Resources | Letter to the FCC

Letter to the Federal Communications Commission on 5G Safety & Section 6409

Re: Urgent Need for FCC Review – Nationwide Misapplication of Section 6409, OET-65 Non-Compliance, and Unregulated 5G Power Increases Affecting Public Safety and Municipal Authority

To the Honorable Chairwoman and Commissioners of the Federal Communications Commission:

My name is Michael D. Flores, CEO of Spectrum Cellular Management, a national consulting firm specializing in RF safety compliance, cellular infrastructure engineering, and municipal wireless oversight. For more than 30 years, I have worked in the development, auditing, and evaluation of wireless installations across the United States. The engineering teams under my leadership have contributed to the construction or review of more than 10,000 wireless facilities nationwide.

I am writing to formally notify the Commission of a widespread national pattern of Section 6409 misclassification, FCC OET-65 non-compliance, and unregulated increases in radiated output power associated with 5G deployments. These systemic failures are occurring at the local-government level because FCC rules have not been updated to reflect modern 5G technologies, particularly massive MIMO, beamforming, and the increased EIRP now associated with new equipment.

Cities are relying on carrier self-certification and outdated interpretations of FCC policy, resulting in public-safety lapses, municipal liability, and misapplication of federal law.

I. Widespread Misclassification of High-Power 5G Upgrades as “Minor Modifications” Under Section 640

Section 6409(a) was enacted to streamline minor 4G-era modifications, such as cabinet swaps and collocations that did not materially alter the facility.

Across the United States, however, carriers are submitting high-power 5G upgrades under Section 6409, despite:

New antennas and radio systems
Increases in radiated output power (25–35× typical 4G output)
New RF safety zones and expanded exclusion contours
Changes to structural load characteristics
New backhaul, cabling, and electrical requirements
Modifications affecting adjacent properties and public access areas

Under 47 C.F.R. § 1.6100(b)(7) and OET-65, these are substantial changes, and therefore not eligible facilities requests.

Yet these upgrades continue to be processed under shot-clock deadlines intended for minor alterations.

The result:

Cities approve 5G installations without public hearings, RF safety review, structural evaluation, or permit updates, because the classification is wrong at the start. This is occurring nationwide.

II. Material Changes in Radiated Power Require Major-Modification Review Under FCC Rules

The Commission’s own safety framework requires this.

Under:

47 C.F.R. § 1.1310 (MPE Limits)
OET Bulletin 65 (Evaluating Compliance With FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to RF Energy)
47 C.F.R. § 1.1307 (Environmental Analysis)
2014 FCC Acceleration of Broadband Order

Any modification that increases RF emissions, alters MPE boundaries, or changes exclusion zones must undergo full environmental and RF compliance evaluation.

This includes:

Increased transmitter output power
Expanded EMR/MPE “bloom” footprints
New antennas with different downtilt/beamforming profiles
Higher cumulative RF exposure from multi-band or multi-carrier configurations
Any structural or environmental change affecting worker or public RF exposure

Under the FCC’s own rules, these changes disqualify a site from streamlined treatment under Section 6409. Yet carriers continue to classify these as “minor modifications,” and local governments, reliant on carrier-authored RF reports, are approving them.

III. Field Observations Reveal a National Pattern of OET-65 Non-Compliance and Incomplete RF Studies

Across hundreds of sites reviewed by our firm and by municipal partners, we have repeatedly found:

RF compliance reports lacking required OET-65 engineering analysis
Missing or incorrect power-density calculations
No evaluation of cumulative emissions from multiple antennas
No vertical beam or downtilt modeling
No adjacent-property exposure assessment
No rooftop worker or public-access assessment
Modeling conducted at reduced power, not worst-case EIRP
“Greenwashed” graphics that do not represent operational emissions
Bloom footprints that exceed the boundaries of the originally approved facility

These patterns appear systemic, not isolated, and involve multiple carriers and contractors.

To be clear:

We are not alleging intentional misconduct by any specific carrier. We are documenting, and urging the FCC to address, a regulatory gap created by outdated rules overseeing modern RF technology.

IV. Cities Are Accidentally Assuming RF Liability Due to FCC Policy Gaps

Local jurisdictions routinely approve installations based solely on carrier self-certification.

The standard municipal ordinance, found in hundreds of cities, states:

“The carrier shall certify that the installation complies with FCC OET-65 and 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310.”

However, cities almost never possess:

In-house RF engineers
Ability to audit emissions
Ability to verify beam characteristics
Understanding of Section 6409 eligibility criteria
Budget for independent verification

The result:

Cities approve 5G upgrades that they do not understand, cannot evaluate, and are pre-empted from regulating
Cities inherit liability for facilities they did not meaningfully review
Cities are losing millions in permit fees because upgrades are incorrectly processed under Section 6409

This directly contradicts Congress’ intent in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which was to preserve local zoning authority, not eliminate it.

V. What We Urgently Request From the FCC

We respectfully request that the FCC:

1. Issue Clarifying Guidance on Section 6409 Eligibility
Specifically: any modification that increases radiated power, alters MPE boundaries, or changes exclusion zones constitutes a “substantial change” and is not eligible under Section 6409.

2. Modernize OET Bulletin 65 for 5G and 6G Technologies

Current guidance predates:

Massive MIMO
Beamforming
mmWave
High-density small-cell clusters
Multi-band simultaneous transmissions

3. Require Independent Third-Party RF Evaluation for High-Power Modifications
Carrier self-generated documentation is no longer adequate.

4. Update 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310 to Account for Cumulative Exposure
Including multi-carrier, multi-band facilities common in 5G deployments.

5. Require Public Notice and Municipal Review for High-Power Modification Applications
Even when base structures are existing.

VI. Our Commitment to the FCC

Spectrum Cellular Management and our engineering partners stand ready to assist the Commission through:

Technical briefings
Engineering evaluations
Case studies
Documentation of Section 6409 misclassification
EMR/MPE bloom footprint demonstrations
City-by-city audit summaries
Recommendations for rulemaking proceedings
Participation in future NPRMs related to 5G/6G

We share the FCC’s objective of safe, lawful, scientifically grounded wireless deployment. We believe the Commission has a pivotal role to play in ensuring that modern RF technologies are deployed responsibly and transparently.