******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Procedures for Reviewing Requests for ) WT Docket No. 97-192 Relief From State and Local Regulations ) Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) of the ) Communications Act of 1934 ) ) Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental ) ET Docket No. 93-62 Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation ) ) Petition for Rulemaking of the Cellular ) Telecommunications Industry Association ) RM-8577 Concerning Amendment of the Commission's ) Rules to Preempt State and Local Regulation ) of Commercial Mobile Radio Service ) Transmitting Facilities ) SECOND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: August 25, 1997 Released: August 25, 1997 Comment Date (WT Docket No. 97-197): October 9, 1997 Reply Comment Date (WT Docket No. 97-197): October 24, 1997 By the Commission: TABLE OF CONTENTS Para. I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . . 1 II. SECOND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER . . . . .2-114 A. Introduction and Executive Summary. . . . 2-12 B. Background. . . 13-18 C. Discussion. . .19-114 1. RF Exposure Limits . . . .19-39 2. Categorical Exclusions . . . . . . .40-52 3. Amateur Radio Service (ARS). . . . .53-57 4. Compliance at Multiple Transmitter Sites . . . . . 58-77 5. Preemption of State and Local RF Regulations . . . 78-90 6. Definition of "Covered SMR" Service . . . . . . . 91-99 7. Development of Revised OET Bulletin 65 . . . . . 100-103 8. Miscellaneous Clarifications and Corrections . . . . 104 9. Petitions for Reconsideration of Transition Period Extension . . . . . . .105-112 10. Treatment of Existing Facilities, Operations and Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . .113-114 III. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING . . . . . . .115-155 A. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . .115-119 B. Background. . 120-134 1. Sections 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)-(v) of the Communications Act. . . . . . . . . .120-123 2. Other Relevant Provisions. . . . .124-134 C. Discussion. . 135-155 1. Definitional Issues. . .135-141 2. Demonstration of RF Compliance . .142-148 3. General Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief . . . . . . . . . . .149-150 4. Rebuttable Presumption of Compliance . . . . . . 151-152 5. Operation of Presumption . . . . .153-154 D. Conclusion. . . . 155 IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS. . . . . . . . . . . . .156-167 A. Regulatory Flexibility Act. . . . . . . . .156 B. Ex Parte Rules -- Non-Restricted Proceedings. . . . .157 C. Comment Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . .158-159 D. Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis. . . . . . . . 160-161 E. Ordering Clauses. . . . . . . . . . . .162-165 F. Further Information . . . . . . . . . .166-167 Final Rule Changes . . . . . . . . . . Appendix A Motions, Petitions, Oppositions and Replies (ET Dkt 93-62) . . .Appendix B Revised Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (ET Dkt 93-62)) . .Appendix C Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (NPRM). . Appendix D I. INTRODUCTION 1. By this action, we are adopting a Second Memorandum Opinion and Order in ET Docket No. 93-62, responding to petitions and amending certain aspects of our guidelines for evaluating the environmental effects of radiofrequency (RF) emissions produced by FCC-regulated transmitters. We are also adopting a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 97-197, opening a new proceeding to establish procedures for filing and reviewing requests for relief from state or local regulations based directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of RF emissions. II. SECOND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER A. Introduction and Executive Summary 2. In this Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, we are amending our rules to refine and clarify the decisions adopted in the Report and Order in ET Docket No. 93-62 regarding the use of new guidelines and methods in the evaluation of the environmental effects of RF electromagnetic fields or emissions produced by FCC-regulated transmitters. This Second Memorandum Opinion and Order responds to petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification filed in this proceeding. In reaching our decisions, we have considered carefully the petitions and comments that were received in this proceeding. We believe our decisions provide a proper balance between the need to protect the public and workers from exposure to potentially harmful RF electromagnetic fields and the requirement that industry be allowed to provide telecommunications services to the public in the most efficient and practical manner possible. Specifically, we are: 1) affirming the RF exposure limits that were previously adopted; 2) modifying in a few areas our policy that categorically excludes certain transmitters from routine environmental evaluation; 3) revising and clarifying our guidelines regarding RF emissions involving multiple transmitter operating at one site; and 4) modifying our rules to extend the initial transition period to October 15, 1997, and to require that all existing facilities be brought into compliance with our new guidelines within three years (by September 1, 2000). We are also adopting a number of minor changes and clarifications. 3. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) and localized, partial-body exposure of humans based on criteria published by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and by the American National Standards Institute/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (ANSI/IEEE). The Report and Order also modified the Commission's policy on categorical exclusions that exempts many radio services and transmitters from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure. In accordance with Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the Report and Order followed Congressional direction with respect to completion of the docket in this proceeding. The new rules became effective immediately; however, a transition period (originally to January 1, 1997) was provided for implementation of the new requirements for transmitters other than portable and mobile devices. 4. Several technical and legal issues were raised in the petitions. A First Memorandum Opinion and Order, adopted on December 23, 1996, addressed comments in those petitions requesting extension of the transition provisions of the Report and Order and extended the transition period to September 1, 1997 (January 1, 1998 for the Amateur Radio Service, only). This Second Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses the other issues raised in the petitions, including whether we should: (1) reconsider the RF exposure limits originally adopted; (2) reconsider our policy on categorical exclusion of certain transmitters from routine evaluation for compliance with our guidelines; (3) modify our policy with respect to evaluation of RF exposure at multiple transmitter sites; (4) revise our policy with respect to routine evaluation for SMR transmitters; and (5) broaden our authority to preempt state and local regulations concerning RF exposure. 5. Some petitioners ask that we reconsider our previous decision not to adopt ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 in its entirety. Several other petitioners claim that the limits we adopted were not protective enough. The staff believes that no new and compelling justifications have been provided that would warrant a modification of the limits adopted in the Report and Order. Those limits were crafted to address concerns about ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 that had been raised by several agencies of the Federal Government with responsibility for health and safety. Furthermore, all of these agencies have written letters to the Commission supporting our new guidelines. We believe that the limits adopted in the Report and Order provide a proper balance between the need to protect the public and workers from exposure to excessive RF electromagnetic fields and the need to allow communications services to readily address growing marketplace demands. 6. The Commission's environmental rules identify particular categories of existing or proposed transmitters or facilities for which licensees and applicants are required to conduct routine environmental evaluations to determine whether these transmitters or facilities comply with our RF guidelines. Other transmitting facilities are categorically excluded from these rules because we have judged them to offer little potential for causing exposures in excess of the applicable guidelines. In the Report and Order, we revised our rules related to this policy of categorical exclusion based on our own calculations and analyses of the implications of the new limits, along with information and data acquired during the proceeding. Whereas previously we had categorically excluded entire service categories, such as paging and cellular transmitters, the Report and Order concluded that some transmitting facilities, regardless of service, may offer the potential for causing exposures in excess of MPE limits. 7. Several petitioners ask that we return to our earlier policy of categorical exclusion for entire services. However, these petitioners present no new evidence that would lead us to change our basic premise for categorical exclusion. We continue to believe that it is desirable and appropriate to categorically exclude from routine environmental evaluation only those transmitting facilities that offer little or no potential for exposure in excess of our limits. However, some transmitting facilities, regardless of service, offer the potential for causing exposures in excess of MPE limits because of such factors as their relatively high operating power, location or relative accessibility, and these facilities should not be categorically excluded from routine evaluation. 8. Except in a few limited areas, we do not believe it is appropriate to modify the categorical exclusion policies adopted in the Report and Order. We are modifying our policy related to unlicensed millimeter-wave devices that do not meet the definition of a portable device and unlicensed and licensed PCS and other mobile devices operating above 1.5 GHz. Secondly, we are revising the 50-watt threshold for routine evaluation of amateur radio stations so that it reflects the manner in which the RF exposure limits change in the different amateur frequency bands. We are also revising categorical exclusions currently based on the height of the antenna radiation center above ground so that they are based on the height of the lowest portion of the antenna above ground. In addition to these areas, we are revising our policy on categorical exclusions for SMR transmitters so that all SMR operations are covered, and we are changing our definition of "rooftop" so that antennas that are mounted on the sides of buildings or otherwise don't fit the previous definition will be considered, if appropriate. 9. Several petitioners argue that our policy regarding evaluation at sites with multiple FCC-regulated transmitters is overly burdensome. Our rules state that when the RF exposure limits are exceeded in an accessible area due to the RF fields of multiple fixed transmitters, actions necessary to bring the area into compliance are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce power densities in excess of 1% of the exposure limit applicable to their transmitter. After considering the various arguments, we conclude that the 1% level should be changed. We concur that a 1% level is difficult to measure or calculate. We believe that a 5% threshold represents a more reasonable and supportable compromise, by offering relief to relatively low-powered site occupants who do not contribute significantly to areas of non- compliance and, at the same time, by providing for the appropriate allocation of responsibility among major site emitters. 10. Some petitioners request that the Commission broaden its preemptive authority beyond the category of "personal wireless services" authorized in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Based upon the current record in this proceeding, we find that there is insufficient evidence at this time to warrant our preempting state and local actions that are based on concerns over RF emissions for services other than those defined by Congress as "personal wireless services." However, additional issues concerning preemption of state and local regulations involving advanced television facilities have been raised in a Petition for Further Rulemaking filed by the National Association of Broadcasters which will be considered in a separate proceeding. 11. Several additional petitions were received in response to our earlier First Memorandum Opinion and Order extending the transition period for fixed stations and transmitters. Some petitioners request that we end the transition period immediately because of the potential for large scale exposure of the public to harmful RF emissions. Others argue that additional time is needed to consider the Commission's response to earlier petitions relating to OET Bulletin 65 on RF compliance. This bulletin will be released simultaneously with this Order. In order to provide applicants and licensees with sufficient time to review the final version of the bulletin, we will extend the initial transition period to October 15, 1997. The transition period for the Amateur Radio Service, only, will remain the same, and will end on January 1, 1998. 12. Finally, we are revising our rules to require that existing sites and transmitters come into compliance with the new guidelines as of a date certain. Accordingly, we will require all existing facilities, operations and devices to comply with the new FCC RF guidelines no later than September 1, 2000. B. Background 13. 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. 14. The Commission's environmental processing rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.1301-1.1319, generally require an applicant to perform the necessary analysis (e.g., calculations and/or measurements) to ascertain whether a particular transmitting facility or device complies with the Commission's adopted RF exposure guidelines set forth in section 1.1307(b), in effect at the time the applicant files for an initial construction permit, license, or renewal or modification of an existing license. If on the basis of the applicant's analysis the applicant determines that the facility complies (or will comply) with the Commission's adopted RF guidelines, the applicant certifies compliance as part of its application. If, on the other hand, the applicant determines that operation of the facility or device will not comply with the RF guidelines, the applicant is required to prepare an Environmental Assessment, and undergo environmental review by Commission staff unless the applicant amends its application so as to comply with the Commission's adopted RF guidelines. See 47 C.F.R.  1.1311; see also 47 C.F.R. 1.1308, 1.1309, 1.1314-1.1317. 15. If no pre-construction Commission authorization is required (as is the case for PCS and cellular licenses, for example, where the Commission authorizes blanket licenses that are not site-specific), Section 1.1312 of the Commission's environmental processing rules requires that the licensee conduct the appropriate calculations and determine whether the facility will comply with the Commission's adopted RF guidelines in effect at that time (i.e., at the pre-construction, not the initial application, stage) prior to the commencement of construction, rather than prior to licensing under the Commission's general environmental processing scheme. The processing requirements remain the same -- if the calculations indicate compliance with the RF guidelines, the licensee may proceed with construction; if the calculations indicate non-compliance, the licensee will either modify its proposal to ensure compliance or submit an Environmental Assessment and undergo Commission environmental review prior to construction. The only difference lies in the timing: environmental calculations must take place prior to construction rather than prior to the applicable licensing. 16. Finally, it should be noted that if the facility or device has been categorically excluded from environmental processing requirements with respect to the RF exposure guidelines based on the Commission's prior determination that the operation of such facility or device, individually or cumulatively, will not exceed the Commission's adopted RF exposure limits, the applicant or licensee is exempt from the requirement of performing any calculations and/or measurements to determine whether there is compliance; the Commission presumes that the operation of a categorically excluded facility or equipment is in compliance. 17. In 1985, the Commission adopted a 1982 American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard for use in evaluating the effects of RF electromagnetic fields on the environment, noting that the ANSI standard was widely accepted and was technically and scientifically supportable. In 1992, ANSI adopted a new standard for RF exposure, designated ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992, to replace its 1982 standard. This new standard contained a number of significant differences from the 1982 ANSI standard and, in some respects, was more restrictive in the amount of environmental RF exposure permitted. On April 8, 1993, the Commission issued the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Notice) in this proceeding to consider amending and updating the guidelines and methods used by the Commission for evaluating the environmental effects of RF electromagnetic fields. In the Notice, we proposed to base our regulations on the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard instead of the 1982 ANSI standard. More than 100 parties, including telecommunications organizations, other Federal Government agencies, state and local authorities, and individuals, submitted comments in response to the Notice. 18. On August 1, 1996, we adopted the Report and Order in this proceeding amending our rules to provide for the use of new guidelines and methods in the evaluation of the environmental effects of RF electromagnetic fields produced by FCC-regulated transmitters. Seventeen petitions for reconsideration and/or clarification were filed in response to the Report and Order. A list of those organizations and individuals filing petitions, as well as those filing oppositions and replies to the petitions, can be found in Appendix B. Several technical and legal issues have been raised in the petitions. In the First Memorandum Opinion and Order in this proceeding, we addressed those petitions, motions, and comments that requested extensions of the transition periods adopted in the Report and Order. This Second Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses the other issues that were raised in the petitions and comments. C. Discussion 1. RF Exposure Limits 19. In the Notice in this proceeding, we proposed to base our RF exposure guidelines on limits for RF exposure contained in the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard. However, comments filed in this proceeding from federal health and safety agencies, notably the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), raised questions about certain aspects of those limits and recommended against the adoption of the entire ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard. After careful consideration of those views as well as the views of those commenters who opposed the federal agencies' views, we decided to adopt guidelines and limits that are generally based on elements of the exposure criteria recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) as well as those contained in the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard. 20. The Electromagnetic Energy Association (EEA), U S WEST, Inc. and the Department of Defense (DOD) ask us to reconsider our decision not to adopt the ANSI/IEEE 1992 standard in its entirety. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) also supports this position in its comments. EEA and U S WEST state that our decision disregarded the preponderance of the technical and scientific evidence in the record. DOD questions our scientific rationale for not adopting the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard, stating that ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 is a scientifically-based consensus standard that periodically undergoes review and update and that it includes a number of provisions and changes that address shortcomings or limitations in both the 1982 ANSI standard and the NCRP guidelines. DOD and EEA argue that our new guidelines fail to recognize differences between electric and magnetic fields at lower frequencies, do not address induced and contact currents in the body, and provide no guidance for frequencies between 100 GHz and 300 GHz. 21. EEA states that our adoption of a "hybrid" approach based on NCRP exposure guidelines, rather than ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992, results in the loss of the rationale underlying the standard itself and requires the development of new measurement procedures rather than relying on the ANSI/IEEE recommendations. U S WEST adds that our decision to adopt "a sort of hybrid standard" based on the guidelines recommended by the NCRP and the ANSI/IEEE "was erroneous both as a matter of law and policy", since it ignored "highly credible evidence" provided by academic RF experts, "persuasive evidence" submitted by industry constituents, and "initial endorsement" of ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 by several governmental agencies. 22. The DOD and the Hewlett-Packard Company (HP) state that our decision to adopt RF exposure limits that differ significantly from those initially proposed in the Notice, without issuing a second Notice of Proposed Rule Making allowing comment, does not appear to conform to Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The American Radio Relay League, Inc. (ARRL) also claims that we violated provisions of the APA in adopting the Report and Order. DOD says that our decision was made in "an unnecessarily closed and narrow-focused" process, and denied interested parties with safety and health responsibilities, such as DOD, an opportunity to evaluate a draft decision and present comments. DOD also alleges that our decision did not receive adequate coordination with all federal agencies or departments having responsibility for RF safety and health. The ARRL argues that our Notice in this proceeding was faulty in that it failed to identify the nature of the rules to be adopted and did not adequately apprise radio amateurs of the obligations that would be placed on them in the Report and Order. 23. DOD also claims that our decisions contained in the Report and Order jeopardize DOD compliance with the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), which requires that "Federal agencies and departments shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies ..." DOD states that it is committed to following this law and supports open, voluntary, non-government consensus-based standards unless data are presented to show cause not to do so. DOD argues that the public interest is not served by "conflicting safety guidelines" and that consistency in standards produces confidence and credibility. DOD expresses concern that our decision not to adopt ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 will "foster lack of confidence" in the voluntary standards-setting process and reduce the beneficial impact of the NTTAA. 24. DOD also states that our ruling conflicts with new international standards. DOD points out that ANSI/IEEE 1992 standard has been used as the basis for several international safety guidelines, such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Standardization Agreement (STANAG) 2345. It believes that international harmonization of standards is desirable to encourage the promotion of trade and commercial product development. Since the United States led the update of the ANSI 1992-based NATO standard, DOD claims that the "impact of loss of credibility in that standards setting process would be significant." 25. Several petitioners claim that the guidelines we adopted are not protective enough. The Ad-hoc Association of Parties Concerned About the Federal Communications Commission's Radiofrequency Health and Safety Rules (Ad-hoc Association) claims that there may be potentially adverse health effects at exposure conditions permitted by our rules and, therefore, it is in the public interest to modify the rules. The Ad-hoc Association, David Fichtenberg and Alan Golden all propose that we adopt a policy of keeping exposures "as low as reasonably achievable," with the limits being viewed only as "maximally tolerable limits." Further, the Ad-hoc Association and others oppose the petitions that advocate our endorsement of the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard. The Ad-hoc Association also maintains that we erred in not adopting a section of the NCRP report dealing with exposures when the carrier frequency is modulated between 5 and 100 Hz. Finally, the Ad-hoc Association advocates that we should ask the federal health and safety agencies to evaluate requested modifications in our guidelines. 26. The Cellular Phone Taskforce (Cellular Taskforce) states that our guidelines should be modified to protect individuals who are "electrosensitive." The Cellular Taskforce maintains that such individuals are "hypersensitive" to non-ionizing electromagnetic fields and that "perhaps 2%" of the population is susceptible to becoming electrosensitive. The Cellular Taskforce believes that the allowable limits for power density should be set at 10 microwatts-per- squared-centimeter (æW/cm2) for all frequencies above 100 MHz to protect against "non-thermal bioeffects." In a separate petition, Dr. Marjorie Lundquist suggests that the existence of non- thermal effects are controversial, but claims that "the scientific consensus is swinging in favor of their existence." The Cellular Taskforce advocates a limit of 40 milliwatts-per-squared- centimeter (mW/cm2) for peak power density to protect against "microwave hearing" in the frequency range of 300 to 3000 MHz. Also, the Cellular Taskforce suggests that limits for specific absorption rate (SAR) should be revised to allow for different rates of absorption among members of the public. 27. Dr. Marjorie Lundquist maintains that ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 and our guidelines are not consistent with electromagnetic field theory, lack a sound scientific basis and may, therefore, be presumed "to be inadequately protective of public health." According to Dr. Lundquist, there is an "urgent" need for us to take regulatory action with respect to near-field exposure from RF emitters since, she claims, there is increasing evidence of cancer associated with human exposure to these fields. She also states that other health effects, such as hypersensitivity to electromagnetic fields, seem to be a growing problem, at least in certain environments. Dr. Lundquist recommends that we hold a public hearing on the issue of RF exposure standards, since, she maintains, our guidelines fall "so far short of what is needed to provide genuine protection" that the shortcomings need to be made public. 28. In comments filed in opposition, Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc. and EEA express their disagreement with the views expressed by the Ad-hoc Association, Dr. Marjorie Lundquist, and others regarding the need for more stringent RF exposure limits. Ameritech maintains that standards for RF exposure must be based on scientific data which is thoroughly tested and focused. Ameritech states that there is room for disagreement among experts in the field, but the telecommunications industry "will not be able to function under the approach suggested by the Ad-hoc Association that the Commission assume the worst in the face of any uncertainty." Ameritech notes that billions of dollars are being invested in telecommunications infrastructure, and it is no simple matter to modify a telecommunications system as a result of each new study. The EEA notes that the issue of "non-thermal" effects was explicitly addressed in the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard, which concluded that no reliable scientific data exist to indicate such effects may be "meaningfully related to human health." 29. Decision. We reaffirm our decision to adopt exposure limits for field strength and power density based on recommendations contained in NCRP Report No. 86 and ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992. We continue to believe that these RF exposure limits provide a proper balance between the need to protect the public and workers from exposure to excessive RF electromagnetic fields and the need to allow communications services to readily address growing marketplace demands. 30. We appreciate the views of some petitioners that we should have adopted all provisions of the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard. However, as discussed in our Report and Order, although most commenting parties generally supported our proposal to adopt the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard, certain agencies of the Federal Government with oversight responsibilities for safety and health objected to the use of certain aspects of this standard. In the past, the Commission has stressed repeatedly that it is not a health and safety agency and would give great weight to the judgment of these expert agencies with respect to determining appropriate levels of safe exposure to RF electromagnetic fields. The guidelines and rules we adopted in the Report and Order addressed the concerns raised by the health and safety agencies and, at the same time, contained limits that over a wide frequency range are based on those recommended in the ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 standard. 31. As for claims that our guidelines are not protective enough, we reiterate that these guidelines are based on recommendations of expert organizations and federal agencies with responsibilities for health and safety. It would be impracticable for us to independently evaluate the significance of studies purporting to show biological effects, determine if such effects constitute a safety hazard, and then adopt stricter standards that those advocated by federal health and safety agencies. This is especially true for such controversial issues as non-thermal effects and whether certain individuals might be "hypersensitive" or "electrosensitive." 32. Concerning objections that our guidelines are not scientifically-based or technically sound, we note that our guidelines are based on recommendations of both the ANSI/IEEE C95.1- 1992 standard and the NCRP exposure criteria. Both of these organizations are internationally recognized for their expertise in this area, and there is little evidence to support a claim that these guidelines are not based on science. In fact, both the ANSI/IEEE and NCRP guidelines are based on the same threshold for potentially hazardous whole-body exposure. We recognize that ongoing research in a number of areas may ultimately result in changes in the fundamental understandings upon which ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 and the NCRP Report No. 86 are based. Both the IEEE and the NCRP have committees that are working on revisions of their respective exposure guidelines. As indicated in the Report and Order, 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, of course, consider amending our rules at any appropriate time if these groups conclude that such action is desirable. 33. Regarding the criticism from the Ad-hoc Association over our failure to adopt the NCRP's clause related to carrier modulation, we reiterate our previous conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to give special consideration to modulation effects. Since we have no specific indication of exposure hazards related to modulation caused by FCC-regulated transmitters, and since at this time no new proof of such hazards has been presented by petitioners, we continue to believe that it would be premature to adopt the NCRP modulation criteria. However, we will evaluate and consider any new evidence relating to modulation effects this is submitted to us in the future. 34. As for the suggestion made by Dr. Marjorie Lundquist that we convene a public hearing or further consult with federal health and safety agencies, we note that we have considered carefully well over 150 sets of comments filed in this proceeding and have already consulted extensively with all of the relevant health and safety agencies. The RF guidelines we adopted were based on the recommendations of these agencies. 35. As noted previously, DOD, HP and the ARRL allege that we did not comply with provisions of the APA in adopting guidelines different than those originally proposed. However, we point out that our Notice incorporated a prominent discussion and request for comment on whether we should adopt alternative guidelines from those that were the principal focus of our proposal. This discussion specifically mentioned the MPE limits recommended by the NCRP which, along with ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992, formed the basis for the limits we adopted in the Report and Order. Similarly, we indicated in the Notice that our categorical exclusions, such as previously applied to all amateur radio stations, would be reviewed in light of the new guidelines. We believe that the final rules that were adopted were a "logical outgrowth" of that proposed in the Notice. See American Water Works Ass'n. v. EPA, 40 F. 3d 1266, 1274 (D.C. Cir. 1994). The Courts have generally ruled that "[A] final rule may properly differ from a proposed rule ... when the record evidence warrants the change." See United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d 1189, 1221 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 913 (1980). A final rule is not a logical outgrowth of a proposed rule generally "when the changes are so major that the original notice did not adequately frame the subject for discussion." Connecticut Light and Power Co. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 673 F.2d 525, 533 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 835 (1982). Given that the Notice raised the issues of whether an alternative guideline such as that recommended by NCRP should be adopted and whether the categorical exclusions should be changed, as well as the substantial discussion of the issues in the comments in this proceeding, we conclude that the notice and comment provisions of the APA were followed and that a further Notice on these issues is unnecessary. 36. Regarding the DOD's assertion that our rules will hinder its ability to comply with provisions of the NTTAA, we believe that the process we followed in this proceeding is consistent with the requirements of the NTTAA. Section 12(d)(1) requires that all federal agencies and departments "shall use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies ... as a means to carry out policy objectives or activities ... ." Section 12 (d)(3) indicates, however, that federal agencies may elect to use technical standards that are not developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies if: 1) it would be "inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical"; and 2) the head of the agency transmits to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) an explanation of the reasons for adopting a different standard. In this case, we proposed to adopt ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992, which is quite clearly a voluntary consensus standard. However, as explained previously, comments were filed by federal health and safety agencies in this proceeding indicating that they were concerned about the safety ramifications of adopting certain aspects of the ANSI/IEEE C95.1- 1992 standard. Therefore, based on these comments, we have concluded that adoption of ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 in its entirety would be problematic, and, therefore, would constitute an "impractical" action under the above-noted provision of the NTTAA, since it would not satisfy public safety concerns raised by these expert federal safety and health agencies. We have filed our decision in this proceeding with OMB based on existing guidance, as is done for all relevant rule making decisions. We understand that OMB is revising its Circular A-119 on "Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Standards" in order to reflect the new NTTAA requirements. Once that revised Circular is issued, we will take whatever additional actions may be required to report our decision to OMB. 37. With regard to DOD's claim that our proposal was not properly coordinated with other agencies, we note that our proposal was coordinated with the federal agencies with health and safety responsibilities. These agencies include the EPA, the FDA, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Each of these agencies sent letters to the FCC supporting our action. While this action was not coordinated separately with DOD, it was coordinated with the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) and, based on that coordination, DOD filed further comments in the proceeding. These comments, along with the others we received, were considered in making our decision. 38. The DOD suggests that we should adopt ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 because it is "an internationally accepted consensus standard." We recognize that NATO has adopted a standard based on ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992. However, we also note that all international standards are not identical to ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992. For example, the recently drafted standard of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) incorporates limits for exposure in terms of specific absorption rate (applicable to hand-held devices such as cellular telephones) that are different than those contained in the ANSI/IEEE standard. While we support the goal for having an internationally-accepted standard dealing with the environmental effects of RF electromagnetic fields, we believe that such a standard must adequately address the concerns raised by the relevant U.S. health and safety agencies. 39. In summary, in considering the arguments raised with respect to the RF exposure limits adopted in the Report and Order, we place special emphasis on the recommendations and comments of federal health and safety agencies because of their expertise and responsibilities with regard to health and safety matters. In the Report and Order, we adopted RF exposure limits that addressed specific safety concerns raised by these agencies about the limits we had originally proposed to adopt. We do not believe that the petitioners and commenters have provided reasonable alternatives that similarly would adequately address these safety concerns. Accordingly, we conclude that the RF exposure limits adopted in the Report and Order are appropriate because they address those concerns and, at the same time, allow applicants and licensees to meet the growing marketplace demand for communications services. 2. Categorical Exclusions 40. Our rules identify particular categories of existing and proposed transmitting facilities for which licensees and applicants are required to conduct an initial, routine environmental evaluation to determine whether these transmitting facilities comply with our RF guidelines. See 47 CFR  1.1307(b)(1). Our rules also identify certain types of mobile and portable transmitting devices that are subject to routine environmental evaluation prior to equipment authorization. See 47 CFR  2.1091(c) and 2.1093(c). As for transmitting facilities and devices not specifically identified under 47 CFR  1.1307(b)(1), 2.1091(c) or 2.1093(c), we have determined, based on calculations, measurement data, and other information, that such transmitting facilities offer little potential for causing exposure in excess of the applicable guidelines, and thus have "categorically excluded" those transmitters from the initial, routine environmental evaluation requirement. 41. In the Report and Order, we revised our RF exposure rules to require routine evaluation of certain transmitting facilities that were previously categorically excluded from performing routine evaluation. These revisions were based on our own calculations and analyses of the implications of the new limits, along with information and data acquired in the record of this proceeding and from other sources. We attempted to bring consistency to the categorical exclusions, by adopting power, antenna height, and transmitter site criteria that would apply across similar services. 42. In their petitions and comments, AirTouch Communications, Paging Network, Inc. (PageNet), Arch Communications Group, Inc. (Arch) and PageMart II, Inc. (PageMart) urge us to reconsider our revised policy on categorical exclusion and reinstate the previous exclusions for paging and cellular transmitters. U S WEST also urges us to reinstate the previous exclusion for low-powered mobile and portable transmitting devices operating at or under 7 watts of transmit power. AirTouch states that our decision ignores evidence in the record demonstrating that existing facilities in these services are unlikely to exceed the new MPE limits. AirTouch maintains that removal of the categorical exclusion for paging transmitters is not necessary and will subject the paging industry, "which operates on a very low revenue-per-unit basis," to substantial additional costs as well as burdensome reporting requirements. Ameritech argues that the Report and Order does not make it clear why industry studies supporting a continued exclusion were not persuasive. Because of the potential burden imposed on industry by removing the categorical exclusions for certain transmitting facilities, Ameritech proposes that an industry task force be allowed to further study relevant data and determine whether the exclusion policy can be "narrowed rather than eliminated altogether." U S WEST maintains that removal of the categorical exclusion for low-powered devices has no scientific basis. 43. HP asks that we reconsider our decision not to provide a categorical exclusion for certain unlicensed millimeter-wave devices. HP notes that 47 CFR  2.1091(c) requires routine evaluation for all unlicensed mobile millimeter-wave technologies without regard to power yet at the same time generally excludes mobile devices in other services from routine environmental evaluation if they operate with less than 1.5 watts ERP, even though these devices are subject to more stringent MPE limits than millimeter-wave technologies. HP states that low-power categorical exclusions should be applied consistently to all transmitters and services, and suggests that this would lead to a categorical exclusion for mobile millimeter-wave devices having an ERP below 3 watts. HP suggests that, rather than specify the categorical exclusions based on ERP, we should categorically exclude low-power mobile devices, as well as unlicensed PCS and millimeter wave devices that don't meet the definition of portable devices, based on whether their RF electromagnetic fields exceed the MPE limits at a distance of 20 centimeters from the radiating antenna. HP also requests that unlicensed millimeter-wave technologies be removed from Table 1 of 47 CFR  1.1307(b) because Table 1 applies principally to fixed devices operating at power levels far in excess of those used by unlicensed millimeter-wave devices. 44. The Cellular Taskforce and the Ad-hoc Association oppose reinstating categorical exclusions for rooftop paging facilities. The Ad-hoc Association maintains that, in some cases, even though a transmitting antenna is more than 10 meters above ground, there may be nearby buildings where exposure may be in excess of the FCC limits. In addition, the Ad-hoc Association proposes modifications to our rules on categorical exclusion, maintaining that we should use the "height of lowest transmitter" instead of height to center of radiation to determine whether evaluation is needed. The Ad-hoc Association also proposes that a new rule be adopted requiring that an applicant demonstrate compliance, and provide informational material to residents, schools and hospitals, in each area within 1000 meters of their transmitting facility. Similarly, the Cellular Taskforce urges that the rules be modified to require routine environmental evaluation of all transmitters, facilities and operations that are less than 2000 feet from any residence. The proposals from the Cellular Taskforce and the Ad-hoc Association are opposed as unnecessary and overly burdensome in comments filed by Ameritech and AirTouch. 45. Decision. After considering the arguments raised by the petitioners, we generally are maintaining the categorical exclusions adopted in the Report and Order, except with respect to modifying Table 1 of Section 1.1310 regarding unlicensed PCS and millimeter wave devices, and categorical exclusions based on the height of the antenna "radiation center" above ground level, as discussed below (and with respect to amateur radio stations, as discussed later). We continue to believe that it is desirable and appropriate to categorically exclude from routine evaluation only those transmitting facilities that we have reason to believe offer little or no potential for exposure in excess of our limits. We believe that our revised categorical exclusions meet this objective. 46. As stated previously, the categorical exclusions we adopted in the Report and Order for paging, cellular, and other high-powered transmitting facilities were based on our own calculations and analyses of the implications of the new limits, along with information and data acquired in the record of this proceeding and from other sources. Similarly, the low-power device exclusions were based on calculations and analyses that were discussed in detail in the Report and Order. These calculations and analyses indicate that some transmitting facilities offer the potential for causing exposures in excess of our MPE and SAR limits because of such factors as their operating power, antenna location or relative accessibility. Nothing in the petitions provides new information to indicate that these calculations or analyses are incorrect, or that our categorical exclusions are not based on the best information currently available. As discussed in the Report and Order, based on technical evidence coming to light since we adopted the 1982 ANSI guidelines, it is clear that there can be situations involving paging, cellular and other higher powered transmitting facilities where the potential exists for significant environmental impact due to RF electromagnetic fields. Accordingly, NEPA requires that we consider the impact on the environment before we grant an application involving these stations. Based on this information and analysis, we cannot continue the blanket categorical exclusion for paging and other services, as advocated by some petitioners. 47. In general, we find no merit in the proposals of the Ad-hoc Association and the Cellular Taskforce to narrow our categorical exclusion rules, so that more transmitting facilities are subject to routine environmental evaluation, and to require applicants to provide informational material to nearby residents, schools, and hospitals. Our calculations and analyses indicate that those transmitting facilities that are categorically excluded from routine evaluation should offer little or no potential for exposure in excess of our limits. Furthermore, 47 CFR  1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) provide us with the ability to address any questions that might arise about specific, unique situations involving categorically excluded transmitting facilities. However, we recognize the legitimate concerns raised by the Ad-hoc Association regarding our existing categorical exclusions that are based on the height of the antenna "radiation center" above ground level. As pointed out by the Ad-hoc Association, in some circumstances multiple antennas may be used on the same tower by the same transmitting facility and, even though the radiation center might be more than 10 meters above ground, the lowest antenna could be near enough to ground to cause excessive RF electromagnetic fields. While we do not think such situations are very common today in the services for which we based our categorical exclusion on height to the antenna radiation center, this may not always be the case in the future. Accordingly, we are amending the categorical exclusions that are currently based on the height of the antenna radiation center above ground so that they will be based, instead, on the height of the lowest point of the antenna above ground. We believe that this should pose little additional burden on our applicants and licensees while avoiding the potential for exposure to excessive RF electromagnetic fields. 48. As Ameritech points out, it may be possible to refine these categorical exclusions, based on additional relevant data that may be gathered over time, in order to better delineate between situations that should be subject to routine evaluation and those that should not. Along this line, we encourage interested parties to develop data and submit proposals, in the form of petitions for rule making, as they gain experience in doing routine environmental evaluations. 49. We do not agree with HP's specific proposal to base the categorical exclusion for low-power mobile devices, as well as unlicensed PCS and unlicensed millimeter-wave devices that do not meet the definition of a portable device, on whether the electromagnetic field produced by the transmitter exceeds the MPE limit at a distance of 20 centimeters. Rather, we believe that we should continue to base these categorical exclusions on ERP, which generally can be determined more easily and more reliably. Furthermore, HP's proposal would essentially eliminate the categorical exclusion for these devices, since a determination of compliance at 20 cm is essentially what is required for a routine evaluation, and thus could impose an additional unnecessary burden for certain applicants. Even though we will continue to base our categorical exclusions in this case on ERP, HP and other parties can, of course, demonstrate compliance by showing that persons will not be exposed to RF electromagnetic fields in excess of our guidelines. 50. We do agree, however, with HP's argument that we should apply our categorical exclusions consistently to low-power devices. Our original power exclusion threshold of 1.5 watts ERP was based on calculations of the approximate power level at which a device, such as a mobile cellular phone operating on frequencies around 800-900 MHz, would be expected to exceed the applicable MPE power density limit of about 0.5 mW/cm2 at a distance of 20 cm from the radiating antenna. For higher frequencies, above 1.5 GHz, the MPE limit for power density is less restrictive (1.0 mW/cm2), and, therefore, a less restrictive power exclusion threshold can be justified. Using similar calculations, a power exclusion threshold of 3 watts ERP is appropriate for mobile devices operating above 1.5 GHz. 51. In response to HP's suggestion, we will require routine evaluation of unlicensed millimeter-wave mobile devices (that don't meet the definition of a portable device) only if the ERP is 3 watts or more. Based on this same argument, we will require routine evaluation of all other mobile devices operating above 1.5 GHz (that don't meet the definition of a portable device), only if the ERP is 3 watts or more. For mobile devices operating at 1.5 GHz or below, the exclusion threshold will remain at 1.5 watts. We are also amending Table 1 of 47 CFR  1.1307(b), as suggested by HP, to delete the provision for unlicensed PCS and millimeter wave devices recognizing that this might cause confusion, since Table 1 applies generally to fixed transmitters. 52. We appreciate the concerns raised by AirTouch and others that our new rules will pose new burdens for carriers. We have included several provisions in our RF guidelines that are intended to minimize this burden. For example, our categorical exclusion rules were designed to minimize the burden on carriers by instituting thresholds in terms of power and accessibility (e.g., rooftop vs. non-rooftop) that will result in routine evaluation only in situations where the potential for exposure in excess of our limits is significant. In addition, in many cases applicants are required by our operating bureaus only to file a statement demonstrating compliance. Our rules allow, and we encourage, licensees at sites that have multiple transmitters to pool their resources and do a single environmental evaluation covering the entire location (when such an evaluation is required under our rules), thereby reducing the burden that would be incurred if each transmitter had to undertake similar evaluations. Finally, it should be recognized that, even if a transmitting source or facility is not categorically excluded from routine evaluation, no further environmental evaluation or processing is required once an applicant or licensee has determined that RF exposures in accessible areas near their transmitting facilities will be within our guidelines. 3. Amateur Radio Service (ARS) 53. Historically, all licensees and applicants in the ARS have been categorically excluded from performing routine environmental evaluations for compliance with our RF exposure guidelines. In the Report and Order, however, we concluded that there was a potential for amateur stations to cause RF exposure that would exceed our new limits. Accordingly, we decided to require amateur station licensees to: 1) conduct a routine environmental evaluation if they transmit using more than 50 watts; 2) take action to prevent human exposure to excessive RF electromagnetic fields if the routine environmental evaluation indicates that our limits could be exceeded; 3) demonstrate their knowledge of our guidelines through examinations; and 4) indicate in their applications for new licenses and renewals that they have read and understand our rules for limiting RF exposure. 54. In its petition, the ARRL claims that the 50-watt threshold we adopted in the Report and Order, above which amateur radio operators must evaluate their stations, is arbitrary and inappropriate. The ARRL points out that this threshold does not consider important factors, such as frequency, antenna height, antenna gain, emission mode, or duty cycle. The ARRL also notes that many other radio services, including some with higher duty cycles, are categorically excluded from performing routine evaluations even though they may operate with similar or higher power. The ARRL requests that the 50-watt threshold be modified to incorporate power levels contained in its petition, which vary by frequency, or else be increased to at least 150 watts transmitter power output if all parts of the antenna are located at least 10 meters from any area of uncontrolled exposure. 55. Alan Dixon, an amateur radio operator, maintains that it is burdensome and unnecessary for amateur radio operators to perform routine environmental evaluations and, when necessary, EAs. Mr. Dixon states that the amateur radio community utilizes long-established customs of limiting duration of transmissions, using minimal power levels and establishing antenna installations which maximize propagation while inherently limiting unintended exposures. He believes that amateur operators should continue their traditional self-policing, free of "rigid overly-specific RF radiation parameters," given the "utter lack of evidence of detrimental effects thereby." 56. Decision. In the Report and Order, we noted that amateur stations can transmit with up to 1,500 watts peak envelope power on a wide range of frequency bands from 1,800 kHz to over 300 GHz. We also noted that amateur stations are not subject generally to restrictions on antenna gain, antenna placement, duty cycles, and other relevant exposure variables and, as a result, the possibility of human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields in excess of the guidelines could not be completely disregarded. Therefore, we came to the conclusion that a categorical exclusion for all amateur stations is not justified. We continue to believe that is the case. However, we now conclude that a uniform 50-watt categorical exclusion threshold, as adopted in the Report and Order, would cause many amateur station licensees to perform unnecessary routine environmental evaluations. 57. The ARRL is correct that our MPE limits are frequency dependent. Because amateur stations are permitted to transmit in frequency bands covering a wide range of frequencies, the MPE limits that might apply to any particular amateur station operation can vary dramatically. The ARRL argues, quite correctly, that by applying a single power threshold above which a routine environmental evaluation must be performed, the variations that occur in the RF exposure limit as the station transmitter frequency changes are disregarded. The ARRL proposes, in its petition, that we scale the power threshold to match the RF exposure limit. We believe that this proposal makes sense for frequency bands above 10 MHz. However, on frequency bands below 10 MHz, persons are more likely to be located in the "near-field" of the amateur station antenna, where the field strength can vary dramatically in a very short distance. In addition, a simple scaling of the power threshold to match the RF exposure limit below 10 MHz would result in extremely high-powered operations being permitted without any routine environmental evaluation. We believe that a flat 500-watt power threshold below 10 MHz is necessary to ensure that these high-powered amateur stations do not cause human exposure to excessive RF electromagnetic fields. Accordingly, we are adopting the ARRL's proposal by specifying a transmitter power threshold for each individual ARS frequency band. As indicated in the table shown in 47 CFR  97.13(c) of the revised rules, the power threshold for transmissions in the frequency bands below 10 MHz is 500 watts. We have also established this threshold for amateur repeater stations, which are normally located high above ground level and often at commercial sites, and we will base exclusions for these antennas on factors similar to those for paging and cellular antennas, as shown in the revised table, since their operation is similar. For frequency bands above 10 MHz, the power threshold varies from 50 watts to 450 watts. We believe the revised power thresholds for the ARS will eliminate burdensome and unnecessary requirements for most radio amateurs, and thus address the overall concerns raised by the ARRL and Mr. Dixon. These new thresholds, as well as some clarifying language we have added to 47 CFR  97.13(c), also help protect the public from excessive exposure to RF electromagnetic fields produced by ARS stations by requiring that their licensees perform routine environmental evaluations and take appropriate actions if they operate their station in a manner that could cause human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields above that permitted under our guidelines. 4. Compliance at Multiple Transmitter Sites 58. In our Report and Order, we generally retained our policies regarding the environmental evaluation of RF electromagnetic fields at sites with multiple FCC-regulated transmitters. Our existing rules state that, when the RF exposure limits are exceeded in an accessible area due to the RF electromagnetic fields produced by multiple fixed transmitters, actions necessary to bring the area into compliance are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce fields at the non-complying area in excess of 1% of the exposure limits applicable to their transmitter. The rules also state that applicants for proposed (not otherwise excluded) transmitters, facilities, or modifications that would cause non-compliance with our limits at an accessible area previously in compliance are responsible for submitting an EA if the emissions from the applicant's transmitter or facility would result in a field strength or power density at the non-complying area in excess of 1% of the exposure limit applicable to that transmitter or facility. In the case of renewal applicants, a similar requirement applies -- renewal applicants whose (not otherwise excluded) transmitters or facilities contribute field levels in excess of 1% of the applicable exposure limit at an accessible area must submit an EA if the area in question is not in compliance with the applicable RF guidelines. 59. Several petitioners and commenters believe that the 1% level used as our threshold for determining responsibility at a non-complying area is too low. Arch, AT&T Wireless Services (AT&T), BellSouth Corporation (BellSouth), PageNet and PCIA all support raising this threshold from 1% to 10%. However, this proposal is opposed by the Cellular Taskforce and others, who advocate increased regulation and scrutiny at multiple emitter sites. 60. AT&T supports a higher threshold based on its view that a licensee's obligation to share responsibility for compliance at multiple-emitter sites should not be so easily triggered because of the time and expense involved in determining site-wide compliance. PageNet claims that a threshold of 10% or higher would meet our regulatory objectives while significantly minimizing unnecessary and burdensome obligations on licensees. PCIA says that a 1% threshold is too low given the "negligible" likelihood that a contributor of 1% of the limit would be responsible for non-compliance at a site. AT&T, BellSouth and U S WEST maintain that a 1% threshold could discourage co-location, while at the same time local governments are coming to recognize a valid public interest in requiring co-location of transmitters on common facilities or areas whenever feasible. BellSouth also argues that the 1% threshold is impractical due to the lack of equipment capable of measuring power density levels with a margin of error of less than 1% and the likelihood that human error or environmental conditions could easily account for a 1% increase in power density on any given day. The Cellular Taskforce argues that a 10% trigger would potentially leave a great many areas effectively excluded from regulation -- if no facility in an area passed the 10% threshold, then that area could not be brought into compliance. The Cellular Taskforce submits that this is unlikely ever to happen with the existing 1% threshold. 61. Ameritech and AirTouch urge us to establish specific procedures for multiple transmitter situations. For example, Ameritech wants clear direction on the following points: How is the impact from multiple-transmitter locations to be addressed? Will facilities which are categorically excluded still count toward an evaluation of cumulative exposure? How is responsibility for compliance to be "shared", as required by our rules? What procedures apply if one or more licensees refuse to cooperate? Do "in-building" transmitters require environmental evaluation, and should rooftop transmitters be considered in evaluating compliance of such transmitters? 62. AirTouch, BellSouth and PageMart maintain that a site owner, not a licensee, should be responsible for determining compliance with the RF guidelines at multiple-transmitter sites. AirTouch maintains that a site owner is the only party with direct knowledge of all site occupants and their operational characteristics, and is, therefore, in the best position to calculate field levels and determine whether a site is in compliance. Furthermore, AirTouch continues, a site owner could allocate costs associated with compliance responsibilities across all tenants and control tenant access for maintenance purposes. According to AirTouch, imposing responsibilities on site owners is consistent with Commission precedent with respect to other environmental obligations, such as antenna tower marking and lighting. Holly Fournier and Mary Beth Freeman oppose these arguments, suggesting that each operator should be responsible for making sure that its site is in compliance. They argue that many site owners may be unsuspecting landowners who do not have the capability to make sure the transmitter facilities on their property are in compliance. 63. With respect to evaluation at multiple-transmitter sites, AT&T and PCIA propose that we should establish a fixed distance at which compliance should be evaluated. AT&T also suggests we similarly define a "site" as a limited radius around an antenna or group of antennas. PCIA suggests that we should consider defining applicants' or licensees' obligations through the use of a power- and frequency-dependent area delineation, which would provide predictability for carriers while meeting our goals and minimizing unnecessary burdens. AirTouch suggests defining "site" as "a location that houses the antenna(s) of all licensees on the same altitudinal plane and that is under the control of a single site owner." 64. PCIA seeks clarification regarding the phrase in 47 CFR  1.1307(b)(1) just prior to Table 1, which indicates that the phrase "total power of all channels" refers to the sum of the power of all co-located, simultaneously operating transmitters of the facility. PCIA and carriers have interpreted this note to require adding together the transmit power of each individual channel for multi-channel base stations but not requiring aggregating the power of all transmitters operating at a site. PCIA seeks clarification that "facility," as used in the note, is intended to refer to the co-located transmitters owned and operated by a single carrier and not intended to include all other transmitters at an antenna farm or on a rooftop for exclusion purposes. Similarly, AirTouch offers a definition of the term "facility" as "a licensee's unique assembly of antennas, transmitters, support structures, screens, wiring, etc.," with a licensee having "total control and responsibility over content, construction, and management of the facility." 65. PCIA also urges that we clarify our policies with regard to liability for non-compliant multiple transmitter sites. PCIA notes that, since a carrier may have no control over a site, the carrier may not be notified or consulted at the time a subsequent transmitter is added or an existing transmitter is modified. PCIA proposes that we determine that carriers have no obligations with respect to facilities added or modified after they have conducted their own routine assessments of the area, unless the carrier is notified of the change. Similarly, U S WEST argues that liability for non-compliance at multiple-transmitter sites should be borne only by those causing the non-compliance, and that our rules should be revised to assure a "grandfathered" status for existing stations if other stations become co-located. 66. Decision. For the reasons set forth below, we are amending our rules to raise the responsibility threshold, above which licensees at multiple transmitter locations must share responsibility for addressing RF exposure non-compliance problems, from 1% to 5%. We believe that a 5% responsibility threshold will offer relief to relatively low-powered site occupants who do not contribute significantly to the non-compliance and, at the same time, provide for the appropriate allocation of responsibility among major site emitters. Similarly, we are raising the filing threshold that determines whether an applicant must file an EA if the applicant contributes to field levels at an area of non-compliance. We are raising the present threshold of 1% to 5%. Therefore, if an applicant's contribution to the area of non-compliance exceeds 5%, the applicant must file an EA. We are also modifying the language used in our rules somewhat to better explain what is required at multiple-user sites. 67. Our policy with respect to multiple transmitter sites was adopted several years ago and has essentially remained unchanged. The 1% responsibility and filing thresholds have not been seriously questioned until now. These new questions undoubtedly reflect the fact that we have now removed the categorical exclusions for a number of different transmitting facilities, and this has resulted in the necessity for evaluating many more multiple-transmitter situations than was the case previously. Many petitioners give valid reasons for modifying the 1% thresholds. First and foremost, we believe, is the issue of accuracy of determination of field contributions, either through measurements or calculations. BellSouth makes a good point when it notes the difficulties of making accurate determinations to the 1% level. We also see merit in the arguments that a threshold of 1% is too encompassing, particularly in light of the potential that an applicant or licensee could be required to undergo an unnecessary and expensive evaluation and that such a requirement could actually discourage co-location. However, we believe that changing the threshold to 10% goes too far in the other direction, and could lead to the creation of areas of non-compliance. It could also result in some transmitter operators escaping their responsibilities for compliance at multiple transmitter sites. 68. For example, consider the case of a multiple-transmitter site where most of the antennas are paging antennas operating at ERPs of 1000 W or greater. Often such sites involve numerous, densely packed antennas, especially in urban areas. At some points during the day, due to high traffic, most of the antennas may be transmitting almost simultaneously. If there is a compliance problem at such a site, many or most of the antennas may be contributing to the area of non-compliance but not necessarily at the 10% level. Calculations can be used to demonstrate that non-complying areas are more likely to be the result of the contributions of several of these antennas, rather than just one or two. For this reason, it is important not to establish an exclusion threshold that is too high. On the other hand, as noted before, upon reconsideration, we agree that a level of 1% is unreasonable considering the problems of measurement and prediction accuracy and also the potential for unnecessary impact on small contributors. We believe that a 5% threshold represents a reasonable and supportable compromise, and are amending 47 CFR  1.1307(b)(3) accordingly . 69. We agree with Ameritech and AirTouch, and others, that further guidance is needed on how to address multiple transmitter situations. In general, we intend that our rules, along with the guidance given in a revised FCC bulletin on evaluating compliance, OET Bulletin 65, will be sufficiently clear and complete so that licensees can readily determine their compliance with our RF exposure requirements. In adopting this Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, we are attempting to address those areas where parties have indicated that confusion may exist. We recognize, however, that additional questions are likely to arise over time, especially with regard to particular multiple-transmitter situations. We direct staff to work with the industry to address such questions that may arise, both through the revision of Bulletin 65 and in response to inquiries regarding specific situations. 70. The key trigger with respect to our RF exposure rules is the existence of an accessible area where RF field levels will exceed our MPE limits. As delineated in 47 CFR  1.1307(b)(3) as amended by this Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, responsibility is to be shared among those transmitter facilities contributing above the 5% threshold at a non- complying area. Since such situations can arise according to a variety of criteria, including transmitter power, antenna height, frequency and associated RF exposure limit, location of fencing to restrict access, etc., we can see no easy way to define a "site" or to specify some arbitrary radius around antennas at which compliance must be evaluated. However, we believe that it will not be difficult for most applicants to determine areas which are accessible. Applicants should be able to calculate, based on frequency, power, and antenna configuration, the distance from their transmitting antenna where their signal produces field levels equal to, or greater than, 5% of the relevant RF exposure limit. Applicants are then responsible for evaluating compliance in any accessible areas within this distance from their transmitting antenna. 71. In evaluating compliance in accessible areas, applicants are expected to make a good- faith effort to consider RF emissions from other nearby transmitters. However, we do not believe it is realistic, practical, or necessary for applicants to consider extremely weak signals that are not likely to present a significant risk for exposure in excess of our limits. Accordingly, applicants need only consider those RF emissions produced by nearby transmitting facilities that exceed 5% of their relevant RF exposure limit. The percentages of the relevant RF exposure limits produced by each station are added, to determine whether the limits are (or would be) exceeded as a result of the RF emissions from the multiple transmitter facilities. If the limits are exceeded, then the applicant and the other responsible parties must address the problem (or the applicant can file an EA). 72. With respect to in-building transmitters, Ameritech interprets our rules adopted in the Report and Order as indicating that these transmitters would be categorically excluded from routine evaluation. In general, this is a correct interpretation. In-building transmitters are normally low-powered devices intended only to provide service within the building, or a portion of the building. As such, most in-building transmitters do not represent a significant risk for causing exposures in excess of our guidelines, and, except for unlicensed PCS and millimeter- wave devices, they are categorically excluded from requirements for routine evaluation because of their low power. However, we emphasize that all FCC-regulated transmitters are expected to comply with our applicable guidelines, regardless of whether they are categorically excluded or not. We see no reason to alter our policy on in-building transmitters at the present time, and no specific proposals were made in the petitions to do so. However, we may revisit this issue at a later date if there is new evidence that certain categories of in-building transmitters could present an exposure problem. 73. We appreciate the arguments raised by the petitioners who advocate that site owners (rather than individual licensees) be responsible for determining and ensuring compliance with our RF exposure requirements. However, in an earlier decision regarding the streamlining of our antenna structure clearance procedure, we determined that responsibilities pertaining to RF electromagnetic fields properly belonged with our licensees and applicants, rather than with site owners. We agree with the concerns raised by Holly Fournier and Mary Beth Freeman that many site owners may not have the capability or understanding to make sure that transmitter facilities on their property are in compliance. Finally, since the area in which a licensee is responsible for addressing non-compliance problems (i.e., the contour within which the station's power density exceeds 5% of the relevant RF exposure limit) can extend for several meters from the transmitting antenna itself, it is conceivable that the accessible areas where our RF exposure limits are exceeded may involve multiple site owners or transmitting antennas located at other sites, making it difficult for a single site owner to ensure compliance. 74. Nevertheless, we recognize that a site owner has significant control over applicants' and licensees' abilities to comply with our RF exposure requirements. For example, a site owner can determine whether a licensee will be permitted to erect a fence to limit public access in areas where the uncontrolled RF exposure limits may be exceeded. For sites where there are multiple licensees, the site owner also may be able to encourage the licensees to cooperate to find a common solution to problems caused by multiple transmitters. In addition, site owners may be able to take steps that would allow co-location of transmitting facilities. We believe that such co-location is highly desirable -- it can reduce the number of locations at which the potential for RF exposure must be evaluated, and it can facilitate the ability of applicants to get through the state and local zoning approval processes. Accordingly, we urge site owners to allow applicants and licensees to take reasonable steps to comply with our RF exposure requirements and, where feasible, encourage co-location of transmitters and common solutions for controlling access to areas where our RF exposure limits might be exceeded. 75. In response to the questions posed by Ameritech, PCIA, and U S WEST regarding how the responsibility for compliance is to be shared at multiple transmitter sites, we do not intend to specify detailed instructions on how to allocate responsibility. One logical suggestion would be to assign compliance costs according to the percentage contributions at the non- complying area(s) for situations involving no change in transmitter facilities. An alternative would be, as suggested by PCIA, to require an applicant for a new facility to resolve the problem. Section 1.1307(b)(3)(i) of our new rules states that it is the responsibility of a new applicant to submit an EA if their transmitter will create a non-complying situation at a location previously in compliance. However, we recognize that some particular circumstances may dictate different solutions. Accordingly, we encourage our licensees and applicants to work in a cooperative manner to address these problems. We note that, at most broadcast antenna farms, cooperative agreements have been developed to ensure compliance with applicable RF exposure guidelines. We see no reason why such agreements also cannot be used at other antenna sites. In response to the concern raised by Ameritech, we encourage any applicant or licensee to notify the appropriate Commission licensing bureau if the operator of a co-located transmitter will not cooperate in addressing a non-compliance problem. This has occurred in the past with respect to broadcast sites, and our staff, as needed, has encouraged the non-cooperating licensee to assist in correcting the problem when appropriate. Similarly, we encourage applicants to notify our licensing bureaus if they believe that existing licensees are not allowing them reasonable access to a site, or are attempting to place unreasonable financial burdens on them. In this regard, we emphasize that if a transmitter at a multiple-transmitter site is approved under one set of guidelines but, later, another transmitter locates at the site and, as is required, operates under new exposure criteria, then the new criteria must be used to evaluate the entire site. 76. We are amending 47 CFR  1.1307(b)(1), as requested by PCIA, to clarify the meaning of the phrase "total power of all channels" in Table 1. PCIA is correct that the term "facility" used in this context refers to the co-located transmitters owned and operated by a single carrier and is not intended to apply to all other transmitters that may be co-located at an antenna farm or on a rooftop for purposes of exclusion from routine evaluation. 77. Finally, in reviewing the issues raised in the various petitions, we have found that the rules adopted in the Report and Order are imprecise with respect to how to calculate the 5% threshold of responsibility for addressing non-compliance situations. Our rules specify RF exposure limits in terms of electric field strength, magnetic field strength, and power density. It is the square of the field strength or power density that is most relevant in determining the potential effect of RF emissions on the human body. Therefore, we are modifying our rules to make it clear that the 5% threshold applies to the power density limit or to the square of electric or magnetic field strength limit. 5. Preemption of State and Local RF Regulations 78. Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 amends the Communications Act to provide a means for seeking relief of state and local regulations concerning the construction, placement or modification of "personal wireless service" facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of RF emissions. Section 332(c)(7)(C)(i) of the Communications Act defines "personal wireless services" as "commercial mobile services, unlicensed wireless services, and common carrier wireless exchange access services." Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) provides that parties adversely affected by a state or local action concerning the construction, placement or modification of a personal wireless service facility that is based on concerns over RF emissions may seek relief from the courts or by petition to the Commission. 79. We have previously considered the question of whether we should consider requests for relief filed under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v) for licenses in communications services other than those defined by Congress as "personal wireless services." In the Report and Order, we chose not to consider requests for relief filed under 332(c)(7)(B)(v) for communications services not specifically defined as "personal wireless services" in Section 332(c)(7)(C)(i). We indicated that we expected that many states and localities would agree that no further regulation is warranted once they had an opportunity to review and analyze the guidelines we were adopting. We also indicated that, should our expectations prove to be misplaced and should FCC licensees in other services encounter a pattern of state or local activities which constitute an obstacle to the scheme of federal control of radio facilities set forth in the Communications Act, they should present us with such evidence as well as their view of the legal basis which could justify FCC preemption of state and local ordinances that concern other communication services. 80. In its petition for reconsideration, the EEA maintains that we were presented in the record of this proceeding substantial evidence to support adopting a preemption rule that would be applicable to all RF transmitters. EEA notes that it filed, in 1994, a petition for rulemaking requesting such broad preemption, but its petition was only partially addressed in the Report and Order. EEA indicates that its petition presented specific evidence of restrictive state and local regulations that affected different types of FCC-authorized facilities, including both broadcast stations and "personal wireless service" facilities. EEA also indicates that it spelled out in its 1994 petition the legal basis for a broad preemption policy. 81. EEA argues that there is no rational basis for differentiating between personal wireless service facilities and other RF transmitters in preempting state and local regulation of RF emissions. From the perspective of health and safety, EEA states that there should be no distinction in the RF exposure regulations applying to various RF emitters (other than technically-justified differences in RF limits according to frequency). EEA claims that the fact that Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act only addressed the personal wireless services does not preclude broader preemption. EEA points out that we have already determined that we may implement new requirements under the Telecommunications Act by applying them to broader classes of carriers than were specifically mandated by the Act, especially when such action will facilitate the promotion of nationwide communications policy objectives. By not applying consistent preemption, EEA argues that we could be creating situations where some transmitters are subject only to FCC regulation, while others are subject to both federal and state or local regulation for RF exposure. EEA notes that this could result in different requirements being placed on transmitters operating at the same location or even within the same frequency range, which they argue would be unfair, unjustified, and unnecessary. 82. EEA complains that, if we were to allow a "checkerboard" of state and local RF regulation that was not consistent with our guidelines, the implementation of new services such as digital broadcasting, and the transition to the digital environment, could be severely impaired. The NAB and the Wireless Cable Association International, Inc., (WCAI) expressed their support for EEA's position on broadening preemptive authority. Also, the ARRL notes that there is "no possible justification" for preempting state and local RF regulation for one radio service and not for others, particularly for amateur stations. The ARRL maintains that there is no indication in the Telecommunications Act or elsewhere that Congress intended that we could selectively preempt state and local RF regulation based only on the category of radio service affected. 83. Ameritech suggests that we further exercise our powers under Section 704 of the Act by preempting state and local regulation of the operation of personal wireless service facilities. Ameritech contends that allowing state and local governments to govern how a station operates would be tantamount to saying "you can build your station but you cannot turn it on." Ameritech also suggests that we establish a federal "rule of liability" for torts related to the environmental effects of RF emissions, so that licensees can avoid "unnecessary and conflicting" lawsuits by ensuring that they comply with our guidelines. 84. EEA supports Ameritech's proposal for the preemption of the operation of personal wireless facilities and maintains that it provides additional reasons why the Commission's "partial" preemption rule will have the effect of "unduly impeding" the construction and operation of facilities, since its rationale "applies with equal force" to all FCC-licensed transmitters. David Fichtenberg (Fichtenberg) opposes Ameritech's proposal noting that the word "operation" found in the original version of H.R. 1555 brought to the Conference Committee, "was explicitly removed" from the final Conference Report. Fichtenberg claims that this shows that Congress did not intend for the Commission to preempt the operation of transmitting facilities. Fichtenberg's position was supported by Alan Golden, Holly Fournier and Mary Beth Freeman. Ameritech disagrees. Ameritech states that rather than deleting the word "operation" from the preemption language in the Act, Congress stated in the Conference Report: The limitations on the role and powers of the Commission under this subparagraph relate to local land use regulations are not intended to limit or affect the Commission's general authority over radio telecommunications, including authority to regulate the construction, modification and operation of radio facilities. 85. Ameritech argues that this language clearly indicates that Congress recognizes the Commission's plenary authority over the operation of radio facilities and intends that the FCC continue to exercise this authority without limitation. Ameritech contends that this language suggests that the word "operation" was merely deleted because it was superfluous. EEA agrees that, under the opposing commenters' interpretation, a locality could not prevent the siting and construction of an FCC-licensed facility but could, nonetheless, prevent its operation. According to EEA, this would be a complete evasion of Congresses mandate for preemption of the regulation of RF emissions. 86. David Fichtenberg and others oppose the requests to broaden our preemption of state and local regulation of RF emissions. Mr. Fichtenberg describes various studies that, he believes, support this opposition and discusses at length why he believes that the intent of Congress was only to preempt "personal wireless services." Dr. Marjorie Lundquist maintains that we possess no expertise with respect to public health and, therefore, we are a "questionable" choice as the agency to establish preemptive health guidelines for RF emissions. The Ad-hoc Association says that we should only preempt the regulation of the placement, construction and modification of personal wireless facilities on the basis of environmental effects of RF emissions, and not for any other reasons. The Ad-hoc Association suggests that we should also acknowledge that local jurisdictions have the authority to require further measurements of RF emissions for health and safety reasons, in particular, so that local jurisdictions can notify persons, hospitals or businesses of the potential for electrical interference. Holly Fournier and Mary Beth Freeman oppose requests for expanded preemption, pointing out that in light of government cutbacks and the rapid deployment of telecommunications facilities it is important that state and local jurisdictions oversee the proper operation of these facilities. 87. Ameritech opposes the suggestions of David Fichtenberg, Dr. Marjorie Lundquist and the Ad-hoc Association. According to Ameritech, duplicate regulation at the federal and state/local level would prove "disastrous" for industry, which could be required to comply with potentially conflicting standards. Furthermore, Ameritech notes, the various studies referred to by Mr. Fichtenberg "only point to the need for a uniform approach to RF regulation, which can only be carried out at the federal level." Mr. Fichtenberg's comments are also opposed by the EEA, which declares that Mr. Fichtenberg is wrong in his interpretations of the Telecommunications Act with regard to broad-based preemption. 88. Decision. Based upon the current record in this proceeding, we find that there is insufficient evidence at this time to warrant our preempting state and local actions that are based on concerns over RF emissions for services other than those defined by Congress as "personal wireless services." We note that on May 30, 1997, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) and the Association of Maximum Service Television (MSTV) (jointly NAB/MSTV) filed a Petition for Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, urging preemption of certain state and local government restrictions on the siting of broadcast transmission facilities, based on petitioner's claims that unreasonable state and local regulations have frustrated the siting of broadcast facilities and could impede the Commission's scheduled conversion to the new digital television service. The NAB/MSTV petition, which raises additional preemption issues for broadcasting, will be addressed in a subsequent Commission action. 89. Concerning Ameritech's proposal that the Commission preempt state and local regulations concerning the operation of facilities based on RF-emission considerations, we agree with Ameritech that Congress did not intend to prevent the Commission from preempting state and local regulations concerning the operations of facilities simply by deleting the term "operation" from the final version of Section 332(c)(7). On the contrary, Congress made it clear, in the Conference Report, that enactment of Section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act was not meant to affect the Commission's general authority to regulate the operation of radio facilities. We find that the alternative reading is illogical and would render the statute useless and produce absurd results which Congress could not have intended. Therefore, we will continue to consider requests for relief of state and local government actions that prescribe or restrict the operation of personal wireless facilities pursuant to the authority granted to the Commission by Congress in Section 332(c)(7). 90. Regarding Ameritech's argument that the Commission should specify a federal rule of liability for torts related to RF emissions, we believe that such action is beyond the scope of this proceeding and we question whether such an action, which would preempt too broad a scope of legal actions, would otherwise be appropriate. Therefore, we cannot grant Ameritech's request. 6. Definition of "Covered SMR" Service 91. In the Report and Order, we required the routine evaluation of RF electromagnetic fields produced from certain "covered" Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) operations. See Table 1 of 47 CFR  1.1307(b)(1). We also required the routine evaluation of certain portable and mobile transmitters used for covered SMR service as a condition for equipment authorization or use. See 47 CFR  2.1091(c) and 2.1093(c). Covered SMR was defined as including geographic area SMR licensees in the 800-MHz and 900-MHz bands that offer real-time, two- way switched voice service that is interconnected with the public switched network and Incumbent Wide Area SMR licensees, as defined in Section 20.3 of our rules. This definition was consistent with that used in a variety of recent proceedings relating to wireless issues. Non-covered SMR operations were categorically excluded from performing routine environmental evaluations under our rules. In adopting different requirements for covered and non-covered SMRs, we were trying to ensure that those SMR operations that had the potential for causing excessive RF electromagnetic fields were subject to routine evaluations, and those that had little potential, were not. 92. The American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc., (AMTA) argues that the definition for covered SMR adopted in the Report and Order should be narrowed. AMTA claims that the current covered SMR definition encompasses a large number of operators that provide primarily a dispatch service. It would also include, AMTA argues, systems that typically employ "push to talk" technology but allow interconnection capability as an ancillary feature. AMTA believes that it was our intent to cover only SMRs capable of serving the general consumer marketplace similar to cellular telephone or Personal Communications Service (PCS) stations. 93. AMTA has researched what factors distinguish traditional SMR systems from those that would operate in the consumer-oriented market. AMTA has identified one feature that, to the best of its knowledge, is present in all cellular and cellular-like systems, as well as in SMR systems seeking to compete with them. According to AMTA, unlike traditional, local SMR facilities, systems in each of these categories have an "in-network switching facility." This facility, AMTA explains, enables the system to reuse frequencies dynamically and thereby develop sufficient capacity to accommodate a mass market subscriber base, and to handoff communications between sites without manual subscriber intervention. 94. As a result of its analysis, AMTA proposes to add the following new definition paragraph to Section 20.3 of the rules. "Mobile Telephone Switching Facility. An electronic switching system that is used to terminate mobile stations for purposes of interconnection to each other and to trunks interfacing with the public switched network. AMTA also proposes to modify the definitions in Sections 20.3 and 20.12 of the rules as follows: "Incumbent Wide Area SMR Licensees. Licensees who have obtained extended implementation authorizations in the 800 MHz or 900 MHz service, either by waiver or under Section 90.629 of these rules, and who offer two-way interconnected voice service using a mobile telephone switching facility." [emphasis in original] Section 20.12(a) "This Section is applicable only to providers of Broadband Personal Communications Services (Part 24, Subpart E of this chapter), providers of Cellular Radio Telephone Service (Part 22, Subpart H of this chapter), providers of Specialized Mobile Radio Services in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands that hold geographic licenses (included in Part 90,Subpart S of this chapter) and who offer two-way interconnected voice service using a mobile telephone switching facility, and Incumbent Wide Area SMR Licensees." If we decide not to accept the above proposals, AMTA suggests modifying the covered SMR definition to apply only to systems serving more than 20,000 subscribers nationwide. 95. AT&T supports the AMTA request to narrow the definition of covered SMR and thereby expand the categorical exclusion for SMRs in general. AT&T asks that we also categorically exclude similar facilities used by AT&T to provide only data under other radio services. AT&T's position is supported by AirTouch. However, it is opposed by the Cellular Taskforce, which is concerned that such systems will proliferate rapidly in the near future. PCIA supports modifying the definition of covered SMR consistent with other proceedings, and notes that it has petitioned for reconsideration of this definition in several proceedings where this term has been used. 96. RAM Mobile Data USA Limited Partnership (RMD) comments that it operates SMR systems that provide "interconnected" mobile data services that do not offer real-time, two-way switched voice service. As such, RMD notes that its systems are currently excluded from our definition of "covered SMR" for purposes of environmental evaluation for RF exposure. RMD agrees that this exclusion is reasonable, since RMD's systems, unlike cellular and broadband PCS voice systems, typically involve relatively short duty-cycle transmissions and do not expose users to RF electromagnetic fields for extended periods of time. In commenting on the AMTA and PCIA petitions, RMD claims that the definition of "covered SMR" proposed by AMTA could, inadvertently, bring RMD's mobile data systems within the scope of the definition, and RMD advises us to reject AMTA's suggestions. 97. RMD maintains that AMTA's suggested alternative definition, based on the number of subscribers, would lead to inappropriate inclusions and exclusions from coverage. RMD points out that the number of subscribers served by a system is not relevant in determining whether a system would expose its users to excessive RF electromagnetic fields. Nonetheless, RMD does recognize that "hardship considerations" might favor an exclusion from "covered" status for small SMR systems. RMD urges us to retain the functional approach used in our definition of covered SMR services and to continue to exclude from that definition data-only SMR systems. 98. Decision. The petitions and comments filed regarding our definition of covered SMR raise a number of legitimate questions. For example, should our RF exposure requirements cover only certain SMRs, such as those that offer services comparable to cellular telephone and PCS stations? Is there a rationale based on RF exposure and health considerations for applying different requirements to different types of SMR operators? After considering the petitions and comments, and revisiting the basis for the decisions we made in the Report and Order, we now believe that our RF exposure rules should not differentiate between different types of SMR operations. Accordingly, we are modifying our rules to replace the term "covered SMR" with "SMR." As a result, all of the existing requirements for routine environmental evaluations will apply to all SMR operations. 99. There are several reasons why we now think that the RF exposure rules should be applied to all SMRs. First, all SMR operations are authorized to use the same power levels, regardless of whether they are providing "covered" services or not. Second, certain SMR operations that would not meet the covered SMR definition, such as those providing dispatch services, can operate with a very high duty cycle during peak periods of the day. These SMR operations are also looking to increase the utilization of their spectrum by providing other capabilities in off-peak periods. Third, some of the SMRs targeted towards limited business use (as opposed to general public use) still provide interconnection capability, again potentially increasing the duty cycle. Fourth, the power levels of SMR stations are generally similar to those for paging, cellular and other stations which are covered by the RF exposure requirements. They generally exceed the typical power levels of other land mobile stations that we have categorically excluded. The possibilities for high power level and high duty cycle means that many SMRs would have a similar potential for causing exposure to excessive RF electromagnetic fields as paging, cellular, and PCS stations. Based on these considerations, we now believe that there is a potential for our RF exposure limits being exceeded by SMR operations, regardless of whether they meet the definition of a covered SMR or not, and conclude that all SMRs should be covered by our RF exposure rules. We are retaining the categorical exclusions for SMR based on height of the antenna and power, as indicated in Appendix A. 7. Development of a Revised Version of OST Bulletin 65 100. Since 1985, the Commission has made available a technical publication designed for use by Commission licensees and applicants as an aid in evaluating compliance with our RF exposure guidelines. As mentioned previously, we are now updating this publication, OST Bulletin 65, to reflect our adoption of new guidelines. 101. Some of the petitioners and commenters express opinions and offer suggestions about our procedures for developing this document and for allowing review of the revised draft. Ameritech maintains that we should ensure that "all affected parties" are given an opportunity to participate in the formulation of the bulletin. Ameritech points out that we will likely receive the most useful comments from those industry representatives who are faced with concrete compliance responsibilities and who may have a greater incentive to focus on the practical impact of the new guidelines. The EEA urges us to establish an "open consultative" process for revising and issuing any bulletins that are aimed at implementation of the new guidelines. PageNet notes that the forthcoming bulletin is needed to clarify the new RF rules as issued in the Report and Order. PCIA proposes that the revised Bulletin 65 be subject to public notice and comment procedures, arguing that this could highlight areas where guidance is needed by industry. 102. Decision. It should be emphasized that the guidance provided in Bulletin 65 is not binding and cannot be construed as a substantive rule; rather the Bulletin merely provides information and interpretations that may be used in complying with our RF exposure guidelines. Other methods of determining compliance are acceptable so long as they are based on generally accepted scientific methods. In the introduction of the existing bulletin, we indicate that: 1) the bulletin is not designed to establish mandatory procedures; 2) the bulletin is meant to provide guidance and assistance in evaluating compliance; and 3) other methods and procedures for evaluating compliance may be acceptable if based on sound engineering practice. 103. In September, 1996, a draft of a revised Bulletin 65 was sent to approximately fifty outside reviewers for comment and suggestions. The reviewers included a broad spectrum of technical experts and representatives from government, industry and academia, and many of these individuals are affiliated with telecommunications entities regulated by the Commission. Many comments were received by late October. Our staff has reviewed these comments and incorporated many of them into the final bulletin. Any additional review would needlessly delay the release of this important document. Therefore, we will not grant requests made by PCIA and others for a more extensive period of public comment. We will, however, take under consideration the comments of PageNet and others regarding areas that need to be addressed in the bulletin. In addition, Bulletin 65 may be revised periodically based upon feedback and questions from industry and the public. 8. Miscellaneous Clarifications and Corrections 104. Since issuing our Report and Order in this proceeding, we have identified a few corrections and clarifications that need to be made to rule sections that were amended. We are hereby making these changes (see Appendix A) to our rules as follows: (1) Paragraph (b)(1) of 47 CFR  1.1307 is modified to make it clear that both our MPE limits contained in 47 CFR  1.1310 and our SAR limits contained in 47 CFR  2.1093 generally apply, as appropriate, to all facilities, operations, and transmitters regulated by the Commission. The rule adopted in the Report and Order only made this specific statement with respect to MPE limits. This was an oversight, and a modification is being made here to prevent possible confusion. (2) Table 1 in paragraph (b)(1) of 47 CFR  1.1307 is modified to insert the words "ERP" that were inadvertently omitted from column 2 in the section of the table referencing evaluation criteria for Personal Communications Services in Part 24. (3) We are amending our rules to make it clear that our categorical exclusions apply to transmitters mounted on the sides of buildings as well as those mounted on building roofs. Therefore, we are replacing the term "rooftop" with the term "building-mounted" in our rules for purposes of defining categorical exclusion. We believe that this change will remove possible confusion in the existing rules and will avoid potential situations where persons could be exposed to RF emissions in excess of our guidelines. (4) Minor language changes have been made to the entry in Table 1 of Appendix A for Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) requirements (subpart L of part 101) to clearly reference the FCC adopted RF exposure limits in 47 CFR  1.1310. (5) Paragraph (b)(4) of 47 CFR  1.1307 is modified to correct a typographical error. (6) Paragraph (b) of 47 CFR  2.1091, which applies to mobile devices, excluded devices intended to be used in "fixed locations." However, the term "fixed locations" was not defined. There was a possibility that some parties might incorrectly assume that certain consumer devices, such as wireless transmitters attached to a computer, are not covered by this paragraph. Accordingly, a definition for "fixed location" has now been added. Language has also been added to this paragraph, and to paragraph (b) of 47 CFR  2.1093, to clarify our definitions of these devices and to make it clear that radiating "antenna" is intended to mean the "radiating structure" or structures of a mobile, unlicensed or portable device. We have also deleted the words "unlicensed devices" from the caption for Section 2.1091 to avoid confusion, since unlicensed devices can also be evaluated under 47 CFR  2.1093, if they are classified as a "portable" device. (7) A new paragraph (d)(4) is added to 47 CFR  2.1091 to cover special cases where devices may not be easily classified as either mobile or portable. Examples would be modular or desktop transmitters. The wording in paragraph (d)(3) has also been modified to make it clear that warning labels and instructional materials may be used to attain compliance, if appropriate, for all devices covered by this rule part. (8) Paragraph (d) of 47 CFR  2.1093 is modified to reflect the fact that evaluation for RF exposure due to portable devices in terms of specific absorption rate (SAR) is only valid in the frequency range of 100 kHz to 6 GHz and that evaluation of portable devices above 6 GHz should be in terms of compliance with MPE limits for power density. It is further stipulated that measurements or calculations for compliance can be made at a minimum distance of 5 cm from the transmitting source. (9) The Report and Order failed to amend 47 CFR  26.51(d) and 47 CFR  26.52 that deal with RF hazards in the General Wireless Communications Service (GWCS). These sections have been changed to conform to the new guidelines, and a category for GWCS transmitters has been added to Table 1 in Appendix A. In addition, 47 CFR  2.1091 and 47 CFR  2.1093 have been amended to require evaluation of GWCS portable devices and mobile devices operating above 3 watts EIRP. Exclusion levels for non-mobile and non-portable GWCS transmitters have been established as 1640 watts EIRP, in conformance with the exclusion threshold established for the Wireless Communications Service authorized under Part 27 of the Commission's rules. This threshold is based on calculations of reasonable distances from antennas where individuals might be expected to approach an antenna and where exposures would likely exceed the MPE limits. Since all of the above changes to the rules involve minor or merely technical clarifying amendments, additional public notice and comment on these changes, beyond that given in the original Notice are unnecessary pursuant to Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act. 9. Petitions for Reconsideration of Transition Period Extension 105. The First Memorandum Opinion and Order (First MO&O) in this proceeding extended the transition period for implementing the FCC's policies and guidelines for RF compliance. Additional petitions for reconsideration were submitted to the Commission in response to the First MO&O, in accordance with Section 1.429 of the Commission's rules [47 CFR  1.429(i)]. For various reasons, these petitioners request that we reconsider our decision on extending the transition period. 106. The Ad-hoc Association opposes the extension and urges the Commission to implement the guidelines without further delay. The Ad-hoc Association claims that in extending the transition period the Commission: (1) did not consult with federal health and safety agencies to determine the public health consequences of such action; (2) did not consider the adverse health effects of its action on people who live, work or attend school in the vicinity of FCC-regulated transmitters; (3) did not adequately explain the reason why it did not concur with the Ad-hoc Association's earlier objections to extension; (4) did not consider new information now available on the health consequences of human exposure to low-level RF fields; (5) has effectively established a transition period with two sets of limits (since the Commission applied new guidelines to PCS facilities in 1994). The Ad-hoc Association also maintains that other petitioners seeking an extension of the transition period have not established proof that implementation by the original date would be unreasonably burdensome, nor have they justified the necessity for awaiting publication of the Revised OET Bulletin 65 before implementing new guidelines. 107. The Cellular Phone Taskforce also opposes our extension of the transition period, claiming that the extension will allow the proliferation of facilities that will harm and discriminate against individuals who are "electrosensitive." The Cellular Phone Taskforce states that recent evidence and studies support its position, including evidence that "thousands of people" in New York City are suffering from "radiation sickness" as a result of PCS technology. 108. In their comments, Ameritech and AT& T Wireless disagree with the statements made by the Ad-hoc Association and the Cellular Phone Taskforce. Ameritech and AT&T Wireless say that the Ad-hoc Association has underestimated the resources and effort needed to achieve compliance with the FCC's new RF guidelines and policies. AT&T Wireless argues further that nothing in the petitions of the Ad-hoc Association and the Cellular Phone Taskforce justifies a reversal of the Commission's decision and that rather than demonstrating that delaying the transition date would be harmful to public health the petitioners have simply repeated claims made in their previous petitions. The Cellular Telephone Taskforce responds that this view is premature pending resolution of the issues raised in the original petitions. The Taskforce also maintains that in opposing its petition, Ameritech has not addressed any of the concerns raised by the Taskforce regarding compliance with the new guidelines. 109. Ameritech and Northeast request that the transition period be extended even further beyond the September 1, 1997, date specified in the First MO&O. Ameritech and Northeast urge the Commission to link the effective date of new guidelines to the release of the Commission's revised Bulletin 65, which will provide guidance on compliance for applicants and licensees. Specifically, they maintain that the new date should be one year after release of Bulletin 65 to give applicants and licensees ample time to accurately evaluate their compliance with the new policies and guidelines. Ameritech and Northeast argue that given the many complex issues raised by the new guidelines and the petitions for reconsideration it may be several months before the revised Bulletin can be issued and, consequently, industry will not have adequate time to comply with the new rules. As an alternative, Ameritech and Northeast request that the Commission announce its intention to take a "flexible approach" in further extending the September 1, 1997, deadline or in granting requests for waivers of this deadline. Comments filed by AirTouch Communications, Inc., and AT&T Wireless support the petitions of Ameritech and Northeast. However, AirTouch suggests that if a one-year extension beyond release of Bulletin 65 is not possible, an eight-month extension would be reasonable. 110. Decision. In our First MO&O in this proceeding we stated that we have no evidence that extending the transition period would have a significant adverse effect on public health. We re-state that conclusion. The new RF exposure guidelines are in certain respects more restrictive than those they replace, particularly with respect to exposure of the general public. However, with regard to most of the personal wireless facilities that are the subject of the petitions of the Ad-hoc Association and the Cellular Phone Taskforce, there is ample evidence that most of these facilities will result in levels of exposure of the general public that are many times lower than our new guidelines. 111. As previously discussed in this Order and in the original Report and Order in this proceeding, we have relied on the advice and comments of the federal health and safety agencies as to what levels of RF exposure are protective of the public health. The Commission does not have the expertise to make independent judgements on such alleged health effects as "electrosensitivity" or other reported effects on human health. This is the responsibility of the federal health and safety agencies and other qualified public health organizations. Therefore, we continue to consider our new guidelines appropriately protective of public health. There is no evidence to suggest that transmitters or facilities that comply with our guidelines will cause adverse health effects. Our guidelines adopt the most conservative aspects of the ANSI/IEEE and the NCRP recommended exposure criteria and have been recommended by all of the relevant health and safety agencies. Moveover, we do not agree with the Ad-hoc Association and the Cellular Phone Taskforce that even a minimal extension of the initial transition period should be denied. We agree with Ameritech, Northeast, Airtouch and AT&T Wireless that a further extension is necessary to allow applicants and licensees sufficient time to analyze the newly revised version of OET Bulletin 65. 112. For these reasons we will agree to a limited further extension of the transition period to October 15, 1997. Since this Order and the revised Bulletin 65 will be issued at the same time, this will allow sufficient time for applicants and licensees to review these documents. Copies of this Order and the revised Bulletin 65 will be immediately available on the Commission's World Wide Web page (www.fcc.gov). We do not agree that there is a need for a period as long as eight months to one year beyond issuance of the final version of Bulletin 65. Ample time has already been given to applicants and licensees to begin considering compliance issues, and, as noted, a preliminary draft of Bulletin 65 was made available to many outside reviewers several months ago. Therefore, the petitions of Ameritech and Northeast are partially granted. 10. Treatment of Existing Facilities, Operations and Devices 113. Under the rules adopted in the Report and Order in this proceeding, as modified by the First MO&O, all applications to the FCC for construction permits, license renewals and requests for station modifications filed after September 1, 1997 are subject to analysis under our new RF exposure guidelines, whereas existing sites are required to come into compliance only at the time of renewal or modification. In our Order today, we extend the initial transition period under Section 1.1307(b)(4) for implementing the new RF exposure guidelines to October 15, 1997, and clarify that all new facilities constructed after that date must comply with the new guidelines, regardless of whether an application is filed with the Commission. Licensees filing applications for new facilities, renewals or modifications are also required to bring their operations into compliance with the new guidelines. We also revise our rules to require existing sites to come into compliance as of a date certain. 114. We are revising our rules because we believe that the health and safety concerns that underlie the adoption of our new guidelines warrant reconsideration of the ways we have applied these requirements in the past. Previously, our rules have been triggered by applications for new facilities, modifications to existing facilities, or renewals of existing licenses. Although this approach is appropriate for most of the broad range of environmental issues our rules were designed to address, we believe that a different approach is warranted in matters of RF exposure. Because of potential public heath and safety concerns, we adopted more conservative RF exposure guidelines based on the recommendations of the relevant federal health and safety agencies, and we will require all new facilities constructed after the effective date of this Order to comply with the new guidelines by a date certain. We also believe this approach is consistent with Congressional intent underlying Section 704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, that the Commission's rules in this proceeding "contain adequate, appropriate and necessary levels of protection to the public." We recognize that licensees require a reasonable amount of time to bring existing facilities into compliance due to the variety of different site configurations and settings. Accordingly, we will require all existing facilities to be brought into compliance with the new rules no later than September 1, 2000. If a licensee believes that its facility cannot be brought into compliance, the licensee must file an Environmental Assessment by this date. III. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING A. Introduction 115. This proceeding was originally initiated by Commission staff to consider issues concerning Sections 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) - (v) of the Communications Act. However, while these issues were being studied, on March 19, 1997, the Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA) sent a letter to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) requesting that the WTB initiate a proceeding to develop policy guidelines that clearly set forth under what circumstances state and local "testing and documentation requirements related to the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions become so onerous as to effectively constitute state regulation of these emissions." PCIA asks that, inter alia, we: (1) clearly define what testing and reporting procedures states and localities may adopt in order to ensure compliance with federal RF regulations; (2) prohibit adducing evidence regarding the health effects of RF emissions at zoning board hearings absent an affirmative showing that the zoning applicant has failed to comply with federal standards; and (3) promulgate streamlined procedures for processing petitions that request preemption of state and local rules that attempt to regulate RF emissions in a manner inconsistent with federal standards. On July 15, 1997, the Commission's Local and State Government Advisory Committee (LSGAC) submitted its Recommendation Number 5 concerning PCIA's letter. LSGAC recommends that the Commission work with state and local governments and industry to recommend a mutually acceptable RF testing and documentation protocol that may be adopted by state and local governments. Because we are considering the issues raised by PCIA in this Notice, we will incorporate PCIA's letter and the LSGAC Letter into the record and consider both as comments in this proceeding. 116. CTIA first raised the issue of the preemption of state and local government regulations that bar or impede Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers from locating or constructing new towers in a petition filed in 1994 (CTIA '94 Petition). However, the Conference Report accompanying the passage of the Telecommunications Act, stated that the Commission should terminate "[A]ny pending Commission rulemaking concerning the preemption of local zoning authority over the placement, construction or modification of CMS facilities . . . ." In addition, now that a national wireless facilities siting policy has been incorporated into Section 332 of the Communications Act, many of the issues raised by CTIA are now moot. As such, we are dismissing the CTIA '94 Petition. 117. In this proceeding, we seek comment on proposed procedures for filing and reviewing requests filed pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)-(v) of the Communications Act for relief from state or local regulations on the placement, construction or modification of personal wireless service facilities based either directly or indirectly on the environmental effects of RF emissions. As the siting of personal wireless facilities expands and numerous new personal wireless service providers seek to construct their facilities, we anticipate being called upon more frequently to review petitions alleging that a state or local government has acted or failed to act in a manner that is inconsistent with Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)-(v). Therefore, we believe it is appropriate to initiate a rulemaking proceeding to seek comment on the procedures we should adopt for reviewing Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv)-(v) petitions. 118. In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Telecommunications Act"), Congress gave the Commission authority to grant relief from state or local regulations of personal wireless service facilities based on the environmental effects of RF emissions to the extent that the facilities in question comply with the Commission's rules regarding such emissions. While we have considered, in the Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order in this proceeding, the more general questions of how to define the term "personal wireless services," with respect to consideration of requests for relief filed under Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act, and whether we have the authority to consider actions that are taken with respect to operating facilities, we have not previously considered whether to adopt formal procedures for reviewing such requests. In order to most effectively and efficiently implement the provisions of the Telecommunications Act regarding RF emissions and personal wireless service facilities siting, we believe that clear procedures must be developed that allow parties adversely affected by actions or regulations based on RF emissions to petition for relief and that also allow interested parties to participate in proceedings addressing such petitions. This Notice seeks comment on procedures to permit the rapid resolution of such requests, and proposes definitions for v