Transcript FCC RF Radiation Rule Changes ET Docket No. 13

Presented to AICC Meeting
September 10, 2013
By John Prendergast
Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy & Prendergast, LLP

FCC is charged with keeping pace with current knowledge and
changing needs of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Rules
for health and safety of radiofrequency (RF) emissions last changed in
1996. Ten years since 2003 rule change proposals.

Cecilia Kang, Washington Post blogs:
“The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been looking into
the adequacy of the cell phone standard for over a year now, at the
request of three members of Congress...following IARC's [World
Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer]
decision to classify mobile phone radiation as a possible human
carcinogen.” The GAO has been asking questions about what FCC
“has been and should be doing.”
1. First Report & Order: FCC changes, clarifies
certain rules. Effective Date: August 5, 2013.
2. Further NPRM: FCC proposes further changes to
existing rules. Biggest threat is to categorical
exemption and treatment of fixed radios as mobiles.
3. Notice of Inquiry: While tinkering with the rules for
current RF exposure limit, FCC is already asking if it
should change its standard.





Labeling
Training
Clarification of Multiple Transmitter Site
Responsibilities
FCC will now use OET’s online “Knowledge Database”
(KDB) to provide guidance and general policy
statements on acceptable procedures for evaluating
compliance for portable and mobile wireless devices:
Avoids need for repeated rule making proceedings
Earlobe is now classified as an “extremity” subject to
less strict RF limit
1. Labeling Requirements for Occupational Use: To reduce potential
for harmful exposure from mobile/portable devices, the FCC has
adopted labeling requirements to make workers aware of potential for
exposure.
a. Alarm companies using wireless technology should check with equipment
vendors to make sure that proper labeling is used.
2. Training. The FCC wants to ensure that workers at higher permitted
levels of exposure have the appropriate level of awareness and control
to ensure that they are not subject to RF exposures above the
occupational/controlled limits.
a.
b.
This information may be provided to workers in writing and/or verbally,
provided that exposed persons are “fully aware of the potential for exposure
and can exercise control over their exposure.”
Alarm companies using wireless should work with their equipment
vendors and regulatory counsel to determine the appropriate
training/signage needed for their radio operations.
3. Compliance at Sites with Multiple Transmitters: FCC
“clarifies” that all licensees that exceed the 5% RF
exposure limit threshold at any non-compliant location are
jointly and severally responsible and may be subject to
FINES.
a. FCC: Use site user agreements to share information about
operating characteristics in order to ensure RF compliance.
b. Alarm companies should ask owner/site manager in advance
what other operations are at the site, and determine whether
adding their antenna will trigger any compliance issues.
c. The site lease also should specify site owner/manager
responsibility for ensuring that future site users will not cause the
site to fall out of compliance, exposing all existing users to
potential liability.

Elimination of Categorical Exclusions from RF
Evaluation based on Radio Service

Creation of General Power- and Distance-based
Exemption

Creation of RF Exposure Mitigation Requirements

Proposed Warnings/Disclosures re RF to Consumers
FCC is proposing to eliminate radio service-based exclusions.
Part 90 and Part 101 stations (and others) are generally
“categorically excluded” from routine evaluations, based on
typical power and antenna height.

If the FCC’s proposal is adopted, licensees could be
required to perform calculations or measurements, which
may significantly increase costs associated with system
design. Focus is now on “separation” from humans.

Part 90 and Part 101 licensees may now be required to
certify compliance on a yearly basis, either by calculation
or measurement, depending on the power of the system.
FCC requests comment on new exemption intended to apply to
all radio services.
 New exemption criteria for single RF sources based on
power, frequency, and separation distance for all services
using fixed, mobile, and portable transmitters. FCC has
requested comment on exemption criteria for both
Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits and Specific
Absorption Rate (SAR) limits for fixed, mobile, and
portable RF sources near a human body.

FCC seeks comment on method for calculating the new
exemption criteria for multiple transmitters collocated on
the same structure, such as a tower, building, or utility pole.
FCC seeks comment on steps that licensees must take to ensure that
exposure limits are not exceeded, including:
 Specific training, access restriction, and signage requirements for
fixed transmitter sites. Specific mitigation would depend on
whether the RF radiation exceeds the general population
exposure limit or the occupational exposure limit, and by how
much.

FCC continues to push joint responsibility for mitigation actions
among all licensees at site whose RF sources produce at least
5% of applicable exposure limit.

FCC asks how to encourage cooperation among property owners,
managers, and licensees in mitigation steps.

Proposal to eliminate service-based exclusion will raise costs.
Costs could be minimal for many facilities, but complicated and
expensive for others, especially if there are multiple antennas at
site.

FCC proposes to eliminate categorical exclusions for mobile
units which, depending upon use, could have the unintended
consequence of requiring fixed-base licensing for some fixed
radios now licensed as “mobile” units (including customer
premise radios operating on central station offset frequencies?)

Important for alarm device manufacturers to examine revised
1.1307(b) and related Table 1 and appendices to see how
proposed single transmitter and multiple transmitter exemption
formulas fall out for alarm radios.
1. BloostonLaw:
a. Don’t eliminate radio service exclusions for the sake of uniformity,
when it creates cost and delay and no evidence that current exemption
results in RF violations.
b. Don’t hold licensees liable for RF compliance issues created by
subsequent site users.
2. CTIA:
a. No evidence of RF danger despite repeated studies, so FCC should not
require consumer warnings that will suggest that danger exists.
b. FCC RF standard is already 50x safer than needed, FCC should not
adopt more stringent requirements in absence of evidence of harmful
RF levels.
c. Instead, FCC should consider adopting IEEE/ICNIRP (Europe)
standard, limiting RF emissions to 2.0 watts per kilogram averaged
over 10 grams of tissue, versus FCC’s current 1.6 w/kg averaged over
1g of tissue. This standard is based on scientific consensus, less
onerous, and would better facilitate global equipment harmonization.
3. PCIA:
a. Generic exemption criteria are needlessly restrictive and will create more delay
and cost. Need to recognize that towers (v. buildings) raise fewer concerns
because public not near.
b. Create a safe harbor for efforts needed to warn public and workers of RF hazard,
since site/building owner may not cooperate.
c. Make sure new RF rules do not conflict with Fire Codes and other safety laws
that may prohibit restricting rooftop access, etc.
4. Motorola
a. Use international RF standards for exemptions, mitigation steps and any future
revisions to RF exposure limit.
5. TIA
a. Supports European standard
b. No basis for consumer warnings, will undermine public confidence in wireless
c. No need to revisit RF exposure limit in context of NOI.
1. Keep categorical Part 90 exclusion
2. What About Customer Premise Radios?
With regard to mobile units, the FCC states: “…We now
propose to delete the existing mobile power exemptions and apply
the new proposed general fixed transmitter power exemptions to
mobile and portable devices as well…The new exemption proposal
would allow higher powers at greater distances for both mobile and
fixed devices, would apply to all services, and would be valid in
possibly reflective environments and at lower frequencies; however,
this proposal would necessarily reduce the exemption power for
mobile devices used at 20 cm…”
This is potential big problem for the alarm industry, which
currently can classify fixed customer radios as “mobiles”
FCC seeks comments to determine whether its RF exposure limits and policies
need to be reassessed. FCC also seeks comment on the following RF radiation
issues:
 Recommendations on alternative RF radiation limits, based on currently
available research and in light of the increase in numbers and usage of fixed
transmitters and portable and mobile devices.
 Analysis of technical differences that have been raised in recent standardssetting activities and ongoing research.
 How to better provide information to consumers and the public about RF
exposure.
 Approaches to controlling RF exposure, including the use of conventional
exposure limits vs. other precautionary measures and differences in worldwide
implementation of these philosophies.
 How to improve the process of developing evaluation procedures.
 The FCC’s current portable device separation distance policy when
determining compliance.

Verify compliance with rules that went into effect
Aug. 5

Submit AICC input on rule proposals by Nov. 1

Important for alarm equipment manufacturers to
evaluate the impact of the FCC’s proposals on the
certification and operation of their equipment; to
help shape FCC policy to the extent that it could
potentially create unreasonable burdens on
equipment users; and advise their customers how to
minimize any impact.