acoustic Neuroma, 15 Epidemiology
653-59 (2004); cited in text as "Loan et al. (2004)"..........8
Michelozzi P, Capon A, Kirchmayer U, Forastiere F,
Bigger' A, Barca A, Perucci CA., Adult and childhood
leukemia near a high power radio station in Rome, Italy,
155 American Journal of Epidemiology 1096-1103
(2002); cited in text as "Michelozzi et al. (2002)" ......7, 11
Milham S., Mortality from leukemia in workers exposed
to electrical and magnetic fields, (Letters to the Editor)
307 New England Journal of Medicine 249 (1982); cited
in text as "Milham (1982)" .......................................8, n. 7
lx
Milham S., Silent Keys: Leukemia mortality in amateur
radio operators, 1 Lancet 812 (1985); cited in text as
"Milham (1985)».........................................................8 n. 7
Milham S., Increased mortality in amateur radio
operators due to lymphatic and hematopoietic
malignancies. 127 American Journal of Epidemiology 50-
54; cited in text as "Milham (1988a)"........................8, n. 7
Milham S., Mortality by license class in amateur radio
operators, 128 American Journal of Epidemiology 1175-
76 (1988); cited in text as "Milham (1988b)"............8, n. 7
Morgan RW, Kelsh MA, Zhao K, Exuzides KA, Heringer
S, Negrete W., Radiofrequency exposure and mortality
fYom cancer of the brain and lymphatic/hematopoietic
systems, 11 Epidemiology 118-27 (2000); cited in text as
"Morgan (2000)" .......................................................8, n. 7
Moulder JE, Erdreich LS, Malyapa RS, Merritt J, Pickard
WE, Vijayalazxmi., Cell phones and cancer: What is the
evidence for a connection? 151 Radiation Research 513-
31 (1999); cited in text as "Moulder et al. (1999)".. 10, n. 9
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences:
Report to United States Congress, Health effects from exposure
to power line frequency electric and magnetic fields (prepared in
response to the 1992 Energy Policy Act, PL 102-486,
Section 2118), NIH Publication # 99-4493, p 9 (1999);
cited in text as "National Institute (1999)".. .............. 6
National Research Council, Pesticides in the Diets of
Infants and Children (National Academy Press:
Washington D.C. (1993); cited in text as "National
Research Council (1993)"................................................12
x
New York State Board of Regents, Report of the Regents
Advisory Committee on School Environmental Quality,
1994; cited in text as "New York Regents Report
(1994)»................................................13-14, n.l l
New York State Board of Regents, Summary of the
February Meeting Held at the State Education Building
February 1,2,3, 1995", David Johnson, Secretary, Board
of Regents: Approval of Standing Committee Reports,
Regents Committee on Elementary, Middle, and
Secondary and Continuing Education, Environmental
Quality in Schools (EMSC (A) 1.1-2 and Attachment
dated January 13, 1995; cited in text as "New York
Regents Meeting (1995)"................................. 13-14, n. 11
Owen RD., Possible health risks of radiofrequency
exposure from mobile telephones, 1.1 Epidemiology 99-
100 (2000); cited in text as "Owen (2000)".......................9
Park SK, Ha M, Im H., Ecological study on residences in
the vicinity of AM radio broadcasting towers and cancer
death: Preliminary observations in Korea, 77
International Archives of Occupational and
Environmental Health 387-94 (2004); cited in text as
"Park et al. (2004)„ ...........................................................7
Raffensperger C., Tickner J., eds., Protecting Health and
the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary
Principle (Washington, D. C., Island Press 1999); cited in
text as "Raffensberger & Tickner (1999)".............15, n. 14
Repacholi MH, Basten A, Gebski V, Noonan D, Finnie J,
Harris AW., Lymphomas in Ep-Piml transgenic mice
exposed to pulsed 900 MHz electromagnetic fields, 147
0
xi
Radiation Research 631-640 (1997); cited in text as
"Repacholi et al. (1997), ...................................................9
Robinette CD, Silverman C, Jablon S., Effects upon health
of occupational exposure to microwave radiation (radar),
112 American Journal of Epidemiology 39-53 (1980);
cited in text as "Robinette, et al. (1980)"...................8, n. 7
Rothman KJ, Loughlin JE, Funch DP, Dreyer NA,
Overall Mortality of cellular telephone customers, 7
Epidemiology 303-05 (1996); cited in text as "Rothman et
al. (1996)» ................................................................10, n. 9
Salford LG, Brun A, Sturesson K, Eberhardt J, Persson B.,
Permeability of the blood-brain barrier induced by 915
MHz electromagnetic radiation, continuous wave and
modulated at 8, 16, 50, and 200 Hz, 27 Microscopy
Research and Technique 535-42 (1994); cited in text as
"Salford et al. (1994)..........................................................9
Salford LG, Brun A, Eberhardt J, Malmgren L, Persson
B., Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after
exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones, 111
Environmental Health Perspectives 881-83 (2003); cited
in text as "Salford et al. (2003)" .................................. 9-10
Szmigielski S, Bortkiewicz A, Gadzicka E, Zmyslony M,
Kubacki R., Alteration of diurnal rhythms of blood
pressure and heart rate in workers exposed to
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, 3 Blood Pressure
Monitoring 323-30 (1998); cited in text as "Szmigielski et
al. (1998)" ..............................................................8, n. 7, 9
Szmigielski S., Cancer morbidity in subjects
occupationally exposed to high frequency (radiofrequency
0
X11
and microwave) electromagnetic radiation, 180 Science
of the Total Environment 9-17 (1996); cited in text as
"Szmigielski (1996)............................................................7
Tattersall JEH, Scott IR, Wood SJ, Nettell JJ, Bevir MK,
Wang Z, Somasiri NP, Chen X., Effects of low intensity
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on electrical
activity in rat hippocampal slices, 904 Brain Research 43-
53 (2001); cited in text as "Tattersall et al. (2001)".........10
U. N. Rio Declaration on Environment and Development
(July 14, 1992). 31 ILM 873 (1992); cited in text as "U.N.
Rio Declaration (1992)"...........................14, n. 12, App. D
U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under
Secretary, A summary of scientific findings on adverse
effects on indoor environments on student's health,
academic performance and attendance, 2004, U.S. Doc.
#2004-06, Washington, DC, 2004, prepared for Congress
pursuant to HHPS/NCLB; cited in text as "U.S. DOE
Study of National Significance (2004)".....................4, n. 5
U. S. General Accounting Office Report to Congressional
Requesters, entitled "Research and regulatory efforts on
mobile phone health issues, (1994), Doc. #GAO 01-545;
cited in text as "U.S.GAO Report (2001)" ........................9
U. S. Presidential Executive Order # 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks, Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 78, pp. 19883 (April
27, 1997); cited in text as "U.S. Executive Order # 13045"
................................................................................17, n. 16
Wang B, Lai H., Acute exposure to pulsed 2450-MHz
microwaves affects water-maze performance of rats, 21
Q
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
Table of Contents
I. Summary for the Public
A. Introduction
B. Purpose of the Report
C. Problems with Existing Public Health Standards (Safety Limits)
II. Summary of the Science
A. Evidence for Cancer (Childhood Leukemia and Adult Cancers)
B. Changes in the Nervous System and Brain Function
C. Effect on Genes (DNA)
D. Effects on Stress Proteins (Heat Shock Proteins)
E. Effects on the Immune System
F. Plausible Biological Mechanisms
G. Another Way of Looking at EMFs: Therapeutic Uses
III. EMF Exposure and Prudent Public Health Planning
IV. Recommended Actions
A. Defining new exposure standards for ELF
B. Defining preventative actions for reduction in RF exposures
V. Conclusions
VI. References
2
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
I. SUMMARY FOR THE PUBLIC
A. Introduction
You cannot see it,taste it or smell it,but it is one of the most pervasive environmental exposures
in industrialized countries today. Electromagnetic radiation(EMR) or electromagnetic fields
(EMFs)are the terms that broadly describe exposures created by the vast array of wired and
wireless technologies that have altered the landscape of our lives in countless beneficial ways.
However, these technologies were designed to maximize energy efficiency and convenience;not
with biological effects on people in mind. Based on new studies, there is growing evidence
among scientists and the public about possible health risks associated with these technologies.
Human beings are bioelectrical systems. Our hearts and brains are regulated by internal
bioelectrical signals. Environmental exposures to artificial EMFs can interact with fundamental
biological processes in the human body. In some cases,this can cause discomfort and disease.
Since World War II, the background level of EMF from electrical sources has risen exponentially,
most recently by the soaring popularity of wireless technologies such as cell phones(two billion
and counting in 2006), cordless phones, WI-FI and WI-MAX networks. Several decades of
international scientific research confirm that EMFs are biologically active in animals and in
humans,which could have major public health consequences.
In today's world, everyone is exposed to two types of EMFs: (1) extremely low frequency
electromagnetic fields(ELF) from electrical and electronic appliances and power lines and(2)
radiofrequency radiation(RF)from wireless devices such as cell phones and cordless phones,
cellular antennas and towers, and broadcast transmission towers. In this report we will use the
term EMFs when referring to all electromagnetic fields in general; and the terms ELF and RF
when referring to the specific type of exposure. They are both types of non-ionizing radiation,
which means that they do not have sufficient energy to break off electrons from their orbits
around atoms and ionize (charge)the atoms, as do x-rays,CT scans, and other forms of ionizing
radiation. A glossary and definitions are provided in Section 18 to assist you. Some handy
definitions you will probably need when reading about ELF and RF in this summary section(the
language for measuring it)are shown with the references for this section.
3
B
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
B. Purpose of the Report
P P
This report has been written by 14 (fourteen) scientists,public health and public policy
experts to document the scientific evidence on electromagnetic fields. Another dozen
outside reviewers have looked at and refined the Report.
The purpose of this report is to assess scientific evidence on health impacts from
electromagnetic radiation below current public exposure limits and evaluate what changes
in these limits are warranted now to reduce possible public health risks in the future.
Not everything is known yet about this subject; but what is clear is that the existing public
safety standards limiting these radiation levels in nearly every country of the world look to
be thousands of times too lenient. Changes are needed.
New approaches are needed to educate decision-makers and the public about sources of
exposure and to find alternatives that do not pose the same level of possible health risks,
while there is still time to make changes.
A working group composed of scientists,researchers and public health policy professionals (The
BioInitiative Working Group)has joined together to document the information that must be
considered in the international debate about the adequacy (or inadequacy)of existing public
exposure standards.
This Report is the product of an international research and public policy initiative to give an
overview of what is known of biological effects that occur at low-intensity EMFs exposures (for
both radiofrequency radiation RF and power-frequency ELF,and various forms of combined
exposures that are now known to be bioactive). The Report examines the research and current
standards and finds that these standards are far from adequate to protect public health.
Recognizing that other bodies in the United States,United Kingdom,Australia,many European
Union and eastern European countries as well as the World Health Organization are actively
debating this topic,the BioInitiative Working Group has conducted a independent science and
public health policy review process. The report presents solid science on this issue, and makes
recommendations to decision-makers and the public. Conclusions of the individual authors, and
overall conclusions are given in Table 2-1 (BioInitiative Overall Summary Chart).
Eleven(11)chapters that document key scientific studies and reviews identifying low-intensity
effects of electromagnetic fields have been written by members of the BioInitiative Working
Group. Section 16 and 17 have been prepared by public health and policy experts. These sectoins
discusses the standard of evidence which should be applied in public health planning,how the
scientific information should be evaluated in the context of prudent public health policy, and
identifies the basis for taking precautionary and preventative actions that are proportionate to the
knowledge at hand_ They also evaluate the evidence for ELF that leads to a recommendation for
new public safety limits (not precautionary or preventative actions,as need is demonstrated).
Other scientific review bodies and agencies have reached different conclusions than we have by
adopting standards of evidence so unreasonably high as to exclude any conclusions likely to lead
to new public safety limits. Some groups are actually recommending a relaxation of the existing
4
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
(and inadequate) standards. Why is this happening? One reason is that exposure limits for ELF
and RF are developed by bodies of scientists and engineers that belong to professional societies
who have traditionally developed recommendations; and then government agencies have adopted
those recommendations. The standard-setting processes have little, if any, input from other
stakeholders outside professional engineering and closely-related commercial interests. Often,
the industry view of allowable risk and proof of harm is most influential,rather than what public
health experts would determine is acceptable.
Main Reasons for Disagreement among Experts
1) Scientists and public health policy experts use very different definitions of the standard of
evidence used to judge the science, so they come to different conclusions about what to
do. Scientists do have a role,but it is not exclusive and other opinions matter.
2) We are all talking about essentially the same scientific studies,but use a different
way of measuring when"enough is enough"or"proof exists".
3) Some experts keep saying that all studies have to be consistent(turn out the same way
every time)before they are comfortable saying an effect exists.
4) Some experts think that it is enough to look only at short-term,acute effects.
5) Other experts say that it is imperative we have studies over longer time(showing the
effects of chronic exposures) since that is what kind of world we live in.
6) Some experts say that everyone, including the very young,the elderly,pregnant women,
and people with illnesses have to be considered—others say only the average person(or
in the case of RF, a six-foot tall man)matter.
7) There is no unexposed population,making it harder to see increased risk of diseases.
8) The lack of consensus about a single biological mechanism of action.
9) The strength of human epidemiological studies reporting risks from ELF and RF
exposures,but animal studies don't show a strong toxic effect.
10) Vested interests have a substantial influence on the health debate.
Public Policy Decisions
Safety limits for public exposure to EMFs need to be developed on the basis of interaction among
not only scientists,but also public health experts,public policy makers and the general public.
"In principle, the assessment of the evidence should combine with judgment based on other
societal values,for example, costs and benefits, acceptability of risks, cultural preferences, etc.
and result in sound and effective decision-making. Decisions on these matters are eventually
taken as a function of the views, values and interests of the stakeholders participating in the
process, whose opinions are then weighed depending on several factors. Scientific evidence
perhaps carries, or should carry, relatively heavy weight, but grants no exclusive status;
decisions will be evidence-based but will also be based on other factors." (1)
The clear consensus of the BioInitiative Working Group members is that the existing public
safety limits are inadequate for both ELF and RF.
0
5
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
These proposals reflect the evidence that a positive assertion of safety with respect to
chronic exposure to low-intensity levels of ELF and RF cannot be made. As with many
other standards for environmental exposures,these proposed limits may not be totally
protective,but more stringent standards are not realistic at the present time. Even a
small increased risk for cancer and neurodegenerative diseases translates into an enormous
public health consequence. Regulatory action for ELF and preventative actions for RF are
warranted at this time to reduce exposures and inform the public of the potential for
increased risk; at what levels of chronic exposure these risks may be present; and what
measures may be taken to reduce risks.
C. Problems with Existing Public Health Standards (Safety Limits)
Today's public exposure limits for telecommunications are based on the presumption that heating
of tissue (for RF) or induced electric currents in the body(for ELF) are the only concerns when
living organisms are exposed to RF. These exposures can create tissue heating that is well known
to be harmful in even very short-term doses. As such,thermal limits do serve a purpose. For
example, for people whose occupations require them to work around radar facilities or RF heat-
sealers,or for people who install and service wireless antenna tower,thermally-based limits are
necessary to prevent damage from heating(or,in the case of power-frequency ELF from induced
current flow in tissues). In the past, scientists and engineers developed exposure standards for
electromagnetic radiation based what we now believe are faulty assumptions that the right way to
measure how much non-ionizing energy humans can tolerate(how much exposure)without harm
is to measure only the heating of tissue (RF) or induced currents in the body(ELF).
In the last few decades, it has been established beyond any reasonable doubt that bioeffects and
some adverse health effects occur at far lower levels of RF and ELF exposure where no heating
(or induced currents)occurs at all; some effects are shown to occur at several hundred thousand
times below the existing public safety limits where heating is an impossibility.
It appears it is the INFORMATION conveyed by electromagnetic radiation(rather than
heat)that causes biological changes -some of these biological changes may lead to loss of
wellbeing, disease and even death.
Effects occur at non-thermal or low-intensity exposure levels thousands of times below the levels
that federal agencies say should keep the public safe. For many new devices operating with
wireless technologies,the devices are exempt from any regulatory standards. The existing
standards have been proven to be inadequate to control against harm from low-intensity, chronic
exposures,based on any reasonable, independent assessment of the scientific literature. It means
that an entirely new basis (a biological basis) for new exposure standards is needed. New
standards need to take into account what we have learned about the effects of ELF and RF (all
non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation and to design new limits based on biologically-
demonstrated effects that are important to proper biological function in living organisms. It is
vital to do so because the explosion of new sources has created unprecedented levels of artificial
6
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
electromagnetic fields that now cover all but remote areas of the habitable space on earth..Mid-
course corrections are needed in the way we accept,test and deploy new technologies that expose
us to ELF and RF in order to avert public health problems of a global nature.
Recent opinions by experts have documented deficiencies in current exposure standards. There is
widespread discussion that thermal limits are outdated, and that biologically-based exposure
standards are needed. Section 4 describes concerns expressed by WHO, 2007 in its ELF Health
Criteria Monograph; the SCENIHR Report, 2006 prepared for the European Commission; the UK
SAGE Report, 2007; the Health Protection Agency, United Kingdom in 2005; the NATO
Advanced Research Workshop in 2005; the US Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group in
1999; the US Food and Drug Administration in 2000 and 2007; the World Health Organization
in 2002; the International Agency for Cancer Research(IARC,2001),the United Kingdom
Parliament Independent Expert Group Report on Mobile Phones—Stewart Report, 2000)and
others.
A pioneer researcher,the late Dr. Ross Adey, in his last publication in Bioelectromagnetic
Medicine(P. Roche and M. Markov, eds. 2004)concluded:
"There are major unanswered questions about possible health risks that may arise from
exposures to various man-made electromagnetic fields where these human exposures are
intermittent, recurrent, and may extend over a significant portion of the lifetime of the
individual. "
"Epidemiological studies have evaluated ELF and radiofrequency fields as possible risk
factors for human health, with historical evidence relating rising risks of such factors as
progressive rural electrification, and more recently, to methods of electrical power
distribution and utilization in commercial buildings. Appropriate models describing
these bioeffects are based in nonequilibrium thermodynamics, with nonlinear
electrodynamics as an integral feature. Heating models, based in equilibrium
thermodynamics,.fail to explain an impressive new frontier of much greater-significance.
..... Though incompletely understood, tissue free radical interactions with magnetic fields
may extend to zero field levels."(2)
There may be no lower limit at which exposures do not affect us. Until we know if
there is a lower limit below which bioeffects and adverse health impacts do not
occur, it is unwise from a public health perspective to continue "business-as-usual'
deploying new technologies that increase ELF and RE exposures, particularly
involuntary exposures.
7
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
II. SUMMARY OF THE SCIENCE
A. Evidence for Cancer
1. Childhood Leukemia
The evidence that power lines and other sources of ELF are consistently associated with higher
rates of childhood leukemia has resulted in the International Agency for Cancer Research(an arm
of the World Health Organization)to classify ELF as a Possible Human Carcinogen(in the Group
2B carcinogen list). Leukemia is the most common type of cancer in children.
There is little doubt that exposure to ELF causes childhood leukemia.
The exposure levels for increased risk are quite low—just above background or ambient levels
and much lower than current exposure limits. The existing ICNIRP limit is 1000 mG(904 mG in
the US)for ELF. Increased risk for childhood leukemia starts at levels almost one thousand times
below the safety standard. Leukemia risks for young boys are reported in one study to double at
only 1.4 mG and above (7) Most other studies combine older children with younger children(0
to 16 years) so that risk levels do not reach statistical significance until exposure levels reach 2
mG or 3 mG. Although some reviews have combined studies of childhood leukemia in ways
that indicate the risk level starts at 4 mG and above; this does not reflect many of the studies
reporting elevated risks at the lower exposure levels of 2 mG and 3 mG.
2. Other Childhood Cancers
Other childhood cancers have been studied, including brain tumors,but not enough work has
been done to know if there are risks, how high these risks might be or what exposure levels might
be associated with increased risks. The lack of certainty about other childhood cancers should not
be taken to signal the"all clear";rather it is a lack of study.
The World Health Organization ELF Health Criteria Monograph No 322 (2007)says that other
childhood cancers"cannot be ruled out". (8)
There is some evidence that other childhood cancers may be related to ELF
exposure but not enough studies have been done.
Several recent studies provide even stronger evidence that ELF is a risk factor for childhood
leukemia and cancers later in life. In the first study (9), children who were recovering in high-
8
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
ELF environments had poorer survival rates(a 450%increased risk of dying if the ELF fields
were 3 mG and above). In the second study,children who were recovering in 2 mG and above
ELF environments were 300%more likely to die than children exposed to 1 mG and below. In
this second study, children recovering in ELF environments between 1 and 2 mG also had poorer
survival rates, where the increased risk of dying was 280%. (10) These two studies give powerful
new information that ELF exposures in children can be harmful at levels above even 1 mG. The /
third study looked what risks for cancer a child would have later in life, if that child was raised in J
a home within 300 meters of a high-voltage electric power line. (11) For children who were
raised for their first five years of life within 300 meters,they have a life-time risk that is 500%
higher for developing some kinds of cancers.
Children who have leukemia and are in recovery have poorer survival rates if their
ELF exposure at home (or where they are recovering) is between 1mG and 2 mG in
one study; over 3 mG in another study.
Given the extensive study of childhood leukemia risks associated with ELF, and the relatively
consistent findings that exposures in the 2 mG to 4 mG range are associated with increased risk to
children, a 1 mG limit for habitable space is recommended for new construction. While it is
difficult and expensive to retrofit existing habitable space to a 1 mG level, and is also
recommended as a desirable target for existing residences and places where children and pregnant
women may spend prolonged periods of time.
New ELF public exposure limits are warranted at this time, given the existing
scientific evidence and need for public health policy intervention and prevention.
3. Brain Tumors and Acoustic Neuromas
I Radiofrequency radiation from cell phone and cordless phone exposure has been linked in more
than one dozen studies to increased risk for brain tumors and/or acoustic neuromas (a tumor in the
brain on a nerve related to our hearing).
People who have used a cell phone for ten years or more have higher rates of malignant
brain tumor and acoustic neuromas. It is worse if the cell phone has been used primarily
on one side of the head.
For brain tumors,people who have used a cell phone for 10 years or longer have a 20% increase
in risk(when the cell phone is used on both sides of the head). For people who have used a cell
phone for 10 years or longer predominantly on one side of the head, there is a 200%increased
9
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
risk of a brain tumor. This information relies on the combined results of many brain tumor/cell
phone studies taken together(a meta-analysis of studies).
People who have used a cordless phone for ten years or more have higher rates of malignant
brain tumor and acoustic neuromas. It is worse if the cordless phone has been used
primarily on one side of the head.
The risk of brain tumor(high-grade malignant glioma) from cordless phone use is 220%higher
(both sides of the head). The risk from use of a cordless phone is 470%higher when used mostly
on only one side of the head.
For acoustic neuromas, there is a 30%increased risk with cell phone use at ten years and longer;
and a 240%increased risk of acoustic neuroma when the cell phone is used mainly on one side of
the head. These risks are based on the combined results of several studies (a meta-analysis of
studies).
For use of cordless phones, the increased risk of acoustic neuroma is three-fold higher(310%)
when the phone is mainly used on one side of the head.
The current standard for exposure to the emissions of cell phones and cordless phones is not
safe considering studies reporting long-term brain tumor and acoustic neuroma risks.
Other indications that radiofrequency radiation can cause brain tumors comes from exposures to
low-level RF other than from cell phone or cordless phone use. Studies of people who are
exposed in their work(occupational exposure)show higher brain tumor rates as well. Kheifets
(1995)reported a 10%to 20%increased risk of brain cancer for those employed in electrical
occupations. This meta-analysis surveyed 29 published studies of brain cancer in relation to
occupational EMFs exposure or work in electrical occupations. (6). The evidence for a link
between other sources of RF exposure like working at a-job with EMFs exposure is consistent
with a moderately elevated risk of developing brain tumors.
4. Other Adult Cancers
There are multiple studies that show statistically significant relationships between occupational
exposure and leukemia in adults (see Chapter 11), in spite of major limitations in the exposure
assessment. A very recent study by Lowenthal et al. (2007) investigated leukemia in adults in
relation to residence near to high-voltage power lines. While they found elevated risk in all
adults living near to the high voltage power lines,they found an OR of 3.23 (95%Cl= 1.26-8.29)
for individuals who spent the first 15 years of life within 300 m of the power line. This study
provides support for two important conclusions: adult leukemia is also associated with EMF
exposure, and exposure during childhood increases risk of adult disease.
10
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
A significant excess risk for adult brain tumors in electrical workers and those adults with
occupational EMF exposure was reported in a meta-analysis (review of many individual studies)
by Kheifets et al., (1995). This is about the same size risk for lung cancer and secondhand smoke
(US DHHS, 2006). A total of 29 studies with populations from 12 countries were included in this
meta-analysis. The relative risk was reported as 1.16 (CI = 1.08— 1.24) or a 16% increased risk
for all brain tumors. For gliomas,the risk estimate was reported to be 1.39(1.07— 1.82) or a 39%
increased risk for those in electrical occupations. A second meta-analysis published by Kheifets
et al., ((2001) added results of 9 new studies published after 1995. It reported a new pooled
estimate (OR= 1.16, 1.08— 1.01)that showed little change in the risk estimate overall from 1995.
The evidence for a relationship between exposure and breast cancer is relatively strong in men
(Erren, 2001), and some(by no means all) studies show female breast cancer also to be elevated
with increased exposure(see Chapter 12). Brain tumors and acoustic neuromas are more
common in exposed persons(see Chapter 10). There is less published evidence on other cancers,
but Charles et al. (2003)report that workers in the highest 10%category for EMF exposure were
twice as likely to die of prostate cancer as those exposed at lower levels(OR 2.02, 95%CI=
1.34-3.04). Villeneuve et al. (2000)report statistically significant elevations of non-Hodgkin's
lymphoma in electric utility workers in relation to EMF exposure, while Tynes et al. (2003)
report elevated rates of malignant melanoma in persons living near to high voltage power lines.
While these observations need replication, they suggest a relationship between exposure and
cancer in adults beyond leukemia.
In total the scientific evidence for adult disease associated with EMF exposure is sufficiently
strong for adult cancers that preventive steps are appropriate, even if not all reports have shown
exactly the same positive relationship. This is especially true since many factors reduce our
ability to see disease patterns that might be related to EMF exposure: there is no unexposed
population for comparison, for example, and other difficulties in exposure assessment,The
evidence for a relationship between EMF exposure and adult cancers and neurodegenerative
diseases is sufficiently strong at present to merit preventive actions to reduce EMF exposure.
I5. Breast Cancer
There is rather strong evidence from multiple areas of scientific investigation that ELF is related
to breast cancer. Over the last two decades there have been numerous epidemiological studies
(studies of human illness) on breast cancer in both men and women, although this relationship
remains controversial among scientists. Many of these studies report that ELF exposures are
related to increased risk of breast cancer(not all studies report such effects,but then, we do not
expect 100%or even 50%consistency in results in science,and do not require it to take
reasonable preventative action).
The evidence from studies on women in the workplace rather strongly suggests that ELF is
a risk factor for breast cancer for women with long-term exposures of 10 mG and higher.
Breast cancer studies of people who work in relatively high ELF exposures (10 mG and above)
show higher rates of this disease. Most studies of workers who are exposed to ELF have defined
high exposure levels to be somewhere between 2 mG and 10 mG;however this kind of mixing of
11
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
relatively low to relatively high ELF exposure just acts to dilute out real risk levels. Many of the
occupational studies group exposures so that the highest group is exposed to 4 mG and above.
What this means is that a)few people are exposed to much higher levels and b) illness patterns
show up at relatively low ELF levels of 4 mG and above. This is another way of demonstrating
that existing ELF limits that are set at 933-1000 mG are irrelevant to the exposure levels reporting
increased risks.
Laboratory studies that examine human breast cancer cells have shown that ELF exposure
between 6 mG and 12 mG can interfere with protective effects of melatonin that fights the growth
of these breast cancer cells. For a decade, there has been evidence that human breast cancer cells
grow faster if exposed to ELF at low environmental levels. This is thought to be because ELF
exposure can reduce melatonin levels in the body. The presence of melatonin in breast cancer
cell cultures is known to reduce the growth of cancer cells. The absence of melatonin(because of
OELF exposure or other reasons) is known to result in more cancer cell growth.
Laboratory studies of animals that have breast cancer tumors have been shown to have more
tumors and larger tumors when exposed to ELF and a chemical tumor promoter at the same time.
These studies taken together indicate that ELF is a likely risk factor for breast cancer, and that
ELF levels of importance are no higher than many people are exposed to at home and at work. A
reasonable suspicion of risk exists and is sufficient evidence on which to recommend new ELF
limits; and to warrant preventative action.
Given the very high lifetime risks for developing breast cancer,and the critical importance
of prevention; ELF exposures should be reduced for all people who are in high ELF
environments for prolonged periods of time.
Reducing ELF exposure is particularly important for people who have breast cancer. The
recovery environment should have low ELF levels given the evidence for poorer survival rates for
childhood leukemia patients in ELF fields over 2 mG or 3 mG. Preventative action for those who
may be at higher risk for breast cancer is also warranted (particularly for those taking tamoxifen
as a way to reduce the risk of getting breast cancer, since in addition to reducing the effectiveness
of melatonin, ELF exposure may also reduce the effectiveness of tamoxifen at these same low
exposure levels). There is no excuse for ignoring the substantial body of evidence we already
have that supports an association between breast cancer and ELF exposure;waiting for
conclusive evidence is untenable given the enormous costs and societal and personal burdens
caused by this disease.
Studies of human breast cancer cells and some animal studies show that ELF is likely to be
a risk factor for breast cancer. There is supporting evidence for a link between breast
cancer and exposure to ELF that comes from cell and animal studies,as well as studies of
human breast cancers.
12
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
These are just some of the cancer issues to discuss. It may be reasonable now to make the
assumption that all cancers, and other disease endpoints might be related to, or worsened by
exposures to EMFs (both ELF and RF).
If one or more cancers are related, why would not all cancer risks be at issue? It can no longer be
said that the current state of knowledge rules out or precludes risks to human health. The
enormous societal costs and impacts on human suffering by not dealing proactively with this
issue require substantive public health policy actions; and actions of governmental agencies
charged with the protection of public health to act on the basis of the evidence at hand.
B. Changes in the Nervous System and Brain Function
Exposure to electromagnetic fields has been studies in connection with Alzheimer's disease,
motor neuron disease and Parkinson's disease. (4) These diseases all involve the death of specific
neurons and may be classified as neurodegenerative diseases. There is evidence that high levels
of amyloid beta are a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease,and exposure to ELF can increase this
substance in the brain. There is considerable evidence that melatonin can protect the brain
against damage leading to Alzheimer's disease, and also strong evidence that exposure to ELF
can reduce melatonin levels. Thus it is hypothesized that one of the body's main protections
against developing Alzheimer's disease(melatonin) is less available to the body when people are
exposed to ELF. Prolonged exposure to ELF fields could alter calcium(Ca2+) levels in neurons
and induce oxidative stress(4). It is also possible that prolonged exposure to ELF fields may
stimulate neurons (particularly large motor neurons)into synchronous firing,leading to damage
by the buildup of toxins.
Evidence for a relationship between exposure and the neurodegenerative diseases,Alzheimer's
and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), is strong and relatively consistent(see Chapter 12).
While not every publication shows a statistically significant relationship between exposure and
disease, ORs of 2.3 (95%C1= 1.0-5.1 in Qio et al., 2004),of 2.3 (95%Cl= 1.6-3.3 in Feychting
et al., 2003) and of 4.0(95%CI= 1.4-11.7 in Hakansson et al., 2003)for Alzheimer's Disease,
and of 3.1 (95% CI= 1.0-9.8 in Savitz et al., 1998) and 2.2 (95%CI= 1.0-4.7 in Hakansson et al.,
2003) for ALS cannot be simply ignored.
Alzheimer's disease is a disease of the nervous system. There is strong evidence that long-
term exposure to ELF is a risk factor for Alzheimer's disease.
Concern has also been raised that humans with epileptic disorders could be more susceptible to
RF exposure. Low-level RF exposure may be a stressor based on similarities of neurological
effects to other known stressors; low-level RF activates both endogenous opioids and other
substances in the brain that function in a similar manner to psychoactive drug actions. Such
effects in laboratory animals mimic the effects of drugs on the part of the brain that is involved in
addiction.
Laboratory studies show that the nervous system of both humans and animals is sensitive to ELF
and RF. Measurable changes in brain function and behavior occur at levels associated with new
technologies including cell phone use. Exposing humans to cell phone radiation can change
13
Summary for the Public Ms.Sage
brainwave activity at levels as low as 0.1 watt per kilogram SAR(W/Kg)*** in comparison to the
US allowable level of 1.6 W/Kg and the International Commission for Non-ionizing Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP) allowable level of 2.0 W/Kg. It can affect memory and learning. It can
affect normal brainwave activity. ELF and RF exposures at low levels are able to change
behavior in animals.
There is little doubt that electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones and cell phone use
affect electrical activity of the brain.
Effects on brain function seem to depend in some cases on the mental load of the subject during
exposure(the brain is less able to do two jobs well simultaneously when the same part of the
brain is involved in both tasks). Some studies show that cell phone exposure speeds up the
brain's activity level; but also that the efficiency and judgment of the brain are diminished at the
same time. One study reported that teenage drivers had slowed responses when driving and
exposed to cell phone radiation, comparable to response times of elderly people. Faster thinking
does not necessarily mean better quality thinking.
Changes in the way in which the brain and nervous system react depend very much on the
I
specific exposures. Most studies only look at short-term effects, so the long-term
consequences of exposures are not known.
Factors that determine effects can depend on head shape and size,the location, size and shape of
internal brain structures,thinness of the head and face,hydration of tissues,thickness of various
tissues,dialectric constant of the tissues and so on. Age of the individual and state of health also
appear to be important variables. Exposure conditions also greatly influence the outcome of
studies, and can have opposite results depending on the conditions of exposure including
frequency,waveform, orientation of exposure,duration of exposure,number of exposures,any
pulse modulation of the signal,and when effects are measured(some responses to RF are
delayed). There is large variability in the results of ELF and RF testing, which would be
expected based on the large variability of factors that can influence test results. However, it is
clearly demonstrated that under some conditions of exposure,the brain and nervous system
functions of humans are altered. The consequence of long-term or prolonged exposures have not
been thoroughly studied in either adults or in children.
The consequence of prolonged exposures to children, whose nervous systems continue to
develop until late adolescence,is unknown at this time. This could have serious implications
to adult health and functioning in society if years of exposure of the young to both ELF and
RF result in diminished capacity for thinking,judgment, memory, learning, and control
over behavior.
14
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
People who are chronically exposed to low-level wireless antenna emissions report symptoms
P
P P
such as problems in sleeping(insomnia), fatigue,headache,'dizziness, grogginess, lack of
concentration, memory problems,ringing in the ears(tinnitus),problems with balance and
orientation, and difficulty in multi-tasking. In children,exposures to cell phone radiation have
resulted in changes in brain oscillatory activity during some memory tasks. Although scientific
studies as yet have not been able to confirm a cause-and-effect relationship; these complaints are
widespread and the cause of significant public concern in some countries where wireless
technologies are fairly mature and widely distributed(Sweden,Denmark, France, Germany, Italy,
Switzerland,Austria, Greece,Israel). For example, the roll-out of the new 3rd Generation
wireless phones (and related community-wide antenna RF emissions in the Netherlands)caused
almost immediate public complaints of illness.(5)
Conflicting results from those few studies that have been conducted may be based on the
difficulty in providing non-exposed environments for testing to compare to environments that are
intentionally exposed. People traveling to laboratories for testing are pre-exposed to a multitude
of RF and ELF exposures, so they may already be symptomatic prior to actual testing. Also
complicating this is good evidence that RF exposures testing behavioral changes show delayed
results; effects are observed after termination of RF exposure. This suggests a persistent change
in the nervous system that may be evident only after time has passed, so is not observed during a
short testing period.
The effects of long-term exposure to wireless technologies including emissions from cell
phones and other personal devices, and from whole-body exposure to RF transmissions
from cell towers and antennas is simply not known yet with certainty. However, the body of
evidence at hand suggests that bioeffects and health impacts can and do occur at exquisitely
low exposure levels: levels that can be thousands of times below public safety limits.
The evidence reasonably points to the potential for serious public health consequences (and
economic costs), which will be of global concern with the widespread public use of, and exposure
to such emissions. Even a small increase in disease incidence or functional loss of cognition
related to new wireless exposures would have a large public health, societal and economic
consequences. Epidemiological studies can report harm to health only after decades of exposure,
and where large effects can be seen across "average"populations; so these early warnings of
possible harm should be taken seriously now by decision-makers.
C. Effects on Genes (DNA)
Cancer risk is related to DNA damage, which alters the genetic blueprint for growth and
development. If DNA is damaged(the genes are damaged) there is a risk that these damaged
cells will not die. Instead they will continue to reproduce themselves with damaged DNA, and
this is one necessary pre-condition for cancer. Reduced DNA repair may also be an important
part of this story. When the rate of damage to DNA exceeds the rate at which DNA can be
repaired,there is the possibility of retaining mutations and initiating cancer. Studies on how ELF
and RF may affect genes and DNA is important,because of the possible link to cancer.
15
i
i
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
Even ten years ago,most people believed that very weak ELF and RF fields could not possibly
have any effect at all on DNA and how cells work (or are damaged and cannot do their work
properly). The argument was that these weak fields are do not possess enough energy(are not
physically strong enough)to cause damage. However,there are multiple ways we already know
about where energy is not the key factor in causing damage. For example, exposure to toxic
chemicals can cause damage. Changing the balance of delicate biological processes, including
hormone balances in the body,can damage or destroy cells, and cause illness. In fact, many
chronic diseases are directly related to this kind of damage that does not require any heating at all.
Interference with cell communication (how cells interact)may either cause cancer directly or
promote existing cancers to grow faster.
Using modern gene-testing techniques will probably give very useful information in the future
about how EMFs targets and affects molecules in the body. At the gene level,there is some
evidence now that EMFs(both ELF and RF)can cause changes in how DNA works. Laboratory
studies have been conducted to see whether(and how)weak EMFs fields can affect how genes
and proteins function. Such changes have been seen in some,but not all studies.
Small changes in protein or gene expression might be able to alter cell physiology, and might be
able to cause later effects on health and well-being. The study of genes,proteins and EMFs is
still in its infancy,however,by having some confirmation at the gene level and protein level that
weak EMFs exposures do register changes may be an important step in establishing what risks to
health can occur.
What is remarkable about studies on DNA, genes and proteins and EMFs is that there should be
no effect at all if it were true that EMFs is too weak to cause damage. Scientists who believe that
the energy of EMFs is insignificant and unlikely to cause harm have a hard time explaining these
changes, so are inclined to just ignore them. The trouble with this view is that the effects are J
occurring. Not being able to explain these effects is not a good reason to consider them
imaginary or unimportant.
The European research program(REFLEX) documented many changes in normal biological
functioning in tests on DNA(3). The significance of these results is that such effects are directly
related to the question of whether human health risks might occur,when these changes in genes
and DNA happen. This large research effort produced information on EMFs effects from more
than a dozen different researchers. Some of the key findings included:
"Gene mutations, cell proliferation and apoptosis are caused by or result in altered gene
and protein expression profiles. The convergence of these events is required for the
development of all chronic diseases."(3)
"Genotoxic effects and a modified expression of numerous genes and proteins after EMF
exposure could be demonstrated with great certainty." (3)
"RF-EMF produced genotoxic effects in fibroblasts,HL-60 cells, granulosa cells of rats
and neural progenitor cells derived from mouse embryonic stem cells."(Participants 2, 3
and 4). (3)
"Cells responded to RF exposure between SAR levels of 0.3 and 2 W/Kg with a
significant increase in single-and double-strand DNA breaks and in micronuclei
fi-equency."(Participants 2, 3 and 4). (3)
16
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
"In HL-60 cells an increase in intracellular generation of free radicals accompanying
RF-EMF exposure could clearly be demonstrated."(Participant 2). (3)
"The induced DNA damage was not based on thermal effects and arouses consideration
about the environmental safety limits for ELF-EMF exposure."(3)
"The effects were clearly more pronounced in cells from older donors, which could point
to an age-related decrease of DNA repair efficiency of ELF-EMF induced DNA strand
breaks."(3)
Both ELF and RF exposures can be considered genotoxic (will damage DNA) under certain
conditions of exposure,including exposure levels that are lower than existing safety limits.
D. Effects on Stress Proteins (Heat Shock Proteins)
In nearly every living organism,there is a special protection launched by cells when they are
under attack from environmental toxins or adverse environmental conditions. This is called a
stress response, and what are produced are stress proteins (also known as heat shock proteins).
Plants, animals and bacteria all produce stress proteins to survive environmental stressors like
QW high temperatures, lack of oxygen,heavy metal poisoning, and oxidative stress (a cause of
premature aging). We can now add ELF and RF exposures to this list of environmental stressors
that cause a physiological stress response.
Very low-level ELF and RF exposures can cause cells to produce stress proteins, meaning
that the cell recognizes ELF and RF exposures as harmful. This is another important way
in which scientists have documented that ELF and RF exposures can be harmful, and it
happens at levels far below the existing public safety standards.
An additional concern is that if the stress goes on too long,the protective effect is diminished.
There is a reduced response if the stress goes on too long, and the protective effect is reduced.
This means the cell is less protected against damage, and it is why prolonged or chronic
exposures may be quite harmful, even at very low intensities.
The biochemical pathway that is activated is the same for ELF and for RF exposures, and it is
non-thermal (does not require heating or induced electrical currents, and thus the safety standards
based on protection from heating are irrelevant and not protective). ELF exposure levels of only
5 to 10 mG have been shown to activate the stress response genes(Table 2, Section 6). The
specific absorption rate or SAR is not the appropriate measure of biological threshold or dose,
and should not be used as the basis for a safety standard, since SAR only regulates against
thermal damage.
17
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
E. Effects on the Immune System
The immune system is another defense we have against invading organisms (viruses,bacteria,
and other foreign molecules). It protects us against illness, infectious diseases, and tumor cells.
There are many different kinds of immune cells; each type of cell has a particular purpose, and is
launched to defend the body against different kinds of exposures that the body determines might
be harmful.
There is substantial evidence that ELF and RF can cause inflammatory reactions,allergy
reactions and change normal immune function at levels allowed
by current public safety standards.
The body's immune defense system senses danger from ELF and RF exposures, and targets an
immune defense against these fields,much like the body's reaction in producing stress proteins.
These are additional indicators that very low intensity ELF and RF exposures are a)recognized
by cells and b)can cause reactions as if the exposure is harmful. Chronic exposure to factors that
increase allergic and inflammatory responses on a continuing basis are likely to be harmful to
health. Chronic inflammatory responses can lead to cellular, tissue and organ damage over time.
Many chronic diseases are thought to be related to chronic problems with immune system
function.
The release of inflammatory substances,such as histamine, are well-known to cause skin
reactions, swelling, allergic hypersensitivity and other conditions that are normally associated
with some kind of defense mechanism. The human immune system is part of a general defense
barrier that protects against harmful exposures from the surrounding environment. When the
immune system is aggravated by some kind of attack, there are many kinds of immune cells that
can respond. Anything that triggers an immune response should be carefully evaluated, since
chronic stimulation of the immune system may over time impair the system's ability to respond in
the normal fashion.
Measurable physiological changes (mast cell increases in the skin, for example that are markers
of allergic response and inflammatory cell response)are triggered by ELF and RF at very low
intensities. Mast cells,when activated by ELF or RF,will break(degranulate)and release
irritating chemicals that cause the symptoms of allergic skin reactions.
There is very clear evidence that exposures to ELF and RF at levels associated with cell phone
use, computers, video display terminals, televisions, and other sources can cause these skin
reactions. Changes in skin sensitivity have been measured by skin biopsy, and the findings are
remarkable. Some of these reactions happen at levels equivalent to those of wireless technologies
in daily life. Mast cells are also found in the brain and heart,perhaps targets of immune response
by cells responding to ELF and RF exposures, and this might account for some of the other
symptoms commonly reported(headache, sensitivity to light,heart arrythmias and other cardiac
symptoms). Chronic provocation by exposure to ELF and RF can lead to immune dysfunction,
chronic allergic responses, inflammatory diseases and ill health if they occur on a continuing
basis over time.
18
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
These clinical findings may account for reports of persons with electrical hypersensitivity,which
is a condition where there is intolerance for any level of exposure to ELF and/or RF. Although
there is not yet a substantial scientific assessment(under controlled conditions,if that is even
possible); anecdotal reports from many countries show that estimates range from 3%to perhaps
5%of populations, and it is a growing problem. Electrical hypersensitivity, like multiple
chemical sensitivity, can be disabling and require the affected person to make drastic changes in
work and living circumstances,and suffer large economic losses and loss of personal freedom. In
Sweden, electrohypersensitivity (EHS) is officially recognized as fully functional impairment
(i.e., it is not regarded as a disease—see Section 6, Appendix A).
F. Plausible Biological Mechanisms
Plausible biological mechanisms are already identified that can reasonably account for most
biological effects reported for exposure to RF and ELF at low-intensity levels (oxidative stress
and DNA damage from free radicals leading to genotoxicity;molecular mechanisms at very low
energies are plausible links to disease, e.g., effect on electron transfer rates linked to oxidative
damage, DNA activation linked to abnormal biosynthesis and mutation). It is also important to
remember that traditional public health and epidemiological determinations do not require a
proven mechanism before inferring a causal link between EMFs exposure and disease(12).
Many times,proof of mechanism is not known before wise public health responses are
implemented.
"Obviously, melatonin's ability to protect DNA from oxidative damage has implications for many
Y P
types of cancer, including leukemia, considering that DNA damage due to free radicals is
believed to be the initial oncostatic event in a majority of human cancers[Cerutti et al., 1994].
In addition to cancer,free radical damage to the central nervous system is a significant
component of a variety of neurodegenerative diseases of the aged including Alzheimer's disease
and Parkinsonism. In experimental animal models of both of these conditions, melatonin has
proven highly effective in forestalling their onset, and reducing their severity[Reiter et al.,
2001]." (13)
Oxidative stress through the action of free radical damage to DNA is a plausible biological
mechanism for cancer and diseases that involve damage from ELF to the central nervous
system.
G. Another Way of Looking at EMFs: Therapeutic Uses
Many people are surprised to learn that certain kinds of EMFs treatments actually can heal.
These are medical treatments that use EMFs in specific ways to help in healing bone fractures,to
heal wounds to the skin and underlying tissues, to reduce pain and swelling, and for other post-
surgical needs. Some forms of EMFs exposure are used to treat depression.
EMFs have been shown to be effective in treating conditions of disease at energy levels far below
current public exposure standards. This leads to the obvious question. How can scientists dispute
19
Summary for the Public Ms.Sage
the harmful effeets of EMF exposures while at the same time using forms of EMF treatment that
are proven to heal the body?
Medical conditions are successfully treated using EMFs at levels below current public safety
standards, proving another way that the body recognizes and responds to low-intensity
EMF signals. Otherwise,these medical treatments could not work. The FDA has approved
EMFs medical treatment devices, so is clearly aware of this paradox.
Random exposures to EMFs, as opposed to EMFs exposures done with clinical oversight,could
lead to harm just like the unsupervised use of pharmaceutical drugs. This evidence forms a
strong warning that indiscriminate EMF exposure is probably a bad idea.
No one would recommend that drugs used in medical treatments and prevention of disease
be randomly given to the public,especially to children. Yet,random and involuntary
exposures to EMFs occur all the time in daily life.
The consequence of multiple sources of EMFs exposures in daily life, with no regard to
cumulative exposures or to potentially harmful combinations of EMFs exposures means several
things. First,it makes it very difficult to do clinical studies because it is almost impossible to find
anyone who is not already exposed. Second,people with and without diseases have multiple and
overlapping exposures—this will vary from person to person.
Just as ionizing radiation can be used to effectively diagnose disease and treat cancer, it is also a
cause of cancer under different exposure conditions. Since EMFs are both a cause of disease, and
also used for treatment of disease, it is vitally important that public exposure standards reflect our
current understanding of the biological potency of EMF exposures, and develop both new public
safety limits and measures to prevent future exposures.
III. EMF EXPOSURE AND PRUDENT PUBLIC HEALTH PLANNING
20
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
• The scientific evidence is sufficient to warrant regulatory action for ELF; and it is
substantial enough to warrant preventative actions for RF.
• The standard of evidence for judging the emerging scientific evidence necessary to take
action should be proportionate to the impacts on health and well-being
• The exposures are widespread.
•Widely accepted standards for judging the science are used in this assessment.
Public exposure to electromagnetic radiation (power-line frequencies, radiofrequency and
microwave) is growing exponentially worldwide. There is a rapid increase in electrification in
developing countries, even in rural areas. Most members of society now have and use cordless
phones, cellular phones, and pagers. In addition, most populations are also exposed to antennas
in communities designed to transmit wireless RF signals. Some developing countries have even
given up running land lines because of expense and the easy access to cell phones. Long-term
and cumulative exposure to such massively increased RF has no precedent in human history.
Furthermore, the most pronounced change is for children, who now routinely spend hours each
day on the cell phone. Everyone is exposed to a greater or lesser extent. No one can avoid
exposure, since even if they live on a mountain-top without electricity there will likely be
exposure to communication-frequency RF exposure. Vulnerable populations (pregnant women,
very young children, elderly persons, the poor) are exposed to the same degree as the general
population. Therefore it is imperative to consider ways in which to evaluate risk and reduce
exposure. Good public health policy requires preventative action proportionate to the potential
risk of harm and the public health consequence of taking no action.
IV. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS
A. Defining new exposure standards for ELF
This chapter concludes that new ELF limits are warranted based on a public health analysis of the
overall existing scientific evidence. The public health view is that new ELF limits are needed
now. They should reflect environmental levels of ELF that have been demonstrated to increase
21
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
risk for childhood leukemia, and possibly other cancers and neurological diseases. ELF limits
should be set below those exposure levels that have been linked in childhood leukemia studies to
increased risk of disease,plus an additional safety factor. It is no longer acceptable to build new
power lines and electrical facilities that place people in ELF environments that have been
determined to be risky. These levels are in the 2 to 4 milligauss* (mG)range,not in the 10s of
mG or l 00s of mG. The existing ICNIRP limit is 1000 mG (904 mG in the US) for ELF is
outdated and based on faulty assumptions. These limits are can no longer be said to be
protective of public health and they should be replaced. A safety buffer or safety factor should
also be applied to a new,biologically-based ELF limit, and the conventional approach is to add a
safety factor lower than the risk level.
While new ELF limits are being developed and implemented, a reasonable approach would be a 1
mG planning limit for habitable space adjacent to all new or upgraded power lines and a 2 mG
limit for all other new construction. It is also recommended for that a 1 mG limit be established
for existing habitable space for children and/or women who are pregnant(because of the possible
link between childhood leukemia and in utero exposure to ELF). This recommendation is
based on the assumption that a higher burden of protection is required for children who cannot
protect themselves, and who are at risk for childhood leukemia at rates that are traditionally high
enough to trigger regulatory action. This situation in particular warrants extending the 1 mG limit
to existing occupied space. "Establish" in this case probably means formal public advisories from
relevant health agencies. While it is not realistic to reconstruct all existing electrical distribution
systems, in the short term; steps to reduce exposure from these existing systems need to be
initiated, especially in places where children spend time, and should be encouraged. These limits
should reflect the exposures that are commonly associated with increased risk of child hood
leukemia(in the 2 to 5 mG range for all children, and over 1.4 mG for children age 6 and
younger). Nearly all of the occupational studies for adult cancers and neurological diseases
report their highest exposure category is 4 mG and above, so that new ELF limits should target
the exposure ranges of interest, and not necessarily higher ranges.
Avoiding chronic ELF exposure in schools, homes and the workplace above levels associated
with increased risk of disease will also avoid most of the possible bioactive parameters of ELF
discussed in the relevant literature.
22
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
B. Defining preventative actions for reduction in RF exposures
Given the scientific evidence at hand(Chapter 17), the rapid deployment of new wireless
technologies that chronically expose people to pulsed RF at levels reported to cause bioeffects,
which in turn, could reasonably be presumed to lead to serious health impacts, is of public health
concern. Section 17 summarizes evidence that has resulted in a public health recommendation
that preventative action is warranted to reduce or minimize RF exposures to the public. There is
suggestive to strongly suggestive evidence that RF exposures may cause changes in cell
membrane function, cell communication, cell metabolism, activation of proto-oncogenes and can
trigger the production of stress proteins at exposure levels below current regulatory limits.
Resulting effects can include DNA breaks and chromosome aberrations,cell death including
death of brain neurons, increased free radical production, activation of the endogenous opioid
system, cell stress and premature aging, changes in brain function including memory loss,
retarded learning, slower motor function and other performance impairment in children,
headaches and fatigue, sleep disorders,neurodegenerative conditions, reduction in melatonin
secretion and cancers(Chapters 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12).
As early as 2000, some experts in bioelectromagnetics promoted a 0.1 µW/cm2 limit(which is
0.614 Volts per meter) for ambient outdoor exposure to pulsed RF, so generally in cities,the
public would have adequate protection against involuntary exposure to pulsed radiofrequency
(e.g., from cell towers, and other wireless technologies). The Salzburg Resolution of 2000 set a
target of 0.1 pW/cm2(or 0.614 V/m)for public exposure to pulsed radiofrequency. Since then,
there are many credible anecdotal reports of unwellness and illness in the vicinity of wireless
transmitters (wireless voice and data communication antennas) at lower levels. Effects include
sleep disruption, impairment of memory and concentration, fatigue,headache, skin disorders,
visual symptoms (floaters), nausea, loss of appetite, tinnitus, and cardiac problems (racing
heartbeat),There are some credible articles from researchers reporting that cell tower-level RF
exposures(estimated to be between 0.01 and 0.5 µW/cm2)produce ill-effects in populations
living up to several hundred meters from wireless antenna sites.
This information now argues for thresholds or guidelines that are substantially below current FCC
and ICNIPR standards for whole body exposure. Uncertainty about how low such standards
might have to go to be prudent from a public health standpoint should not prevent reasonable
23
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
efforts to respond to the information at hand. No lower limit for bioeffects and adverse health
effects from RF has been established, so the possible health risks of wireless WLAN and WI-FI
systems, for example, will require further research and no assertion of safety at any level of
wireless exposure (chronic exposure) can be made at this time. The lower limit for reported
human health effects has dropped 100-fold below the safety standard (for mobile phones and
PDAs); 1000- to 10,000-fold for other wireless (cell towers at distance; WI-FI and WLAN
devices). The entire basis for safety standards is called into question, and it is not unreasonable to
question the safety of RF at any level.
A cautionary target level for pulsed RF exposures for ambient wireless that could be applied to
RF sources from cell tower antennas,WI-FI,WI-MAX and other similar sources is proposed.
The recommended cautionary target level is 0.1 microwatts per centimeter squared(µW/cm2)**
(or 0.614 Volts per meter or V/m)** for pulsed RF where these exposures affect the general
public; this advisory is proportionate to the evidence and in accord with prudent public health
policy. A precautionary limit of 0.1 pW/cm2 should be adopted for outdoor,cumulative RF
exposure. This reflects the current RF science and prudent public health response that would
reasonably be set for pulsed RF (ambient)exposures where people live,work and go to school.
This level of RF is experienced as whole-body exposure, and can be a chronic exposure where
there is wireless coverage present for voice and data transmission for cell phones,pagers and
PDAs and other sources of radiofrequency radiation. An outdoor precautionary limit of 0.1
µW/cm2 would mean an even lower exposure level inside buildings,perhaps as low as 0.01
µW/cm2. Some studies and many anecdotal reports on ill health have been reported at lower
levels than this; however,for the present time, it could prevent some of the most disproportionate
burdens placed on the public nearest to such installations. Although this RF target level does not
preclude further rollout of WI-FI technologies,we also recommend that wired alternatives to WI-
FI be implemented,particularly in schools and libraries so that children are not subjected to
elevated RF levels until more is understood about possible health impacts. This recommendation
should be seen as an interim precautionary limit that is intended to guide preventative actions;
and more conservative limits may be needed in the future.
Broadcast facilities that chronically expose nearby residents to elevated RF levels from AM,FM
and television antenna transmission are also of public health concern given the potential for very
high RF exposures near these facilities (antenna farms). RF levels can be in the I Os to several
100's ofµW/cm2 in residential areas within half a mile of some broadcast sites (for example,
24
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
AOW-
Lookout Mountain, Colorado and Awbrey Butte, Bend, Oregon). Such facilities that are located
in,or expose residential populations and schools to elevated levels of RF will very likely need to
be re-evaluated for safety.
For emissions from wireless devices(cell phones,personal digital assistant or PDA devices, etc)
ther e is enough evidence for increased risk of brain tumors and acoustic neuro a s no
to warrant
intervention with respect to their use. Redesign of cell phones and PDAs could prevent direct
head and eye exposure, for example, by designing new units so that they work only with a wired
headset or on speakerphone mode.
These effects can reasonably be presumed to result in adverse health effects and disease with
chronic and uncontrolled exposures, and children may be particularly vulnerable. The young are
also largely unable to remove themselves from such environments. Second-hand radiation, like
second-hand smoke is an issue of public health concern based on the evidence at hand.
V. CONCLUSIONS
• We cannot afford `business as usual"any longer. It is time that planning for new power lines
and for new homes, schools and other habitable spaces around them is done with routine
provision for low-ELF environments . The business-as-usual deployment of new wireless
technologies is likely to be risky and harder to change if society does not make some educated
decisions about limits soon. Research must continue to define what levels of RF related to new
wireless technologies are acceptable; but more research should not prevent or delay substantive
changes today that might save money, lives and societal disruption tomorrow.
• New regulatory limits for ELF are warranted. ELF limits should be set below those exposure
levels that have been linked in childhood leukemia studies to increased risk of disease, plus an
additional safety factor. It is no longer acceptable to build new power lines and electrical
facilities that place people in ELF environments that have been determined to be risky (at levels
generally at 2 mG and above).
25
• Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
• While new ELF limits are being developed and implemented, a reasonable approach would be
a I mG planning limit for habitable space adjacent to all new or upgraded power lines and a 2 mG
limit for all other new construction, It is also recommended for that a 1 mG limit be established
for existing habitable space for children and/or women who are pregnant. This recommendation
is based on the assumption that a higher burden of protection is required for children who cannot
protect themselves, and who are at risk for childhood leukemia at rates that are traditionally high
enough to trigger regulatory action. This situation in particular warrants extending the 1 mG limit
to existing occupied space. "Establish" in this case probably means formal public advisories from
relevant health agencies.
• While it is not realistic to reconstruct all existing electrical distributions systems, in the short
term; steps to reduce exposure from these existing systems need to be initiated, especially in
places where children spend time, and should be encouraged.
• A precautionary limit of 0.1 (µW/cm2 (which is also 0.614 Volts per meter) should be adopted
for outdoor, cumulative RF exposure. This reflects the current RF science and prudent public
health response that would reasonably be set for pulsed RF (ambient) exposures where people
live, work and go to school. This level of RF is experienced as whole-body exposure, and can be
a chronic exposure where there is wireless coverage present for voice and data transmission for
cell phones, pagers and PDAs and other sources of radiofrequency radiation. Some studies and
many anecdotal reports on ill health have been reported at lower levels than this; however, for the
present time, it could prevent some of the most disproportionate burdens placed on the public
nearest to such installations. Although this RF target level does not preclude further rollout of
WI-FI technologies, we also recommend that wired alternatives to WI-FI be implemented,
particularly in schools and libraries so that children are not subjected to elevated RF levels until
more is understood about possible health impacts. This recommendation should be seen as an
interim precautionary limit that is intended to guide preventative actions; and more conservative
limits may be needed in the future.
VI. References
1. Martuzzi M. 2005. Science, Policy and the Protectoin of Human Health: A European
Perspective. Bioelectromagnetics Supplement 7: S151-156.
26
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
2. Adey, WR. Potential Therapeutic Applications of Nonthermal Electromagnetic Fields:
Ensemble Organization of Cells in Tissue as a Factor in Biological Field Sensing.
Bioelectromagnetic Medicine. 2004,Rosch PJ and Markov MS, editors,page 1.
(3) REFLEX, 2004. Risk Evaluation of Potential Environmental Hazards from Low Frequency
Electromagnetic Field Exposure Using Sensitive in vitro Methods.
(4) World Health Organization,2007. ELF Health Criteria Monograph. Neurodegenerative
Disorders, Page 187.
(5)TNO Physics and Electronics Laboratory, The Netherlands. 2003_ Effects of Global
Communication System radio-frequency fields on well-being and cognitive functions of
human beings with and without subjective complaints. Netherlands Organization for
Applied Scientific Research 1-63.
(6) Kheifets LI Afifi AA Buffler PA Zhang ZW. 1995. Occupational electric and magnetic field
exposure and brain cancer: a meta-analysis. JOEM Vol 37,No. 2, 1327— 1341.
(7) Green LM, Miller AB,Villeneuve PJ,Agnew DA, Greenberg ML, Li J,Donnelly KE. 1999.
A case-control study of childhood leukemia in southern Ontario Canada and exposure to
magnetic fields in residences. Int J Cancer 82: 161-170.
(8)World Health Organization, 2007. ELF Health Criteria Monograph, page 256 and WHO Fact
Sheet No. 322.
(9)Foliart DE Pollock BH Mezei G Iriye R Silva JM Epi KL Kheifets L Lind MP Kavet R. 2006.
Magnetic field exposure and long-term survival among children with leukemia. British Journal of
Cancer 94 161-164.
(10) Svendsen AL Weihkopf T Kaatsch P Schuz J. 2007. Exposure to magnetic fields and
survival after diagnosis of childhood leukemia: a German cohort study. Cancer Epidemiol
Biomarkers Prev 16(6) 1167-1171.
(11)Lowenthal RM,Tuck DM and Bray IC(2007) Residential exposure to electric power
transmission lines and risk of lymphoproliferative and myeloproliferative disorders: a case-
control study. Int Med J doi:10.1111/j.1445-5994.2007.01389.x
(12)Hill,AB. 1971. Principles of Medical Statistics Chapter XXIV. Statistical Evidence and
Inference, Oxford University Press, Oxford University, Oxford,UK,p. 309-323.
(13))Henshaw DL Reiter RJ. 2005. Do magnetic fields cause increased risk of childhood
leukemia via melatonin disruption?A Review. Bioelectromagnetics Supplement 7, pages S86-
S97.
Some Quick Definitions for Units of Measurement of ELF and RF
*Milliaauss(mG)
27
Summary for the Public Ms. Sage
A milligauss is a measure of ELF intensity and is abbreviated mG. This is used to describe
electromagnetic fields from appliances,power lines, interior electrical wiring.
"Microwatts per centimeter squared(uW/cm2)
Radiofrequency radiation in terms ofpower density is measured in microwatts per centimeter squared and
abbreviated(,uW/cm2). It is used when talking about emissions from wireless facilities, and when
describing ambient RF in the environment. The amount of allowable RF near a cell tower is 1000,uW/cm2
for some cell phone frequencies,for example.
'Specific Absorption Rate(SAR is measured in watts per kilogram or W/K2)
SAR stands for specific absorption rate.It is a calculation of how much RF energy is absorbed into the
body,for example when a cell phone or cordless phone is pressed to the head. SAR is expressed in watts
per kilogram of tissue(W/Kg). The amount of allowable energy into 1 gram of brain tissue from a cell
phone is 1.6 W/Kg in the US. For whole body exposure, the exposure is 0.8 W/Kg averaged over 30
minutes for the general public. International standards in most countries are similar, but not exactly the
same.
28
Exhibit 4
Conditional Use Permit No. 07-28 (Appeal No. 07-06)
Federal Local and State
` .�A ., . i
�`' Communications Government
Commission Advisory
y Committee
- i
A Local Government Official's Guide to
Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety:
Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance
i
u � f
'i
!i
June 2, 2000
A Local Government Official's Guide to
Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety:
Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance
Over the past two years. the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and its Local
and State Government Advisory Committee (LSGAC) have been working together to prepare a
voluntary guide to assist state and local governments in devising efficient procedures for
ensuring that the antenna facilities located in their communities comply with the FCC's limits for
human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields. The attached guide is the
product of this joint effort.
We encourage state and local government officials to consult this guide when addressing
issues of facilities siting within their communities. This guide contains basic information, in a
forrn accessible to officials and citizens alike, that will alleviate misunderstandings in the
complex area of RF emissions safety. This guide is not intended to replace OET Bulletin 65,
\,\hich contains detailed technical information regarding RF issues, and should continue to be
used and consulted for complex sites. The guide contains information, tables, and a model
checklist to assist state and local officials in identif},ing sites that do not raise concerns regarding
compliance with the Commission's RF exposure limits. In many cases, the model checklist
offers a quick and effective way for state and local officials to establish that particular RF
facilities are unlikely to exceed specific federal guidelines that protect the public from the
environmental effects of RF emissions. Thus, we believe this guide will facilitate federal. state,
and local governments working together to protect the public while bringing advanced and
innovative
communications services to consumers as rapidly as possible. We hope and expect
that use of this guide will benefit state and local governments, service providers, and, most
importantly. the American public.
W'e wish all of you good luck in your facilities siting endeavors.
\KIlliam E. Kennard. Chairman Kenneth S. Fellman, Chair
Federal Communications Commission Local and State Government
Advisory Committee
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
A LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL'S GUIDE TO TRANSMITTING ANTENNA RF
EMISSION SAFETY: RULES, PROCEDURES,AND PRACTICAL GUIDANCE
A common question raised in discussions about the siting of wireless telecommunications and
broadcast antennas is. "Fill this tower create any health concerns for our citizens"" We have
designed this guide to provide you with information and guidance in devising efficient
procedures for assuring that the antenna facilities located in your community comply with the
Federal Communication Commission's (FCC's) limits for human exposure to radiofrequency
(RF) electromagnetic fields.
�k e have included a checklist and tables to help you quickly identify siting applications that do
not raise RF exposure concerns. Appendix A to this guide contains a checklist that you may use
to identify "categorically excluded" facilities that are unlikely to cause RF exposures in excess of
the FCC's guidelines. Appendix B contains tables and figures that set forth, for some of the
most common types of facilities, "worst case" distances beyond which there is no realistic
possibility that exposure could exceed the FCC's guidelines.
As discussed below. FCC rules require transmitting facilities to comply with RF exposure
gtidelines. The limits established in the guidelines are designed to protect the public health with
a ver) large margin of safetv. These limits have been endorsed by federal health and safety
agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.
The FCC's rules have been upheld by a Federal Court of Appeals.` As discussed below, most
facilities create maximum exposures that are only a small fraction of the limits. Moreover, the
limits themselves are many times below levels that are generally accepted as having the potential
to cause adverse health effects. Nonetheless. it is recognized that any instance of noncompliance
with the guidelines is potentially very serious. and the FCC has therefore implemented
procedures to enforce compliance with its rules. At the same time, state and local governments
may kti ish to verifi compliance with the FCC's exposure limits in order to protect their own
citizens. As a state or local government official, you can play an important role in ensuring that
innovative and beneficial communications services are provided in a manner that is consistent
with public health and safety.
This document addresses only the issue of compliance with RF exposure limits established by
the FCC. It does not address other issues such as construction, siting, permits, inspection,
zoning, environmental review, and placement of antenna facilities within communities. Such
issues fall generally under the jurisdiction of states and local governments within the limits
imposed for personal wireless service facilities by Section 333(c)(7) of the Communications
Act.'
This guide is intended to complement,but not to replace,the FCC's OET Bulletin 65,"Evaluating Compliance
Frith FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields." August 1997. Bulletin 65
can be obtained from the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology(phone: 303-418-3.464 or e-mail:
rfsafety a fcc.go\). Bulletin 65 can also be accessed and do�xnloaded from the FCC's"RF Safety" website:
http:. w w.fcc.gov oet.rfsafety.
-See Cellular Phone Tas6lorce ti• FCC. 305 F.3d 83(ld Cir. 3000).
I
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
This document is not intended to provide legal guidance regarding the scope of state or local
government authority under Section 332(c)(7) or any other provision of law. Section 332(c)(7)4
generally preserves state and local authority over decisions regarding the placement.
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities,' subject to specific
limitations set forth in Section 332(c)(7). Among other things, Section 332(c)(7) provides that
"[n]o State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement,
construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with
the [FCC's] regulations concerning such emissions." The full text of Section 332(c)(7) is set
forth in Appendix C.
State and local governments and the FCC may differ regarding the extent of state and local legal
authority under Section 332(c)(7) and other provisions of law. To the extent questions arise
re�-oardin�u, such authority, they are being addressed by the courts. Rather than address these legal
questions, this document recognizes that, as a practical matter, state and local governments have
a role to play in ensuring compliance with the FCC's limits, and it provides guidance to assist
you in effectively fulfilling that role. The twin goals of this document are: (1)to define and
promote locally-adaptable procedures that will provide you, as a local official concerned about
transmitting antenna emissions, with adequate assurance of compliance, while (2), at the same
time, avoiding the imposition of unnecessary burdens on either the local government process or
the FCC's licensees.
First. xNe'll start with a summary of the FCC's RF exposure guidelines and some background
,._
information that you'll find helpful. Next, we'll review the FCC's procedures for verifying
compliance with the guidelines and enforcing its rules. Finally, we'll offer you some practical
guidance to help you determine if personal wireless service facilities may raise compliance
concerns. Note, however, that this guide is only intended to help you distinguish sites that are
unlikely to raise compliance concerns from those that may raise compliance concerns, not to
identify sites that are out of compliance. Detailed technical information necessary to determine
compliance for individual sites is contained in the FCC's OET Bulletin 65 (see footnote 1,
above).
47 U.S.C. ; 332(c)(7). Under limited circumstances,the FCC also plays a role in the siting of wireless facilities.
Specifically,the FCC reviews applications for facilities that fall Hithin certain environmental categories under the
\ational Environmental Policy Act of 1969(NEPA),see 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a). Antenna structures that are over
200 feet in height or located near airport runways must be marked or lighted as specified by the Federal Aviation
Administration and must be registered with the FCC,see 47 C.F.R. Part 17.
Section 332(c)(7)of the Communications Act is identical to Section 704(a)of the Telecommunications Act of
1 996.
"Personal wireless services"generalh includes wireless telecommunications services that are interconnected \Kith
the public telephone network and are offered commercially to the public. Examples include cellular and similar
ser ices(such as Personal Communications Service or"PCS"),paging and similar services,certain dispatch
services, and services that use wireless technology to provide telephone service to a fixed location such as a home or
office.
FCC/LSGAC Vocal Official's Guide to RF
Before we start. however. let's take a short tour of the radiofrequencv spectrum. RF signals may
be transmitted over a wide range of frequencies. The frequency of an RF signal is expressed in
terms of cycles per second or"Hertz." abbreviated "Hz.'' One kilohertz (kHz) equals one
thousand Hz. one megahertz (MHz) equals one million Hz, and one gigahertz (GHz) equals one
billion Hz. In the figure below, you'll see that AM radio signals are at the lower end of the RF
spectrum. while other radio services, such as analog and digital TV (DTV), cellular and PCS
telephom, and point-to-point microwave services are much higher in frequency.
Cordless Cordless Cordless
Shortwave Radio Phones Phones Phones
AM Band Aircraft Microwaves
CB VHF VHF UHF P.C.S. Phones
N+DTV TV+DTV N+DN
Ham Ham Pagers
Cellular Phones
FM Band
0 3 Mhz 3 Mhz 30 Mhz 300 Mhz 3000 Mhz
As the frequency increases, the wavelength of the transmitted signal decreases
Mhz=Megahertz= Millions of cycles per second
Illustration 1
The FCC's limits for maximum permissible exposure (MPE) to RF emissions depend on the
frequenc} or frequencies that a person is exposed to. Different frequencies may have different
MPE levels. Later in this document we'll show you how this relationship of frequency to MPE
limit works.
I. The FCC's RF Exposure Guidelines and Rules.
Part 1 of the FCC's Rules and Regulations contains provisions implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). NEPA requires all federal agencies to evaluate the
potential environmental significance of an agency action. Exposure to RF energy has been
identified by the FCC as a potential environmental factor that must be considered before a
facility, operation or transmitter can be authorized or licensed. The FCC's requirements dealing
with RF exposure can be found in Part 1 of its rules at 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b). The exposure
limits themselves are specified in 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310 in terms of frequency, field strength, power
density and averaging time. Facilities and transmitters licensed and authorized by the FCC must
either comply with these guidelines or else an applicant must file an Environmental Assessment
(EA) with the FCC as specified in 47 C.F.R. § 1.1301 et seq. An EA is an official document
required by the FCC's rules whenever an action may have a significant environmental impact
(see discussion below). In practice. however, a potential environmental RF exposure problem is
t%pically resolved before an EA would become necessary. Therefore, compliance with the
FCC's RF guidelines constitutes a de facto threshold for obtaining FCC approval to construct or
operate a station or transmitter. The FCC guidelines are based on exposure criteria
3
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
recommended in 1986 by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
(NCRP) and on the 1991 standard developed by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers (IEEE) and later adopted as a standard by the American National Standards Institute
(ANS1.'IEEE C93.1-1992).
The FCC's guidelines establish separate MPE limits for "general population,/uncontrolled
exposure" and for "occupational/controlled exposure." The general population"uncontrolled
limits set the maximum exposure to which most people may be subjected. People in this group
include the �(eneral public not associated with the installation and maintenance of the
transmitting equipment. Higher exposure limits are permitted under the "occupational%'controlled
exposure" category, but only for persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment
(e.g.. wireless radio engineers, technicians). To qualify for the occupational!controIled exposure
category, exposed persons must be made fully aware of the potential for exposure (e.g., through
training). and they must be able to exercise control over their exposure. In addition, people
passing through a location, who are made aware of the potential for exposure, may be exposed
under the occupational/controlled criteria. The MPE limits adopted by the FCC for
occupational controlled and general population/uncontrolled exposure incorporate a substantial
margin of safety and have been established to be well below levels generally accepted as having
the potential to cause adverse health effects.
Determining whether a potential health hazard could exist with respect to a given transmitting
antenna is not always a simple matter. Several important factors must be considered in making
that determination. They include the following: (1) What is the frequency of the RF signal being
transmitted? (2) What is the operating power of the transmitting station and what is the actual
power radiated from the antenna? 6(3) How long will someone be exposed to the RF signal at a
given distance from the antenna? (4) What other antennas are located in the area, and what is the
exposure from those antennas? W'e'll explore each of these issues in greater detail below.
For all frequency ranges at which FCC licensees operate, Section 1.13 10 of the FCC's rules
establishes maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits to which people may be exposed. The
MPE limits vary by frequency because of the different absorptive properties of the human body
at different frequencies when exposed to whole-body RF fields. Section 1.1310 establishes MPE
limits in terms of"electric field strength." "magnetic field strength," and "far-field equivalent
power density" (power density). For most frequencies used by the wireless services, the most
relevant measurement is power density. The MPE limits for power density are given in terms of
"milliwatts per square centimeter" or mW'/cm2. One milliwatt equals one thousandth of one watt
(11000 of a watt).' In terms of power density, for a given frequency the FCC MPE limits can be
interpreted as specifying the maximum rate that energy can be transferred (i.e.. the power) to a
square centimeter of a person's body over a period of time (either 6 or 30 minutes, as explained
r Power travels from a transmitter through cable or other connecting device to the radiating antenna. "Operating
power of the transmitting station"refers to the power that is fed from the transmitter(transmitter output power)into
the cable or connecting device. "Actual power radiated from the antenna" is the transmitter output power minus the
power lost(power losses) in the connecting device plus an apparent increase in power(if an)i due to the design of
the antenna. Radiated power is often specified in terms of"effective radiated power"or"ERP"or"effective
isotropic radiated power"or"EIRP"(see footnote 14).
Thus. b\ waN of illustration. it takes 100.000 milliwatts of power to full} illuminate a 100 watt light bulb.
4
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
below). In practice. however, since it is unrealistic to measure separately the exposure of each
square centimeter of the body, actual compliance with the FCC limits on RF emissions should be
determined by "spatially averaging" a person's exposure over the projected area of an adult
human body (this concept is discussed in the FCC's OET Bulletin 6-5).
For determining compliance,
exposure is averaged over the i
approximate projected area of the
body.
Power decreases as the distance in
from the antenna increases.
iL.
Illustration 2
Electric field strength and magnetic field strength are used to measure "near field" exposure. At
frequencies below 300 MHz, these are typically the more relevant measures of exposure, and
power density values are given primarily for reference purposes. However, evaluation of far-
fLf ield equivalent power density exposure may still be appropriate for evaluating exposure in some
such cases. For frequencies above 300 MHz. only one field component need be evaluated, and
exposure is usually more easily characterized in terms of power density. Transmitters and
antennas that operate at 300 MHz or lower include radio broadcast stations, some television
broadcast stations, and certain personal wireless service facilities (e.g., some paging stations).
Most personal wireless services, including all cellular and PCS, as well as some television
broadcast stations, operate at frequencies above 300 MHz. (See Illustration 1.)
As noted above, the MPE limits are specified as time-averaged exposure limits. This means that
exposure can be averaged over the identified time interval (30 minutes for general
population,/uncontrolled exposure or 6 minutes for occupational/controlled exposure). However,
for the case of exposure of the general public. time averaging is usually not applied because of
uncertainties over exact exposure conditions and difficulty in controlling time of exposure.
Therefore. the typical conservative approach is to assume that any RF exposure to the general
public will be continuous. The FCC's limits for exposure at different frequencies are shown in
Illustration 3, belo�\:
5
FCC/LSGAC
Local Official's Guide to RF
Illustration 3. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure(MPE)
(A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure
Frequenc\ Electric Field Magnetic Field Strength Power Densit} Averaging Time
Ranue Strength (E) ! (H) (S) 1 IE'2. 'I ' or S
(NlHz) (V.'m) (A%m) (mA,:,cm2) (minutes)
0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6
3.0-30 18421f 4.89 If (900'f�)* 6
30-300 61.4 10.163 1.0 6
300-1500 1 -- -- i f/300 6
1 500-100.000 -- -- 5 j 6
(B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure
Frequency Electric Field Magnetic Field Strength Power Density Averaging Time
Range Strength (E) (H) (S) Xi 1 F h or S
(!11 Hz) (V/m) (A/m) (mW/cm2) (minutes)
0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30
1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (1801)* 30
30-300 27.5 1 0.073 0.2 30
300-1500 -- -- f/1500 30
1500-100.000 -- -- 1.0 30
f=frequency in MHz *Plane-wave equivalent power density
NOTE 1:Occupational%controlled limits apph in situations in xchich persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment
prop ided those persons are full a%%are of the potential for exposure and can exercise control o\er their exposure.Limits for
occupational controlled exposure also apph in situations when an individual is transient through a location\%here
occupational,controlled limits apple provided he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure.
NOTE 2:General populationiuncontro I led exposures apply in situations in which the general public ma} be exposed.or in which
persons that are exposed as a consequence of their emplo}ment ma} not be full} aware of the potential for exposure or cannot
exercise control over their exposure.
Finally. it is important to understand that the FCC's limits apple cumulatively to all sources of
RF emissions affecting a given area. A common example is where two or more wireless
operators have agreed to share the cost of building and maintaining a tower. and to place their
antennas on that joint structure. In such a case. the total exposure from the two facilities taken
together must be within the FCC guidelines. or else an EA will be required.
A. Categorically Excluded Facilities
The Commission has determined through calculations and technical analysis that due to their low
power or height above around level. many facilities by their very nature are hi(,hl} unlikely to
6
i
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
cause human exposures in excess of the guideline limits, and operators of those facilities are
exempt from routinely haying to determine compliance. Facilities Hith these characteristics are
considered "categorically excluded" from the requirement for routine environmental processing
for RF exposure.
Section 1.1307(b)(I ) of the Commission's rules sets forth which facilities are categorically
excluded.' If a facility is categorically excluded, an applicant or licensee may ordinarily assume
compliance with the guideline limits for exposure. However, an applicant or licensee must
evaluate and determine compliance for a facility that is otherwise categorically excluded if
specifically requested to do so by the FCC If potential environmental significance is found as a
result. an EA must be filed with the FCC.
No radio or television broadcast facilities are categorically excluded. Thus. broadcast applicants
and licensees must affirmatively determine their facility's compliance with the guidelines before
construction, and upon every facility modification or license renewal application. With respect
to personal wireless services, a cellular facility is categorically excluded if the total effective
radiated power(ERP) of all channels operated by the licensee at a site is 1000 watts or less. If
the facility uses sectorized antennas. only the total effective radiated power in each direction is
considered. Examples of a 3 sector and a single sector antenna array are shown below:
Example of a 3 sector Example of a single sector
antenna array antenna array
Sector C �� Sector B
Antenna Array ,A Antenna Array
Sector A
Antenna Array Single Sector
Antenna Array
t
t
Illustration 4
-The appropriate exposure limits . . . are generall\ applicable to all facilities,operations and transmitters re_ulated
b\ the Commission. Ho%Never,a determination of compliance kith the exposure limits . . . (routine em ironmental
evaluation). and preparation of an EA if the limits are exceeded, is necessary onlc for facilities,operations and
transmitters that fall into the categories listed in table 1 [of§1.1307],or those specified in paragraph(b)(?)of this
g
section. All other facilities,operations and transmitters are categorical[),excluded from makin studies or preparing
an EA . . ."
" See 47 C.F.R §1.1307(c)and(d).
7
i
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
In addition. a cellular facilit} is categorically excluded. regardless of its power. if it is not
mounted on a building and the lowest point of the antenna is at least 10 meters (about 33 feet)
above ground level. A broadband PCS antenna array is categorically excluded if the total
effective radiated power of all channels operated by the licensee at a site (or all channels in any
one direction. in the case of sectorized antennas) is 2000 watts or less. Like cellular. another
wa\ for a broadband PCS facility to be categorically excluded is if it is not mounted on a
buildinu and the lowest point of the antenna is at least 10 meters (about 33 feet) above ground
level. The power threshold for categorical exclusion is higher for broadband PCS than for
cellular because broadband PCS operates at a higher frequency where exposure limits are less
restrictive. For categorical exclusion thresholds for other personal wireless services. consult
Table I of Section 1.1307(b)(I).10
For\our convenience. we have developed the checklist in Appendix A that may be used to
streamline the process of determining whether a proposed facility is categorically excluded.
You are encouraged to adopt the use of this checklist in your jurisdiction, although such use is
not mandator\.
B. "'hat If An Applicant Or Licensee Wants To Exceed The Limits Shown
In Illustration 3:'
An\ FCC applicant or licensee who wishes to construct or operate a facility that, by itself or in
combination with other sources of emissions (i.e., other transmitting antennas), may cause
human exposures in excess of the guideline limits must file an Environmental Assessment(EA)
�\ith the FCC. Where more than one antenna is collocated (for example. on a single tower or
rooftop or at a hilltop site), the applicant must take into consideration all of the RF power
transmitted by all of the antennas when determining maximum exposure levels. Compliance at
an existing site is the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce exposure
levels in excess of 5% of the applicable exposure limit. A new applicant is responsible for
compliance (or submitting an EA) at a multiple-use site if the proposed transmitter would cause
non-compliance and if it would produce exposure levels in excess of 5 0/6 of the applicable limit.'
An applicant or licensee is not permitted to construct or operate a facility that would result in
exposure in excess of the guideline limits until the FCC has reviewed the EA and either found no
significant environmental impact, or pursued further environmental processing including the
preparation of a formal Environmental Impact Statement. As a practical matter, however, this
process is almost never invoked for RF exposure issues because applicants and licensees
normally undertake corrective actions to ensure compliance with the guidelines before
submitting an application to the FCC.
Unless a facility is categoricall\ excluded (explained above). the FCC's rules require a licensee
to evaluate a proposed or existing facility's compliance with the RF exposure guidelines and to
'c'Table 1 of§1.1307(b)(1)is reproduced in Appendix A to this guide.
" For more information. see OET Bulletin 65,or see 47 CFR 51.1307(6)(3).
8
i
i
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
determine whether an EA is required. In the case of broadcast licensees. who are required to
obtain a construction permit from the FCC, this evaluation is required before the application for a
construction permit is filed. or the facility is constructed. In addition, if a facilin requires the
filing of an EA for anv reason other than RF emissions, the RF evaluation must be performed
before the EA is tiled_ Factors other than RF emissions that may require the filing of an EA are
set out in 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a). Otherwise, new facilities that do not require FCC-issued
construction permits should be evaluated before they are placed in operation. The FCC also
requires its licensees to evaluate existin�L, facilities and operations that are not categorically
eseluded if the licensee seeks to modify its facilities or renew its license. These requirements are
intended to enhance public safer by requiring periodic site compliance reviews.
All facilities that were placed in service before October 15, 1997 (when the current RF exposure
"uidelines became effective) are expected to comp(} with the current guidelines no later than
September 1. 2000. or the date of a license renewal, whichever is earlier.12 If a facility cannot
meet the September I. 2000, date, the licensee of that facility must file an EA by that date.
Section l.I 307(b) of the FCC's rules requires the licensee to provide the FCC with technical
information showing the basis for its determination of compliance upon request.
I1. How the FCC Verifies Compliance with and Enforces Its Rules.
A. Procedures Upon Initial Construction, Modification, and Renewal.
The FCC's procedures for verifying that a new facility, or a facility that is the subject of a facility
P .. n J
modification or license renewal application. will comply with the RF exposure rules vary
depending upon the service involved. Applications for broadcast services (for example, AM and
FM stations, and television stations) are reviewed by the FCC's Mass Media Bureau (MMB). As
part of every relevant application, the LIMB requires an applicant to submit an explanation of
what steps will be taken to limit RF exposure and comply with FCC guidelines. The applicant
must certify that RF exposure procedures will be coordinated with all collocated entities (usually
other stations at a common transmitter site or hill or mountain peak). If the submitted explanation
does not adequately demonstrate a facility's compliance with the guidelines. the MMB will
require additional supporting data before granting the application.
The Fireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) reviews personal wireless service applications
(for cellular. PCS, SMR. etc.). For those services that operate under blanket area licenses,
including cellular and PCS, the license application and renewal form require the applicant to
certify whether grant of the application would have a significant environmental impact so as to
require submission of an EA. The applicant's answer to this question covers all of the facilities
sites included within the area of the license.
For those services that continue to be licensed by site (c.g.. certain paging renewals), the \VTB
requires a similar certification on the application form for each site. To comply with the FCC's
rules. an applicant must determine its own compliance before completing this certification for
- Prior to October 1�. 1997.the Commission applied a different set of substantive guidelines.
9
i
i
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
every site that is not categorically excluded. The 1KTB does not, however. routinely require the
submission of any information supporting the determination of compliance.
B. Procedures For Responding To Complaints About Existing Facilities.
Tile FCC frequently receives inquiries from members of the public as to whether a particular site
complies Nk ith the RF exposure guidelines. Upon receiving these inquiries. FCC staff may ask the
inquiring part to describe the site at issue. In many instances. the information provided by the
inquiring party does not raise any concern that the site could exceed the limits in the guidelines.
FCC staff A ill then inform the inquiring party of this determination.
In some cases. the information provided by the inquiring party does not preclude the possibility,
that the limits could be exceeded. Under these circumstances, FCC staff may ask the licensee
ho operates the facility to supply information demonstrating its compliance. FCC staff may
also inspect the site to determine whether it is accessible to the public, and examine other
relevant physical attributes. Usually, the information obtained in this manner is sufficient to
establish compliance. If compliance is established in this way, FCC staff will inform the
inquiring part of this determination.
In some instances, a licensee may be unable to provide information sufficient to establish
compliance with the guideline limits. In these cases, FCC staff may test the output levels of
individual facilities and evaluate the physical installation. Keep in mind, however, that instances
in which physical testing is necessary to verify compliance are relatively rare.
If a site is found to be out of compliance with the RF guidelines, the FCC will require the
licensees at the site to remedy the situation. Depending on the service and the nature and extent
of the violation. these remedies can include. for example, an immediate reduction in power, a
modification of safety barriers, or a modification of the equipment or its installation. Actions
necessary to bring a site into compliance are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose
facilities cause exposures in that area that exceed 5% of the applicable MPE limit. In addition,
licensees may be subject to sanctions for violating the FCC's rules and/or for misrepresentation.
The FCC is committed to responding fully, promptly, and accurately to all inquiries regarding
compliance with the RF exposure guidelines, and to taking swift and appropriate action
whenever the evidence suggests potential noncompliance To perform this function effectively,
however, the FCC needs accurate information about potentially problematic situations. By
applying the principles discussed in this guide about RF emissions, exposure and the FCC's
guidelines. state and local officials can fulfill a vital role in identifying and winnowing out
situations that merit further attention.
III. Practical Guidance Regarding Compliance.
This section is intended to provide some general guidelines that can be used to identify sites that
should not raise serious questions about compliance with FCC RF exposure guidelines. Sites that
don't fall into the categories described here may still meet the guidelines, but the determination
10
i
i
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
of compliance will not be as straightforward. In such cases. a detailed review may be required.
Tile tables and graphs shown in Appendix B are intended only to assist in distinguishing sites
that should not raise serious issues from sites that may require further inquiry. They are not
intended for use in identifying sites that are out of compliance. As noted above, the factors that
can affect exposure at any individual site. particularly a site containing multiple facilities, are too
numerous and subtle to be practically encompassed within this framework.
Applying the basic principles discussed in this Guide should allow you to eliminate a large
number of sites from further consideration with respect to health concerns. You may find it
useful to contact a qualified radio engineer to assist you in your inquiry. Many larger cities and
counties, and most states, have radio engineers on staff or under contract. In smaller
jurisdictions. we recommend you seek initial assistance from other jurisdictions. universities that
have RF engineering programs. or perhaps the engineer in charge of your local broadcast
station(s).
We'll exclude any discussion of broadcast sites. As explained before, broadcast licensees are
required to submit site-specific information on each facility to the FCC for review, and that
information is publicly available at the station as long as the application is pending. The focus in
this section is on personal wireless services, particularly cellular and broadband PCS, the
services that currently require the largest numbers of new and modified facilities. Many other
personal wireless services, however, such as paging services, operate in approximately the same
frequency ranges as cellular and broadband PCS. 13 Much of the information here is broadly
applicable to those services as well, and specific information is provided in Appendix B for
paging and narrowband PCS operations over frequency bands between 901 and 940 MHz.
Finally, this section only addresses the general population./uncontrolled exposure guidelines,
since compliance with these guidelines generally causes the most concern to state and local
governments. Compliance with occupational/controlled exposure limits should be examined
independently.
A. Categorically Excluded Facilities.
Asa first step in evaluating a siting application for compliance with the FCC's guidelines, you
will probably want to consider whether the facility is categorically excluded under the FCC's
rules from routine evaluation for compliance. The checklist in Appendix A will guide you in
making this determination. Because categorically excluded facilities are unlikely to cause any
exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines, determination that a facility is categorically
excluded should generally suffice to end the inquiry.
B. Single Facility Sites.
If a wireless telecommunications facility is not categorically excluded. you may want to evaluate
potential exposure using the methods discussed beloky and the tables and figures in Appendix B.
The major exception is fixed wireless services,which often operate at much higher frequencies. In addition, some
paging and other licensees operate at lower frequencies
11
. I
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
0 It If you "run the numbers" using the conservative approaches promoted in this paper and the site
in question does not exceed these values, then you generally need look no further. Alternately. if
the "numbers" don't pass muster, you may have a genuine concern. But remember, there may, be
other factors (i.e.. power level, height, blockages. etc.) that contribute to whether the site
complies with FCC guidelines.
Where a site contains only, one antenna array, the maximum exposure at any,point in the
horizontal plane can be predicted by calculations. The tables and graphs in Appendix B show the
maximum distances in the horizontal plane from an antenna at which a person could possibly be
exposed in excess of the guidelines at various levels of effective radiated power(ERP).14 Thus, if
people are not able to come closer to an antenna than the applicable distance shown in Appendix
B. there should be no cause for concern about exposure exceeding the FCC guidelines. The
tables and graphs apply to the following wireless antennas: (1) cellular omni-directional
antennas (Table B 1-1 and Figure B 1-1). (2) cellular sectorized antennas (Table B 1-2 and Figure
B 1-21): (3) broadband PCS sectorized antennas (Table B 1-3 and Figure B 1-3);1' and (4) high-
power(900 MHz-band) paging antennas (Table B1-4 and Figure B1-4). Table B1-4 and Figure
B 1-4 can also be used for omni-directional, narrowband (900 MHz) PCS antennas. Note that
both tables and figures in Appendix B have been provided. In some cases it may, be easier to use
a table to estimate exposure distances, but figures may also be used when a more precise value is
needed that may not be listed in a table.
It's important to note that the predicted distances set forth in Appendix B are based on a very
conservative. "worst case" scenario. In other words, Appendix B identifies the furthest distance
from the antenna that presents even a remote realistic possibility of RF exposure that could
exceed the FCC guidelines. The power levels are based on the approximate maximum number of
channels that an operator is likely to operate at one site. It is further assumed that each channel
operates with the maximum power permitted under the FCC's rules and that all of these channels
are "on" simultaneously, an unlikely scenario. This is a very conservative assumption. In reality,
most sites operate at a fraction of the maximum permissible power and many sites use fewer than
the maximum number of channels. Therefore, actual exposure levels would be expected to be
well below the predicted values. Another mitigating factor could be the presence of intervening
structures, such as walls,that will reduce RF exposure by variable amounts. For all these
reasons. the values given in these tables and graphs are considered to be quite conservative and
should over-predict actual exposure levels.
I
ERP is the apparent effective amount of power leaving the transmit antenna. The ERP is determined by factors
including but not limited to transmitter output power,coaxial line loss between the transmitter and the antenna,and
the "gain"(focusing effect)of the antenna. In some cases.power may also be expressed in terms of EIRP effective
isotropicall% radiated power). Therefore, for convenience,the tables in Appendix B also include a column for
FIRP. ERP and EIRP are related by the mathematical expression: (1.64)X ERP =EIRP.
Because broadband PCS antennas are virtually always sectorized,no information is provided for omni-directional
PCS antennas.
12
I
i
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
i
Power decreases as the distance from the antenna increases
Illustration 5
Personal wireless service antennas typically do not emit high levels of RF energy directed above
or below the horizontal plane of the antenna. Although the precise amount of energy transmitted
outside the horizontal plane will depend upon the type of antenna used, we are aware of no
wireless antennas that produce significant non-horizontal transmissions. Thus, exposures even a
small distance below the horizontal plane of these antennas would be significantly less than in
the horizontal plane. As discussed above, the tables and figures in Appendix B show distances in
the horizontal plane from typical antennas at which exposures could potentially exceed the
guidelines. assuming "worst case" operating conditions at maximum possible power levels. In
any direction other than horizontal, including diagonal or straight down, these `'worst case"
distances would be significantly less.
Where unidirectional antennas are used, exposure levels within or outside the horizontal plane in
directions other than those where the antennas are aimed will typically be insignificant. In
addition, many new antennas are being designed with shielding capabilities to minimize
emissions in undesired directions.
C. :Multiple Facility Sites.
Where multiple facilities are located at a single site, the FCC's rules require the total exposure
from all facilities to fall within the guideline limits, unless an EA is filed and approved. In such
cases, however, calculations of predicted exposure levels and overall evaluation of the site may
become much more complicated. For example. different transmitters at a site may operate
different numbers of channels, or the operating power per channel may vary from transmitter to
transmitter. Transmitters may also operate on different frequencies (for example. one antenna
array may belong to a PCS operator, while the other belongs to a cellular operator). A large
number of variables such as these make the calculations more time consuming. and make it
difficult to apply a simple rule-of-thumb test. See the following illustration.
13
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
Power decreases as the distance from the antenna increases
Illustration 6
However, we can be overly conservative and estimate a "worst case" exposure distance for
compliance by assuming that the total power(e.g., ERP) of all transmitting antennas at the site is
concentrated in the antenna that is closest to the area in question. (In the illustration above, this
would be the antenna that is mounted lower on the building.) Then the values in the tables and
graphs in Appendix B may be used as if this were the only antenna at the site, with radiated
power equal to the sum of the actual radiated power of all antennas at the site. Actual RF
exposure at any point will always be less than the exposure calculated using these assumptions.
Thus, if people are not able to come closer to a group of antennas than the applicable distance
show n in Appendix B using these assumptions. there should be no cause for concern about
exposure exceeding the FCC guidelines. This is admittedly an extremely conservative procedure,
but it may be of assistance in making a "first cut" at eliminating sites from further consideration.
IV. Conclusion.
We've highlighted many of the most common concerns and questions raised by the siting of
wireless telecommunications and broadcast antennas. Applying the principles outlined in this
guide will allow you to make initial conservative judgments about whether RF emissions are or
should be of concern, consistent with the FCC's rules.
As we have explained, when first evaluating a siting application for compliance with the FCC's
guidelines. you will probably want to consider whether the facility is categorically excluded
under the FCC's rules from routine evaluation for compliance. The checklist in Appendix A will
Uuide you in making this determination. Because categorically excluded facilities are unlikely to
cause any exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines, determination that a facility is
categorically excluded should generally suffice to end the inquiry.
If a wireless telecommunications facility is not categorically excluded, you may want to evaluate
potential exposure using the methods discussed in Part III of this paper and the tables and figures
in Appendix B. If the site in question does not exceed the values. then you generally need look
no further. Alternately, if the values don't pass muster, you may have a genuine concern. But
14
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
remember, there may be other factors (i.e., power level, height, blockages, etc.)that contribute to
%whether the site compiles "ith FCC guidelines.
If N ou have questions about compliance, your initial point of exploration should be H ith the
facilities operator in question. That operator is required to understand the FCC's rules and to
know ho-v\ to apple them in specific cases at specific sites. If, after diligently pursuing answers
from the operator. you still have genuine questions regarding compliance. you should contact the
FCC at one of the numbers listed ybeloti. Provision of the information identified in the checklist
in :Appendix A may assist the FCC in evaluating your inquiry.
General Information: Compliance and Information Bureau. (888) CALL-FCC
Concerns About RF Emissions Exposure at a Particular Site: Office of Engineering and
Technology. RF Safety Program. phone (202) 418-2464. FAX (202) 418-1918. e-mail
rfsafetvzcfcc.gov
Licensing and Site Information Regarding Wireless Telecommunications Services:
Fireless Telecommunications Bureau, Commercial Wireless Division. (202) 418-0620
Licensing and Site Information Regarding Broadcast Radio Services: Mass Media
I
Bureau. Audio Services Division. (202) 418-2700
Licensing and Site Information Regarding Television Service (Including DTV): Mass
Media Bureau. Video Services Division, (202) 418-1600
Also. note that the RF Safety Program Web site is a valuable source of general information on
the topic of potential biological effects and hazards of RF energy. For example. OET recently
updated its OET Bulletin 56 ("Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential
Hazards of Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields"). This latest version is available from the
program and can be accessed and downloaded from the FCC's web site at:
http:,'/%kw",.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety,/
15
I
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RE
PPENDIX A
Optional Checklist for Determination
Of Whether a Facilitti,is Categoricalli•Excluded
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
Optional Checklist for Local Government
To Determine Whether a Facility is Categorically Excluded
Purpose: The FCC has determined that many wireless facilities are unlikely to cause human
exposures in excess of RF exposure guidelines. Operators of those facilities are exempt from
routine]\ haN ML, to determine their compliance. These facilities are termed "categorically
excluded." Section L I')07(b)(l ) of the Commission's rules defines those categorically excluded
facilities. This checklist \till assist state and local government agencies in identifying those
ireless facilities that are categorically excluded. and thus are highly unlikely to cause exposure
in excess of the FCC's guidelines. Provision of the information identified on this checklist may
also assist FCC staff in evaluating any inquiry regarding a facility's compliance with the RF
exposure guidelines.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
1. Facility Operator's Legal Name:
?. Facility Operator's Mailing Address:
I Facility Operator's Contact Name/Title:
4. Facility Operator's Office Telephone:
5. Facility Operator's Fax:
6. Facilitv Name:
7. Facilitv Address:
8. Facility City/Community:
9. Facility State and Zip Code:
10. Latitude:
11. Longitude:
continue
----►
i
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide.to RF
Optional Local Government Checklist(page 2)
- ---- --------------------------------------------------------- ------ -- -------------
EVALUATION OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
12. Licensed Radio Service (see attached Table 1):
13. Structure Type (free-standing or building'roof-mounted):
14. Antenna Type [omnidirectional or directional (includes sectored)]:
15. Height above ground of the lowest point of the antenna (in meters):
16. = Check if all of the following are true:
(a) This facility will be operated in the Multipoint Distribution Service, Paging and
Radiotelephone Service. Cellular Radiotelephone Service, Narrowband or Broadband
Personal Communications Service. Private Land Mobile Radio Services Paging
Operations, Private Land Mobile Radio Service Specialized Mobile Radio, Local
Multipoint Distribution Service, or service regulated under Part 74, Subpart I (see
question 12).
(b) This facility will not be mounted on a building (see question 13).
(c) The lowest point of the antenna will be at least 10 meters above the ground (see question
15).
If box 16 is checked, this facility is categorically excluded and is unlikely to cause exposure in
excess of the FCC's guidelines. The remainder of the checklist need not be completed. If box
16 is not checked, continue to question 17.
17. Enter the power threshold for categorical exclusion for this service from the attached Table I
in watts ERP or EIRP` (note: EIRP = (1.64) X ERP):
18. Enter the total number of channels if this will be an omnidirectional antenna, or the
maximum number of channels in any sector if this will be a sectored antenna:
19. Enter the ERP or EIRP per channel (using the same units as in question 17)•
20. Multiply answer 18 by answer 19•
?1. Is the answer to question 20 less than or equal to the value from question 17 (yes or no)?
If the answer to question 21 is YES, this facility is categorically excluded. It is unlikely to cause
exposure in excess of the FCC's guidelines.
If the answer to question 21 is NO, this facility is not categorically excluded. Further
investigation may be appropriate to verify whether the facility may cause exposure in excess of
the FCC's guidelines.
"ERP" means "effective radiated power" and "E[RP"means "effective isotropic radiated power
I
I
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
TABLE 1 : TRANSMITTERS, FACILITIES AND OPERATION'S SUBJECT TO ROUTINE
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
SERVICE TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART EVALUATION REQUIRED IF:
fi ( )
Experimental Radio Services power> 100 W ERP (164 W EIRP)
(part 5)
Multipoint Distribution Service non-buildine-mounted antennas: height above
(subpart K of part 21 ) ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10
m and power> 1640 W EIRP
buildine-mounted antennas:
power> 1640 W EIRP
Paging and Radiotelephone Service non-buildine-mounted antennas: height above
(subpart E of part 22) ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10
m and power> 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP)
buildine-mounted antennas:
power> 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP)
Cellular Radiotelephone Service non-building-mounted antennas: height above
(subpart H of part 22) ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10
m and total power of all channels> 1000 W
ERP (1640 W EIRP)
buildine-mounted antennas:
total power of all channels > 1000 NA' ERP
II (1640 W EIRP)
I
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
TABLE 1 (cont.)
it SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQUIRED IF: j
II
Personal Communications Services (1)Narrowband PCS (subpart D): �
(part 24) non-buildine-mounted antennas: heitzht
l above ground level to lowest point of antenna
ii < 10 m and total power of all channels > 1000
'A' ERP (1640 W EIRP)
building-mounted antennas:
total power of all channels > 1000 VA' ERP
(1640 W EIRP)
(2) Broadband PCS (subpart E):
non-building-mounted antennas: height
above ground level to lowest point of antenna
< 10 m and total power of all channels > 2000
W ERP ( 280 'A EIRP)
building-mounted antennas:
I g
total power of all channels > 2000 W ERP
(3280 WEIR-P)
Satellite Communications all included
(part 25)
it
General Wireless Communications Service total power of all channels > 1640 W EIRP
(part 26)
Wireless Communications Service total power of all channels > 1640 'A' EIRP
i
(part 27)
Radio Broadcast Services all included
(part 73)
i
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
TABLE 1 (cont.)
SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQUIRED IF:
I
i
Experimental, auxiliary. and special subparts A. G, L: power> 100 «' ERP
broadcast and other program
distributional services subpart 1:
(part 74) non-building:mounted antennas: height above
ground level to lowest point of antenna< 10
m and power> 1640 W EIRP
II building-mounted antennas:
power> 1640 W EIRP
Stations in the Maritime Services ship earth stations only
(part 80)
Private Land Mobile Radio Services non-building-mounted antennas: height above
Paging Operations ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10
(part 90) m and power> 1000 A' ERP (1640 V1' EIRP)
building-mounted antennas: power> 1000 W
ERP (1640 W EIRP)
I
Private Land Mobile Radio Services non-building-mounted antennas: height above
Specialized Mobile Radio ground level to lowest point of antenna< 10
�j (part 90) m and total power of all channels > 1000 W
ii
ERP (1640 W EIRP)
building-mounted antennas:
ittotal power of all channels > 1000 W ERP
(1640 W EIRP)
ii
i
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
I
TABLE I (coat.)
SERVICE (TITLE 47 CFR RULE PART) EVALUATION REQUIRED IF:
Amateur Radio Service transmitter output power> levels specified in
(part 97) § 97.13(c)(I ) of this chapter
I
Local Multipoint Distribution Service non-building-mounted antennas: height above
(subpart L of part 10 1) around level to lowest point of antenna < 10
j m and power> 1640 NN' EIRP
building-mounted antennas: power> 1640 W
EIRP
LMDS licensees are required to attach a label
to subscriber transceiver antennas that: (1)
provides adequate notice regarding potential
radiofrequency safety hazards. e.g..
information regarding the safe minimum
separation distance required between users
and transceiver antennas: and (2) references
the applicable FCC-adopted limits for
radiofrequency exposure specified in 5
1.13 10 of this chapter.
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
APPENDIX B
Estimated "Worst Case"Distances that Should be Maintained from
Single Cellular, PCS, and Paging Base Station Antennas
• i
i
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
Table B1-1. Estimated "«orst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained from a
sin<Tle, omni-directional, cellular base-station antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines
Effecti\e Radiated Power Effective Isotropic Horizontal* distance (feet)
i
1� atts) per channel based Radiated Power(watts) per that should be maintained
on maximum total of 96 channel based on a from a single omni-
i
channels per antenna maximum total of 96 directional cellular antenna
channels per antenna
II i
0.5 0.82 3.4
1 1.6 4.8
i
5 8.2 10.8
10 16.4 15.2
25 41 24.1
50 82 34.1
100 48 2
164
For intermediate values not shos%n on this table.please reter to the Figure B
'These distances are based on exposure at same level as the antenna.for example,on a rooftop or in a building directh across from and at the
same he:_ht as the antenna
Note: These estimates are�%orst case.assuming an omnidirectional antenna using 96 channels. If the s}stems are using fe%%er
channels.the actual horizontal distances that must be maintained will be less. Cellular omnidirectional antennas transmit more
or less equall from the antenna in all horizontal directions and transmit relative[ little energ\ direct] to\card the ground.
Therefore. these distances are e,en more consenatke for --non-horizontal' distances. for example. distances directl beloxc
an antenna.
i
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
Fluure B I-1. Estimated "�\orst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained from a
sin_le omni-directional cellular base station antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines
110
ca
C
100 -
CU
3 a� 90
a) ° 0.5 watt/channel
a�
80 1 1 watt/channel
5 watts/channel
L) s 70 - —�- 10 watts/channel
60 �— 25 watts/channel
0
-�— 50 watts/channel
o —o-- 100 watts/channel
CL ij 50
D 40 7
E
M .X
Q� M 30
a�
E
("i o 20
4-- aa)
10
Co
m
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Horizontal distance from an omnidirectional cellular antenna (feet)
* These distances are based on exposure at same level as antenna, for example,on a rooftop or in a building
directly across from and at the same hei_ht as the antenna.
\ote: These estimates are worst case.assuming an omnidirectional antenna using 96 channels. If the sN stems are
using feNNer channels,the actual horizontal distances that must be maintained will be less. Cellular omnidirectional
antennas transmit more or less equalIN from the antenna in all horizontal directions and transmit relatikely little
energy directly toward the ground.
i
I
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
Table B1-2. Estimated "v%orst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained from a siniale.
sectorized. cellular base-station antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines
Effecti%e Radiated Po,.%er Effective Isotropic Horizontal* distance (feet)
(N%atts) per channel based on Radiated Power(watts) per that should be maintained
maximum total of 21 from a single sectorized
channel based on
channels per sector maximum total of 21 I cellular antenna
i
channels per sector
h
0.5 0.82 1.6
1 1.6 2.3
I
5 8.2 5
10 16.4 7.1
25 41 11.3
50 82 16
100 164 22.6
i
For intermediate N alues not shown on this table.please refer to the Figure B 1-2
'These distances are based on exposure at same le%el as the antenna. for example.on a rooftop or in a building directh across
From and at the same heieht as the antenna.
Note. These estimates are"%wrst case."assuming a sectorized antenna using 21 channels. If the sNstems are using feN%er
channels.the actual horizontal distances that must be maintained kill be less. Cellular sectorized antennas transmit more or
less in one direction from the antenna in a horizontal direction and transmit relati%eh little energ,. directl% toxcard the ground.
Therefore. these distances are e%en more consenati%e for '"non-horizontal° distances. for example. distances directh belo%%
an antenna.
. j
i
Figure 111-2. Estimated "�corst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained from a
sinule sectorized, cellular base station antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines
110
100
- 9 0.5 watt/channel
90 u 1 watt/channel I
a -d- 5 watts/channel I
c `p 80 10 watts/channel i
25 watts/channel j
L) M 70 —v— 50 watts/channel
a�
—s, 100 watts/channel
a N 60
a� -0
� o
o m
a '6 50
40
o .E
a�
E 30
> c
0 20
Zr: a)
w a 10
m
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Horizontal distance from a sectorized cellular antenna (feet)
These distances are based on exposure at same level as antenna for example,on a rooftop or in a building directly
P P P
across from and at the same height as the antenna.
Note: These estimates are "worst case".assuming a sectorized antenna using 21 channels. If the systems are
using fe%er channels,the actual horizontal distances that must be maintained will be less. Cellular sectorized
antennas transmit more or less in one direction from the antenna in a horizontal direction and transmit relatively
little energy directly toward the ground.
I
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
Table B1-3. Estimated orst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained from a single
sectorized Broadband PCS base station antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines
1' Effective Radiated Po\%er Effective Isotropic Horizontal* distance (feet)
(%\acts) per channel based on Radiated Power ("atts) per that should be maintained
� I
rnaximum total of 21 channel based on from a single sectorized
channels per sector maximum total of 21 Broadband PCS antenna
j�
channels per sector
0.5 0.82 1.2
1 1.6 1.7
5 g 2 3.8
10 16.4 5.4
25 41 8.6
50 82 12.1
100 164 17?
i
For intermediate values not sho%%n on this table.please refer to the Figure B1-3
'These distances are based on exposure at same le,el as the antenna.for example.on a rooftop or in a building directly across
from and at the same height as the antenna.
dote: These estimates are"%wrst case."assuminz a sectorized antenna using 21 channels. If the sN stem is using fe,.-er than 21
channels.the actual horizontal distances that must be maintained%Hill be less. PCS sectorized antennas transmit more or less
in one direction from the antenna in a horizontal direction and transmit relatkeh little enerLN directh to«ard the ground.
Therefore. these distances are oxen more consernati%e for "non-horizontal' distances. for example. distances directh belo,.%
an antenna.
i
Fi,!ure Bl-3. Estimated "«orst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained from a
ldowok sinufle sectorized. PCS base station antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines
110
2 100
in
3 a 90 0.5 watt/channel
-- CL 1 watt/channel
80 z�— 5 watts/channel
C 10 watts/channel j
v s 70 _ 25 watts/channel
�— 50 watts/channel
a N 60 —rte 100 watts/channel
3 0
0 50
tl 0
E
Co E 40
E 30
> C
a 20 ;
a)
w u 10
m
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Horizontal distance from a sectorized PCS antenna (feet)
* These distances are based on exposure at same level as antenna, for example.on a rooftop or in a building directly
across from and at the same height as the antenna.
Note: These estimates are "worst case",assuming a sectorized antenna using 21 channels. If the systems are
usinz feNNer channels.the actual horizontal distances that must be maintained Nvill be less. PCS sectorized
antennas transmit more or less in one direction from the antenna in a horizontal direction and transmit relatively
little energy directly toward the ground.
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to PF
Table B 1-4. Estimated orst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained from a single
omnidirectional paging or narrowband PCS antenna to meet FCC RF exposure guidelines. Note:
this table and the associated figure only apple to the 900-940 MHz band: paging antennas at other
frequencies are subject to different values.
Horizontal* distance (feet)
II
Effective Radiated Power Effective Isotropic that should be maintained
e r P
(�Natts) based on one Radiated Power (watts)
from a single omnidirectional
channel per antenna paging or narrowband PCS
antenna
50 82 3.4
100 164 4.8
250 410 7.5
500 820 10.6
I� 1.000 1,640 15.1
2.000 3.280 21.3
3.500 5,740 28. 2
For intermediate%alues not shown on this table.please refer to the Figure B1-4
"These distances are based on exposure at same level as the antenna.for example,on a rooftop or in a building directh across
from and at the same height as the antenna.
\ote: These distances assume onl% one frequency (channel)per antenna. Distances%%ould be greater if more than one channel is
used per antenna. Omnidirectional paging and narro%%band PCS antennas transmit more or less equally from the antenna in all
horizontal directions and transmit relati,,el} little energy to%%ard the ground. Therefore.these distances are e%en more
conser%ati%e for--non-horizontal'distances. for example.distances directh beloxc an antenna.
I
i
I
FCC/I.SG.4C Local Official's Guide to RF
Fi?ure B 1-4. Estimated "N�orst case" horizontal* distances that should be maintained from a single
omnidirectional paging or narrowband PCS antenna to meet FCC RF exposure g uidelines.
Note: this ti_Ture and the associated table onl} apple to the 900-940 h1Hz band. paging antennas
at other frequencies are subject to different values
3.500 -
2,000 ,
� c
1,000
oto
CL
500 25 watts/antenna
—� 50 watts/antenna
CU = 250 �— 100 watts/antenna
U
250 watts/antenna
> 0 100 500 watts/antenna
'Z- C I — 1000 watts/antenna
° 50 —�- 2000 watts/antenna
w a) —iE�— 3500 watts/antenna
m 25 i
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Horizontal distance from an omnidirectional paging or narrowband PCS antenna (feet)
* These distances are based on exposure at the same level as the antenna,for example.on a
rooftop or building directly across from and at the same height as the antenna.
'rote: These distances assume only one frequency(channel)per antenna. Distances would be greater if
more than one channel is used per antenna. Omnidirectional paging and narrowband PCS antennas
transmit more or less equally from the antenna in all horizontal directions and transmit relatix ely little
energy to\\ards the ground.
i
i
i
FCC/LSGAC Local Official's Guide to RF
APPENDIX C
Text of 47 US.C. §332(c)(7)
(7) PRESERVATION OF LOCAL ZONING AUTHORITY.
(A) GENERAL AUTHORITY. Except as provided in this paragraph, nothing in this Act shall
limit or affect the authority of a State or local government or instrumentality thereof over
decisions regarding the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless
service facilities.
(B) LIMITATIONS.
(i) The regulation of the placement, construction,and modification of personal wireless
service facilities by and State or local government or instrumentality thereof(1)shall
not unreasonably discriminate among providers of functionally equivalent services;
and(11)shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal
,yireless services.
(ii) A State or local government or instrumentality thereof shall act on any request for
authorization to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities within
a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed with such government or
instrumentality, taking into account the nature and scope of such request.
(iii) Any decision by a State or local government or instrumentality thereof to deny a
request to place, construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in
writing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a written record.
(i% No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement,
construction, or modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities
comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.
(y) Any person adversely affected by any final action or failure to act by a State or local
government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with this subparagraph
may, within 30 days after such action or failure to act, commence an action in any
court of competent jurisdiction. The court shall hear and decide such action on an
expedited basis. Any person adversely affected by an act or failure to act by a State
or local government or any instrumentality thereof that is inconsistent with clause
(iv)may petition the Commission for relief.
(C) DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this paragraph
(i) the term "personal wireless services' means commercial mobile services. unlicensed
wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services;
(ii) the term "personal wireless service facilities" means facilities for the provision of
personal wireless services; and
(iii) the term "unlicensed wireless service" means the offering of telecommunications
service using duly authorized devices which do not require individual licenses, but
does not mean the provision of direct-to-home satellite services(as defined in section
303(v)).
COMM ti
Federal Communications Commission
• ! T"- Office of Engineering & Technology
..y
Questions and Answers about
Biological Effects and Potential
Hazards of Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic Fields
AWN
a
OET BULLETIN 56
Fourth Edition
August 1999
i
i
i
Questions and Answers about Biological
Effects and Potential Hazards of
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields
r
�n
MISS�O�
OET BULLETIN 56
Fourth Edition
August 1999
Authors
Robert F. Cleveland, Jr.
Jerry L. Ulcek
Office of Engineering and Technology
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
LN'TROD UCTION
'[any consumer and industrial products and applications make use of some form of
electroma,metic energy. One type of electromagnetic energy that is of increasing importance
worldwide is radiofrequency (or "RF") energy, including radio waves and microwaves, which
IS used for providing telecommunications, broadcast and other services. In the United States
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authorizes or licenses most RF
telecommunications services, facilities, and devices used by the public, industry and state and
local governmental organizations. Because of its regulatory responsibilities in this area the
FCC often receives inquiries concerning whether there are potential safety hazards due to
human exposure to RF energy emitted by FCC-regulated transmitters. Heightened awareness
of the expanding use of RF technology has led some people to speculate that "electromagnetic
pollution" is causing significant risks to human health from environmental RF electromagnetic
fields. This document is designed to provide factual information and to answer some of the
most commonly asked questions related to this topic.'
WHAT IS RADIOFREQUENCY ENERGY?
Radio waves and microwaves are forms of electromagnetic energy that are collectively
described by the term "radiofrequency" or "RF." RF emissions and associated phenomena
can be discussed in terms of "energy," "radiation" or "fields." Radiation is defined as the
propagation of energy through space in the form of waves or particles. Electromagnetic
"radiation" can best be described as waves of electric and magnetic energy moving together
(i.e., radiating) through space as illustrated in Figure 1. These waves are generated by the
movement of electrical charges such as in a conductive metal object or antenna. For
example, the alternating movement of charge (i.e., the "current") in an antenna used by a
radio or television broadcast station or in a cellular base station antenna generates
electromagnetic waves that radiate away from the "transmit" antenna and are then intercepted
by a "receive" antenna such as a rooftop TV antenna, car radio antenna or an antenna
integrated into a hand-held device such as a cellular telephone. The term "electromagnetic
field" is used to indicate the presence of electromagnetic energy at a given location. The RF
field can be described in terms of the electric and/or magnetic field strength at that location.'
Like any wave-related phenomenon, electromagnetic energy can be characterized by a
wavelength and a frequency. The wavelength (,,) is the distance covered by one complete
Exposure to low-frequency electromagnetic fields generated by electric power transmission has also been the
subject of public concern. However, because the FCC does not have regulatory authority with respect to power-line
electromagnetic fields, this document only addresses questions related to RF exposure. Information about exposure
due to electrical power transmission can be obtained from several sources, including the following Internet World
WILIC Web site: http:;iww%r.nichs.nih.goviemfrapid
- The term "EMP is often used to refer to electromagnetic fields, in general. It can be used to refer to either
;)ower-line frequency fields, radiotrequency electromagnetic fields or both.
, I
electromagnetic waves have frequencies in the range of about 3 kilohertz to 300 gigahcrtz.
One kilohertz (kHz) equals one thousand hertz, one megahertz (MHz) equals one million
hertz, and one li�gahertz (GHz) equals one billion hertz. Thus, when you tune your FM radio
to 101.5, it means that your radio is receiving signals from a radio station emitting radio
wa%cs at a fi-cqucncy of 101.5 million cycles (waves) per second, or 101.5 NlHz.
NON - IONIZING " I '— IONIZING v
I
Radiofrequencies
tj
E -='c Visible/ • •
Light/ �
Power Lines Radio and Microwaves I Infra-red iUltra-violetl X-rays Gamma Rays
Television
Cellular Radio
Frequency ! of
(Hertz) 10 1d 10, 10a 105 loe 10' 10e 10, 10'010' 16'1d'ida 101S 10t elo"io"10"topio"io`10''ielo" 102e
i , i I i 1 1 i
Energy(eV) a tz „ o o e ' e s a 3 z z a 5 e e o „
10 10 16'16' 10 ,o ,o tti 10 10 ,o ,o o., 1 10 to 10 ,0 10 ,0 10 10 ,d td 10
FIGURE 2. The Electromagnetic Spectrum
HOW DO WE USE RADIOFREQUENCY ENERGY?
Probably the most important use for RF energy is in providing telecommunications
services to the public, industry and government. Radio and television broadcasting, cellular
telephones, personal communications services (PCS), pagers, cordless telephones, business
radio, radio communications for police and fire departments, amateur radio, microwave
point-to-point radio links and satellite communications are just a few of the many applications
of RF energy for telecommunications.
Microwave ovens and radar are examples of non-communications uses of RF energy.
Also important are uses of RF energy in industrial heating and sealing where electronic
devices generate RF radiation that rapidly heats the material being processed in the same way
that a microwave oven cooks food. RF heaters and sealers have many uses in industry,
3
i
i
wavelength). The higher the frequency of an electromagnetic wave (and the shorter its
corresponding wavelength), the greater will be the energy of a photon associated with it. The
cnerav content of a photon is often expressed in terms of the unit "electron-volt" or
Photons associated with X-rays and gamma rays (which have very high
electromagnetic frequencies) have a relatively large energy content. At the other end of the
clectromacinetic spectrum, photons associated with low-frequency waves (such as those at
ELF frequencies) have many times less energy. In between these extremes ultraviolet
radiation, visible light, infrared radiation, and RF energy (including microwaves) exhibit
intermediate photon energy content. For comparison, the photon energies associated with
high-energy X-rays are billions of times more energetic than the energy of a 1-GHz
microwave photon. The photon energies associated with the various frequencies of the
electromagnetic spectrum are shown in the lower scale of Figure 2.
Ionization is a process by which electrons are stripped from atoms and molecules.
This process can produce molecular changes that can lead to damage in biological tissue,
including effects on DNA, the genetic material. This process requires interaction with
photons containing high energy levels, such as those of X-rays and gamma rays. A single
quantum event (absorption of an X-ray or gamma-ray photon) can cause ionization and
subsequent biological damage due to the high energy content of the photon, which would be
in excess of 10 eV (considered to be the minimum photon energy capable of causing
ionization). Therefore, X-rays and gamma rays are examples of ionizing radiation. Ionizing
radiation is also associated with the generation of nuclear energy, where it is often simply
referred to as "radiation."
The photon energies of RF electromagnetic waves are not great enough to cause the
ionization of atoms and molecules and RF energy is, therefore, characterized as non-ionizing
radiation, along with visible light, infrared radiation and other forms of electromagnetic
radiation with relatively low frequencies. It is important that the terms "ionizing" and
"non-ionizing" not be confused when discussing biological effects of electromagnetic radiation
or energy, since the mechanisms of interaction with the human body are quite different.
HOW ARE RADIOFREQUENCY FIELDS MEASURED?
Because an RF electromagnetic field has both an electric and a magnetic component
(electric field and magnetic field), it is often convenient to express the intensity of the RF
field in terms of units specific for each component. The unit "volts per meter" (V,m) is often
used to measure the strength ("field strength") of the electric field, and the unit "amperes per
meter" (Alm) is often used to express the strength of the magnetic field.
Another commonly used unit for characterizing an RF electromagnetic field is "pork er
density." Power density is most accurately used when the point of measurement is far enough
5
i
biological tissue and an increase in body temperature. Tissue damage in humans could occur
during exposure to high RF levels because of the body's inability to cope with or dissipate
the excessive heat that could be generated. Lander certain conditions, exposure to RF energy
at power density levels of 1-10 mW/cm' and above can result in measurable heating of
biological tissue (but not necessarily tissue damage). The extent of this heating would depend
on several factors including radiation frequency; size, shape, and orientation of the exposed
object: duration of exposure; environmental conditions; and efficiency of heat dissipation.
Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are known to be particularly vulnerable
to heating by RF energy because of the relative lack of available blood flow to dissipate the
excessive heat load (blood circulation is one of the body's major mechanisms for coping with
excessive heat). Laboratory experiments have shown that short-term exposure (e.g., 30
minutes to one hour) to very high levels of RF radiation (100-200 MW/cm') 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 (or to
other forms of energy that produce comparable increases in temperature).
Studies have shown that environmental levels of RF energy routinely encountered by
the general public are far below levels necessary to produce significant heating and increased
body temperature (References 32, 37, 45, 46, 48 and 54). However, there may be situations,
particularly workplace environments near high-powered RF sources, where recommended
limits for safe exposure of human beings to RF energy could be exceeded. In such cases,
restrictive measures or actions may be necessary to ensure the safe use of RF energy.
In addition to intensity, frequency of an RF electromagnetic wave can be important
in determining how much energy is absorbed and, therefore, the potential for harm. The
quantity used to characterize this absorption is called the "specific absorption rate" or "SAR,"
and it is usually expressed in units of watts per kilogram (W/kg) or milliwatts per gram
(mW/g). In the far-field of a source of RF energy (e.g., several wavelengths distance from
the source) whole-body absorption of RF energy by a standing human adult has been shown
to occur at a maximum rate when the frequency of the RF radiation is between about 80 and
100 MHz, depending on the size, shape and height of the individual. In other words, the
SAR is at a maximum under these conditions. Because of this "resonance" phenomenon, RF
safety standards have taken account of the frequency dependence of whole-body human
absorption, and the most restrictive limits on exposure are found in this frequency range (the
very high frequency or "VHF" frequency range).
Although not commonly observed, a microwave "hearing" effect has been shown to
occur under certain very specific conditions of frequency, signal modulation, and intensity
where animals and humans may 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. This
effect is not recognized as a health hazard, and the conditions under which it might occur
7
. r
CxtCI1SlVC military interest in using RF equipment such as radar and other relatively high-
powered radio transmitters for routine military operations. In addition, some U.S. civilian
federal agencies responsible for health and safety, such as the Environmental Protection
A,,encv (EPA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), have sponsored and
conducted research in this area in the past, although relatively little civilian-sector RF
research is currently being funded by the U.S. Government. At the present time, much of the
non-military research on biological effects of RF energy in the U.S. is being funded by
industry organizations such as Motorola, Inc. In general, relatively more research is being
carried out overseas, particularly in Europe.
In 1996, the World Health Organization (WHO) established a program (the
International EMF Project) designed to review the scientific literature concerning biological
effects of electromagnetic fields, identify gaps in knowledge about such effects, recommend
research needs, and work towards international resolution of health concerns over the use of
RF technology. (see Reference 40) The WHO and other organizations maintain Internet Web
sites that contain additional information about their programs and about RF biological effects
and research (see list of Web sites in Table 3 of this bulletin). The FDA, the EPA and other
federal agencies responsible for public health and safety are working with the WHO and other
organizations to monitor developments and identify research needs related to RF biological
effects. For example, in 1995 the EPA published the results of a conference it sponsored to
assess the current state of knowledge of RF biological effects and to address future research
needs in this area (Reference 53).
WHAT LEVELS ARE SAFE FOR EXPOSURE TO RF ENERGY?
Development of Exposure Guidelines
Exposure standards and guidelines have been developed by various organizations and
countries over the past several decades. In North America and most of Europe exposure
standards and guidelines have generally been based on exposure levels where effects
considered harmful to humans occur. Safety factors are then incorporated to arrive at specific
levels of exposure to provide sufficient protection for various segments of the population.
Not all standards and guidelines throughout the world have recommended the same
limits for exposure. For example, some published exposure limits in Russia and some eastern
European countries have been generally more restrictive than existing or proposed
recommendations for exposure developed in North America and other parts of Europe. This
discrepancy may be due, at least in part, to the possibility that these standards were based on
exposure levels where it was believed no biological effects of any tvpe would occur. This
philosophy is inconsistent with the approach taken by most other standards-setting bodies
which base limits on levels where recognized hazards may occur and then incorporate
appropriate safety margins to ensure adequate protection.
9
i
i
The ANSI'IEEE standards have been widely used and cited and have served as the
basis for similar standards in the United States and in other countries. Both the NCRP and
ANSI%IEEE guidelines were developed by scientists and engineers with a great deal of
experience and knowledge in the area of RF biological effects and related issues. These
individuals spent a considerable amount of time evaluating published scientific studies
relevant to establishing safe levels for human exposure to RF energy.
In addition to NCRP and ANSI/IEEE, other organizations and countries have issued
exposure guidelines. For example, several European countries are basing guidelines on
exposure criteria developed by the International Committee on Nonionizing Radiation
Protection (ICNIRP, Reference 25). The ICNIRP guidelines are also derived from an SAR
threshold of 4 W'-kg (for adverse effects) and are similar to the 1992 ANSI:'IEEE and NCRP
recommendations with certain exceptions. For example, ICNIRP recommends somewhat
different exposure levels in the lower and upper frequency ranges and for localized exposure
due to such devices as hand-held cellular telephones. Many, but not all, countries have
based exposure recommendations on the same general concepts and thresholds as those used
by the NCRP, ANSI/IEEE and ICNIRP. Because of differences in international standards, the
Organization WHO as art of its EMF Project discussed earlier has
World Health Ora ( ), � ( ),
g P
initiated a program to try and develop an international framework for RF safety standards.
FCC Exposure Guidelines
In 1985, the FCC adopted the 1982 ANSI guidelines for purposes of evaluating
exposure due to RF transmitters licensed and authorized by the FCC. This decision was in
response to provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requiring all Federal
Government agencies to evaluate the impact of their actions on the "quality of the human
environment. ,5 In 1992, ANSI adopted the 1991 IEEE standard as an American National
Standard (a revision of its 1982 standard) and designated it ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992.6
In 1993, the FCC proposed to update its rules and adopt the new ANSI/IEEE
guidelines. After a lengthy period to allow for the filing of comments and for deliberation
the FCC decided, in 1996, to adopt a modified version of its original proposal.' The FCC's
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 USC Section 4321, et seq.
ANSI IEEE C95.1-1992 (originally issued as IEEE C95.1-1991), "IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with
Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz," (Reference 3).
- See Report and Order and Second Mennorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulenraking,
ET Docket 93-62, (References 55 and 56). In 1997, the FCC released a technical bulletin entitled, "Evaluating
Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," OET Bulletin 65
(Reference 57) that contains detailed infonnation on methods for compliance with FCC guidelines. These documents
can be accessed at the FCC's Web site: http:,'/www.fcc.gov/oetirfsafety.
11
i
both documents are based on this threshold level." In addition, both the ANSI%IEEE and
NCRP guidelines are frequency dependent, based on findings (discussed earlier) that whole-
body human absorption of RF energy varies with the frequency of the RF signal. The most
restrictive limits on exposure are in the frequency range of 30-300 \1Hz where the human
body absorbs RF energy most efficiently when exposed in the far field of an RF transmitting
source. Although the ANSLIEEE and NCRP guidelines differ at higher and lower
frequencies, at frequencies used by the majority of FCC licensees the MPE limits are
essentially the same regardless of whether ANSL IEEE or NCRP guidelines arc used.
Most radiofrequency safety limits are defined in terms of the electric and magnetic
field strengths as well as in terms of power density. For lower frequencies, limits are more
meaningfully expressed in terms of electric and magnetic field strength values, and the
indicated power densities are actually "far-field equivalent" power density values. The latter
are listed for comparison purposes and because some instrumentation used for measuring RF
fields is calibrated in terms of far-field or plane-wave equivalent power density. At higher
frequencies, and when one is actually in the "far field" of a radiation source, it is usually only
necessary to evaluate power density. In the far field of an RF transmitter power density and
field strength are related by standard mathematical equations.''
The exposure limits adopted by the FCC in 1996 expressed in terms of electric and
magnetic field strength and power density for transmitters operating at frequencies from 300
kHz to 100 GHz are shown in Table 1. The FCC also adopted limits for localized ("partial
body") absorption in terms of SAR, shown in Table 2, that apply to certain portable
transmitting devices such as hand-held cellular telephones.''
"' These exposure limits are based on criteria quantified in terms of specific absorption rate (SAR). SAR is a
measure of the rate at which the body absorbs RF energy. Both the ANSI/IEEE and NCRP exposure criteria are
based on a detennination that potentially harmful biological effects can occur at an SAR level of 4 Wikg as averaged
over the whole-body. Appropriate safety factors have been incorporated to arrive at limits for both whole-body
exposure (0.4 W'kg for "controlled" or "occupational" exposure and 0.08 W'kg for "uncontrolled" or "general
population" exposure, respectively) and for partial-body (localized SAR), such as might occur in the head of the user
of a hand-held cellular telephone. The new MPE limits are more conservative in some cases than the limits specified
by ANSI in 1982. However, these more conservative limits do not arise from a fundamental change in the SAR
threshold for hann, but from a precautionary desire to add an additional margin of safety for exposure of the public
or exposure in "uncontrolled' environments.
" See OET Bulletin 65 (Reference 57) for details.
These guidelines are based on those recommended by ANSI IEEE and NCRP. See Sections 4.2.1 and 4?2
of ANSIiIEEE C95.1-1992 and Section 17.4.5 of NCRP Report No. 86. For purposes of evaluation. the FCC has
designated these devices as either "portable" or "mobile" depending on how they are to be used. Portable devices arc
normally those used within 20 centimeters of the body and must be evaluated with respect to SAR limits. Mobile
devices are nonmally used 20 centimeters or more awav from the body and can be evaluated in terms of either SAR
or field intensity. Detailed information on FCC requirements for evaluating portable and mobile devices can be
found in OET Bulletin 65 and in the FCC's Rules and Regulations, 47 CFR 2.1091 and 2.1093.
13
Table 1. FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure ('PIPE)
�✓ (A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure
Frequency Electric Field Magnetic Field Power Density Averaging Time
Range Strength (E) Strength (H) (S) I E I I H or S
(MHz) (V/m) (Am) (MIN,lcm) (minutes)
0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6
3.0-30 1842T 4.89 f (900"f2)* 6
30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6
300-1500 -- -- U300 6
1500-100,000 -- -- 5 6
(B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure
Frequency Electric Field Magnetic Field Power Density Averaging Time
Range Strength (E) Strength (H) (S) I E 1 `, I H 1 2 or S
(MHz) (V/m) (A/m) (mw/cm) (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 -- -- 61500 30
1500-100,000 -- -- 1.0 30
f= frequency in MHz *Plane-wave equivalent power density
NOTE l: Occupational'controlled limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of
their employment provided those persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control
over their exposure. Limits for occupational/controlled exposure also apply in situations when an individual is
transient through a location where occupational,controlled limits apply provided he or she is made aware of the
potential for exposure.
NOTE 2: General population'uncontrolled exposures apply in situations in which the general public may be
exposed, or in which persons that are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be Fully aware of
the potential for exposure or can not exercise control over their exposure.
15
i
i
I
<zuidelines for evaluating compliance with the FCC RF safety requirements can be found in
the FCC's OET Bulletin 65 (Reference 57).
Low-powered, intermittent, or inaccessible RF transmitters and facilities are normally
"categorically excluded" from the requirement for routine evaluation for RF exposure. These
exclusions are based on calculations and measurement data indicating that such transmitting
stations or devices are unlikely to cause exposures in excess of the guidelines under normal
conditions of use." The FCC's policies on RF exposure and categorical exclusion can be
found in Section 1.1307(b) of the FCC's Rules and Regulations." It should be emphasized,
however, that these exclusions are not exclusions from compliance, but, rather, only
exclusions from routine evaluation. Furthermore, transmitters or facilities that are otherwise
categorically excluded from evaluation may be required, on a case-by-case basis, to
demonstrate compliance when evidence of potential non-compliance of the transmitter or
facility is brought to the Commission's attention [see 47 CFR §1.1307(c) and (d)].
The FCC's policies with respect to environmental RF fields are designed to ensure that
FCC-regulated transmitters do not expose the public or workers to levels of RF radiation that
are considered by expert organizations to be potentially harmful. Therefore, if a transmitter
and its associated antenna are regulated by the FCC, they must comply with provisions of the
FCC's rules regarding human exposure to RF radiation. In its 1997 Order, the FCC adopted
a provision that all transmitters regulated by the FCC, regardless of whether they are excluded
from routine evaluation, are expected to be in compliance with the new guidelines on RF
exposure by September 1, 2000 (Reference 56).
In the United States some local and state jurisdictions have also enacted rules and
regulations pertaining to human exposure to RF energy. However, the Telecommunications
Act of 1996 contained provisions relating to federal jurisdiction to regulate human exposure
to RF emissions from certain transmitting devices.. In particular, Section 704 of the Act
states that, "No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the
placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis
of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities
comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions." Further information
on FCC policy with respect to facilities siting is available in a factsheet from the FCC's
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.15
The Council on Environmental Quality, which has oversight responsibility with regard to NEPA, permits
federal agencies to categorically exclude certain actions from routine environmental processing when the potential for
individual or cumulative environmental impact is judged to be negligible (40 CFR §§ 1507, 1508.4 and "Regulations
for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA, 43 Fed. Reg. 55,978, 1978).
47 Code of Federal Regulations i.i 307(b).
"Fact Shcet 2", September 1 199", entitled, "National Wireless Facilities Siting Policies." from the FCC's
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. This factsheet can be viewed and downloaded from the bureau's Internet
World Wide Web Site: http: -%k--w cc.gov vtb'.
17
i
radiating antenna (e.g.. see Reference 42, 43, 45, and 51). Therefore, precautions should be
taken to ensure that maintenance personnel are not exposed to unsafe RF fields. 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.
HOW SAFE ARE MICROWAVE AND SATELLITE ANTENNAS?
Point-to-Point :1Vlicrowave Antennas
Point-to-point microwave antennas transmit and receive microwave signals across
relatively short distances (from a few tenths of a mile to 30 miles or more). These antennas
are usually rectangular or circular in shape and are normally found mounted on a supporting
tower, on rooftops, sides of buildings or on similar structures that provide clear and
unobstructed line-of-sight paths between both ends of a transmission path or link. These
antennas have a variety of uses such as transmitting voice and data messages and serving as
links between broadcast or cable-TV studios and transmitting antennas.
The RF 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 insignificant. In addition, these antennas transmit using very low
power levels, usually on the order of a few watts or less. Measurements have shown that
ground-level power densities due to microwave directional antennas are normally a thousand
times or more below recommended safety limits. (e.g., see Reference 38) Moreover, as an
added margin of safety, microwave tower sites are normally inaccessible to the general public.
Significant exposures from these antennas could only occur in the unlikely event that an
individual were to stand directly in front of and very close to an antenna for a period of time.
Satellite-Earth Stations
Ground-based antennas used for satellite-earth communications typically are parabolic "dish"
antennas, some as large as 10 to 30 meters in diameter, that are used to transmit ("uplinks")
or receive ("downlinks") microwave signals to or from 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 delivery of a variety of
communications services, including long distance telephone service. Some satellite-earth
station antennas are used only to receive RF signals (i.e., just like a rooftop television antenna
used at a residence), and, since they do not transmit, RF exposure is not an issue.
19
NVAW
authorized and the power of each transmitter. Typically, for a cellular base station, a
maximum of 21 channels per sector (depending on the system) could be used. Thus, for a
typical cell site utilizing sector antennas, each of the three transmitting antennas could be
connected to up to 21 transmitters for a total of 63 transmitters per site. «'hen omni-
directional antennas are used, up to 96 transmitters could be implemented at a cell site, but
this would be unusual. While a typical base station could have as many as 63 transmitters,
not all of the transmitters would be expected to operate simultaneously thus reducing overall
emission levels. For the case of PCS base stations, fewer transmitters are normally required
due to the relatively greater number of base stations.
Although the FCC permits an effective radiated power (ERP) of up to 500 watts per
channel (depending on the tower height), the majority of cellular base stations in urban and
suburban areas operate at an ERP of 100 watts per channel or less. An ERP of 100 watts
corresponds to an actual radiated power of about 5-10 watts, depending on the type of
antenna used (ERP is not equivalent to the power that is radiated but, rather, is a quantity that
takes into consideration transmitter power and antenna directivity). As the capacity of a
system is expanded by dividing cells, i.e., adding additional base stations, lower ERPs are
normally used. In urban areas, an ERP of 10 watts per channel (corresponding to a radiated
power of 0.5 - 1 watt) or less is commonly used. For PCS base stations, even lower radiated
power levels are normally used.
The signal from a cellular or PCS base station antenna is essentially directed toward
the horizon in a relatively narrow pattern in the vertical plane. The radiation pattern for an
omni-directional antenna might be compared to a thin doughnut or pancake centered around
the antenna while the pattern for a sector antenna is fan-shaped, like a wedge cut from a pie.
As with all forms of electromagnetic energy, the power density from a cellular or PCS
transmitter decreases rapidly (according to an inverse square law) as one moves away from
the antenna. Consequently, normal ground-level exposure is much less than exposures that
might be encountered if one were very close to the antenna and in its main transmitted beam.
Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS installations, especially those with
tower-mounted antennas, have shown that ground-level power densities are well below limits
recommended by RF/microwave safety standards (References 32, 37, and 45). For example,
for a base-station transmitting frequency of 869 MHz the FCC's RF exposure guidelines
recommend a Maximum Permissible Exposure level for the public ("general
population/uncontrolled" exposure) of about 580 microwatts per square centimeter (µW cm').
This limit is many times greater than RF levels found near the base of typical cellular towers
or in the vicinity of lower-powered cellular base station transmitters, such as might be
mounted on rooftops or sides of buildings. Measurement data obtained from various sources
have consistently indicated that "worst-case" ground-level power densities near typical cellular
towers are on the order of 1 ANN,/cm' or less (usually significantly less). Calculations
corresponding to a "worst-case" situation (all transmitters operating simultaneously and
continuously at the maximum licensed power) show that in order to be exposed to levels near
the FCC's limits for cellular frequencies, an individual would essentially have to remain in
21
(about 6 inches) or more from vehicle occupants. Time-averaging of exposure (as
appropriate) should result in even lower values when compared with safety guidelines.
Mobile and Portable Phones and Devices
The FCC's exposure guidelines, and the ANSVIEEE and NCRP guidelines upon which
they are based, specify limits for human exposure to RF emissions from hand-held RF devices
in terms of specific absorption rate (SAR). For exposure of the general public, e.g., exposure
of the user of a cellular or PCS phone, the FCC limits RF absorption (in terms of SAR) to
1.6 watts!kg (W/kg), as averaged over one gram of tissue. Less restrictive limits, e.g., 2
W kg averaged over 10 grams of tissue, are specified by guidelines used in some other
countries (Reference 25).
Measurements and computational analysis of SAR in models of the human head and
other studies of SAR distribution using hand-held cellular and PCS phones have shown that
the 1.6 W/kg limit is unlikely to be exceeded under normal conditions of use (References 4,
16, 27). The same can be said for cordless telephones used in the home. Lower frequency
(46-49 MHz) cordless telephones operate at very low power levels that could not result in
exposure levels that even come close to the 1.6 W;kg level. Higher frequency cordless
phones operating near 900 MHz (near the frequencies used for cellular telephones) operate
with power levels similar to or less than those used for cell phones. They are also unlikely to
exceed the SAR limits specified by the FCC under normal conditions of use.
In any case, compliance with the 1.6 W/kg safety limit must be demonstrated before
FCC approval can be granted for marketing of a cellular or PCS phone. Testing of hand-
held phones is normally done under conditions of maximum power usage. However, normal
power usage is less since it depends on distance of the user from the base station transmitter.
Therefore, typical exposure to a user would actually be expected to be less than that indicated
by testing for compliance with the limit.
In recent years, publicity, speculation, and concern over claims of possible health
effects due to RF emissions from hand-held wireless telephones prompted industry-sponsored
groups to initiate research programs to investigate whether there is any risk to users of these
devices. Organizations such as Wireless Technology Research (funded by the cellular radio
service industry) and wireless equipment manufacturers, such as Motorola, Inc., have been
investigating potential health effects from the use of hand-held cellular telephones and other
wireless telecommunications devices.
In 1994, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) issued a report that addressed the
status of research on the safety of cellular telephones and encouraged U.S. Government
agencies to work closely with industry to address wireless safety issues (Reference 59). In
that regard, the Federal Government has been monitoring the results of ongoing research
through an inter-agency working group led by the EPA and the FDA's Center for Devices and
23
i
individuals maintain a minimum distance (e.g., 1 to 2 feet) from a vehicle-mounted antenna
during transmission or mount the antenna to such a way as to provide maximum shielding for
vehicle occupants. Studies have shown that this is probably a conservative precaution,
particularly when the "duty factor" (percentage of time an antenna is actually radiating) is
taken into account since safety standards are "time-averaged." Unlike cellular telephones,
which transmit continuously throughout a call, two-way radios normally transmit only when
the "press-to-talk" button is depressed. The extent of any possible exposure would also
depend on the actual power level and frequency used by the vehicle-mounted antenna. In
ocncral, there is no evidence that there would be a safety hazard associated with exposure
from vehicle-mounted, two-way antennas when the manufacturer's recommendations are
followed.
Hand-held "two-way" portable radios such as walkie-talkies are low-powered devices
used to transmit and receive messages over relatively short distances. Because of the
relatively low power levels used (usually no more than a few watts) and, especially, because
of the intermittency of transmissions (low duty factor) these radios would normally not be
considered to cause hazardous exposures to users. As with vehicle-mounted mobile units,
time averaging of exposure can normally be considered when evaluating two-way radios for
compliance with safety limits, since these units are "push to talk.". Laboratory measurements
have been made using hand-held radios operating at various frequencies to determine the
amount of RF energy that might be absorbed in the head of a user. In general, the only real
possibility of a potential hazard would occur in the unlikely event that the tip of the
transmitting antenna were to be placed directly at the surface of the eye, contrary to
manufacturers' recommended precautions, or if for some reason continuous exposure were
possible over a significant period of time, which is unlikely. If hand-held radios are used
properly there is no evidence that they could cause hazardous exposure to RF energy
(References 5, 11, 13, and 27).
ARE RF EMISSIONS FROM AMATEUR RADIO STATIONS HARMFUL?
There are hundreds of thousands of amateur radio operators ("hams") worldwide.
Amateur radio operators in the United States are licensed by the FCC. The Amateur Radio
Service provides its members with the opportunity to communicate with persons all over the
world and to provide valuable public service functions, such as making communications
services available during disasters and emergencies. Like all FCC licensees, amateur radio
operators are expected to comply with the FCC's guidelines for safe human exposure to RF
fields. Under the FCC's rules, amateur operators can transmit with power levels of up to
1500 watts. However, most hams use considerably less power than this. Studies by the FCC
and others have shown that most amateur radio transmitters would not normally expose
persons to RF levels in excess of safety limits. This is primarily due to the relatively low
operating powers used by most amateurs, the intermittent transmission characteristics typically
used and the relative inaccessibility of most amateur antennas. As long as appropriate
25
i
I i HI CH OTHER FEDERAL A GENCIES HA�E RESPONSIBILI TIES
RELA TED TO POTENTIAL RF HEAL TH EFFECTS?
Various agencies in the Federal Government have been involved in monitoring,
researching or regulating issues related to human exposure to RF radiation. These agencies
include the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the National Telecommunications and Information
.Administration (NTIA) and the Department of Defense (DOD).
By authority of the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act of 1968, the Center
for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) of the FDA develops performance standards for
the emission of radiation from electronic products including X-ray equipment, other medical
devices, television sets, microwave ovens, laser products and sunlamps. The CDRH
established a product performance standard for microwave ovens in 1971 limiting the amount
of RF leakage from ovens. However, the CDRH has not adopted performance standards for
other RF-emitting products. The FDA is, however, the lead federal health agency in
monitoring the latest research developments and advising other agencies with respect to the
safety of RF-emitting products used by the public, such as cellular and PCS phones.
The FDA's microwave oven standard is an emission standard (as opposed to an
exposure standard) that allows leakage (measured at five centimeters from the oven surface)
of 1 mW/cm' at the time of manufacture and a maximum level of 5 mW/cm` 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. The FDA has stated that ovens that meet its
standards and are used according to the manufacturer's recommendations are safe for
consumer and industrial use.
The EPA has, in the past, considered developing federal guidelines for public exposure
to RF radiation. However, EPA activities related to RF safety and health are presently
limited to advisory functions. For example, the EPA now chairs an Inter-agency
Radiofrequency Working Group, which coordinates RF health-related activities among the
various federal agencies with health or regulatory responsibilities in this area.
OSHA is responsible for protecting workers from 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 frequencies from 10 MHz to 100 GHz,
stated that exposure of workers should not exceed a power density of ten milliwatts per
square centimeter (10 mW cm') 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
21 Code of Federal Regulations 1030.10.
27
Wide Web site that may be of interest. The L'RL (case sensitive) is: http: %«ww.osha-
slc.gov;SLTC' (.select subject: radiofrequency radiation).
NIOSH: The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) monitors RF-
related safety issues as they pertain to the workplace. Contact: tiIOSH, Physical Agents
Effects Branch, :Mail Stop C-27, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226. Toll-free
number: 1-800-35-tiIOSH (1-800-356-4674).
DOD: Questions regarding Department of Defense activities related to RF safety and its
biological research program can be directed to the Radio Frequency Radiation Branch, Air
Force Research Laboratory, Brooks Air Force Base, TX 78235.
FCC: Questions regarding potential RF hazards from FCC-regulated transmitters can be
directed to the RF Safety Program, Office of Engineering and Technology, Technical Analysis
Branch, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.
20554. The telephone number for inquiries on RF safety issues is: 1-202-418-2464. Calls
for routine information can also be directed to the FCC's toll-free number: 1-888-CALL-
FCC (225-5322). Another source of information is the FCC's RF Safety Internet Web site
htt :i�'www.fcc. ov./oet'rfsafe ) where FCC documents and notices can be viewed and
( p g tY
downloaded. Questions can also be sent via e-mail to: rfsafety Ccu fcc.gov.
In addition to government agencies, there are other sources of information and possible
assistance regarding environmental RF energy. Some states also maintain non-ionizing
radiation programs or, at least, some expertise in this field, usually in a department of public
health or environmental control. The list of references at the end of this bulletin can be
consulted for detailed information on specific topics, and Table 3 provides a list of some
relevant Internet Web sites.
29
i
i
ACKNO ff"LEDGEME,ti TS
The assistance of the following individuals in reviewing a draft of this bulletin is
gratefully acknowledged: Q. Balzano, M. Swicord, J. Welch (all Motorola, Inc.), R.
Bromery, J. Burtle, K. Chan, R.Dorch, B. Franca (all FCC); J. Elder, N. Hankin (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency); J. Healer, F. Matos (both NTIA, L.S. Dept. of
Commerce), G. Lotz (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), R. ONven (U.S.
Food and Drug Administration), R. Petersen (Lucent Technologies).
REFERENCES
This list is not meant to be a complete bibliography, but, rather it provides a selection of
some of the more relevant and recent references and publications related to this topic.
Reports with NTIS Order Numbers are U.S. Government publications and
can be purchased from the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of
Commerce, (800) 553-6847
1. Ade y, W.R. "Ti ssue Interactions with Non-ionizin g Electromagnetic Fields. Physiological
Reviews, 61: 435-514 (1981).
2. American National Standards Institute (ANSI), "Recommended Practice for the
Measurement of Potentially Hazardous Electromagnetic Fields - RF and Microwave."
ANSI/IEEE C95.3-1992. Copyright 1992, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), New York, NY 10017. For copies contact the IEEE: 1-800-678-4333
or 1-908-981-1393.
3. American National Standards Institute (ANSI), "Safety Levels with Respect to Human
Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz,"
ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 (previously issued as IEEE C95.1-1991). Copyright 1992 by the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), New York, N.Y. 10017. For
copies contact the IEEE: 1-800-678-4333 or 1-908-981-1393.
4. Balzano, Q., Garay O. and Manning, T.J. "Electromagnetic energy exposure of simulated
users of portable cellular telephones," IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technologv, Vol. 44
(3), pp. 390-403 (1995).
5. Balzano Q., Garay O., and F.R. Steel, "Energy Deposition in Simulated Human Operators
of 800-MHz Portable Transmitters." IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech., VT-27(4):174 (1978).
31
i
19. Gandhi, O.P. (ed.), "Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation," IEEE Engirnci-ing
in Medicine and Biologi-, 6(1): 14-58 (1987).
20. Guy, A.W., and C.K. Chou (1986).1 "Specific Absorption Rates of Energy in Man
Models Exposed to Cellular UHF-mobile-antenna Fields." IEEE Trans. Microii,ave Theori-
and Tech., MTT-34(6): 671 (1986).
21. Hammett, W.F., "Radio Frequency Radiation, Issues and Standards." McGraw-Hill,
New York (1997).
22. Hankin, N., "The Radiolrequency Radiation Environment: Environmental Exposure
Levels and RF Radiation Emitting Sources," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. 20460. Report No. EPA 520;'1-85-014 (1986).
23. Hare, Ed, RF Exposure and You. Published by the American Radio Relay League
(ARRL), Newington, CT 06111, USA (1998).
24. Hayes, D.L. et al., "Interference with Cardiac Pacemakers by Cellular Telephones." New
England J or Medicine, 336: 1473-1479 (1997).
25. International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), "Guidelines
for Limiting Exposure to Time-varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (Up to
300 GHz)," Health Physics 74: 494-520 (1998).
26. Klaucnberg, B.J., Grandolfo, M. and D.N. Erwin (eds.), Rudiofrequency Radiation
Standards, Biological Effects, Dosimetfy, Epidemiology and Public Health Policy. NATO
ASI Series A: Life Sciences, Plenum Press (1994).
27. Kuster, N., Q. Balzano and J. Lin, Eds., Mobile Communications Safety, Chapman and
Hall, London, (1997).
28. Lai, H. and N.P. Singh, "Single- and Double-strand DNA Breaks in Rat Brain Cells After
Acute Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Radiation." Intl. J. Radiation Biology,
69: 513-521 (1996).
29. Lai, H. and N.P. Singh, "Acute Low-Intensity Microwave Exposure Increases DNA
Single-strand Breaks in Rat Brain Cells." Bioelectromagnetics, 16:207-210 (1995).
30. Malyapa, R.S. et al., "Measurement of DNA Damage Following Exposure to 2450 MHz
Electromagnetic Radiation." Radiation Research, 148: 608-617 (1997).
31. Malyapa, R.S. et al., "Measurement of DNA Damage Following Exposure to
Electromagnetic Radiation in the Cellular Communications Frequency Band (.835.62 and
847.74 MHz)." Radiation Research, 148: 618-627.
33
Tcchnolog�. Nashington, D.C. 20554. FCC Report No. OET;RTA 89-01 (1989). NTIS
Order No. PB 89-234850.
44. Tell, R.A., "Induced Bock Currents and Hot AM Totver Climbing: Assessing Herman
Exposure in Relation to the A.VSI Radioli•equencY Protection Guide," Richard Tell Associates,
Inc., Las Vegas, NV. Project performed under contract for Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), Office of Engineering and Technology, Washington, D.C. 20554. FCC
Report No. OET RTA 91-01 (1991). NTIS Order No. PB 92-125186.
45. Tell, R.A., "Engineering Services for Measurement and Analysis oJ'Radiofr-equency (RF)
Fields," Richard Tell Associates, Inc., Las Vegas, NV. Project performed under contract for
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Office of Engineering and Technology,
Washington, D.C. 20554. FCC Report No. OET,'RTA 95-01 (1995). NTIS Order No. PB 95-
253829.
46. Tell, R. A. and E. D. Mantiply, "Population Exposure to VHF and UHF Broadcast
Radiation in the United States," Proceedings of the IEEE, Vol. 68(1), pages 6-12 (1980).
47. Toler, J.C. et al., Lo w-le v el Exposure of M i ce Prone to Mammary Tumors ors to
435 MHz Radiofrequency Radiation." Radiation Research, 148: 227-234 (1997).
48. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, authors 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 (1978). NTIS order No. PB 284 637.
49. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Biological Effects of Radiofrequency
Radiation," Report No. EPA- 600%8-83-026F (1984). NTIS Order No. P1385-120848.
50. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Electromagnetics Branch, Las Vegas, NV 89114.
"An Investigation of Radiofregarencv Radiation Levels on Lookout Mountain, Jefferson Countv,
Colorado," (1987).
51. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, "Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic Fields and Induced Currents in the Spokane, Washington Area," EPA Report
No. EPA.'520/6-88%008 (1988). NTIS Order No. PB88-244819/AS.
52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Radiation Programs, "Electric and
Magnetic Fields Near AM Broadcast Totivers," EPA Report No. EPA,'520.-6-91;020, (1991).
NTIS Order No. P1392-101427.
53. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation and Office of
Research and Development, "Surnnran and Results of the April 26-217, 1993 Radiofrequencv
Radiation Conference." Vol. 1: Analysis of Panel Discussions, EPA Report No. 402-8-95-
009, (1995), Vol. 2: Papers, EPA Report No. 402-R-95-011, (1995).
I
35
+o;ss,w� FEDERAL COMMU\[CATIONS COMMISSION
_'•• , OFFICE OF ENGINEERING & TECHNOLOGY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554
,34 era.
January 1998
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
INFORMATION ON HUMAN EXPOSURE TO RADIOFREQUENCY FIELDS
FROM CELLULAR AND PCS RADIO TRANSMITTERS
(1) Cellular and PCS base stations
Radio frequencies constitute part of the overall electromagnetic spectrum. Cellular
communications systems use frequencies in the 800-900 megahertz (MHz) portion of the
radiofrequency (RF) spectrum (frequencies formerly used for UHF-TV broadcasting), and
transmitters in the Personal Communications Service (PCS) use frequencies in the range of
1850-1990 MHz. Primary antennas for cellular and PCS transmissions are usually located on
towers, water tanks and other elevated structures including rooftops and the sides of buildings.
The combination of antennas and associated electronic equipment is referred to as a cellular
or PCS base station" or "cell site." Typical heights for base station towers or structures are
50-200 feet. A typical cellular base station may utilize several "omni-directional" antennas
that look like poles or whips, 10 to 15 feet in length. PCS (and also many cellular) base
stations use a number of"sector" antennas that look like rectangular panels. The dimensions
of a sector antenna are typically 1 foot by 4 feet. Antennas are usually arranged in three
groups of three with one antenna in each group used to transmit signals to mobile units (car
phones or hand-held phones). The other two antennas in each group are used to receive
signals from mobile units.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authorizes cellular and PCS carriers
in various service areas around the country. At a cell site, the total RF power that could be
transmitted from each transmitting antenna at a cell site depends on the number of radio
channels (transmitters) that have been authorized and the power of each transmitter.
Typically, for a cellular base station, a maximum of 21 channels per sector (depending on the
system) could be used. Thus, for a typical cell site utilizing sector antennas, each of the three
transmitting antennas could be connected to up to 21 transmitters for a total of 63 transmitters
per site. When omni-directional antennas are used, up to 96 transmitters could be
implemented at a cell site, but this would be very unusual. While a typical base station could
have as many as 63 transmitters, not all of the transmitters would be expected to operate
simultaneously thus reducing overall emission levels. For the case of PCS base stations,
fewer transmitters are normally required due to the relatively greater number of base stations.
Although the FCC permits an effective radiated power (ERP) of up to 500 watts per
channel (depending on the tower height), the majority of cellular base stations in urban and
i
suburban areas operate at an ERP of 100 watts per channel or less. An ERP of I00 �katts
corresponds to an actual radiated power of 5-10 watts, depending on the type of antenna used
(ERP is not equivalent to the power that is radiated but is a measure of the directional
characteristics of the antenna). As the capacity of a system is expanded by dividing cells,
i.e., adding additional base stations, lower ER-Ps are normally used. In urban areas, an ERP
of 10 watts per channel (corresponding to a radiated power of 0.5 - 1 watt) or less is
commonly used. For PCS base stations, even lower radiated power levels are normally used.
The signal from a cellular or PCS base station antenna is essentially directed toward
the horizon in a relatively narrow beam in the vertical plane. For example, the radiation
pattern for an omni-directional antenna might be compared to a thin doughnut or pancake
centered around the antenna while the pattern for a sector antenna is fan-shaped, like a wedge
cut from a pie. As with all forms of electromagnetic energy, the power density from a
cellular or PCS transmitter decreases rapidly (according to an inverse square law) as one
moves away from the antenna. Consequently, normal ground-level exposure is much less
than exposures that might be encountered if one were very close to the antenna and in its
main transmitted beam. Measurements made near typical cellular and PCS installations have
shown that ground-level power densities are well below limits recommended by
RF,'microwave safety standards.
In 1996, the FCC adopted updated guidelines for evaluating human exposure to
radiofrequency (RF) fields from fixed transmitting antennas such as those used for cellular
radio and PCS base stations.' The new guidelines for cellular and PCS base stations are
identical to those recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements (NCRP).' These guidelines are also similar to the 1992 guidelines
recommended by the American National Standards Institute and the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (ANSUIEEE C95.1-1992).3 The FCC adopted guidelines for hand-held
RF devices, such as cellular and PCS phones, that are the same as those recommended by the
ANSUIEEE and NCRP guidelines (see later discussion).
' FCC Report and Order in ET Docket 93-62, 61 Federal Register 41006 (August 7, 1996); 11 FCC
Record 15123 (1997). See also, FCC Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket 93-62, 62 Federal
Register 47960 (September 12, 1997), 12 FCC Record 13494 (1997). For more information on these
documents contact the FCC's toll-free number: 1-888-CALL FCC (1-888-225-5322). They may also be viewed
and downloaded at the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology World Wide Web Site under the "RF
Safety" heading at the following address: www.fcc.gov1oet/rfsafety. The FCC's RF exposure guidelines are
based on recommendations made to the FCC by U.S. federal safety and health agencies such as the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
The NCRP is a non-profit corporation chartered by congress to develop information and
recommendations concerning radiation protection.
The American National Standards Institute is a non-profit, privately-funded, membership organization
that coordinates development of voluntary national standards in the United States. The IEEE is a non-profit
technical and professional engineering society.
In the case of cellular base station transmitters, at a frequency of 869 MHz (the lowest
frequency used), the FCC's RF exposure guidelines recommend a maximum permissible
exposure level of the general public (or exposure in "uncontrolled" environments) of about
580 microwatts per square centimeter (µW/cm), as averaged over any thirty-minute period.
This limit is many times greater than RF levels typical found near the base of typical cellular
towers or in the vicinity of other, lower-powered cellular base station transmitters. For
example, measurement data obtained from various sources have consistently indicated that
"worst-case" ground-level power densities near typical cellular towers are on the order of 1
pW cm, or less (usually significantly less). Calculations corresponding to a "worst-case"
situation (all transmitters operating simultaneously and continuously at the maximum licensed
power) show that in order to be exposed to levels near the FCC's limits for cellular
frequencies, an individual would essentially have to remain in the main transmitting beam (at
the height of the antenna) and within a few feet from the antenna. This makes it extremely
unlikely that a member of the general public could be exposed to RF levels in excess of these
guidelines from cellular base station transmitters.
For PCS base station transmitters, the same type of analysis holds, except that at the
PCS transmitting frequencies (1850-1990 MHz) the FCC's exposure limits for the public are
1000 µW/cm'. Therefore, there would typically be an even greater margin of safety between
actual public exposure levels and the recognized safety limit.
When cellular and PCS antennas are mounted at rooftop locations it is possible that
RF levels greater than 1 gW,icm' could be present on the rooftop itself. This might become
an issue if the rooftop were accessible to maintenance personnel or others. However,
exposures approaching or exceeding the safety guidelines are only likely to be encountered
mow• very close to and directly in front of 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 and PCS antennas usually operate at lower power levels than
antennas on free-standing towers makes excessive exposure conditions on rooftops even less
likely. This reason and the significant signal attenuation of a building's roof also minimizes
any chance for harmful exposure of persons living or working within the building itself.
(2) 'Mobile (vehicle-mounted) antennas
`"chicle-mounted antennas used for cellular communications normally operate at a
power level of 3 watts or less. These cellular antennas are typically mounted on the roof, on
the trunk, or on the rear window of a car or truck. Studies have shown that in order to be
exposed to RF levels that approach the safety guidelines it would be necessary to remain very
close to a vehicle-mounted cellular antenna. For example, a study done for AT&T Bell
Laboratories by the University of Washington documented typical and "worst-case" exposure
levels and specific absorption rates (SARj for vehicle occupants and persons standing close to
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 (1900 PW'cm') occurred
with a female model at a distance of 9.7 cm (3.8 inches) from one of the antennas operating
at a power level of 3 watts. Although this level is nominally in excess of the FCC's exposure
limits for power density at this frequency, analysis of the data indicated that the antenna
would have to be driven to 7 'A' of power before the limit for specific absorption rate (SAR)
allowed by the FCC guidelines would be exceeded. The intermittent nature of transmission
and the improbability that a person would remain so close to the antenna for any length of
time further reduces the potential for excessive exposure.
The University of Washington study also indicated that vehicle occupants are
effectively shielded by the metal body. Motorola, Inc., in comments filed with the FCC, has
expressed the opinion that proper installation of a vehicle-mounted antenna to maximize the
shielding effect is an effective way of limiting exposure. Motorola and other companies have
recommended antenna installation either in the center of the roof or the center of the trunk.
In response to concerns expressed over the commonly-used rear-window mounted cellular
antennas, Motorola has recommended a minimum separation distance of 30-60 cm (1 -2 feet)
to minimize exposure to vehicle occupants resulting from antenna mismatch for this type of
antenna installation.
In summary, from data gathered to date, it appears that properly installed, vehicle-
mounted, personal wireless transceivers using up to 3 watts of power would result in
maximum exposure levels in or near the vehicle that are well below the FCC's safety limits.
This assumes that the transmitting antenna is at least 15 cm (about 6 inches) or more from
vehicle occupants. Time-averaging of exposure (either a 6 or 30 minute period is specified)
will usually result in still lower values when compared with safety guidelines.
(3) Hand-held cellular telephones and PCS devices
A question that often arises is whether there may be potential health risks due to the
RF emissions from hand-held cellular telephones and PCS devices. The FCC's exposure
guidelines, and the ANSL'IEEE and NCRP guidelines upon which they are based, specify
limits for human exposure to RF emissions from hand-held RF devices in terms of specific
absorption rate (SAR). For exposure of the general public, e.g., exposure of the user of a
cellular or PCS phone, the SAR limit is an absorption threshold of 1.6 watts;kg (W)kg), as
measured over any one gram of tissue.
Measurements and computational analysis of SAR in models of the human head and
other studies of SAR distribution using hand-held cellular and PCS phones have shown that,
in general, the 1.6 W kg limit is unlikely to be exceeded under normal conditions of use.
Before FCC approval can be granted for marketing of a cellular or PCS phone, compliance
i
with the 1.6 'A'/kg limit must be demonstrated. Also, testing of hand-held phones is normally
done under conditions of maximum power usage. In reality, normal power usage is less and
is dependent on distance of the user from the base station transmitter.
In recent years publicity, speculation and concern over claims of possible health
effects due to RF fields from hand-held wireless telephones prompted industry-sponsored
groups, such as Wireless Technology Research, L.L.C. (WTR) and Motorola, Inc., to initiate
research programs aimed at investigating whether there is any risk to users of these devices.
Past studies carried out at frequencies both higher and lower than those used for cellular and
PCS phones have led expert organizations to conclude that typical RF exposures from these
devices are safe. However, the Federal Government is monitoring the results of the ongoing
industry-sponsored research through an inter-agency working group led by the EPA and the
FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health.
In a 1993 "Talk Paper," the FDA stated that it did not have enough information at that
time to rule out the possibility of risk, but if such a risk exists "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 conversations on hand-held cellular telephones to those that are essential and making
greater use of telephones with vehicle-mounted antennas where there is a greater separation
distance between the user and the radiating structure.
NOTE: For more information on these and other RF-related topics, you may call the
FCC's toll-free number: 1-888-CALL FCC (1-888-225-5322) or contact the FCC's RF Safety
Program, in the Office of Engineering and Technology, at (202) 418-2464. Information is
also available at the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology World Wide Web Site
under the "RF Safety" heading at the following address: www.fcc.govioetirfsafety.
5
Exhibit 7
Conditional Use Permit No. 07-28 (Appeal No. 07-06)
Appendix A
TWIN POWERS
OF FEDERAL AND MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENTS
IN THE RULING OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
As Interpreted by the United States Court of Appeals
By the Ninth Circuit
Presented to:
MAYOR PATRICK J. MORRIS
CITY ATTORNEY JIM PENMAN
CITY COUNCIL PERSONS
AND
CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
Cite of San Bernardino, C9.. January 3, 200
i JAN 0 3 2008
By
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
METROPCS, INC., a Delaware
Corporation,
Plaintiff-Appellant-
Cross-Appellee, Nos. 03-16759
V. 03-16760
THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN D.C. No.
FRANCISCO and THE BOARD OF CV-02-3442 PJH
SUPERVISORS OF THE CITY OF SAN OPINION
FRANCISCO,
Defendants-Appellees-
Cross-Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
October 4, 2004—San Francisco, California
Filed March 7, 2005
Before: Richard D. Cudahy,* Susan P. Graber and
Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Cudahy;
Partial Concurrence and Partial Dissent by Judge Graber
*The Honorable Richard D. Cudahy, United States Circuit Judge for the
Seventh Circuit, sitting by designation.
?707
METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2711
i
COUNSEL
Martin L. Fineman, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, San Fran-
cisco, California, for the plaintiff-appellant/cross-appellee.
William K. Sanders, Deputy City Attorney, San Francisco,
California, for the defendants-appellees/cross-appellants.
James A. Heard, Mackenzie & Albritton LLP, San Francisco,
California; Steven E. Grill, Devine, Millimet & Branch, P.A.,
Manchester, New Hampshire; Scott J. Grossberg, Cihigoye-
netche, Grossberg & Clouse, Rancho Cucamonga, California;
Paul J. Lawrence, Preston Gates & Ellis LLP, Seattle, Wash-
ington; and Daniel Pascucci, Fish & Richardson, P.C., San
Diego, California, and Paul L. Weisbecker, Litigation Coun-
sel, Cingular Wireless LLC, Atlanta, Georgia, for the amici
curiae.
271 2 METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
OPINION
CUDAHY, Circuit Judg :
MetroPCS brought the instant action in the District Court
for the Northern District of California, alleging that a decision
by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors denying
MetroPCS permission to construct a wireless telecommunica-
tions antenna atop a city parking garage violated several pro-
visions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA).
Specifically, MetroPCS alleged that the Board's decision (1)
was not "in writing" as required by the TCA, (2) was not sup-
ported by substantial evidence, (3) constituted unreasonable
discrimination among providers of functionally equivalent
wireless services, (4) prohibited or had the effect of prohibit-
ing the provision of wireless services and (5) was improperly
based on environmental concerns about radio frequency (RF)
emissions.
Both parties moved for summary judgment, and the district
court granted the City's motion for summary judgment as to
all claims except the prohibition claim, ruling that material
questions of fact remained as to whether the Board's decision
had the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services. Both parties now appeal the ruling below, and we
affirm in part and reverse in part the district court's decision.
I. BACKGROUND
This case marks yet another episode in the ongoing struggle
between federal regulatory power and local administrative
prerogatives — the kind of political collision that our federal
system seems to invite with inescapable regularity. And as
most often happens in such cases, the courts are summoned
to re-strike the balance of power between the national and the
local. More specifically, we are called upon to interpret sev-
eral provisions of the TCA, an exegetical effort having impli-
cations for Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
i
McTROPCS, Inc. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2713
licensing authority, wireless telecommunications companies
and municipal zoning authorities alike. The stakes of the cur-
rent dispute are especially high since this case involves sev-
eral important questions of law that have not yet been
authoritatively addressed by this Circuit.
The basic facts of this case are not in dispute. MetroPCS is
a provider of wireless telecommunications services. It is
licensed by the FCC to construct and operate radio transmit-
ting and receiving facilities in San Francisco, Oakland and
San Jose, California (the Bay Area). On January 15, 2002,
MetroPCS submitted to the City of San Francisco's Planning
Department an application for a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) to install six panel antennas on an existing light pole
located on the roof of a parking garage at 5200 Geary Boule-
vard (the Geary site). The proposed facility was to consist of
(1) six panel antennas mounted 53 feet above the sidewalk
grade on an existing light pole on the roof of a 42-foot-high
parking garage, and (2) equipment cabinets mounted on an
existing wall on the garage roof. Each antenna was to be five
feet long and painted to match the garage. The proposed
installation was designed to improve MetroPCS's wireless
service coverage in the Richmond District, where the Geary
site is located. MetroPCS chose the Geary site after evaluating
the technical feasibility of several sites in the area and consid-
ering community objections to alternative site locations.
Under the San Francisco Planning Code, the Geary site is
located within an "NC-3" or "Moderate Scale Neighborhood
Commercial District. In an NC-3 zoning district, a wireless
facility (such as a panel antenna) is considered a public use
that requires a CUP from the City Planning Commission.
Because the Geary site is located on top of a commercial
structure in an NC-3 zoning district, it is classified as a Loca-
tion Preference 4 under the City's Wireless Telecommunica-
tions Facilities Siting Guidelines — it is neither a high-
priority site nor a "disfavored" site. On April 18, 2002, the
San Francisco Planning Commission held a public hearing to
i
2714 METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
consider MetroPCS's application for a CUP at the Geary site.
At the close of the hearing, the Planning Commission voted
to grant MetroPCS's application. The Planning Commission
later adopted written findings and drafted a written decision.
These findings included a determination that the proposed
MetroPCS antenna facility is necessary to MetroPCS's ser-
vice coverage in the Richmond District and "both necessary
and desirable" for the community.
On May 20, 2002, Richmond District resident Robert Blum
filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision with
the City Board of Supervisors (the Board). Mr. Blum was
joined by some 80 local property owners, representing almost
6010 of the land area within 300 feet of the Geary site, who
signed petitions in support of the appeal. Hundreds of other
San Francisco residents also signed a petition opposing con-
struction of the MetroPCS facility at the Geary site. Consis-
tent with applicable local zoning procedures, the Board of
Supervisors held a public hearing to consider the appeal on
June 17, 2002. At the hearing, a number of community mem-
bers (including Mr. Blum and his son) voiced disapproval of
MetroPCS's CUP application. Local residents asserted, inter
alia, that the antenna facility was not necessary for MetroPCS
or the community since the Richmond District already enjoys
excellent wireless service, that the facility would create a
visual blight detrimental to the neighborhood character and
that the facility would produce harmful RF emissions hazard-
ous to public health.
Representatives of MetroPCS — including company man-
, agers and technical staff appeared before the Board to
speak in favor of the proposed facility, claiming that the
antenna installation is necessary for MetroPCS's service cov-
erage of the Richmond District and that it is an unobtrusive
facility that will not constitute a visual or industrial blight on
the neighborhood. At the conclusion of the hearing,b, the Board
of Supervisors unanimously voted to overturn the decision of
the Planning Commission and to deny MetroPCS the CUP.
METROPCS. INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2715
The Board's findings were later formally adopted in a five-
page written decision disseminated on June 24, 2002.
In articulating the bases for its decision, the Board's written
opinion formally found that (1) the proposed facility is not
necessary to MetroPCS's ability to service the Richmond Dis-
trict around the Geary site, (2) the facility is not necessary for
the community, since there is already adequate wireless ser-
vice in the neighborhood around the Geary site, (3) the pro-
posed facility would constitute a "visual and industrial blight"
and would be detrimental to the character of the neighborhood
and (4) the proposed antenna facility is not in conformity with
and would not further the policies of the City's General Plan.
The Board's decision asserted that its denial of the CUP appli-
cation did not reflect unreasonable discrimination against
MetroPCS, did not limit or prohibit access to wireless services
and did not limit or prohibit the filling of a significant gap in
MetroPCS's service coverage. The Board also maintained that
the proposed facility was not the least intrusive way to pro-
w A
%ws) vide wireless services in the Richmond District.
On July 17, 2002, MetroPCS filed a complaint in the Dis-
trict Court for the Northern District of California claiming
that, in denying its application for a CUP, the City (via the
Board) had violated several provisions of § 332(c)(7) of the
TCA. Both MetroPCS and the City moved for summary judg-
ment on all claims, and on April 25, 2003, the district court
issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the
City's motion for summary judgment, and denying in part
MetroPCS's motion for summary judgment. MetroPCS, Inc.
v. City & County of San Francisco, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1004
(N.D. Cal. 2003).
Specifically, the district court held that (1) the Board's
written denial of MetroPCS's CUP application constituted a
decision "in writing" as required by § 332(c)(7) of the TCA,
(2) the Board's decision was supported by "substantial evi-
dence," (3) the Board did not unreasonably discriminate
i
2716 McTROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
among providers of functionally equivalent services and (4)
the Board's decision was not impermissibly based on con-
cerns over RF emissions. The City was granted summary
judgment with respect to its claims on each of these issues. Id.
However, the district court also held that significant questions
of material fact existed as to whether the Board's denial of
MetroPCS's CUP application prohibited or had the effect of
prohibiting the provision of wireless services in violation of
§ 332(c)(7) of the TCA. Id. at 1012-15. Accordingly, the dis-
trict court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment
as to this issue. Id. at 1015. Both parties were granted leave
to appeal the district court's ruling to this Court, and both par-
ties now seek summary judgment on all claims.
II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Since the district court granted both parties' motions to cer-
tify its order for appeal, we now have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). We review motions for summary judg-
ment de novo. See Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Consumers Union
of United States, Inc., 330 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir.), cert.
denied, 124 S. Ct. 468 (2003); King Jewelry, Inc. v. Fed.
Express Corp., 316 F.3d 961, 963 (9th Cir. 2003). Summary
judgment should be when
there is no
genuine issue
as to an material fact" such that "the moving art is entitled
gP Y
to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); see
also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255
(1986); Suzuki Motor Corp., 330 F.3d at 1131.
To prevail on a summary judgment motion, the moving
party carries the initial burden of demonstrating to the court
that no genuine issue of material fact exists. Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party has
carried that burden, it then shifts to the nonmoving party, who
must present evidence that there is indeed a genuine issue for
trial. See id. at 323-24. All disputed issues of fact are to be
resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477 U.S.
at 255.
METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2717
III. DISCUSSION
MetroPCS advances claims under several sections of the
TCA, none of which has been authoritatively construed by
this circuit.' We address each of these claims in turn.
'The relevant provisions of the TCA read as follows:
(7) Preservation of local zoning authority
(A) General Authority
Except as provided in this paragraph,nothing in this chap-
ter shall limit or affect the authority of a State or local
government or instrumentality thereof over decisions
regarding the placement,construction,and modification of
personal wireless service facilities.
(B) Limitations
(i) The regulation of the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities by any
State or local government or instrumentality thereof—
(I) shall not unreasonably discriminate among providers
of functionally equivalent services; and
(II) shall not prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting
the provision of personal wireless services
(iii)Any decision by a State or local government or instru-
mentality thereof to deny a request to place, construct, or
modify personal wireless service facilities shall be in writ-
ing and supported by substantial evidence contained in a
written record.
(iv) No State or 'local government or instrumentality
thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities on the
basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency
emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the
[Federal Communications] Commission's regulations con-
cerning such emissions.
47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7).
i
2718 METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
A. Decision "In Writing"
[1] Under the Telecommunications Act, "[a]ny decision by
a State or local government . . . to deny a request to place,
construct, or modify personal wireless service facilities shall
be in writing." 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). In the proceed-
ings below, the district court ruled that the Board's decision
was adequately "in writing" under the TCA and granted the
City's motion for summary judgment on this issue. 259 F.
Supp. 2d at 1009. MetroPCS now appeals this ruling and
moves for summary judgment.
The TCA's simple directive that all local zoning decisions
adverse to wireless service providers be "in writing" seems
clear enough, and the City's five-page written decision over-
turning the grant of MetroPCS's CUP certainly qualifies as
"in writing" under any colloquial or common-sense under-
standing of that term. (See Board Decision, ER 12, Exh. 5.)
However, while the plain meaning of the TCA's text supports
the district court's ruling, the circuits are split in their inter-
pretations of the "in writing" requirement, and this Circuit has
yet to take an authoritative position on the issue. See New Par
v. City of Saginaw, 301 F.3d 390, 395 (6th Cir. 2002) (noting
the split and outlining the various interpretations); S.W. Bell
Mobile Sys., Inc. v. Todd, 244 F.3d 51, 59 (1st Cir. 2001)
(giving a summary of the different interpretations).
At one interpretive extreme, some courts have required that
local governments explicate the reasons for their decision and
link their conclusions to specific evidence in the written
record. See, e.g., Omnipoint Communications, Inc. v. Plan-
ning & Zoning Conun'n, 83 F. Supp. 2d 306, 309 (D. Conn.
2000) ("A local zoning authority must issue a decision in
writing setting forth the reasons for the decision and linking
its conclusions to evidence in the record.") (citations omitted);
Cellco P'ship v. Town Plan & Zoning Comnz'n, 3 F. Supp. 2d
178, 184 (D. Conn. 1998) (sirnilar standard); Ill. RSA No. 3,
Inc. v. County of Peoria, 963 F. Supp. 732, 743 (C.D. Ill.
i
i
L)AVOW#*.
METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2719
1997) (same). The rationale for this approach is that anything
short of this standard " `places the burden on [the] Court to
wade through the record below' " in order to determine the
decision's reasoning and assess its evidentiary support.
Oinnipoint, 83 F. Supp. 2d at 309 (quoting Smart SMR of
N.Y., Inc. v. Zoning Conim'n, 995 F. Supp. 52, 57 (D. Conn.
1998)).
At the other end of the spectrum lies the Fourth Circuit,
which has applied a strict textualist approach to hold that
merely stamping the word "DENIED" on a zoning permit
application is sufficient to meet the TCA's "in writing"
requirement. AT & T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City Council, 155
F.3d 423, 429 (4th Cir. 1998); see also AT& T Wireless PCS
v. Winston-Salem Zoning Bd. Of Adjustment, 172 F.3d 307,
312-13 (4th Cir. 1999). According to the Fourth Circuit, the
bare language of the TCA requires nothing more, and so
adhering to a more stringent standard would involve "import-
ing additional language into the statute." AT & T Wireless,
155 F.3d at 429.
[2] The First and Sixth Circuits have charted a middle
course, requiring local governments to "issue a written denial
separate from the written record" which "contain[s] a suffi-
cient explanation of the reasons for the . . . denial to allow a
reviewing court to evaluate the evidence in the record sup-
porting those reasons." Todd, 244 F.3d at 60; Saginaw, 301
F.3d at 395-96 (adopting the Todd standard). This approach
attempts a compromise between the demands of strict textual-
ism and the requirements of more pragmatic policy values.
The Todd court observed that while the statutory language of
the TCA does not explicitly require detailed findings of fact
or conclusions of law, and while local zoning boards are often
staffed with laypersons ill-equipped to draft complex legal
decisions, written decisions must be robust enough to facili-
tate meaningful judicial review. See Todd, 244 F.3d at 59-60.
In the proceeding below, the district court ultimately chose
to apply the Todd standard and held that the Board's written
i
Q
2720 MEraoPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
denial of MetroPCS's CUP application was adequate as a
decision "in writing" under this standard. 259 F. Supp. 2d at
1009. The district court asserted that the Todd standard best
"reconciles both the statutory language and Congressional
intent of the `in writing' requirement" and held that, in accor-
dance with Todd, the City "has issued a written denial sepa-
rate from the written record . . . which summarizes the
proceedings, articulates the reasons it rejected MetroPCS'[s]
application, and provides sufficient information for judicial
rP"'- action with the written record." Id.
the district court that the Todd standard ulti-
most reasonable balance between the text
e practical demands of meaningful judicial
bare language of the Act may not require
.fest written disposition, it also does not
inimalist construction, and the purposes of
uirement would be ill-served by allowing
ties to issue the kind of opaque, unela-
rved by the Fourth Circuit in AT & T
ncil. Indeed such a minimalist approach
'ith the Acts requirement — discussed
t section — that all local zoning deci-
i substantial evidence contained in a
.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). If such an evi-
. is to be undertaken at all, courts must at least
oe able to ascertain the basis of the zoning decision at issue;
only hen
y can they accurately assess the evidentiar y support
ort
it finds in the written record. Therefore, the zoning decision
must be sufficiently elaborated to permit this assessment.
[3] Similarly, the text of the TCA does not compel the more
demanding standard outlined in Omnipoint, 83 F. Supp. 2d at
309, and we find persuasive the Todd court's observation that
such a standard might place an unduly heavy burden on lay
zoning boards. As a general matter, we see no reason to insist
upon a standard more exacting than is required to facilitate
meaningful judicial review. We therefore adopt the Todd stan-
METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2721
dard and hold that the TCA requires local zoning authorities
to issue a written decision separate from the written record
which contains sufficient explanation of the reasons for the
decision to allow a reviewing court to evaluate the evidence
in the record supporting those reasons.
[4] As to the merits of the case at bar, we are persuaded that
the district court did not err in granting the City's motion for
summary judgment as to this claim under the Todd standard.
As the district court correctly noted, the Board of Supervisors
issued a five-page written decision, separate from the record,
which summarized the facts of the dispute, recounted the pro-
ceedings it conducted, articulated its reasons for overturning
the Commission's grant of the CUP and explained the eviden-
tiary basis for its ruling. Whatever else might be said about
the decision or its reasoning, it does contain sufficient expla-
nation to enable judicial evaluation of the evidentiary support
for its rationale. In fact MetroPCS itself devotes many pages
of its brief to discussing and critiquing the decisions reason-
ing and evidentiary support!
[5] In light of all these considerations, we affirm the district
court's ruling that the Board's decision was properly "in writ-
ing" under § 332 c 7 B iii of the TCA.
2Incidentally, we believe that the Board's decision would arguably pass
muster under an}, of the aforementioned legal standards. It easily passes
the Fourth Circuit's test, under which merely stamping the application
"DENIED" is sufficient. AT & T Wireless, 155 F.3d at 429. And with
.J regard to the more stringent test outlined in Omnipoint and its ilk, the
Board's decision "[sets] forth the reasons for the decision" and does at
least a passable job of"linking its conclusions to evidence in the record."
Omnipoint, 83 F. Supp. 2d at 309. While the Board's decision is phrased
in somewhat general terms, it does make reference to "the record,".!
recounts the testimony offered during its hearing on the issue, articulates
its findings and discusses its objections to many of the specific findings
of the Planning Commission. Thus although the decision does not offer
formal findings of fact and conclusions of law as a full-blown judicial
decision might. it is not clear that the Omnipoint standard demands such
rigor.
2722 METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
B. Substantial Evidence
[6] In addition to requiring that all local zoning decisions
be "in writing," the TCA also mandates that these decisions
be "supported by substantial evidence contained in a written
record." 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii). In the proceedings
below, the district court granted the City's motion for sum-
mary judgment on this issue, ruling that the Board's determi-
nation that the proposed facility is not necessary for the
community was supported by substantial evidence. 259 F.
Supp. 2d at 1011.
In stark contrast to virtually every other aspect of this case,
there appears to be universal agreement among the circuits as
to the substantive content of this requirement. While the term
"substantial evidence" is not statutorily defined in the Act, the
legislative history of the TCA explicitly states, and courts
have accordingly held, that this language is meant to trigger
"the traditional standard used for judicial review of agency
decisions." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, at 208 (1996); see
also Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490,
494 (2d Cir. 1999) (holding that "substantial evidence"
implies this traditional standard); Preferred Sites, LLC v.
Troup County, 296 F.3d 1210, 1218 (11 th Cir. 2002) (same).
[7] However, the substantial evidence inquiry does not
require incorporation of the substantive federal standards
imposed by the TCA, but instead requires a determination
whether the zoning decision at issue is supported by substan-
tial evidence in the context of applicable state and local law.
As our sister circuits have recognized, the TCA "does not
affect or encroach upon the substantive standards to be
applied under established principles of state and local law."
Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d at 494 (internal quotation marks omit-
ted) (emphasis added). " `Substantial evidence' review under
the TCA does not create a substantive federal limitation upon
local land use regulatory power . . . ." Todd, 244 F.3d at 58
(citations omitted); see also Voicestream Minneapolis, Inc. v.
MFTROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2723
St. Croix County, 342 F.3d 818, 830 (7th Cir. 2003) (same
rule) (citing Todd). In other words, we must take applicable
state and local regulations as we find them and evaluate the
City decision's evidentiary support (or lack thereof) relative
to those regulations. if the decision fails that test it, of course,
is invalid even before the application of the TCA's federal
standards.
This approach serves several purposes. First, it enables us
to avoid unnecessarily reaching the federal questions of
whether a zoning decision violates the substantive provisions
of the TCA. If a zoning board's decision, reached under its
own rules, is not supported by substantial evidence, then we
need not consider the application of the anti-prohibition or
anti-discrimination prongs of the statute. Second, local regula-
tions standing alone may offer little insight into whether they
violate the substantive requirements of the TCA. Zoning rules
— such as those that allow local authorities to reject an appli-
cation based on "necessity" — may not suggest on their face
that they will lead to discrimination between providers or
have the effect of prohibiting wireless services. Thus, in most
cases, only when a locality applies the regulation to a particu-
lar permit application and reaches a decision — which it sup-
ports with substantial evidence — can a court determine
whether the TCA has been violated.
The dissent disagrees with this approach, arguing that any
zoning regulation — or application of such a regulation —
based on considerations of community "necessity" by its
terms discriminates against new providers, cannot be squared
with the TCA's anti-discrimination provision, 47 U.S.C.
§ 332(c)(7)(13)(1)(II), and is therefore, ipso facto, not sup-
ported by substantial evidence. Yet such an interpretation may
thwart congressional intent concerning the independence
T accorded local zoning authorities under the TCA. As the dis-
sent recognizes, the only direct substantive restriction the Act
places on local zoning authorities is the proscription of deci-
sions based on concerns over radio frequency emissions con-
2724 MErROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
tained in § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv). (See discussion of this provision,
infra in Section III-F.) Had Congress desired to proscribe zon-
ing decisions based on community necessity — or, for that
matter, any other disfavored rationale — we are confident that
it could have done so. Yet as the foregoing legal precedents
and legislative history demonstrate, Congress instead intended
that the traditional substantive prerogatives of local zoning
authorities not be disturbed.
Perhaps more fundamentally, the dissent's conflation of the
TCA's substantive anti-discrimination provision, 47 U.S.C.
§ 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(11), with its procedural "substantial evi-
dence" requirement threatens to render the "substantial evi-
dence" provision superfluous. Rather than review a zoning
r decision for basic evidentiary support, the dissent would
require, as a threshold matter, that we review the decision for
discriminatory rationale. But regardless of the rationale
employed, zoning decisions must still satisfy the TCA's anti-
discrimination provision, id., which prohibits actual discrimi-
nation. If similarly situated providers are not treated differ-
ently in fact, there is little reason to obviate a zoning decision
based purely on an impermissible "necessity" rationale.
[81 Having thus delimited the scope of our substantial evi-
dence inquiry, we may now turn to the merits of the question
before us. The most authoritative and oft-cited elaboration of
the TCA's substantial evidence standard comes from the Sec-
ond Circuit in Oyster Bay, where the court explained that
"substantial evidence" implies "less than a preponderance, but
more than a scintilla of evidence. `It means such relevant evi-
dence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to sup-
port a conclusion.' " 166 F.3d at 494 (quoting Universal
Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951)). This for-
mulation has been adopted by every circuit that has had occa-
sion to consider the issue. See, e.g., St. Croix County, 342
F.3d at 830 (7th Cir. 2003); United States Cellular Tel. of
Greater Tulsa, L.L.C. v. City of' Broken Arrow, 340 F.3d
1122, 1133 (10th Cir. 2003); Troup County, 296 F.3d at 1218
MerROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2725
(11th Cir.); Second Generation Props., L.P. v. Toren of'Pel-
ham, 313 F.3d 620, 627-28 (1st Cir. 2002); 360° Conimunica-
tions Co. of Charlottesville v. Bd. of Supervisors, 211 F.3d 79,
83 (4th Cir. 2000).
Review under this standard is essentially "deferential,"
such that courts may "neither engage in [their] own fact-
finding nor supplant the Town Board's reasonable determina-
tions." Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d at 494. In applying this standard
to the facts of a given case, the written record must be viewed
in its entirety, including all evidence supporting both parties,
and "local and state zoning laws govern the weight to be
given the evidence." Id. As mentioned earlier, these baseline
rules are solidly established, and the parties here do not dis-
pute them.
The upshot is simple: this Court may not overturn the
Board's decision on "substantial evidence" grounds if that
decision is authorized by applicable local regulations and sup-
ported by a reasonable amount of evidence (i.e., more than a
"scintilla" but not necessarily a p re ponderance). In the pro-
ceeding ceedin g below, the district court correctly rect l
Y
identified the pre-
vailing legal standard discussed above, 259 F. Supp. 2d at
1009, and granted the City's motion for summary judgment
on this issue, ruling that the City's determination that the
Richmond District community did not need the MetroPCS
antenna was (1) authorized by local zoning regulations and
y (2) supported by substantial evidence, id. at 1010-11. This rul-
in g was legally g Y correct.
[9] First, the San Francisco Planning Code explicitly autho-
rizes the consideration of community need in evaluating con-
ditional use permit applications. San Francisco Planning Code
§ 303(c)(1) (directing the City Planning Commission to con-
sider whether "the proposed use . . . is necessary or desirable
for, and compatible with, the neighborhood or the comrnuni-
ty") (emphasis added). Thus, the necessity-based portion of
the Board's decision was clearly authorized by local zoning
i
2726 METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
regulations. Even MetroPCS acknowledges this much.
Accordingly, the only remaining issue concerns whether the
Board's "necessity" conclusion was supported by substantial
evidence.' A perusal of the record demonstrates that it was.
The Board's inquiry into this issue was not a model of thor-
oughness or rigor," but the record does clearly establish that
the Richmond District is amply served by at least five other
major wireless service providers and thus did not "need" the
proposed Geary facility. One of MetroPCS's own representa-
tives testified before the Board that "every carrier in San
Francisco has coverage along Geary [Boulevard]," and reiter-
ated that "every carrier has an antenna in this neighborhood."
Another MetroPCS representative testified that "we've got
Verizon, Sprint, AT & T, Singular [sic], Nextel, all in the very
same vicinity [of the Geary site]," adding later that Sprint and
Verizon "have great coverage. They have an excellent foot-
hold in the [Geary] area." Indeed MetroPCS argued before the
Board that it needed a facility at the Geary site precisely
because it had to compet with other providers who had cov-
erage in the area.
'MetroPCS cites Ne.vtel Communications of Mid-Atlantic, Inc. v. Torn
of Wayland,231 F. Supp. 2d 396,406-07(D.Mass.2002), for the proposi-
tion that local zoning regulations are not protected to the extent that they
violate the TCA.This assertion reflects a misreading of Wayland.The pas-
sage cited by MetroPCS actually speaks to the anti-prohibition prong of
the TCA. While the TCA is apparently agnostic as to the substantive con-
tent of local zoning ordinances, zoning�ons may be invalidated if
they unreasonably discriminate among providers or prohibit the provision
of wireless services. See discussion of the prohibition and discrimination
issues, infra.
"Particularly alarming is the general lack of reference to the City Plan-
ning Commission's decision to grant MetroPCS the CUP initially At the
least, one certainly wonders why the Planning Commission concluded,
contrary to the Board's decision, that the MetroPCS site was "necessary
and desirable" for the community. Unfortunately the Board did not shed
any light on this issue, and. sin•e at least one of its findings is supported
by substantial evidence, the T A provides no basis for remedying such
procedural shortcomings. As di.cussed above, congressional intent to pre-
serve local zoning authority — however constituted -- is clear.
METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2727
These statements by MetroPCS were buttressed by testi-
mony and numerous written petitions from local residents,
including Robert Blum (the resident actually challenging the
CUP grant), reporting that the Richmond District already
enjoyed excellent wireless coverage. The record also contains
a site map showing the locations of SprintPCS facilities in the
Richmond District, including one antenna installation just 0.2
miles from the proposed Geary site. Taken in its totality, this
evidence, including unequivocal statements by MetroPCS
itself, constitutes at least a showing that "a reasonable mind
might accept" as adequate. The "substantial evidence" provi-
sion of the TCA requires nothing more.
[10] In briefing this issue, both parties spend considerable
time discussing the evidence supporting the Board's findings
on neighborhood character and the aesthetic impact of the
proposed facility. MetroPCS in particular spends considerable
time arguing that residents' aesthetic concerns are speculative
or unsubstantiated. This may be true. Yet, since the Board's
finding on community necessity was authorized by local regu-
lations and supported by substantial evidence, it is unneces-
sary to consider the evidence supporting other potential
grounds for the City's decision. See e.g., Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d
at 495 (stating that the court must "determine whether the
Board possessed substantial evidence on one or both of [its
permissible] grounds" for a zoning permit denial). The district
court was correct in taking this analytical approach as well,
relegating these ancillary concerns to a footnote. 259 F. Supp.
2d at 1011 n.6.
[11] As the district court below identified the correct pre-
vailing legal standard and applied it properly, we affirm the
district court's ruling that the Board's decision was supported
by "substantial evidence" as required by the TCA.
C. Discrimination Claim
[12] In addition to its more concrete procedural require-
ments, the TCA also mandates that "[t]he regulation of the
2728 METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
placement, construction, and modification of personal wire-
less service facilities by any State or local government or
instrumentality thereof— (I) shall not unreasonable discrimi-
nate among providers of functionally equivalent services." 47
U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I) (emphasis added). As the bulk of
the cases on this issue have recognized, by using this lan-
guage "the Act explicitly contemplates that some discrimina-
tion `among providers of functionally equivalent services' is
allowed. Any discrimination need only be reasonable." AT &
T Wireless, 155 F.3d at 427; see also Omnipoint Communica-
tions Enters., L.P. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 331 F.3d 386, 395
(3d Cir.) (citing AT & T Wireless, 155 F.3d at 427), cert.
denied, 124 S. Ct. 1070 (2003); Nextel W. Corp. v. Unite
Township, 282 F.3d 257, 267 (3d Cir. 2002) (same); Sprint
Spectrum, L.P. v. Willoth, 176 F.3d 630, 638 (2d Cir. 1999)
(same).
More specifically, most courts have held that discrimina-
tion based on "traditional bases of zoning regulation" such as
"preserving the character of the neighborhood and avoiding
aesthetic blight" are reasonable and thus permissible. AT & T
Wireless, 155 F.3d at 427; see also Willoth, 176 F.3d at 639
(same) (citing AT & T Wireless). Aside from reflecting the
plain meaning of the TCA's text, this interpretation is also
supported by the Act's legislative history. The House Confer-
ence Report on the TCA explained the Act's nondiscrimina-
tion clause as follows:
The conferees also intend that the phrase "unreason-
ably discriminate among providers of functionally
equivalent services" will provide localities with the
flexibility to treat facilities that create different
visual, aesthetic, or safety concerns differently to the
extent permitted under generally applicable zoning
requirements even if those facilities provide func-
tionally equivalent services. For example, the confer-
ees do not intend that if a State or local government
grants a permit in a commercial district, it must also
METROPCS, INC. V. SAN, FRANCISCO 2729
grant a permit for a competitor's 50-foot tower in a
residential district.
H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458,at 208(1996) (emphasis added).'
In keeping with these baseline principles, almost all federal
courts considering such cases have ruled that providers alleg-
ing unreasonable discrimination must show that they have
been treated differently from other providers whose facilities
are "similarly situated' in terms of the "structure, placement
or cumulative impact" as the facilities in question. APT Pitts-
burgh Ltd. P'ship v. Penn Township Butler County, 196 F.3d
469, 480 n.8 (3d Cir. 1999) (internal quotation marks omitted)
(emphasis added); Willoth, 176 F.3d at 643 ("[I]t is not unrea-
sonably discriminatory to deny a subsequent application for a
cell site that is substantially more intrusive than existing cell
sites by virtue of its structure, placement or cumulative
impact."); see also Omnipoint, 331 F.3d at 395 ("Permitting
the erection of a communications tower in a business district
does not compel the [zoning board] to permit a similar tower
at a later date in a residential district."); Unity Township, 282
F.3d at 267 (discrimination claim " 'require[s] a showing that
the other provider is similarly situated' ") (quoting Penn
Township, 196 F.3d at 480 n.8). In fact, the sole district court
case from the Ninth Circuit on this issue holds that a mere
v increase in the number of wireless antennas in a given area
over time can justify differential treatment of providers. Air-
touch Cellular v. City of El Cajon, 83 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1166
(S.D. Cal. 2000). 4
'Indeed one of the primary purposes of section 332(c)(7) is to protect
the legitimate traditional zoning prerogatives of local governments. This
section of the Act is actually entitled "Preservation of local zoning author-
ity" and states as its baseline principle that, "[elxcept as provided in this
paragraph, nothing in this chapter shall limit or affect the authority of a
State or local government . . . over decisions regarding the placement,con-
struction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities." 47
U.S.C. § 332('c)(7)(A).
NOW
2730 METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
In ruling that the City's decision here did not unreasonably
discriminate against MetroPCS, the district court employed a
somewhat confusing and contradictory analysis. The court
first stated that, in order to prevail, MetroPCS must demon-
strate that the City treated it differently from one of its com-
petitors for a "functionally identical request." 259 F. Supp. 2d
at 1012 (emphasis added). The district court cites Sprint Spec-
trum, 244 F. Supp. 2d at 117, for this proposition, though the
court's formulation appears to reflect a misreading of that
case. The court in Sprint Spectrum actually applied the
broader legal principle that "a local board may reasonably
consider the location of the cell tower when deciding . . .
whether to approve the application for construction." Id.
Later in its opinion, the district court stated that MetroPCS
must demonstrate that "other providers have been permitted
to build similar structures on similar sites while it has been
denied." 259 F. Supp. 2d at 1012 (emphasis added). As dis-
cussed above, given that the wireless providers in question
provide "functionally equivalent services" (which is undis-
puted in this case), "similarly situated" is the prevailing legal
standard on the discrimination issue. The district court then
proceeded to find that the facilities of other service providers
in the Richmond District are "differently situated from
MetroPCS because they have sought to place their antenna
structures at different locations within the district." Id. Thus
while it is not clear whether the decision below ultimately
turned on the prevailing "similarly situated" analysis (similar
structures on similar sites) or the district court's own "func-
tionally identical request" standard, it appears that the court
would have ruled for the', City under either test. This ruling
was error.
First, the district court frames the relevant legal inquiry too
narrowly. For the policy reasons discussed above, the "simi-
larly situated" standard seems to strike an appropriate balance
between Congress's twin goals of promoting robust competi-
tion and preserving local zoning authority. The district court's
i
METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2731
formulation of the discrimination inquiry, under which locali-
ties may deny use permits any time the relevant antenna struc-
tures are at "different locations," id., appears unduly narrow.
Unless competing providers seek to place virtually identical
antennas at the very same location or on the same specific
structure, no wireless service provider could ever carry its
burden to show discrimination under this test. Such a standard
would give localities far too much leeway in rejecting
func-
tionally similar requests by competing providers and would
thwart the competition that
p the TCA sought to facilitate.
(13) As for the district court's final determination that the
City did not, as a matter of law, unreasonably discriminate
against MetroPCS, this too was error. The factual record is
equivocal on the discrimination issue. While the Board's deci-
sion appears to have been authorized by the City Planning
Code, it is not entirely clear whether the proposed MetroPCS
site is "similarly situated" to other approved facilities in the
Richmond District. The record shows that there is a compet-
ing SprintPCS wireless facility, also on Geary Boulevard,just
two blocks (-0.2 miles) from the rejected MetroPCS site.
MetroPCS also alleges that, shortly after it denied Metro-
PCS's application for a CUP at the Geary site, the Board
approved the installation of a Cingular Wireless facility on a
rooftop in the same neighborhood. These facts at least suggest
a real possibility of discrimination between similar sites.
While the Board maintains that the other existing wireless
facilities in the Richmond District were approved because
they were placed at a more ideal location, see 259 F. Supp.
2d at 1012, the record contains no systematic comparison of
the sites in question. Similarly, while the record also contains
photo simulations of the proposed MetroPCS site, (ER 31
Exh. 1), there are no similar photographs of competing facili-
ties in the area. In short, while it is undisputed that there are
other wireless facilities in the same neighborhood, there
appears to have been no detailed inquiry into the similarity of
these existing facilities to the proposed MetroPCS facility in
2732 METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
terms of "structure, placement or cumulative impact." See
again Penn Township, 196 F.3d at 480 n.8 (internal quotation
marks omitted).
[141 Given the foregoing, MetroPCS has presented suffi-
cient evidence to create an issue of fact as to the discrimina-
s tion claim. Since there is no conclusive evidence as to how
MetroPCS's proposed facility compares to the existing sites
of its competitors in terms of"structure, placement or cumula-
tive impact," substantial questions of fact remain as to
whether the Board of Supervisors unreasonably discriminated
against MetroPCS, and thus neither party is entitled to judg-
ment as a matter of law.' We accordingly reverse the district
court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City on
'In its brief, MetroPCS asserts that the City's community necessity
rationale "constitutes unreasonable discrimination against new providers
and is antithetical to the pro-competitive goals of Section 332(c)(7)(B)."
In support of this argument, MetroPCS relies on Western PCS 11 Corp. v.
Extraterritorial Zoning Authority, 957 F. Supp. 1230, 1237-38 (D.N.M.
1997), and Sprint Spectrum, L.P v. Town of Easton, 982 F. Supp. 47, 51
(D. Mass. 1997), both of which ruled that local governments may not deny
wireless providers permission to construct facilities merely because they
believe that existing wireless service is adequate. However, as the district
court notes in its opinion below, 259 F. Supp. 2d at 1012 n.8, both of these
decisions turned on the local government's disregard of relevant evidence
1 and improper application of relevant zoning laws. And while the City does
little to directly address MetroPCS's broader argument that necessity-
based zoning decisions are inherently discriminatory against new market
entrants, such an argument is of limited persuasiveness.
As discussed above, the Act specifically preserves traditionally local
zoning authority over siting decisions, and it has been consistently held
that the TCA does not intrude upon the substantive content of local zoning
rules. Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d at 494. In other words, far from prohibiting
zoning decisions based on redundancy or community "necessity," the
TCA itself appears to be totally agnostic on this issue. Moreover, a purely
aesthetic determination that a certain neighborhood is blighted with too
many wireless antennas — which is specifically permitted in the prevail-
ing case law and anticipated in the legislative history of the TCA — may
similarly disadvantage new market entrants who wish to add new facilities
in the neighborhood.
NIETROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2733
this issue and remand the case for further proceedings to
determine whether the proposed MetroPCS facility was simi-
larly situated to competing facilities approved by the City and,
if so, whether the City discriminated against MetroPCS with
respect to the proposed and the competing facilities.
D. Prohibition Claim
[15] Section 332 of the TCA provides that "[t]he regulation
of the placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless service facilities actlities b any State or local government
or
any instrumentality thereof — (II) shall not prohibit or have
the effect of prohibiting the provision of personal wireless
services." 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(13)(1)(II). MetroPCS alleges
that, in denying its application for a CUP, the City has vio-
lated this provision by both imposing a "general ban" on new
service providers in the Richmond District and effectively
prohibiting the provision of wireless services by preventing
MetroPCS from filling a "significant gap" in its coverage.
In the proceedings below, the district court held that the
City's decision did not amount to a "general ban" on wireless
services, but that material questions of fact remain as to
As for the case at bar, the claim of discrimination against new providers
also rings a bit hollow coming from MetroPCS, since the record shows
that it has been allowed to construct some 30 sites in the city of San Fran-
cisco, including 18 facilities under discretionary CUPS. While this does
not necessarily establish that MetroPCS has been allowed to realize seam-
less coverage in the city, it certainly does refute any claim of discrimina-
tion against new providers as such.
More to the point, Congress has already considered the competing inter-
ests of local zoning authorities and wireless providers (both new and old),
and has constructed a statutory scheme to accommodate both. As will be
discussed more fully below, while the TCA is agnostic as to the substan-
tive content of local regulations, localities are nonetheless constrained by
section 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I) and (II) of the TCA, which preclude them from
unreasonably discriminating against competing providers or (effectively)
prohibiting the provision of wireless services. See discussion infra at Sec-
tion III, Part E.
2734 METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
whether the denial of MetroPCS's CUP application perpetu-
ates a "significant gap" in MetroPCS's coverage. 259 F. Supp.
2d at 1015. We find the district court's reasoning persuasive,
and we affirm all aspects of its holding as to this claim.
1. General Ban
A city-wide general ban on wireless services would cer-
tainly constitute an impermissible prohibition of wireless ser-
vices under the TCA. In fact, this is the only circumstance
under which the Fourth Circuit will find an impermissible
prohibition under the statute. See AT & T Wireless, 155 F.3d
at 428 (holding that only "blanket prohibitions" and "general
bans or policies" affecting all wireless providers count as
effective prohibition of wireless services under the TCA).
Under this rule, which is based on a strict plain meaning anal-
ysis, individual zoning decisions or persistent coverage gaps
can never constitute a prohibition under the statute — courts
must ask only whether local governments have (effectively)
banned wireless services altogether. Id. The City asks us to
adopt the Fourth Circuit's interpretation as well, noting that
the House Conference Committee's Report on the TCA seems
to anticipate a narrow, bare-bones approach: "It is the intent
of this section that bans or policies that have the effect of ban-
ning personal wireless services or facilities not be allowed
and that decisions be made on a case-by-case basis." H.R.
Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, at 208 (1996).
However, for a variety of reasons, we decline to adopt the
Fourth Circuit rule on this point. The language of the TCA,
while sparse, does not dictate such a narrow interpretation -
even under a plain meaning approach. As the First Circuit has
observed, given the current structure of the wireless services
market, "[t)he fact that some carrier provides some service to
some consumers does not in itself mean that the town has not
effectively prohibited services to other consumers." Second
Generation Props., 313 F.3d at 634. Additionally the Fourth
Circuit's interpretation, by permitting all but the most restric-
METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2735
tive local zoning policies, could actually thwart Congress's
twin goals of encouraging competition in the wireless services
industry and facilitating efficient use of bandwidth. The
touchstone of our prohibition analysis is therefore not limited
to blanket bans or general policies prohibiting wireless ser-
vices. The TCA framework requires a more discriminating
inquiry. (See our discussion of the "Significant Gap" analysis,
infra.)
Turning briefly to the merits, the record offers no support
for MetroPCS's assertion that the City has imposed a "general
ban" on wireless services, against new providers or anyone
else. Aside from the fact that it would be extremely dubious
to infer a general ban from a single CUP
g denial the record
g ,
reveals that the City has been receptive to wireless providers
in general and MetroPCS in particular. It is undisputed that
the City has authorized the installation of some 2,000 anten-
nas at about 450 sites around the city, including 30 MetroPCS
sites. This undercuts any assertion that the City has placed a
general ban on new market entrants. The district court made
virtually identical observations in its own finding that no gen-
eral ban exists, 259 F. Supp. 2d at 1013, and we uphold this
ruling as entirely correct.
2. Service Gap
Several circuits have held that, even in the absence of a
"general ban" on wireless services, a locality can run afoul of
the TCA's "effective prohibition" clause if it prevents a wire-
less provider from closing a "significant gap" in service cov-
erage. This inquiry generally involves a two-pronged analysis
requiring (1) the showing of a "significant gap" in service
coverage and (2) some inquiry into the feasibility of alterna-
tive facilities or site locations. Currently there is a clear circuit
split as to what constitutes a "significant gap" in coverage,
and the Ninth Circuit has yet to rule on the issue.'
'The high stakes involved for both wireless service providers and local
governments are reflected in the fact that most of the Amicus briefs filed
in this case focus on this issue.
t
i
2736 METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
(a) Definition of"Significant Gap"
The test employed by the Second and Third Circuits holds
that a "significant gap" in service exists only if no provider
is able to serve the "gap" area in question. See Omnipoint,
331 F.3d at 398; Unity Township, 282 F.3d at 265; Penn
Township, 196 F.3d at 478-80; Willoth, 176 F.3d at 643. One
district court in the Ninth Circuit has also adopted this test. El
Cajon, 83 F. Supp. 2d at 1167. This test is sometimes referred
to as the "one provider" rule since, if any single provider
offers coverage in a given area, localities may preclude other
providers from entering the area (as long as the preclusion is
a valid, nondiscriminatory zoning decision that satisfies the
other provisions of the TCA).
This rule has been touted as proceeding from the consum-
er's perspective rather than the individual service provider's
perspective, which the Third Circuit argues is more in keeping
with the regulatory goals of the TCA — as long as some pro-
vider offers service in the area, consumers will be adequately
served and the TCA's goal of establishing nationwide wire-
less service will be achieved. See Omnipoint, 331 F.3d at 397-
98; Unity Township, 282 F.3d at 265. Under this view, the
TCA protects only the individual user's ability to receive ser-
vice from one provider or another; it does not protect each
service provider's ability to maintain full coverage within a
given market. Omnipoint, 331 F.3d at 397-98; Unity Town-
ship, 282 F.3d at 265; cf. Willoth, 176 F.3d at 641-43.
[16] The First Circuit has recently rejected the "one provid-
er" approach and held that a local regulation creates a "signif-
icant gap" in service (and thus effectively prohibits wireless
services) if the provider in question is prevented from filling
a significant gap in its own service network. See Second Gen-
eration Props., 313 F.3d at 631-33. This approach formally
takes the perspective of the individual service provider in
assessing coverage gaps, but, as the Second Generation Prop-
erties court persuasively explains, this approach actually bet-
I
METROPCS. INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2737
ter serves both individual consumers and the policy goals of
the TCA.B The Second Generation Properties court notes that
the TCA "aims to secure lower prices and better service for
consumers by opening all telecommunications markets to
competition." Id. at 631 (citing H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458,
at 113 (1996)). The court then warns against the dysfunctional
implications of the Second and Third Circuits' "one provider
rule":
A flat "any service equals no effective prohibi-
tion" rule would say that a town could refuse permits
to build the towers necessary to solve any number of
different coverage problems . . . . Such a rule would
be highly problematic because it does not further the
interests of the individual consumer. To use an
example from this case, it is of little comfort to the
customer who uses AT & T Wireless (or Voice-
stream, Verizon, Sprint, or Nextel) who cannot get
service along the significant geographic gap which
may exist along Route 128 that a Cingular Wireless
customer does get some service in that gap . . . . The
result Hof such a rule] would be a crazy patchwork
quilt of intermittent coverage. That quilt might have
the effect of driving the industry toward a single car-
rier. When Congress enacted legislation to promote
the construction of a nationwide cellular network,
such a consequence was not, we think, the intended
result.
Id. at 633 (footnote omitted). In short, the First Circuit's mul-
tiple provider rule better, facilitates the robust competition
8It should be noted that there is a difference between the interests of
local residents — who may prefer fewer providers to limit the number of
antennas in the area —and those of wireless service subscribers who may
be frustrated that their particular provider cannot offer coverage in a Given
neighborhood. Both of these may be categorized as the "consumer per-
spective," though they lead to different results. Our use of the term "con-
sumer" in the discussion here refers to wireless service subscribers.
ii
2738 METRnPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
which Congress sought to encourage with the TCA, and it
better accommodates the current state of the wireless services
market. The district court also found these arguments persua-
sive, since it formally adopted the First Circuit rule in its deci-
sion below. 259 F. Supp. 2d at 1013-14.
For its part, MetroPCS does not object to the district court's
adoption of the First Circuit "multiple provider rule" (in fact
MetroPCS and its Amici argue strenuous) in favor of the
g Y
First Circuit's approach), though it argues that the City's zon-
ing n-
ing "criteria," which allow for CUP denials based on findings
that a given facility is "not necessary" for the community, are
"impossible for any non-incumbent carrier to meet" and thus
constitute an effective prohibition of wireless services. Once
again, the large number of permits already granted by the City
— to providers new and old — belies this assertion.
Additionally, we emphasize that MetroPCS's concerns
regarding zoning decisions based on "necessity" can be
accommodated by the First Circuit's version of the significant
gap test. Under this rule, zoning decisions explicitly based on
redundancy of service are not per se invalid, but they are sub-
ject to the crucial limitations that (1) they cannot discriminate
between similarly situated facilities and (2) they cannot result
in a significant gap in service for the provider in question. As
will be discussed shortly, the First Circuit's interpretation also
fully meets the preemption and supremacy arguments
advanced by MetroPCS.'
[17] Having considered both the avowed policy goals of the
TCA and the practical implications of the various construc-
tional options, we elect to follow the district court's lead and
formally adopt the First Circuit's rule that a significant gap in
service (and thus an effective prohibition of service) exists
whenever a provider is prevented from filling a significant
9See discussion of MetroPCS's supremacy and preemption arguments.
infra at Section III, Part E.
McTROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2739
gap in its own service coverage. With the correct legal Stan-
dard thus clarified, we now turn to the merits of MetroPCS's
prohibition claim.
In applying the First Circuit's provider-focused notion of
"significant gap," the district court denied both parties sum-
mary judgment, holding that significant questions of fact still
exist as to whether the Board's decision actually perpetuates
a significant gap in MetroPCS's coverage. This conclusion is
amply supported by the existing record and, therefore, we
affirm the district court's ruling on this issue. Both parties
confidently assert that the current record unequivocally sup-
p orts their respective positions. But to the contrary, the record
is replete with contradictory allegations as to MetroPCS's
need for the Geary site. Compare Statements of Suki McCoy,
SER at 223-36 (stating that MetroPCS has adequate coverage
in the Richmond District); Statements of Martin Signithaler,
SER at 134-36 (stating that the Geary site would not improve
MetroPCS's effective coverage); MetroPCS Marketing Mate-
rials, SER 225, 234 (advertising that MetroPCS has full cov-
erage around the Geary site), with Statements of MetroPCS
Technological Expert, SER at 200-02 (stating that MetroPCS
coverage is not adequate without the Geary site); Declaration
of Lisa Nahmanson, ER 32 (stating that MetroPCS coverage
is insufficient without the Geary site); Testimony of Deborah
Stein, SER 191-200(same); Declaration of John Schwartz, ER
49 (challenging basis of City's contention that existing
MetroPCS service is adequate).
In urging us to grant it summary judgment on this issue, the
City cites a bevy of cases that, collectively, are meant to dem-
onstrate that "[t]he TCA does not assure every wireless carrier
a right to seamless coverage in every area it serves," and that
the inability to cover a "a few blocks in a large city" is, as a
matter of law, not a "significant gap." While we recognize
that the TCA does not guarantee wireless service providers
coverage free of small "dead spots,"" the existing case law
70The district court correctly notes that the relevant service gap must be
truly "significant"and "not merely individual 'dead spots' within a greater
2740 MeraoPCS, Inc. V. SAN FRANCISCO
amply demonstrates that "significant gap" determinations are
extremely fact-specific inquiries that defy any bright-line
legal rule. Moreover, the City's assertion as to the size of
MetroPCS's alleged service gap merely assumes the very fact
in issue here — the existence and geographic proportions of
a gap in MetroPCS's coverage.
[18] Given the conflicting contents of the record, there is
simply no basis for granting either party summary judgment
on this issue. We affirm the district court's ruling to that
effect.
(b) Least Intrusive Means
[19] Under all existing versions of the "significant gap"
test, once a wireless service provider has demonstrated that
the requisite significant gap in coverage exists, it must then
make some showing as to the intrusiveness or necessity of its
proposed means of closing that gap. Here again, the circuits
are split as to the required showing.
The Second and Third Circuits require the provider to show
that "the manner in which it proposes to fill the significant
gap in service is the least intrusive on the values that the
denial sought to serve." Penn Township, 196 F.3d at 480
(emphasis added); see also Omnipoint, 331 F.3d at 398; Unity
Township, 282 F.3d at 266; Willoth, 176 F.3d at 643. The
First and Seventh Circuits, by contrast, require a showing that
there are "no alternative sites which would solve the prob-
lem." Second Generation Props., 313 F.3d at 635; see also St.
Croix County, 342 F.3d at 834-35 (adopting the First Circuit
service area." 259 F. Supp. 2d at 1014. Courts applying both versions of
the "significant gap" test appear to agree on this proposition. See e.g., Sec-
ond Generation Props.. 313 F.3d at 631; .360° Communications Co., 211
F.3d at 87; Willoth, 176 F.3d at 643-44.
i
METROPCS INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2741
test and requiring providers to demonstrate that there are no
"viable alternatives") (citing Second Generation Properties)."
After concluding that material issues of fact remain as to
the presence (or absence) of a significant gap in MetroPCS's
coverage, the district court attempted to reconcile competing
interpretations of the intrusiveness inquiry by creating its own
"fact-based test that requires the provider to demonstrate that
its proposed solution is the most acceptable option for the
community in question." 259 F. Supp. 2d at 1015 (emphasis
added).
Since there is no controlling legal authority on the issue,
our choice of rule must ultimately come down to policy con-
siderations. The district court's "most acceptable option"
rubric seems a hopelessly subjective standard, and one won-
ders how a proposed site could ever be proven "the most
acceptable" if a zoning proposal with respect to it had already
ce been denied by local authorities. On the other hand, the First
and Seventh Circuit requirement that a provider demonstrate
that its proposed facility is the only viable option seems too
exacting. As the case at bar demonstrates, there may be sev-
eral viable means of closing a major service gap, (see
MetroPCS Alternative Site Analysis, SER 26-35), and in such
a situation, this "only viable option" rule would either pre-
clude the construction of any facility (since no single site is
the "only viable" alternative) or require providers to endure
"The district court also notes that, in the Fourth Circuit, " '[a] commu-
nity could rationally reject the least intrusive proposal in favor of a more
intrusive proposal that provides better service or that better promotes com-
mercial goals of the community.' " 259 F. Supp. 2d at 1014 (quoting 360°
Communications Co.. 211 F.3d at 87). This rule is inapposite to the case
at bar since the Fourth Circuit, as discussed above, does not recognize
either version of the "significant gap" test. Instead. it holds that the TCA
prohibits only general or"blanket" bans on wireless services. Under such
a rule, denials of individual siting requests can never run afoul of the
TCA,and so the relative intrusiveness of different siting proposals is irrel-
evant.
2742 MerROPCS, INC. v. SAN FRANCISCO
repeated denials by local authorities until only one feasible
alternative remained. This seems a poor use of time and
resources for both providers and local governments alike.
[20] The Second and Third Circuit "least intrusive" stan-
dard, by contrast, allows for a meaningful comparison of
alternative sites before the siting application process is need-
lessly repeated. It also gives providers an incentive to choose
the least intrusive site in their first siting applications, and it
promises to ultimately identify the best solution for the com-
munity, not merely the last one remaining after a series of
application denials.
[21] For these reasons, we now adopt the "least intrusive
means" standard and instruct the district court to apply this
rule as necessary in its consideration of the prohibition issue
on remand.
E. Preemption Claim
One additional note is in order that bears, albeit indirectly,
on MetroPCS's discrimination and prohibition claims.
MetroPCS vigorously asserts, as separate claims independent
of the specific provisions of the TCA, that the Board's denial
of its CUP based on an appraisal of community "necessity"
violates the FCC's exclusive licensing authority over wireless
providers and is preempted by the TCA's statutory scheme.
In support of this claim MetroPCS points out that the FCC
has identified "an immediate need for cellular service" and
has established the goal of "providing for up to two cellular
systems per market." In the Matter of An Inquiry Into the Use
of Bands 825-845 MHz and 870-890 MHz for Cellular Com-
munications Systems, Memorandum Opinion and Order on
Reconsideration, 89 F.C.C.2d 58, at $ 82 (1982). The FCC
further sought to preclude state regulation of the number of
service providers in a given market: "[W]e have already
determined 'need' on a nationwide basis and have preempted
METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 7-1743
the states from denying state certification based on the num-
ber of existing carriers in the market or the capacity of exist-
ing carriers to handle the demand for mobile services." Id.
Congress similarly has declared that "no State or local gov-
ernment shall have any authority to regulate the entry of or
the rates charged by any commercial mobile service," 47
U.S.C. § 332(c)(3)(A), and that the TCA is "not intended to
limit or affect the Commission's general authority over radio
telecommunications, including the authority to regulate the
construction, modification and operation of radio facilities,"
H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, at 209 (1996). For its part, the
City does little to address these arguments directly.
Yet while MetroPCS does convincingly demonstrate that
the FCC has exclusive authority o issue licenses
y and regulate
the wireless services market — a point which appears to be
undisputed between the parties—the TCA itself fully accom-
modates these preemption concerns in its anti-discrimination
and anti-prohibition provisions. The TCA's statutory scheme
ensures that the bandwidth usage and competitive market
dynamics sought by Congress and the FCC will be realized,
while at the same time allowing cities to prevent certain areas
from being overburdened by a proliferation of wireless facili-
ties. MetroPCS's vigorous per se arguments against necessity-
based zoning decisions misconstrue the delicate regulatory
balance struck by the Act.
First of all, a zoning decision to prohibit construction of a
wireless facility at a specific location — whether based on
necessity or not — does not implicate the FCC's ability to
regulate the number of wireless providers in a given market.
Federal supremacy and the FCC's exclusive power to regulate
wireless markets are fully vindicated in the TCA's anti-
discrimination and anti-prohibition provisions, especially
under the First Circuit's "multiple provider" interpretation of
the "prohibition" clause. As discussed above, whatever a
locality's judgment as to the need for a facility at a given site,
such a determination may not effectively prohibit service or
2744 MerROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
reflect favoritism for one provider over another. This protects,
at a macro-level, the competitive markets that the FCC has
sought to construct. Put differently, if a single siting denial
does not create significant gaps in provider coverage and
reflects no unreasonable discrimination among providers,
market dynamics and FCC authority are not threatened in the
first place.
Essentially, the TCA represents a congressional judgment
that local zoning decisions harmless to the FCC's greater reg-
ulatory scheme — and only those proven to be harmless —
should be allowed to stand. As discussed earlier, the TCA
"does not affect or encroach upon the substantive standards to
be applied under established principles of state and local law,"
Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d at 494 (internal quotation marks omit-
ted) (emphasis added), and it "does not create a substantive
federal limitation upon local land use regulatory power,"
Todd, 244 F.3d at 58; see also St. Croix County, 342 F.3d at
830 (same rule) (quoting Todd). MetroPCS's preemption and
supremacy claims are thus misdirected. See, e.g., El Cajon, 83
F. Supp. 2d at 1168-69 (rejecting a federal preemption claim
in a § 332(c)(7) case). The fate of MetroPCS's real concerns
in this area — that localities may be able to reject all siting
proposals that they feel are unnecessary — is determined by
our construction of the TCA's prohibition provision. As dis-
cussed earlier, the First Circuit's multiple-provider approach
best preserves market competition and addresses these
supremacy and preemption concerns as well.
F. Environmental Concerns
[22] The last claim in this case is easily resolved. The TCA
provides that localities may not base zoning decisions on con-
cerns over radio frequency emissions if the proposed wireless
facility complies with FCC emissions requirements:
No State or local government or instrumentality
thereof may regulate the placement, construction,
METROPCS, IINC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2745
and modification of personal wireless service facili-
ties on the basis of the environmental effects of radio
frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities
comply with the [FCC]'s regulations concerning
such emissions.
47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(13)(1v). There is no dispute that Metro-
PCS's proposed facility for the Geary site complies with the
relevant FCC regulations. The only issue is whether the City's
decision was impermissibly based on concerns over RF emis-
sions.
MetroPCS argues that the Board did base its decision on
environmental considerations. In support of this claim it notes
that "opponents of MetroPCS's application made boisterous
presentations before the Board regarding RF emissions,
accompanied by argument, badges and t-shirts complaining
about RF emissions." MetroPCS also claims that "the Board's
denial motion expressly states that it was based on `all of the
public comments made in support of and opposed to the
appeal.' " Finally, MetroPCS notes that the Board's decision
stated the proposed facility would "not promote the health,
safety and welfare of the city."
These observations are of little relevance to the issue here.
As the district court correctly points out, the party actually
challenging the MetroPCS CUP application before the Board
(Mr. Blum) took pains to clarify that his appeal was not based
on environmental concerns. Additionally, the Board's formal
decision against MetroPCS did not state that it was "based
on" all public comments made in support of and opposed to
the appeal. MetroPCS's quotation on this point is misleading.
The Board merely stated that it "revietived and considered" all
such comments, which is exactly what a local zoning board
is supposed to do at a public hearing. (Emphasis added.)
[23] Most crucially, the Board's written decision does not
once mention RF emissions as a motivation for denying
2746 MerROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
MetroPCS's CUP application. Broadly stating (presumably as
a recitation of the City's Policy Principles) that the proposed
facility "will not promote" public health, safety and welfare
is not remotely equivalent to basing a zoning decision on a
fear of RF emissions. Given the foregoing, the one case cited
by MetroPCS on this issue (Telespectrum, Inc. v. Pub. Serv.
Comm'n, 227 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2000)), which involved a
straightforward application of the TCA's RF provision, is
inapposite. The district court was correct in granting the City
summary judgment as to this claim, and we affirm that ruling.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court's
ruling that the Board's decision was properly "in writing,"
supported by substantial evidence and not impermissibly
based on concerns over radio frequency emissions under the
TCA. We also AFFIRM the district court's ruling that mate-
rial questions of fact remain as to whether the Board's deci-
sion effectively prohibited the provision of personal wireless
services under the TCA. Finally, we REVERSE the district
court's determination that the Board's decision did not, as a
matter of law, unreasonably discriminate among providers of
functionally equivalent services within the meaning of the
TCA, and we REMAND this case for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
GRABER, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in
part:
I agree with the majority that genuine issues of material
fact remain with respect to whether the Board of Supervisors'
(Board) denial of MetroPCS's application for a Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) to construct wireless facilities violated the
anti-discrimination and anti-prohibition provisions of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA), 47 U.S.C. §§ 151-
MerROPCS,'INC. v. Safi FRA.:cisco 2747
615. I write separately because the Board's determination that
the proposed facilities are unnecessary, premised on the fact
that at least one other service provider serves the same area,
is irreconcilable with the anti-discrimination provision of the
TCA, 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(1I). In view of that incon-
sistency, the Board's "necessity" finding cannot support its
denial of MetroPCS's request even if substantial evidence
supports that finding. I respectfully dissent from the majori-
ty's conclusion to the contrary.
According to the majority, a reviewing court's analysis of
the reasons given by a zoning authority for denying a request
to construct wireless facilities begins and ends with determin-
ing whether those reasons are authorized by local regulations
and supported by evidence. Relying on the Second Circuit's
decision in Cellular Telephone Co. v. Town of Oyster Bay, the
majority concludes that "the TCA `does not affect or encroach
upon the substantive standards to be applied under established
principles of state and local law.' " Maj. op. at 2722 (empha-
sis in majority opinion) (quoting Cellular Tel. Co. v. Town of
Oyster Bay, 166 F.3d 490, 494 (2d Cir. 1999)). That is, the
reasons stated by a zoning authority in denying a request for
wireless facilities are irrelevant under the majority's analysis.
Accordingly, the majority concludes that the Board was enti-
tled to reject MetroPCS's application for a CUP solely
because "f nothing in the record suggests that the area proxi-
mate to 5200 Geary Boulevard is not already served by at
least one other wireless service provider." See Maj. op. at
2732-33 n.6 (finding no error in the Board's "necessity" ratio-
nale because "the TCA is agnostic as to the substantive con-
tent of local regulations").
The majority overstates the extent of the TCA's indiffer-
ence to the substantive content of local regulations when
those regulations are applied to zoning decisions regarding the
"placement, construction, and modification of personal wire-
less service facilities." 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(13)(1). Oyster
Bay tempered its statement regarding the TCA's neutrality by
2748 NIETROPCS� INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
observing that at least one provision of the TCA places a sub-
stantive limitation on the permissible bases to support a zon-
ing authority's denial o a request for the construction of
wireless facilities: ' note . . . that [47 U.S.C.]
§ 332(c)(7)(B)(MI'I bars) denials based on environmental
effects of rfes [radio frequency emissions,] if the applicant
facility would comply with FCC standards . . . ." Oyster Bav,
166 F.3d at 494 n.2. Although health and safety are undeni-
ably a proper subject for local regulation, the TCA " `prevents
the denial of a permit on the sole basis that the facility would
cause negative environmental effects.' " Id. at 495 (quoting
Iowa Wireless Servs., L.P. v. City of Moline, 29 F. Supp. 2d
915, 923 (C.D. Ill. 1998).
Similarly, "the anti-discrimination and anti-prohibition pro-
visions of the TCA, [47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I), (II),]
involve federal limitations on state authority." S.W. Bell
Mobile Svs., Inc. v. Todd, 244 F.3d 51, 58 (1st Cir. 2001)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Unlike the TCA's provi-
sion relating to radio frequency emissions, the anti-
discrimination and anti-prohibition provisions do not
expressly prohibit the consideration of specific grounds in
zoning decisions regarding the construction of wireless facili-
ties. Nonetheless, those provisions do limit the ways in which
a state or local government may apply its zoning regulations
to a request for the placement of wireless facilities. As Todd
observed, a local zoning authority is "subject to several sub-
stantive and procedural limitations that `subject [local govern-
ments] to an outer limit' upon their ability to regulate personal
wireless services land use issues." Id. at 57 (alteration in orig-
'47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) provides:
No State or local government or instrumentality thereof may
regulate the placement, construction, and modification of per-
sonal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental
effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facili-
ties comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such
emissions.
dINWAaft
I
METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2749
inal) (quoting Town of Amherst v. Onlnlpolnt Conlnlunica-
tions Enters., Inc., 173 F.3d 9, 15 (1st Cir. 1999)); see also
APT Pittsburgh Ltd. P'slup v. Penn Township Butler Counh�
of Pennsylvania, 196 F.3d 469, 473 (3d Cir. 1999) (noting
that the TCA "places several substantive and procedural limits
upon [local zoning] authority when it is exercised in relation
to personal wireless service facilities").
For example, the Board could not deny MetroPCS's appli-
cation solely on the ground that the availability of wireless
services in the Geary neighborhood may lead to increased
wireless telephone usage among automobile drivers in that
neighborhood, with a commensurate increase in traffic acci-
dents. Traffic safety is certainly a legitimate zoning concern,
and the Board could easily produce substantial evidence to
support a correlation between wireless telephone usage
among drivers and traffic accidents. Nonetheless, the Board's
rationale for its decision would be entirely inconsistent with
the TCA's anti-prohibition provision, as carefully and cor-
rectly interpreted by the majority, because the Board would be
seeking to preserve a significant coverage gap. Accordingly,
a denial of permission to construct wireless facilities for that
reason alone should not survive judicial scrutiny.
The Board's necessity rationale presents the same problem.
Whatever its consistency with local zoning ordinances,' the
denial of MetroPCS's request on the ground that the Geary
neighborhood is already served by at least one other wireless
service provider is irreconcilable with § 332(c)(7)(B)(1)(II)'s
prohibition of zoning decisions that "unreasonably discrimi-
nate among providers of functionally equivalent services." As
explained in the House Conference Report, the chief purpose
of the TCA is to "open[ ] all telecommunications markets to
competition." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, at 1 (1996). The
'Pursuant to San Francisco Planning Code § 303(c)(1), the Board may
consider whether a proposed development "is necessary or desirable for,
and compatible with, the neighborhood or community."
2750 METROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO
TCA's anti-discrimination provision furthers that purpose by
ensuring "that a State or local government does not in making
a decision regarding the placement, construction and modifi-
cation of facilities of personal wireless services described in
this section unreasonable favor one competitor over another."
Id. at 208 (emphasis added).
Here, the Board's necessity determination results in pre-
cisely the type of unreasonable discrimination that the TCA
seeks to prevent. It protects existing service providers against
potential competitors and effectively bars all new market
entrants from the area in question. Because the Board's neces-
sity determination is inherently and unreasonably discrimina-
tory, it cannot serve as a valid, legally relevant basis for
rejecting MetroPCS's application for a CUP.
The majority misunderstands my point when it claims that
I argue "that any zoning regulation—or application of such a
regulation—based on considerations of community 'neces-
sity' by its terms discriminates against new providers." Maj.
op. at 2723. Instead, I argue much more simply, and much
more narrowly, that a local agency's fact-finding about "ne-
cessity" must respect the statutorily required definition of `
what "necessity" is.
Neither the majority nor the district court looked further
than the Board's "necessity" rationale in holding that substan-
tial evidence supported the Board's decision as a whole.
Because "[a] significant number of community members that
opposed the installation indicated that they had adequate wire-
less services [from other Providers] in their district," the dis-
trict court concluded that it "need not reach the question of
whether there is substantial evidence supporting the Board's
determination that MetroPCS's installation would cause
visual blight, or that MetroPCS did not need the antennas for
its own service." MetroPCS, Inc. v. Cite & CoirntY of San
Francisco, 259 F. Supp. 2d 1024, 1010-11 & n.6 (N.D. Cal
2003). For the reasons discussed above, I disagree with the
MFTROPCS, INC. V. SAN FRANCISCO 2751
majority that the Board's decision can rest on that ground
alone, even if that ground is supported by substantial evi-
dence. Accordingly, on remand, I would instruct the district
court to consider whether substantial evidence supports the
legally relevant and permissible reasons that the Board gave
for denying MetroPCS's request to construct wireless facili-
ties.
In all other respects, I concur in the majority's opinion.