Verizon, T-Mobile, and US Cellular lied on 4G coverage but will get away with it

Verizon, T-Mobile, and US Cellular lied on 4G coverage but will get away with it
Buried in the depths of a FCC press release, the authority has said Verizon, T-Mobile, and US Cellular exaggerated on 4G coverage maps but no punishments are being considered. As part of the Mobility Fund Phase II, telcos were given federal support for rolling out 4G services to rural and underserved areas. This cash was supposed to bridge the digital divide, and as part of the agreement, the telcos were obliged to provide accurate coverage maps to ensure the cash was being spent in the right manner.
Interestingly enough, the FCC does not currently have any plans to punish the trio, instead has created a new initiative to apply for federal funds. All three will be invited to apply for the Government hand-out. This is perhaps the latest example of a toothless watchdog, with the bureaucrats in charge in procession of the same spine as a lifeless slug.
The new fund will make $9 billion available to ensure 5G connectivity reaches the areas in the US which the telcos elect to ignore.
… which includes $1 billion which will have to be spent on delivering connectivity solutions for the agricultural industry. With an election on the horizon, this is a very intelligent move. In 2016, President Trump arguably won because he was able to mobilise communities and individuals who were feeling marginalised; in the digital world, farmers fit this description perfectly. The question which remains is whether the same telcos can be trusted to appropriately spend their allocation of the $9 billion moving forward. Seeing as the FCC is currently proving itself as toothless, there doesn’t seem to be any deterrent to behave, which is an interesting position to be in.

from https://telecoms.com/501286/verizon-t-mobile-and-us-cellular-lied-on-4g-coverage-but-will-get-away-with-it/   

Natural Resources Defense Counsel Q and A on 5G

Sharon Buccino, Natural Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC), December 6, 2019

Here's What You Need to Know

The next generation of wireless technology—5G—is dramatically different from previous versions. The 5G technology will enable more data to be carried more quickly, but in many places relies on low waves of the electromagnetic spectrum. As a result, its signal does not travel as far requiring the construction of thousands of new cells to repeat the wireless signals to make 5G work. As companies like AT&T, Verizon and Sprint construct these new small cell wireless facilities in communities across the country, citizens are organizing to ensure this infrastructure is built in a way that protects their health and quality of life. As communities face a flood of applications for this new wireless infrastructure, many want to know what laws and regulations govern 5G. Here’s some information that may help.   

Q:  Who is responsible for setting health standards for new cell towers and other wireless infrastructure?

A:  The Federal Communications Commission is responsible for setting health standards for radio frequency emissions.  As long as proposed wireless service facilities comply with the FCC’s radio frequency standards, federal law prohibits state and local governments from regulating them based on “the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions.”  47 USC § 332(c)(7)(iv).

Q:  What are the current FCC standards and are they adequate?

A:  The FCC has set limits for radio frequency emissions, with specific limits for occupational exposure and general population exposure. These limits are found in the FCC’s regulations at 47 C.F.R. § 1.1301.

Unfortunately, the FCC has not updated its guidelines since 1996. Based on 30-year-old studies, today’s FCC limits were designed to protect only against the gross effects of heat or burning of human tissue. Since then, extensive research has raised concerns about other serious health effects. The FCC initiated a review of its limits in 2013, but had not completed it until early this week. On December 4, the FCC issued an order ending its inquiry into the adequacy of its radio frequency exposure limits without changing the limits.

Q:  What can local governments do?

A:  Local governments can condition approval for new 5G cell construction upon compliance with state and federal requirements for environmental review. While a local government cannot add new requirements for environmental review, it can require proof that the necessary federal review has been done. Given the mounting evidence that the FCC’s radio frequency limits are inadequate, such federal review should include an evaluation of the adequacy of these limits.  

Q:  What are the requirements for environmental review of new wireless infrastructure?

A:  The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires an analysis of environmental impacts of major federal actions. Such actions include various types of federal approvals including for pipelines, oil and gas wells, dams and wireless infrastructure.  If the impacts may be significant, the agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. If an agency is unsure whether the impacts may be significant, it can prepare a shorter Environmental Assessment. Based on the Environmental Assessment, the agency will either move forward to prepare an EIS or instead prepare a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The only way to avoid an EA or an EIS is if the action qualifies for a categorical exclusion. While some new cell construction may qualify for a categorical exclusion (CE), the FCC has identified circumstances where a CE does not apply. For more information on the difference between an EIS and an EA, as well as information on the use and limits of categorical exclusions, see The Citizen’s Guide to the National Environmental Policy Act prepared by the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Anyone wishing to construct a facility that uses an FCC license must submit an Environmental Assessment to the FCC or certification that the facility is categorically excluded. 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307. An Environmental Assessment is required if the proposed construction:

• Will be in a wilderness area or wildlife preserve (generally on federal land);
• Might affect threatened and endangered species or their habitat (Endangered Species Act);
• Might affect properties included or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places or Indian religious and cultural sites;
• Will be in a flood plain;
• Will involve “significant changes in surface features” during construction (e.g., wetlands, water diversion, deforestation);
• Will be taller than 450 feet and so might affect migratory birds;
• Involves high intensity lighting in a residential area; or
• Would cause radio frequency emission exposure in excess of FCC-established limits.

A company seeking to build a wireless facility that falls into any of the above categories must obtain a Finding of No Significant Impact before building. “Building without following the requirements at 47 CFR 1.1301-1.1319 can constitute a violation of FCC rules and subject the constructing party to potential enforcement action,” the FCC said in its fact sheet on this topic.

Even when these conditions do not apply, the public can request and the FCC can order environmental review. 

Q:  What was the effect of NRDC’s lawsuit against the FCC regarding the siting of small cell wireless construction?

A:  In March 2018, the FCC issued an order that attempted to eliminate environmental review requirements for small cell wireless facilities. NRDC challenged this order in court along with various other groups including the 19 Indian nations, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. While some of the construction might be called “small,” it can include new cell towers.

In August 2019, the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down the FCC’s elimination of review under NEPA and the National Historic Preservation Act. No one appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, companies must comply with the environmental review requirements (listed above) that existed prior to the FCC’s order attempting to eliminate them.

As a result, companies wishing to construct new small cell wireless facilities must complete an Environmental Assessment or certify that the proposed facility is categorically excluded from review. Construction cannot proceed without such documentation. 

Q:  Where can I find out more about the environmental review requirements for new cell towers and other wireless infrastructure?

A:  The FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau develops and executes policies and procedures for fast, fair licensing of all wireless services, from fixed microwave links to amateur radio to mobile broadband services. This bureau has developed various materials explaining the environmental reviews required for various types of wireless infrastructure. 

Q:  Is NRDC monitoring the effects of 5G on human health or the environment?

A:  No. NRDC’s work is focused on protecting the right of each of us to have a say in government decisions that affect our lives and communities. We are not monitoring the effects of 5G on human health or the environment. Instead, we are working to hold the FCC accountable to its obligations under NEPA to ensure that the environmental effects of the activities it licenses are adequately evaluated and addressed.

Q:  What groups are working on the health impacts of 5G?

A:  Numerous citizen groups have organized across the country to address the impacts of 5G deployment. These groups include:  Napa/Sonoma Neighborhood Association - CA; Our Town, Our Choice - San Francisco, CA; Stop 5G Bellingham - Bellingham, WA; Stop 5G Chicago - Chicago, IL; Safe Tech Forward - Detroit, MI; Pima County 5G Awareness Coalition - Tucson, AZ;  Stop 5G Charlotte - Charlotte, NC;  5G Colorado Action - Denver, CO; ElectromagneticHealth.org - Boulder, CO. More than 100 groups aligned behind a set of principles regarding the implementation of new communications technologies have created a voluntary association, Americans for Responsible Technology.

The Environmental Health Trust collects information and helps bring this information to the attention of federal, state and local decision-makers. EHT carries out research, as well as providing policy and public educational materials.

Physicians for Safe Technology is another useful source of information.

Q:  What can concerned citizens do?

A:  Two immediate options are available to citizens concerned about the health and other environmental impacts of proposed new wireless infrastructure in their communities.

• First, citizens can contact the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and ask for the status of a company’s environmental compliance. Put your request in writing. Provide information about the specific proposals being considered in your community including the name of the company planning new construction. Ask if the company has provided the FCC with an Environmental Assessment for the proposed construction or certification that the construction qualifies for a categorical exclusion under NEPA.  Explain your concerns about the adequacy of the existing FCC’s radio frequency guidelines.

• Second, submit comments to the FCC regarding the adequacy of its existing radio frequency guidelines. The FCC maintains an electronic system for accepting comments here. When commenting, make sure to include the number of the proceeding (13-84).  Comments submitted to the FCC can be viewed here. Just this week, the FCC issued an order affirming the adequacy of its guidelines. Following publication in the Federal Register, the public will have 30 days to comment on this action.

Resources

For more information regarding what local governments can and cannot do related to construction of new small cell wireless infrastructure:

Grant Wilson, Policy Report – Small  Cell Facilities in Boulder, CO:  Planning Ahead for an Evolving Legal Regime (June 4, 2019).  This analysis includes examples of what various local governments have done to regulate small cell wireless facilities.

For a collection of research and articles related to Electromagnetic Radiation Safety:

Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Electromagnetic Radiation Safety. 

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/sharon-buccino/5g-coming-your-neighborhood  

===

5G and the FCC: 10 Reasons Why You Should Care

Sharon Buccino, September 8, 2019 (updated August 9, 2019)

As an environmental lawyer for over 25 years now, I have become intimately familiar with the workings of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Interior. I didn’t have occasion to watch what was happening across town at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Now I do. Here are ten reasons why you might want to also.

1. Created in 1934, the FCC regulates all interstate communications—both wired and wireless—as well as international communications originating or terminating in the United States. In the words of the Telecommunications Act of 1934, the FCC was established to provide “to all the people of the United States, without discrimination . . . a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and world-wide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges.”  47 U.S.C. § 151.  The law requires the FCC to serve the public interest. 

2. Wireless communication touches every aspect of life. Smart phones are used by billions of people across the globe. As volume of data increases and delay decreases, wireless service is expanding beyond person-to-person communication. The possibility of the “Internet of Things” combined with Artificial Intelligence will impact every aspect of human life including transportation, education and health care.

3. The next generation of wireless technology—5G—is dramatically different from previous versions. Telecommunication is possible through use of the electromagnetic spectrum.  5G will enable more data to be carried more quickly, but its signal does not travel as far so a denser network of cells and other facilities is needed to deploy it.

Electromagnetic Spectrum - Source: General Accountability Office

5G promises to deliver dramatically more information at faster speeds enabling activities like driverless cars and remote surgery.  The new technologies require the signal to be repeated more often – prompting companies such as AT&T, Verizon and Sprint to construct new towers and other infrastructure in communities across the country.  Unfortunately, many parts of the country still do not have access to basic broadband services.

4. Five Commissioners sit on the FCC. The current Chairman Ajit Pai is pursuing an aggressive deregulatory agenda. He is joined by four other Commissioners—Michael O’Reilly, Brendan Carr, Jessica Rosenworcel and Geoffrey Starks. The positions each takes on issues ranging from net neutrality to health standards will shape the development and impacts of wireless technology.

5. In December 2017, the FCC eliminated “net neutrality” rules for broadband. These rules prohibit websites from blocking or throttling traffic, or from selling off “lanes” of traffic that will advantage some content players and disadvantage others. Over 50 parties including 22 states and the District of Columbia have opposed rescission of the rules in court. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held oral argument in the case on February 1, 2019. 

6. In March 2018, the FCC eliminated environmental and historical review for siting certain cell towers and other wireless facilities (FCC Order 18-30). Despite the license needed to provide wireless services, the FCC determined that there was no federal role in the construction of facilities needed to provide these services. In addition to NRDC, 19 tribes have challenged the FCC’s action along with the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers and the National Trust for Historic Preservation.  On August 9, 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the FCC's action finding that the Commission's attempted explanations for eliminating environmental and historical review "did not meet the standard of reasoned decision-making."  The court's decision and briefs from the case can be found here.  (18-1135)

7. In Order 18-30, the FCC restricted fees tribes charge Sprint and other telecom companies for reviewing the impacts on historic and cultural resources.

8. In September 2018, the FCC restricted fees cities charge Sprint and other telecom companies for siting towers and other wireless infrastructure in their communities. (FCC Order 18-133).  Several lawsuits challenging the FCC’s action have been consolidated before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  (Case No. 19-70146)  Opening briefs were filed on June 10, 2019.  Final briefs are scheduled to be filed by September 18.

9. In addition to restricting fees that cities can charge for building new wireless networks, Order 18-133 limited the time allowed for review of the proposed construction. The FCC imposed a so-called “shot clock” on cities and towns. If the local government has not acted within as few as 60 days on a construction permit, the project is deemed approved.

10. While the FCC has limited the review by others, the Commission at the same time has refused to update its own health and environmental guidelines. The Commission’s guidelines date from the 1990's. In 2012, the General Accountability Office found that the existing guidelines may not reflect current knowledge and recommended that the FCC formally reassess its guidelines. The FCC’s guidelines address only one aspect of potential harm from electromagnetic radiation—heat. The current guidelines do not address other ways in which exposure to increasing electromagnetic radiation from wireless communications can harm human health, as well as the natural systems around us on which all life depends. 

The U.S. National Toxicology Program conducted rodent studies to help clarify the potential health hazards of radio frequency radiation (RFR). According to my NRDC colleague, Dr. Jennifer Sass, the results (which have been subjected to expert peer review and public comment) show that long-term high exposures to RFR used by 2G and 3G cell phones are associated with an elevated risk of cancer, particularly in heart and brain cells (NTP 2018). This is consistent with the previous hazard assessment of the World Health Organization’s cancer experts, which concluded that there was a possible link (Group 2B) to brain cancer in people with RFR exposures (IARC 2011). Both government agencies warn that the public should take pragmatic steps to reduce exposures (IARC Director, May 2011; NTP Fact Sheet, Nov 2018).

Montgomery County, Maryland has sued the FCC for failing to update its health and environmental guidelines.  This case is consolidated in the Ninth Circuit with other challenges to Order 18-133 as discussed above.  (19-70146)

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/sharon-buccino/5g-and-fcc-10-reasons-why-you-should-care

--

Recommendations for a Protective Small Cell Ordinance

These recommendations for the Berkeley Cit Council SHOUL ALSO be for Montgomery County!

Recommendations for Berkeley Telecom Policy, Administrative Guidelines, and Ordinances

Cities known to have adopted each point are noted in parentheses. Ordinances are hyperlinked.

• 1. FCC CLAUSE: Include a clause voiding relevant sections of the ordinance, or requiring modification, in the event of a regulatory change or overturning of the FCC Order. (San Diego County, and see report by Next Century Cities)  
• Laws, permits, and re-certifications need to be CONDITIONAL, so that they may be revoked or modified if out of compliance or if/when federal law is modified. (Fairfax, Sonoma City)                    
• Also include a SEVERABILITY clause.

• 2. PERMITS  
• 2.a. Conditional Use Permits: Maintain that each wireless facility requires a Conditional Use Permit (Planning Dept, ZAB, or Public Works) followed by an encroachment permit which is reopened every 3 years (Sonoma City)
• 2.b. Significant Gap in coverage: Require that a significant gap in coverage be proven by applicant before approval of a wireless antenna and confirmed by an independent engineer.* (Calabasas, Old Palos Verdes)
• Least Intrusive Methods:  Require the least intrusive methods to fill any gaps for small cells and other wireless facilities.  A justification study which includes the rationale for selecting the proposed use; a detailed explanation of the coverage gap that the proposed use would serve; and how the proposed use is the least intrusive means for the applicant to provide service. Said study shall include all existing structures and/or alternative sites evaluated for potential installation of the proposed facility and why said alternatives are not a viable option. (Old Palos Verdes) An independent* engineer shall confirm, or not.
• 2.c. Radio-frequency Data Report: Require a thorough radio-frequency (RF) data report as part of the permit submittal for consultants. For all applications, require both an RF Compliance Report signed by a registered, independent professional engineer, and a supporting RF Data Request Form. (Calabasas, Palos Verdes, Suisin City, Sonoma City)  The independent* engineer will be hired by the City of Berkeley and billed to the applicant.
• 2.d. Mock-up, Construction Drawings, Site Survey, Photo Simulations: Require full-size mock-up of proposed Small Cell Facilities (SCF) and other pertinent information in order to adequately consider potential impacts. (Larkspur, Calabasas, Palos Verdes.  Also see Boulder, CO Report)
• Require Balloon Tests. (Town of Hempstead NY 2013)
• 2.e. Public notification: Telecom related Planning Commission, Public Works, and Zoning Adjustment Board hearings shall be publicized in the most widely read local newspapers and local online news sources* and on the City website no less than 30 days prior to the hearing or meeting.  No less than 30 days prior, a U.S. 1st class mail shall be sent to all addresses within 3,000 feet of the proposed facilities.  The outside of the envelope shall be printed with “Urgent Notice of Public Hearing.”  Due to the “shot clock”, City requires applicants to hold a publicly noticed meeting two weeks prior to submitting an application within the affected neighborhood.  Applicants mail all affected residents and businesses date, time, and location of hearings at least two weeks prior.  The applicant pays associated costs including mailings and meeting location rent.
• Community Meeting:  Applicant is required to [publicize in local newspapers and local online news sources* and] hold a community meeting at least two weeks prior to the hearing on the use permit. (San Anselmo, Palos Verdes)  Applicants shall mail all affected residents and businesses date, time, and location of hearings at least two weeks prior, 1st class etc. [as in 2.e].
• 2.f. Notification:  Notify property owners, residents, tenants, business owners, and workers within 3000 feet of a proposed wireless installation within one week of application submittal and again within one week of permit approval. 1st class etc. [as in 2.e].
• 2.g. Independent Expert* The City shall retain an independent, qualified consultant to review any application for a permit for a wireless telecommunications facility. The review is intended to be a review of technical aspects of the proposed wireless telecommunications facility and shall address any or all of the following: xxxx (Old Palos Verdes)  Paid by applicant (San Anselmo)  
• 2.h. Trees: No facility shall be permitted to be installed in the drip line of any tree in the right-of-way.  (Old Palos Verdes, 15’ in Los Altos)  (See Berkeley’s Heritage Tree ordinance.)
• 2.i. Transfer of Permit: The permittee shall not transfer the permit to any person prior to the completion of the construction of the facility covered by the permit, unless and until the transferee of the permit has submitted the security instrument required by section 12.18.080(B)(5). (Palos Verdes)
• 2.j. General Liability Insurance: To protect the City, the permittee shall obtain, pay for and maintain, in full force and effect until the facility approved by the permit is removed in its entirety from the public right-of-way, an insurance policy or policies of commercial general liability insurance, with minimum limits of two million dollars for each occurrence and four million dollars in the aggregate, that fully protects the City from claims and suits for bodily injury and property damage. The insurance must name the City and its elected and appointed council members, boards, commissions, officers, officials, agents, consultants, employees and volunteers as additional named insureds, be issued by an insurer admitted in the State of California with a rating of at least a A:VII in the latest edition of A.M. Best’s Insurance Guide, and include an endorsement providing that the policies cannot be canceled or reduced except with 30 days prior written notice to the city, except for cancellation due to nonpayment of premium…. (Old Palos Verdes, Fairfax, Newark.  San Anselmo has an indemnification clause.)
• 2.k. Attorneys’ Fees: The Permittee is required to pay any/all costs of legal action.  (Suisin City)
• 2.l. Speculative Equipment: Pre-approving wireless equipment or other alleged improvements that the applicant does not presently intend to install, but may wish to install at an undetermined future time, does not serve the public interest. The City shall not pre-approve telecom equipment or wireless facilities. (Fairfax, Old Palos Verdes, Sebastopol) 
• 2.m. Citizens may appeal decisions made. (San Anselmo)

• 3. ACCESS Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): All facilities shall be in compliance with the ADA. (New Palos Verdes, Fairfax, Sebastopol, Mill Valley, Sonoma City, Suisin City) Electromagnetic Sensitivity (EMS) is a disabling characteristic, recognized by the Federal Access Board since 2002. The main treatment for this condition is avoidance of exposure to wireless radiation. Under the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, people who suffer from exposure to Electromagnetic Fields (EMF) are part of a protected disabled class under Title 42 U.S. Code § 12101 et seq. (Heed Berkeley’s pioneering disability rights laws and Berkeley’s Precautionary Principle ordinance NO. 6,911-N.S "to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community.")

• 4. SETBACKS:
• 4.a. Prohibited Zones for Small Cells: Prohibits small cell telecommunication facilities in residential zones and multi-family zoning districts (Calabasas, Mill Valley, Los Altos, Sonoma City) 
• 4.b. Preferred or Disfavored Locations: In addition to residential areas, designate areas where cell towers are disfavored and not permitted, i.e. near schools, residential areas, city buildings, sensitive habitats, on ridge lines, public parks, Historic Overlay Districts,  in open spaces or where they are favored i.e. commercial zoning areas, industrial zoning areas. (Calabasas, Sebastopol, Boulder Report)
• 4.c. Disfavored Location: Small cell installations are not permitted in close proximity to residences, particularly near sleeping and living areas. Viable and defendable setbacks will vary based on zoning. (ART ordinance)  1500 foot minimum setback from residences that are not in residential districts!
• 4.d. 1500 Foot Setback from other small cell installations:  Locate small cell installations no less than 1500 feet away from the Permittee’s or any Lessee’s nearest other small cell installation.  (Calabasas, Petaluma, Fairfax, Mill Valley,  Suisin City, Palos Verdes, Sebastopol San Ramon, Sonoma City,-Boulder Report)
• 4.e. 1500 Foot Minimum Setback from any educational facility, child/elder/healthcare facility, or park. (ART Ordinance)  The California Supreme Court ruled on April 4, 2019 that San Francisco may regulate based on "negative health consequences, or safety concerns that may come from telecommunication deployment.” (Sebastopol forbids potential threat to public health, migratory birds, or endangered species, also in combination with other facilities.  Refer to Berkeley’s Precautionary Principle Ordinance)
• 4.f. 500 Foot Minimum Setback from any business/workplace (Petaluma, Suisin City)

• 5. LOCATON PREFERENCE:
• 5.a. Order of preference: The order of preference for the location of small cell installations in the City, from most preferred to least preferred, is: (1) Industrial zone (2) Commercial zone (3) Mixed commercial and residential zone (4) Residential zone (ART Ordinance, New Palos Verdes) [Residential zone ban]
• 5.b. Fall Zone: The proposed small cell installation shall have an adequate fall zone to minimize the possibility of damage or injury resulting from pole collapse or failure, ice fall or debris fall, and to avoid or minimize all other impacts upon adjoining property
• 5.c. Private Property: If a facility (such as a street light pole, street signal pole, utility pole, utility cabinet, vault, or cable conduit) will be located on or in the property of someone other than the owner of the facility, the applicant shall provide a duly executed and notarized authorization from the property owner(s) authorizing the placement of the facility on or in the property owner’s property. (Palos Verdes) [Many Berkeleyans do not want wireless antennas allowed on private property.  If a permit is considered for private property, not just the property owners but all those who spend time or own/rent property within 1500 feet must be notified immediately of how they may weigh in, and be informed of the decision immediately with possibility of appeal if a permit is granted.]
• 5.d. Endangerment, interference: No person shall install, use or maintain any facility which in whole or in part rests upon, in or over any public right-of-way, when such installation, use or maintenance endangers or is reasonably likely to endanger the safety of persons or property, or when such site or location is used for public utility purposes, public transportation purposes or other governmental use, or when such facility unreasonably interferes with or unreasonably impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic including any legally parked or stopped vehicle, the ingress into or egress from any residence or place of business, the use of poles, posts, traffic signs or signals, hydrants, mailboxes, permitted sidewalk dining, permitted street furniture or other objects permitted at or near said location.

• 6. TESTING:
• 6.a. Random Testing for RF Compliance: The City shall employ a qualified, independent * RF engineer to conduct an annual random and unannounced test of the Permittee’s small cell and other wireless installations located within the City to certify their compliance with all Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF emission limits. The reasonable cost of such tests shall be paid by the Permittee. (Fairfax, (ART, Old Berkeley.  Suisin City requires annual inspections and testing.)
• 6.b. RF/EMF Testing: Berkeley’s current law states that the City Manager “may” require independent testing of telecom equipment.  Change “may” to “shall” and delete the word “Manager” so that, if s/he does not find time to hire an independent expert, other City staff or a Council Committee may do so.  The law needs to require independent testing of all equipment, unannounced in advance, twice annually, with permittees required to reimburse the City for costs and to pay a deposit in advance.  Dates, addresses, and results of testing shall be posted on the City website and published in local media. **  [Montgomery County Maryland studied RF radiation levels from small cells and found that FCC exposure  levels were exceeded within 11 feet.]
• 6.c. Violation of Compliance Notification: In the event that such independent tests reveal that any small cell installation(s) owned or operated by Permittee or its Lessees, singularly or in the aggregate, is emitting RF radiation in excess of FCC exposure standards as they pertain to the general public, the City shall notify the Permittee and all residents living within 1500 feet of the installation(s) of the violation(s), and the Permittee shall have 48 hours to bring the installation(s) into compliance. Failure to bring the installation(s) into compliance shall result in the forfeiture of all or part of the Compliance Bond, and the City shall have the right to require the removal of such installation(s), as the City in its sole discretion may determine is in the public interest. (ART)
• 6.d. Non-acceptance of Applications: Where such annual recertification has not been properly or timely submitted, or equipment no longer in use has not been removed within the required 30-day period, no further applications for wireless installations will be accepted by the City until such time as the annual re-certification has been submitted and all fees and fines paid. (ART)

• 7. RIGHT TO KNOW: The City shall inform the affected public via website, local news publications **, and US 1st class mail (with topic prominently announced in red on outside of envelope) of Master Licensing Agreement between the City and telecom, Design Standards for Small Cells or other wireless equipment, other telecom agreements, and notification within 2 business days of receiving permit applications, calendaring related hearings/meetings, and approving permits.  Notice shall include location and date of expected installations, description of appeals process, and dates of installations.  A map featuring all telecom equipment shall be on the City website and available to residents who request it at 2180 Milvia St.  Applicants/Permittees, who are profiting from using Berkeley’s public right of way, will reimburse City for the reasonable cost of mailings, Town Halls, and staff to handle telecom applications, public notification, inspections, recertifications, etc.

• 8. RECERTIFICATION: 
• 8.a. Annual Recertification: Each year, commencing on the first anniversary of the issuance of the permit, the Permittee shall submit to the City an affidavit which shall list all active small cell wireless installations it owns within the City by location, certifying that (1) each active small cell installation is covered by liability insurance in the amount of $2,000,000 per installation, naming the City as additional insured; and (2) each active installation has been inspected for safety and found to be in sound working condition and in compliance with all federal safety regulations concerning RF exposure limits. (ART)  Any installation that is out of compliance will be promptly removed; the permit for that installation will be terminated, with all associated expenses paid by the applicant.
• 8.b. Recertification Fees: Recertification fees will be calculated each year by the City.  They will be based on the anticipated costs of City for meeting the compliance requirements put in place by this ordinance. The total costs will be divided by the number of permits and assigned to the permit-holders as part of the re-certification process
• 8.c. Noise Restrictions (Sonoma City): Each wireless telecommunications facility shall be operated in such a manner so as not to cause any disruption to the community's peaceful enjoyment of the city.
• Non-polluting backup generators shall only be operated during periods of power outages, and shall not be tested on weekends, holidays, or between the hours of 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m.
• At no time shall any facility be permitted to exceed 45 DBA and the noise levels specified in Municipal Code XXX.  (Los Altos)
• 8.d. Noise Complaints: If a nearby property owner registers a noise complaint, the City shall forward the same to the permittee. Said complaint shall be reviewed and evaluated by the applicant. The permittee shall have 10 business days to file a written response regarding the complaint which shall include any applicable remedial measures. If the City determines the complaint is valid and the applicant has not taken steps to minimize the noise, the City may hire a consultant to study, examine and evaluate the noise complaint and the permittee shall pay the fee. The matter shall be reviewed by City staff. If sound proofing or other sound attenuation measures are required to bring the project into compliance with the Code, the City may impose conditions on the project to achieve said objective.  (Old Palos Verdes, Calabasas)  

• 9.a. AESTHETICS and UNDERGROUNDING:  At every site where transmitting antennas are to be placed, all ancillary equipment shall be placed in an underground vault beneath the street constructed by the Permittee. (Calabasas, Mill Valley, Petaluma) The vault shall include battery power sufficient to provide a minimum of 72 hours of electricity to the ancillary equipment. ***
• Permittee is responsible for placing on the pole two signs, with design approved by City, each in the opposite direction, to inform people walking on the sidewalk, what is installed on the pole.  Should a sign be damaged, Permittee shall replace it within 5 business days. (Town of Hempstead NY required a 4 foot warning sign on each pole.)
• 9.b. Aesthetic Requirements: According to the Baller Stokes & Lide law firm, some of the aesthetic considerations that local governments may consider include:
• Size of antennas, equipment boxes, and cabling;
• Painting of attachments to match mounting structures;
• Consistency with the character of historic neighborhoods;
• Aesthetic standards for residential neighborhoods, including “any minimum setback from dwellings, parks, or playgrounds and minimum setback from dwellings, parks, or playgrounds; maximum structure heights; or limitations on the use of small, decorative structures as mounting locations.” (Boulder Report)

* “Independent” means:  The RF engineering company has never provided services to a telecom corporation, and the company’s employee who tests exposure levels has also never provided services to a telecom corporation. 

** Right to Know - Publish on City website, in online local news: Berkeley Daily Planet, Berkeleyside, and local newspapers: Berkeley Voice, Berkeley Times (2019.  Update as needed)

*** Undergrounding - A single shielded multi-wire cable from the underground chamber shall be used to transmit radiation to the antennae for the purpose of transmitting data.  If the pole is of hollow metal, the cable shall be inside the pole; if the pole is solid wood, the cable can be attached to the pole.  Installation shall include its own analogue electricity meter and Permittee shall pay the electrical utility a monthly charge for the amount of electricity used.

      Except during construction, or essential maintenance, automobiles and trucks, of an allowed weight, shall be allowed to park at the site of the underground vault.  If maintenance is required within the underground vault the Permittees shall place a notice on the parked car or truck, to be moved within 24 hours.  If no vehicle is parked on top of the underground vault the Permitted shall place a No Parking sign for up to 24 hours.

Various cities' wireless facilities ordinances are hyperlinked in the electronic version of the Recommendations.  

Scroll down ~20 pages to find some of them: 

https://mdsafetech.org/cell-tower-and-city-ordinances/