[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47960-47968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24165]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 26 and 97
[ET Docket No. 93-62; FCC 97-303]
Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of
Radiofrequency Radiation
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This Second Memorandum Opinion and Order amends the
Commission's rules to refine and clarify the decisions adopted in the
Report and Order, regarding the use of new guidelines and methods in
the evaluation of the environmental effects of RF electromagnetic
fields or emissions produced by FCC-regulated transmitters. The
Commission believes its decisions provide a proper balance between the
need to protect the public and workers from exposure to potentially
harmful RF electromagnetic fields and the requirement that industry be
allowed to provide telecommunications services to the public in the
most efficient and practical manner possible.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 15, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert F. Cleveland, Office of
Engineering and Technology, Federal
[[Page 47961]]
Communications Commission, (202) 418-2464.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Second
Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket 93-62, FCC 97-303, adopted
August 25, 1997, and released August 25, 1997. The full text of this
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., and also may be purchased from the
Commission's duplication contractor, International Transcription
Service, (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington,
D.C. 20037.
Summary of the Memorandum Opinion and Order
1. In this Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, we are amending our
rules to refine and clarify the decisions adopted August 1, 1996, in
the Report and Order, 61 FR 41006, August 7, 1996, regarding the use of
new guidelines and methods in the evaluation of the environmental
effects of RF electromagnetic fields or emissions produced by FCC-
regulated transmitters. This Second Memorandum Opinion and Order
responds to petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification filed in
this proceeding. In reaching our decisions, we have considered
carefully the petitions and comments that were received in this
proceeding. We believe our decisions provide a proper balance between
the need to protect the public and workers from exposure to potentially
harmful RF electromagnetic fields and the requirement that industry be
allowed to provide telecommunications services to the public in the
most efficient and practical manner possible. Specifically, we are: (1)
Affirming the RF exposure limits that were previously adopted; (2)
modifying in a few areas our policy that categorically excludes certain
transmitters from routine environmental evaluation; and (3) revising
and clarifying our guidelines regarding RF emissions involving multiple
transmitter facilities. We are also adopting a number of minor changes
and clarifications.
2. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted limits for
Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) and localized, partial-body exposure
of humans based on criteria published by the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and by the American
National Standards Institute/Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc. (ANSI/IEEE). The Report and Order also modified the
Commission's policy on categorical exclusions that exempts many radio
services and transmitters from routine environmental evaluation for RF
exposure. In accordance with Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996, the Report and Order followed Congressional direction with
respect to completion of the docket in this proceeding. The new rules
became effective immediately; however, a transition period (originally
to January 1, 1997) was provided for implementation of the new
requirements for transmitters other than portable and mobile devices.
3. A First Memorandum Opinion and Order, adopted on December 23,
1996, 62 FR 3232, January 22, 1997, addressed comments in those
petitions requesting extension of the transition provisions of the
Report and Order and extended the transition period to September 1,
1997 (January 1, 1998 for amateur stations). This Second Memorandum
Opinion and Order addresses the other issues raised in the petitions,
including whether we should: (1) Reconsider the RF exposure limits
originally adopted; (2) reconsider our policy on categorical exclusion
of certain transmitters from routine evaluation for compliance with our
guidelines; (3) modify our policy with respect to evaluation of RF
exposure at multiple transmitter sites; (4) revise our policy with
respect to routine evaluation for SMR transmitters; and (5) broaden our
authority to preempt state and local regulations concerning RF
exposure.
4. Some petitioners ask that we reconsider our previous decision
not to adopt ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 in its entirety. Several other
petitioners claim that the limits we adopted were not protective
enough. The staff believes that no new and compelling justifications
have been provided that would warrant a modification of the limits
adopted in the Report and Order. Those limits were crafted to address
concerns about ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 that had been raised by several
agencies of the Federal Government with responsibility for health and
safety. Furthermore, all of these agencies have written letters to the
Commission supporting our new guidelines. We believe that the limits
adopted in the Report and Order provide a proper balance between the
need to protect the public and workers from exposure to excessive RF
electromagnetic fields and the need to allow communications services to
readily address growing marketplace demands.
5. The Commission's environmental rules identify particular
categories of existing or proposed transmitters or facilities for which
licensees and applicants are required to conduct routine environmental
evaluations to determine whether these transmitters or facilities
comply with our RF guidelines. Other transmitting facilities are
categorically excluded from these rules because we have judged them to
offer little potential for causing exposures in excess of the
applicable guidelines. In the Report and Order, we revised our rules
related to this policy of categorical exclusion based on our own
calculations and analyses of the implications of the new limits, along
with information and data acquired during the proceeding. Whereas
previously we had categorically excluded entire service categories,
such as paging and cellular transmitters, the Report and Order
concluded that some transmitting facilities, regardless of service, may
offer the potential for causing exposures in excess of MPE limits.
6. Several petitioners ask that we return to our earlier policy of
categorical exclusion for entire services. However, these petitioners
present no new evidence that would lead us to change our basic premise
for categorical exclusion. We continue to believe that it is desirable
and appropriate to categorically exclude from routine environmental
evaluation only those transmitting facilities that offer little or no
potential for exposure in excess of our limits. However, some
transmitting facilities, regardless of service, offer the potential for
causing exposures in excess of MPE limits because of such factors as
their relatively high operating power, location or relative
accessibility, and these facilities should not be categorically
excluded from routine evaluation.
7. Except in a few limited areas, we do not believe it is
appropriate to modify the categorical exclusion policies adopted in the
Report and Order. We are modifying our policy related to unlicensed
millimeter-wave devices that do not meet the definition of a portable
device and unlicensed and licensed PCS and other mobile devices
operating above 1.5 GHz. Secondly, we are revising the 50-watt
threshold for routine evaluation of amateur radio stations so that it
reflects the manner in which the RF exposure limits change in the
different amateur frequency bands. We are also revising categorical
exclusions currently based on the height of the antenna radiation
center above ground so that they are based on the height of the lowest
portion of the antenna above ground. In addition to these areas, we are
revising our policy
[[Page 47962]]
on categorical exclusions for SMR transmitters so that all SMR
operations are covered, and we are changing our definition of
``rooftop'' so that antennas that are mounted on the sides of buildings
or otherwise don't fit the previous definition will be considered, if
appropriate.
8. Several petitioners argue that our policy regarding evaluation
at sites with multiple FCC-regulated transmitters is overly burdensome.
Our rules state that when the RF exposure limits are exceeded in an
accessible area due to the RF fields of multiple fixed transmitters,
actions necessary to bring the area into compliance are the shared
responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce power
densities in excess of 1% of the exposure limit applicable to their
transmitter. After considering the various arguments, we conclude that
the 1% level should be changed. We concur that a 1% level is difficult
to measure or calculate. We believe that a 5% threshold represents a
more reasonable and supportable compromise, by offering relief to
relatively low-powered site occupants who do not contribute
significantly to areas of non-compliance and, at the same time, by
providing for the appropriate allocation of responsibility among major
site emitters.
9. Some petitioners request that the Commission broaden its
preemptive authority beyond the category of ``personal wireless
services'' authorized in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Based upon
the current record in this proceeding, we find that there is
insufficient evidence at this time to warrant our preempting state and
local actions that are based on concerns over RF emissions for services
other than those defined by Congress as ``personal wireless services.''
However, additional issues concerning preemption of state and local
regulations involving advanced television facilities have been raised
in a Petition for Further Rulemaking filed by the National Association
of Broadcasters which will be considered in a separate proceeding.
10. Several additional petitions were received in response to our
earlier First Memorandum Opinion and Order extending the transition
period for fixed stations and transmitters. Some petitioners request
that we end the transition period immediately because of the potential
for large scale exposure of the public to harmful RF emissions. Others
argue that additional time is needed to consider the Commission's
response to earlier petitions relating to OET Bulletin 65 on RF
compliance. This bulletin will be released simultaneously with this
Order. In order to provide applicants and licensees with sufficient
time to review the final version of the bulletin, we will extend the
initial transition period to October 15, 1997. The transition period
for the Amateur Radio Service, only, will remain the same, and will end
on January 1, 1998.
11. Finally, we are revising our rules to require that existing
sites and transmitters come into compliance with the new guidelines as
of a date certain. Accordingly, we will require all existing
facilities, operations and devices to comply with the new FCC RF
guidelines no later than September 1, 2000.
Revised Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Second Memorandum Opinion and Order
12. As required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. Sec. 603 (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) in
ET Docket 93-62. The Commission sought written public comments on the
proposals in the NPRM, including on the IRFA. In the Report and Order
in this proceeding, the Commission adopted a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). Petitions for reconsideration were filed
in response to the Report and Order by seventeen parties. Several
technical and legal issues have been raised in the petitions and
subsequent comments. In addition, several petitions have raised
questions about the original FRFA. The First Memorandum Opinion and
Order in this proceeding, and the associated FRFA, addressed those
petitions and comments requesting extension of the transition period
specified in the Report and Order as well as the comments that were
made on the original FRFA contained in the Report and Order. This
Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, including this FRFA, addresses the
other issues raised in the petitions. The FRFA conforms to the RFA, as
amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA),
Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996).
I. Need for and Purpose of This Action
13. 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 has adopted revised
radiofrequency (RF) exposure guidelines for purposes of evaluating
potential environmental effects of RF electromagnetic fields produced
by FCC-regulated facilities. The new guidelines reflect more recent
scientific studies of the biological effects of RF electromagnetic
fields. Use of these new guidelines will ensure that the public and
workers receive adequate protection from exposure to potentially
harmful RF electromagnetic fields. This Second Memorandum Opinion and
Order addresses a number of concerns that were raised in petitions and
comments received in response to the Report and Order.
II. Summary of Issues Raised by the Public Comments in Response to the
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IFRA)
14. No comments were filed in direct response to the IRFA. In
general comments on the NPRM, however, some commenters raised issues
that might affect small entities. These issues were discussed in the
FRFA contained in the Report and Order in this proceeding.
III. Summary of Issues Raised Regarding the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) by the Petitions, Motions, and Comments in
Response to the Report and Order
15. The American Radio Relay League, Inc., Paging Network, Inc.,
and the Personal Communications Industry Association raised concerns in
their petitions, motions and comments regarding the FRFA that was
associated with the Report and Order. Those concerns were addressed in
the revised FRFA contained in the First Memorandum Opinion and Order in
this proceeding.
IV. Description and Estimate of the Small Entities Subject to the
Rules
16. The rules being adopted in this Second Memorandum Opinion and
Order apply to twelve industry categories and services. All but one of
these industry categories and services was described in the FRFA
accompanying the First Memorandum Opinion and Order in this proceeding.
The RFA generally defines the term ``small business'' as having the
same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small
Business Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 632. Based on that statutory provision, we
will consider a small business concern one which (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA). The RFA SBREFA provisions also apply to nonprofit
organizations and to governmental organizations. Since the Regulatory
Flexibility Act amendments
[[Page 47963]]
were not in effect until the record in this proceeding was closed, the
Commission was unable to request information regarding the number of
small businesses within each of these services or the number of small
businesses that would be affected by this action. We have, however,
made estimates based on our knowledge about applications that have been
submitted in the past. To the extent that a government entity may be a
licensee or an applicant, the impact on those entities is included in
the estimates for small businesses below.
17. Under the new rules adopted in the Report and Order and in this
Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, many radio services are
categorically excluded from having to determine compliance with the new
RF exposure limits. This exclusion is based on a determination that
there is little potential for these services causing exposures in
excess of the limits. Within the following services that are not
categorically excluded in their entirety, many transmitting facilities
are categorically excluded based on antenna location and power. These
categorical exclusions significantly reduce the burden associated with
these rules, and may reduce the impact of these rules on small
businesses. Furthermore, the extension of the transition periods
contained in the First Memorandum Opinion and Order will reduce the
impact on applicants, particularly small businesses, by allowing them
adequate time to understand the new requirements and ensure that their
facilities are in compliance with them in a orderly and reasonable
manner.
18. As noted above, descriptions and estimates of all of the
categories and services for small entities subject to our rules, except
one, were previously given in the FRFRA that accompanied the First
Memorandum Opinion and Order. Therefore, that document should be
consulted for this information. Information on the one additional
category not included in the earlier FRFA, radiofrequency devices, is
given below. Minor edits were also made in the section of the previous
FRFA for satellite communications services, and the revised section is
also given below.
A. Satellite Communications Services
19. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to satellite communications licensees. Therefore, the
applicable definition of small entity is the definition under the Small
Business Administration (SBA) rules applicable to Communications
Services, Not Elsewhere Classified. This definition provides that a
small entity is expressed as one with $11.0 million or less in annual
receipts.
20. Because the Regulatory Flexibility Act amendments were not in
effect until the comment period for this proceeding was closed, the
Commission was unable to request information regarding the number of
licensees in the international services discussed below that meet this
definition of a small business. Thus, we are providing an estimate of
licensees that constitute a small business.
21. Fixed Satellite Earth Stations. Fixed satellite earth stations
include international and domestic earth stations operating in the 4/6
GHZ, 11/12/14 GHZ and 20/30 GHZ bands.
There are approximately 4200 earth station authorizations, a portion of
which are Fixed Satellite Earth Stations. Although we were unable to
request the revenue information, we estimate that some of the licensees
of these earth stations would constitute a small business under the SBA
definition.
22. Fixed Satellite Small Earth Stations. Small transmit/receive
earth stations operate in the 4/6 GHZ frequency bands with
antennas that are two meters or less in diameter. There are 4200 earth
station authorizations, a portion of which are Fixed Satellite Small
Earth Stations. Although we were unable to request the revenue
information, we estimate that some of the fixed satellite small earth
stations would constitute a small business under the SBA definition.
23. Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Systems.
VSAT systems operate in the 12/14 GHZ frequency bands.
Although various size small aperture antenna earth-stations may be
used, all stations of a particular size must be technically identical.
Because these stations operate on a primary basis, frequency
coordination with terrestrial microwave systems is not required. Thus,
a single ``blanket'' application may be filed for a specified number of
small antennas and one or more hub stations. The Commission has
processed 377 applications for fixed satellite VSAT systems. At this
time, we are unable to make a precise estimate of the number of small
businesses that are VSAT system licensees and could be impacted by this
action.
24. Mobile Satellite Earth Stations. Mobile satellite earth
stations are intended to be used while in motion or during halts at
unspecified points. These stations operate as part of a network that
includes a fixed hub station or stations. The network may provide a
variety of land, maritime and aeronautical voice and data services.
There are 8 mobile satellite licensees. At this time, we are unable to
make a precise estimate of the number of small businesses that are
mobile satellite earth station licensees and could be impacted by this
action.
25. Radio Determination Satellite Earth Stations. A radio
determination satellite earth station is used in conjunction with a
radio determination satellite service (rdss) system for the purpose of
providing position location information. These stations operate as part
of a network that includes a fixed hub station or stations and operate
in the frequency bands (1610-1626.5 MHZ and 2483.5-2500
MHZ) allocated to rdss. At this time, we are unable to make
a precise estimate of the number of small businesses that are radio
determination satellite earth station licensees and could be impacted
by the forfeiture guidelines.
26. It should be noted that in most of the satellite areas
discussed above, the Commission issues one license to an entity but
generally issues blanket license authority for thousands or even
hundreds of thousands of earth stations or hand held transceivers.
Overall, the Commission receives about 600 applications for satellite
facilities per year. All applicants for satellite earth stations
(except for receive-only stations) must make a determination of
compliance with the RF exposure limits, based on calculations or
measurements.
B. Radiofrequency Devices
27. The radiofrequency devices affected by this rulemaking are low
power, unlicensed transmitters that will be used to provide, on
millimeter wave frequencies, a variety of services, including vehicle
collision avoidance and high data rate/short range wireless data
communications. Unlicensed personal communications service (PCS)
transmitters are also radiofrequency devices. Radiofrequency devices
are subject to compliance with the new RF radiation requirements at the
time of equipment authorization. Therefore, it will be the equipment
manufacturers and importers who will be affected by this action.
28. We expect most of the firms that would be interested in
producing millimeter wave and unlicensed PCS devices will be large
businesses. We note that Ford Motor and Hewlett Packard have expressed
interest in millimeter wave devices and filed comments in this
proceeding. In addition, Motorola and Ericsson, both large equipment
manufacturers, have expressed interest in manufacturing unlicensed PCS
devices. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that small businesses will
also want to manufacture these devices.
[[Page 47964]]
29. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to radiofrequency devices. Therefore, the applicable
definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA applicable
to the ``Communications Services, Not Elsewhere'' category. A small
millimeter wave device or unlicensed PCS entity under this definition
is one with less than $11.0 million in annual receipts.
30. The Commission has not yet authorized any millimeter wave
devices, and has authorized fewer than fifteen unlicensed PCS devices.
Both these services are new, so we really don't know how many
applications for equipment authorization we may receive, nor how many
small manufacturers may be interested in producing these products.
Since the Regulatory Flexibility Act amendments were not in effect
until the record in this proceeding was closed, the Commission was
unable to request information regarding the number of small businesses
in this category. The Census Bureau estimates indicate that of the 848
firms in the ``Communications Services, Not Elsewhere'' category, 775
are small businesses. Based on this information, as well as our past
experience in granting equipment authorization for other types of
radiofrequency devices, we estimate that 50 percent of the applications
for millimeter wave and unlicensed PCS devices will be from small
businesses.
31. The Commission anticipates that approximately 30 applications
will be filed annually for devices that operate in the millimeter band
and unlicensed PCS spectrum. An initial determination of compliance
with our new RF guidelines will be required for: (1) Applications for
unlicensed PCS devices that do not meet our definition for a portable
device contained in 47 CFR Sec. 2.1093(b) and that operate with 1.5
watts effective radiated power (ERP) or more; (2) applications for
portable unlicensed PCS devices; (3) applications for unlicensed
millimeter wave devices that do not meet our definition for a portable
device and that operate with 3 watts ERP or more; and (4) applications
for portable unlicensed millimeter wave devices. We anticipate that 20
of the 30 applications filed will meet these requirements and need to
undergo an initial determination of compliance. Of these devices, ten
will require specific absorption rate (SAR) modeling or measurement,
which adds cost to the authorization process.
V. Summary of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping and Other
Compliance Requirements
32. No new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements are contained in this Second Memorandum Opinion and Order.
VI. Steps Taken to Minimize the Economic Impact on Small Entities
33. We have made every effort to devise ways to minimize the impact
of the new RF exposure requirements on small entities, while protecting
the health and safety of the public. We have incorporated substantial
flexibility in the procedures to make compliance as minimally
burdensome as possible.
In particular, we took the following steps in the Report and Order
to ease the impact on small businesses:
a. We created categorical exclusions that require only those
transmitters that appear to have the highest potential to create a
significant environmental effect to perform an environmental
evaluation.
b. We indicated that we would revise OST Bulletin No. 65 in the
near future to provide guidance for determining compliance with FCC-
specified RF limits. This should be of particular assistance to small
businesses since it will provide straightforward information that
should allow a quick understanding of the requirements and a quick
assessment of the potential for compliance problems without the need
for an expensive consultant or measurement.
c. We allowed various methods for ensuring compliance with RF
limits such as fencing, warning signs, labels, and markings, locked
doors in roof-top areas, and the use of personal monitors and RF
protective clothing in an occupational environment.
d. We rejected our initial proposal to adopt induced and contact
currents limits due to the lack of reliable equipment available.
e. We specified a variety of acceptable testing methods and
procedures that may be used to determine compliance. This will allow
each small business to choose a procedure that best meets its needs in
the manner that is least burdensome to it.
f. We have always allowed multiple transmitter sites, i.e., antenna
farms, to pool their resources and have only one study done for the
entire site. This is very common at sites that have multiple entities
such as TV, FM, paging, cellular, etc. In most circumstances, rather
than each licensee hiring a separate consultant and submitting a study
showing their compliance with the guidelines, one consulting radio
technician or radio engineer can be hired by the group of licensees.
The consultant surveys the entire site for compliance and gives his
recommendations and findings to each of the licensees at the site. The
licensees can then use the findings to show their compliance with the
guidelines. In this way the cost of compliance is minimized as no one
licensee has to pay the entire consulting fee, rather just a portion of
it.
34. In this First Memorandum Opinion and Order, we took the
following additional steps to reduce the burden on small businesses and
organizations:
a. We extended the transition period for station applicants to come
into compliance with the new requirements. This will give licensees,
and applicants for new stations many of which may be small businesses,
more time to learn the nature of the new requirements, make studies to
determine whether they comply, and take steps to come into compliance
if necessary.
b. We decided to permit the required changes in the ARS
examinations to be made as the examinations are being routinely
revised. This ensures that a minimal burden is put on the small
organizations acting as VECs.
35. In this Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, we have taken
these additional steps to reduce the burden on small businesses and
organizations:
a. We categorically excluded from routine environmental evaluation
certain non-portable, unlicensed millimeter wave and PCS devices. This
eliminates the need for these devices to undergo detailed evaluation
before the devices undergo equipment authorization.
b. We increased the responsibility threshold, above which licensees
at multiple transmitter locations must share responsibility for
addressing RF exposure non-compliance problems, from 1% to 5%. We
believe that a 5% responsibility threshold will offer relief to
relatively low-powered site occupants who do not contribute
significantly to the non-compliance and, at the same time, provide for
the appropriate allocation of responsibility among major site emitters.
Similarly, we are raising the filing thresholds, above which applicants
must file an EA if emissions from the applicant's transmitter or
facility would result in a field strength or power density in excess of
our limits, from 1% to 5%. Report to Congress: The Commission shall
send a copy of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, along with
this Report and Order, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
[[Page 47965]]
Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this FRFA
will also be published in the Federal Register.
(c) Before causing or allowing an amateur station to transmit from
any place where the operation of the station could cause human exposure
to RF electromagnetic field levels in excess of those allowed under
Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter, the licensee is required to take certain
actions.
(1) The licensee must perform the routine RF environmental
evaluation prescribed by Sec. 1.1307(b) of this chapter, if the
transmitter PEP exceeds the following limits:
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 1
Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
47 CFR Part 2
Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
47 CFR Part 26
Radio.
47 CFR Part 97
Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Rule Changes
Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1, 2, 26 and 97,
are amended as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 303 and 309(j), unless otherwise
noted, and Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
2. Section 1.1307 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2),
(b)(3) and (b)(4) introductory text and by adding paragraph (b)(5) to
read as follows:
Sec. 1.1307 Actions that may have a significant environmental effect,
for which Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The appropriate exposure limits in Sec. 1.1310 and Sec. 2.1093
of this chapter are generally applicable to all facilities, operations
and transmitters regulated by the Commission. However, a determination
of compliance with the exposure limits in Sec. 1.1310 or Sec. 2.1093 of
this chapter (routine environmental evaluation), and preparation of an
EA if the limits are exceeded, is necessary only for facilities,
operations and transmitters that fall into the categories listed in
table 1, or those specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section. All
other facilities, operations and transmitters are categorically
excluded from making such studies or preparing an EA, except as
indicated in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section. For purposes of
table 1, ``building-mounted antennas'' means antennas mounted in or on
a building structure that is occupied as a workplace or residence. The
term ``power'' in column 2 of table 1 refers to total operating power
of the transmitting operation in question in terms of effective
radiated power (ERP), equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP),
or peak envelope power (PEP), as defined in Sec. 2.1 of this chapter.
For the case of the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, subpart H of part
22 of this chapter; the Personal Communications Service, part 24 of
this chapter and the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, part 90 of this
chapter, the phrase ``total power of all channels'' in column 2 of
table 1 means the sum of the ERP or EIRP of all co-located
simultaneously operating transmitters owned and operated by a single
licensee. When applying the criteria of table 1, radiation in all
directions should be considered. For the case of transmitting
facilities using sectorized transmitting antennas, applicants and
licensees should apply the criteria to all transmitting channels in a
given sector, noting that for a highly directional antenna there is
relatively little contribution to ERP or EIRP summation for other
directions.
Table 1.--Transmitters, Facilities and Operations Subject to Routine
Environmental Evaluation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service (title 47 CFR rule
part) Evaluation required if
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Experimental Radio Services Power > 100 W ERP (164 W EIRP).
(part 5).
Multipoint Distribution Non-building-mounted antennas: height
Service (subpart K of part above ground level to lowest point of
21). antenna < 10 m and power > 1640 W EIRP.
Building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W
EIRP.
Paging and Radiotelephone Non-building-mounted antennas: height
Service (subpart E of part above ground level to lowest point of
22). antenna < 10 m and power > 1000 W ERP
(1640 W EIRP).
Building-mounted antennas: power > 1000 W
ERP (1640 W EIRP).
Cellular Radiotelephone Non-building-mounted antennas: height
Service (subpart H of part above ground level to lowest point of
22). antenna < 10 m and total power of all
channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).
Building-mounted antennas: total power of
all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).
Personal Communications (1) Narrowband PCS (subpart D): non-
Services (part 24). building-mounted antennas: height above
ground level to lowest point of antenna
< 10 m and total power of all channels >
1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).
Building-mounted antennas: total power of
all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).
(2) Broadband PCS (subpart E): non-
building-mounted antennas: height above
ground level to lowest point of antenna
< 10 m and total power of all channels >
2000 W ERP (3280 W EIRP).
Building-mounted antennas: total power of
all channels > 2000 W ERP (3280 W EIRP).
Satellite Communications All included.
(part 25).
General Wireless Total power of all channels > 1640 W
Communications Service (part EIRP.
26).
Wireless Communications Total power of all channels > 1640 W
Service (part 27). EIRP.
Radio Broadcast Services All included.
(part 73).
Experimental, auxiliary, and Subparts A, G, L: power > 100 W ERP.
special broadcast and other Subpart I: non-building-mounted antennas:
program distributional height above ground level to lowest
services (part 74). point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1640
W EIRP.
Building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W
EIRP.
Stations in the Maritime Ship earth stations only.
Services (part 80).
[[Page 47966]]
Private Land Mobile Radio Non-building-mounted antennas: height
Services Paging Operations above ground level to lowest point of
(part 90). antenna < 10 m and power > 1000 W ERP
(1640 W EIRP).
Building-mounted antennas: power > 1000 W
ERP (1640 W EIRP).
Private Land Mobile Radio Non-building-mounted antennas: height
Services Specialized Mobile above ground level to lowest point of
Radio (part 90). antenna < 10 m and total power of all
channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).
Building-mounted antennas:
Total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP
(1640 W EIRP).
Amateur Radio Service (part Transmitter output power > levels
97). specified in Sec. 97.13(c)(1) of this
chapter.
Local Multipoint Distribution Non-building-mounted antennas: height
Service (subpart L of part above ground level to lowest point of
101). antenna < 10 m and power > 1640 W EIRP.
Building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W
EIRP.
LMDS licensees are required to attach a
label to subscriber transceiver antennas
that:
(1) provides adequate notice regarding
potential radiofrequency safety hazards,
e.g., information regarding the safe
minimum separation distance required
between users and transceiver antennas;
and
(2) references the applicable FCC-adopted
limits for radiofrequency exposure
specified in Sec. 1.1310 of this
chapter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the
Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Personal Communications Services
(PCS), the Satellite Communications Services, the General Wireless
Communications Service, the Wireless Communications Service, the
Maritime Services (ship earth stations only) and the Specialized Mobile
Radio Service authorized under subpart H of parts 22, 24, 25, 26, 27,
80, and 90 of this chapter are subject to routine environmental
evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, as
specified in Secs. 2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter. Unlicensed PCS,
unlicensed NII and millimeter wave devices are also subject to routine
environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment
authorization or use, as specified in Secs. 15.253(f), 15.255(g), and
15.319(i) and 15.407(f) of this chapter. All other mobile, portable,
and unlicensed transmitting devices are categorically excluded from
routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure under Secs. 2.1091 and
2.1093 of this chapter except as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of
this section.
(3) In general, when the guidelines specified in Sec. 1.1310 are
exceeded in an accessible area due to the emissions from multiple fixed
transmitters, actions necessary to bring the area into compliance are
the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce,
at the area in question, power density levels that exceed 5% of the
power density exposure limit applicable to their particular transmitter
or field strength levels that, when squared, exceed 5% of the square of
the electric or magnetic field strength limit applicable to their
particular transmitter. Owners of transmitter sites are expected to
allow applicants and licensees to take reasonable steps to comply with
the requirements contained in Sec. 1.1307(b) and, where feasible,
should encourage co-location of transmitters and common solutions for
controlling access to areas where the RF exposure limits contained in
Sec. 1.1310 might be exceeded.
(i) Applicants for proposed (not otherwise excluded) transmitters,
facilities or modifications that would cause non-compliance with the
limits specified in Sec. 1.1310 at an accessible area previously in
compliance must submit an EA if emissions from the applicant's
transmitter or facility would result, at the area in question, in a
power density that exceeds 5% of the power density exposure limit
applicable to that transmitter or facility or in a field strength that,
when squared, exceeds 5% of the square of the electric or magnetic
field strength limit applicable to that transmitter or facility.
(ii) Renewal applicants whose (not otherwise excluded) transmitters
or facilities contribute to the field strength or power density at an
accessible area not in compliance with the limits specified in
Sec. 1.1310 must submit an EA if emissions from the applicant's
transmitter or facility results, at the area in question, in a power
density that exceeds 5% of the power density exposure limit applicable
to that transmitter or facility or in a field strength that, when
squared, exceeds 5% of the square of the electric or magnetic field
strength limit applicable to that transmitter of facility.
(4) Transition Provisions. For applications filed with the
Commission prior to October 15, 1997, (or January 1, 1998, for the
Amateur Radio Service only), Commission actions granting construction
permits, licenses to transmit or renewals thereof, equipment
authorizations, or modifications in existing facilities require the
preparation of an Environmental Assessment if the particular facility,
operation or transmitter would cause human exposure to levels of
radiofrequency radiation that are in excess of the requirements
contained in paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(iii) of this section.
These transition provisions do not apply to applications for equipment
authorization or use of mobile, portable and unlicensed devices
specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
* * * * *
(5) Existing transmitting facilities, devices and operations: All
existing transmitting facilities, operations and devices regulated by
the Commission must be in compliance with the requirements of
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this section by September 1, 2000,
or, if not in compliance, file an Environmental Assessment as specified
in Sec. 1.1311.
* * * * *
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 4, 302, 303 and 307 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303 and 307, unless
otherwise noted.
2. Section 2.1091 is amended by revising the section heading,
paragraphs (b), (c) and (d)(3) and adding new paragraph (d)(4) to read
as follows:
Sec. 2.1091 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: mobile
devices.
* * * * *
[[Page 47967]]
(b) For purposes of this section, a mobile device is defined as a
transmitting device designed to be used in other than fixed locations
and to generally be used in such a way that a separation distance of at
least 20 centimeters is normally maintained between the transmitter's
radiating structure(s) and the body of the user or nearby persons. In
this context, the term ``fixed location'' means that the device is
physically secured at one location and is not able to be easily moved
to another location. Transmitting devices designed to be used by
consumers or workers that can be easily re-located, such as wireless
devices associated with a personal computer, are considered to be
mobile devices if they meet the 20 centimeter separation requirement.
(c) Mobile devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone
Service, the Personal Communications Services, the Satellite
Communications Services, the General Wireless Communications Service,
the Wireless Communications Service, the Maritime Services and the
Specialized Mobile Radio Service authorized under subpart H of part 22
of this chapter, part 24 of this chapter, part 25 of this chapter, part
26 of this chapter, part 27 of this chapter, part 80 of this chapter
(ship earth stations devices only) and part 90 of this chapter are
subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to
equipment authorization or use if they operate at frequencies of 1.5
GHz or below and their effective radiated power (ERP) is 1.5 watts or
more, or if they operate at frequencies above 1.5 GHz and their ERP is
3 watts or more. Unlicensed personal communications service devices,
unlicensed millimeter wave devices and unlicensed NII devices
authorized under Sec. 15.253, Sec. 15.255, and subparts D and E of part
15 of this chapter are also subject to routine environmental evaluation
for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use if their ERP is
3 watts or more or if they meet the definition of a portable device as
specified in Sec. 2.1093 (b) requiring evaluation under the provisions
of that section. All other mobile and unlicensed transmitting devices
are categorically excluded from routine environmental evaluation for RF
exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, except as specified
in Secs. 1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) of this chapter. Applications for
equipment authorization of mobile and unlicensed transmitting devices
subject to routine environmental evaluation must contain a statement
confirming compliance with the limits specified in paragraph (d) of
this section as part of their application. Technical information
showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the
Commission upon request.
(d) * * *
(3) If appropriate, compliance with exposure guidelines for devices
in this section can be accomplished by the use of warning labels and by
providing users with information concerning minimum separation
distances from transmitting structures and proper installation of
antennas.
(4) In some cases, e.g., modular or desktop transmitters, the
potential conditions of use of a device may not allow easy
classification of that device as either mobile or portable (also see
Sec. 2.1093). In such cases, applicants are responsible for determining
minimum distances for compliance for the intended use and installation
of the device based on evaluation of either specific absorption rate
(SAR), field strength or power density, whichever is most appropriate.
3. Section 2.1093 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c) and
(d) introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 2.1093 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: portable
devices.
* * * * *
(b) For purposes of this section, a portable device is defined as a
transmitting device designed to be used so that the radiating
structure(s) of the device is/are within 20 centimeters of the body of
the user.
(c) Portable devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone
Service, the Personal Communications Services, the Satellite
Communications services, the General Wireless Communications Service,
the Wireless Communications Service, the Maritime Services and the
Specialized Mobile Radio Service authorized under subpart H of part 22
of this chapter, part 24 of this chapter, part 25 of this chapter, part
26 of this chapter, part 27 of this chapter, part 80 of this chapter
(ship earth station devices only), part 90 of this chapter, and
portable unlicensed personal communication service, unlicensed NII
devices and millimeter wave devices authorized under Sec. 15.253,
Sec. 15.255 or subparts D and E of part 15 of this chapter are subject
to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment
authorization or use. All other portable transmitting devices are
categorically excluded from routine environmental evaluation for RF
exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, except as specified
in Secs. 1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) of this chapter. Applications for
equipment authorization of portable transmitting devices subject to
routine environmental evaluation must contain a statement confirming
compliance with the limits specified in paragraph (d) of this section
as part of their application. Technical information showing the basis
for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
(d) The limits to be used for evaluation are based generally on
criteria published by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
for localized specific absorption rate (``SAR'') in Section 4.2 of
``IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to
Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz,'' ANSI/IEEE
C95.1-1992, Copyright 1992 by the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York, New York 10017. These criteria
for SAR evaluation are similar to those recommended by the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in ``Biological
Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic
Fields,'' NCRP Report No. 86, Section 17.4.5. Copyright NCRP, 1986,
Bethesda, Maryland 20814. SAR is a measure of the rate of energy
absorption due to exposure to an RF transmitting source. SAR values
have been related to threshold levels for potential biological hazards.
The criteria to be used are specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2)
of this section and shall apply for portable devices transmitting in
the frequency range from 100 kHz to 6 GHz. Portable devices that
transmit at frequencies above 6 GHz are to be evaluated in terms of the
MPE limits specified in Sec. 1.1310 of this chapter. Measurements and
calculations to demonstrate compliance with MPE field strength or power
density limits for devices operating above 6 GHz should be made at a
minimum distance of 5 cm from the radiating source.
* * * * *
PART 26--GENERAL WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
1. The authority citation for part 26 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154,
303. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended;
47 U.S.C. Secs. 151-155, 301-609, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 26.51 is amended by removing paragraph (d).
3. Section 26.52 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 47968]]
Sec. 26.52 RF safety.
Licensees and manufacturers are subject to the radiofrequency
radiation exposure requirements specified in Sec. 1.1307(b),
Sec. 2.1091 and Sec. 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.
Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices
operating under this section must contain a statement confirming
compliance with these requirements for both fundamental emissions and
unwanted emissions. Technical information showing the basis for this
statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
PART 97--AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE
1. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. Secs. 154,
303. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended;
47 U.S.C. Secs. 151-155, 301-609, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 97.13 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 97.13 Restrictions on station location.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmitter
Wavelength band power
(watts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
160 m...................................................... 500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
80 m....................................................... 500
75 m....................................................... 500
40 m....................................................... 500
30 m....................................................... 425
20 m....................................................... 225
17 m....................................................... 125
15 m....................................................... 100
12 m....................................................... 75
10 m....................................................... 50
VHF (all bands)............................................ 50
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UHF
------------------------------------------------------------------------
70 cm...................................................... 70
33 cm...................................................... 150
23 cm...................................................... 200
13 cm...................................................... 250
SHF (all bands)............................................ 250
EHF (all bands)............................................ 250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) If the routine environmental evaluation indicates that the RF
electromagnetic fields could exceed the limits contained in Sec. 1.1310
of this chapter in accessible areas, the licensee must take action to
prevent human exposure to such RF electromagnetic fields. Further
information on evaluating compliance with these limits can be found in
the FCC's OET Bulletin 65, ``Evaluating Compliance with FCC-Specified
Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic
Fields.''
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-24165 Filed 9-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P