Posted on by pmg

Submit FCC Comments for Proposed FCC Order 22-98

Adapted from a Mar 7, 2023 Action Alert from Children’s Health Defense.

Update: The FCC Extended the Deadlines for Reply Comments to Apr 20, 2023

Factor in the Extended Deadline in the Video Instructions That Follow

In FCC Reply Comments to its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Public Comment Process for FCC Order 22-98, Tell the FCC to recognize Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) as a disabling condition and Incentivize Fiber Optics to All Premises (FTAP)

First search for the existing comments  to select a comment to which to reply or just make your own regular comment.

Please also read the commenting rules from the FCC web site:

Title 47 | Chapter 1 | Subchapter A | Part 1 | Subpart C – Rulemaking Proceedings | § 1.415 Comments and replies.

§ 1.415 Comments and replies.

(a) After notice of proposed rulemaking is issued, the Commission will afford interested persons an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking proceeding through submission of written data, views, or arguments, with or without opportunity to present the same orally in any manner.

(b) A reasonable time will be provided for submission of comments in support of or in opposition to proposed rules, and the time provided will be specified in the notice of proposed rulemaking.

(c) A reasonable time will be provided for filing comments in reply to the original comments, and the time provided will be specified in the notice of proposed rulemaking.

(d) No additional comments may be filed unless specifically requested or authorized by the Commission.

Note: In some (but not all) rulemaking proceedings, interested persons may also communicate with the Commission and its staff on an ex parte basis, provided certain procedures are followed. See §§ 1.420 and 1.1200 et seq. See also __ FCC 2d __ (1980) (i.e., this order).

(e) For time limits for filing motions for extension of time for filing responses to petitions for rulemaking, replies to such responses, comments filed in response to notices of proposed rulemaking, replies to such comments, see § 1.46(b).

[28 FR 12432, Nov. 22, 1963, as amended at 42 FR 28888, June 6, 1977; 45 FR 45591, July 7, 1980; 52 FR 37460, Oct. 7, 1987

Write/Submit a Reply Comment

Tell the FCC to follow the Americans with Disabilties Act, recognize that EMS Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) can impair one or more life activities, accommodate those disabled by wireless signals greater than -85 dBm in areas accessible to people and demand that the FCC incentivize Fiber Optics to All Premises (FTAP).

With the proposed FCC Order 22-98, the FCC wants to ensure everyone has access to high-speed internet, regardless if that access is wired (via Coaxial and Fiber optic cables to each home and business) or is wireless. Despite the evidence already in the FCC’s and DC Circuit’s records that radiofrequency (RF) radiation, at insufficiently regulated signal strengths, is harmful to people and the environment, the FCC is charging forward without recognizing the mandates that the U.S. Courts of Appeals, D.C. Cir. levied on the FCC in its 2019 and 2021 rulings:

  1. Ruling in Case No. 18-1129: United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 933 F.3d 728 (D.C. Cir. 2019)
  2. Ruling in Case No. 20-1025: Envtl. Health Tr. v. Fed. Communications Comm’n, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021)
In Case No. 20-1025 The DC Cir. judges wrote:

“We conclude that it impossible on this record to credit the claim that small cell deregulation will ‘leave little to no environmental footprint.’ Order ¶ 41. The FCC anticipates that the needed ‘densification of small deployments over large geographic areas,’ id., could require 800,000 deployments by 2026, FCC, Declaratory Ruling & Third Report & Order, FCC 18-133 ¶ 126 (Sept. 26, 2018). The FCC failed to assess the harms that can attend deployments that do not require new construction, particularly the cumulative harms from densification. . . We conclude that the FCC fails to justify its conclusion that small cells ‘as a class’ and by their ‘nature’ are ‘inherently unlikely’ to trigger concerns. By ignoring the extent to which it had already streamlined review, the Commission overstated the burdens of review . . . The Commission fails to explain why the categorical exclusions in place did not already minimize unnecessary costs while preserving review for deployments with greater potential environmental impacts . . . We hold that the Order’s deregulation of small cells is arbitrary and capricious because its public-interest analysis did not meet the standard of reasoned decision making.”

In Case No. 20-1025 The DC Cir. judges wrote:

“. . . we grant the petitions in part and remand to the Commission to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radio-frequency [microwave] radiation. It must, in particular,

  • (i) provide a reasoned explanation for its decision to retain its testing procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic devices comply with its guidelines,
  • (ii) address the impacts of RF radiation on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its guidelines, and
  • (iii) address the impacts of RF radiation on the environment.”

Wireless radio frequency microwave radiation is bioactive and is currently being insufficiently regulated. Therefore, each state or locality can regulate the maximum power output of microwave radiation from wireless infrastructure antennas that reaches any areas that are accessible to human beings and other living organisms, consistent with the 11,000+ pages of peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that Environmental Health Trust and Children’s Health Defense and others plaintiffs placed in the FCC’s public record: Vol-1, Vol-2, Vol-3, Vol-4, Vol-5, Vol-6, Vol-7 Vol-8, Vol-9, Vol-10, Vol-11, Vol-12, Vol-13, Vol-14, Vol-15, Vol-16, Vol-17, Vol-18, Vol-19, Vol-20, Vol-21, Vol-22, Vol-23, Vol-24, Vol-25, Vol-26 and Vol-27.

Before March 21, one can submit reply comments in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for FCC Order 22-98. In the comment, one can

  1. Remind the FCC of the evidence already in its record (use the links cited above),
  2. Tell the FCC that the D.C. Circuit court’s 2019 and 2021 mandates, cited above, are required, not optional
  3. State to the FCC that wireless signal strengths from any licensed or unlicensed frequency that is greater than -85 dBm in areas accessible to human beings violate Title 47 U.S. Code Section 324, in the very statute that authorizes the FCC itself:

Title 47 U.S. Code Section 324 – Use of Minimum Power:

“In all circumstances . . . all radio stations. . . shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired.”

One can also send the comments to one’s State and Federal elected repersentatives, who must hold government agencies accountable for their decisions.

What You Can Do
  1. Search for and select a comment to which you wish to reply.
  2. Write a reply comment specific to the selected comment in step 1, save it as a pdf and upload it to the FCC Electronic Comment System web site.
  3. Submit a pre-written comment or copy and paste a customizable prepared response.
  4. Complete the form to email FCC committee decision-makers and your federal elected representatives.
Demand the Following:
  1. Sufficiently Implement the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit’s 2019 and 2021 mandates, cited above.
  2. Prioritize “fiber to all premises” solutions.
  3. Follow the Americans with Disabilities Act: recognize and then accommodate those reporting EMS symptoms by providing, in areas accessible to people, effective relief from the signals from wireless infrastructure antennas.

Appendix A

Federal Communications Commission DA 23-54

Source:

Released: January 20, 2023

Re: WIRELINE COMPETITION BUREAU ANNOUNCES COMMENT DATES FOR THE PREVENTING DIGITAL DISCRIMINATION NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

GN Docket No. 22-69

Comment Date: February 21, 2023

Reply Comment Date: March 21, 2023

On December 22, 2022, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on potential rules to address digital discrimination of access to broadband, pursuant to section 60506 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021. See Implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Prevention and Elimination of Digital Discrimination, GN Docket No. 22-69, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 22-98(rel. Dec. 22, 2022) (Preventing Digital Discrimination NPRM); see also Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, Pub. L. No. 117-58, 135 Stat. 429, § 60506 (2021).

Specifically, in the Preventing Digital Discrimination NPRM, the Commission proposes to

  • (1) adopt a definition of “digital discrimination of access,”
  • (2) revise the Commission’s informal consumer complaint process to accept complaints of digital discrimination of access, and
  • (3) adopt model policies and best practices for states and localities combating digital discrimination.

The Preventing Digital Discrimination NPRM also seeks comment on other rules the Commission should adopt to facilitate equal access and combat digital discrimination, and the legal authority for adopted rules.

On January 20, 2023, a summary of the Preventing Digital Discrimination NPRM was published in the Federal Register. Federal Communications Commission, Implementing the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Prevention and Elimination of Digital Discrimination, Proposed Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. 3681 (Jan. 20, 2023).

Accordingly, comments are due on or before February 21, 2023, and reply comments are due on or before March 21, 2023. Complete comment filing instructions are set forth in the Preventing Digital Discrimination NPRM. Preventing Digital Discrimination NPRM at para. 97.

To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).

For further information, contact Aurélie Mathieu, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-2194 (voice) or e-mail at Aurelie.Mathieu@fcc.gov.

Appendix B

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act Section 60506

The text below is the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act section 60506.

DIVISION F — BROADBAND
TITLE V—BROADBAND AFFORDABILITY
SEC. 60506. DIGITAL DISCRIMINATION.

(a) STATEMENT OF POLICY. — It is the policy of the United States that, insofar as technically and economically feasible —

  • (1) subscribers should benefit from equal access to broadband internet access service within the service area of a provider of such service;

  • (2) the term “equal access”, for purposes of this section, means the equal opportunity to subscribe to an offered service that provides comparable speeds, capacities, latency, and other quality of service metrics in a given area, for comparable terms and conditions; and

  • (3) the Commission should take steps to ensure that all people of the United States benefit from equal access to broadband internet access service

(b) ADOPTION OF RULES. — Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Commission shall adopt final rules to facilitate equal access to broadband internet access service, taking into account the issues of technical and economic feasibility presented by that objective, including—

  • (1) preventing digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin; and

  • (2) identifying necessary steps for the Commissions to take to eliminate discrimination described in paragraph (1).

(c) FEDERAL POLICIES.—The Commission and the Attorney General shall ensure that Federal policies promote equal access to robust broadband internet access service by prohibiting deployment discrimination based on—

  • (1) the income level of an area;

  • (2) the predominant race or ethnicity composition of an area; or

  • (3) other factors the Commission determines to be relevant based on the findings in the record developed from the rulemaking under subsection (b).

(d) MODEL STATE AND LOCAL POLICIES.—The Commission shall develop model policies and best practices that can be adopted by States and localities to ensure that broadband internet access service providers do not engage in digital discrimination.

(e) COMPLAINTS. — The Commission shall revise its public complaint process to accept complaints from consumers or other members of the public that relate to digital discrimination.