FCC Communications

Sept 16, 2021 @ 9:00 am PDT

Mr. Georgios Leris, Acting Associate Chief
Ms, Garnet Hanly, Division Chief
Competition and Infrastructure Policy Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street SW
Washington, DC 20554
202-418-1310

Dear Mr. Leris et al.

Schedules permitting, two others may join our call today, Luanne M and Susan C. See the magenta-highlighted text below. See also the call agenda items A, B , C and D, below.

>>> Paul G wrote on 9/10/21 1:01 PM:

Our goal is to give accurate information to the Cities with which we work so they can make intelligent policy decisions in the face of the following problems that have been clearly evidenced in the public (and the FCC’s) record.

  1. The FCC consistently overreaching the 1934 Communications/1996 Telecommunications Acts
  2. The FCC being unwilling to answer simple, direct questions and instead invoking “infinite shot clocks” to avoid matters
  3. The FCC being a virtual NO-SHOW when it comes to enforcement.

These problems will be addressed in relation to

We will take the 15 minutes, but would benefit from 15 more, for a total of 30 minutes, similar in length to our last call on Oct 19, 2020.

Might we please extend the call another 15 minutes?

First, some quick clarification questions:

  1. Is Erica Rosenberg still working for the FCC? I have called 202-418-1343 for the last six months, the outgoing voicemail message is active (including today on 9/16/2021), but I have received no return calls from her in the last six months.
  2. Same question for Paul D’Ari at 202-418-1550 . . . still working for the FCC?
  3. Same question for Jennifer Flynn at 202-418-0612 . . . still working for the FCC?
  4. Is the following current/accurate? → https://www.fcc.gov/wireless/bureau-divisions/competition-infrastructure-policy-division-wireless-telecommunications

Updated: Monday, August 16, 2021 — Competition & Infrastructure Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau — Management Team | 202-418-1310

  • Garnet Hanly, Division Chief
  • Amy Brett, Chief of Staff/Associate Chief
  • Susannah Larson, Associate Chief
  • Georgios Leris, Acting Associate Chief
  • Wesley Platt, Acting Associate Chief
  • Ziad Sleem, Associate Chief (Technical)

A. FCC Actions that may or will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment

First on the agenda today is to discuss dates of applicability for the following table, which apparently was removed from the following link on or around Dec 29, 2020 and the FCC determination/enforcement of Feb 5, 2020 Complaint against Verizon Towers Sonoma-006, Sonoma-007 and Sonoma-012 (Details here — https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sonoma) and in Appendix A, below.

FCC Web page:

“Displaying Title 47, up to date as of 9/14/2021. Title 47 was last amended 9/14/2021” → https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-47/chapter-I/subchapter-A/part-1/subpart-I

  • § 1.1303 Scope. “The provisions of this subpart shall apply to all Commission actions that may or will have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment. To the extent that other provisions of the Commission’s rules and regulations are inconsistent with the subpart, the provisions of this subpart shall govern.”
  • § 1.1305 Actions which normally will have a significant impact upon the environment, for which Environmental Impact Statements must be prepared.
  • § 1.1306 Actions which are categorically excluded from environmental processing.
  • § 1.1307 Actions that may have a significant environmental effect, for which Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.
  • § 1.1308 Consideration of environmental assessments (EAs); findings of no significant impact.

B. The Feb 20, 2020 statement by Erica Rosenberg and rule are the same

Erica Rosenberg, FCC:

“If one of those circumstances are met, then an Environmental Assessment is triggered. In other words, if the RF is above our limits, they need to do an Environmental Assessment.

In FCC Rule §1.1307, it states:.

“Commission actions granting. . .licenses to transmit . . . require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) if exposure to levels of radiofrequency radiation [are] in excess of the [FCC] limits.”

Then in Table 1 of FCC Rule §1.1307:

(b)(1) “Evaluation required if Non-building-mounted antennas [have] height above ground level to lowest point of antenna <10 m and total power of all channels 1000 W ERP.

§1.1307 Actions that may have a significant environmental effect, for which Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.

​Excerpt from Table 1—Transmitters, Facilities and Operations Subject to Routine Environmental Evaluation

Service (title 47 CFR rule part) Evaluation required if:
Commercial Mobile Radio Services (part 20) Non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna <10 m and power 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP). Building-mounted antennas: power 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).
Paging and Radiotelephone Service (subpart E of part 22) Non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna <10 m and power 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).
Cellular Radiotelephone Service (subpart H of part 22) Non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and total power of all channels 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).
Personal Communications Services (part 24) (1) Narrowband PCS (subpart D):
Non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna <10 m and total power of all channels 1000 W 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 (3280 W EIRP).
Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services (part 27 except subpart M) (1) For the 1390-1392 MHz, 1392-1395 MHz, 1432-1435 MHz, 1670-1675 MHz, and 2385-2390 MHz bands:
Non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna <10 m and total power of all channels 2000 W ERP (3280 W EIRP).
(2) For the 698-746 MHz, 746-764 MHz, 776-794 MHz, 2305-2320 MHz, and 2345-2360 MHz bands:
Total power of all channels 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).
Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service (subpart M of part 27) Non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna <10 m and power 1640 W EIRP.
Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (part 30) Non-building-mounted antennas: Height above ground level to lowest point of antenna <10 m and power 1640 W EIRP.
Private Land Mobile Radio Services Paging Operations (subpart P of part 90) Non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna <10 m and power 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).
Private Land Mobile Radio Services Specialized Mobile Radio (subpart S of part 90) Non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna <10 m and total power of all channels 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).

These are actions for which Environmental Assessments must be prepared.

C. Why No Determination from the FCC on Feb 5, 2020 Complaint?

See very similar situation documented here (also in the FCC’s record):

Listen to videos at the top of this page → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sonoma/

  • Feb 5, 2020 — Complaint filed with the FCC
  • Oct 5, 2020 — Complaint discussed with FCC
  • May 25, 2021 — Complaint dismissed by the FCC (see below)

Apparently, I missed this . . . 15 months and 20 days after submittal of the complaint!

>>> Erica Rosenberg wrote on 5/25/21 1:12 PM:

Mr G:

This responds to your complaint, originally filed on February 5, 2020, about three Sonoma sites (574-552 Fifth Street, 500 Second Street, and 25 McDonell Street). Because Verizon has put the deployment of those facilities on indefinite hold, we are dismissing your complaint as moot. We have directed Verizon to notify the FCC and you should anything change with regard to the status of these deployments
Sincerely,

Erica

Erica Rosenberg
Assistant Chief
Competition and Infrastructure Policy Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC
202.418.1343

D. Friday the 13th Ruling in Aug 13, 2021 in Case 20-1025: EHT/CHD v FCC

Case 20-1025 was about the FCC’s attempt to avoid court-mandated environmental review to establish the adequacy of the existing FCC RF Microwave radiation guideline. The FCC got caught, again. In the ruling, the judges wrote the following:

“We grant the petitions in part and remand to the Commission. The Commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its guidelines adequately protect against the harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation . . .”

Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition defines remand as:

“To send a case or claim back to the court or tribunal from which it came for some further action.”

The FCC had ignored the August 2019 court ruling in Case 18-1129 Keetoowah et al. v FCC. That ruling mandated that the FCC complete proper environmental review to establish a new class of Wireless Facilities, such as Small Wireless Facilities. The DC Circuit found that the March 2018 FCC Order 18-30 was arbitrary, capricious and, therefore, unlawful.

The DC Circuit judges essentially sent a very similar message to the FCC about their December 2019 FCC Order 19-126: the FCC’s attempt to end-run the Aug 2019 mandate by simply declaring, without sufficient analysis, that the 1996 RF Microwave radiation exposure guideline could be extended from frequencies up to 6,000 MHz to frequencies up to 100,000 MHz and that Wireless Cos. could increase the peak to average ratio of power output 20-fold.

By reading, once again, U.S. Code Title 47 Section 324 which states “In all circumstances . . . all radio . . . shall use the minimum amount of power necessary to carry out the communication desired.” . . . one can understand why the judges remanded FCC Order 19-126 back to the FCC.

With all of these shenanigans that have been serially-perpetrated by the FCC on behalf of the Wireless industry, it is no surprise that Re-Insurance industry, including Lloyd’s of London, Swiss Re and AM Best – over a decade ago – evaluated the independent science and specifically excluded all claims of injury, illness or death from RF Microwave radiation exposures from any General Liability insurance policies. They cannot afford another asbestos debacle, so they acted.


Appendix A: Feb 5, 2020 FCC Complaint re: Three Verizon so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in Sonoma, CA

Feb 5, 2020

Ms. Erica Rosenberg
Assistant Chief
Competition and Infrastructure Policy Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
202.418.1343

cc: Jennifer Flynn

Dear Ms. Rosenberg,

I was hoping you would have time for a short follow-up call regarding NEPA-Non-Compliance that is rampant in California. Would you have 15-minutes either this morning or on Fri Feb 7, before 11:00 am EST?

Please see the following information for three Verizon Close Proximity Microwave Radiation Antennas (CPMRAs) in Sonoma, CA which have no evidence of NEPA review or NEPA Environmental Assessment.

https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sonoma/

I am formally reporting this NEPA rules violation to the FCC in this email to you and towercomments@fcc.gov. I would like to have three FCC Tower Complaint files opened (one for each CPMRA application) and an FCC tracking number generated for each application. I would also like to understand from you the process and timing re: FCC enforcement of FCC rule § 1.1307, Table 1.

We informed the City of Sonoma that it must declare each of the following CPMRA applications incomplete, while waiting for completion of required NEPA Environmental Assessment — By FCC Rule § 1.1307. All appeals, permitting and construction of these three small Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in Sonoma, CA cannot proceed until NEPA analysis is complete.

Thank you.

Feb 5, 2020 FCC Complaint for the City of Sonoma, CA

Verizon Small Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) Applications in Sonoma, CA, Discussed in Jan 23, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting

  1. Link to Site-006: sWTF at 574-552 Fifth Street West, Sonoma, CA
  2. Link to Site-007: sWTF at 550 Second Street West, Sonoma, CA
  3. Link to Site-012: sWTF at 25 McDonell Street, Sonoma, CA

A. Light pole dimensions for each:

  • 33-foot tall “typical” streetlight pole.

B. Antenna Shroud Dimensions:

  • 2-foot CommScope VVSSP-360S-F canister antenna on the top of the pole
  • Therefore, lowest part of antenna shroud is 31-feet off the ground (9.45 meters is less than 10 meters)

C. Antenna: Commscope VVSSP-360S-F Specs — web | pdf

10-port small Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTF) antenna, 360° Horizontal Beamwidth, fixed tilt.

  • 4x 1695–2690 MHz
  • 4x 3400-3800 MHz
  • 2x 5150-5925 MHz

D. Effective Radiated Power is greater than 1,000 Watts ERP

Frequency 1695–1920 1920–2180 2300–2690 3400–3800 5150–5925 Total
Max. Input Power (Watts) 125 125 125 35 5 415
Antenna Gain (dBi) 6.6 7.3 8.2 4.9 5.1
Maximum ERP (Watts) 825 912 1,025 172 26 2,960
A: 3 × 120 ° ERP (Watts) 460 × 3 = 1,380
B: 6 × 60 ° ERP (Watts) 460 × 6 = 2,760

E. § 1.1307 Actions that may have a significant environmental effect, for which Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.

https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=07afc9702f0a2dcc235fb74a95039ac8&h=L&mc=true&n=sp47.1.1.i&r=SUBPART&ty=HTML

Title 47 CFR § 1.1307 (b) (1) The appropriate exposure limits in §§1.1310 and 2.1093 of this chapter are generally applicable to all facilities, operations and transmitters regulated by the Commission. However, a determination of compliance with the exposure limits in §1.1310 or §2.1093 of this chapter (routine environmental evaluation), and preparation of an EA if the limits are exceeded, is necessary only for facilities, operations and transmitters that fall into the categories listed in table 1, or those specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

From Table 1 — Transmitters, Facilities and Operations Subject to Routine Environmental Evaluation

Cellular Radiotelephone Service (subpart H of part 22) — EA required if: Non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna <10 m and total power of all channels 1000 W


Appendix B: Dec 18, 2019 FCC NEPA Complaint

December 18, 2019

Name: Dr Trevor G. Marshall

Request for Environmental Review of a proposed physical modification of an existing antenna structure which may have a significant impact on the quality of the natural and human environment.

Summary: Despite the relevance of several factors on the environmental checklist required by 47 CFR § 1.1311, an Environmental Assessment of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Antenna Structure Registration (“ASR”) has apparently not been submitted by the prospective ASR applicant. This is despite the proposed ASR construction being “a source of controversy on environmental grounds in the local community.”

Tower location: 1634 Newbury Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91360, City of Thousand Oaks

Application number: DPMN 2017-70219 proposed work: See blog by Dr Jonathan L Kramer, attached as Exhibit-A, construction status: unknown;

Apparent Applicant: John Halminski 626-241-2117, perhaps on behalf of Verizon.

This structure triples the number of bands being transmitted adjacent to a major shopping center, within 150 ft. of residences. There have now been two well-attended public hearings at which the local community has presented substantial evidence in the public record why adding to this existing cell tower is not wise, yet the Applicant has refused to move the site away from the shopping center and residences.

The public offered evidence in the following categories:

  1. Thousand Oaks is a “Bee City USA” and goes to great lengths to protect its bee population, and hence the natural beauty of the City’s parks and gardens. The local bee-keeper has repeatedly reported to the City of Thousand Oaks that his bees die unless he takes careful steps to keep them well away from these newer 4G cell-towers. It has been suggested that perhaps this bee-death could be exacerbated by towers (such as this ASR) operating at increased Effective Radiated Power (ERP) levels across an array microwave radiation frequencies. This environmental impact needs to be assessed before extending the number of bands and the ERP of all bands from this installation. Recent reports of bees dropping dead adjacent to towers needs to be more closely analyzed, to see if different bands, different levels of ERP or different tower locations (height, and enclosure design) might reduce the impact of such installations.
  2. An increasing number physicians in Thousand Oaks are reporting their patients have become sensitive to electromagnetic radiation exposures from 4G cell-towers, so that they become ill when exposed to even extremely low signal levels . Although the US Access Board has designated the disability of “electromagnetic sensitivity,” which provides protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act (and hence under the Telecommunications Act § 255, et al.) the proximity of cell-towers to nearly every shopping center in this city is most definitely affecting the human environment for these immunocompromised and/or disabled members of our community.
  3. In Keetoowah vs FCC (Case No. 18-1129 D.C. Cir. 2019), the Court declared that: “Congress enacted NEPA to ‘encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment’ and ‘promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man,’ among other purposes. 42 U.S.C. § 4321.”
  4. FCC 19-126 acknowledges potential “long-term” health impacts as being beyond the FCC’s expertise, and when individuals are clearly being hurt by such effects, as we are possibly seeing in Thousand Oaks, surely it is the Environmental Analysis process which will produce data to help us all to understand these “long-term” effects.

I find the apparent failure to file an EA, or an even the results of a NEPA checklist, particularly curious, as Dr. Jonathan L Kramer, the consultant designated by the City to process this application, whose fees are being paid by the applicant (Verizon?), saw fit to send out a Tweet, in addition to producing his blog post, both noting:

“Nearly 100% of the public testimony focused on RF emission issues and concerns. The Commission, public, and staff discussions are informative. They span health concerns, administrative process, duty of loyalty, and the federal government/local government relationship regarding RF emissions”

I can’t find any evidence in the Thousand Oaks, CA Public Record of a 47 CFR § 1.1311 Checklist, or an Environmental Assessment for this proposed ASR in the public record.

Could the Commission please help me track this down?

Sincerely,

Trevor G Marshall, ME, PhD


18 December 2019

Date: Tue, 07 Jan 2020 09:27:43 -0800
To: towercomments@fcc.gov
From: Trevor Marshall
Subject: Petition sent 2 weeks ago, please acknowledge receipt

Dear FCC,

I sent a petition-email on 20 December, but haven’t received any delivery receipt or acknowledgement yet. Please let me know you have received this OK, and what reference number I should use when referring to this request in future.

Sincerely,

Prof. Trevor G Marshall, ME, PhD
Director, Autoimmunity Research Foundation, Thousand Oaks, California
Fellow, European Association for Predictive, Preventive and Personalised Medicine (Brussels)
Life Senior Member I.E.E.E.


The FCC is in receipt of your emails and is reviewing the matter. Thank you.


——— Original Email below ———

From: Trevor Marshall
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2019

Dear FCC,

Please action the attached PDF Petition+Exhibit, concerning expansion of a Wireless Communication Facility which has been planned and/or commenced in our City without any apparent public filing of an EA checklist, or any resulting EA.

Sincerely,

Trevor G Marshall, ME, PhD