HomeMy WebLinkAboutAntenna Site FCC RF Compliance Report - Pinnacle 0' n
PiNNACIETEIECOm GROUP
Professional and Technical Services
bMM
Telecom Consulting
ANTENNA SITE A=CC RF ComptIANCE
ASSESSMENT ANd REPORT
PREPAREd fOR
ELITE TOWERS L.P.
' [bERTSON MARINE" SITE
61405 MAIN ROA+ (RoUTE25)
SOOT fol , NY
AUGUST 22, 2022
14 RIdGEdALE AVENUE - SUITE 260 0 CEdAR ICNolls, NJ 07927 * 973.451-1630
CONTENTS
INTROdUCTION ANd SUMMARY 3
ANTENNA ANd TRANSMISSION DATA 4
COMpHANCE ANALYSIS 7
COMPLIANCE CONCLUSION 11
CERTIFICATION
AppENdix A. BACkgROUNd ON ThE FCC MPE LIMIT
AppENdix B. SUMMARY OF ExpERT QUALIFICATIONS
2
INTROdUCTION ANd SUMMARY
At the request of Elite Towers, L.P., Pinnacle Telecom Group has performed an
independent assessment of radiofrequency (RF) levels and related FCC
compliance for proposed wireless antenna operations on a new unipole to be
located at 61405 Main Road (Route 25) in Southold, NY.
The FCC requires wireless antenna operators to perform an assessment of
potential human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) fields emanating from all the
transmitting antennas at a site whenever antenna operations are added or
modified, and to ensure compliance with the Maximum Permissible Exposure
(MPE) limit in the FCC regulations.
In this case, the compliance assessment involves the RF levels from proposed
antenna operations by DISH Wireless, Verizon Wireless and the Southold Fire
District. The analysis will conservatively assume that the wireless carriers are
operating at maximum capacity and maximum power in each of their FCC-licensed
frequency bands. Note that FCC regulations require any future antenna collocators
to assess and assure continuing compliance based on the RF effects of all
proposed and then-existing antennas at the site.
This report describes a mathematical analysis of RF levels resulting around the
site in areas of unrestricted public access, that is, at ground level around the site.
The compliance analysis employs a standard FCC formula for calculating the
effects of the antennas in a very conservative manner, in order to overstate the RF
levels and to ensure "safe-side" conclusions regarding compliance with the FCC
limit for safe continuous exposure of the general public.
The results of a compliance assessment can be explained in layman's terms by
describing the calculated RF levels as simple percentages of the FCC MPE limit.
If the reference for that limit is 100 percent, then calculated RF levels higher than
100 percent indicate the MPE limit is exceeded, while calculated RF levels
consistently lower than 100 percent serve as a clear and sufficient demonstration
of compliance with the MPE limit. We will also describe the overall worst-case
calculated result via the "plain-English" equivalent"times-below-the-limit factor".
3
The results of the FCC RF compliance assessment in this case are as follows:
❑ At street level around the site, the conservatively calculated maximum RF
level from the proposed antenna operations is 1.4796 percent of the FCC
MPE limit—well below the 100- percent reference for compliance. In other
words, even with the significant degree of conservatism in the calculations,
the worst-case calculated RF level is still more than 65 times below the
FCC limit for safe, continuous exposure to the RF emissions from
antennas.
❑ The results of the calculations provide a clear demonstration that the RF
levels from the proposed antenna operations at the site satisfy the
applicable criteria for controlling potential human exposure to RF fields, and
the RF levels will be in clear compliance with the FCC regulations and limits
concerning RF safety. Moreover, because of the conservative methodology
and incorporated assumptions, RF levels actually caused by the antennas
will be even less significant than the calculation results here indicate.
The remainder of this report provides the following:
❑ relevant technical data on each of the proposed antenna operations at the
site;
❑ descriptions of the applicable FCC mathematical models for assessing
MPE compliance, and application of the relevant technical data to those
models; and
o the results of the analysis, and the compliance conclusion for the site.
In addition, Appendix A provides background on the FCC MPE limit, along with a
list of FCC references on compliance. Appendix B provides a summary of the
qualifications of the expert certifying RF compliance for this site.
ANTENNA ANd TRANSMISSION DATA
The tables that follow provide the key compliance-related data for the proposed
DISH Wireless, Verizon Wireless and Southold Fire District antenna operations.
4
FD/SH
.. .raI' ___a — °e,�eral Data
VN/i
Frequency Bands _wwwwwww_ ww_ _._mmmmm_ 600 MHz, 2000 MHz and 2100 MHz
ew_.................................. e T e .......... . ............_...d ........ w_...._.._........... .. .....www_..._....................w......
Antenna Tip w . .__..........w.........................._....... Directional Panel
.w e _ .. l_.._....w_........._.
Antenna Centerline Height_AGL 130#t.
.�..�.�.�.�.� _ onservativel ..ignored�..(ass.-.-.ed 0 dB
rv- ....,....www........
.
u. 0
Antenna Line Loss _� G�m- _. . �,_
6f��111!fl�fiz AntennaµDataWWWWW_w_..�...._._...._
. .....
RF channels per Sector Four 30 watt channels
.�-..00 MHz _nte�....D_ t^ �w .....
.. .w_OMHz Da
..__.�.Y. _.......
Antenna Model(Max Gain Commscope FW 65B R3(18 4 dBi)
...
RF channels per Sector .__. m _ wWFour 40 watt channels .
2100 MHz Antenna Data ..�
Antenna Model (Max Gain Commsco?ertFVV 65B R3 (18 4 dBi)
RF channels per Sector µ Four 40 watt channels
Verizon Wireless- General Data
Frequency Bands
...___.... _ ..... 746 MHz, 869 MHz, 1900 __�__. ._. ..__ _.. .............
MHz 2100 MHz and
3700 MHz _
Service Coverage Type .................. _Sectorizedµ-w w-..w._.www............
...... ............w.. _.............. ..... ...._w -
-Antenna-Type _ Directional.Panel .......................
Antenna Centerline Height AGL 141 ft. 2 i __..........................�..._�..m....w..w....ww..._w............................ __w..�. .........wwww
„Antenna Line Loss Co
...._.._.....
Wnservatively ignored (assumed 0 dB)
_t4�Mgz Ahterrna Data
Antenna Model (Max Gain) JMA Wireiess MX06FIT465 02 (13.4 dBi)
.. w._w._....._.....www ._._.._......_
RF Channels per Sector FourM40 watt channels
869 MHz Antenna Dataggqq_.�_
Antenna Model Max Gam JMA Wireless MX06FIT46502„�13 5
( ) ( dBi)
RF Channels per SectorMM mm Four 40-watt channels
1900!',1-�"z"Ante a Data
� ww rv .Mw-wwwwwww�
Antenna Model Max Gain JMA Wireless MX06FlT45 02 16.8 dBi
_w..._w wwwwwwwwwww _ ....... _. _. _._._._ _ ....
RF Channels per aeetor Four 40-watt channels
_..2100 4V IRiw r .6hn, Data......��.� �...._
.....� ten ._�a �......w..._.�.
RF ChanVodel Max. GWW _._W_._, ww..._..... ...W...._.._�
Antenna ��od ain ,vMWNVMW��JMAµWireless MX06FIT445-02 m18.
( ) ( 0 dBi)
pe Sector Four 40-watt channels
:3 `00 MHz Antetitia lata
Antenna Model Max. Gain) JMA Wireless MX08FIT265 01 (17 1 dBi)
_. ... _
RF Channels per Sector _ _ _... Two 50 watt channels
5
The Southold Fire District is licensed by the FCC to operate in the 46 MHz, 460
MHz and 465 MHz frequency bands. In the 46 MHz frequency band, they use an
maximum effective radiated power (ERP) of 30 watts. In the 460 MHz frequency
band, they use ERPs of 2.5 watts, 25 watts, 35 watts and 50 watts. Lastly, the
ERPs in the 465 MHz band are 2.5 watts, 4 watts, 10 watts and 70 watts.
The antenna vertical-plane radiation pattern is used in the calculations of RF levels
at ground level around a site.
By way of illustration, Figure 1 that follows shows the vertical-plane radiation
pattern of the antenna model to be used by DISH Wireless in the 600MHz
frequency band. Note that in this type of diagram,the antenna is effectively pointed
at the three o'clock position (the horizon) and the relative strength of the pattern at
different angles is described using decibel units. The use of a decibel scale to
describe the relative pattern at different angles incidentally tends to visually
understate the actual focusing effects of the antenna. Where the antenna
pattern reads 20 dB, for example, the relative RF energy emitted at the
corresponding downward angle is 1/100th of the maximum that occurs in the main
beam (at 0 degrees); at a 30-dB point, the level is 1/1,000th of the maximum.
Figure 1.JMA Wireless FVV-65B-R3 Antenna—600 MHz Vertical-plane Pattern
--------- .......
� ,
0 deg
......... horizon
p µa
5 dB /division
6
COMPLIANCE ANAlySiS
FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Bulletin 65("OET Bulletin 65")provides
guidelines for mathematical models to calculate the RF levels at various points
around transmitting antennas. At street-level around an antenna site (in what is
called the "far field" of the antennas), the RF levels are directly proportional to the
total antenna input power and the relative antenna gain in the downward direction
of interest — and the levels are otherwise inversely proportional to the square of
the straight-line distance to the antenna.
Conservative calculations also assume the potential RF exposure is enhanced by
reflection of the RF energy from the intervening ground. Our calculations will
assume a 100% "perfect", mirror-like reflection, the worst-case approach.
The formula for street-level compliance assessment for any given antenna
operation is as follows:
MPE% _ (100 *TxPower* 10 (Gmax-Vdisc/l0) *4 )/ ( MPE *4n* R2 )
where
MPE% = RF level, expressed as a percentage of the MPE limit
applicable to continuous exposure of the general public
100 = factor to convert the raw result to a percentage
TxPower = maximum net power into antenna sector, in milliwatts, a
function of the number of channels per sector, the
transmitter power per channel, and line loss
10 (Gmax-Vdisc/l0) = numeric equivalent of the relative antenna gain in the
downward direction of interest; data on the antenna
vertical-plane pattern is taken from manufacturer
specifications
4 = factor to account for a 100-percent-efficient energy
reflection from the intervening ground, and the squared
relationship between RF field strength and power density
(22 = 4)
MPE = FCC general population MPE limit
R = straight-line distance from the RF source to the point of
interest, centimeters
7
The MPE% calculations are performed out to a distance of 500 feet from the facility
to points 6.5 feet (approximately two meters, the FCC-recommended standing
height) off the ground, as illustrated in Figure 2, below.
antenna
height
from R
antenna
bottom
to 6.5'
above
ground
level
0 _ ....., e,e_e. ,,e,e,e,e.e .... ,,.� _ 500
Ground Distance D from the site
Figure 2. Street-level MPE% Calculation Geometry
It is popularly understood that the farther away one is from an antenna, the lower
the RF level—which is generally but not universally correct. The results of MPE%
calculations fairly close to the site will reflect the variations in the vertical- plane
antenna pattern as well as the variation in straight-line distance to the antennas.
Therefore, RF levels may actually increase slightly with increasing distance within
the range of zero to 500 feet from the site. As the distance approaches 500 feet
and beyond, though, the antenna pattern factor becomes less significant, the RF
levels become primarily distance-controlled, and as a result the RF levels generally
decrease with increasing distance, and are well understood to be in compliance.
FCC compliance for a collocated antenna site is assessed in the following manner.
At each distance point along the ground, an MPE% calculation is made for each
antenna operation (including each frequency band), and the sum of the individual
MPE% contributions at each point is compared to 100 percent, the normalized
reference for compliance with the MPE limit. We refer to the sum of the individual
MPE% contributions as "total MPE%", and any calculated total MPE% result
exceeding 100 percent is, by definition, higher than the FCC limit and represents
8
non-compliance and a need to mitigate the potential exposure. If all results are
consistently below 100 percent, on the other hand, that set of results serves
as a clear and sufficient demonstration of compliance with the MPE limit.
The following conservative methodology and assumptions are incorporated into
the MPE% calculations on a general basis:
1. The antennas are assumed to be operating continuously at maximum
power in each frequency band.
2. The power-attenuation effects of shadowing or other obstructions to the
line-of-sight path from the antenna to the point of interest are ignored.
3. The calculations intentionally minimize the distance factor(R) by assuming
a 6'6" human and performing the calculations from the bottom (rather than
the centerline) of each operator's lowest-mounted antenna, as applicable.
4. The potential RF exposure at ground level is assumed to be 100-percent
enhanced (increased) via a "perfect", mirror-like field reflection from the
intervening ground.
The net result of these assumptions is to intentionally and significantly overstate
the calculated RF levels relative to the RF levels that will actually occur—and the
purpose of this conservatism is to allow"safe-side"conclusions about compliance
with the MPE limit.
The table that follows provides the results of the MPE% calculations for each
antenna operation, with the worst-case result highlighted in bold in the last column.
9
...................... .............. ....................
DISH Verizon
Ground Wireless Wireless Southold FD Total MPE%
Distance(ft) MPE% MPE% MPE%
0 .w................ _..........0...0538......_w _.0.0694 0.000.7.._ .0.1239 ._......
_w.20..._.._.._.._.._. .._...... ,,,0.0943...._. 0.112 ...........
0.2364._.._.._.......___._.. ww __....... �_... __..w__._......
40 0.2337 0.1027 0.0930 0.4294
00.._.. ............... _0.0674 ._ _0.0590........_.. 0.1448 0.27.1.2._.........._
_...._...._........................ ._._m_. ...wwwwww wwww. �____�,.. ....._.wwwww.wwwwww.............................. _.. ........................ _,
80 0.1237 0.4140 0.1702 0.7079
._..................... 0.4487 _......0.7217.ww....._.... _....�. ..1643............................w _.....__....3........_._....____-m
47
..........................................._._._.._..... ..wwwww........___�.......................... ......................................�.Mwwwwww..._........................�_, _. w...................................__mm__wk.
120 0.4747 0.7 .............. .w........._.______......._.�........._....
140 0.3197 0.8514 0.1325 1.3036
_ M._,...�wwwww........�� ..........vv..................................r �.... .........�...._...................... ...�..............".............................-......�.._.................. ._._..............._.__._mm ..........
160 ..................
.......................... .., 1.1..1.33......_.._........ __,0.1µ1W96............... _. _.... ....1...4.7.9..._....___
200 0.2436 0.6995 0.1196 1.06 ����������
.. ..._..........._.......www._...........
_....,,,M ..wwwww_.. ................... .. . . . .......__.wwwww.w........_.�........_............ www ._._. 27
220 0.2391 0.23_40...... . _.,,,,,,, ...0...1..._... w w........_.__........ ww .
.� ........... _ww.... ...., �wwwwww _...� 162 0.5893
...................240 .�, .._........6.2484_................... . ...w---0.1522.............................._._. �0.1.�w�3.w�_._......�.�_ �_..mmmm.........._... __..
2 _
.wwwww ....... 4 0.5240
260WW 0.9927
..........
0.1960 0.12430.5130
www_.www.........�._................................ .�_,_.......,...wwwwwwwww_._.__--__.. ww.�.,,................_...............w_..ww_._._._......_.._mwwwwwww__w�.............� . .. .....................�.w........_.
280 0.1670 0.2071 0.1187 0.4928
.. ......._...._....w w._..........._w.............................. .. . ww._. ...,,,,,__-...w.------_.._.._...................___mmmmmm_.w
300 0.1889 0.2451 0.1217 0.5557
320............................. ........wwww0.1724..... _.._M mm .......0.2398 0.1.........................__.....M.M.M.M.M.M .............w_.
__ 0 �201_ 0.5323
.............w....340._._._._.......... ...._0.1426........ 0.1857W _..._.._...0.1.249 _._. .µ~*Mµµµµµ0.4532
_.www 360 M...................... 0.1244FFFFMµMµM 0.1446 WW 0...1.2.3.1.............._ _0.3921
_..3.W...........
...................... _ _0.1349...........
w w w 0.0867 _-0.120.0............. _..M.M.M.M.0.3421µµµµ
.. _..�.......www_........................w...�._.M.M......._............. ._.......
400 0.1707 .............. 0.1187 . ............0.3088................ww...
............................ _ _
440 ....._._.._._.0.1_980 ... .._.wwwww---0.0220 w,_. 0...092...................µ..w ._......_._.._M.
_ 1 0.3292
............. 460.._._._._.._.._....._m _._m 0.2447. www._ 0.0458 0.107.........................wwwww_..._........._...._._ www_
5 0.3980
480 0.2259 0.00930 _.....0.1..0........................... ...._mmmmmmm..w.w.w.w.w__....._.......................
w�w�w�w�w�w�w_w�w�w�ww._wwwwwwwwwwww.wwwwwww_.wwww.....�.__...�......._-, .� .62 0.4251
_..M.M.M.M.M.M.M. 62
500 ............................................0.2875 0.08590.0985 0.4719
As indicated, even with the significant degree of conservatism built into the
calculations, the maximum calculated RF level is 1.4796 percent of the FCC
general population MPE limit - well below the 100-percent reference for
compliance.
A graph of the overall street-level calculation results, provided on the next page,
provides a clearer visual illustration of the relative insignificance of the calculated
RF levels. The line representing the overall calculation results shows an obviously
clear, consistent margin to the FCC MPE limit.
10
. .
COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Normalized FCC MPE Limit mumAua-maw Total MPE% Results
120 [ I— [,-I—.,,
100
CL
0 L
0 100 200 300 400 500
Distance (ft)
��^ �°= �`� �[ . ,
~��MN���mm�� �=����KON
According tothe FCC, the FCC MPElimit has been constructed insuch o manner
that continuous human exposure to RIF emissions up to and including 100 percent
ofthe K4PElimit iaacceptable and safe.
As deacribmd, the analysis in this nose shows that the maximum calculated RF
level from the proposed antenna operations at the site is 14796 percent of the
FCC yWPE limit. In other words, the worst-case calculated RF level from the
antenna operations is more than 05 times below the limit established as safe for
continuous human exposure tothe RFemissions from antennas.
The results of the calculations provide a clear demonstration of compliance with
the FCC K4PE |irniL
PWoreover, because ofthe conservative calculation methodology and operational
assumptions we applied in the analysis, RIF levels actually caused by the antennas
will be even less significant than the oo|ou|adon results here indicate.
11
CERTIFICATION
It is the policy of Pinnacle Telecom Group that all FCC RF compliance
assessments are reviewed, approved, and signed by the firm's Chief Technical
Officer who certifies as follows:
1. I have read and fully understand the FCC regulations concerning RF safety
and the control of human exposure to RF fields (47 CFR 1.1301 of seq).
2. To the best of my knowledge, the statements and information disclosed in this
report are true, complete and accurate.
3. The analysis of site RF compliance provided herein is consistent with the
applicable FCC regulations, additional guidelines issued by the FCC, and
industry practice.
4. The results of the analysis indicate that the subject antenna operations will be
in compliance with the FCC regulations concerning the control of potential
human exposure to the RF emissions from antennas.
8/22/22
Daniel ollins Date
Chief nicalOfficer
Pinnacle Telecom Group, LLC
12
AppENdix A. BAckgROUNd ON ThE FCC MPE LIMIT
FCC Rules and Regulations
As directed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996,the FCC has established limits
for maximum continuous human exposure to RF fields.
The FCC maximum permissible exposure(MPE) limits represent the consensus of
federal agencies and independent experts responsible for RF safety matters.
Those agencies include the National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements (NCRP), the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In formulating its
guidelines, the FCC also considered input from the public and technical community
— notably the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE).
The FCC's RF exposure guidelines are incorporated in Section 1.301 et seq of its
Rules and Regulations (47 CFR 1.1301-1.1310). Those guidelines specify MPE
limits for both occupational and general population exposure.
The specified continuous exposure MPE limits are based on known variation of
human body susceptibility in different frequency ranges, and a Specific Absorption
Rate (SAR) of 4 watts per kilogram, which is universally considered to accurately
represent human capacity to dissipate incident RF energy (in the form of heat).
The occupational MPE guidelines incorporate a safety factor of 10 or greater with
respect to RF levels known to represent a health hazard, and an additional safety
factor of five is applied to the MPE limits for general population exposure. Thus,
the general population MPE limit has a built-in safety factor of more than 50. The
limits were constructed to appropriately protect humans of both sexes and all ages
and sizes and under all conditions— and continuous exposure at levels equal to or
below the applicable MPE limits is considered to result in no adverse health effects
or even health risk.
The reason for two tiers of MPE limits is based on an understanding and
assumption that members of the general public are unlikely to have had
appropriate RF safety training and may not be aware of the exposures they
receive; occupational exposure in controlled environments, on the other hand, is
assumed to involve individuals who have had such training, are aware of the
exposures, and know how to maintain a safe personal work environment.
The FCC's RF exposure limits are expressed in two equivalent forms, using
alternative units of field strength (expressed in volts per meter, or V/m), and power
density (expressed in milliwatts per square centimeter, or mW/cm2). The table on
the next page lists the FCC limits for both occupational and general population
exposures, using the mW/cm2 reference, for the different radio frequency ranges.
13
Frequency Range(F) Occupational Exposure General Public Exposure
(MHz) (mW/cm2) (MW/CM2)
0.3 - 1.34 100 100
1.34 -3.0 100 180 / F2
3.0 - 30 900 / F2 180/ F2
30 -300 1.0 0.2
300 - 1,500 F/ 300 F / 1500
1,500 - 100,000 5.0 1.0
The diagram below provides a graphical illustration of both the FCC's
occupational and general population MPE limits.
Power Density
(mW/cm2)
100 Occupational
w
w
General Public
w
w
w
5.0
w
w
w
r
w
w
w
1.0
w
w
w
w
0.2
0.3 1.34 3.0 30 300 1,500 100,000
Frequency(MHz)
Because the FCC's MPE limits are frequency-shaped, the exact MPE limits
applicable to the instant situation depend on the frequency range used by the
systems of interest.
The most appropriate method of determining RF compliance is to calculate the RF
power density attributable to a particular system and compare that to the MPE limit
applicable to the operating frequency in question. The result is usually expressed
as a percentage of the MPE limit.
14
For potential exposure from multiple systems, the respective percentages of the
MPE limits are added, and the total percentage compared to 100 (percent of the
limit). If the result is less than 100, the total exposure is in compliance; if it is more
than 100, exposure mitigation measures are necessary to achieve compliance.
Note that the FCC "categorically excludes" certain types of antenna facilities from
the routine requirement to specifically (i.e., mathematically) demonstrate
compliance with the MPE limit. Among those types of facilities are cellular
antennas mounted on any type of tower, when the bottoms of the antennas are
more than 10 meters (c. 32.8 feet) above ground. The basis for the categorical
exclusion, according to the FCC, is the understanding that because of the low
power and the directionality of the antennas, such facilities — individually and
collectively — are well understood to have no significant effect on the human
environment. As a result, the FCC automatically deems such facilities to be in
compliance.
In addition, FCC Rules and Regulations Section 1.1307(b)(3)describes a provision
known in the industry as "the 5% rule". It describes that when a specific location
— like a spot on a rooftop — is subject to an overall exposure level exceeding the
applicable MPE limit, operators with antennas whose MPE% contributions at the
point of interest are less than 5% are exempted from the obligation otherwise
shared by all operators to bring the site into compliance, and those antennas are
automatically deemed by the FCC to satisfy the rooftop compliance requirement.
FCC References on Compliance
47 CFR, FCC Rules and Regulations, Part 1 (Practice and Procedure), Section
1.1310 (Radiofrequency radiation exposure limits).
FCC Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (FCC 97-303), In the Matter of Procedures for Reviewing Requests
for Relief From State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(8)(v) of
the Communications Act of 1934 (WT Docket 97-192), Guidelines for Evaluating
the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation (ET Docket 93-62), and
Petition for Rulemaking of the Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association
Concerning Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Preempt State and Local
Regulation of Commercial Mobile Radio Service Transmitting Facilities, released
August 25, 1997.
FCC First Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket 93-62, In the Matter of
Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation,
released December 24, 1996.
FCC Report and Order, ET Docket 93-62, In the Matter of Guidelines for Evaluating
the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, released August 1, 1996.
15
FCC Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Bulletin 65, "Evaluating
Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic Fields", Edition 97-01, August 1997.
16
ApPENdix B. SUMMARY OF EXPERT QUAIMCATiONS
Daniel J. Collins, Chief Technical Officer, Pinnacle Telecom Group, LLC
Synopsis: •40+years of experience in all aspects of wireless system
engineering, related regulation, and RF exposure
•Has performed or led RF exposure compliance assessments
on more than 20,000 antenna sites since the latest FCC
regulations went into effect in 1997
•Has provided testimony as an RF compliance expert more
than 1,500 times since 1997
•Have been accepted as an FCC compliance expert in New
York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and more than
40 other states, as well as by the FCC
Education: . B.E.E., City College of New York(Sch. Of Eng.), 1971
•M.B.A., 1982, Fairleigh Dickinson University, 1982
._._._...�_ 966 _
•Bronx High School of Science,
Current Responsibilities: ._ y• Leads all PTG staff work involving RF safety and FCC
compliance, microwave and satellite system engineering,
and consulting on wireless technology and regulation
Prior Experience:_ . Edwards & Kelcey,µVP—RF Engineering and Chief....._.................mmmmmm
Information Technology Officer, 1996-99
• Bellcore (a Bell Labs offshoot after AT&T's 1984 divestiture),
Executive Director—Regulation and Public Policy, 1983-96
•AT&T(Corp. HQ), Division Manager—RF Engineering, and
Director— Radio Spectrum Management, 1977-83
•AT&T Long Lines, Group Supervisor—Microwave Radio
System Design, 1972-77
........................................................_........................—.m_._....._............................_..... ........................
Specific RF Safety/ •Involved in RF exposure matters since 1972
Compliance Experience: .Have had lead corporate responsibility for RF safety and
compliance at AT&T, Bellcore, Edwards &Kelcey, and PTG
•While at AT&T, helped develop the mathematical models for
calculating RF exposure levels
• Have been relied on for compliance by all major wireless
carriers, as well as by the federal government, several state
and local governments, equipment manufacturers, system
integrators, and other consulting/engineering firms
Other Background: *Author, Microwave System Engineering(AT&T, 1974)
•Co-author and executive editor,A Guide to New
Technologies and Services (Bellcore, 1993)
•National Spectrum Management Association (NSMA)—
former three-term President and Chairman of the Board of
Directors; was founding member, twice-elected Vice
President, long-time member of the Board, and was named
an NSMA Fellow in 1991
•Have published more than 35 articles in industry magazines
17