Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
CONSUMER AFFAIRS COMMITTEE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE
MAIN CAPITOL BUILDING ROOM 140
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA
PUBLIC HEARING HOUSE BILL 1400
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 10:01 A.M.
2019
BEFORE
HONORABLEHONORABLEHONORABLEHONORABLE
HONORABLEHONORABLEHONORABLEHONORABLEHONORABLEHONORABLEHONORABLEHONORABLEHONORABLEHONORABLEHONORABLEHONORABLEHONORABLEHONORABLE
BRAD ROAE, MAJORITY CHAIRMAN SHERYL DELOZIER JOE EMRICKFRANK FARRY, SUBCOMMITTEE
MAJORITY CHAIRMAN RYAN MACKENZIE THOMAS MEHAFFIE TINA PICKETT CHRIS QUINN THOMAS SANKEY MARTINA WHITEROB MATZIE, MINORITY CHAIRMANFRANK BURNSDONNA BULLOCKAUSTIN DAVISTINA DAVISED NEILSONPETER SCHWEYERPAM SNYDER, SUBCOMMITTEE
MINORITY CHAIRMAN
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2ALSO PRESENT:
PHIL KIRCHNER, HEATHER RODGERS
BETH ROSENTEL, TIMOTHY SCOTT, BRETT BIGGICA,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (R), LEGISLATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE
ASSISTANT II (R)EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (D)SENIOR RESEARCH ANALYST (D) RESEARCH ANALYST (D)
BRENDA J. PARDUN, RPR REPORTER - NOTARY PUBLIC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3INDEX
NAME
FRANK FARRY OPENING COMMENTS
PA GE
4
KEVIN SUNDAYPA CHAMBER OF BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY
5
ASHLEY HENRY SHOOK PA PARTNERSHIP FOR 5G
10
DAVID SANKOPA STATE ASSOCIATION OF TOWNSHIP SUPERVISORS
16
LISA MCCABE CTIA
22
DAVE KERR AT&T
25
FRANK BUZYDLOWSKI VERIZON
25
JERRY OZOG 26PA FIRE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES INSTITUTE
ERIC SWANSONPROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY
28
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 32
SUBMITTED WRITTEN TESTIMONY * * *
(See submitted written testimony and handouts
online.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
P R O C E E D I N G S
SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY:
All right, folks. We're going to convene the
hearing here. This hearing on is House Bill
1400, small cell deployment. This is the
latest rendition from a bill that was
introduced last session.
I'm Frank Farry, the subcommittee
chairman on telecommunications.
We're going to move to our first
testifier right after the other subcommittee
chairman's initial comments.
SUBCOMMITTEE MINORITY CHAIRMAN
SNYDER: Thank you. I'm very happy to be here
today and help to co-chair this hearing, and I
want to thank the chairmen of the Consumer
Affairs Committee, Chairman Roae and Chairman
Matzie, for allowing us to do this.
I look forward to the testimony and
learning a little more about Representative
Farry's bill and small cells. And let's roll.
SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY:
Thank you.
Al l r i g h t . O u r f i r s t p a n e l i s g o i n g
to be Kevin Sunday, from the PA Chamber, and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5Ashley Shook, from the PA Partnership for 5G.
MR. SUNDAY: All right. Good
morning. My name is Kevin Sunday, director of
government affairs at the chamber.
Thank you, Chairman Roae, Chairman
Matzie, and subcommittee chairs Farry, Snyder,
members of the committee.
It’s my pleasure to speak before you
this morning about the opportunity our members
see in terms of advancing wireless and
broadband infrastructure in the state,
including small cell and 5G technology. And
we believe that moving forward and encouraging
a pathway to deploy these technologies is
vital to the long-term economic
competitiveness necessary for the state and
the state, local, and federal government
invested infrastructure and establish policy
that leverages private sector investment. We
believe it is imperative that technology be
part of that conversation.
So, we've long been an advocate at
the chamber of infrastructure broadly -
ports, waterways, airports, rail. It's
becoming an emerging topic of conversation
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6among our members that the technology,
wireless data, digital networks be part of
that conversation.
So, we want to make sure that w e ’re
advocating to support efforts to reduce
regulatory burdens to deploy these networks
and make sure that the focus of conversation
is how to build them with private sector
investment.
As i t r e l a t e s t o b r o a d b a n d d e p l o y me n t
small cell and 5G technology, w e ’re going to
see more and more businesses harness cloud
computing, advanced data analytics, automated
vehicles, advanced manufacturing,
telemedicine, and other innovations. And
these require wireless and broadband networks
that need to be modernized so we can reduce
data congestion and ensure reliable data
service. And advances in telecommunications
and broadband infrastructure capability can
also be used to improve public safety, with
uses such as enhanced gunshot detection and
more responsive realtime adjustments to the
operations of our electric, water, and natural
gas utility system.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7And for consumers more broadly, w e ’re
expecting mobile data traffic to increase
seven-fold in the next couple of years, again,
reiterating the need to have robust
infrastructure.
An d t h e s e t o p i c s a n d p o t e n t i a l
applications, as I mentioned, have come to our
member’s minds. We have a policy roundtable
event that advises our board of directors in
which we listen to policy leaders and shape
the chamber’s advocacy dialogue. In recent
discussions, we had a conversation about
wireless and 5G and have added it to our
agenda for this session.
So, we are advocating, building on
our past advocacy for infrastructure, that as
we develop a 21st century economy, we need
thoughtful policy to enhance our data
networks.
In terms of economic numbers, the
next generation of wireless and broadband
technology, according to one report, will
enable up to 12.3 billion worth of goods and
services by 2035. And we need, as a state, to
be able to compete for this growth.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8Emerging mobile technology has the
potential over the next decade to create 5
billion dollars of national GDP growth thanks
to 275 billion in private investment and
create 3 million new jobs.
For various Pennsylvania cities and
metro areas, 5G deployment represents a
potential increase of more than 3. 5 billion
dollars in GDP and thousands of new jobs.
Another report put those numbers at 23 billion
and 17 , 000 j obs.
In terms of couching where we are
with the federal government, last October, the
FCC issued an order to reduce barriers to
deployment of 5G. While that order addressed
a number of issues related to fees and siting
requirements, there are some outstanding
policy issues that can be handled in state
legislation, such as having straightforward
fixed-fee caps, a more detailed and concrete
requirements to deal with things such as
historic districts, underground, and poles,
traffic signals, and ground-based equipment,
and addressing the shot clocks on
applications.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9More broadly, as a matter of policy
for our members, any effort to streamline the
process and improve predictability for the
private sector must be inclusive to the array
of technologies that can be deployed to
support wireless and broadband infrastructure,
and it's important that we have a level
playing field for all technologies and
approaches to ensure competition.
As we have noted before on any a
number of issues, we believe a healthy and
vibrant, competitive marketplace is the best
structure to ensure positive outcomes to
consumers and the economy.
I know rural broadband is an issue on
many folks' minds, so I want to just close and
touch on three things.
First, development of rural broadband
is vital to ensure the economic health of our
entire state and is a worthy goal. However,
we do not support building out that
infrastructure by levying punitive taxes on
other industries such as the energy sector.
Second, last fall, the congress
passed HR 2, the farm bill, and that included
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10350 million in funding for rural broadband,
and given the amount of Pennsylvanians living
in rural counties, we expect that Pennsylvania
should be able to compete for a significant
share of that.
An d , f i n a l l y , a s i t r e l a t e s t o
deploying capital for rural broadband, again,
the private industry is the largest source of
capital, and the more regulatory hurdles we
put up, and -- from state and local
government, the less capital is available to
deploy for rural broadband. And, therefore,
we believe it's good policy to streamline
deployment of this technology across wireless
and broadband in order to move the state
economy forward.
An d , a g a i n , t h a n k y o u f o r t h e
opportunity to speak before you today, and
happy to answer any questions you might have
after my co-panelist speaks. Thanks.
MS. SHOOK: Good morning. My name is
A s h l e y H e n r y S h o o k , a n d I a m t h e s p o k e s p e r s o n
for the Pennsylvania Partnership for 5G, a
business and technology advocacy group
supporting the deployment of 5G technology
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11infrastructure throughout the commonwealth.
The Pennsylvania Partnership for 5G
has more than forty members at this point, and
while we noted all of them in the testimony
that we provided to you today, I did just want
to reiterate that our membership reflects a
broad cross section of industry and interests,
and it also represents a diverse geography of
businesses and organizations throughout the
commonwealth.
Just to mention a few organizations
that belong to the Pennsylvania Partnership
for 5G, we have the Greater Pittsburgh Chamber
of Commerce, Highmark Health, the Pennsylvania
Economic Development Association, the
Philadelphia Fraternal Order of Police Lodge
No. 5, the Pocono Mountains Visitors Bureau,
Robert Morris University, and the Southwestern
planning commission.
On behalf of our members, I would
like to express our appreciation for convening
this hearing today, and we also urge your
support of House Bill 1400.
The Pennsylvania Partnership for 5G
is supportive of statewide legislation that
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12sets standards for fees, provides a
streamlined permitting process, and creates an
environment which enables small cell
deployment. It’s our hope that House Bill
1400 will reflect these same principles.
A legislative framework for the
deployment of small cell nodes, the backbone
by which 5G technology will be supported, is
critical. It’s why more than twenty-five
states have already enacted such legislation,
including Illinois, West Virginia, Ohio, and
many others are also considering legislation
at the moment. Now is the time for
Pennsylvania to be doing the same.
5G is a new kind of network. It’s a
platform for innovations that will not only
enhance today’s mobile broadband services but
will also expand mobile networks to support a
vast array of services and devices.
When 5G-capable devices become
available in 2020, Pennsylvanians, your
constituents, are going to expect and
ultimately demand that they have access to
this technology, especially those in urban and
suburban settings where demand is beginning to
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13exceed capacity. Yet, Pennsylvania, as you
know, currently lacks the infrastructure
needed for 5G service. That’s essentially why
the Pennsylvania Partnership for 5G was
formed. Our members collectively recognized
the need for policy makers to understand the
ramifications it will cause if Pennsylvania is
not providing a regulatory environment that
promotes small cell deployment.
The PA partnership believes that
House Bill 1400 will establish an application
fee that allows municipalities to cover their
costs relative to the processing of
applications, grant municipalities a
reasonable amount of time to review those
applications, and require infrastructure
providers to take into account the aesthetic
of a neighborhood in their design.
As a r e s u l t , t h e b i l l c a n n o t b e
characterized as infringing on a locality’ s
ability to control its right-of-way.
Municipalities that oppose House Bill 1400 or
that may seek a carve-out are jeopardizing
their community’s timely access to 5G
technology.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14As K e v i n a l r e a d y s h a r e d , t h e
economics behind 5G technology are impressive.
It's going to help create 3 million new jobs,
500 billion in GDP, and 275 billion in private
investment. Driverless technology, robotics
deliveries, first responder networks, traffic
flow solutions, and other data-driven
services, many of which are found or will be
found in smart cities, smart homes, smart
appliances, they are going to require a 5G
network to work optimally.
The public safety, economic
development, and business implications are
j ust now beginning to be realized and
quanti fied.
And I just want to give two brief
examples of how 5G technology is impacting two
very different industries.
So, 5G deployment will be especially
impactful to public safety and first
responders. And I know you're going to be
hearing from Mr. Ozog later this morning, but
it's important to recognize that, today, over
half of American households are wireless-only,
meaning they don't have a land line. And 80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15percent of 911 calls originate from a mobile
device, making reliable coverage in homes more
important than ever.
The other industry I just wanted to
give a brief example and talk to is health
care. As we all know, health care costs have
continued to rise. But 5G will enable
telemedicine and remote health care that will
help lower those costs and ultimately improve
patient service. Virtual doctor visits are
approximately 75 percent less expensive than a
traditional doctor's visit. With 5G, doctors
can utilize remote monitoring services to help
patients living in isolated areas gain access
to medical assistance.
If we want to remain competitive,
it's imperative that Pennsylvania is prepared
to reap these benefits. The PA Partnership
for 5G is hopeful that House Bill 1400 can
establish a reasonable, predictable, and
uniform deployment of small cells across
j urisdictions so that Pennsylvania is not left
behind in the race for 5G.
Thank you very much for your time
today.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY:
Thank you.
And for the committee members, our
plan is to hear from all of the panelists
first and then we'll have questions.
So, if you don't mind sticking around
in case there's any questions at the end of
the hearing.
Pennsylvania State Association of Township
Supervi sors.
MR. SANKO: Good morning,
Representative Farry and members of the House
Consumer Affairs subcommittee on
telecommunications.
My name is David Sanko, and I'm the
executive director of the Pennsylvania State
Association of Township Supervisors. The
association is a nonpartisan, nonprofit member
service organization whose members represent
5. 6 million Pennsylvanians, more than any
other type of Pennsylvania municipal
government, and covers 95 percent of the
commonwealth's land mass.
Our next panel is -- our next
is Dave Sanko, on behalf of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17I want to thank you for letting us
speak to this issue today. W e ’re not here to
talk about the need or the importance of
broadband and Internet and access. That’s a
given. I don’t think anybody disputes that.
What we are here to talk about is how we can
all collectively partner together to make that
happen.
House Bill 1400 provides for the
regulation of small wireless facilities in the
municipal rights-of-way. Our position on 1400
is set by our membership, which has
established numerous policies to ensure that
they be able to continue to exercise
reasonable oversight and collect fees for the
right-of-ways and co-location of wireless
facilities on municipal infrastructure.
Legislation is a process. It’s not
always pretty, and sometimes it takes time to
get it right. This journey spans a couple
years now, with consistent improvements to the
rights and concerns of local municipalities.
We appreciate the open and inclusive process
established by Representative Farry and the
c o mmi t t e e .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18We applaud the progress that has been
made to protect municipal prerogative and
local determination. When this first started,
in 1620 — the bill, not the year -- it would
have essentially eliminated municipal zoning
authority over the placement of most wireless
facilities, large and small, inside and
outside the right-of-way. This new bill
narrowly focuses on small wireless facilities
inside the right-of-way.
This bill does not attempt to amend
or repeal the wireless broadband co-location
act, which deals with co-locations of towers.
It is, instead, narrowly focused on small cell
deployment.
This bill would give municipalities
some discretion over co-location on decorative
poles in historic district. The original
version did not. The underground utility
provisions, effective date, and the rights of
municipalities and property owners to approve
the placing of a utility pole in the
right-of-way on their property was not in the
original version or is it in the current FCC
regs. But it is in this legislation.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19One of our previous suggestions was
to remove a loophole that could have allowed
poles higher than fifty feet simply by filing
a waiver with the application. Now it's clear
that anyone — anything more than fifty feet
has to go through a zoning process.
Another prior suggestion was to
include an indemnification provision for any
damages caused by a provider's negligence.
1400 has that indemnification.
This new bill allows for a penalty to
be charged if a provider performs work within
the right-of-way and fails to return it to its
prior condition. It requires that the poles
deployed by a third party are included in the
total application count for a contracting
provider.
Language was added to require the
applicant to provide documentation that they
have obtained all necessary approvals from the
pole owner and that they have their
permission.
And since last February — or last
August hearing, the Federal Communication
Commission established rules for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20municipalities nationwide. These rules
include new shot clocks for the review of
applications, caps on fees, and allowing
aesthetic requirements within a limited
framework. This legislation appears to
incorporate that order, with the additional
exception that Pennsylvania will provide more
time and special accommodations for
municipalities with limited staff addressing
multiple consolidated applications.
the prior version are higher fee limitations.
While an improvement over the prior versions,
the fee, these revisions are due to the FCC
order, which capped application fees at 500
dollars for up to five small wireless
each facility. Further recurring fees for
rights-of-way access and/or the attachment of
municipally owned -- to municipally owned
structures are limited to a combined 270
dollars under the FCC order, which is
reflected in 1400.
1400, as drafted, has a 170-dollar
right-of-way fee combined with a
One of the significant changes from
, and additional hundred dollars for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21hundred-dollar pole attachment fee. Those are
a step in the right direction, but there
should be more movement to increase the
right-of-way fee, even at the expense of pole
attachment fees. Maintaining the right-of-way
is more costly and represents an ongoing
expense.
We, additionally, appreciate the new
provisions that allow municipalities to adjust
their fees if the FCC adjusts its cap on fees
or if any portion of the FCC order is struck
down.
Let me be clear about fees for a
minute. This is not about revenue generation
for municipalities. This is about public
safety and recovering the expenses on behalf
of our taxpayers and residents.
Pennsylvania is a unique place. And
sometimes Washington D. C. ' s one-size-fits-all
perspective simply are not the right answer.
Some say the FCC rules negate the need for a
bill like this. But I would say that there
are some unique Pennsylvania-specific
protections for municipalities and private
citizens that would not be available without
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22i t .
In closing, we want to acknowledge
the work that’s been put into the legislation
when compared to prior versions. W e ’re
encouraged by the progress embodied by House
Bill 1400, but some additional work still
needs to be done.
We have worked in good faith to
provide input on the legislation and for
today’s hearing. With the short review time,
w e ’d like to reserve the right to provide
additional input and continue to work with the
sponsor and this committee to address our
concerns and provide this technology to our
mutual constituents.
Thanks for the opportunity to visit
with you, and I ’ ll be available for questions
later.
SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY:
Thank you, Mr. Sanko.
Next testifier is Lisa McCabe, from
CTIA, on behalf of the wireless industry.
MS. MCCABE: Hi. Good morning. My
name is Lisa McCabe, and I ’ m here on behalf of
CTIA, the trade association for the wireless
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23communications industry.
We are here in strong support of
House Bill 1400.
As you’ve heard from earlier
testifiers, there is a lot of demand for
wireless service. Wireless services and
product demand across Pennsylvania is
increasing. There are more wireless devices
than there are people in Pennsylvania at the
moment.
And yo u he a r d t ha t t he r e we r e a l mo s t
half of all households in Pennsylvania are
wireless-only households. So, this demand,
current demand, for wireless services is on
the rise. And there’s also the need to
prepare for the future of wireless, as you
heard from many of the other things with 5G,
the next generation of wireless services.
The rules in place today are set for
200-foot towers, how wireless has initially
evolved. Two hundred-foot towers are not
going to go away, but we do need the ability
to site and place small cells. Small cells
are about the size of backpack and can be
placed on light posts and utility poles. With
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24this small cell technology, we'll be able to
provide more coverage and relieve congestion
in many areas where there's high demand and
also prepare for autonomous vehicles and all
of the other interesting and unimaginable
things that are coming in the future.
This HB 1400 will really set clarity
and predictability for those wireless
providers who are building networks as well as
for the communities themselves to understand
how the process is and be able to manage
resources appropriately.
Over the past three years, twenty-six
states across the country, including regional
competitors Pennsylvania — we're in
Pennsylvania -- Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio,
Michigan, Delaware, have all passed small cell
legislation, and there's currently a pending
bill in New Jersey. By passing legislation
like this, establishing this clarity and
predictability for the industry, Pennsylvania
will signal that it's ready for this
investment and that it's willing to allow for
the growth of what the future will bring.
Thank you. Hope to answer any
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25questions later.
MR. KERR: I guess, like our network,
I' m a little faster to the mic than my
colleague to the left, but I have nothing to
add. AT and T is supportive, and I will
reserve my time for questions.
MR. BUZYDLOWSKI: Does that mean the
gentleman yielded his time to me? Is that -
Frank Buzydlowski, Verizon. I'm with Verizon
wireless and Verizon telecom, the land line
division. So, I have a unique perspective.
There's one thing -- two things I
wanted to add. Just last night, I received an
article that one of the FCC commissioners said
that, quote, an additional 20, 000 skilled
workers are going to be needed to build out
the 5G network. This is an economic
development driver. This is a job creator,
both in the economic development realm of the
communities that we serve as well as for our
employees, our union-represented brothers on
the land line side. They string that fiber
optics between the Verizon poles that will
serve the small cells for Verizon wireless and
AT and T, Sprint and T-Mobile, if they so
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26choose, and Crown Castle and American Tower,
to place small cells atop our poles.
So, w e ’re looking forward to the
proliferation of more small cells and the
creation of more jobs and the addition of more
man hours.
SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY:
Okay. Thank you.
The next panel is Jerry Ozog, on
behalf of the Pennsylvania Fire and Emergency
Services Institute, and Professor Eric
Swanson, from the University of Pittsburgh’s
Department of Physics and Astronomy.
MR. OZOG: Good morning. And thank
you very much, Representative Farry and
members of the committee, for allowing the
emergency services aspects to be discussed
today.
The Pennsylvania Fire and Emergency
Services Institute represents numerous fire
and emergency services organizations across
the commonwealth. Our mission is to sustain
and improve the services that are critical to
the public safety of Pennsylvania.
Every day, dedicated volunteer and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27career personnel respond to transportation
crashes on our interstate highways, the
turnpike. There are chemical spills in
suburban manufacturing facilities, fires in
large inner city target hazards. These
incidents occur day to day with calls that
include a variety of fires, technical rescues,
and medical emergencies.
The key to effective response,
incident command, and safety mobilization
after an incident is the concept of
preplanning. Pre-incident planning includes
the use of mapping technology, digital
pictures and videos, building plans and
layouts, and internal disaster and evacuation
plans are used to improve situational
awareness and leads to better decision making
in our communities.
Decision making by local incident
commanders during the initial and ongoing
stages of an emergency will greatly be
enhanced by the services offered by 5G and
small cell technology. Streaming video
directly from the incident scene to the public
safety answering points, the emergency
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28operation centers, will assist in response and
coordination throughout the areas when we have
critical emergencies.
The ability for first responders on
the scene -- may it be police, fire, emergency
medical services -- to use and access data
quickly on apps and other online services will
be used to aid in decision making and
ultimately improve Pennsylvania’s first
responders’ ability to make a difference to
lead to a successful outcome.
It’s extremely important to -- you
know, as I ’ ve met with many of you in the past
to -- you know the dedication of the people
that are out there every day in the field.
Building out the infrastructure to assist in
decision making, assist in emergency response
is extremely important to the emergency
response community.
Thank you very much.
PROFESSOR SWANSON: Good morning,
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My
name is Eric Swanson. I ’m a professor of
physics at the University of Pittsburgh. I ’ve
been asked by the CTIA to come and talk to you
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29about the health effects of 5G infrastructure.
A few words about me. I've been in
Pittsburgh for twenty years at the Department
of Physics there. I have more than a hundred
papers on biophysics, condensed matter
physics, nuclear physics. I'm a founder of
the APS Topical Group on Hadronic Physics,
which is an international collaboration of
about 800 physicists. I'm a fellow of the
American Physical Society. I've given
hundreds of talks in twenty-five countries
around the world, and I could go on.
So, there are two main concerns with
health effects when it comes to wireless
infrastructure. The most dangerous one is
ionizing radiation. So, once the
electromagnetic frequencies of the radio waves
get high enough, they become dangerous. So,
you're familiar with this from ultraviolet
radiation, if you're out in the sun too long,
which does emit ultraviolet, you get sunburns.
And if you're out way too long, you get skin
cancer.
X-rays are higher in frequency and
those are more dangerous.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30And then there are rarer waves called
gamma rays that are only found near nuclear
reactors that are even more dangerous. So,
you know you want to be careful around
reactors.
As you go down in frequency, it
becomes safer. And, in fact, there's a
threshold. So, there's a cut-off. It's not
s o r t o f a s mo o t h t r a n s i t i o n t o s a f e r . S o , t h e
artificial light that's in this room is
entirely safe. You could spend your entire
life under these lights. You won't get
suntanned. You won't get skin cancer. And
that's because the frequency of that light is
below this threshold.
The 5G infrastructure that we're
talking about will work at frequencies that
are about a factor of 30, 000 below that
threshold. And 30,000 sounds impressive, but
I want a stress again that even if you're a
factor of two below the threshold, you're
below the threshold. It's safe.
So, that leaves us the other effect
of radiation, which is thermal. So, I'm
talking about heating, the exact same kind of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31heating when you put your cup of water into a
microwave. In fact, the frequencies that 5G
and 4G work on are comparable to microwave
oven radiations. So, that does heat up
material and heats up tissues in humans.
There have been literally thousands of
experiments over about fifty years in the
medical community studying the effect, the
thermal effects, of this radiation on animals.
The FCC regulates the exposure of
people to this radiation. It’s extremely
conservative. I can tell you, honestly, from
my personal perspective, that it’s extremely
conservative. I ’ll give you an example in a
s econd.
So, what they do is they set limits
of about a hundred times below anything that’s
detectable in laboratory situations. These
figures, to give you an example, I was — had
a heating pad on my knee yesterday because my
knee was a little bit sore. That is a thermal
effect; it’s heating my knee. And that is
about a hundred times higher than the FCC
permitted heating that your cell phones can
do .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32Finally, there is this aspect of the
newness of 5G and, you know, maybe something
is different, maybe we should be alarmed or
worried about this or the FCC should run new
experiments or, you know, mandate new
experiments be run. However, the physics of
electromagnetic waves has been perfectly
understood for a hundred and fifty years. It
is the best understood phenomenon in the
natural universe. There is, in that sense,
nothing new with the 5G spectrum.
The regulations that are in place by
the FCC are perfectly adequate for maintaining
public safety.
Thank you for your attention.
SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY:
Thank you, gentlemen.
Before we open up for questions, just
a couple quick comments. Mr. Sanko referenced
the previous sessions’ bills.
House Bill 1620 was introduced by
Representative Miccarelli. There was a
tremendous amount of blow-back on that bill
from the various stakeholders.
I introduced House Bill 2564 last
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33year. We had a committee hearing on that in
August where we received a tremendous amount
of feedback from the stakeholders.
W e ’ve continued to work with the
stakeholders on the issue. I know some of the
stakeholders have some concerns or some
changes they would like to see in 1400, and
w e ’ll continue talking with them.
We also received comment from
numerous institutions and individuals. The
University of Pittsburgh Innovation Institute
send a letter in support. The PA State
Grange, both last session and this session,
have sent a letter of support. The
Pennsylvania Esports Coalition sent a letter
of support. Pittsburgh’s Downtown CDC sent a
letter of support. Altian Education and
Globehealer sent -- which are start-up
companies -- sent letters of support. The
Delaware County Chamber of Commerce sent a
letter of support. CCAP provided comments.
We have a handful of residents that
have provided negative feedback basically on
the health concerns.
The Wireless Infrastructure
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34A s s o c i a t i o n s e n t a l e t t e r o f s u p p o r t .
Pennsylvania Municipal League, borough's
association and Association of Township
Commissioners sent a note that they'll be
providing additional feedback.
About twenty residents sent letters
o f support.
And I think that's pretty much it.
They're continuing to come in, but, obviously,
there's a tremendous amount of feedback from
both residents and the stakeholders.
So, with that, do any of the members
have any questions for any of the panelists?
SUBCOMMITTEE MINORITY CHAIRMAN
SNYDER: And I guess this would be for the
carriers, Dave and Buzz.
Just from a technological standpoint,
because I am certainly no expert, so we're
going to have small cells, 5G, going to carry
5G. But technology continues to advance at a
very rapid pace. So, would these small cells
be able to keep up with the advancement of the
technology? Would they be able to be used
when the technology continues to move forward?
SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35Anybody from the wireless industry want to
answer?
MR. BUZYDLOWSKI: Representative,
small cells that are already in use today are
used for 4G and will continue to deploy small
cells for 4G for both capacity and filling in
gaps between the towers. And then,
additionally, small cells for 5G will be
deployed. And that is a separate and
different technology, and it's — it's
different equipment.
But who knows what the future will
bring as far as the evolution of these
technologies and what they can be used for as
time goes on.
MR. KERR: I would j ust add,
Representative Snyder, that small cells are
primarily used for capacity purposes. We've
seen, in the last twelve years, 400 -- close
to 400,000 percent growth in our networks.
So, dealing with that capacity can strain it
much like building extra lanes on a highway
are the primary focus of that.
As you and I have talked about, there
could be some rural deployments of that in
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36some high density areas, in rural areas, like
a college campus or something like that, for
example, but, as you and I have been very
forthright, it’s not a large tower broadband
solution. W e ’ll still be building those, but
this is separate from that.
SUBCOMMITTEE MINORITY CHAIRMAN
SNYDER: Yes. And I do want to make that
point, so if anyone is watching back home,
this isn’t about building out the network.
This is about being able to provide capacity
in large masses. Correct?
MR. KERR: This is about building out
out network. It’s about building out to deal
with the capacity on our network. So —
SUBCOMMITTEE MINORITY CHAIRMAN
SNYDER: But it’s not necessarily going to
affect people who live in rural parts of the
state. Correct?
MR. KERR: That’s correct. There
could be small cells deployed in rural areas,
but we will continue, as an industry -- not
just AT and T — all of our competitors will
continue to build out large towers, as you
think of in the traditional sense. So, these
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37small cells will augment the network.
SUBCOMMITTEE MINORITY CHAIRMAN
SNYDER: Okay. All right. Thank you.
If I could, just one more quick one
for Dave Sanko.
So, this legislation will -- will
help the municipalities have a consistent way
of adopting these kind of things into their
jurisdictions. Correct?
MR. SANKO: I think the FCC has set
guidelines in place. This allows there to be
some customization within Pennsylvania to
provide some protection for municipalities.
I think, given our druthers,
everybody would prefer that there not have
been the FCC rules. But, you know, you play
the cards you’re dealt. I mean, a lot of us
don’t like the EPA stormwater guidelines.
Some people don’t like the U.S. Department of
Transportation guidelines. But there are -
everybody recognizes the need for broadband
deployment in — all across Pennsylvania.
SUBCOMMITTEE MINORITY CHAIRMAN
SNYDER: Okay. All right. Thank you.
SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
38Chairman Matzie.
MINORITY CHAIRMAN MATZIE: Thank you
very much.
Thank you for your testimony.
Before I ask my question, you know, I
think when you describe Rob Matzie, arrogance
never comes to mind, but as the minority
chairman of this committee, I did not get this
language until Tuesday. I did not get
testimony prior to today’s meeting. Yet I ’m
expected to come to this meeting prepared to
ask valid questions about a very complex
issue, which a subcommittee is holding a
hearing rather than a full committee. So, I
wanted to make that perfectly clear.
at this piece of legislation moving forward.
But yet w e ’re expected to vote on this bill
potentially next week. So, when you plant
c o r n , y o u g e t c o r n . A n d I ’ m n o t i n t h e
business of planting corn. I ’m in the
business of working things out. I ’m a
pragmatic individual. And I ’m willing to work
with everybody and anybody on anything.
Second of all, w e ’ve heard a
or two talk about continuing to look
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39And as Mr. Sanko said, I am not
against the deployment of 5G. Quite frankly,
nothing prevents the deployment of 5G today
without this bill. Nothing. So, let's make
that very clear to everybody.
Question for David or for Frank.
Mentioned in the testimony was that over
twenty states have passed similar legislation.
How many have occurred after the FCC ruling?
Do we know?
MR. BUZYDLOWSKI: I would like to
defer to the CTIA. I know twenty-five states
have passed this legislation. Some have been
after the FCC ruling, but perhaps Michelle or
Lisa would have the specifics.
MS. MCCABE: My understanding was
that the FCC's order was enacted in the fall
of 2018 -
CHAIRMAN MATZIE: Correct.
MS. MCCABE: -- and effective spring
of this year -- January 1st of this year. And
so far, we've had four states, since then,
enact small cell legislation.
MINORITY CHAIRMAN MATZIE: Okay. I
think that's important to note. Because, I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40think, without the FCC -- because, I think,
some people, myself included, have concerns
that, you know, we're putting the cart before
the horse here. You have the FCC ruling.
Whether or not we need local or statewide
legislation I think is a valid concern and a
valid question that needs to be asked.
You know, I think that when those in
the telecommunications industry are going to
tell us about how important it is to do this
deployment, we're still waiting for Chapter 30
regulations, things that occurred that this
general assembly asked the telecommunications
industry, in statute, to provide, and that
still hasn't happened. I wish we'd have a
hearing on that.
But I' ll yield the rest of my time
for others to ask questions. But I just want
to make it very clear that just not happy with
the process.
Thank you.
(Whereupon, a comment or question was
raised by an individual in the audience off
camera and without microphone.)
SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41W e ’ll be happy to talk to you after the
hearing, if that’s okay, because this is -
(Whereupon, the individual continued
the comment or question off camera and without
microphone.)
SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY:
Well, this is -- this is -- this is actually
for members to ask questions, Miss. I ’ll be
happy to talk to you after the hearing.
(Whereupon, the individual continued
the comment or question off camera and without
microphone.)
SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY:
M a ’am — m a ’am, I ’ll be happy to talk to you
after the hearing to hear your feedback.
Okay?
UNIDENTIFIED INDIVIDUAL: Thank you.
SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY:
Representative Quinn.
REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: Thank you,
M r . Chai rman.
A concern that I know my local
municipalities will have, and I ’m trying to
understand, you mention that the 200-foot
towers, for instance, will continue to be part
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42of the telecom system. Is that simply for the
existing 3G and 4G, or will it also be
utilized as part of this small cell system?
I know that a number of fire
departments and others receive revenue from
renting their space, renting their towers, so
I know that will be a concern and something
I ’ll have to answer at home. So, if you could
help me, I ’d appreciate it.
MR. BUZYDLOWSKI: Representative
Quinn, Frank Buzydlowski, from Verizon.
So, it’s an array or myriad of
different technologies that we use and will
continue to use. And as I said to
Representative Snyder, who knows what the
future will bring. But, yes, we are going to
build and deploy what we call macro towers.
And we continue to deploy small cells. Some
are on buildings. Some are on, in your
district, a PECO or a Verizon pole. Some will
be on municipal poles and so forth. And that
would — today is 4G. And then 5G, which is
now being implemented in certain parts of the
country, will be following up shortly.
And we will have — so, w e ’ll have 4G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43on macro towers, 4G on small cells, and 5G on
small cells for the foreseeable future.
REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: So, just to be
clear, 5G doesn’t necessarily need to utilized
the 2 0 0-foot-high existing towers.
MR. BUZYDLOWSKI: From Verizon’s
technology, our deployment 5G will not be
placed on those macro towers. The millimeter
waves that are utilized, it’s not effective
from that height. They need to be at a
building level or roof of a small building or
on top of a -- what we commonly call a utility
pole or telephone pole. And that’s -- 5G’s
got to be at that height. For our technology,
it’s not effective on a large tower.
MR. KERR: Representative, I like to
think of it as densifying the network, you
know, the large 200-, 250-foot tower, the
monopole that you see traveling through your
district, and then the small cells. The small
cell really densifies the network, brings it
closer to consumers and businesses to allow
for this capacity constraint that’s happening
now with the growth of our network, as I
mentioned, but also to lay the foundation for
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
445G and what you heard earlier today.
MR. BUZYDLOWSKI: I should be clear
on something, too. We're not dismantling
towers and replacing them with small cells.
REPRESENTATIVE QUINN: Thank you.
A p p r e c i a t e i t .
SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY:
Representative Mehaffie.
REPRESENTATIVE MEHAFFIE: Thank you.
Frank, I know we spoke about this
yesterday, and that is a concern because I
represent Hershey, Derry Township, in Hershey,
Pennsylvania. And they have the beautiful
Hershey Kiss lights that go down through the
poles. So, tell us a little bit, if we can
just make this public, as far as what local
controls the municipalities have in a
situation of a historic district or something
of this, like Hershey, and what other
alternatives you have if you cannot place them
on those poles.
MR. BUZYDLOWSKI: Representative,
excellent question. And a good answer to both
of those. I mean, there are provisions in the
bill which the industry 100 percent supports
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45to protect historic districts and to protect
what we refer to as decorative poles.
I've been to Hershey many times. And
I love the Hershey Kisses on top of the street
lamps. We cannot disturb those. So, if
Verizon wanted to put a small cell or small
cells up and down the streets of Hershey on
those poles, we'd have to go to that
municipality and then negotiate with them how
to do it. And our offer would be -- in plain
english would be, we'd say, Okay, we will
replace the poles or rehab the poles or, you
know, we will put a transmitter, or take the
Hershey Kiss off, put the transmitter, hide
it, put it inside. But then the municipality
has to approve it. If it doesn't meet their
standards, then we can't do it.
So, now that leaves us with an
alternative, alternatives of either not having
to place -- or not being able to place
something there or maybe at a building, on top
of buildings, or, you know, some other
structure that might be available. So, we
cannot just go in and do that.
I had an experience also with — he's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
46not a member of this committee —
Representative Mike Carroll, had me in the
streets of Pittston, Pennsylvania, which is up
home near where my mom was from, and showed me
the decorative poles. And it was one of his
concerns about legislation. And it’s — you
know, emphatically, we can’t do it in
Pittston. We can’t do it in Hershey or
anyplace else.
Historic districts, very sensitive.
I mean, this is not — w e ’re not going to -
and cannot plant a pole in front of
Independence Hall. It’s something that, you
know, that we have to adhere to the laws and
the rules, and nor would we even want to do
that, to deface anything that’s historic.
REPRESENTATIVE MEHAFFIE: Okay. As
far as the placement of these small cell
towers, how far apart do you put them, as far
as -- or what’s the band width between each
one, what is that?
MR. BUZYDLOWSKI: For 4G, Dave Kerr
has indicated, it increases capacity. It
fills in gaps. So, an engineer, and AT and T
or Verizon or whatever company’s engineer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47looks at, you know, where that capacity -
extra capacity is needed or where that gap is
and then goes about the process of trying to
place a -- applying to place a small cell for
4 G .
For 5G, since it’s new deployment and
it’s a new technology, if w e ’re looking to
cover an entire area, about every other block.
Using the Verizon technology, it’s about every
other block, hence, again, the fundamental
difference between this and going for a zoning
for a construction of a macro towers, these
are going to be -- you know, they’re not
noticeable unless you’re looking up, you know,
to look for it. But they’re going to be
ubiquitous. There are going to be a fair
amount of them deployed.
REPRESENTATIVE MEHAFFIE: So each
carrier would have their own mini tower then,
is that what I ’ m hearing, small cell or
whatever?
MR. BUZYDLOWSKI: Our own node. We
can co-locate. I ’m not an engineer, so I
don’t know how many or how close they have to
be, but, I mean, my rudimentary understanding
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48i s i t ’ s s i mi l ar to o n a macro to we r. I mean,
you know, you’re going down the turnpike and
you see the tower on the side of the road. If
you look closely, you have an array of
antennas, you know. There are Verizon’s and
there are -- I think AT and T has some on the
turnpike, I ’m not sure, has T-Mobile and
Sprint and so forth.
I couldn’t resist getting back.
REPRESENTATIVE MEHAFFIE: You’re
saying Verizon has better coverage.
MR. BUZYDLOWSKI: Oh, absolutely.
Never lose a call.
REPRESENTATIVE MEHAFFIE: I guess
what my concern is, if you have these -- you
said they’re as small as a backpack. Correct?
MR. BUZYDLOWSKI: The 5Gs.
REPRESENTATIVE MEHAFFIE: Yeah, the
5gs. So, you have five carriers that want to
be on that pole there, you’re saying there’s
five backpacks? Is that really and truly
what’s happening?
MR. BUZYDLOWSKI: I believe -
somebody who’s more technical might be able to
help me with this, but I believe that you can
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49put more than one, but I don't — I mean, if
all four carriers -- although there could be
three carriers of the Sprint-T-Mobile merger's
approved -- you know, I don't know whether you
can put three or more, but it looks like we
have an expert here to bail me out.
REPRESENTATIVE MEHAFFIE: Great.
Thank you.
MR. MUSGROVE: Good morning. Tom
Musgrove, with Crown Castle, government
affairs manager.
To answer that question, a lot of the
technology that we're seeing right now is
co-locatable. So, there's multiple ports into
antenna.
Now, like most technology, it
advances over time, so we would probably see
the opportunity to co-locate multiple carriers
on an individual antenna.
What we see from 5G today, in the
size of the antenna itself, you know, with
companies that are looking to deploy 5G
technology, it looks like an individual
antenna per carrier, but that will probably
most likely change over time. The 4G antennas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
50can carry multiple carriers on one antenna.
REPRESENTATIVE MEHAFFIE: All right.
Great. Thank you.
Thanks for your testimony.
SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY:
And one thing to clarify, this isn’t -- this
bill’s not about towers. It’s about an
antenna that’s capped at five feet above the
existing pole height. Correct?
MR. MUSGROVE: Yes, correct.
SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY:
Okay. Just wanted to make sure that w e ’re
clear on that.
I believe Mr. Schweyer has the next
question. Mr. Sanko, I think it’s for the
carriers and you.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHWEYER: Well, and
somebody from the utility -- from the -
somebody with the providers may want to weigh
in on this as well. But certainly for you,
Mr . Sanko.
In the -- I ’ ll wait until you get up
here.
Thank you, sir.
In the bill, the only thing that I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51sort of just wanted to make sure from a local
government perspective that we're addressing
appropriately in your opinion is the damage
and repair section.
I think, like most of us up here,
we've at one point in time served in municipal
government, and I did as well. And I know
when we were going through a pretty
significant utility replacement, we had to
pass local ordinances to make sure the utility
was putting the streets back into a previous
state of good repair. And so, with the -
there's a phrase "functional equivalence” as
existed prior to any work being done in the
right-of-way and also a penalty capped at 500
dollars.
Do you think the language is, A,
strong enough, and, B, the penalty is
sufficient enough to incentivize — and most
likely subcontractors, not the actual
providers -- but do you believe that that
dollar figure is sufficient enough to be a
deterrent, as opposed to any sort of revenue
generator for the municipalities?
MR. SANKO: Well, I think the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
52language is sufficient in terms of what
preexisting condition was to what the
right-of-way was -- you just have to put it
back the way it was.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHWEYER: Right.
MR. SANKO: The amount, I would -- I
guess I would leave to the committee. I mean,
I think it’s -- I don’t invision instances
where, you know, a fine is -- the fine is
going to be a deterrent no matter what the
size is.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHWEYER: Okay. Fair
enough.
Dave .
MR. KERR: And the industry is
supportive of that fine -
REPRESENTATIVE SCHWEYER: I ’m sure
you’re not supportive of a 5 0,000-dollar fine,
so -
MR. KERR: Our intent all along is to
— you know, when w e ’re out installing these,
is to repair and replace.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHWEYER: Understood.
Okay. Very good.
That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY: Any
other questions?
All right. Thank you folks for coming and
testifying. We appreciate it.
(Whereupon, a comment or question was
raised by an individual in the audience off camera
and without microphone.)
SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY:
I ’ll be happy to talk to you afterwards.
(Whereupon, the individual continued the
comment or question off camera and without
microphone.)
SUBCOMMITTEE MAJORITY CHAIRMAN FARRY:
Sir, I ’ll be happy to talk to you afterwards, if
you’d like to come up here.
All right. Meeting’s adjourned.
(Whereupon, the hearing concluded at
1 0 : 5 3 a . m. )
k k k k k
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a
true and accurate transcript, to the best of my
ability, produced from audio on the said
proceedings.
54
BRENDA J. PARDUN, RPR Court Reporter Notary Public
