0004_ss_021308

3060-0004 February 2008

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

1. Justification:

The Commission is seeking an extension of this information collection (IC). There have been no changes in the reporting or third party disclosure requirements. However, the Commission is reporting a +249,702 increase in respondents/responses; a -92,178 burden hour reduction; and a +$27,498,703 increase in annual costs.

1. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires agencies of the Federal Government to evaluate the effects of their actions on the quality of the human environment. To meet its responsibilities under NEPA, the Commission, in the Second MO&O, ET Docket No. 93-62, (adopted August 1997) revised RF exposure guidelines for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental effects of RF radiation from FCC-regulated facilities. These guidelines reflected more recent scientific studies of the biological effects of RF radiation and the use of these guidelines would ensure that the FCC’s applicants are evaluating their facilities with the latest standards for RF exposure.

The implementation of the NEPA guidelines increased the burden to respondents in two ways:

(1) the adoption of more restrictive exposure limits decreased the number of services which might be excluded from routinely performing an environmental evaluation; and

(2) respondents now have to consider the energy contributions from multiple transmitters when performing an environmental evaluation.

Prior to adoption of the Second MO&O, the Commission considered the suggestions of the Ad Hoc Association of Parties Concerned about the FCC Health and Safety Rules regarding public access to information associated with the environmental aspects of RF radiation without undue burden on Commission licensees. The Commission requires applicants to submit limited information during the licensing and authorization process. In many services, the Commission simply requires licensees to provide reliable service to specific geographic areas, but does not require licensees to file site-specific information. It does not appear that the FCC’s present licensing methods can provide public notification of site-specific information without imposing new and significant additional burden to the Commission’s applicants. However, we note that applicants with the greatest potential to exceed the Commission’s exposure limits are required to routinely perform an environmental evaluation as part of the licensing and authorization process.

We advise concerned members of the public, seeking site-specific information, to contact the Commission for the name and telephone number of the service providers in the concerned party’s area. The Commission encourages all service providers to provide site-specific, technical information and environmental evaluation documentation upon public request. In addition, we note alternative sources of information may be state and local governments, which may collect some site-specific information as part of the zoning process.

This collection of information is authorized under Sections 4, 302, 303 and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303 and 307.

As noted on the OMB Form 83-I, this information collection affects individual consumers or households. Pertinent information that results from environmental evaluations is typically only collected from applicants for licenses or grants of equipment authorization, not from individuals or households.

The Commission has a System of Records, FCC/WTB-1, “Wireless Services Licensing Records,” which covers the personally identifiable information (PII) that individual applicants may include in their submissions for licenses or grants of equipment authorization.¹ At such time as the Commission revises this System of Records Notice (SORN), the Commission will conduct a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) and publish the revised SORN in the Federal Register. In addition, the Commission will post a copy of both the PIA and the SORN on the FCC’s Privacy webpage.

2. The information collected is needed, because the Commission requires applicants to perform an environmental evaluation with respect to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Applicants are required to consider contributions from other transmitters within the vicinity of their facility in order to assess the cumulative exposure. Accordingly, to correctly determine compliance with the Commission’s exposure limits, an applicant must locate, determine ownership, and gather technical information for all contributing transmitters.

Applicants are generally required, as part of the authorization and licensing process, to indicate compliance with the Commissions environmental rules. Supporting information may be requested and reviewed by the Commission’s engineers, attorneys, and paraprofessional staff to determine whether the environmental evaluation is sufficiently complete and in accordance with the Commission's Rules.

3. The information collection almost always involves the use of electronic techniques. The Commission estimates that the use of information technology to reduce the burden may be feasible in 99% of cases.

4. The Commission recognizes the possibility of duplication of effort in the preparation and submission of environmental information and has provided in Section 1.1311(e) that: "An Environmental Assessment (EA) need not be submitted to the Commission if another agency of the Federal Government has assumed responsibility for determining whether the facilities in question will have significant effect on the quality of the human environment and, if it will, for invoking the environmental impact statement process."

Section 1.1311(d) provides: “to the extent that such information is submitted in another part of the application, it need not be duplicated in an EA, but adequate cross-reference to such information shall be supplied.”

The Commission's rules do not require multiple submissions of the same environmental information for different purposes.

5. In conformance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Commission has limited the information collection requirements to those services, which pose the highest potential for exceeding RF radiation limits. Efforts have been made to categorically exclude facilities, commonly used by smaller businesses and entities, which appear to have little potential for causing exposures in excess of the guidelines. In situations where a service cannot be categorically excluded in its entirety, some transmitters within such a service may be excluded if meeting specific power and antenna height criteria.

In addition, the Commission has minimized environmental evaluation considerations by providing technical documentation and analysis techniques in the form of OET Bulletin 65, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. It is estimated that 99% of the affected parties will use this document to determine compliance.

6. If the information were not colleted, the Commission could not ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), specifically, to minimize the potential environmental effects of RF radiation from FCC-regulated facilities.

7. Applicants would generally perform an environmental evaluation only when submitting an initial application for authorization or license, modification of the authorization or license, or renewal of the authorization or license. In most situations, we expect that an applicant is only required to indicate compliance with the Commission’s environmental rules. However, under 47 CFR §§ 1.1307(c) and (d), the Commission may require the collection of additional information if it determines that a significant environmental effect may exist. Further, if the Commission deems it necessary, it may require applicants previously excluded from performing an environmental evaluation to submit environmental information.

8. The Commission solicited the views of industry and the general public by Federal Register (72 FR 69682, December 10, 2007). No comments were received in response to the Federal Register notification. A copy of the notice is included in the submission to the OMB.

9. No payment is made to the respondent.

10. There is a minimal exemption from the Freedom of Information Act, Title 5, U.S.C. 552(b)(4), and FCC Rules 47 CFR § 0.459(d), that is granted for trade secrets, which may be submitted to the Commission as part of the documentation of test results. No other assurances of confidentiality are provided to respondents.

11. No sensitive information is requested. As noted above in Question 1, this information collection may affect individuals or households. Any personally identifiable information that is submitted by individuals is covered by a SORN, WTB-1, “Wireless Services Licensing Records.”

12. The Commission estimates that respondents will file approximately 376,253 RF evaluations annually x .44 hours (average) burden per response equals an annual burden of 163,902 hours. As discussed below, responses are typically required upon initial request for authorization and at intervals of from five to ten years afterward.

During Fiscal Year 2007, the Commission processed about 522,000 applications. It is estimated that 376,253 of these applications included some type of environmental certification related to RF exposure. Such certification is required only when submitting an initial application for authorization or license, modification of the authorization or license, or renewal of the authorization or license. Typical license terms are from five to ten years. The vast majority of certifications took the form of a claim of categorically exclusion from routine evaluation, and most of the others were able to certify compliance without filing additional documentation with the FCC. The 2007 licensing and authorization activities (number of forms filed) are typical for the FCC.

There is considerable variation in the range of hour burden for respondents. The Commission estimates that 354,322 respondents fall under categorical exclusion and will require approximately 5 minutes to make this determination, for a total annual burden of 29,527 hours. In making this determination, the respondent would be required to determine under what rule part an authorization has been granted; many rule parts are themselves entirely categorically excluded. If the respondent finds that an authorization is under a rule part that is not excluded, the respondent may then compare the authorized radiated power level and antenna height with values listed in a table, below which categorical exclusion may also be claimed.

Respondents that are unable to claim categorical exclusion will have to complete worksheets or perform simple calculations described in OET Bulletin No. 65 to determine compliance with the environmental rules concerning RF exposure. It is estimated that 18,344 respondents will fall into this category. The estimated amount of time required for most simple calculations would be three hours, giving a total 56,779 hours.

For respondents having commingled RF sources, portable devices, or otherwise having authorizations requiring detailed evaluation by calculation and/or measurement, the amount of time required is estimated to range from three ­to 40 hours. The total number responses requiring detailed or complex evaluations is estimated to be 3,586, representing 77,596 hours.

As shown in Table 1, the total number hours required for RF exposure evaluations is estimated to be 134,375. So, the total burden is (29,527 + 56,779 + 77,596 (134,375) = 163,902 hours.

Table 1: Cost and time burdens for evaluations performed by applicants that could not claim categorical exclusion

13. The Commission estimates that respondents will incur an annual cost of $28,691,703 in collecting the required information.

Assuming a billing rate of $75 per hour, the total cost burden for determinations of categorical exclusion is ($75 x 29,527 hours =) $2,214,525. Applications for facilities, which are not categorically excluded, but requiring simple calculations or detailed analysis/measurements, are assumed to require review by persons having more specialized skills at higher billing rates, of $150 and $250 per hour, respectively. The Commission has estimated those time requirements and costs as shown in Table 1 ($26,477,178). Therefore, $2,214,525 + $26,477,178 = $28,691,703 in annual costs to respondents.

Since facilities regulated under Part 97 of the Commission’s rules are typically owned by technically knowledgeable members of the public, a lesser cost has been assumed.

In preparing their RF evaluations, we believe that some applicants may consider the following:

1. distribution of other antennas with the vicinity of the applicant’s facility; and

(ii) calculating approximately the time necessary to locate other transmitters, identify ownership, obtain technical data, and determine compliance.

Most transmitters are evaluated according to the Commission’s limits for electromagnetic fields or power density. However, for portable devices authorized under Part 2 of the Commissions rules, the specific absorption rate (SAR) of RF energy into tissue must be modeled or measured. The Commission estimates that the average cost of an SAR test is approximately $10,000.

The above time and cost figures are reflected in Table 1.

14. The total annualized costs to the Federal government associated with this information collection is $236,354. All of the costs are personnel-related.

It is estimated that a GS-855-09, Step 5 electronics engineer ($25.88 per hour) spends approximately 1 minute considering each of the estimated 376,253 claims of categorical exclusion or routine compliance (requires examining a “yes/no” entry on a form) to determine if an applicant has sufficiently demonstrated compliance. The total annualized cost to the Federal government for these reviews is ($25.88 x 376,253 x 1/60 =) $162,290.

The Commission currently collects and analyzes additional supporting information for approximately 9% of the 21,931 detailed evaluations performed by the respondents, for a total of 1,974 reviews. Review of this information requires a higher grade level engineer and requires more time. For this purpose, it is estimated that a GS-855-12, Step 5, electronics engineer ($37.52 per hour) spends approximately one hour in reviewing the detailed compliance demonstrations in each of these applications at a rate of $32.93/hr. The total annualized cost to the Federal government for these reviews is ($37.52 x 1,974 =) $74,064.

Therefore, the cost to the Federal Government is $162,290 + $74,064 = $236,354.

15. The Commission has adjusted the total number of respondents/responses, the total annual hourly burden, and the total annual cost to respondents from the previous estimates, based on a reevaluation of the process for determining these various burden estimates. Even though more applications are being filed electronically, there has been a +249,703 increase in respondents/responses, i.e., many more evaluations are being submitted for portable and mobile devices, thus accounting for the increase in annual respondents and decrease in annual hours. The Commission is reporting a decrease in the burden hours and an increase in the annual costs due to recalculations of estimates.

16. The data will not be published for statistical use.

17. The Commission is not requesting a waiver of displaying the OMB expiration date for the reporting requirements contained in rule sections. The Commission does display the OMB Control Number, expiration date and title of each OMB-approved IC in 47 CFR 0.408.

18. After publishing the 60 day Federal Notice, the Commission determined that individuals and households are affected by this collection of information. This change has been reflected in the 30 day Federal Register Notice. The Commission has also reevaluated the annual cost from what was stated in the 60 day Federal Register Notice.

B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods:

This collection of information does not employ statistical methods.

1 The system of records notice (SORN) for FCC/WTB-1, “Wireless Services Licensing Records,” was published in the Federal Register on April 5, 2006, see 71 FR 17234, 17269. The SORN may also be viewed at http://www.fcc.gov/omd/privacyact/records-systems.html

7