Why Comply?

The FCC's RF-exposure deadline is just two months away. Those that aren't compliant face a real crapshoot.

When it comes to preparing for the RF-compliance deadline, service providers face an uncertainty opposite of the one that Kevin Costner's character faced in the movie Field of Dreams: If you don't do it, will they come?

In the case of service providers, "they" refers to FCC inspectors, who could arrive at tower or rooftop sites after Sept. 1 to test for compliance with its RF-exposure mandate. Many providers are betting they won't show, Ian Maxwell told a group at PCIA's Tower and Site Management 2000 Conference.

Maxwell is SiteSafe vice president of operations. During the past 10 months, the company has audited and provided software analyses of 3,000 sites and awareness training for about 2,000 people. SiteSafe concluded that about 40% of providers aren't preparing to meet the deadline. Some insiders attribute that inaction to an industry perception that the FCC doesn't have the manpower to conduct the inspections.

The perception is based in reality. The FCC inspection staff will be small, at least in the beginning.

"We will start out with one office and about five or six inspectors," said Jerry Ulcek, FCC electronics engineer training and supervising inspector.

However, the inspection team won't be the only way that the FCC finds scofflaws. Ulcek said it would find violators through tips from industry consultants, consumer complaints and spot checks. He also said the FCC has no formal agreement to share information with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). But because OSHA receives complaints about workers' exposure to RF emissions, its records could expose violators of the FCC mandate.

Although Ulcek acknowledged the FCC is less than 100% prepared for the compliance deadline at this point, he noted the serious consequences of non-compliance. At the minimum, violators could face fines. In addition, licenses could be revoked, and the agency could impose other penalties at its discretion.

Cooperation is Key
The good news is that so far, the FCC has found few sites that would be considered non-compliant, Ulcek said. However, he expressed concern about an issue that could thwart compliance efforts: the unwillingness of some providers to work with site managers and other operators at multi-user sites.

"Licensees come in and say other carriers will not cooperate with them," he said. "We want all of our licensees to cooperate with each other."

Cooperation is key for rooftop sites, where public access is more common. But there are also complex sites where the number and positioning of towers might create hazards. During PCIA's Site Management Conference, Dr. Robert Cleveland, FCC Office of Engineering and Technology senior scientist, used remote sites as examples. They contain mazes of towers, including high-power TV facilities, that create potential exposure problems because people near a tower with low emissions might be exposed to much higher emissions from an adjacent broadcast tower, Cleveland said.

Your Friends & Neighbors
The FCC has been dealing with the issue of licensee collaboration on multi-user sites for years. In 1997, it responded to provider requests for guidelines on cooperation. Additional requests sought to shift the responsibility for multi-user sites from licensees to site managers.

In its Second Memorandum Opinion and Order on RF exposure, the FCC upheld an earlier decision to hold providers rather than site managers responsible. Although it didn't provide detailed instructions about how responsibilities for compliance should be assigned among site tenants, it did offer two suggestions to licensees: Compliance costs can be assigned according to the percentage of emissions of each company transmitting in a non-compliant area. Licensees also can set up a process that makes newcomers to a multi-user site responsible for solving any problems created by adding their transmitters. For those with uncooperative neighbors, the commissioners encouraged them to notify the FCC.

Some providers don't give their neighbors information that might affect compliance because they consider that information proprietary, said Rich Biby, SiteSafe CTO. But Biby recommends that providers share information, including an antenna's power parameters and information about the type and number of channels used.

Another collaboration hurdle is identifying the person at a co-tenant's company who can provide the necessary information, Biby said. Then there's the issue of costs associated with compliance. Co-tenants can choose to have their operations audited separately or to share the costs of an audit with the site's other occupants. Those who make site analysis a joint effort can provide information to one another, or the site manager can be used as the point of contact. Biby said providers should verify that site managers have implemented procedures to document changes in the RF environment.

Don't Ignore OSHA
Although the FCC has put the compliance onus on licensees, OSHA holds site managers as well as licensees responsible for excessive emissions that create hazards for employees. Thus, OSHA's rules give site managers an incentive to facilitate communications between tenants and to track changes to the site.

Providers also shouldn't ignore OSHA's rules, said SiteSafe's Maxwell, because they're already in effect. OSHA requires providers to analyze hazards and provide employees with safety training and, when necessary, safety equipment. Training must cover three subject areas: recognizing and avoiding dangerous situations, handling emergencies and administering first aid, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

Documentation of the training is another major OSHA requirement. Certificates that include the training date, the employee's name, and the employer or trainer's signature should be provided.

Both OSHA and the FCC have various RF-compliance reference materials available online. OSHA's regulations are at www.osha-slc.gov/OshStd_data/1910_0268.html. The FCC Office of Engineering and Technology maintains an RF-safety page at www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety.

But information alone isn't enough. Some are concerned that the available information might be misinterpreted. One example of a common misconception involves categorical exclusions.

"Categorical exclusions only exclude carriers from routine reporting," said the FCC's Cleveland. "It is not an exclusion from compliance."

Others, such as Biby, just want providers to start preparing for the September deadline. "I'm concerned that people have not completed the first steps in the process," he said.

---

Points to Ponder

RF compliance was a hot topic at PCIA's Site Management 2000 Seminar. Here are a couple of speakers' points to keep in mind:

• Service providers are responsible for three compliance components: compliance analysis, RF-exposure mitigation and RF-safety training. — Dan Collins, Clear Communications Group CTO

• At multi-user sites, "the licensees need to realize they're all in this together. (The FCC's mandate) is not going away." — Dr. Robert Cleveland, FCC Office of Engineering and Technology senior scientist

• It's not enough just to throw a sign up. You have to restrict all access to areas that exceed the FCC's RF emissions limit. "If one sign does the job, do four do the job better or do they just confuse the reader?" — Collins

• "An overabundance of caution usually doesn't cost you anything in a cellular site." — Lawrence Behr, LBA Group CEO