Are You Afraid of Compliance?

It's coming, and you had better be prepared. No, it's not Y2K, but if you live through that, you have to face another potentially frightening date: Sept. 1, 2000.

On that day, all sites must comply with the FCC's RF exposure limits. Power level, exposure time and accessibility are key factors. The FCC considers two tiers: occupational or controlled exposure limits, and general population or uncontrolled. Only locations that are accessible to workers or to the general public must be compliant, but all licensees are responsible for meeting the FCC's environmental protection limits.

Despite the possible consequences, including fines, license suspensions or revocations, the FCC deadline hasn't received the attention it deserves.

"I've run into very, very, very few sites that are actually compliant right now," said Rich Biby, Sitesafe president of engineering services. "I'd be surprised if any carriers have sites that are 100% compliant ... A lot of people are just flat out ignoring this, hoping or thinking it will go away."

You may be intimidated by the number of sites to test, or waiting to see what your competitors do. If you have 5,000 sites, it may seem impossible to ensure each and every one of those is 100% compliant.

"But it's the (carrier's) responsibility to do their best to make it as close to 100% as possible," Biby said. So, you need to plan now. With the number of sites out there, providers don't realize that the community of experts available as resources is fairly small, Biby said. Neither carriers nor site consultants are prepared for the time and work required to make all of the non-compliant sites compliant, Biby added.

Robert Mawrey, UNIsite vice president of systems and technology, said low-power antennas may present the biggest problems, especially for the paging industry.

Paging providers will be the first to call site consultants because their licenses come up for renewal this spring.

"I haven't seen too many other people testing," said a PageNet construction manager.

According to Biby, many providers are confused about what they need to do and when.

"There are people who think that if nothing happens by the year 2000, they'll never have to do anything," said Dan Collins, Edwards and Kelcey Wireless vice president of RF planning & engineering. "That's a complete misconception."

IMMEDIATE COMPLIANCEAll licensees must be in full compliance by Sept. 1, 2000, but a license renewal or modification on an existing site before that date requires immediate compliance.

The FCC's categorical exclusion rule, which excludes certain sites from demonstrating compliance because of power level, antenna location or other factors, also is confusing.

"If they're categorically excluded, they still need to make sure their site is compliant," Biby said. "They just don't need to necessarily demonstrate it to the FCC through a detailed evaluation."

Shared sites are a huge conundrum. According to the FCC, all licensees with transmitters producing RF levels that exceed 5% of the limits must share the compliance responsibility.

"One of the biggest points of confusion is when they don't meet the 5% limit, they assume that they don't have to do anything," Mawrey said. "The 5% rule is not a justification for not doing anything."

Licensees are individually and collectively responsible for compliance. The collective clause is a wrinkle in the regulation that raises questions about paying for exposure analysis and subsequent improvements. All transmitters co-located on the site and those on adjacent rooftops can affect the maximum permissible exposure (MPE). Site managers may help resolve some of the practical issues, but the ultimate burden is on licensees to cooperate and comply. That's not easy. Rooftop sites are challenging because there's little control and a lot of co-location.

"If 15 players are on a rooftop and a 16th joins, that triggers a compliance requirement for the entire site," Collins said. "There is no mechanism that requires notification from (16) to the others on that site."

Controlling rooftop access is difficult because there are many people with good reasons to be on rooftops. But more than likely, these people are not under your supervision.

Biby suggested providing maintenance workers with a map of high- and low-RF areas so they can avoid potential danger. If maintenance workers have to go into high-RF areas, however, they will need safety classes before they can do their jobs.

According to Biby, the biggest threat to the industry is that operators don't share data. Because equipment isn't properly identified on a rooftop, it takes a lot of time and money to collect the right information for RF mapping.

TESTINGThere are two main ways to determine a facility's compliance: calculations and RF measurements. For calculations, you need accurate, up-to-date technical data for transmitting antennas at a given site and an appropriate model to calculate expected RF levels. On-site measurements are expensive but more accurately characterize the actual RF-exposure levels in any given area. Physical measurements are fairly accurate if taken properly. But it's difficult to tell who's contributing what, and the site changes throughout the day.

You also can analyze or predict exposure levels with software, which allows you to find out what the levels are and who's contributing to them, Mawrey said. AirTouch uses a software program for calculation and meters for measuring power density in the field, said Kek Boen, principal engineer.

"If we have a question about what the model shows, we send people out into the field," he explained. "We do the testing when it's not during busy hours because it's inaccurate. We measure that power and see the result."

In many cases, calculations and software models suffice, but some situations require on-site RF measurements. For example, it's difficult to calculate RF exposure for shared sites even if all of the technical data is available because the FCC says you can't measure just one antenna or just your own emissions; you have to consider the entire environment. According to Collins, the more complex a site, the more you need to measure.

"For a site with just a few antennas, you can apply calculations and software models to the site and determine without leaving the office whether things will be OK," he said. "At a site with more than a few antennas on it, you can only get a good answer by (on-site) measuring."

Biby said measurements are a usable tool, but not the only way to make sites compliant.

"With all of the carriers you have on a rooftop, your duty cycles on a meter are wide and varied," he said. "If you go up and wave a wand, you haven't proved anything."

Sometimes it's beneficial to use an independent third party. Although zoning boards cannot consider health and safety issues when approving or disapproving a site, they can ask you to demonstrate compliance, and a third-party compliance evaluation has a bigger impression on the boards than one done by a carrier. PageNet is using a third party to analyze 50 of its New York sites based on exact measurements and worst-case criteria, a spokesperson said.

NON-COMPLIANT SITE SOLUTIONS After you've measured and calculated the RF levels at your sites, determine if any existing or planned facilities could be excluded because of low power levels and high antenna heights.

"After doing some calculations, we found out there are not many sites that we need to worry about," Boen said. "The FCC mandate is not about emission; it's about exposure. Most sites never go above the FCC's 30-minute limit."

If you don't know where to start, Biby suggested prioritizing.

"Sort through your sites from good to worst," he said. "Prioritize by power or ERP (or by) sites where antennas are in areas where others need access."

Collins said there are many ways to make a site compliant, but more than half affect service.

RF-exposure control should be part of initial system design. Usually, carriers just install antennas and do measurements later, but if you find problems then you have to spend money restricting access to the area or moving the antennas, he said.

According to Boen, AirTouch is designing its sites with RF-exposure control considerations.

"We are putting the antenna inward from the side of the building," he said. "The city code sometimes requires you do so anyway."

There are some good solutions for existing problems. To control exposure for fixed transmitting sites, restrict access by fencing off restricted areas, use warning signs around the site, reduce transmitter power, redesign antennas to selectively reduce RF levels, increase antenna height to reduce RF levels on the ground or, if nothing else, relocate to a new site.

To reduce workplace exposure, educate your personnel, develop RF work practices, limit employee exposure time, use warning signs, restrict access, shield the RF source, reduce power, use an auxiliary transmitter, and equip employees with protective clothing and/or personal monitors.

Implementing a health and safety policy is another important step. You should implement an awareness program on RF exposure for employees and educate them on how to protect themselves in areas where exposures might exceed the FCC's MPE limits.

Although many carriers, including AirTouch and PageNet, have taken these steps to prepare, Collins is less than optimistic that everyone will meet the deadline.

"There will be some stragglers, and the FCC will have to establish one final trigger for all of the existing sites that weren't otherwise triggered by Sept. 1, 2000," he said.

But don't expect sympathy from the FCC. Jerry Ulcek, FCC electronics engineer, said the FCC would not extend the deadline.

"They've known about these rules since we adopted them back in 1996," he said. "They've had three to four years to get their sites into compliance."

Myth: I'm categorically excluded, so I don't have to do anything about compliance.Fact: You're only excluded from "demonstrating" you're compliant.

Myth: Simply putting up an RF alert sign is enough.Fact: Signage does not equal compliance and is not sufficient to achieve compliance. Use a sign that is right for the facility.

Myth: Co-located operations have nothing to do with my site.Fact: You can't do just calculations and measurements on your antennas. Every human counts, and so does every RF source.

Myth: Other nearby towers have nothing to do with my site.Fact: You can't measure only one site; you also must consider nearby facilities.

Myth: You never have to do on-site measurements.Fact: Measurements have the advantage of automatically incorporating the effects of all RF sources on the potential exposure level.

Myth: Compliance equals safety.Fact: Compliance equals much more than "safe," but some degree of non-compliance doesn't necessarily mean there is a real health hazard.

Myth: The FCC standard applies to electric power lines.Fact: All FCC licensees are responsible for their sites.

Myth: 1996 Telecom Act and federal pre-emption protect you from local zoning boards.Fact: Local boards can't deny construction approval on RF-exposure grounds if your facility has demonstrated that it meets the FCC standard. However, you still may have problems with boards that have land-use and aesthetic objections.

Myth: Compliance provides lawsuit protection.Fact: No, but better you comply than not.

Myth: After Sept. 1, 2000, the compliance issue will go away.Fact: No, the FCC expects all existing sites subject to the regulations to be in compliance by that date. The regulations will remain in effect after that date.

Source: Dan Collins, Edwards and Kelcey Wireless, Regulatory Tectonics newsletter