NOTICE ************************************************************************* NOTICE ************************************************************************* This document was originally prepared in Word Perfect. If the original document contained-- * Footnotes * Boldface & Italics --this information is missing in this version The document format (spacing, margins, tabs, etc.) is changed too. If you need the complete document, download the Word Perfect version. For information about downloading documents (FTP) see file pnmc5021. File pnmc5021 (.txt & .wp) is in directory \pub\Public_Notices\Miscellaneous. ************************************************************************* Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSIONFCC 96-326 Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental ) ET Docket No. 93-62 Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation ) ) REPORT AND ORDER Adopted: August 1, 1996 ; Released: August 1, 1996 By the Commission: Commissioners Quello and Chong issuing a joint statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Para. I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1-4 II. BACKGROUND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-11 III. DISCUSSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-129 A. New RF Exposure Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12-34 B. Definitions of Controlled and Uncontrolled Environments . . 35-45 C. Evaluation of Low-Power Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46-74 D. Categorical Exclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75-93 E. Compliance Evaluation, Measurement Procedures and Transition Provisions 94-119 F. RF Protective Clothing and Personal Monitors120-129 IV. ADDITIONAL ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .130-168 A. Induced and Contact Current Compliance130-151 B. Amateur Radio. . . . . . . . . . . .152-163 C. Federal Preemption . . . . . . . . .164-168 V. CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169 VI. ORDERING CLAUSES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170-172 VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .173 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A Exposure Limits for ANSI 1982, ANSI/IEEE 1992 and NCRP . . . . . Appendix B Final Rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix C Commenting Parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix D I. INTRODUCTION 1. By this action, we are amending our rules to adopt new guidelines and methods for evaluating the environmental effects of radiofrequency (RF) radiation from FCC-regulated transmitters. We are adopting Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits for electric and magnetic field strength and power density for transmitters operating at frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz. We are also adopting limits for localized ("partial body") absorption that will apply to certain portable transmitting devices. We believe that the guidelines we are adopting will protect the public and workers from exposure to potentially harmful RF fields. 2. In reaching our decision on the adoption of new RF exposure guidelines we have carefully considered the large number of comments submitted in this proceeding, and particularly those submitted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other federal health and safety agencies. The new guidelines we are adopting are based substantially on the recommendations of those agencies, and we believe that these guidelines represent a consensus view of the federal agencies responsible for matters relating to the public safety and health. 3. The MPE limits adopted herein are based on exposure criteria quantified in terms of specific absorption rate (SAR), a measure of the rate of RF energy absorption. The basis for these limits, as well as the basis for the 1982 ANSI limits that the Commission previously specified in our rules, is an SAR limit of 4 watts per kilogram. The new MPE limits are derived by incorporating safety factors that lead, in some cases, to limits that are more conservative than the limits specified by ANSI in 1982. The more conservative limits do not arise from a fundamental change in the RF safety criteria for SAR, but from a precautionary desire for more rigor in the derivation of factors which allow limits for MPE to be derived from SAR limits. 4. This action satisfies the requirements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for a timely resolution of this proceeding. We note that research and analysis relating to RF safety and health is ongoing, and we expect changes in recommended exposure limits will occur in the future as knowledge increases in this field. In that regard, we intend to continue our cooperative work with industry and with the various agencies and organizations with responsibilities in this area in order to ensure that our guidelines continue to be appropriate and scientifically valid. II. BACKGROUND 5. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 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 requirements for evaluating the environmental impact of its actions. One of several environmental factors addressed by these requirements is human exposure to RF energy emitted by FCC-regulated transmitters and facilities. 6. In 1985, the Commission adopted a 1982 ANSI standard for use in evaluating the effects of RF radiation on the environment, noting that the ANSI standard was widely accepted and was technically and scientifically supportable. Since then the Commission has used this standard as its processing guideline for determining the potential environmental impact of RF emissions. The rules now require applicants for certain facilities to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) if the transmitter or facility under consideration could expose the general public or workers to levels of RF radiation that are in excess of the 1982 ANSI guidelines. Examples of facilities that could potentially cause exposures in excess of these guidelines because of their relatively high operating power include radio and television broadcast stations and satellite uplink facilities. The rules also address other related matters, such as the evaluation of sites with multiple transmitters. 7. The Commission has "categorically excluded" many low-power, intermittent, or normally inaccessible RF transmitters and facilities from routine evaluation for RF radiation exposure based on calculations and measurement data indicating that they would not cause exposures in excess of the guidelines under normal and routine conditions of use. Examples of currently excluded transmitters include land mobile, cellular and amateur radio stations. 8. In 1992, ANSI adopted a new standard for RF exposure, designated ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 to replace its 1982 standard. This new standard contains a number of significant differences from the 1982 ANSI standard. In some respects, the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard is more restrictive in the amount of environmental RF exposure permitted, although for some situations recommended MPE levels are similar to the 1982 limits. The 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard also extends the frequency range under consideration to cover frequencies from 3 kHz to 300 GHz. The 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard specifies two tiers of exposure criteria, one tier for "controlled environments" (usually involving workers) and another, more stringent tier, for "uncontrolled environments" (usually involving the general public). The 1982 ANSI standard specified only one set of exposure limits, regardless of whether the individual exposed was a worker or a member of the general public. The 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard also, for the first time, includes specific restrictions on currents induced in the human body by RF fields. These restrictions apply to both "induced" currents and "contact" currents related to shock and burn hazards. 9. The 1992 ANSI standard is generally more stringent in the evaluation of low-power devices, such as hand-held radios and cellular telephones, than the 1982 standard. That is, the 1982 ANSI standard permitted exclusion from compliance with the MPE limits if the localized specific absorption rate (SAR) of a low-power device could be shown to be 8 watts/kilogram (8 W/kg) or less, or if the input power of the radiating device at frequencies between 300 kHz and 1 GHz was 7 watts or less. The 1992 guidelines reduce the allowable localized SAR level for devices operating in "uncontrolled" environments by a factor of five to 1.6 W/kg, while maintaining the 8 W/kg limit for "controlled" environments. Further, the exclusion thresholds based on operating power are significantly reduced for devices that operate in uncontrolled environments and for devices that operate above 450 MHz in controlled environments. The 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard also prohibits the application of the power exclusion to hand-held devices where the radiating structure is maintained less than 2.5 centimeters (cm) from the body of the user. 10. On April 8, 1993, we issued the Notice in this proceeding to consider amending and updating the guidelines and methods used by the Commission for evaluating the environmental effects of RF radiation. In the Notice, we proposed to base our RF safety regulations on the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard instead of the 1982 ANSI standard. The major issues addressed in the Notice were: 1) the selection of the appropriate RF exposure standard; 2) use of the 1992 ANSI/IEEE definitions for "controlled" and "uncontrolled" environments to determine application of exposure criteria; 3) implementation of new limits on induced and contact currents; 4) evaluation of low-power devices such as cellular telephones; 5) categorical exclusions from environmental evaluation for certain transmitters; 6) compliance and measurement issues; and 7) administrative procedures and effective dates for implementation. 11. More than 100 parties, including telecommunications organizations, other Federal Government agencies, local and state authorities, and individuals, submitted comments in response to the Notice. Many of these parties filed extensive comments addressing the various issues discussed above. In addition, a significant number of parties addressed the issue of Federal preemption of state and local regulations for RF exposure. A list of commenting parties is provided in Appendix D. III. DISCUSSION A. New RF Exposure Guidelines 12. In the Notice, we noted that the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard reflects recent scientific studies of the biological effects of RF radiation and that use of this standard would thus ensure that FCC-regulated facilities comply with the latest safety guidelines for RF exposure. We also noted that other RF exposure criteria are available, such as those of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and those of the International Radiation Protection Association (IRPA). We requested comment on whether the differences between these other guidelines and the 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines are significant, and whether it would be appropriate to adopt limits for RF exposure that differ from those in the 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines. 13. The comments filed in this proceeding have focused primarily on the 1992 ANSI/IEEE and NCRP exposure criteria. In many ways, these two sets of exposure guidelines are similar. Both organizations identify the same threshold level at which harmful biological effects may occur, and the MPE limits recommended for electric and magnetic field strength and power density in both documents are based on this threshold level. Both the 1992 ANSI/IEEE and NCRP guidelines also are frequency dependent, based on knowledge of how whole-body- averaged human exposure is a function of the frequency of the RF signal. Further, both ANSI/IEEE and NCRP recommend two exposure tiers, one for "controlled environments" (ANSI/IEEE) or "occupational exposure" (NCRP) and another, more stringent, tier for "uncontrolled environments" (ANSI/IEEE) or "general population" exposure (NCRP). Tables 1, 2 and 3 in Appendix B show the MPE limits for the 1982 ANSI, 1992 ANSI/IEEE and NCRP exposure criteria, respectively. 14. The two sets of guidelines, however, do differ in some respects. The NCRP MPE limits are generally more stringent than the ANSI/IEEE limits for magnetic field strength at frequencies below 3 MHz and for power density at frequencies above 1500 MHz. The NCRP guidelines also include a unique provision (that we are not adopting here) that reduces the exposure limit for workers with respect to certain forms of modulated RF carrier frequencies. The NCRP guidelines specify that the general population MPE limits at higher frequencies are to be averaged over longer periods of time than those recommended by the ANSI/IEEE guidelines. The NCRP, unlike ANSI/IEEE, only specifies MPE limits for frequencies up to 100 GHz. With respect to evaluating low-power devices, although both ANSI/IEEE and NCRP generally recommend the same localized SAR limits, ANSI/IEEE also includes an exclusion clause based on radiated power that is not a part of the NCRP guidelines. Although the ANSI/IEEE and NCRP guidelines differ at higher and lower frequencies, at frequencies used by the majority of FCC licensees the MPE limits are essentially the same regardless of whether ANSI/IEEE or NCRP guidelines are used. Therefore, the overall impact on most of our licensees from our adoption of new guidelines should not be significantly different regardless of which limits we choose. 15. Several federal agencies filed comments in this proceeding expressing varying viewpoints on whether we should adopt the ANSI/IEEE guidelines or some alternative. Within the Federal Government, the EPA is generally responsible for investigating and making recommendations with regard to environmental issues. In its comments, the EPA states that the new ANSI/IEEE guidelines are a significant revision of the 1982 ANSI guidelines and notes that certain aspects of the new guidelines are improvements with regard to protection. However, the EPA submits that some of the provisions of the new ANSI/IEEE guidelines are not acceptable. For example, EPA does not support the relaxation in MPE limits for power density at higher microwave frequencies, and it opposes the application of the same exposure limits to both controlled and uncontrolled environments for frequencies from 15 GHz to 300 GHz. The EPA states that the ANSI/IEEE exposure limits for these frequencies are not sufficiently protective for public exposure. The EPA also argues that the terms controlled and uncontrolled environments used in the ANSI/IEEE guidelines are not well defined and are not directly applicable to any specific population group. 16. The EPA recommends that we adopt the NCRP's recommended MPE limits along with sections of the 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines dealing with localized exposure and induced and contact body currents. In terms of MPEs for power density and field strength, the EPA argues that the NCRP guidelines would better protect the public from potential long term effects of RF exposure at higher microwave frequencies where the two sets of guidelines differ. The EPA maintains that, "[t]here are no substantive differences in the literature base supporting 1986 NCRP and 1992 ANSI/IEEE except for the literature on RF shocks and burns." In addition, the EPA notes that NCRP is chartered by the U.S. Congress to develop radiation protection recommendations. 17. The EPA generally supports the use of the ANSI/IEEE limits for dealing with induced and contact currents to protect against shock and burn hazards. EPA states that those guidelines are not included in the NCRP exposure criteria, and they are a result of research and knowledge acquired since development of the NCRP recommendations. The EPA also supports the FCC proposal to use ANSI/IEEE SAR limits that apply to low-power devices such as cellular telephones (see discussion below). These values are similar to those recommended by the NCRP. 18. The FDA has general jurisdiction for protecting the public from potentially harmful radiation from consumer and industrial devices and in that capacity is expert in RF exposures that would result from consumer or industrial use of hand-held devices such as cellular telephones. The FDA generally supports our proposed use of the 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines, although it does express some reservations. It states that these guidelines will provide a greater level of protection to the general public, and it particularly supports use of the values for SAR that would apply to consumer and industrial devices. As discussed below, however, the FDA expresses significant concern about the radiated power exclusion clause included in the ANSI/IEEE standard that would apply to some hand-held devices. 19. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), an agency of the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, is responsible for performing research and analysis with respect to worker safety and health. In its comments, NIOSH expresses general support for our efforts to update our RF exposure regulations and notes that the MPE limits defined in the 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines are similar to those contained in recommendations of the NCRP and the International Radiation Protection Association. NIOSH states that we should take a more conservative approach when uncertainty exists with respect to applying certain features of the exposure guidelines. In particular, NIOSH agrees with the EPA that it would be more appropriate to use the MPE limits recommended by NCRP guidelines at higher frequencies. NIOSH also supports the use of the ANSI/IEEE limits on induced RF currents. 20. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has jurisdiction over Federal regulations dealing with worker safety and health. In its comments, OSHA generally endorses our proposal to update our RF exposure guidelines by adopting the new ANSI/IEEE guidelines. OSHA also urges us to require applicants to implement a written RF exposure protection program which appropriately addresses traditional safety and health program elements including training, medical monitoring, protective procedures and engineering controls, signs, hazard assessments, employee involvement, and designated responsibilities for program implementation. It notes that the exposure limits in the ANSI/IEEE guidelines may be useful in determining when specific elements of an RF safety program should be implemented. However, OSHA objects to the two categories of exposure environments contained in the new ANSI/IEEE standard, finding it unacceptable that employees may be subjected to a higher level of risk than the general public simply because they "are aware of the potential for exposure as a concomitant of employment." Rather, OSHA proposes that we adopt the uncontrolled environment criteria as an "action limit" which determines when an RF protection program will be required. That is, under OSHA's proposal, persons who are exposed in excess of the limits specified for uncontrolled environments would be protected by a program designed to mitigate any potential increase in risk. 21. The majority of industry comments favor adoption of the 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines. For example, American Personal Communications (APC), American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T), Electromagnetic Energy Policy Alliance (EEPA), Ericsson Corporation (Ericsson), McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc. (McCaw), National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), and others urge that we adopt the new ANSI/IEEE guidelines, arguing that they represent the most up-to-date standard available. Telocator (now the Personal Communications Industry Association, PCIA) agrees that the ANSI/IEEE standard is the most recent and comprehensive RF exposure guideline, noting that an international committee of over 120 scientists and engineers was involved in its drafting. However, Telocator submits that the actual impact of the ANSI/IEEE, NCRP or IRPA standards would be about the same on Personal Communications Service (PCS) operations, since all three standards are based on the same specific absorption rates, and the power densities each provides for the PCS band are essentially the same. 22. AT&T submits that the new ANSI/IEEE standard agrees with the latest proposals for controlled environments issued by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. AT&T also states that the members of the IEEE committee that developed the new guidelines represent a larger and more complete group of experts than those who developed other guidelines, such as the NCRP and the IRPA guidelines. TIA notes that the IEEE committee represents the most competent and expert scientists and specialists in the world in the area of RF biological effects. McCaw also states that the ANSI/IEEE standard incorporates substantial safety factors and addresses all of the environmentally significant aspects of RF exposure. 23. NAB recommends that we adopt the new ANSI/IEEE guidelines and provide procedures and guidance for its application. NAB submits that there is substantial agreement among the available standards with respect to exposure limits in the 30 to 300 MHz range. It also states that where the standards differ at extreme frequencies, the ANSI/IEEE standard should be followed, since it is based on more recent scientific information. For example, NAB notes that while there are differences between the ANSI/IEEE standard and the NCRP guidelines at lower frequencies, these differences lie in the MPE limits for the magnetic field. It states that in developing the NCRP guidelines, the magnetic field strength limit was merely made equal to the electric field strength limit and that the electric field strength was capped at a value of 614 volts per meter because of shock and burn considerations. NAB contends that such a value should not apply to the magnetic field strength, since high magnetic fields are not associated with shock or burn. Consequently, NAB argues that the limits contained in the ANSI/IEEE standard, which are based on limiting the SAR of the magnetic field, are more scientifically correct. 24. Jules Cohen & Associates (JC&A) argues that although the ANSI/IEEE exposure limits are at some points less restrictive than the NCRP limits, the averaging times must also be taken into consideration. JC&A states that skin burning is the applicable consideration at higher microwave frequencies. JC&A, therefore, submits that the new ANSI/IEEE limits represent a better standard because at frequencies above 3 GHz the lower averaging times recommended allow much less energy absorption than the NCRP guidelines. EEPA argues that the ANSI/IEEE limits for higher frequencies above 15 GHz are appropriate and consistent with "well-established biologically based" national and international limits for infrared lasers. EEPA and NAB note that at 300 GHz the MPE limits contained in the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard are the same as the MPE limits in ANSI Z136.1-1993 and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) laser standard, and that all three standards use the same 10-second averaging time. EEPA also states that the six-minute averaging time recommended by the NCRP guidelines is not sufficiently short to protect against skin burning for exposure to short pulses at higher frequencies where most of the energy is deposited in surface layers of tissue. 25. JC&A, EEPA, Ericsson, Motorola, Raytheon Company (Raytheon), and TIA argue that there is no scientific evidence to support the modulation provisions contained in the NCRP guidelines. JC&A contends that this requirement has no practical application because broadcast transmitters are not modulated at these frequencies at a depth of 50 percent or greater except for very short intervals. Therefore, JC&A concludes that circumstances would not arise that would call for application of this stricter standard in a controlled environment. EEPA notes that no other standard-setting organization in the United States or in other countries regards modulation considerations as a meaningful issue. Ericsson claims that the IEEE committee looked at the issue of modulation effects at frequencies between 3 and 100 Hz and concluded that there is no scientific data to support the modulation provisions in NCRP's guidelines. Similarly, Motorola states that there is insufficient scientific data upon which to base regulations for amplitude- modulated radio signals. Motorola recommends that we monitor any relevant biological research on this type of modulation and take appropriate regulatory action as warranted in the future. Raytheon and TIA point out that studies over the last several years observed that within the recommended safe exposure levels, no reliable scientific data exists which indicates that modulation of the electromagnetic fields is a factor meaningfully related to human health. 26. The IEEE's Standards Coordinating Committee 28 (IEEE/SCC28), which developed the ANSI/IEEE guidelines, took issue with several of the points made by the EPA. IEEE/SCC28 states that the new guidelines and the NCRP recommendations are actually quite similar, with the exception of the MPEs at higher microwave frequencies. In addition, it points out that both the ANSI/IEEE and the NCRP guidelines are based on the use of SAR as the fundamental dosimetric parameter, the same criterion for biological effect (behavioral disruption), and the same safety factors to define the two tiers of exposure. 27. In comments filed late in this proceeding, Dr. Arthur W. Guy, former Chairman of both ANSI/IEEE and NCRP committees on RF exposure expresses his view that, "it would be a mistake for the FCC to adopt the older 1986 NCRP standard at this time considering the fact that newer and more advanced standards have been developed since the publication of the NCRP standard." Similar views are expressed in letters submitted to the Commission by Dr. Eleanor Adair and Dr. C.K. Chou, both of whom have been involved in ANSI/IEEE and NCRP RF committees. All of these individuals urge that we adopt the ANSI/IEEE standard instead of the NCRP exposure criteria. 28. Decision. Although most commenting parties generally support our proposal to adopt the 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines, some of the Federal agencies filing comments in this proceeding, principally those with responsibility for oversight regarding health and safety issues, object to the use of certain aspects of these guidelines. In the past, the Commission has stressed repeatedly that it is not a health and safety agency and would defer to the judgment of these expert agencies with respect to determining appropriate levels of safe exposure to RF energy. We continue to believe that we must place special emphasis on the recommendations and comments of Federal health and safety agencies because of their expertise and their responsibilities with regard to health and safety matters. Accordingly, as recommended by the EPA, we are adopting exposure limits for field strength and power density based on those recommended by the NCRP for frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz (see Appendix C). As noted previously, over a wide frequency range these limits are also based on those recommended in the ANSI/IEEE 1992 standard. We believe that the exposure criteria we are adopting will protect workers and the general public from potentially harmful RF emissions due to FCC- regulated transmitters. 29. We recognize that the NCRP guidelines do not address exposure at frequencies below 300 kHz or above 100 GHz, as do the ANSI/IEEE guidelines. However, the FCC-regulated transmitters of concern operate at frequencies between 300 kHz and 100 GHz. Therefore, we see no need at this time to adopt guidelines for frequencies outside of the range of the NCRP recommendations. 30. We appreciate the concerns raised by NAB with respect to NCRP guidelines for low- frequency magnetic-field exposure, and we recognize that the NCRP guidelines may be conservative for frequencies below 100 MHz. However, compliance with these limits would appear to be an issue only in occupational situations, e.g., in the immediate vicinity of an AM broadcast transmitter; and, there is nothing in the record to indicate that significant problems exist with respect to compliance with these magnetic field limits in the workplace. 31. We also recognize the merit of arguments as to whether, at the higher microwave frequencies, incorporating different time-averaging values, such as those specified by the ANSI/IEEE guidelines may be desirable. As discussed by JC&A, IEEE/SCC28 and others, the level of energy density allowed by the 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines can actually be more restrictive at higher frequencies than the NCRP guidelines when time-averaging is considered. For frequencies above 3 GHz (uncontrolled) and 15 GHz (controlled) the ANSI/IEEE time- averaging values are less than those of NCRP, and they continue to decrease at higher frequencies. Because of the lengthier NCRP averaging times at these frequencies, very short exposures at very high power densities might comply with NCRP limits as long as they are followed by insignificant exposures for the duration of the time-averaging interval. In that sense, ANSI/IEEE could be viewed as affording a greater degree of protection from skin burning at the higher microwave frequencies. However, we are not aware of any practical situations involving FCC-regulated transmitting facilities where such exposures are likely to occur. Of far greater significance, we believe, is the case of a consumer-product without any identifiable usage pattern, where continuous exposure would have to be assumed and time-averaging would not be relevant. 32. We agree with those commenters who maintain that there is insufficient evidence to give special consideration to modulation effects at this time. Since we have no specific indication of exposure hazards related to modulation caused by FCC-regulated transmitters, we believe it would be premature at this time to adopt the NCRP modulation criteria. 33. We believe that OSHA's suggestion that we use the uncontrolled exposure tier of the ANSI/IEEE standard as the basis for an "action limit" for establishment of an RF safety program is beyond the scope of our jurisdiction. Our NEPA responsibilities do not appear to encompass the issuance of specific rules on workplace practices and procedures. If such a policy were to be instituted by the Federal Government it would seem more appropriate for OSHA itself to promulgate this type of rule. 34. Both the IEEE and the NCRP have committees that are working on revisions of their respective exposure guidelines. We encourage these organizations and other similar groups developing exposure criteria to work together, along with the relevant federal agencies, to develop consistent, harmonized guidelines that will address the concerns and issues raised in this proceeding. We will consider amending our rules at any appropriate time if these groups conclude that such action is desirable. B. Definitions of Controlled and Uncontrolled Environments 35. The 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines specify two sets of exposure limits based on the "environment" in which the exposure takes place. These environments are classified as either "controlled" or "uncontrolled." Controlled environments are defined as locations where "there is exposure that may be incurred by persons who are aware of the potential for exposure as a concomitant of employment, by other cognizant persons, or as the incidental result of transient passage through areas where analysis shows the exposure levels may be above [the exposure and induced current levels permitted for uncontrolled environment but not those permitted for controlled environments]." Uncontrolled environments are defined as "locations where there is the exposure of individuals who have no knowledge or control of their exposure. The exposures may occur in living quarters or workplaces where there are no expectations that the exposure levels may exceed [the exposure and induced current levels permitted for uncontrolled environments]." The NCRP designates exposure limits in terms of "occupational" and "general population" exposure. However, the NCRP report does not provide specific definitions of these terms. 36. In the Notice, we requested comment on the criteria to be used in determining which set of exposure limits would apply to the various situations that would be subject to environmental analysis and whether the definitions of controlled and uncontrolled environments used in the ANSI/IEEE guidelines were practical and supportable for the Commission's purposes. We stated that because matters of possible health and safety are involved, a conservative approach would be appropriate. Accordingly, we proposed to provide that where there is any question of possible exposure of the general public, the more stringent guidelines for uncontrolled environments would apply. We also specifically stated that the guidelines for uncontrolled environments would apply to any transmitter or facility located in a residential area where proximity to the transmitter is unrestricted. On the other hand, we indicated that controlled environment limits would apply to situations where exposure is incidental and transitory or where exposure is incurred when individuals are aware of the exposure potential. 37. Most parties support the use of a two-tier RF exposure standard and the ANSI/IEEE definitions for "controlled environment" and "uncontrolled environment." In general, these parties support applying the ANSI/IEEE definition for uncontrolled environment to those transmitters and facilities in residential areas or locations with unrestricted access. They suggest that the controlled environment should apply to incidental and transitory exposure and in areas where people are aware of potential exposure through warning signs and instructions. The Land Mobile Communication Council (LMCC), NAB, and others propose that the distinction between the two environments be based on the context of the equipment's use and types of communication operations being performed. They argue that the controlled standards should be applied when the equipment is used in a commercial or business setting where the operator is "knowledgeable" in the use of his/her equipment. They state that the uncontrolled standard should apply to the general public where the user or party exposed is not considered "knowledgeable" about the transmitting device and the use of those devices is incidental or personal in nature. 38. JC&A and EEPA state that the ANSI/IEEE uncontrolled/controlled environment designations are less ambiguous than the terms occupational and general population used by NCRP. IEEE/SCC28 states that during consideration of its standard, it explicitly rejected NCRP's occupational and general population categories on the grounds that there is no reliable scientific data indicating that certain subgroups of the population are more at risk than others. On the contrary, IEEE/SCC28 maintains, the important distinction is not population type, but the nature of the exposure environment. 39. A number of parties, such as Broadcast Signal Lab (BSL), Du Treil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc. (DLR), Ericsson and Sprint Cellular Company (Sprint), urge that we define these terms more completely and clearly to minimize any ambiguity in the application of these definitions. These parties argue that without clear definitions of controlled and uncontrolled environments and related terms, such as incidental or transient exposure, many locations could unnecessarily end up subject to the more stringent uncontrolled environment category. AMSC Subsidiary Corporation (AMSC), the Department of Defense (DoD), the Utilities Telecommunications Council (UTC), and others are similarly concerned that applying the more conservative uncontrolled guidelines where there is "any question of possible exposure" of the general public would frustrate the purpose of a two-tiered standard. DLR argues that better definitions are needed to avoid confusion and inconsistent application of the standard and suggests defining a controlled environment as "an area which is restricted from access by all except authorized personnel . . . ." Alternatively, DLR submits that we should adopt a single exposure limit based on the uncontrolled environment. E.F. Johnson Company (E.F. Johnson) states that the controlled/uncontrolled dichotomy may lead some to conclude that exposure levels appropriate in the controlled environment are dangerous and that we should specify measures to ensure that those that are expected to be aware of their environment are, in fact, aware. 40. The EPA opposes use of the terms controlled and uncontrolled environments and recommends that we define exposure environments using the traditional terms of "occupational" and "general population or public" contained in the NCRP guidelines. EPA contends that its own 1984 report on the biological effects of RF radiation and the NCRP have concluded that the general population has groups of individuals particularly susceptible to heat, including the elderly, infants, pregnant women and others. EPA argues that the ANSI/IEEE terms are not directly applicable to any population group and are not well defined. OSHA and NIOSH do not oppose the use of the ANSI/IEEE definitions but raise questions about their application. OSHA, for example, states that employees should not be subjected to a higher level of risk as a condition of their employment just because they are made aware of the potential for exposure. NIOSH states that where there is any question about exposure category, the more conservative uncontrolled criteria should be applied. 41. The American Radio Relay League, Inc. (ARRL) also opposes use of the ANSI/IEEE definitions, arguing that under these definitions amateur operations would unjustly be categorized as operating in an uncontrolled environment. It suggests that there is no reason to require amateurs to meet the high safety factor below the threshold for adverse health effects that is the basis for the uncontrolled MPE limits. The ARRL indicates that the controlled environment MPE limits "should be safe for all." 42. Decision. We find it appropriate to use the terms "occupational" and "general population" contained in the NCRP report. We note, however, that the NCRP report does not provide explicit definitions of these terms, and we agree with the commenting parties that we need to define these terms more completely and clearly to minimize any ambiguity in the application of the exposure limits. We believe that the ANSI/IEEE definitions for controlled and uncontrolled environments can be used as a basis for applying our use of the two exposure tiers we are adopting, while at the same time accomplishing the intent of the NCRP criteria to protect workers and the public. 43. Accordingly, "occupational/controlled" exposure, as used by the Commission, will apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over the their exposure. Occupational/controlled exposure will also apply where exposure is of a transient nature as a result of incidental passage through a location where exposure levels may be above general population/uncontrolled limits (see below), as long as the exposed person has been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over his or her exposure by leaving the area or by some other appropriate means. We will apply the occupational/controlled exposure limits to amateur radio operators and members of their immediate household, as discussed later (see para. 162, infra). 44. "General population/uncontrolled" exposure, as used by the Commission, will apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or can not exercise control over their exposure. Therefore, members of the general public always fall under this category when exposure is not employment-related, as in the case of residents in an area near a broadcast tower. We believe that these definitions will clarify the ambiguities pointed out by many of the commenting parties and will thus ensure that the appropriate level of protection is applied in each situation. We do not agree with those parties that support applying the general population or uncontrolled limits to all situations. This approach would impose significant and unnecessary economic and technical burdens for which adequate justification has not been presented. 45. For purposes of these definitions, awareness of the potential for RF exposure can be provided through specific training as part of an RF safety program. Warning signs and labels can also be used to establish such awareness as long as they provide information, in a prominent manner, on risk of potential exposure and instructions on methods to minimize such exposure risk. However, warning labels placed on low-power consumer devices such as cellular telephones will not be considered sufficient to achieve the awareness necessary to qualify these devices as operating in a controlled environment. We plan to provide further instructions on the application of these definitions in an upcoming revision of OST Bulletin No. 65 concerning compliance with RF exposure guidelines. C. Evaluation of Low-Power Devices 46. The 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines permit low-power devices designed to be used in the immediate vicinity of the body, such as portable and hand-held radios and telephones, to be excluded from compliance with the prescribed limits for field strength and power density provided that such devices comply with specific SAR limits or that the radiated power of the device is below a certain level. "Low-power" devices include mobile transmitters such as automobile and marine radio transceivers, and hand-held portable devices such as cellular telephones and "walkie-talkie" type radios. These low-power exclusions would eliminate the need for making MPE field strength measurements in areas extremely near to the transmitting device where they may not be an appropriate measure of actual energy absorption. For low-power devices in controlled environments, SAR levels must be less than 0.4 W/kg as averaged over the whole-body, and the spatial peak SAR must be less than 8 W/kg as averaged over any 1 gram of tissue at frequencies between 100 kHz and 6 GHz. The corresponding limits for devices operated in uncontrolled environments are 0.08 W/kg for whole-body average exposure and 1.6 W/kg for spatial peak SAR. These SAR limits are also essentially the same as those recommended by the NCRP for occupational and general population exposure, respectively. 47. With regard to exclusions based on radiated power, the ANSI/IEEE guidelines permit an exclusion in controlled environments if the radiated power of a device is 7 watts or less at frequencies between 100 kHz and 450 MHz. At frequencies between 450 and 1500 MHz, the radiated power is limited to 7(450/f) watts, where f is the frequency in MHz. In uncontrolled environments, the guidelines permit exclusion if the radiated power is 1.4 watts or less for frequencies between 100 kHz and 450 MHz and 1.4(450/f) watts for frequencies between 450 and 1500 MHz. The ANSI/IEEE guidelines also state that exclusions based on radiated power do not apply when the "radiating structure" of the device is within 2.5 cm of the body. The NCRP guidelines do not provide exclusions based on radiated power. 48. In the Notice, we proposed to adopt the ANSI/IEEE SAR exclusion for low-power devices for both controlled and uncontrolled environments, depending on the actual environment in which the device would be used. We also proposed to adopt the radiated power exclusion, but only for those low-power devices that meet the more conservative guidelines for uncontrolled environments. We also requested comment on whether proof of compliance should be required to be submitted as part of the equipment authorization process, and, if so, the form such a showing should take. 49. The various Federal health and safety agencies commenting in this proceeding, including the EPA, FDA, NIOSH and OSHA, generally support the SAR limits contained in the ANSI/IEEE guidelines. EPA states that these limits are similar to those recommended by the NCRP. FDA supports use of the SAR limits as they would apply to consumer and industrial devices. FDA, however, opposes the ANSI/IEEE radiated power exclusions. It argues that recently published scientific studies indicate that some hand-held radiotelephones that meet the exclusion criteria for radiated power can be used in a manner that induces SARs exceeding the 1.6 W/kg limit for uncontrolled environments. Therefore, the FDA does not believe that the ANSI/IEEE guidelines for radiated power are sufficient to guarantee compliance with SAR limits. The FDA argues that all low-power devices should be certified by their manufacturers as not exceeding the local SAR limits, as determined under "realistic worst-case conditions." 50. Most other commenting parties support both the SAR and radiated power exclusions for low-power devices contained in the ANSI/IEEE guidelines. Several parties disagree with our proposal that the exclusion should apply to only those low-power devices that meet the more stringent uncontrolled radiated power guidelines. These parties generally argue that devices intended to be used in a commercial, business or public safety context should be permitted to comply with the exclusion levels for controlled environments. EEPA, LMCC, Motorola, TIA and others state that hand-held devices such as those typically used in a number of the private land mobile services should be included under the controlled environment category because such users are aware of the potential for RF exposure. Motorola and TIA argue that the controlled limits should apply to Part 90 services except Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) and also to certain services under Parts 21, 74, 80, 94, and 95 of our rules. E.F. Johnson similarly states that if workers who use communications equipment as part of their employment are provided appropriate notification of their exposure, then standards for controlled environments should be used. 51. TRW, Inc. (TRW) states that application of the uncontrolled criteria to all hand-held devices would be unnecessarily restrictive. TRW maintains that the handsets to be used with its mobile satellite service (MSS) system should be regulated under the controlled criteria, since only the MSS user will be exposed to any significant level of RF energy and there will be no danger of exposure to non-users or unaware individuals. It argues that any potential exposure could be mitigated through a combined program of consumer education and strategic design of the equipment. UTC expresses the view that the ANSI/IEEE guidelines already include a wide margin of safety and that additional protective measures are not needed. 52. The Arizona Department of Public Safety (ADPS) argues that the controlled classification is essential to state governmental agencies so that they can continue to operate their existing 7 watt portable radios at frequencies below 450 MHz. ADPS states that undue hazards of RF exposure from the operation of mobile and portable radio devices can be avoided by appropriate training of personnel. 53. GTE Service Corporation (GTE) maintains that Part 15 and Part 22 mobile transmitters operate at power levels that should not raise concerns under the new ANSI/IEEE standards. It points out that cellular telephones' use of "adaptive power control" provides an additional margin of safety, i.e., the telephones normally operate at a power level less than the 0.6 watt maximum in a typical urban market. According to GTE, as carriers further increase cell density to accommodate growing consumer demand, average transmit power will continue to decline. 54. The Electronic Industries Association/Consumer Electronics Group (EIA) notes that the Notice did not specify whether products that are subject to the Part 15 regulations would be subject to evaluation for compliance with the ANSI/IEEE guidelines. EIA believes that the proposed rules should not apply to intentional and unintentional radiators authorized under Part 15, including wireless video and audio distribution equipment, remote-controlled toys, and similar RF devices used by consumers. According to EIA and others, such devices are already subject to emission limits for purposes of reducing electromagnetic interference and that compliance with these limits essentially precludes human exposure to harmful levels of RF energy. Apple Computer, Inc. (Apple) also asks that if the radiated power exclusion limit for Part 15 devices operating in the Industrial, Scientific and Medical ("ISM") frequency bands is lower than the presently allowable 1 watt, a substantial period of time should be provided for industry to comply. Apple also proposes that the duty cycle of devices be taken into account when setting power exclusion limits due to the extreme variability in the operating characteristics of unlicensed PCS and other Part 15 devices. 55. A number of parties request clarification of various aspects of the low-power exclusion. In particular, several parties request that we specify the method to be used for measuring radiated power for purposes of the exclusion. For example, Alcatel SEL (Alcatel) suggests defining "radiated power" as the root mean square (RMS) value of the radiated power averaged over a six-minute time interval, while Ericsson and TIA recommend the IEEE definition of radiated power. Other parties request that we clarify the applicability of time-averaging criteria to the low-power exclusions and define the term "radiating structure." For example, GTE and TRW note that the exposure potential of a device can be considerably less when actual use characteristics are taken into account. Matsushita submits that parts of a device that radiate RF energy at levels that are ten times below the ANSI recommended limits for uncontrolled environments should not be considered as radiating structures. 56. Several parties also recommend extending the range of applicability of the radiated power exclusion clause from its current upper limit of 1500 MHz to 2 GHz or above. Alcatel, for example, maintains that the 1500 MHz limit of the ANSI/IEEE standard is arbitrary and should be extended to 2000 MHz. Alcatel believes that such an extension would make the U.S. standards more consistent with those of Europe. According to BellSouth, extension of the radiated power exclusion criteria to include 2 GHz PCS frequencies would reduce the burden on manufacturers of complying with the new RF exposure standards. Motorola urges that we request ANSI to develop the necessary experimental data to justify extension of the radiated power exclusions up to 5 GHz to accommodate the PCS and other future technologies. TIA recommends extending the applicable range to 6 GHz. 57. A number of parties also address the ANSI/IEEE provision that the radiated power exclusion clause does not apply to devices where the radiating structure is within 2.5 cm of the body. For example, Alcatel maintains that the 2.5 cm separation requirement is arbitrary and renders compliance with the low-power exclusion clause unnecessarily complicated. Alcatel does not believe that the 2.5 cm requirement is supported by the theory of the behavior of electromagnetic fields. Ericsson submits that the IEEE did not intend that the radiated power exclusions not apply to low-power devices where the radiating structure may be within 2.5 cm of the head some of the time. E.F. Johnson, LMCC, Motorola, Northern Telecom, TIA and others recommend that we develop a radiated power exclusion for devices with radiating elements within 2.5 cm of the body. 58. Most commenting parties agree that a demonstration of compliance with the RF exposure standards for low-power devices should be part of the equipment authorization process. The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association (CTIA), EEPA, Motorola, Northern Telecom, Telocator, TIA, and others generally recommend that applications for type acceptance include statements indicating that SAR measurements were performed by approved methods and that the unit meets the appropriate SAR criteria. NABER (now merged with PCIA) states that all equipment authorized under the low-power standards should carry a label certifying that the device complies with the Commission's RF exposure standards. NABER also recommends that equipment manufacturers be required to provide manuals and pamphlets with each device that explain how the equipment should be installed and maintained to ensure safe operation. 59. Telocator recommends that we amend Part 2 of our rules to require manufacturers of portable radio units that do not fall under the low-power exclusion to submit technical showings that the radios are in compliance with the guidelines. Telocator submits that manufacturers are better able to effect compliance because they control the design of the device; that it would be less burdensome overall to monitor compliance through the equipment authorization process than the licensing procedures of the various radio services; and that the public would be best served by preventing the sale of devices that do not comply with the guidelines. 60. A number of parties support the development of standards for measurement of SAR. Ericsson recommends that we designate an appropriate ANSI-accredited standards generating body to develop standardized measurement and calibration procedures for facilities, phantom (human) models, and antenna models to enable manufacturers and the Commission to measure with certainty that RF devices meet appropriate standards. Ford Motor Company (Ford) submits that the Commission, in cooperation with industry and with the guidance of ANSI and the IEEE, should develop recommended modeling techniques for SAR measurement. Ford notes that procedures for measuring RF exposure potential were developed for the broadcast industry, as illustrated in OST Bulletin No. 65, and submits that a similar approach would be appropriate here. Motorola supports the development of standards for measurement procedures and test site construction. TIA states that measurement standards for low-power devices could be developed through an ANSI-accredited standards-setting process and that it is willing to serve as a focal point for such efforts. 61. Many respondents seek clarification regarding the use of analytic methods for SAR evaluation. AT&T notes that the ANSI/IEEE standard does not require laboratory measurements for showing SAR compliance, but rather permits establishing compliance "by appropriate techniques." AT&T, Ericsson and others urge us to clarify that it is permissible to use numerical methods such as high-resolution Finite Difference Time Domain (FDTD) techniques in evaluating SAR compliance. Matsushita recommends that we approve certain analytic techniques, such as those discussed in existing scientific and technical publications by Kuster, Balzano and others, as alternatives to testing by laboratories for demonstrating compliance. 62. Decision. Most commenting parties, including Federal health and safety agencies, support the use of the ANSI/IEEE SAR limits for localized (partial body) exposure for evaluating low-power devices designed to be used in the immediate vicinity of the body. As mentioned above, the SAR limits specified by the ANSI/IEEE guidelines for devices used in controlled and uncontrolled environments are essentially the same as those recommended by NCRP for occupational and general population exposure, respectively. Therefore, in view of the consensus and the scientific support in the record, we are adopting SAR limits for the determination of safe exposure from low-power devices designed to be used in the immediate vicinity of the body based upon the 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines. We will apply the MPE limits we are adopting to certain mobile and unlicensed devices that, although not normally used within the immediate vicinity of the body, can use higher power and may be relatively close to the body of the user and to nearby persons. Examples of the latter are cellular "bag phones." 63. The SAR limits we are adopting will generally apply to portable devices submitted for Commission authorization that are designed to be used with any part of the radiating structure of the device in direct contact with the body of the user or within 20 cm of the body of the user under normal conditions of use. For example, this definition would apply to hand-held cellular telephones. We believe that a threshold of 20 cm is appropriate, since the ANSI/IEEE standard specifies 20 cm as the minimum separation distance where reliable MPE measurements can be made. At these closer distances, we believe an SAR determination is a more appropriate measure of exposure. 64. In addition to SAR limits for portable devices, exposure criteria in terms of the MPE limits will apply to certain mobile and unlicensed devices that would normally be used with radiating structures maintained 20 cm or more from the body of the user. Examples include transportable cellular telephones ("bag" phones), cellular telephones and other radio devices that use vehicle-mounted antennas and certain other transportable transmitting devices. For these types of transmitters, evaluation of compliance with MPE limits rather than SAR limits is more appropriate because of the greater separation distance between radiator and user. 65. We will require routine SAR evaluation, either by laboratory measurement techniques or by computational modeling, prior to equipment authorization or use for the following categories of portable devices: (1) portable telephones or portable telephone devices to be used in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service under Part 22 Subpart H or to be used in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services for certain "covered" SMR systems under Part 90 of our rules; (2) portable devices to be used for PCS under Part 24 of our rules; (3) mobile devices to be used for earth-satellite communication under Part 25 and Part 80 of our rules; and (4) portable unlicensed PCS and portable unlicensed millimeter wave devices authorized under Part 15 of our rules. In all cases the term "portable" means that the telephone or device is intended for use within 20 cm of the body of the user as defined previously. The applicable SAR limit will normally be the 1.6 W/kg as recommended by ANSI/IEEE for uncontrolled environments, such as those typical for consumer use. However, devices intended solely for use in the workplace may be considered under the less restrictive occupational/controlled environment category. 66. We also will require routine evaluation prior to equipment authorization or use for the following mobile transmitters if the effective radiated power (ERP) of the station, in its normal configuration, will be 1.5 watts or greater: (1) mobile radio telephones to be used in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service authorized under Part 22 Subpart H or in the Private Land Mobile Radio Services for covered SMR systems under Part 90 or our rules; (2) mobile devices to be used for PCS under Part 24 of our rules; and (3) mobile devices to be used for earth- satellite communication as authorized under Part 25 and Part 80 of our rules. For purposes of this rule, "mobile devices" means devices for which radiating structures would normally be maintained at least 20 cm from the body of the user or of nearby persons. We will also continue to require routine evaluation of unlicensed PCS and unlicensed millimeter wave devices authorized under Sections 15.253, 15.255, and Part 15 Subpart D of our rules unless these devices are portable devices, as defined above. The general population/uncontrolled MPE limits will apply to such mobile and unlicensed devices. Mobile transmitters intended solely for use in the workplace may be considered under the less restrictive occupational/controlled environment category. We recognize that it may not be possible for the manufacturer of the mobile or unlicensed transmitter to ensure that persons will not be located in areas in which the MPE limits could be exceeded. Accordingly, manufacturers may address such concerns by the use of warning labels and instructional material provided to users and installers that advises as to minimum separation distances required between users and radiating antennas to meet the appropriate limits. 67. Although our exposure criteria will apply to portable and mobile devices in general, at this time routine evaluation for compliance will not be required of devices such as "push-to- talk" portable radios and "push to talk" mobile radios used in taxicabs, business, police and fire vehicles and used by amateur radio operators. These transmitting devices will be excluded from routine evaluation because their duty factors (percentage of time during use when the device is transmitting) are generally low and, for mobile radios, because the antennas are normally mounted on the body of a vehicle which provide some shielding and separation from the user. This significantly reduces the likelihood of human exposure in excess of the RF safety guidelines due to emissions from these transmitters. Duty factors associated with transmitting devices that are not "push-to-talk," such as transportable cellular telephones ("bag" phones) or cellular telephones that use vehicle-mounted antennas, would be generally higher, and we will require that these devices be subject to routine evaluation for compliance with general population/uncontrolled MPE limits. Although we are not requiring routine evaluation of all portable and mobile devices, under Sections 1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) of the FCC's Rules, 47 CFR 1.1307(c) and (d), the Commission reserves the right to require evaluation for environmental significance of any device (in this case with respect to SAR or compliance with MPE limits). 68. We are providing the following guidelines on the application of the exposure criteria to portable and mobile devices in general. First of all, devices other than those specified above may generally be evaluated based on whether they are designed to be used under occupational/controlled or general population/uncontrolled conditions, as defined previously. Devices that are designed specifically to be used in the workplace, such as many hand-held, two- way portable radios, would be considered as operating in an occupational/controlled environment and the applicable limits for controlled environments would apply. On the other hand, devices designed to be purchased and used primarily by consumers, such as cellular telephones and most personal communications devices, would be considered to operate under the general population/uncontrolled category as specified above, and limits for uncontrolled environments would apply. Devices that can be used in either environment would normally be required to meet uncontrolled exposure criteria. 69. For purposes of evaluating compliance with localized SAR guidelines, portable devices shall be tested or evaluated based on "standard" operating positions or conditions. In situations where higher exposure levels may result from unusual or inappropriate use of the device, instructional material should be provided to the user to caution against such usage. With regard to devices that are not hand-held, labels may be useful as when a minimum separation distance is desired to be maintained. For example, in the case of a cellular "bag" phone a prominent warning label as well as instructional information on minimum required distances for compliance would be an acceptable means of ensuring that the device is used safely. 70. We note that several publications are available that describe appropriate methods and techniques for determining SAR for compliance purposes. In addition, many papers have been published in the scientific literature on this topic. We agree with the commenting parties that the use of appropriate numerical and computational techniques, such as FDTD analysis, is acceptable for demonstrating compliance with SAR values. Studies by O.P. Gandhi and others indicate that such techniques offer valid means to determine energy absorption characteristics in exposed subjects. We also understand that the Electromagnetic Energy Association (formerly EEPA) has initiated a project to develop product performance standards for SAR evaluation. This effort should be very helpful in facilitating the provision of compliance information and services to manufacturers and others. Also, the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) organization plans to establish a certification program for wireless telephones that should be helpful in ensuring accurate and reliable SAR determination. 71. Based on the concerns expressed by the FDA, we are not adopting at this time low- power device exclusions based on radiated power, as contained in the 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines. As discussed above, the FDA cites recent studies indicating that cellular telephones and other hand-held transmitters that meet ANSI/IEEE radiated power exclusion limits can exceed the corresponding exclusion limits for SAR. In one of those studies, the highest SAR values were measured when the antennas and cases of various hand-held cellular telephones were placed in direct contact with a head model, i.e. less than 2.5 cm from the head. Of six telephone models tested in this study under these "worst case" conditions, the highest SAR obtained was approximately 8.8 mW/gram (8.8 W/kg) for 1 watt of output power. This SAR exceeds the recommended limit of 1.6 W/kg for an uncontrolled environment, suggesting that an appropriate radiated power exclusion level for ensuring that the 1.6 W/kg SAR limit could not be exceeded under "worst case" conditions would be on the order of 180 mW at 900 MHz. The ANSI/IEEE low-power device exclusion clause allows for exclusions at a power level of 700 mW at 900 MHz provided a separation of 2.5 cm is maintained between the radiating structure of the device and the body of the user, although, as discussed earlier, comments submitted in this proceeding maintain that the 2.5 cm distance was not meant to apply to the head. 72. This study also reported SAR values measured when the telephones were positioned normally against the head model (i.e., less than 2.5 cm from the head), but with the antenna at various angles and distances from the head. This was referred to as "standard" handling of the telephone. For this "standard" operating situation, the highest SAR measured from the six models tested was approximately 2.8 W/kg for 1 watt of power. This implies that, for the "standard" exposure condition, an appropriate "worst case" radiated power level to meet the 1.6 W/kg SAR limit at 900 MHz should be on the order of about 570 mW, not 700 mW as recommended by the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard. Similarly, recent data submitted to our laboratory analyzing SAR values for hand-held PCS devices operating near 2 GHz shows that at 125 mW of average power maximum, SAR values (averaged over 1 gram) can, in some cases, be up to 80-90% of the 1.6 W/kg limit. The 1992 ANSI/IEEE radiated power exclusion clause applies only to frequencies up to 1500 MHz. However, if this exclusion were extrapolated to PCS frequencies (1850-1990 MHz), the radiated power exclusion limit would be in the range of 300-350 mW, more than twice the 125 mW used by the devices tested. Therefore, it would appear that some devices that would qualify for the radiated power exclusion in the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard might exceed the SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg. 73. As noted by the FDA, these studies raise questions about the accuracy of the low- power device exclusions based on radiated power as contained in the 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines. We acknowledge, however, that all of the transmitters in the devices in these studies were placed directly against the head and did not maintain the 2.5 cm separation distance required by ANSI. However, as discussed above, it is unclear whether that separation distance was meant to apply to the head. In light of these outstanding issues and questions, we do not feel that, at this time, it is appropriate for us to adopt the low power exclusion. On the other hand, we also recognize that to require SAR evaluation of every low-power transmitting device subject to Commission authorization would prove to be a costly and unnecessary burden for many manufacturers. Therefore, at this time we will require only routine SAR evaluation for the devices noted above that constitute the classes for which there appears to be the greatest potential for exposure because of their relatively higher duty factors. Based on additional scientific evidence that may be forthcoming, we may consider modifying or expanding this requirement, and we may also consider whether a modified exclusion clause based on radiated power can be adopted. 74. For evaluation of devices that are designed to be used only in occupational/controlled environments, consideration of duty factors would be allowed in evaluating localized SAR and radiated power. The ANSI/IEEE and NCRP guidelines are based on time-averaged exposures. Therefore, if sufficient data are available on typical and maximum duty factors for operation of controlled devices, such as two-way radios used in the workplace, it is reasonable that these be applied in determining compliance with the guidelines. However, this would not be allowed for evaluation of devices that are used in general population/uncontrolled environments, since there is no control over usage of consumer devices such as cellular telephones. D. Categorical Exclusions 75. Our existing environmental rules regarding RF radiation exposure delineate particular categories of existing and proposed transmitting facilities for which licensees and applicants are required to conduct an initial environmental evaluation and prepare Environmental Assessments if their environmental evaluation indicates that their facilities exceed or will exceed the specified RF exposure guidelines. See 47 CFR  1.1307(b)(Note 1). As for transmitting facilities not specifically delineated under Section 1.1307(b)(Note 1), the Commission had determined, based on calculations, measurement data and other information, that such transmitters offered little potential for causing exposures in excess of the guidelines, and thus "categorically excluded" those transmitters from the initial environmental evaluation requirement. Categorical exclusions from routine environmental evaluation are allowed under NEPA when actions are judged individually and cumulatively to have no significant potential for effect on the human environment. See 47 CFR  1.1306(a); see also, Notice at para. 5, ET Docket No. 93-62, 8 FCC Rcd 2849 (1993). However, the Commission, under  1.1307(c) and (d), retains the authority to request that a licensee or an applicant conduct an environmental evaluation and, if appropriate, file environmental information pertaining to an otherwise categorically excluded application if it is determined that in that particular case there is a possibility for significant environmental impact. All transmitting facilities and devices regulated by this Commission are expected to be in compliance with the RF radiation exposure guidelines, and, if not, to file an Environmental Assessment for review under our NEPA procedures. 76. Examples of currently excluded transmitters are those used for land mobile, cellular radio and fixed microwave communications. In the Notice, we noted that some existing categorical exclusions may not be consistent with the more stringent provisions of the 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines or may not warrant automatic categorical exclusions because of new data or other information on exposure potential. We, therefore, requested comment, information and analysis relating to the existing categorical exclusions. 77. Comments submitted by the land mobile communications industry argue that the categorical exclusions should be continued for transmitters operated under Parts 21, 22, and 99. For example, AT&T comments that common carrier microwave facilities, cellular base stations, and mobile cellular transmitters should remain excluded because RF exposures from this equipment will be below the MPE limits contained in the proposed ANSI/IEEE guidelines. GTE states that the use of controlled and uncontrolled environment criteria should not result in the elimination of Part 21 and 22 categorical exclusions for base stations because the reasons for the earlier Commission decisions are still valid. Ericsson, Motorola, the Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC), and the American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc. (AMTA) similarly state that the justification for categorically excluding most or all transmitters under Parts 21, 22, 90 and 94 is valid and should be continued under the ANSI/IEEE guidelines. Motorola submits a technical analysis indicating that the distances required to meet the ANSI/IEEE guidelines for the land mobile industry in the high frequency bands are much shorter than those reported in the Notice because the main beam of the antenna does not radiate directly downward where individuals are most likely to be located. 78. McCaw submits similar comments stating that the record and studies and operational evidence confirm that existing land-mobile transmitting facilities are unlikely to exceed the new guidelines. PacTel Corporation (PacTel) asserts that continuation of the Commission's existing categorical exclusion for these facilities is appropriate given the minimal opportunity they pose for overexposure and because of land mobile's "minute contribution to the ambient electromagnetic field emissions in the environment." TIA comments that "by the best information available, not a single case of human harm due to this radiofrequency energy has been substantiated." The EEPA submits that both point-to-point microwave radio stations and cellular base stations will typically result in public exposure levels below 1 æW/cmý, and that exposure from vehicular cellular radios, when time-averaging is considered, will fall well below the uncontrolled environment limits of the ANSI/IEEE guidelines. 79. NABER encourages us to categorically exclude land mobile transmitters, expressing concern that if categorical exclusions for land mobile services are eliminated manufacturers would have to institute unnecessary and costly testing. Northern Telecom believes that the proper solution is the adoption of appropriate power limits for PCS, cellular radio, and Part 15 devices to ensure that higher power devices that may create unreasonable risk are restricted in those services. 80. Glenayre Electronics, Inc. (Glenayre) and Paging Network, Inc. (PageNet) respond that paging system transmitting facilities are well within the ANSI/IEEE guidelines under normal use and should continue to qualify for a categorical exemption. Glenayre states that worst-case calculations demonstrate that the controlled environment limits will not be exceeded outside a distance of 3-4 meters from a transmitting antenna. Further, Glenayre maintains that, "exposure threats" to personnel due to high-powered paging equipment can best be handled by "training and personnel awareness." Similarly, PageNet states that such risks to workers in controlled areas can be addressed by use of warning signs and appropriate work procedures. 81. Other comments address services regulated under Parts 25 and 74. AMSC argues that MSS mobile earth terminals should be categorically excluded because that equipment operates with low transmitter and radiated power levels. Similarly, COMSAT requests exclusion of portable or vehicular RF satellite devices, such as Inmarsat terminals, when such terminals operate at a sufficiently low-power and have a radiating structure that is separate from the handset. 82. The Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers (AFCCE), JC&A, and others, submit technical analyses of power levels and distances at which certain services regulated under Part 74 and other rule parts would comply with the ANSI/IEEE guidelines. These entities argue that such analyses support the continuation of the categorical exclusion of certain services such as those covered by Part 74. AFCCE recommends that categorical exclusion be allowed for those transmitters which pose little or no potential for exposure in excess of the guidelines. 83. Several parties address continuation of the categorical exclusion for the amateur radio service. The ARRL and the ARRL-Bioeffects Committee support prudent avoidance and state that most of the amateur radio users do not possess the requisite equipment, technical skills, and/or financial resources to conduct an environmental analysis. Both the ARRL and the ARRL Bio-Effects Committee submit that we could raise an amateur radio applicant's awareness concerning RF energy by placing relevant questions on the amateur license examination. On the other hand, Dr. Wayne Overbeck and the Amateur Radio Health Group comment that it would be inappropriate for this Commission to exempt the amateur service automatically from all requirements for compliance with radiation safety guidelines. Overbeck and the Amateur Radio Health Group state that education is not enough and suggest that we create a version of OST Bulletin No. 65 for radio amateur operations. They state this bulletin could supplement Part 97 rules and be used by amateurs to certify compliance with the RF exposure safety guidelines. 84. Several entities express concerns regarding the continuation of categorical exclusions. Cohen, Dippell & Everist (CDE) and NIOSH comment that categorical exclusions should be limited to situations where there is no possibility of excessive worker exposure. Louis Williams, Jr. indicates that certain transmitters that are currently excluded can be located in accessible areas where they may constitute a potential risk. Williams states that categorical exclusions should be limited to situations where the applicant can certify that there is minimal risk. 85. Doty-Moore Tower Services (Doty-Moore) submits measurement data for two multiple-emitter roof-top environments involving a combination of paging, cellular, and other land mobile antennae. Based on these measurements, Doty-Moore states that almost all locations within the vicinity of the land-mobile transmitters exhibit RF levels in excess of the ANSI/IEEE MPE limits. Doty-More argues that in such situations the landlord/manager should be responsible for limiting access to the rooftop and to coordinate participation among owners to reduce or shut off power. 86. Decision. We continue to believe that it is desirable and appropriate to categorically exclude from routine evaluation those transmitting facilities that offer little or no potential for exposure in excess of the specified guidelines. Requiring routine environmental evaluation of such facilities would place an unnecessary burden on licensees. However, we believe that some alteration of our previous categorical exclusion policy is necessary. Several commenters have submitted technical documentation indicating the power levels and distances at which transmitting sources in various services will comply with the exposure guidelines. Our staff has evaluated this material and has performed analyses of its own. Based on these studies, we now believe that in certain cases we should no longer exempt entire services from demonstrating compliance. Examples include high-power paging and cellular telephone sites on relatively short towers or rooftops where access may not be restricted. There is also evidence that certain amateur radio facilities have the potential for exceeding our new limits. 87. Our current rules require that environmental evaluation for RF exposure be performed for facilities and operations authorized under Parts 5 (Experimental Radio Services); 15 (millimeter wave and unlicensed PCS devices); 21, Subpart K, (Multipoint Distribution Service); 24 (Personal Communications Service); 25 (Satellite Communications); 73 (Radio Broadcast Services); 74, Subparts A, G, I, and L (Experimental, Auxiliary, and Special Broadcast and other Program Distributional Services) and 80 (ship earth stations in the Maritime Services). We believe it is appropriate to continue to subject these facilities and operations to routine environmental evaluation with certain modifications. With respect to transmitting facilities not in these categories, there are certain cases where we no longer believe that an automatic categorical exclusion is justified, and we will require evaluation of some transmitting facilities that were previously excluded. This expansion of the list of transmitting facilities subject to routine evaluation would be necessary regardless of whether our MPE guidelines are based on 1992 ANSI/IEEE or NCRP recommendations. 88. It is important to emphasize, however, that even if a transmitting source or facility is not automatically excluded from routine evaluation, no further environmental processing is required once it has been determined that exposures are within the guidelines, as specified in Part 1 of our rules. There are various ways to accomplish compliance, including restrictions on access, implementation of appropriate work procedures for personnel, incorporation of RF shielding, mounting of appropriate warning signs, control of time of exposure and reduction of power during periods when personnel or the public are present. The revised edition of the FCC's OST Bulletin 65 will include a detailed discussion of this topic. 89. Our new policy on categorical exclusion is designed to bring consistency in the way that we decide what transmitters or facilities warrant an automatic exemption from evaluation. This policy is based on our own calculations and analyses, along with information and data acquired in the record of this proceeding and from other sources. We believe that some transmitting facilities, regardless of service, may 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. We believe that it is more reasonable to base our exclusions on such variables since they apply generally to all transmitting facilities. In that regard, our new exclusion policy will also eliminate the requirement for routine evaluation of some relatively low-powered transmitters in some of the services for which routine evaluation was previously required such as certain broadcast services. 90. Routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure will only be required for transmitters, facilities or operations that are included in the categories listed in Table 1 of the new rule Section 1.1307(b)(1) that we are adopting, as shown in Appendix C. This includes some, but not necessarily all, transmitters, facilities or operations that are authorized under the following Parts of our rules: 5, 15, 21 Subpart K, 22 Subpart E, 22 Subpart H, 24, 25, 73, 74 (Subparts A, G, I, and L), 80, 90, and 97. Within a specific service category, conditions are listed to determine which transmitters will be subject to evaluation. These conditions are generally based on one or more of the following variables: (1) operating power, (2) location, or (3) height above ground. In the case of Part 15 devices, only devices that transmit on millimeter wave frequencies and unlicensed PCS devices are covered, as noted in Table 1. Transmitters and facilities not included in these categories will continue to be categorically excluded from routine evaluation. Such transmitting facilities generally pose little or no risk for causing exposures in excess of the guidelines. Our new policy will provide a clear, "bright line" standard for categorical exclusions that is administratively easy to apply and affords adequate protection from harmful RF exposure. 91. Relatively high operating power implies that a transmitter should be evaluated if certain conditions apply. For example, if a transmitter operates using relatively high power and if there is a possibility that workers or the public could have access to the transmitter site, such as at a rooftop site, then routine evaluation is justified. In Table 1, an attempt has been made to identify situations in the various services where such conditions could prevail. In general, at rooftop transmitting sites evaluation will be required if power levels are above the values indicated in Table 1. These power levels were chosen based on generally "worst-case" assumptions where the most stringent uncontrolled/general population MPE limit might be exceeded within several meters of transmitting antennas at these power levels. In the case of paging antennas, the likelihood that duty factors, although high, would not normally be expected to be 100% was also considered. Of course, if procedures are in place at a site to limit accessibility or otherwise control exposure so that the safety guidelines are met, then the site is in compliance and no further environmental processing is necessary under our rules. 92. Tower-mounted ("non-rooftop") antennas that are used for cellular telephone, PCS, and covered SMR operations warrant a somewhat different approach for evaluation. While there is no evidence that typical installations in these services cause ground-level exposures in excess of our limits, construction of these towers has been a topic of ongoing public controversy on environmental grounds, and we believe it necessary to ensure that there is no possibility of excessive exposures from these antennas. Although we believe there is no need to require routine evaluation of towers where antennas are mounted high above the ground, out of an abundance of caution we are requiring that tower-mounted installations be evaluated if antennas are mounted lower than 10 meters above ground and the total power of all channels being used is over 1000 watts ERP. This height and power combination was chosen as a threshold recognizing that a theoretically "worst case" site could use many channels and several thousand watts of power. At such power levels a height of 10 meters above ground is not an unreasonable distance for which an evaluation generally would be advisable. For antennas mounted higher than 10 meters, measurement data for cellular facilities have indicated that ground-level power densities are typically hundreds to thousands of times below the new MPE limits. In view of the expected proliferation of these towers in the future and possible use of multiple channels and power levels at these installations, and to ensure that tower installations are properly evaluated when appropriate, we will institute these new requirements for this limited category of tower-mounted antennas in these services. For consistency we are also instituting similar requirements for several other services that could use relatively high power levels with antennas mounted on towers lower than 10 meters above ground. 93. Paging systems operated under Part 22 (Subpart E) and Part 90 of our rules have previously been categorically exempted from routine RF evaluation requirements. However, the potential exists that our new, more restrictive limits may be exceeded in accessible areas by relatively high-powered paging transmitters with rooftop antennas. These transmitters may operate with high duty factors in densely populated urban environments. The record and our own recently-acquired data indicate the need for ensuring appropriate evaluation of such facilities, especially at multiple transmitter sites. Accordingly, out of an abundance of caution, we have decided to subject paging stations authorized under Part 22 Subpart G and Part 90 to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure if a transmitter is located on a rooftop and if its ERP exceeds 1000 watts. The applicable exposure limits specified in Appendix C will apply according to the specific situation, and, if multiple transmitters are present, Section 1.1307(b)(3) will apply to the site as appropriate. E. Compliance Evaluation, Measurement Procedures and Transition Provisions 94. In the Notice, we requested comment on issues related to the procedures to be used for demonstrating compliance with exposure guidelines and also on issues concerning quantitative measurement of RF fields and exposure. We recognized that compliance with new guidelines could impose new and significant burdens on some licensees and equipment manufacturers and stated that we would seek to minimize this impact wherever possible. With respect to measurements, we proposed that the procedures established by ANSI/IEEE C95.3-1992 would be appropriate for determining compliance with the new RF exposure guidelines. We further proposed to continue the requirement that facilities and operations subject to environmental evaluation provide environmental information at the time of application for a construction permit, license renewal, or other Commission authorization. We requested comment on whether we should require more complete documentation or evidence from applicants who claim compliance with environmental RF guidelines and what form that documentation should take. Finally, we requested comments, opinions, data and other information concerning devices that are commercially available for measuring electromagnetic fields and currents. 95. There is considerable comment in the record concerning the means by which compliance should be evaluated. AFCCE comments that a revision of OST Bulletin No. 65 should be available in advance of the effective date for implementing new RF exposure guidelines. AFCCE states that the revised bulletin, with appropriate charts, graphs, and formulas, would allow a station's technical staff to perform evaluations with minimal outside assistance. The Society of Broadcast Engineers agrees that the proposed RF safety guidelines should not be effective until OST Bulletin No. 65 is updated. It also urges that the revised bulletin contain the necessary information to determine compliance with contact and induced current limits. EEPA requests that we adopt definitive compliance methods as well as cooperate with industry to develop measurement techniques useful to broadcasters and others in evaluating their facilities. 96. NAB, in its comments, suggests the following "three-pronged" approach for evaluating compliance: 1) the charts and graphs in the revised OET bulletin would be used to determine compliance in the majority of cases; 2) in cases where compliance cannot be confirmed using the bulletin, the use of mathematical formulas and computations would be used; and 3) actual measurements would be required when compliance cannot be determined by using the above-mentioned techniques. UTC concurs with NAB and recommends that licensees be permitted to use any one of a variety of methods to demonstrate compliance, including actual measurements, calculations based on acceptable engineering standards and practices, operating practices that would limit the exposure to the device, and recognized exclusions. 97. JC&A states that the ANSI/IEEE C95.3 guidelines for RF measurement are appropriate for determining compliance with the 1992 ANSI/IEEE exposure guidelines. It also comments that although manufacturers are offering induced current meters, there is not much information available relative to their effectiveness and accuracy. CDE also supports the adoption of the C95.3 document for making RF field measurements but suggests that measuring devices should be certified for repeatability and calibration. On the other hand, NPR argues that the C95.3 measurement guidelines provide limited guidance and are not directly applicable to the broadcast service. Accordingly, it states that third-party assistance will typically be required to measure the RF environment around a broadcast facility. NAB comments that while it is true that ANSI/IEEE C95.3 does provide general guidance on measurement procedures, the Commission should go a step further and specify exact procedures and type of instrumentation to be used to demonstrate compliance. 98. Rolm Corporation states that the C95.3 document does not specify a standard method for SAR measurement and that one should be chosen before enacting the proposed regulation. TRW agrees and states that SAR measurements that are based on unambiguous field strength readings at specific frequencies and distances from the subject device should be required. NABER responds that the area of measurement procedures requires further review and analysis and that an industry group should be responsible for developing these procedures. Similarly, Ford requests that we clarify how measurements are to be made within 20 centimeters from a radiating object. 99. UTC comments that we should require applicants only to file a certification that they: 1) are aware of the standards; 2) do not have any information that would indicate that their radio equipment would be operated in a manner that would cause exposure in excess of the guidelines; and, 3) will engage in periodic training and adopt appropriate operating practices to minimize the possibility of exposure in excess of the guidelines. The Broadcast Joint Commenters suggest that additional paperwork should not be required to establish compliance with the new policies because it would be needlessly burdensome to the broadcasters and to the Mass Media Bureau. 100. PacTel believes that answering "No" on a license application form, to the question regarding whether authorization of a particular facility would have a significant environmental impact, is sufficient acknowledgement of compliance. TIA and the LMCC express the view that a formal certification of compliance is unnecessary and would pose an administrative burden which would not be commensurate with the attendant benefit. NABER believes that an applicant should only be required to affirm the safety and compliance of the subject equipment. Motorola sees no need for us to routinely require the submission of information in conjunction with each license application relative to radio site "safety." 101. PageNet believes that with regard to multiple-transmitter sites, it would be most reasonable for the Commission to place the burden for verifying compliance with RF guidelines on the site owner. According to PageNet, site owners would be responsible for acquiring data on multiple-user sites, as opposed to requiring each individual licensee to acquire and update such data. Furthermore, under this scheme, the costs associated with calculating aggregate RF compliance could be factored into a lease agreement and shared equitably among all of the licensees operating at a single site. PageNet maintains that the Commission has general authority, pursuant to Section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act to subject non-licensees to forfeitures for violation of its rules. 102. Some comments address the certification of work procedures to demonstrate compliance with exposure guidelines. Narda Microwave Corporation (Narda) supports the position of OSHA with reference to its RF safety program, commenting that an RF Safety Program must be in place in order for a station to operate at levels above the uncontrolled MPE limits. UTC asserts that an applicant should be allowed to certify that operating practices exist to minimize exposure. Telocator responds that it is its understanding that individual carriers have procedures and practices to ensure that worker exposure is below applicable limits. Sprint suggests that we should allow licensees to certify that procedures exist to preclude worker exposure above controlled limits in order to avoid environmental processing. Similarly, NIOSH agrees that certification of procedures to preclude working near antennas would be a protective approach. 103. The Arizona Department of Public Safety and NAB recommend an effective date one year after the issuance of the revised OST Bulletin No. 65. AMSC recommends at least a two-year period before implementing the new guidelines to permit the establishment of measurement facilities for SAR determination. Similarly, Joint Broadcasters state that after problems are resolved and a revised version of OST Bulletin No. 65 is released, a transition period of two years should be permitted before we begin requiring use of the new guidelines. 104. AT&T comments that since there are no verified reports of injury or adverse health effects to people caused by exposure from equipment meeting prior ANSI standards, the new standard should apply to all applications filed, but not those still pending, after the effective date of the new guideline. AFCCE recommends that entities be allowed several months to complete applications for new or modified facility permits or licenses. AFCCE comments that a delay of 60 days would be appropriate for the reworking of applications presently on file. JC&A recommends that demonstration of compliance be required for all applications for new facilities, changed facilities and license renewals filed after 60 days from the effective date of the change in order to avoid the need to rework applications in process. 105. Regarding existing services or equipment, several comments argue that since there is no evidence of adverse health effects caused by transmitting facilities meeting previous standards, existing stations and equipment should not be subject to a requirement for a showing of compliance with the new standard. CDE, MSTV/NBC, NAB, and AFCCE recommend that existing facilities be allowed to continue operating and should be required to demonstrate compliance with the new standards only upon filing of a license renewal or an application for a modification of the existing equipment. AFCCE adds that existing installations with a high probability of non-compliance must be brought to the attention of the Commission in case immediate compliance is needed to protect the public. JC&A urges us to allow the sale of presently available stock and new devices that are manufactured within a year after adoption of the new RF exposure guidelines. UTC recommends that licensees with existing systems be given a reasonable period of time to "amortize" the equipment before replacement is required and in the meantime, licensees should be required to adopt appropriate operating procedures to limit unnecessary exposures. 106. A number of commenting parties argue that some or all existing operations should be "grandfathered" (subjecting previously approved facilities and equipment to the new guidelines) for the life of the equipment. TIA asserts that land mobile operations are environmentally safe because they operate at low RF levels and the land mobile industry provides information on safe use of its equipment. E.F. Johnson and TIA recommend that the majority of equipment in use today, particularly mobile and portable units used in land mobile operations, be indefinitely grandfathered. Ericsson recommends grandfathering devices type-accepted or manufactured prior to some specific date, arguing that it would be virtually impossible to recall portable devices that do not comply with the new standard. TRW submits that grandfathering is acceptable where older, higher-power transmitters do not negatively affect new lower-emission devices. PCIA recommends that all existing equipment authorizations should be grandfathered. 107. Telocator, Ericsson, E.F. Johnson, LMCC and others advocate "grandfathering" all existing equipment authorizations of low-power devices with respect to SAR compliance. Telocator states that most equipment already authorized would fall within the low-power exclusion exception. GTE agrees, maintaining that existing mobile transmission equipment appear to comply with the new guidelines by a wide margin. Furthermore, according to GTE, recertification of these devices would cause significant and wasteful expenditures and there is no public interest basis for such expenses. TIA recommends that existing land mobile radio units be indefinitely grandfathered because of their established record for safety thus demonstrating that such equipment operates well below the threshold for harm to humans. 108. Wizard Broadcast Company and GTE believe existing licensees should be grandfathered from complying with the ANSI/IEEE guidelines. Further, Wizard submits that a specific question is needed on broadcast applications that asks if the applicant complies with the guidelines and references of OST Bulletin No. 65. 109. With regard to SAR determination for low-power devices, E.F. Johnson Company, TIA, and Ericsson Corporation (Ericsson) comment that the effective date for compliance with the rules for portable radio units should be two years after approval of an appropriate SAR measurement standard or available SAR measurement laboratories are established. TIA submits that it is willing to act as the focal point in development of requisite test procedures, using its normal ANSI accredited standards setting process. Motorola concurs with TIA's comments that the effective date should be delayed until standards are developed for measurement procedures and test site facilities, and in some cases to construct test facilities before commencing measurements of SAR. Ericsson argues that subsequent to the effective date, applicants for equipment authorization should be required to affirm that 1) either the product is excluded from the ANSI/IEEE standard due to its power, frequency and/or operational characteristics, or 2) the product has been appropriately tested or analyzed for SAR and is within the standard limits. 110. JC&A recommends that within one year of the date we adopt new RF exposure guidelines low-power device manufacturers should be required to submit new requests for authorization based on the 1992 standards, and, after one year, applications for authorization of devices should include a certification of compliance with the low-power exclusion clause based on either radiated power or SAR. Ericsson suggests that new low-power devices be required to meet the ANSI/IEEE criteria two years after we adopt: (1) a definitive SAR measurement standard, or (2) an equivalent standardized numerical analysis technique, whichever occurs first. Ericsson also supported the proposal that the TIA be designated to develop such standards. E.F. Johnson also recommends that the effective date for compliance with rules for portable radio units should be two years after adoption of new standards. According to E.F. Johnson, this additional time is necessary in order for industry "to develop SAR measurement standards." UTC believes that demonstration of compliance for the many different models or types of a given piece of equipment would not be practical and should not be required. 111. NAB comments that manufacturers should be allowed reasonable time, perhaps one year after adoption of revised rules, to submit to the Commission a request for recertification of their equipment that includes proof of compliance with the new guidelines. NAB submits that at some period, perhaps eighteen months after adoption of new guidelines, only re-certified equipment should be allowed to be sold. TIA estimates that a two-year period of time will be required for appropriate test facilities to be available for SAR testing, and it recommends that the effective date for compliance for low-power devices be set at two years after SAR measurement laboratories are established. 112. Decision. We believe that the rules we are adopting should provide a reasonable transition period for applicants and stations to come into compliance with the new requirements. After considering the comments and the impact of these new requirements, we conclude that the new RF guidelines will apply to station applications filed after January 1, 1997, as described in Appendix C, Section 1.1307(b)(4). During the period between the effective date of the rules we are adopting and January 1, 1997, our existing RF guidelines will continue to apply to station applications. We recognize that this relatively short transition period may cause some difficulties for certain applicants. Accordingly, for a period of one year from the date this Order is adopted, we will allow our Bureaus to address under delegated authority the specific needs of individual parties that make a good cause showing that they require additional time to meet the new RF guidelines. Such relief could come through waivers of our rules or through other similar actions. 113. The new guidelines for SAR and MPE will apply immediately to non-excluded applications for equipment authorization for portable, mobile, and unlicensed devices as described in Appendix C, Section 1.1307(b)(2). We see no need to delay implementation of the new guidelines for these devices. As previously discussed, information on techniques and procedures for SAR evaluation is already available from several references including ANSI/IEEE C95.3- 1992. There are several acceptable techniques for SAR evaluation, including numerical analytic techniques such as the FDTD procedure discussed earlier, and we do not believe it is practical or necessary at this time for us to institute a certification program for laboratories that perform such services. In fact, as noted previously, we already require SAR evaluation from manufacturers of PCS and portable unlicensed devices, and we have already granted authorizations based on SAR data submitted to us. In addition, certification programs for hand- held devices such as cellular telephones are being developed by other organizations. Similarly, for mobile devices, typical exposure levels can be determined by the use of simple calculational methods and equations such as those described in the current edition of the FCC's OST Bulletin 65. 114. We appreciate the desires of many commenting parties that we delay the effective date for implementation of the new RF exposure guidelines. We recognize that applicants may need to undertake significant analysis and study in order to comply with the new guidelines. Detailed information on evaluating compliance, in the form of a revised version of OST Bulletin No. 65, would provide significant assistance to those attempting to comply with these new guidelines. Therefore, it is our intent to issue in the near future a draft revised OST Bulletin 65. We plan to solicit comments on the draft from individuals and organizations who are active and knowledgeable in this area. This was the same approach that the Commission took in developing the original version of OST Bulletin No. 65. 115. We agree with the Broadcast Joint Commenters and others that additional compliance documentation beyond that already required is unnecessary. We believe that our existing rules, which place the burden for compliance on existing licensees and parties filing applications for new stations and modifications, have worked adequately in the past and should be continued. We have made some minor changes in the organization and content of our rules in order to make them more clear. 116. We find that the record generally supports our proposal to endorse the measurement procedures and techniques contained in the ANSI/IEEE C95.3-1992 document for use in evaluating RF exposure potential. In addition, we note that the NCRP has recently published NCRP Report No. 119, which contains practical guidelines and information for performing field measurements in broadcast and other environments, and we also endorse its use. If, in the future, questions arise as to measurement procedures or instrumentation issues, we intend to rely on the above documents. We may also consult expert bodies such as the appropriate NCRP or IEEE committees and other groups, organizations and agencies, as appropriate. Any decisions regarding such issues will be addressed in official Commission notices, proceedings or bulletins, or in response to individual inquiries. 117. With respect to compliance, Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP") requests clarification as to how the guidelines adopted by the FCC would apply to FCC-authorized equipment operating in the unlicensed millimeter-wave frequency bands. HP notes that if the limit to be adopted for these bands were 1 mW/cm2, a separation distance of 28 cm from the RF source would be required for continuous exposure in order to be consistent with the Commission's formerly prescribed limitations on equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP). HP is correct that the emission limits prescribed previously indicate a maximum EIRP level such that, as can be shown by calculation, a level of 1 mW/cm2 would be reached at a distance of approximately 28 cm from the RF source. Therefore, in the case of a device operating at the maximum EIRP level of about 10 W, some means must be taken by the manufacturer to ensure that persons will not be closer than 28 cm to the RF source if exposure is to be continuous. Closer distances are possible if the power is to be less than the maximum allowed or if exposure times are shorter than the applicable time-averaging period. 118. With respect to grandfathering previously-authorized portable, mobile and unlicensed devices, we recognize that it would be impractical to require re-authorization of these devices. Furthermore, we believe that most existing devices already comply with the limits that we are adopting. Therefore, we will generally not require re-authorization or testing of previously approved devices solely to demonstrate compliance with our new RF guidelines. If we have reason to believe that a previously authorized device may cause exposures in excess of the guidelines, we may request environmental information and require that the device be re- authorized based on compliance with the guidelines. 119. With respect to previously-licensed stations, we note that we expect our licensees to comply with our RF radiation environmental rules as applicable to them. See, e.g., 47 CFR  1.1307, 1.1311, and 1.1312. The environmental processing requirements contained in these rules ensure that, at the time of licensing and authorization, transmitting facilities are operating within the applicable RF radiation limits. Once a license is granted, we expect our licensees to continue to operate their facilities in compliance with these limits. F. RF Protective Clothing and Personal Monitors 120. In the Notice we requested comment on the effectiveness and appropriateness of using RF protective clothing in ensuring compliance with RF exposure guidelines. We also requested comment on the use of personal RF monitors that alert individuals to the presence of an RF field approaching or exceeding applicable RF guidelines. We stated that such devices can be useful in complex sites involving multiple antennas. At least two companies in the United States currently market these devices. 121. OST Bulletin No. 65 cautions that although protective clothing fabricated from conductive material might prove useful in preventing excessive exposures, there have been problems with such clothing in the past due to excessive heating of the fabric in the presence of high RF fields. While this has been the Commission's position on the use of such clothing in the past, a new product, Naptex , is now available which does not appear to exhibit any of the problems shown by previously manufactured clothing. 122. Since the Commission is not an agency with primary jurisdiction in matters relating to occupational safety and health, we would not normally be in a position to determine independently whether Naptex is acceptable for reducing occupational exposures and complying with RF safety guidelines. We therefore consulted other Federal agencies on the use of Naptex in RF environments. In response, OSHA indicated that if certain criteria are met, then clothing such as Naptex could be a valuable addition to existing safety measures used in RF environments. OSHA points out that the manufacturer's restrictions on use of Naptex products are field intensities of 20 mW/cm2 for frequencies up to 60 MHz and 125 mW/cm2 for frequencies from 65 MHz to 10 GHz, and that test data demonstrate compliance with RF protection guidelines if the Naptex product is used within these limits. 123. JC&A comments that RF clothing and some work gloves appear to offer considerable help in complying with protection guidelines when working near energized antennas. Hammett & Edison projects that if we find that RF clothing may be used in the near field and is effective for induced and contact currents, it could save the broadcast industry 10 million dollars. 124. The AFCCE comments that active controls, such as reduced power or suspended operation during work, are preferable to passive barriers such as an RF protective suit and that the use of passive barrier controls must be carefully considered to assure that accidental overexposure does not occur. Similarly, NPR notes that, as with dosimeters, the use of protective clothing can lead to a false sense of security and that in a sufficiently high field strength environment, individuals inside the protective clothing can experience RF exposures in excess of ANSI/IEEE guidelines. Furthermore, NPR suggests that exposure in excess of the ANSI/IEEE guidelines can result if a user does not correctly wear the protective clothing, or if that clothing is damaged while the user is in a high RF environment. NPR cites OSHA's caution that the variable working conditions at job sites and possible alterations or misapplication of an otherwise safe product could easily create a hazardous condition beyond the control of the manufacturer. 125. Narda believes that RF protective suits must be viewed with extreme caution, since there is no qualified independent organization that can competently test such a product; there is no guarantee that protective clothing will be used correctly; and the suits introduce/increase new hazards, such as decreased visibility and degraded traction/footing. Further, Narda states that research demonstrates that SAR levels are higher if the user is not wearing footwear with the suit, than if the suit was not worn at all. 126. CD&E and AFCCE strongly urge that we limit the use of personal monitors until they are proven reliable, accurate, and able to work under all conditions. The AFCCE alleges that one of the commercially-available personal monitors is accompanied by misleading and inaccurate advertising claims and labeling. NPR suggests that we authorize or certify personal monitors to assure that these devices accurately reflect exposure in relation to the guidelines, since failure of a device to accurately measure RF energy may occur unnoticed and could potentially give deceptively low readings. NPR recommends that manufacturers of personal monitors have self-testing circuits that would sound an alarm when the device was operating improperly. 127. Hatfield & Dawson comments that it has performed limited testing on one model of personal monitor and found that this particular model sounded an alarm at 50% of the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 limits for the magnetic field when the energy was propagating toward the front of the monitor. In addition, the monitor sounded an alarm at 100% of the limit for the magnetic field when the energy was propagating toward the side of the monitor. These tests were performed at ground level near FM broadcast antennas and on rooftops near 800 MHz antennas. Hatfield & Dawson concludes that this model of personal monitor provides a worst- case indication of localized fields when the measured field were at or above the levels shown in Table 1 of the ANSI/IEEE guidelines. 128. Decision. In 1994 the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) awarded a contract to Richard Tell Associates, Inc., of Las Vegas, Nevada, to evaluate the use of certain RF instrumentation and devices, including Naptex protective clothing and personal monitors. The Tell Report concludes that an analysis of test data on a commercial RF protective suit shows that such a suit can provide substantial reductions in whole body SARs in the wearer, assuming that the suit material adequately covers the body. This report found that the suit must be adequately coupled to ground to be effective, so that body currents are shunted to ground via the fabric rather than the legs, ankles and feet. Based on these findings, OSHA's comments in this proceeding and the data from NAMRL we find that use of such clothing, if properly utilized, is an acceptable means for reducing exposure to high RF fields. We will discuss this matter further in our new edition of OST Bulletin No. 65. 129. In addition, the Tell Report provided test results on one commonly-used RF personal monitor, indicating that the monitor appeared to act as a reliable detector of RF magnetic fields, but expressed reservations about some deficiencies related to the general use of this device. In particular, the Tell Report concluded that the monitor may not be completely adequate for registering high fields existing in very close proximity to certain dipole antennas. Nonetheless, for frequencies above 50 MHz, the Report states that the monitor could be useful in alerting workers to the presence of high RF fields that may exceed safety limits. Our staff and staff from the EPA conducted a joint field measurement study in 1994 on a similar device, which appeared to function properly and as advertised. In general, the problems identified in the Tell Report do not seem to be serious enough to preclude use of the type of personal monitor tested, and we conclude that its use in the situations specified is acceptable for helping ensure compliance with RF guidelines. Further discussion of this topic will also be included in the revision of OST Bulletin No. 65. IV. ADDITIONAL ISSUES A. Induced and Contact Current Compliance 130. As discussed in the Notice, the new ANSI/IEEE guidelines contain recommendations regarding maximum permissible limits for induced and contact currents that result from RF exposure. The previous 1982 ANSI guidelines did not address this issue. The ANSI/IEEE recommendations require exposure evaluation over the frequency range from 3 kHz to 100 MHz for RF currents induced in the human body as well as for RF contact currents that can result in shock and burn hazards. We recognize that this new provision has raised many issues relative to interpretation and implementation, and we requested comment on whether we should adopt these requirements. 131. In particular, we asked for comment on how to evaluate FM radio broadcast stations with respect to induced and contact currents since the upper frequency limit in the ANSI/IEEE standard is 100 MHz, which is in the middle of the FM band. We proposed to require that evaluation for exposure from induced and contact currents be carried out by: 1) all FM broadcast stations with carrier frequencies below 100 MHz, and 2) all FM broadcast stations regardless of carrier frequency at multiple-use sites when at least one of the stations transmits at or below 100 MHz. 132. AFCCE, the Broadcast Joint Commenters, EEPA, NAB, and others observe that industry has little experience in making measurements of induced and contact currents and that making such measurements is expensive and requires equipment that is not readily available. They propose that licensees use tables and figures (developed previously by NAB and JC&A) to determine whether facilities comply with the induced current limits based on electric field strength levels that can be associated with induced current levels. If the facilities failed to comply with the limits based on the tables or figures, then strict and careful measurements, performed by professionals using the proper equipment and techniques could be employed to further evaluate the facilities. NAB and JC&A suggest that induced and contact currents limits could also be applied to workers who climb energized AM towers. They state that power limits to protect against excessive exposure could be proscribed based on theoretical and experimental data obtained by Cleveland and Tell. 133. Narda comments that if calculations or analysis based on Bulletin No. 65 indicate, with confidence, that electric and magnetic field levels are below the uncontrolled ANSI/IEEE MPEs then actual field measurements of induced current levels should not be necessary. Narda states that when the electric field is well below the MPE limit, then compliance with the induced current MPE can be assured without direct measurement. Narda cautions, however, that contact currents are totally unpredictable, bear no relationship to electric field levels, and cannot be calculated. 134. Most commenting parties oppose our proposal to require only FM broadcast stations with carrier frequencies below 100 MHz to be evaluated for exposure from induced and contact currents. These parties argue that the "breakpoint" at 100 MHz is unfair and could be scientifically incorrect. The ARRL contends that it is difficult to determine the basis for any limits on induced and contact current above 30 MHz, but to extend the limit arbitrarily to 100 MHz, the middle of the FM band, creates distinctions without differences among like licensees in the FM Broadcast Service. BSL states the 100 MHz cutoff was arbitrary, and was chosen without regard to practical considerations of implementation. It suggests that between 30 MHz and 100 MHz a standard for presumptive compliance should be established. Hammett & Edison contends that extending induced and contact currents above 30 MHz is arbitrary and capricious and that ANSI has provided no justification for doing so. 135. The IEEE/SCC28, the committee that developed the new ANSI/IEEE guidelines, comments that the issue relating to the discontinuity of treatment within the FM band (the 100 MHz breakpoint) has already been addressed during the process of reaching a consensus. According to the IEEE/SCC28, it was made clear at that time that the discontinuity of treatment within the FM band was based upon biological considerations rather than those involved in spectrum allocation. 136. Many commenters assert that there is no reliable equipment to measure induced and contact current above 30 MHz. "Based on the preliminary induced current measurements conducted by CBS, the Broadcast Joint Commenters (BJC) believe the scientific understanding of these phenomena -- and of the techniques and devices that will be needed to measure them - - have not yet developed to the point that would allow their measurement with sufficient reliability." The BJC's position on measurement was reinforced recently by a study performed for the Commission by Richard Tell Associates. Based on an assessment of commercially available instrumentation for induced current measurement, Tell concluded that, "it is not clear that measurements of induced body current are sufficiently reliable to accurately assess compliance with standards specifying limits for body currents under all possible conditions." [emphasis in original]. 137. NAB states that given the present state of measurement technology and research data (particularly with respect to contact currents) "it is difficult, at best," and costly to certify a broadcast facility for compliance with the new ANSI/IEEE induced and contact current limits based on measurements. NAB states that it is aware of commercially-available instrumentation for direct measurement of induced currents (and direct contact currents at certain frequencies). However, NAB cautions that requiring all broadcasters to perform costly field measurement to demonstrate compliance with the body current limitations would surely have a severe, negative impact on broadcasters. 138. Hammett & Edison and the Broadcast Joint Commenters indicate that a reliable, repeatable, commercially available VHF induced body current meter does not yet exist. Hammett & Edison state that tests made using a prototype Narda Model 8850 induced current meter showed variability between persons standing on the meter, non-symmetrical currents between left- foot only and right foot only conditions, . . . meter zeroing problems, and sensitivity to relatively low power emissions above 100 MHz." The AFCCE agrees that there are no commercially available instruments to reliably measure contact currents. 139. Hatfield & Dawson and the AFCCE note that Richard Tell & Associates has specialized equipment for measuring contact current but that this equipment has limited utility in a multiple frequency environment such as an antenna farm. NIOSH states that with a properly calibrated, frequency-tunable, field intensity meter, induced current measurements could be measured for stations operating up to 108 MHz. 140. NAB points out that while research data are available for induced currents, it does not appear to exist for contact currents. NAB contends that contact currents vary with the size and shape of the object contacted and if the contacted object is relatively small, the presence of a body in the near vicinity modifies the field. Therefore, based on the limited information available, NAB suggests that we assume, for purposes of the guidelines, that electric fields low enough to guarantee compliance with induced current criteria will, in general, also assure compliance with contact current criteria. 141. BJC also agrees that the contact current standard poses measurement problems that are even more difficult, and are complicated in the AM band by the potential to energize objects such as construction cranes or metallic rope located as much as half a mile from an AM tower. BJC contends it would be extremely impractical to require broadcasters to measure all metal objects near AM towers. These measurements would also be only temporary, BJC argues, because the configuration of such non-broadcast structures change frequently. JC&A argues that because of the many variables such as grounding of the person, size, shape and orientation of the object being contacted, judgements will have to be made on a case-by-case basis relative to the need for contact currents. 142. Narda notes that the only way to quantify contact currents is to measure them and suggests that we require that contact current measurements be made on metallic objects, such as fences, that the public may come in contact with or that may be contacted by station personnel. It submits that these measurements should be made once to obtain certification and need be repeated only when antenna patterns are changed or whenev