MAP No. 8 – PRC No. 26 – GO 95, Rule 94 A. Proposal No....

B-53 SF/1099010v4 10/6/03

MAP No. 8 – PRC No. 26 – GO 95, Rule 94

A. Proposal No. 1 Supported by William Adams, Verizon, SBC, Frontier, PG&E, SCE, CPSD, SDG&E, IBEW 1245 and TID

Rationale

At this time, G.O 95 construction standards do not completely address how present and future installations of Telecommunication and Supply antennas (wireless antennas) on jointly used poles shall be constructed in the state of California. This proposed rule will set forth the requirements for the attaching of wireless antennas to poles and towers in the General Orders 95 for Overhead Construction. The proposed new rule recognizes the construction issues related to wireless antennas as a new technology in wireless communication and the necessity for its safe application on jointly used poles and towers. Because of wireless antenna technology and its use of radio frequency (RF) to transmit its signal, wireless antennas do not squarely fit into any class of circuitry categorized in the General Order 95. Therefore, there is a need to develop a statewide requirement to provide uniformity for construction of wireless antennas on poles and towers. With the input and technical guidance provided by the Consumer Protection and Safety Division of the California Public Utilities Commission, Sprint PCS, Verizon Wireless, SBC, Verizon California Incorporated, California Cable Television Association, Pacific Gas & Electric, Southern California Edison, IBEW 1245, and San Diego Gas & Electric, this proposed rule will fill the void and establish uniform construction standards in GO 95 that address the issues of worker safety and system reliability. All the parties involved in crafting this rule recognized the need to create a rule that would allow any joint user to access their facility in a safe manner at any time throughout the State. Years ago, the communication industry and power industry established appropriate separation requirements between their facilities for the safety of communication workers. Communication facilities have always attached their equipment below power facilities so that communication workers would not be exposed to the potential hazard of electrical equipment and to comply with OHSA work Rules for supply and communication workers, thus allowing communication workers safe access to their communication facilities. It is clearly evident that there are serious safety hazards associated with uncontrolled exposure to RF signals that requires the exercise of safety precautions when working in proximity to equipment that emits RF signals, as discussed in the Federal Communication Commission, (Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Bulletin 65 of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio frequency Electromagnetic Fields) and OHSA.

B-54 SF/1099010v4 10/6/03

Recognizing how safe exposure levels (the safety risk is determined by exposure time) are determined for trained wireless antenna workers and the fact that since 1990, wireless antennas are now being installed on jointly used poles where Supply, Telecom, and CATV workers perform their duties, it is incumbent upon joint pole users to establish a separation distance between wireless antenna facilities and other joint pole facilities to promote worker safety and prevent harmful exposure to RF signals. Furthermore, when trained personnel work near or in proximity to wireless antenna equipment, the cell site should be shut down. The ability to do so should be extended to all joint users of a facility where a cell site exists if they determine that worker safety may be compromised. The CPUC’s ROW decision (D.98-10-058) acknowledges the need for safety requirements and relegates the decision-making to the incumbent utilities for establishing for safety standards for wireless attachment. The current OIR-R.01-10-001 for General Order 95 Rules is the process that the incumbent utilities have chosen to establish construction standards for wireless antenna attachments that meet the safety and reliability objectives of GO 95. It should be noted that nothing herein this proposed rule shall be construed as requiring utilities to use poles jointly, or as granting authority for the use of any poles without the owner’s consent, or restricting the use of poles jointly. In addition utilities may still develop their own standard for installing wireless antennas on poles which they maintain sole ownership. This rule, however, establishes the minimum construction requirements for wireless antennas on joint poles. The addition of this rule in GO 95 recognizes the different technological and safety issues of wireless antennas and will continue to promote safety of electrical and communication

B-55 SF/1099010v4 10/6/03

Proposed New Rule

GO 95 Rule 94 - ANTENNAS 94 ANTENNAS Antennas attached to poles supporting Class T, C, L and H Circuits shall be constructed according to the rules herein. The construction and clearance requirements for Class C circuits shall be applied to antennas and their associated hardware, unless otherwise specified in this rule.

Note: For the purpose of this rule “Antennas” are defined as devices commercially licensed by the FCC to emit or receive radio frequency signals through the air. Antennas that are not commercially licensed and are typically installed for the operation of supply systems (i.e. Scada System, Remote Switching or Monitoring Systems), are not subject to the requirements of this rule and need only meet the requirements of Rule 54.4 G. Rules 94.4 and 94.5 shall also apply to poles, towers and other structures supporting supply voltages above 50 KV

94.1 Disconnect Switch

Communication Wireless antennas installed on Jointly Used Poles shall be equipped with a disconnect switch that is accessible to and may be operated by any authorized user of the pole. This switch will de-energize all sources of power, including battery backup and RF emission. Except during emergency situations, the operation of this disconnect shall be by mutual agreement if practicable.

94.2 Climbing Space

Antennas must meet the requirements of Rules 54.7 and 84.7. 94.3 Clearances

A. A “Cylinder of Proximity for Radio Frequency” (Cylinder) measured 4 ft. radially from the surface of the pole in all directions, and extending vertically from 8 ft. above the ground line to 6 ft above the highest conductor, cable or messenger shall be established on poles supporting any communication or supply conductors and antennas. Antennas shall be constructed with sufficient clearances so that the Radio Frequency (RF) exposure within of the Cylinder shall not exceed F.C.C. General Population/Uncontrolled MPE limits for the antenna’s operating frequency. (See figures 94 -1,2, & 3)

B-56 SF/1099010v4 10/6/03

1. The limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure shall be applied to Communication and Supply workers not qualified to perform work associated with antenna installation or maintenance.

2. The limits for Occupational / Controlled Exposure shall be applied to all workers qualified to perform work associated with antenna installation or maintenance.

Note: General Population/Uncontrolled and Occupational / Controlled Exposure limits are defined by the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Bulletin 65 of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio frequency Electromagnetic Fields. The Office of Engineering and Technology OET Bulletin 65 of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Evaluating Compliance with the FCC Guideline for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields also defines Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE).

B. Antennas constructed below the top of the pole shall utilize an appropriate crossarm. (See Rule 49.2.) All clearances listed below shall begin at a distance of 1 ft. radially from the antenna, or, at a distance equal to 100 percent of the MPE level for General Population / Controlled environment, whichever is greater.

1. Vertical clearance from supply conductors 0 – 50kV: 6 ft.

2. Vertical clearance from communication facilities attached to the pole: 3 ft.

3. Vertical clearance from communication facilities attached to crossarms: 4 ft.

4. Clearances from communication facilities may be reduced to: 1ft., provided

a. The communication facilities maintain clearances in accordance to the current MPE limits for Occupational / Controlled exposure, and

b. The communication facilities are installed and maintained by persons meeting the requirements of Rule 94.3-A, and c. By mutual agreement among the affected parties.

5. Radial clearance from all guys and associated guy hardware, and adjacent streetlight or signal standards from an antenna attached to the face at the top of poles: 5 ft.

6. Radial clearance from streetlights and luminaires attached to the same pole: 5 ft.

7. Radial clearance from service drops (attached or unattached): 4 ft

B-57 SF/1099010v4 10/6/03

C. Antennas attached to or supported by a communication facility (cable or messenger) shall maintain a vertical separation from other communication cables of not less than 6 inches and shall maintain a radial clearance of 6 ft. from unrelated splices and terminals. 94.4 Approach Distances Workers meeting only the qualifications specified in 94.3-A (1) shall not encroach upon the posted approach distances, however, this restriction does not apply when the antenna’s transmission capability has been terminated.

94.5 Notice Signs A. Poles or arms supporting antennas shall be marked with “Notice Signs” (Signs). The word

“NOTICE” shall appear in bold white capital letters on a blue background. Additionally, the words, “MAINTAIN A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF (*) FT. FROM THIS ANTENNA” shall appear in bold black letters on a white background. The lettering shall be no less than ¾ in. in height.

Note: (*) is the greater of the distance where 100 % of the MPE is not exceeded or a min. of 1 ft, or whichever is greater.

B. Signs shall state both Uncontrolled/General Population and Occupational/Controlled exposure

distances. C. Signs shall be of weather and corrosion resisting material. The dimension of the signs shall not be

less than 3 ¾ inches in height and 14 inches in length. D. Signs shall be placed the face and back of each arm supporting antennas at least 1ft. from the

respective antenna. Signs are not required on the inside faces of double arms. E For antennas mounted to the face and at the top of poles, two signs meeting the requirements of

94.5–A, B and C shall be placed on two sides of the pole, 2 ft. above the highest conductors, cables, messengers or guys and must be visible to utility workers accessing the pole.

94.6 Transitions

Grounds and cables connected to antennas and their associated equipment which transition vertically through supply circuits shall be covered throughout their length by suitable protective covering. (See Rules 22.2A and 84.6-D). All related non-dielectric equipment, and lines, shall be grounded, isolated, or insulated.

B-58 SF/1099010v4 10/6/03

B-59 SF/1099010v4 10/6/03

TOP VIEW

FRONT VIEW

RF EXPOSURE WITHIN THE CYLINDER OF PROXIMITY SHALL NOT EXCEED F.C.C. GENERAL POPULATION/UNCONTROLLED MPE LIMITS FOR THE ANTENNA'S OPERATING FREQUENCY.

DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAS SHALLFACE AWAY FROM THEWORKING AND CLIMBINGSPACES OF COMMUNICATIONSOR SUPPLY WORKERS.

B-60 SF/1099010v4 10/6/03

TOP VIEW

FRONT VIEW

DIRECTIONAL ANTENNAS SHALLFACE AWAY FROM THE

WORKING AND CLIMBINGSPACES OF COMMUNICATIONS

OR SUPPLY WORKERS.

OMNIOR

DIRECTIONAL

B-61 SF/1099010v4 10/6/03

Proposed Associated Rule

GO 95 Rule 20.0 Antennas 20.0 Antenna means a device for emitting or receiving radio frequency signals.

B-62 SF/1099010v4 10/6/03


B. Proposal No. 2 Supported by CCTA

Rationale

This alternate advocates rejection of Section 94.1 from the proposed new rule. That Section would require commercial wireless antennas installed on Jointly Used Poles be equipped with a disconnect switch that is accessible to any authorized user of the pole. This switch would de-energize all sources of power, including battery backup and RF emission. Operation of the switch would be by mutual agreement if practicable.

This alternate also expresses a general aversion to the entire proposed antenna rule. Antenna placement and the related safety considerations raise novel technical, policy, and competitive issues. Before the CPUC imposes a dramatically new rule upon industries who use (or plan to use) antennas placed on jointly used poles, the Commission must first more fully assess the costs, benefits and the ultimate need for such a rule. If the CPUC nevertheless concludes that it must adopt a rule now, then the Commission should consider the adoption of Rule 235I of the National Electric Safety Code (NESC).

Rational For Opposing “Switch Requirement”

Full control of one’s own network is essential to communications providers who are expected to provide a very high level of reliability for the safety and convenience of the public. The switch provision would impose a costly rule that compromises that control while doing nothing to enhance public safety.

Insufficient Evidence of Need

The benefits of the proposed rule are unclear. For example, the claim that a “switch” rule is necessary to protect the public appears hypothetical. No report suggests that the presence of a switch would have prevented any injury or mishap. To the contrary, workshop participants heard from an expert that in a true emergency, where health or property are immediately threatened, line workers use cutters to sever any potentially hazardous line. Absent such an emergency, there is no scenario where the antenna owner cannot be contacted to cut power to the antenna.

Moreover, the rule seems to suggest that communications company-owned antennas (including those antennas that are “receive-only”) are dangerous but supply-company owned antennas, including SCADA antennas operated by power utilities, are not. This disparate treatment favoring supply antenna owners is baseless.

Ultimately, the switch rule is for the mere operational convenience of other pole users without sufficient regard for the antenna owner’s needs and obligations. Note that Section 94.1 not only permits unfettered switch use in “emergency situations” (with no suggestion of what

B-63 SF/1099010v4 10/6/03

constitutes an “emergency”), but also would allow a supply utility to operate the disconnect switch unilaterally if it concludes that a “mutual agreement” is not “practicable.”

This “convenience” will be costly. The cost of implementing the rule would include the cost of the switch, locks, installation, permits, and additional siting requirements (some switch proponents envision that the switch will be mounted upon a separate “pedestal” and not upon the pole). Beyond those material costs, antenna owners would bear the costs resulting from inevitable failures in the power switch equipment and the inappropriate non-emergency use of the switch. Moreover, some providers – like cable television system operators who must cut power to the cable service in order to cut power to certain antennas– have franchise agreements that impose stiff penalties for service failures.

If the CPUC Concludes That An Antenna Rule Must Be Adopted Now, Then The Commission Should Adopt The NESC Antenna Rule

The NESC adopted a new Rule 235I in its 2002 Edition, covering clearances for communication antennas installed in the supply space. The NESC rule is both simple and limited to the following requirements:

1. Personnel installing or maintaining antennas (installed in the supply space) must be qualified to work in the supply space (as required for any communication facility in the supply space).

2. Application is limited to antennas operating at rf voltages not exceeding 750 volts.

3. Clearances between antenna installations and supply facilities are specified by reference to existing rules and tables.

Unlike the proposed GO 95 antenna Rule, the NESC rule also applies to antennas used in the operation of supply systems, such as the communication link in a SCADA system.

Finally, the NESC rule does not require an antenna disconnect switch. Absent a sufficient record showing that California needs the complexities contained in the proposed antenna rule, the axiom “simpler is better” should prevail.

Conclusion

The proposed antenna rule is unlike any other rule proposed in the course of the GO 95 workshops since it raises novel wireless technology related safety issues and important questions regarding the ability to control a wireline network, amid compliance with other regulations such as franchise obligations. Before the CPUC considers whether California needs the proposed antenna rule, the CPUC must first confirm that it has heard from all interested parties and has a sufficient record to make appropriate findings of facts and conclusions of law regarding the matter. Absent that, adoption of the proposed rule is not warranted.

B-64-3 SF/1099010v4 10/6/03


C. Proposal No. 3 Supported by Sprint PCS, AT&T Wireless, Verizon Wireless and Cingular Wireless

Rationale

[Rationale begins next page.]

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking to Revise Commission General Order Numbers 95 and 128

R.01-10-001

Proposed Rule Change No. 26 (Antenna Attachments)

Adding New Rule 94—Antennas

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE RULE 94 Submitted by Wireless Carriers Committee Members

AT&T WIRELESS SERVICES

CINGULAR WIRELESS

SPRINT PCS

VERIZON WIRELESS SERVICES

September 19, 2003

PRC 26: Wireless Carriers’ MAP page 1 of 9

PRC 26-WC MAP 091903.doc [19 September 2003]

I. Background

During the course of the Commission’s OIR proceeding1 addressing proposed changes to General Order 95, Proposed Rule Change No. 26 (“PRC 26”) addressing issues related to the installation and maintenance of wireless-industry antennas on supply and communication poles was offered into the record by a group of electric and communication utilities including SDG&E, SCE, PG&E, Verizon, SBC, and others (collectively the “Proponents”). After several iterations, the Proponents distributed a revised draft of PRC 26 to the OIR Committee workshop participants in San Francisco on July 30, 2003. After lively debate including the injection of views from wireless and cable industry participants, the Committee failed to reach consensus on PRC 26, and the proposed rule was thus subjected to the Multiple Alternative Proposal (“MAP”) procedure in accordance with the OIR Committees rules. This document is the MAP alternative proposal (the “Wireless AP”) submitted to the OIR Committee as of September 19, 2003, by the wireless industry carriers2 whose names appear on the cover sheet of this Wireless AP (collectively the “Wireless Carriers”).3

II. Rationale for Opposition to Proposed New Rule 94 (Antennas)

A. Existing Rules.

GO 95 does not currently contain express requirements or standards that address how antennas which are not directly related to the operation of supply systems are to be constructed and maintained on utility poles in the State of California. Nevertheless, thousands of such antennas have been installed on utility poles in California since 1990 and have been continuously operated without any known report or incident of an accident or impairment of worker safety as a result of the presence of such antennas on poles.

R.01-10-001.

2 It should be noted that, although the rules of the OIR Committee required that the Wireless Carriers and NextG Networks of California, Inc. submit two separate MAPs, the Wireless Carriers and NextG collaborated on both MAP submissions and originally proposed and wished to submit one joint MAP with alternative proposals (no rule necessary and acceptable rule).

3 Although the Proponents claim in their MAP rationale that some of the wireless carriers participated in the formulation of the Proponents’ original PRC 26, the Wireless Carriers expressly disavow any claim by the Proponents that the Wireless Carriers at any time concurred in the Proponents’ original version of PRC 26 or their current MAP for PRC 26. The Wireless Carriers participated in workshop sessions and attempted to reach some reasonable accommodation with the Proponents, but the Wireless Carriers have clearly disassociated themselves from the Proponents’ original PRC 26 and current MAP by their negative vote forcing this MAP process.



B. Proponents’ Rationale.

The Proponents of PRC 26 state as their rational for the proposed new rule that it will

i. clarify the requirements for attaching telecommunication and supply antennas to poles and towers;

ii. recognize the involvement of antennas with new technology in wireless communications and the necessity for its safe application on poles, towers, and streetlights;

iii. place appropriate language into GO 95 to bring about consistency throughout the State as to what will be required of wireless telecommunication companies and supply utilities concerning antennas and an understanding of how antennas are to be placed on supply poles in a safe manner; and

iv. take into consideration the effects of antennas and the need for safety of electrical and communication workers.

C. Wireless Carriers’ Rationale.

The Wireless Carriers agree with the Proponents that worker safety is a vital issue for all utilities that must work in the presence of antennas attached to poles; nevertheless, the Wireless Carriers believe that PRC 26 is both unnecessary and inadvisable because (i) a substantial body of federal law already exists that protects workers from RF exposure; (ii) the practical, economic, and legal burdens that would be imposed under PRC 26 are many and costly; (iii) the Proponents have failed to introduce any evidence into the record of this OIR of accidents or impairment of worker safety associated with the presence of antennas on poles; and (iv ) the benefit that would accrue from the imposition of PRC 26 would be negligible in light of the current safe operation of thousands of antennas on utility poles in the State of California.

(i) Practical Effects of Imposing PRC 26.

The practical effects of imposing PRC 26 would be to force antenna attachments 6-7 feet lower than current practice under GO 95 permits, with the result that most poles would become unusable for antenna placement purposes. This is



clearly not a permissible result under the Supreme Court’s decision in Gulf Power.4 Wireless carriers would be forced to attempt pole replacements in order to purchase additional height needed for antenna placements, and such replacements would be resisted by the incumbent utilities on the ground that such higher replacements would weaken existing pole lines and by municipalities on the ground of aesthetic impairment. Alternatively wireless carriers would be forced to construct alternate poles, which would undoubtedly create zoning problems and increased costs for wireless carriers in California. The CPUC has a clear incentive to encourage collocation of antennas on existing utility facilities as this not only eliminates the number of structures in California, but also provides these utilities with additional revenue that may be used to offset the costs of service to ratepayers.

Another important concern with the Proponents’ proposition is the switch that would allow electric/telecommunications utility workers to completely turn down a wireless site, in some cases without even providing notice to the carriers. With this ability comes the potential to create massive havoc with customers that depend and rely on wireless service. In addition, allowing electric and telecommunications workers completely to turn down a site would create a risk for wireless customers in an emergency situation and attempting to employ E911. It clearly cannot be the Commission’s intention to deny consumers the benefit of E911 services that would otherwise be available.

Burden of Proof re Safety of Antenna Attachments.

In 1998 the State of California certified to the FCC its exercise of reverse federal preemption over the rates, terms, and conditions of telecommunication carriers’ attachments to investor-owned utility infrastructure through issuance of the Public Utility Commission’s Decision 98-10-058 (the “Decision”). The rules and regulations stated in the Decision now clearly apply to wireless carriers’ attachments to utility poles in California as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Gulf Power.

In its Conclusion of Law No. 51, the PUC stated in the Decision that,

In resolving disputes over ROW access, the burden of proof shall be on the incumbent utility to justify any proposed restrictions or denials of access which it

4 National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Inc. v. Gulf Power et alii, 534 U.S. 327 (January 16, 2002) (“Gulf Power”). The decision in Gulf Power not only affirmed the FCC’s authority in this area but did so by interpreting the meaning of the definitions of § 224 itself.



claims are necessary to address valid safety or reliability concerns and to show they are not unduly discriminatory or anticompetitive.5

Because the Proponents have alleged safety and reliability as the justification for PRC 26 in their rationale, the Decision requires that the incumbent utilities bear the burden of proof with respect to their safety and reliability concerns. The Wireless Carriers submit that the Proponents have not met their burden of proof in proposing PRC 26. The Proponents have introduced no evidence into the record over the course of the proceeding to demonstrate valid safety or reliability concerns: no data, no graphs, no charts, no photographs, no reports, no summaries of injuries, no copies of Cal-OSHA accident reports—nothing. The Wireless Carriers believe that the Proponents’ mere repetition of the word safety alone without any substantiating evidence in justification of the proposed rule is not sufficient to meet the incumbents’ burden of proof under the Decision.

If climber safety is really the issue behind PRC 26, as the Proponents maintain, the Proponents must explain how it is that thousands of such antennas can have been in operation without safety incident or injury for many years in California under the existing rules of GO 95. The lack of documented safety issues demonstrates that current rules are adequate and that there is no need for additional regulation of antenna placements. As members of the Northern California Joint Pole Association and the Southern California Joint Pole Committee, the Wireless Carriers have proven that they are safe and responsible operators of their facilities and, as joint owners of the poles with the incumbent utilities, equally concerned with safety issues as the Proponents. Because of the excessive burdens, restrictions, and costs that would be imposed upon the Wireless Carriers under the Proponents’ PRC 26, the Wireless Carriers believe that the enforcement of PRC 26 would be a denial of access to incumbent utility poles for the purpose of attaching antennas; therefore, the Commission should deny the inclusion of PRC 26 in the GO 95 revisions under its own rules set forth in the Decision implementing § 224 of the Act. The Wireless Carriers are not aware of any existing safety violations under the rules of GO 95 and will work assiduously to correct any such violations that may come to light.

(ii) No Exemption for SCADA Antennas.

The proponents of PRC 26 have proposed exempting antennas used for their own purposes for the operation of supply systems (“SCADA System, Remote Switching, or Monitoring Systems”) from the application of PRC 26. In Conclusion of Law No. 7 of the Decision, the Commission stated,

5 Decision, Conclusion of Law No. 51 (p. 130).



Under the nondiscrimination principles of the Act, incumbent utilities must provide all telecommunications carriers the same type of access they would afford themselves.6

If climber safety and safe separation distances are the issues motivating the proposal of PRC 26, it makes no sense to exempt supply antennas from the same rules as would be applicable to the Wireless Carriers. The antennas are similar in design and implementation and present similar challenges for poles climbers. If the motivation for proposing PRC 26 is truly worker safety, it should not make a difference as to whether the antenna in question is an SCADA antenna or one placed on a pole by a wireless carrier.

(iii) There is Already a Substantial Body of Federal Law Governing RF Exposure.

The Federal Communications Act, as amended by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, preempts state and local governments from regulating emissions from wireless antennae facilities on the basis of direct or indirect health effects of RF emissions. Specifically, § 332 of the Communications Act, as amended, states

…[n]o State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC’s] regulations concerning such emissions.”7

In the FCC’s Report and Order released on August 1, 1996, the FCC set forth comprehensive RF exposure requirements and affirmed Congress’s mandate that precludes state action. The RF exposure limits set by the FCC are

…designed to protect the public health with a very large margin of safety. These limits have been endorsed by the federal health and safety agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.8


7 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7); see also “A Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance” (Federal Communications Commission, June 2, 2000) (the “Local Guide”), p. 2.

8 Local Guide, p.1.



The limits set by the FCC “are themselves many times below levels that are generally accepted as having the potential to cause adverse health effects.”9 The FCC has found that it is desirable and appropriate categorically to exclude from routine evaluation those transmitting facilities that offer little or no potential for exposure in excess of the specified guidelines.10 The FCC has set forth Maximum Permissible Exposure levels for occupational/controlled exposure and for general population/uncontrolled exposure.11 These classifications are defined in further detail in the federal rules.12 Occupational/controlled limits apply in those situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment, provided these persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposures. Limits for occupational/controlled exposure also apply in situations when an individual is transient through a location, provided he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology has provided further guidance on these categories.13 Specifically this Bulletin provides a section describing “Occupational/Controlled” areas. By way of example, this section concludes that “transient” visitors to the rooftop, such as air-conditioning technicians, etc., could also be considered to fall within the occupational/controlled criteria as long as they are “made aware” of their exposure and exercise control over their exposure.14 The Bulletin also provides many examples of ways in which persons can limit their exposure, such as time-averaging, shielding, use of RF-protective clothing, etc.

Using the method specified in Appendix A15 of the Local Guide, the Wireless Carriers submitted two separate studies to the OIR Committee at its workshop of April, 2003, in Santa Barbara showing that typical antenna installations analyzed by Sprint’s and Verizon Wireless’s engineering consultants were in all cases well below the FCC’s mandated MPE for “General Population Uncontrolled” exposures that might be encountered by supply and communication workers climbing

9 Local Guide, p.1.

10 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307, passim (the “Exposure Rules”).

11 47 C.F.R. 1.1310, Table 1.

12 47 C.F.R. 1.1310 Note 1 to Table 1.

13 Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, released August 1997 (“Bulletin”).

14 Bulletin, p.56.

15 “Optional Checklist for Determination of Whether a Facility of Categorically Excluded”



or working on utility poles.16 Both these studies and the NextG study showed that in no case would a worker be exposed to RF emissions above the permissible General Population Uncontrolled MPE level at one foot (1’) or greater distance from any type of antenna. The FCC characterizes its own methodology in computing MPE levels in this way:

It’s important to note that the predicted distances set forth in Appendix B are based on a very conservative, “worst case” scenario. In other words, Appendix B identifies the furthest distance from the antenna that presents even a remote realistic possibility of RF exposure that could exceed the FCC guidelines. The power levels are based on the approximate maximum number of channels that an operator is likely to operate at one site. It is further assumed that each channel operates with the maximum power permitted under the FCC’s rules and that all of these channels are “on” simultaneously, an unlikely scenario. This is a very conservative assumption. In reality, most sites operate at a fraction of the maximum permissible power, and many sites use fewer than the maximum number of channels. Therefore, actual exposure levels would be expected to be well below the predicted values. Another mitigating factor could be the presence of intervening structures, such as walls, that will reduce RF exposure by variable amounts. For all these reasons, the values given in these tables and graphs are considered to be quite conservative should over-predict actual exposure levels.17

Despite the evidence of MPE compliance submitted into the record by the Wireless Carriers, and despite the FCC’s own admission that its calculations are already in and of themselves radically conservative, “worst case,” and over-predictive, the Proponents of PRC 26 have uttered a rule under which exposure calculations start at one foot (the Wireless Carriers’ demonstrated MPE at “worst case” calibration) and then get multiplied by four hundred percent (400%) as a ‘safety cushion’ for good measure. The Proponents’ PRC 26 uses separation rules that are clearly contrary to law and based on an unfounded fear of the unknown. The Proponents’ PRC 26, in fact, does not utilize the FCC’s formulae or calculations at all, as required under § 332 of the Act to take account of categorical exclusions in appropriate circumstances, but instead elects to impose a “one size fits all” approach that results in impermissible and unlawful overkill as applied to the Wireless Carriers’ antenna installations on utility poles.

16 Both of these studies, in addition to a third engineering study commissioned by NextG Networks and showing similar results, are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

17 Local Guide, p. 12.



The Wireless Carriers propose that all parties concerned with the attachment of antennas to poles observe the “conservative” and “worst case” already imposed by the FCC and refrain from imposing additional restraints that would have the effect of denying wireless carriers the § 224 attachment rights that Congress intended and Gulf Power reaffirmed without qualification. Because the FCC has occupied the field in the case of categorically excluded antenna attachments whose RF emissions fall within MPE specifications, the PUC is precluded from additional regulation of RF emissions to the extent the Wireless Carriers meet MPE criteria.

(iv) Legal Effects of Imposing PRC 26.

The Wireless Carriers believe that the restrictions on antenna placements contained in the Proponents’ PRC 26 are contrary to the requirements of § 332 of the Act and applicable FCC regulations set forth in the Exposure Rules. In the circumstances, the California PUC, charged with the implementation of § 224 by virtue of its exercise of reverse federal preemption in the Decision and limited in its authority as to antenna placements as set forth in § 332 of the Act, lacks the legal authority to impose a rule of the scope of PRC 26. It would be a disservice to the Commission to advance such a proposed rule out of the OIR Committee, since such a rule would no doubt involve the Commission in protracted legal challenges with no demonstrated benefit resulting in increased worker safety for supply and communication workers.

(v) Economic Effects of Imposing PRC 26.

The economic costs of implementing the Proponents’ PRC 26 would be enormous and would include pole replacement in almost all cases of antenna attachments, as discussed above. Such an imposition would render the Wireless Carriers’ § 224 attachment rights virtually worthless and would constitute a denial of access. The essence of the Congressional intent behind § 224 was that utility infrastructure should be shared where possible, not endlessly replicated. Additional enormous but unknown costs would be incurred by the Wireless Carriers if they were forced to bring the thousands of existing antenna installations in California into compliance with the new proposed rule. Such costs would constitute an unfair burden on the Wireless Carriers without any demonstrated commensurate benefit in terms of increased safety for supply and communication workers.

III. Wireless Carriers’ Alternative Proposal: No Rule Change Necessary

For the reasons stated above in the Wireless Carriers’ rationale, the Wireless Carriers believe that the introduction of PRC 26 in to GO 95 is both unnecessary and



inadvisable at this time and ask the Commission to exclude any version of PRC 26 from inclusion in the revisions to GO 95 to be instituted in the current OIR proceeding. The Proponents of PRC 26 have not met their burden of proof required under the Decision with respect to their allegations of safety issues surrounding antenna attachments, and the PUC does not have the authority to impose rules regarding or based upon RF emissions and MPE, to the extent that the Wireless Carriers have demonstrated that their antennas are categorically exempt from State or local government regulation regarding “the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities” under § 332(c)(7) of the Act. The Wireless Carriers assert that the CPUC does not have the authority to impose these requirements upon wireless carriers. Participation in the workshops and this MAP procedure does not constitute a waiver of any legal challenge.

FCC Terminology• Maximum permissible exposure (MPE). The rms and peak electric and magnetic

field strength, their squares, or the plane-wave equivalent power densities associated with these fields to which a person may be exposed without harmful effect and with an acceptable safety factor. MPE limits are defined in terms of power density (units of milliwatts per centimeter squared: mW/cm2),

• General population/uncontrolled exposure. For FCC purposes, applies to human exposure to RF fields when the general public is exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public always fall under this category when exposure is not employment-related.

• Occupational/controlled exposure. For FCC purposes, applies to human exposure to RF fields when persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general population/uncontrolled limits (see definition above), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means.

FCC MPE LevelsMPE is frequency dependent and its calculation yields a specific value for the frequency of operation

Sprint PCS MPE Exposure• Occupational 5.0 mW/cm2

• General 1.0 mW/cm2

900 MHz Operator MPE Exposure• Occupational 3.0 mW/cm2


FCC MPE Levels

Sprint PCS (1930 – 1945 MHz)

SPCS MPE Exposure• Occupational 5.0 mW/cm2




900 MHz

LA54XC165 B Site Location (Omni Sector Configuration)


Measurements made at antenna RAD center at various distances from antennae.

TX/RX

Measurements made using Narda 8718 meter and 8742D probe, both of which were factory calibrated Oct 2nd 2002. April 4th 2003. 12.30-2-30pm.


Measurements made on the pole and along the cable strands


LA54XC160 B Site Location(Split Sector Configuration)



Note: ½ TX Power @ each TX antenna face. Measured MPE % values can be multiplied (2x) to describe a non-split sector configuration.

TX/RX

RX Only

RX Only TX/RX




LA54XC118 C MPE Calculation(Sector Configuration)

• Sprint PCS performs MPE Theoretical Calculations on all sites.• Results show that calculation produces conservative results as compared to measured data.

Sprint PCS FCC Signage Conformance

Spr

int P

CS

Con

stru

ctio

n C

lear

ance

Spe

cific

atio

ns

Sprint PCS Construction Clearance Specifications

Summary• Sprint PCS demonstrates that exposure limits

are significantly below FCC “general exposure” guidelines. This is true even at just 1’ from the surface of the antenna.

• Sprint PCS meets the FCC guidelines for signage posting.

• Sprint PCS provides training to its personnel to help minimize exposure potential

• Sprint PCS applies construction practices that are in accordance with current GO-95 and specific utility clearance guidelines.

1

BackgroundBackground

Verizon Wireless of Irvine, CA (VZW) retained Lawrence BehrAssociates, Inc. (LBA), to perform electromagnetic environmentalmeasurements, RF power density, at a pole mounted antenna location at 3473 Santiago Canyon Road, pole # 4327413E. This audit provides measurement assessment of the maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits for uncontrolled exposures on and around the pole.

This location represents a typical VZW installation. All VZW locations contain a translator box either mounted on the pole or in a pedestal cabinet nearby. At each pole location, either unit contains a single RF amplifier capable of a maximum output powerof 50 watts. A single RF cable runs up the pole to a RF 1:2 splitter mounted at the cross arm; the output of the splitter is connected to the antennas

2

MethodologyMethodology

•For the study, LBA considered the entire area on the pole to be a general population/uncontrolled area as defined by the FCC. An MPE limit of 0.59 milliwattsper square centimeter (mW/cm2) was used for the VZW 800Mhz cellular transmission.

•All measurements were performed using a Narda8718 RF monitor with an 8742D isometric probe. This system is considered an “industry standard” for making power density measurements. Measurements were taken as a percent of MPE for the general population/uncontrolled standard.

3

ResultsResults

On Pole and Cables: MPE limits were not exceeded.

Ground Level: MPE limits were not exceeded.

Front of Antenna, 2’ to 6’ MPE limits were not exceeded.

Front of Antenna, 0’ to 1’ MPE limits are exceeded

Measurement detail shown on Charts labeled as Map 1 and Map 2.

4

RecommendationsRecommendations

VZW installs yellow ! CAUTION ! sign on all poles installed with antennas:

“BEYOND THIS POINT, Radio frequency fields at this site may exceed FCC rules for Public Exposure.”

VZW installs blue NOTICE sign on cross arms supporting antennas:

“Maintain minimum distance of 3 feet clearance from antennas.”

5

RF Power Density Measurements,

Pole at 3473 Santiago CynRoad, Orange County, CA

March 31, 2003

6

Measurements on Pole and CablesMeasurements on Pole and Cables

7

Measurements in Front of AntennasMeasurements in Front of Antennas

8

Pole at 3473 Santiago Cyn RoadPole at 3473 Santiago Cyn Road

9

Cross Arms and AntennasCross Arms and Antennas

10

Arm, Splitter, Cables, AntennaArm, Splitter, Cables, Antenna

11

Info on LBAInfo on LBA

LBA Group, Inc.www.Lbagroup.com

E-mail: [email protected]

Lawrence Behr Associates, Inc.www.Lbagroup.com/associatesE-mail: [email protected]

Consulting engineering services for cellular, PCS, radio and television broadcasting, MMDS offering FCC frequency allocations, AM protection and detuning, EMI shielding, propagation studies, site acquisition, zoning, and RF Compliance. Worldwide services. E-mail: Win Donat, PresidentMike Britner, Sales or call directly at 252.317.2121 Chuck Martin, Site Services or call directly at 252.317.2131

http://www.lbagroup.com/

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.lbagroup.com/associates/index.php








12

Common Question 1Common Question 1

What federal regulations do wireless providers have to meet whensiting an antenna?All wireless base stations must meet the science-based RF emission guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), whichestablish conservative exposure limits to ensure that the health of all citizens is protected. The guidelines are designed with a substantial margin of safety. These internationally recognized guidelines were established by leading independent scientific organizations including the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP), an independent organization chartered by Congress.

13


Who sets the MPE standards?

Both the NCRP and ANSI/IEEE exposure guidelines were developed by scientists and engineers with a great deal of experience and knowledge in the area of RF biological effects and related issues. These individuals spent a considerable amount of time evaluatingpublished scientific studies relevant to establishing safe levels for human exposure to RF energy. These guidelines are designed to make sure that wireless phones and antennas are designed and operate in a safe manner. Other federal agencies have reviewed and endorsedthe FCC's guidelines. These include the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). EPA concluded: "It [is] EPA's view that the FCC exposure guidelines adequately protect the public from all scientifically established harms that may result from [Radio-Frequency] energy fields generated by FCC licensees."

B-65-4 SF/1099010v4 10/6/03


D. Proposal No. 4 Supported by NextG

Rationale

[Rationale begins next page.]

BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Order Instituting Rulemaking to Revise Commission General Order Numbers 95 and 128

R.01-10-001

Proposed Rule Change No. 26 (Antenna Attachments)

Adding New Rule 94—Antennas

PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE RULE 94

Submitted by

NEXTG NETWORKS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

September 19, 2003


PRC 26-NG MAP 091903.doc [19 September 2003]

I. Background

During the course of the Commission’s OIR proceeding1 addressing proposed changes to General Order 95, Proposed Rule Change No. 26 (“PRC 26”) addressing issues related to the installation and maintenance of wireless-industry antennas on supply and communication poles was offered into the record by a group of electric and communication utilities including SDG&E, SCE, PG&E, Verizon, SBC, and others (collectively the “Proponents”). After several iterations, the Proponents distributed a revised draft of PRC 26 to the OIR Committee workshop participants in San Francisco on July 30, 2003. After lively debate including the injection of views from wireless and cable industry participants, the Committee failed to reach consensus on PRC 26, and the proposed rule was thus subjected to the Multiple Alternative Proposal (“MAP”) procedure in accordance with the OIR Committees rules. This document is the MAP alternative proposal (the “Wireless AP”) submitted to the OIR Committee as of September 19, 2003, by NEXTG NETWORKS OF CALIFORNIA, INC. (“NextG”).

II. Rationale for Opposition to Proposed New Rule 94 (Antennas)

A. Existing Rules.

GO 95 does not currently contain express requirements or standards that address how antennas which are not directly related to the operation of supply systems are to be constructed and maintained on utility poles in the State of California. Nevertheless, thousands of such antennas have been installed on utility poles in California since 1990 and have been continuously operated without any known report or incident of an accident or impairment of worker safety as a result of the presence of such antennas on poles.

B. Proponents’ Rationale.

The Proponents of PRC 26 state as their rational for the proposed new rule that it will

i. clarify the requirements for attaching telecommunication and supply antennas to poles and towers;

ii. recognize the involvement of antennas with new technology in wireless communications and the necessity for its safe application on poles, towers, and streetlights;

R.01-10-001.



iii. place appropriate language into GO 95 to bring about consistency throughout the State as to what will be required of wireless telecommunication companies and supply utilities concerning antennas and an understanding of how antennas are to be placed on supply poles in a safe manner; and

iv. take into consideration the effects of antennas and the need for safety of electrical and communication workers.

C. NextG’s Rationale.

NextG agrees with the Proponents that worker safety is a vital issue for all utilities that must work in the presence of antennas attached to poles; nevertheless, NextG believes that PRC 26 is both unnecessary and inadvisable because (i) a substantial body of federal law already exists that protects workers from RF exposure; (ii) the practical, economic, and legal burdens that would be imposed under PRC 26 are many and costly; (iii) the Proponents have failed to introduce any evidence into the record of this OIR of accidents or impairment of worker safety associated with the presence of antennas on poles; and (iv ) the benefit that would accrue from the imposition of PRC 26 would be negligible in light of the current safe operation of thousands of antennas on utility poles in the State of California.

(i) Practical Effects of Imposing PRC 26.

The practical effects of imposing PRC 26 would be to force antenna attachments 6-7 feet lower than current practice under GO 95 permits, with the result that most poles would become unusable for antenna placement purposes. This is clearly not a permissible result under the Supreme Court’s decision in Gulf Power.2 Wireless network operators would be forced to attempt pole replacements in order to purchase additional height needed for antenna placements, and such replacements would be resisted by the incumbent utilities on the ground that such higher replacements would weaken existing pole lines and by municipalities on the ground of aesthetic impairment. Alternatively wireless carriers and network operators would be forced to construct alternate poles, which would undoubtedly create zoning problems and increased costs for such carriers in California. The CPUC has a clear incentive to encourage collocation of antennas on existing utility facilities as this not only

2 National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Inc. v. Gulf Power et alii, 534 U.S. 327 (January 16, 2002) (“Gulf Power”). The decision in Gulf Power not only affirmed the FCC’s authority in this area but did so by interpreting the meaning of the definitions of § 224 itself.



eliminates the number of structures in California, but also provides these utilities with additional revenue that may be used to offset the costs of service to ratepayers.

Another important concern with the Proponents’ proposition is the switch that would allow electric/telecommunications utility workers to completely turn down a wireless site, in some cases without even providing notice to the carrier or operator of the site. Such a disconnection could create massive havoc with customers that depend and rely on wireless service. In addition, allowing electric/telecommunications workers to turn down a site completely would create a risk for wireless customers attempting to employ E911 in an emergency situation. It clearly cannot be the Commission’s intention to deny consumers the use of E911 services that would otherwise be available.

Burden of Proof re Safety of Antenna Attachments.

In 1998 the State of California certified to the FCC its exercise of reverse federal preemption over the rates, terms, and conditions of telecommunication carriers’ attachments to investor-owned utility infrastructure through issuance of the Public Utility Commission’s Decision 98-10-058 (the “Decision”). The rules and regulations stated in the Decision now clearly apply to wireless carriers and operators’ attachments to utility poles in California as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Gulf Power.

In its Conclusion of Law No. 51, the PUC stated in the Decision that,

In resolving disputes over ROW access, the burden of proof shall be on the incumbent utility to justify any proposed restrictions or denials of access which it claims are necessary to address valid safety or reliability concerns and to show they are not unduly discriminatory or anticompetitive.3

Because the Proponents have alleged safety and reliability as the justification for PRC 26 in their rationale, the Decision requires that the incumbent utilities bear the burden of proof with respect to their safety and reliability concerns. NextG submits that the Proponents have not met their burden of proof in proposing PRC 26. The Proponents have introduced no evidence into the record over the course of the proceeding to demonstrate valid safety or reliability concerns: no data, no graphs, no charts, no photographs, no reports, no summaries of injuries, no copies of Cal-OSHA

3 Decision, Conclusion of Law No. 51 (p. 130) (emphasis added).



accident reports—nothing. NextG believes that the Proponents’ mere repetition of the word safety alone without any substantiating evidence in justification of the proposed rule is not sufficient to meet the incumbents’ burden of proof under the Decision.

If climber safety is really the issue behind PRC 26, as the Proponents maintain, NextG does not understand how thousands of such antennas can have been in operation without safety incident, accident, or injury for many years in California under the existing rules of GO 95. The lack of documented safety issues demonstrates that current rules are adequate and that there is no need for additional regulation of antenna placements. As a member of the Northern California Joint Pole Association and the Southern California Joint Pole Committee, NextG has proven that it is a safe and responsible operator of its facilities and, as joint owner of the poles with the incumbent utilities, equally concerned with safety issues as the Proponents. NextG is not aware of any existing safety violations under the rules of GO 95 and will work assiduously to correct any such violations that may come to light.

Because of the excessive burdens, restrictions, and costs that would be imposed upon NextG under the Proponents’ PRC 26, NextG believes that the enforcement of PRC 26 would be a denial of access to incumbent utility poles for the purpose of attaching antennas. The Commission should deny the inclusion of PRC 26 in the GO 95 revisions under its own rules set forth in the Decision implementing § 224 of the Act.

(ii) No Exemption for SCADA Antennas.

The proponents of PRC 26 have proposed exempting antennas used for their own purposes for the operation of supply systems (“SCADA System, Remote Switching, or Monitoring Systems”) from the application of PRC 26. In Conclusion of Law No. 7 of the Decision, the Commission stated, “Under the nondiscrimination principles of the Act, incumbent utilities must provide all telecommunications carriers the same type of access they would afford themselves.”4 If climber safety and safe separation distances are the issues motivating the proposal of PRC 26, it makes no sense to exempt supply antennas from the same rules as would be applicable to NextG. The antennas are similar in design and implementation and present similar challenges for poles climbers. If the motivation is truly worker safety, it should not make a difference as to whether the antenna in question is an SCADA antenna or one placed on a pole by a wireless carrier.




(iii) There is Already a Substantial Body of Federal Law Governing RF Exposure.

The Federal Communications Act, as amended by the 1996 Telecommunications Act, preempts state and local governments from regulating emissions from wireless antennae facilities on the basis of direct or indirect health effects of RF emissions. Specifically, § 332 of the Communications Act, as amended, states that

…[n]o State or local government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that such facilities comply with the [FCC’s] regulations concerning such emissions.5

In the FCC’s Report and Order released on August 1, 1996, the FCC set forth comprehensive RF exposure requirements and affirmed Congress’s mandate that precludes state action. The RF exposure limits set by the FCC are

…designed to protect the public health with a very large margin of safety. These limits have been endorsed by the federal health and safety agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration.6

The limits set by the FCC “are themselves many times below levels that are generally accepted as having the potential to cause adverse health effects.”7 The FCC has found that it is desirable and appropriate categorically to exclude from routine evaluation those transmitting facilities that offer little or no potential for exposure in excess of the specified guidelines.8 The FCC has set forth Maximum Permissible Exposure levels for occupational/controlled exposure and for general population/uncontrolled exposure.9 These classifications are defined in further detail in the federal rules.10 Occupational/controlled limits apply in those situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment, provided these persons are fully aware of the

5 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7); see also “A Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and Practical Guidance” (Federal Communications Commission, June 2, 2000) (the “Local Guide”), p. 2.

6 Local Guide, p.1.

7 Local Guide, p.1.

8 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307, passim (the “Exposure Rules”).

9 47 C.F.R. 1.1310, Table 1.

10 47 C.F.R. 1.1310 Note 1 to Table 1.



potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposures. Limits for occupational/controlled exposure also apply in situations when an individual is transient through a location, provided he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology has provided further guidance on these categories in a section describing “Occupational/Controlled” areas.11 By way of example, this section concludes that “transient” visitors to a rooftop, such as air-conditioning technicians, etc., could also be considered to fall within the occupational/controlled criteria as long as they are “made aware” of their exposure and exercise control over their exposure.12 The Bulletin also provides many examples of ways in which persons can limit their exposure, such as time-averaging, shielding, use of RF-protective clothing, etc.

Using the method specified in Appendix A13 of the Local Guide, the wireless carriers submitted two separate studies to the OIR Committee at its workshop of April, 2003, in Santa Barbara showing that typical antenna installations analyzed by Sprint’s and Verizon Wireless’s engineering consultants were in all cases well below the FCC’s mandated MPE for “General Population Uncontrolled” exposures that might be encountered by supply and communication workers climbing or working on utility poles. NextG commissioned a third study that showed similar results.14 The studies showed that in no case would a worker be exposed to RF emissions above the permissible General Population Uncontrolled MPE level at one foot (1’) or greater distance from any type of antenna. The FCC characterizes its own methodology in computing MPE levels in this way:

It’s important to note that the predicted distances set forth in Appendix B are based on a very conservative, “worst case” scenario. In other words, Appendix B identifies the furthest distance from the antenna that presents even a remote realistic possibility of RF exposure that could exceed the FCC guidelines. The power levels are based on the approximate maximum number of channels that an operator is likely to operate at one site. It is further assumed that each channel operates with the maximum power permitted under the FCC’s rules and that all of these channels are “on” simultaneously, an unlikely scenario. This is a very conservative

11 Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, released August 1997 (“Bulletin”).

12 Bulletin, p.56.

13 “Optional Checklist for Determination of Whether a Facility of Categorically Excluded”

14 Both of these studies, in addition to a third engineering study commissioned by NextG Networks and showing similar results, are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.



assumption. In reality, most sites operate at a fraction of the maximum permissible power, and many sites use fewer than the maximum number of channels. Therefore, actual exposure levels would be expected to be well below the predicted values. Another mitigating factor could be the presence of intervening structures, such as walls, that will reduce RF exposure by variable amounts. For all these reasons, the values given in these tables and graphs are considered to be quite conservative should over-predict actual exposure levels.15

Despite the evidence of MPE compliance submitted into the record by the Wireless Carriers and NextG, and despite the FCC’s own admission that its calculations are already in and of themselves radically conservative, “worst case,” and over-predictive, the Proponents of PRC 26 have uttered a rule under which exposure calculations start at one foot (NextG’s demonstrated MPE at “worst case” calibration) and then get multiplied by four hundred percent (400%) as a ‘safety cushion’ for good measure. The Proponents’ PRC 26 uses separation rules that are clearly contrary to law and based on an unfounded fear of the unknown. The Proponents’ PRC 26, in fact, does not utilize the FCC’s formulae or calculations at all, as required under § 332 of the Act to take account of categorical exclusions in appropriate circumstances, but instead elects to impose a “one size fits all” approach that results in impermissible and unlawful overkill as applied to wireless network operators’ antenna installations on utility poles.

NextG proposes that all parties concerned with the attachment of antennae to poles observe the “conservative” and “worst case” already imposed by the FCC and refrain from imposing additional restraints that would have the effect of denying wireless operators the § 224 attachment rights that Congress intended and Gulf Power reaffirmed without qualification. Because the FCC has occupied the field in the case of categorically excluded antenna attachments whose RF emission fall within MPE specifications, and because the PUC is precluded from additional regulation of RF emissions to the extent wireless network operators meet MPE criteria.

(iv) Legal Effects of Imposing PRC 26.

NextG believes that the restrictions on antenna placements contained in the Proponents’ PRC 26 are contrary to the requirements of § 332 of the Act and applicable FCC regulations set forth in the Exposure Rules. Accordingly, the California PUC, charged with the implementation of § 224 by virtue of its exercise of reverse federal preemption in the Decision and limited in its authority as to antenna placements as set forth in § 332 of the Act, lacks the legal authority to impose a rule of

15 Local Guide, p. 12.



the scope of PRC 26. It would be a disservice to the Commission to advance such a proposed rule out of the OIR Committee, since such a rule would no doubt involve the Commission in protracted legal challenges with no demonstrated benefit resulting in increased worker safety for supply and communication workers.

(v) Economic Effects of Imposing PRC 26.

The economic costs of implementing the Proponents’ PRC 26 would be enormous and would include pole replacement in almost all cases of antenna attachments, as discussed above. Such an imposition would render wireless network operators’ § 224 attachment rights virtually worthless and would constitute a denial of access. The essence of the Congressional intent behind § 224 was that utility infrastructure should be shared where possible, not endlessly replicated. Additional enormous but unknown costs would be incurred by wireless network operators if they were forced to bring the thousands of existing antenna installations in California into compliance with the new proposed rule. Such costs would constitute an unfair burden on wireless network operators without any demonstrated commensurate benefit in terms of increased safety for supply and communication workers.

III. NextG’s Alternative Proposal: Modified Rule 94

For the reasons stated above in detail, NextG believes that no new rule is necessary or advisable to address the presence of wireless-industry antennas on utility-owned infrastructure in California under GO 95; however, if the Commission should decide to include some version of PRC 26 in its current revisions to GO 95, NextG proposes the rule that follows as an alternative that would address the economic, practical, and legal issues that the Wireless Carrier believe must be taken into consideration in drafting any new rule to be incorporated as part of GO 95.

94 Antennas

94.1 Definitions

A Antenna “Antenna” means a device that emits radio frequency signals through the air. (See associated definition changes in Rules 20 and 34.)

B MPE. “MPE” or “Maximum Permissible Exposure” shall mean the General Population/Uncontrolled Environment exposure limits defined by the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Bulletin 65 of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), “Evaluating Compliance with FCC



Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields” (August, 1997).

94.2 Application

Except as otherwise specified in this Rule, the construction and clearance requirements for Class C circuits shall be applied to the new placement of antennas and their associated hardware attached to Class T, C, L, and H Circuits.

94.3 Climbing Space

Antennas and their elements must meet the requirements of Rules 54.7 and 84.7, unless attached to the face and at the top of the pole, in which case climbing space will also be provided up to the bottom of the antenna or its related appurtenances.

94.4 Required Clearances

Antennas attached to climbable poles shall be attached, constructed, and maintained in such a way that a communication or supply worker climbing and working on such poles shall be able at all times to remain within the minimum working space clearances specified in these Rules (see Rule 84.7). In addition, all other Rules of this General Order 95 regarding required clearances from other sources of conductivity of climbable poles shall be applicable to the placement, construction, and maintenance of antennas on structures supporting communication or supply conductors and antennas.

A Crossarm Requirement

Unless otherwise permitted by a pole owner, antennas constructed below the top of the pole shall utilize an appropriate Crossarm (see Rule 49.2).

B Cable and Messenger Clearances

Antennas attached to or supported by a communication facility (cable or messenger) shall maintain a vertical separation from other communication cables of not less than 6” and shall maintain a radial clearance of 2 feet from unrelated splices and terminals.

94.5 Worker Approach Distances

Workers shall not encroach upon the posted approach distances specified in § 94.6 below; however, this restriction shall not apply when the antenna’s transmission capability has been terminated.



94.6 Notice Signs

If required under 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307, Poles or arms supporting antennas shall bear radio frequency emission caution and warning signs.

94.7 Transitions

Grounds and cables connected to antennas and their associated equipment which transition vertically through supply circuits shall be covered throughout their length by suitable protective covering (see Rules 22.2(A) and 84.6(D)). All related non-dielectric equipment and lines shall be grounded, isolated, or insulated.

94.8 Supply Antennas

Antennas installed for the operation of electrical supply systems (i.e. SCADA Systems and Remote Switching Systems) shall meet all the requirements of this rule and the requirement of Rule 54.4(G).

94.9 Foreign Attachments

Except as expressly addressed under these Rules, nothing in these rules shall be construed as permitting the unauthorized attachment to supply, street light, or communication poles or structures of antennas, signs, posters, banners, decorations, wires, lighting fixtures, guys, ropes, or any other such equipment foreign to the purposes of overhead supply and communication line construction. (See Rule 34.)

IV. Associated Rule Changes

Rule 20 A new definition for antennas.

Rule 34 A change clarifying that antennas for communication line constructions are not “foreign attachments.”

FCC Terminology• Maximum permissible exposure (MPE). The rms and peak electric and magnetic

field strength, their squares, or the plane-wave equivalent power densities associated with these fields to which a person may be exposed without harmful effect and with an acceptable safety factor. MPE limits are defined in terms of power density (units of milliwatts per centimeter squared: mW/cm2),

• General population/uncontrolled exposure. For FCC purposes, applies to human exposure to RF fields when the general public is exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public always fall under this category when exposure is not employment-related.

• Occupational/controlled exposure. For FCC purposes, applies to human exposure to RF fields when persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. Occupational/controlled exposure limits also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general population/uncontrolled limits (see definition above), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means.

FCC MPE LevelsMPE is frequency dependent and its calculation yields a specific value for the frequency of operation

Sprint PCS MPE Exposure• Occupational 5.0 mW/cm2




FCC MPE Levels

Sprint PCS (1930 – 1945 MHz)

SPCS MPE Exposure• Occupational 5.0 mW/cm2




900 MHz


Measurements made at antenna RAD center at various distances from antennae.

TX/RX



Measurements made on the pole and along the cable strands





TX/RX

RX Only