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.
- The FCC consistently overreaching the 1934 Communications/1996 Telecommunications Acts
- The FCC being unwilling to answer simple, direct questions and instead invoking “infinite shot clocks” to avoid matters
- The FCC being a virtual NO-SHOW when it comes to enforcement.
These problems will be addressed in relation to
- My Sept 25, 2018 letter to the FCC Commissioners → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sebastopol/#fcc
- My Feb 5, 2020 FCC Complaint re: three so-called “small” Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (sWTFs) in Sonoma CA → https://scientists4wiredtech.com/sonoma/
- The Aug 13, 2021 ruling in Case 20-1025: EHT/CHD v FCC → https://wirecalifornia.org/case-20-1025-ruling/
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:
- 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.
- Same question for Paul D’Ari at 202-418-1550 . . . still working for the FCC?
- Same question for Jennifer Flynn at 202-418-0612 . . . still working for the FCC?
- 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):
- Agreements from FCC OET and Federal OSHA — https://electrosensei.com/counter.html
- Listen for four minutes: Comments on Aug 31, 2021 re: Aug 2013 OSHA complaint → https://youtu.be/_Y44nW4BSr0?t=29m16s
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.
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
- Link to Site-006: sWTF at 574-552 Fifth Street West, Sonoma, CA
- Link to Site-007: sWTF at 550 Second Street West, Sonoma, CA
- 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.
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.”
- 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
Appendix C: Trevor Marshall Comment on FCC Order 19-126
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
Date: June 17, 2020
To:
Ms. Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, DC 20554
RE: Comments on the FCC’s Proposed Rule (Docket No. 19-126): “Targeted Changes to the Commission’s Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields”
Dear Ms. Dortch, When an American citizen becomes ill they seek help from their physician. Not everybody can practice as a physician, the States regulate this profession and generally set a high bar for entrance, requiring years of study and practical training followed by a lifetime of continuing education. Generally, the practice of Medicine without a license is punished by a lengthy time in jail.
It therefore comes as a surprise to find sections of 19-126 (as published on the FCC website on December 4, 2019), purporting to make pronouncements on human health effects which seem to have been drafted without sufficient input from those experienced in Biology or Medicine.
Further, FCC seems to denigrate the expert input they received from those independent commenters who are licensed in Medical practice. At point 12 in ‘Background’ the FCC states:
“Commenters that provided scientific articles did not answer our request for a specific, quantitative goal but many provided descriptive references to the BioInitiative Report and Building Biology, which specify extremely low limits (0.3-0.6 nW/m2 and 0.1 µW/m2 respectively) for RF energy exposure — limits that are millions to billions times more restrictive than FCC limits39. No device could reliably transmit any usable level of energy by today’s technological standards while meeting those limits.40 “
Relevant Footnotes:
39 See BioInitiative Working Group, BioInitiative 2012 Report (2012), https://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-contents
40 . . . noting that the BioInitiative Reports’ suggested limits would result in compliance zones around base station sites that would extend several kilometers for a macro base station.
The BioInititive Report is a meta-analysis which collates data about Radiation levels harmful to humans from several thousand individual studies published in peer-reviewed journals, and then actually draws a conclusion as to what is an unsafe level, a “specific, quantitative goal,” that is clearly unpalatable to FCC staff writing this report. However, the research data is inviolate and the unacceptable studies from the meta-analysis should have been specifically cited by the FCC if they wished to dispute the BioInititave meta-analysis conclusions.
The BioInitiative Report, itself, has been peer-reviewed by the many volunteers who have compiled and curated its contents over many years. Many of the volunteers are licensed to practice Medicine, others focus on Human Biology.
The report’s simplified “RF Color Charts” collate and summarize the Radiation levels at which a variety of illnesses have been noted in humans.
For example, the FCC noted the level of 0.3 nW/m2 — a level which Heinrich (2010) found caused children and adolescents (8-17 yrs) headache, irritation, concentration difficulties in school. Yet, the FCC called this an “extremely low limit” and said, without supporting data, “No device could reliably transmit any usable level of energy by today’s technological standards while meeting those limits.”
The FCC engineers who drafted these statements have made a terrible error.
Many years ago I taught Microwave Engineering to undergrads. Those engineers were taught to use dBm (Decibels referenced to 1 milliwatt, which is 1/1000th of a Watt) rather than to use confusing measures such as “nanowatts per square meter” precisely to reduce mistakes like the FCC has made in their conclusion.
On an engineering scale, the BioInitiative Report unsafe level is around -37dBm, and the precautionary level around -47dBm. Yet a modern cellphone will indicate “5 bars”, or full signal strength”, on levels around -77dBm, at a full 10,000 times less than the -37dBm the known-unsafe BioInitiative level. The FCC’s conclusion “No device could reliably transmit any usable level of energy by today’s technological standards while meeting those limits” is clearly in error. Demonstrably in error. Perhaps negligently in error.
The FCC’s footnote 40: “. . . noting that the BioInitiative Reports suggested limits would result in compliance zones around base station sites that would extend several kilometers for a macro base station” is accurate and remarkably prescient.
- Did the FCC not correlate this data with those many submissions from Licensed Physicians telling them exactly that?
- Studies show that power levels currently in use are unsafe unless no residences are sited within “several kilometers” away from a “macro base station.”
Fundamentally, the FCC is asking the wrong question.
Rather than asking . . .
“How much power is it safe to radiate from a Wireless Telecommunications Facility (WTF)?”
. . the FCC should be asking . . .
“How much power is needed to get the job done?”
Lorentz Reciprocity (another principal taught to undergrad engineers) states that when transmitting data from one node to another, the transmitters may be exchanged with the receivers and the ability of the path to exchange data will remain the same. These macro base stations connect to cellphones to exchange data. The power generated by the cellphones is around 5 watts. There is nothing to be gained by the macro tower radiating at a significantly higher power level than this. Yet the FCC typically allows 200 times this power to be used by macro-cells, 23dB more signal than is necessary to get the job done.
Response to Paragraphs 11-16, 121
The FCC appears to have declared itself unqualified for regulatory oversight of long-term radiation effects and cedes that authority to the FDA (inter alia). In February 2020 the FDA produced a document “Review of Published Literature between 2008 and 2018 of Relevance to Radiofrequency Radiation and Cancer.”
Section E of that document, “Conclusions from reviewed Epidemiological Studies” says:
“The data suggest the need for shifting the focus from the general population with undetectable overall risk to a very small subset of people who might be inherently predisposed to the risk for tumorigenesis and who therefore might be more susceptible to putative risk modification by the intense RF-EMF exposure.”
This is exactly what physicians have been noting in their practice. A limited number of their patients are suffering from illness which is modulated by their proximity to sources of Electromagnetic radiation, a phenomenon termed “Electromagnetic Sensitivity.” The US Access Board has declared this a Disability, protected by the Americans with Disability Act (ADA).
- The Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) and the 1968 Civil Rights Act make it clear that FCC cannot ignore the impact of Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTFs) on individuals from this disabled class suffering with Electromagnetic Sensitivity.
- Congress never intended to dissolve the ADA, and indeed adopted ADA at section 255 into the Telecommunications Act (TCA) to make clear that it did not intend to dissolve the ADA or its protections under Civil Rights Act or the FHAA.
Therefore, legal canon requires that all three acts must be harmonized and simultaneously enforced. The scheme to do so has been expressly communicated in the comprehensive dual-regulatory scheme recognized by Supreme Court Justices Breyer, O’Connor, Souter, and Ginsburg in the U.S. Supreme Court (2005) Ruling in CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES et al. v. ABRAMS (2005) No. 03-1601
Argued: January 19, 2005 | Decided: March 22, 2005?:
Congress saw a national problem, namely an “inconsistent and, at times, conflicting patchwork” of state and local siting requirements, which threatened “the deployment” of a national wireless communication system. H. R. Rep. No. 104-204, pt. 1, p. 94 (1995).
“Congress initially considered a single national solution, namely a Federal Communications Commission wireless tower siting policy that would preempt state and local authority. Ibid.; see also H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, p. 207 (1996). But Congress ultimately rejected the national approach and substituted a system based on cooperative federalism. Id., at 207-208.
“State and local authorities would remain free to make siting decisions They would do so, however, subject to minimum federal standards — both substantive and procedural — as well as federal judicial review.”
The FCC is continually overriding and changing their CFRs, making futile the comprehensive scheme that allows simultaneous enforcement of these acts. The FCC, therefore, sets up a paradox where they cede the responsibility for long-term effects to FDA, but rather than maintaining the paradigm of current RF Microwave Radiation levels so that FDA could perform and oversee more detailed studies of the existing harmful effects, the FCC intends to increase the RF Microwave Radiation in frequencies that directly impact human health.
The FCC must exercise responsibility under cooperative federalism, or it will be held responsible for the damage to health which is resulting from its negligence and is against it’s very purpose, stated in both the 1934 Communications Act and in it’s largest amendment, the 1996 Telecommunications Act: for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property.
U.S. Code Title 47 § 151 Purposes of Federal Communications Commission.
LII –U.S. Code –Title 47. TELECOMMUNICATIONS –Chapter 5. WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION –Subchapter I. GENERAL PROVISIONS –>
Section 151. Purposes of Federal Communications Commission
For the purpose of regulating
- interstate commerce and
- foreign commerce
. . . in communication by wire and radio
. . . so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges,
- for the purpose of the national defense,
- for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property
. . . through the use of wire and radio communications,
. . . and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority heretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is created a commission to be known as the “Federal Communications Commission”, which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this chapter.
(June 19, 1934, ch. 652, title I, § 1, 48 Stat. 1064; May 20, 1937, ch. 229, § 1, 50 Stat. 189; Pub. L. 104–104, title I, § 104, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 86.)
U.S. Code Title 47 § 332 Mobile services.
LII –U.S. Code –Title 47. TELECOMMUNICATIONS –Chapter 5. WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION –Subchapter III. SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO –Part I. General Provisions –Section 332. Mobile services
(a) Factors which Commission must consider
- (1) promote the safety of life and property;
- (2) improve the efficiency of spectrum use and reduce the regulatory burden upon spectrum users, based upon sound engineering principles, user operational requirements, and marketplace demands;
- (3) encourage competition and provide services to the largest feasible number of users; or
- (4) increase interservice sharing opportunities between private mobile services and other services.
Thank you for giving consideration to these comments.
Sincerely,
/s/ Professor Trevor G. Marshall
President
Autoimmunity Research Inc. (a California Corporation)