Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)


)

Reassessment of Federal Communications
)
ET Docket No. 13-84
Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and
)

Policies
)


)

Proposed Changes in the Commission's Rules
)
ET Docket No. 03-137
Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency
)
Electromagnetic Fields
)

)

FIRST REPORT AND ORDER

FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING

AND

NOTICE OF INQUIRY

Adopted: March 27, 2013
Released: March 29, 2013

Comment Date: (90 days after date of publication in the Federal Register).
Reply Comment Date: (150 days after date of publication in the Federal Register).

By the Commission:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Heading
Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................. 10
III. REPORT AND ORDER ...................................................................................................................... 14
A. Evaluation of RF Exposure ............................................................................................................ 18
1. Primacy of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) over Power Density or Field Strength
below 6 GHz ............................................................................................................................ 18
2. Technical Evaluation References in Rules .............................................................................. 28
3. Pinna (Outer Ear) Classification as an Extremity .................................................................... 42
4. Part 1 / Part 95 MedRadio (formerly Medical Implant Communications Service)
Measurement Consistency ....................................................................................................... 51
B. Mitigation ....................................................................................................................................... 57
1. Labeling and Instructions for Mobile and Portable Devices Intended for Occupational
Use Only .................................................................................................................................. 58
2. Clarification of Application of Occupational Exposure Limits ............................................... 64
3. Responsibility for Compliance at Fixed Sites with Multiple Transmitters ............................. 80
4. Labeling and Installation of Fixed Consumer Transmitters .................................................... 85
C. Effective Date ................................................................................................................................ 98
D. Deletion of Old Rules and Update of Portable and Mobile Service Evaluation List ................... 105
IV. FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING .................................................................. 108

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

A. Definition of Terms Related to our Further Proposals ................................................................. 110
B. Exemption: Power and Distance Criteria to Streamline Determination of Compliance .............. 114
1. Blanket 1 mW Exemption ..................................................................................................... 121
2. MPE-Based Exemption of Fixed, Mobile, and Portable RF Sources .................................... 127
a. Single Transmitters ......................................................................................................... 128
b. Multiple Fixed Transmitters ........................................................................................... 139
c. Summation for RF Sources without Definable Physical Relationships is not
Required .......................................................................................................................... 142
3. SAR-Based Exemption of Fixed, Mobile, and Portable RF Sources .................................... 145
a. Single Transmitters ......................................................................................................... 148
b. Multiple Portable Transmitters ....................................................................................... 154
c. Multiple Portable and Mobile Transmitters .................................................................... 161
d. Portable Transmitters with Operating Frequencies above Six Gigahertz or at
Distances Greater than λ/2π ............................................................................................ 161
C. Evaluation of Portable Devices .................................................................................................... 167
1. Consistency in Usage of Any Valid Method for SAR Computation ..................................... 168
2. Removal of Minimum Evaluation Distance Requirement from Rules for Frequencies
above Six Gigahertz .............................................................................................................. 170
3. Technical Evaluation References in Rules ............................................................................ 173
D. Mitigation ..................................................................................................................................... 175
1. Transient Exposure in Controlled Environments near Fixed RF Sources ............................. 175
2. Proximity Restriction and Disclosure Requirements for Fixed RF Sources ......................... 184
E. Review and Update All RF Safety Text in Parts 1 and 2 for Clarity and Consistency ................ 204
V. NOTICE OF INQUIRY ..................................................................................................................... 205
A. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 205
B. Background .................................................................................................................................. 211
C. Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 216
1. Exposure Limits .................................................................................................................... 218
2. Consumer Information .......................................................................................................... 231
3. Exposure Reduction Policies ................................................................................................. 236
4. Evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 244
5. Proximity Restriction and Disclosure Requirements for Portable RF Sources ..................... 248
VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS .............................................................................................................. 253
A. Final and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ......................................................................... 253
B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis ............................................................................................. 255
C. Filing Requirements ..................................................................................................................... 259
D. Ex Parte Rules .............................................................................................................................. 262
E. Congressional Review Act ........................................................................................................... 263
VII. ORDERING CLAUSES .................................................................................................................... 264
APPENDIX A- Final Rules
APPENDIX B- Proposed Rules
APPENDIX C- Derivation of General MPE-Based Exemption from RF Evaluation for Single RF Sources
APPENDIX D- Derivation of General SAR-Based Exemption from RF Evaluation for Single RF Sources
APPENDIX E- Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
APPENDIX F- Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
APPENDIX G- List of Commenters
APPENDIX H- Summary of Comments and Discussion on Non-Action Topics from the 2003 Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
Periodic review of the government’s rules and regulations to ensure they have kept pace
with current knowledge and changing needs is an important characteristic of good government, and we

2

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

here will advance the process of providing a comprehensive review and modification, where appropriate,
of this Commission’s various rules pertaining to the implementation of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) requirements for environmental reviews, specifically those reviews related to health and
safety of radiofrequency (RF) emissions from radio transmitters. Our actions herein are intended to
ensure that our measures are compliant with our environmental responsibilities and requirements and that
the public is appropriately protected from any potential adverse effects from RF exposure as provided by
our rules, while avoiding any unnecessary burden in complying with these rules. This document is
divided into three parts: a Report and Order (Order) and a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(Further Notice) in ET Docket No. 03-137, and a Notice of Inquiry (Inquiry) in a new docket, ET Docket
No. 13-84. In the Order we conclude several technical and semantic issues initiated in 2003 that revise
and update our regulations implementing NEPA; in the Further Notice we propose to further update and
revise our procedures and treat all services equally; and in the Inquiry we request comment to determine
whether our RF exposure limits and policies need to be reassessed. The purpose of the Order and Further
Notice is to advance ET Docket 03-137 with respect to how to demonstrate compliance with NEPA and
our RF exposure limits, but that proceeding does not reach the issue of whether our exposure limits are
appropriate. Since consideration of the limits themselves is explicitly outside of the scope of ET Docket
03-137, we propose with the Inquiry to open a new docket to consider those limits in light of more recent
developments. The Inquiry is intended to open discussion on both the currency of our RF exposure limits
and possible policy approaches regarding RF exposure. We look forward to developing a complete
record to determine whether the current rules and policies should remain unchanged, or should be relaxed
or tightened.
2.
Order. In the Order, we resolve several issues regarding compliance with our regulations
for conducting environmental reviews under NEPA as they relate to the guidelines for human exposure to
RF electromagnetic fields. More specifically, we clarify evaluation procedures and references to
determine compliance with our limits, including specific absorption rate (SAR) as a primary metric for
compliance, consideration of the pinna (outer ear) as an extremity, and measurement of medical implant
exposure. We also elaborate on mitigation procedures to ensure compliance with our limits, including
labeling and other requirements for occupational exposure classification, clarification of compliance
responsibility at multiple transmitter sites, and labeling of fixed consumer transmitters. A summary of
significant comments and discussion on topics initiated by the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice)1
but that do not necessitate changes to or substantively clarify our rules are provided in Appendix H and
involve summation of SAR for multiple transmitters, classification of modular devices, spatial averaging
methods near fixed transmitters, and local zoning concerns. We defer some decisions on topics initiated
by the Notice and make new proposals in the Further Notice, which extends the Notice’s scope to
encompass specific items that either were raised in comments for the first time or have evolved
significantly since the Notice was issued, including the categorical exclusion of fixed transmitters.
3.
Further Notice. In the Further Notice, we seek comment on new proposals developed in
the course of this proceeding regarding compliance with our guidelines for human exposure to RF
electromagnetic fields. Our proposals reflect an effort to provide more efficient, practical, and consistent
application of evaluation procedures to ensure compliance with our guidelines limiting human exposure
to RF energy from Commission-regulated transmitters and devices. We are proposing to broadly revise
and harmonize the criteria for determining whether single or multiple fixed,2 mobile,3 or portable4 RF

1 Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Notice), ET Docket 03-137, Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rules
Regarding Human Exposure to Radio frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 18 FCC Rcd 13187 (2003). A list of
commenters is in Appendix G.
2 We propose the term “fixed” in the Further Notice infra to describe an RF source that is physically secured at one
location and is not able to be easily moved to another location while transmitting. Temporary fixed transmitters
such as a “cell-on-wheels” (COW) or a temporary fixed earth station (TFES) are considered fixed sources which
may be able to be easily moved to another location, but since these types of transmitters are not licensed to transmit
while in motion they would also conform to the proposed description of the term “fixed RF source.”

3

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

sources are subject to routine evaluation for compliance with the RF exposure limits or are exempted
from such evaluations. Additionally, we propose clarifications of evaluation requirements for portable
and medical implant devices. We also propose to adopt specific new requirements for signs and barriers
at fixed transmitter sites to ensure compliance with public and occupational exposure limits. Further, we
propose a clarification of the definition of transient exposure for non-workers exposed at levels up to
occupational limits.
4.
With the Further Notice we make proposals by which we seek to streamline and
harmonize many procedures to achieve equal treatment of RF-emitting sources based on their physical
properties rather than service categories. Thus, we propose establishing general exemptions from
evaluation to determine compliance in place of existing service-specific “categorical exclusions.” These
proposed exemptions involve simple calculations to establish whether any further determination of
compliance is necessary. Currently, routine evaluations are required for specific rule subparts meeting
certain criteria (see Table 1 in section 1.1307(b)(1) and text in (b)(2)).5 The new, general exemptions
would instead apply to all subparts authorizing RF sources, including some that are not presently listed.
Given the trend toward opportunistic spectrum access to allow services to utilize multiple bands of
frequencies with various power limits, inclusion of all services is necessary to better ensure compliance
with our exposure limits. Simple calculations should reduce the likelihood of requiring unnecessary and
burdensome evaluations for low-power portable devices. Additionally, we seek to allow the computation
of SAR for evaluation using any valid method to encourage technological development and greater
competition in the computational software marketplace.
5.
Inquiry. We initiate a new proceeding with a Notice of Inquiry to determine whether
there is a need for reassessment of the Commission radiofrequency (RF) exposure limits and policies.
The Inquiry focuses on three elements: the propriety of our existing standards and policies, possible
options for precautionary exposure reduction, and possible improvements to our equipment authorization
process and policies as they relate to RF exposure. We adopted our present exposure limits in 1996,
based on guidance from federal safety, health, and environmental agencies using recommendations
published separately by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) and the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE).6 Since 1996, the International Commission
on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) has developed a recommendation supported by the
World Health Organization (WHO), and the IEEE has revised its recommendations several times, while
the NCRP has continued to support its recommendation as we use it in our current rules. In the Inquiry,
we ask whether our exposure limits remain appropriate given the differences in the various
recommendations that have developed and recognizing additional progress in research subsequent to the
adoption of our existing exposure limits.
6.
Since the Commission is not a health and safety agency, we defer to other organizations
and agencies with respect to interpreting the biological research necessary to determine what levels are
safe. As such, the Commission invites health and safety agencies and the public to comment on the
propriety of our general present limits and whether additional precautions may be appropriate in some
cases, for example with respect to children. We recognize our responsibility to both protect the public
(Continued from previous page)
3 cf. 47 CFR § 2.1091(b) – a mobile device is used in locations other than fixed locations in such a way that a
separation distance of at least 20 centimeters is normally maintained. We propose in the Further Notice infra the
term “separation distance” to be defined as the minimum distance in any direction, from any part of the radiating
structure of a transmitting antenna or antenna array, to the body of a nearby person.
4 cf. 47 CFR § 2.1093(b) – a portable device is used in locations other than fixed locations in such a way that a
separation distance less than 20 centimeters is normally maintained.
5 See 47 CFR § 1.1307(b).
6 The Standards Association body of the IEEE dealing with standards development for human exposure to
electromagnetic energy is called the International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety (ICES).

4

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

from established adverse effects due to exposure to RF energy and allow industry to provide
telecommunications services to the public in the most efficient and practical manner possible. In the
Inquiry we ask whether any precautionary action would be either useful or counterproductive, given that
there is a lack of scientific consensus about the possibility of adverse health effects at exposure levels at
or below our existing limits. Further, if any action is found to be useful, we inquire whether it could be
efficient and practical.
7.
In the Inquiry we ask questions about several other issues related to public information,
precautionary measures, and evaluation procedures. Specifically, we seek comment on the feasibility of
evaluating portable RF sources without a separation distance when worn on the body to ensure
compliance with our limits under present-day usage conditions. We ask whether the Commission should
consistently require either disclosure of the maximum SAR value or other more reliable exposure data in
a standard format – perhaps in manuals, at point-of-sale, or on a website. Additionally, we seek comment
on appropriate education and outreach to the public on low-level exposure to RF energy from fixed
transmitters in the environment. We also inquire about aspects of evaluation procedures to establish
whether the standardization process can be improved considering the fast pace at which technology
changes.
8.
Environmental Evaluation. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
requires agencies of the Federal Government to evaluate the environmental effects of proposed major
federal actions that significantly effect the quality of the human environment.7 The Commission’s NEPA
regulations (47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1301-1.1319) include guidelines for human exposure to RF energy emitted by
Commission-regulated transmitters and facilities based on the recommendations of expert agencies and
organizations with responsibilities for health and safety.8 The regulations and guidelines that govern
human exposure to RF radiation prescribe acceptable levels of RF exposure and procedures to
demonstrate compliance with applicable RF exposure limits. The rule changes that we adopt in the Order
and propose in the Further Notice do not change the existing RF exposure limits or have a practical effect
on human exposure to RF radiation. They consist instead of technical, non-substantive changes in how
RF exposure is evaluated and how compliance with the existing RF exposure limit is demonstrated. In
reliance on the analysis/recommendations of agencies and organizations with expertise over RF
measurement and the health effects from human exposure to RF radiation,9 we find that none of the rule
changes adopted or proposed herein have potentially significant effects on the quality of the human
environment for purposes of NEPA, the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”)

7 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4335.
8 See 47 CFR § 1.1307(b), Report and Order in ET Docket 93-62 (Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental
Effects of Radio frequency Radiation), 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1996); Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket 93-62, 12 FCC Rcd 13494 (1997), aff’d sub nom, Cellular Phone
Taskforce v. Federal Communications Commission, 205 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000).
9 See, Order ¶¶ 23-26 (revising the rules to allow evaluation of SAR to demonstrate RF compliance for all fixed and
mobile RF sources in reliance on a report of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
(NCRP) regarding the comparative safety of SAR and MPE methodologies); Order ¶¶ 55-56 (deciding to classify
the pinna as an extremity based on the deliberations of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
(which had included a review of the pinna’s tissue composition and recent research regarding the thermophysiology
of the tissue when used near various devices) and on the assessment of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
that the increased deposition of power to the outer ear (due to its treatment as an extremity) is not of significant
concern); Further Notice ¶¶ 185-203 (relying on a combination of publications from IEEE, NCRP, and expert
engineers cooperating with the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) to develop a proposal for signage and
access restriction for compliance with exposure limits at fixed transmitter sites); and Further Notice ¶ 196 –
Category Four (proposing an option to defer to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
lockout/tagout procedures to ensure human safety near high power transmitters where exposure could exceed ten
times the occupational limit).

5

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

(40 C.F.R. Parts 1500-1508), or the Commission’s environmental rules.10 This includes consideration of
the pinnae (outer ears) as similar to hands, feet, wrists and ankles in reliance on the expert determinations
of IEEE and FDA that this is appropriate for evaluating human exposure to RF radiation and its effects on
human health.
9.
We also seek comments from the public, from any federal agency with jurisdiction by
law or expertise over the environmental impact of human exposure to RF energy, and from expert
organizations, regarding the potential environmental impacts, including any cumulative impacts, of the
rule changes proposed in the Further Notice. Finally, we propose that any NEPA evaluation is premature
at this time with respect to the Inquiry, which merely seeks to determine whether there is a basis to
reevaluate the Commission’s RF exposure limits and policies. Such impact will be considered and the
need for an environmental assessment (EA) will be evaluated at that time if we decide in the future to
adopt new rules in the course of the new docket initiated by the Inquiry.

II.

BACKGROUND

10.
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.11 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 Commission-regulated transmitters and
facilities, and the Commission has adopted rules and guidelines, as required,12 establishing acceptable
levels of such exposure.13
11.
In its 1996 Report and Order and its 1997 Second Memorandum Opinion and Order in
ET Docket 93-62,14 the Commission established guidelines for evaluating the environmental effects of
radiofrequency radiation. These guidelines include limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) and
Specific Absorption Rate (SAR), including limits for both whole-body and partial-body exposures, based

10 This rulemaking, which revises the FCC regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), does not require an environmental review under NEPA. The Council on Environmental Quality
regulations do not direct agencies to prepare a NEPA analysis or document before establishing Agency procedures
(such as this regulation) that supplement the CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA. Agencies are required to
adopt NEPA procedures that establish specific criteria for, and identification of, three classes of actions: those that
normally require preparation of an environmental impact statement; those that normally require preparation of an
environmental assessment; and those that are categorically excluded from further NEPA review (40 CFR 1507.3(b)).
Categorical exclusions are one part of those agency procedures, and therefore establishing categorical exclusions
does not require preparation of a NEPA analysis or document. Agency NEPA procedures are procedural guidance to
assist agencies in the fulfillment of agency responsibilities under NEPA, but are not the agency’s final determination
of what level of NEPA analysis is required for a particular proposed action. The requirements for establishing
agency NEPA procedures are set forth at 40 CFR 1505.1 and 1507.3. The determination that establishing
categorical exclusions does not require NEPA analysis and documentation has been upheld in Heartwood, Inc. v.
U.S. Forest Service, 73 F. Supp. 2d 962, 972-73 (S.D. Ill. 1999), aff’d, 230 F.3d 947, 954-55 (7th Cir. 2000).
Furthermore, having consulted with, and relied on the recommendations of federal agencies and organizations with
expertise in measuring RF exposure and evaluating the significance of exposure to RF radiation on human health,
we find that the rule changes adopted or proposed herein will not have a significant environmental effect.
11 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4335.
12 See footnote 176, infra.
13 See 47 CFR § 1.1307(b).
14 Report and Order in ET Docket 93-62 (Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radio frequency
Radiation), 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1996); Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rule
Making in ET Docket 93-62, 12 FCC Rcd 13494 (1997).


6

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

on criteria published by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)15 and
by the American National Standards Institute/Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.
(ANSI/IEEE).16 The 1996 Report and Order also established “categorical exclusions” from routine
environmental evaluation for RF exposure for radio stations and existing facilities, which have technical
characteristics that minimize the likelihood of exceeding our guidelines.
12.
In its 2003 Notice in this proceeding,17 the Commission noted that some transmitters and
devices categorically excluded from routine environmental evaluation for RF compliance may be
inappropriately excluded and that certain exclusion criteria can be harmonized to govern similar facilities
in different services. In addition, it proposed to revise certain rules to clarify the responsibilities of
licensees and grantees and to ensure compliance with its RF exposure rules in a more practical, consistent,
and efficient manner. Accordingly, the Commission made several evaluation requirement proposals
related to compliance with the limits for human exposure from fixed, mobile, and portable transmitters.
The Commission did not propose to modify the exposure limits themselves, which were developed in
conjunction with other federal agencies that have primary expertise in health and safety.18 Consistent
with prior documents in this proceeding, this Order and the companion Further Notice herein do not
invite comment regarding the exposure limits themselves; however, the exposure limits are subject to
review in a new proceeding, beginning with the Inquiry, which is the final part of this document.
13.
As discussed in further detail in the Inquiry infra,19 the International Commission on
Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) published exposure guidelines in 1998,20 and the IEEE
published a major revision to its RF exposure standard in 2006.21 Every IEEE standard is subjected to
review at least once every five years for revision or reaffirmation, so either a new revision of IEEE Std
C95.1 or a reaffirmation of the latest version is expected in the near future. Having already released its
latest guidelines on low frequency fields in 2010,22 we anticipate that ICNIRP may also release a revision

15 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria
for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, NCRP Report No. 86, Sections 17.4.1, 17.4.1.1, 17.4.2, 17.4.3 and
17.4.5, copyright 1986 by NCRP, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. The National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements is a nonprofit corporation chartered by Congress in 1964 primarily to collect, analyze, develop, and
disseminate information on radiation protection.
16 American National Standards Institute (ANSI), IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure
to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, ANSI/IEEE Std C95.1-1992, Sections 4.1 and 4.2,
copyright 1991 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), New York, New York 10017.
IEEE is a non-profit international professional association of electrical and electronics engineers involved in
technology standards development. ANSI is a private, not-for-profit organization that oversees its members and
constituents throughout the process of standards development.
17 Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket 03-137, Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rules Regarding
Human Exposure to Radio frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 18 FCC Rcd 13187 (2003). A list of commenters is in
Appendix G.
18 Id. at 13189.
19 See ¶¶ 211- 215 infra.
20 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to
Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (Up to 300 GHz), Health Physics 74 (4): 494-522,
1998. ICNIRP is an international non-profit-making body of independent scientific experts addressing the
possibility of adverse effects on human health of exposure to non-ionizing radiation.
21 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to
Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE Std C95.1-2005, copyright
2006 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), New York, New York 10016-5997.
22 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to
time-Varying Electric and Magnetic Fields (1 Hz - 100 kHz), Health Physics 99(6): 818-836, 2010.

7

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

of its RF standard in the near future. These more recent international exposure standards activities have a
fundamentally similar basis in protecting against established adverse health effects due to tissue heating.
However, it is noteworthy that both IEEE and ICNIRP localized SAR limits are 2.0 W/kg averaged over
10 grams as opposed to our existing localized SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg averaged over 1 gram. We also note
that ICNIRP specifies slightly more restrictive MPE limits for continuous exposure than the present
Commission guidelines permit at some frequencies. Also we have observed ongoing international health-
related activity in this area, with the World Health Organization (WHO) initiating its electromagnetic
fields (EMF)23 program in 199624 and continuing its broad efforts in this area with its more recent
publication of model legislation for national entities,25 as well as the International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC) classifying both RF and ELF fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans.26

III.

REPORT AND ORDER

14.
This Order resolves issues raised in the Notice, that have already experienced a notice
and comment period in ET Docket 03-137, and for which an adequate record exists to support a decision.
Generally, this Order seeks to resolve certain evaluation matters involving the determination of potential
exposure levels by calculation or measurement and certain mitigation matters involving post-evaluation
procedures to ensure exposure limits are not exceeded (such as labels, signs, barriers, enforcement, and
occupational issues). Currently, categorical exclusion from Environmental Assessment with respect to
RF exposure can be achieved by either: (1) demonstrating compliance with our RF exposure limits,27 or
(2) falling into a category based on proximity and power level.28 In the Further Notice, we briefly
summarize our original proposals and comments (a more detailed summary can be found in Appendix H)
initiated by the Notice dealing with categorical exclusion and propose new general exemption29 criteria
based on proximity, frequency, and power that will streamline the determination of whether preparation
of a routine RF evaluation is necessary.
15.
As explained in the next paragraph and in the sections which follow, our rule revisions
are intended to provide applicants with alternative methods of showing that they comply with the RF
exposure limits, which could reduce the costs of applying for licenses and grants without relaxing the
current protections against excessive RF exposure. For example, we establish a definitive basis in SAR

23 In the context of the WHO, EMF encompasses the frequency range of 0 to 300 GHz, including extremely low
frequency (ELF) fields.
24 Seehttp://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/EMF_Project/en/index.html"> http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/EMF_Project/en/index.html.
25 See World Health Organization (WHO), Model Legislation for Electromagnetic Fields Protection, Articles 2.1,
7.4 and 7.5, 2006, ISBN 978 92 4 159432 5http://www.who.int/peh-emf/standards/EMF_model_legislation_2007.pdf">, http://www.who.int/peh-
emf/standards/EMF_model_legislation_2007.pdf.
26 See IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 80, Non-Ionizing Radiation,
Part 1: Static and Extremely Low-Frequency (ELF) Electric and Magnetic Fields, World Health Organization
International Agency for Research on Cancer, IARCPress, 2002. See also Carcinogenicity of Radiofrequency
Electromagnetic Fields, Vol. 12, Issue 7, pp. 624-626, WHO IARC Monograph Working Group, Lancet Oncology,
2011.
27 See §§ 1.1306(b)(3) and 1.1307(b).
28 See §§ 1.1307(b)(1) and 1.1307(b)(2).
29 The Commission agrees with comments by BSL (See BSL Comments at 2-7) regarding the proper usage of the
term “categorical exclusion.” Thus, we are using the terminology “exemption” from determination of compliance to
refer to categorical exclusion based on proximity and power in the Further Notice proposals. However, in this
Order, we continue to use “categorical exclusion” in order to be consistent with the Notice. Finally, we retain the
term “categorical exclusion” as it applies to the compliance-based meaning that preparation of an Environmental
Assessment is required if an action would result in human exposure in excess of our limits (§ 1.1306(b)(3)) or for
other matters listed in § 1.1307(a).

8

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

for standard analysis procedures to reliably determine compliance, and we clarify our requirements near
RF transmitters, seeking to reduce costs for licensees and grantees where possible, while maintaining full
compliance with our RF exposure guidelines to ensure safety.30
16.
In this Order, we adopt rules explicitly permitting licensees and grantees to demonstrate
that they comply with the Commission’s RF exposure rules based on specific absorption rate (SAR) in
lieu of maximum permissible exposure (MPE) for fixed and mobile transmitters. Providing an additional
option for parties to demonstrate that they comply with the RF exposure limits could reduce those parties’
expenses in some cases. Additionally, in the Order, we classify the outer ear as an extremity based on
similarities to other parts of the body such as the hands and feet, which are already classified as
extremities. This reclassification of the outer ear as an extremity is consistent with health agency
comment and industry standards and should eliminate unnecessary compliance costs that could occur
under alternative evaluation schemes.
17.
We also in this Order more clearly specify the applicability requirements for
occupational exposure limits at fixed transmitter sites and better define labeling requirements for
occupational users of portable and mobile devices. We finally discuss, clarify, and reaffirm our rules
dealing with responsibility at sites with multiple fixed transmitters, as well as our rules on appropriately
labeling fixed transmitters installed at consumers’ homes.

A.

Evaluation of RF Exposure

18.
Currently, “routine environmental evaluation” is described in our rules as “determination
of compliance” with our exposure limits, which could be achieved by either computation or
measurement.31 Methods for evaluation of compliance include computation and measurement of field
strength, power density, or specific absorption rate (SAR), depending on the RF source. The guidelines
for evaluation of compliance with our human exposure limits can be found in OET Bulletin 65.32
19.
The topics regarding evaluation included in this Order are: use of SAR as a primary
metric over power density or field strength at frequencies below six gigahertz,33 citation to our policies on
evaluation procedures in our rules,34 classification of the pinna (outer ear) as an extremity,35 and use of
SAR measurements in the Part 95 MedRadio devices to be consistent with Part 1.36 As mentioned
previously,37 a summary of significant comments and discussion on topics initiated by the Notice but that
do not necessitate changes to our rules is provided in Appendix H.
1.

Primacy of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) over Power Density or Field
Strength below 6 GHz

20.
Summary. In the Notice, we proposed to allow evaluation based on specific absorption
rate (SAR) in lieu of maximum permissible exposure (MPE) for fixed and mobile transmitters, since the

30 In the Order and Further Notice we deal only with application of our existing exposure limits; however, in the
Inquiry we broach the subject of efficacy and currency of our exposure limits.
31 See §§ 1.1307(b)(1) and 1.1310.
32 OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01, August 1997.
33 See section III. H. of the Notice.
34 Id.
35 See section III. E. of the Notice.
36 See section III. J. of the Notice.
37 See para. 2 supra.

9

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

MPE limits are derived from the SAR limits. Comments received were generally supportive, and we here
incorporate SAR as a primary exposure limit in section 1.1310 of our rules. (Note that this consideration
refers only to fixed and mobile transmitters; SAR evaluation continues to be required for portable
transmitters.)
21.
Original Proposals. In the Notice, we explained that the IEEE standards and NCRP
criteria used in deriving the Commission’s RF exposure criteria are based on allowed levels (“basic
restrictions”) for SAR.38 Because of the impracticality of measuring for SAR within the body at a
distance from a transmitter (e.g., on the ground near a television transmitting antenna or a cellular base
station antenna), these SAR levels were used by the standard-setting bodies to derive reference levels for
MPE that are expressed as field strength and/or power density. These parameters are readily measureable
with common instrumentation in free-space at any location that may be occupied by a body. As a
consequence, when section 1.1310 was adopted it referred only to the MPE values for field strength
and/or power density but not to the underlying SAR values, as SAR evaluation was not a consideration
for fixed or mobile transmitters. In the Notice, we noted that in light of continuing developments in
practical SAR evaluation this section should also specify the SAR values from which the MPE values
were derived, and we proposed to add this specification.39 We also proposed to amend section 1.1310 to
reference the underlying whole-body and/or partial-body SAR values for exposure criteria and to allow
for evaluation of SAR in lieu of power density or field strength for demonstrating compliance.40
22.
Comments. Almost all of the parties that responded to this proposal supported it.41
Motorola, Inc. (Motorola) pointed out that SAR is the basic quantity used to derive the Commission’s
exposure guidelines and, therefore, should be allowed as a compliance metric. Motorola and others also
agreed that simple compliance based on MPE values may overstate the actual RF energy absorption of
persons near transmitters and that SAR is a more accurate indicator of human exposure. The only
commenter expressing reservations regarding our proposal was The EMR Network (EMR Network),42
which contended that SAR should only be used for evaluating compliance in this context when it results
in “greater safety” than an MPE measurement.
23.
Decision. We will amend our rules as proposed to reference the underlying whole-body
and partial-body exposure limits for SAR and to allow evaluation of SAR in lieu of power density or field
strength for demonstrating compliance of all fixed and mobile RF sources below 6 GHz.43 (SAR
evaluation continues to be required as the only acceptable compliance metric for portable devices below 6
GHz.44) Accordingly, we will henceforth consider both MPE and SAR to be appropriate measures for
determining compliance, where applicable. Although SAR evaluation has a more direct relationship to
our exposure limits below 6 GHz, it can be difficult to evaluate in some instances, and so standards bodies
derived MPE as an alternative, essentially equivalent method, that is more practical to use in some
situations. In so doing, in order to ensure that such measurements resulted in compliance with the SAR
limits, conservative measurement methods were specified. Entities can continue to use derived MPE
evaluation methods for fixed and mobile RF sources where appropriate, as long as compliance with both
the whole-body and localized SAR limits are ensured. Although evaluation using either MPE or SAR

38 Notice, 18 FCC Rcd at 13204-05, ¶ 44.
39 Id.
40 Id.
41 See Cingular comments at 15; Dell comments at 3; Ericsson comments at 8; Motorola comments at 14-15; Nokia
comments at 8; T-Mobile comments at 15; TIA comments at 13.
42 See EMR Network comments at 4.
43 See § 1.1310 in Appendix A infra.
44 See § 2.1093.

10

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

may result in somewhat different distances for the same source to achieve compliance with the
measurement metric, the practical effect of those differences will be negligible.
24.
As SAR is the basic restriction developed to safeguard human health from the effects of
RF emissions, compliance with the SAR guidelines directly will provide ipso facto the protection
specified in our RF safety guidelines.45 Additionally, as evaluation under either method provides for
compliance with our RF safety guidelines, both methods ensure “safety;” the essence of our threshold
limit is that any exposure below the limit is protective of humans46 and there is no “greater safety”
associated with selecting whichever evaluation is more restrictive in any given circumstance, as suggested
by EMR Network’s argument.47 The question of whether our current guidelines provide for the public’s
safety from possible health hazards from RF exposure as a general matter is a separate consideration, and
that issue is addressed in our Inquiry, infra. Accordingly, as either method will constrain RF emissions to
levels consistent with our SAR guidelines, this change will not have environmental consequences. We
observe that we already rely on one set of exposure limits over another in some cases, as we require
evaluation using SAR in lieu of MPE at separation distances less than 20 centimeters and frequencies
below 6 GHz and we rely on MPE in lieu of SAR at frequencies above 6 GHz.48 Below 6 GHz, we
clarify here that SAR is primary to MPE at any distance, considering the result of MPE evaluation could
differ from that of SAR evaluation under certain circumstances. Since MPE limits were derived from the
whole-body SAR limits assuming uniform whole-body exposure – not localized or non-uniform exposure
– consideration of localized SAR limits in addition to whole-body SAR becomes necessary at distances
less than 20 centimeters. However, for whole-body exposure at distances greater than 20 centimeters and
below 6 GHz, we continue to consider spatial-averaging techniques as sufficient to use along with MPE
to demonstrate compliance with both localized and whole-body SAR limits in non-uniform fields in most
cases.49
25.
The derived MPE limits are practical and adequate under certain conditions, including
sufficient separation distance from the source. However, we note that accepted, generic procedures for
determining SAR throughout the range of varied circumstances have not been developed. Accordingly,
the acceptability of the procedures that a proponent of an RF source uses to calculate the relevant SAR
values must, at this point, be assessed on an ad hoc basis. More specifically, in a compliance showing
that uses SAR, the proponent must demonstrate that the device was evaluated in all applicable operating
configurations and exposure conditions, considering both whole- and partial-body limits and both near-
and far-field situations. In view of the above, we find that section 1.1310 should reference both the basic
SAR guidelines as well as the derived MPE reference levels. We will continue to allow MPE for
demonstration of compliance with our limits under the conditions we have allowed in the past as a matter
of choice for entities who may wish to trade the occasionally more restrictive results for the relative ease
of application in some cases. Applicants that wish to do so should be allowed to perform a SAR
evaluation in lieu of determining power density or field strength, but only where the applicant

45 See Sections 17.3, Development of the SAR Exposure Criteria, NCRP Report No. 86, Biological Effects and
Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, which describes whole-body SAR as the
“fundamental criterion.”
46 More completely, given the safety factor built into our threshold limit, any exposure below or near the limit is
considered to be protective of humans.
47 See Sections 17.4.1 and 17.4.2, NCRP Report No. 86, Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.
48 Above 6 GHz, we rely on MPE instead of SAR because energy deposition would occur primarily on the surface
of the skin, so an SAR average over a one-centimeter depth of tissue (corresponding to a 1-g cube) would not be
appropriate.
49 We sought comment in the Notice on spatial averaging techniques, and a discussion on the comments we received
is included in Appendix H infra.

11

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

demonstrates the use of valid procedures and conditions (e.g., in supplemental technical information) for
establishing the accuracy, relevance, and enforceability of the SAR evaluation. However, where the
compliance of a device or transmitter installation is based on MPE assessment and is later found to be
noncompliant with the MPE requirement, post factum SAR evaluation showing compliance with the SAR
guidelines will not be allowed as a response to enforcement action. That is, licensees and others desiring
to base compliance on SAR values must choose to do so and document compliance during licensing,
renewal, or equipment authorization, not in response to a Commission enforcement action based on non-
compliance with the MPE limits. Accordingly, we are amending section 1.1310 to reference the
underlying whole-body and partial-body SAR values for exposure criteria, allow for evaluation of SAR in
lieu of power density or field strength when demonstrating compliance at frequencies below 6 GHz, and
require that the demonstration of compliance contain sufficient information for the Commission to
conclude that the evaluation was conducted using technically supportable methods and exposure
conditions in a manner that permits independent assessment. In conjunction with this change, while we
consider the likelihood of such an occurrence to be quite small, we make clear here that SAR evaluation
post factum after a violation of the MPE limits is determined cannot be used to undermine enforceability
of the MPE limits.
26.
The addition of an option to use SAR values for demonstrating RF exposure compliance
should not result in any increased costs since the current option of conducting an MPE-based evaluation
will remain available and can be used as appropriate if, in a particular instance, the applicant determines
that the costs of using the new option are unacceptably higher. We expect that industry will be able to
determine whether the option for SAR evaluation decreases the expected net compliance cost compared to
MPE evaluation on a case-by-case basis. SAR evaluation could result in smaller required separation
distances between people and antennas than those required based on MPE while still ensuring compliance
because it would reduce error in compliance distance determination.50 However, SAR evaluation is
associated with higher analytical and administrative costs, so the SAR option will decrease net cost in
those cases where decreased mitigation costs exceed SAR compliance costs.
27.
Since SAR evaluation costs apply only once to each unique device or antenna
configuration but mitigation costs are ongoing and apply to each individual manufactured device or
installation, even a small decrease in repeated mitigation costs could easily offset the cost of SAR
evaluation. These cost considerations should generally apply to both fixed and mobile transmitters.
International standard procedures have been developed to make use of SAR evaluation for one subset of
radiators – wireless base station antennas.51 Many common low power transmitters classified as mobile
(> 20 cm), such as Wi-Fi and cordless phone bases, smart meter transmitters, or radio-frequency
identification (RFID) readers may be able to show SAR compliance intrinsically on contact such that an
SAR evaluation may eliminate unnecessary or overly restrictive grant conditions, especially if adequate
non-conductive covers, coatings or radomes are used to maintain a specific separation distance necessary
for compliance. Currently, grants of equipment authorization for such devices normally state that a 20 cm
separation distance should be conservatively maintained, but this may be unnecessary if SAR data were
submitted. However, collocated transmitting antennas would have to be considered in SAR evaluations
as appropriate which may diminish the practical use of SAR evaluation.

50 We reiterate here that any such reduction in separation distance, as it would only reduce superfluous separation,
would not affect compliance with our guidelines or environmental impact.
51 See International Electrotechnical Commission, Determination of RF field strength and SAR in the vicinity of
radiocommunication base stations for the purpose of evaluating human exposure, 62232 ed. 1.0, TC/SC 106, 2011,
http://www.iec.ch/">http://www.iec.ch/.

12

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

2.

Technical Evaluation References in Rules

28.
Summary. We intend to discontinue the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET)
Bulletin 65 Supplement C, an informational document which provides guidance and general statements of
our policies with regard to our RF exposure limits for portable and mobile devices, since OET has been
able to provide more up-to-date information for these devices in its Knowledge Database (KDB).52 Thus,
we amend section 2.1093(d)(3) to reference the KDB which will continue to be frequently updated to
reflect our most recent guidance and policies on evaluating compliance with our RF exposure limits.
29.
Original Proposals. As discussed in the Notice, specific guidance on acceptable
procedures for evaluating compliance of portable devices with the Commission’s SAR guidelines is
provided in Supplement C of FCC OET Bulletin 65, issued and updated by the Commission’s Office of
Engineering and Technology, and our rules reference Supplement C where SAR measurement is
implicated.53 These procedures generally reflect those that have been developed for SAR analysis by an
expert committee of the IEEE.54
30.
The references to Supplement C in our rules are understood to incorporate that edition of
Supplement C extant at the time the particular rule was adopted. This results eventually in reference to
outdated protocols and procedures and can result in confusion as to what constitutes acceptable
procedures for evaluating SAR for portable devices. We must follow formal rulemaking procedures to
update outdated references in our rules, however slight or obvious. Accordingly, we proposed to revise
our rules so that they generically reference the most recent edition of Supplement C. We made this
proposal to eliminate confusion about our recommended procedures and so that updates to our guidelines
for device evaluation can be accommodated more quickly through revisions in Supplement C. We also
proposed to delete the reference in section 2.1093(d)(3) of our rules to IEEE Standard C95.3-1991, which
is outdated, and for mobile devices we proposed to add a similar reference to OET Bulletin 65 in the
introductory text of section 2.1091(d). Additionally, we proposed to amend section 2.1093 to indicate
that computational modeling may be used to demonstrate compliance with the SAR limits only if
supported by adequate documentation.
31.
Comments. Many of the commenters on this issue generally agreed that Supplement C is
an appropriate document for providing guidance on acceptable procedures for evaluating SAR from
wireless devices.55 However, some commenters preferred that our rules refer instead to specific standards
developed by expert organizations. Motorola, for example, was concerned that such a reference could
result in a loss of “flexibility” in the guidelines contained in Supplement C and that any subsequent
changes to Supplement C would have to occur through a lengthy rulemaking process. 56 Motorola urged

52 Seehttps://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/"> https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/. OET publishes technical guidance documents on their Knowledge Database
(KDB) website. This guidance is developed by the staff based on individual inquiries for clarification of test
procedures for new technology as well as discussions with test labs and Telecommunications Certification Bodies.
The KDB documents do not necessarily represent the only acceptable methods for measuring RF exposure or
emissions, and are not binding on the Commission or any interested party. Rather, they represent procedures that
have proven useful in specific cases and situations, and which may be helpful to an applicant in settling on testing
procedures that it will use to make an RF emissions exposure determination regarding its own unique device or
technology.
53 See, e.g., §§ 2.1091 and 2.1093 of our rules. 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.1091, 2.1093.
54 IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 34 (SCC34), Subcommittee 2. Recommended Practice for Determining
the Peak Spatial-Average Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in the Human Body Due to Wireless Communications
Devices: Experimental Techniques. IEEE Standard 1528-2003.
55 See Cingular comments at 15; Cisco comments at 12-13; Ericsson comments at 7; IEEE 802 comments at 7;
PalmOne reply comments at 3; Qualcomm comments at 7-8; TIA comments at 10-11; Wi-Fi comments at 10.
56 See Motorola comments at 9-12.

13

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

that the Commission instead reference the specific standards developed by committees of the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). The
Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) also supported incorporating references to
standards of outside expert organizations, such as the IEEE and IEC, rather than references to a document
that, CTIA said, is based on some, but not all, internationally-accepted testing techniques.57 CTIA
pointed out that Supplement C is intended only to provide guidance and that Supplement C clearly states
that it is not intended to establish “mandatory procedures.”
32.
The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) supported a general reference to the
IEEE recommendations that are the basis for the Commission requirements. 58 It strongly recommended
that the Commission rely on international consensus standards. TIA submitted that as IEEE refines SAR
evaluation guidelines, they can be incorporated into Supplement C. TIA was concerned that a general
reference to Supplement C would seem to indicate that the Commission would modify evaluation
requirements without consultation with relevant expert IEEE committees. Further, TIA contended that
Supplement C provides only limited direction. Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco) and Ericsson59 supported the
proposal to reference the most current edition of Supplement C in the rules, and they commented that this
would allow the Commission to rapidly incorporate new evaluation procedures without involving
rulemaking procedures.60 However, Ericsson also believed it is important that the Commission
incorporate the most appropriate international standards and practices developed by the IEEE, IEC, and
the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardization (CENELEC).
33.
APREL61 agreed in principle that the Commission should include reference to
internationally accepted standards, but it commented that reference should be made to all standards that
may have scientific merit, not just those of the IEEE and IEC.62 Nokia suggested that the Commission’s
rules contain a reference to the IEEE standard, as modified by the relevant IEEE committee, to ensure that
the rule reference always points to the most current evaluation methods.63 Nokia, Inc. (Nokia) also urged
the Commission to reference the new IEC standard for evaluating SAR from “body worn” wireless
devices, once this standard is finalized.
34.
PalmOne saw no practical difference between the Commission’s proposal and the
“accepted policy of today.”64 PalmOne supported our proposal, provided that the Commission continues
to allow all relevant standards, such as those of the IEEE and the IEC, to be used, a view also expressed
by IEEE 80265 and Wi-Fi Alliance (Wi-Fi).66 PalmOne noted that a rule reference only to Supplement C
will simplify the evaluation process by allowing manufacturers to reference one document as containing
“preferred guidelines,” while still allowing them to consult other standards if required. PalmOne agreed
with Cisco’s comments supporting referencing Supplement C but, like Cisco, urged caution against
revising the document too rapidly without sufficient notice.

57 See CTIA comments at 11-12.
58 See TIA comments at 10-11.
59 Ericsson, Inc., and SONY Ericsson Mobile Communications, Inc. (Ericsson).
60 See Cisco comments at 12-13; Ericsson comments at 7.
61 APREL Laboratories and Spectrum Sciences Institute (APREL).
62 See APREL comments at 4.
63 See Nokia comments at 7.
64 See PalmOne reply comments at 3.
65 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Local and Metropolitan Area Networks Standards Committee
IEEE 802 (IEEE 802).
66 See IEEE 802 comments at 7; Wi-Fi comments at 10.

14

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

35.
Cingular suggested that public comment should be obtained prior to revising Supplement
C.67 However, PalmOne disagreed and believed that this would negate the intended benefit of the
Commission quickly revising procedures and policies as new advances are made. Qualcomm, Inc.
(Qualcomm) supported the proposal and urged that guidelines for testing of transmitter modules also be
formally incorporated into Supplement C.68
36.
Motorola disagreed with our proposal to amend section 2.1093 to indicate that
computational modeling may be used to demonstrate compliance only if supported by adequate
documentation.69 Motorola maintained that this qualification is not necessary and is redundant since
section 2.1093(c) already requires that technical information must be submitted upon request. Rather than
placing this language in the rules, Motorola suggested the Commission give consideration to
implementing a “declaration of conformity”70 procedure for portable and mobile devices.
37.
Decision. We intend to discontinue use of Supplement C as an informative reference for
evaluation of mobile and portable devices. Thus, instead of adopting a generic reference to Supplement C
in appropriate rule sections, we will reference the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET)
Laboratory Division Knowledge Database (KDB) to provide current guidance and policies on acceptable
procedures for evaluating wireless devices. This will provide us with the ability to promptly update this
guidance as the work of expert bodies and other research indicate that changes are appropriate. Contrary
to Motorola’s concern, the purpose of this change is to allow quicker modifications to our policies
pertaining to evaluation procedures and processes.71
38.
With regard to some commenters’ concerns that we should reference expert bodies and
international standards, we fully intend to continue to use the KDB to provide guidance on techniques and
methodologies recommended by internationally and domestically accepted expert standards bodies, such
as the IEEE and the IEC, to the extent that their standard procedures ensure compliance with our exposure
limits. Commission staff will continue to be active participants on the committees that develop these very
standards. However, contrary to the position of commenters that would have us directly incorporate the
standards of other bodies as our policy, it is the responsibility of this Commission to ensure compliance
with our exposure limits, and thus this agency will make the ultimate judgment as to whether we should
include them. Also, guidance on evaluation methodologies and protocols might not be completely
addressed by individual independent standards. By issuing our own guidance on our policies, we can
communicate how best to incorporate the input of all relevant expert standards, readily use the most
appropriate elements of conflicting outside standards, and also provide any additional information that
may be helpful for evaluation. Additionally, this approach provides us with the flexibility necessary to
implement certain changes to our policies in advance of universal agreement, when it becomes apparent
that such changes are warranted. For example, the FCC Laboratory has continued to establish further
policies on test procedures for new technologies (such as LTE and WiMax devices) and for specific
products (such as handsets and other consumer devices with multiple transmitters) in the KDB that lack
descriptive test procedures in existing independent measurement standards.
39.
As pointed out by CTIA, the Introduction to Supplement C states that the document is not
intended to establish mandatory procedures, and other methods and procedures may also be acceptable if
based on sound engineering practice. By the same token, each new device and technology submitted for

67 See Cingular comments at 15.
68 See Qualcomm comments at 7-8.
69 See Motorola comments at 11-12.
70 See 47 CFR § 2.906.
71 Rulemaking procedures are obviated by the Administrative Procedure Act for interpretative guidance and general
statements of our policy. See Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(A). Exceptions to rulemaking
include “interpretative rules, general statements of policy, or rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice.”

15

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

our approval requires its own showing and is evaluated on its own merits; use of a recommended
evaluation procedure does not automatically guarantee acceptance of the device or technology if, in the
given case, such procedure proves inadequate or otherwise unacceptable. This flexibility continues to be
the case with our OET Bulletins and their Supplements, and information contained in the KDB, with our
goal being to provide the most up-to-date guidance for evaluation of RF exposure from portable and
mobile devices, while making prospective grantees aware of the techniques and methodologies that we
recommend and believe will best ensure compliance with our RF exposure limits, albeit without elevating
such recommendations to the level of a guarantee. The information contained in the KDB also provides
the framework and guidelines for Telecommunications Certification Bodies (TCBs) to approve evolving
products and technologies. Parties will continue to be able to demonstrate compliance with our rules by
other means if based on sound validated methodologies. Given the increased currency of the KDB
compared to Supplement C, the retirement of the latter should address the concerns of TIA and others
regarding the adequacy of the Commission’s supplementary information providing guidance on
evaluation.
40.
Another purpose of our change in policy to reference the KDB procedures in lieu of
Supplement C is to eliminate any ambiguity about procedures that the FCC Laboratory has found
acceptable. Recent technology changes have outpaced the development of generally accepted standards,
requiring the FCC Laboratory to develop policies on procedures in the KDB to reliably determine the
compliance of new and increasingly complex devices where accepted standards may not provide
sufficient detail, and where Supplement C also does not provide sufficient detail. As standards
organizations ultimately deliberate new procedures, we give due consideration to modifying and
consolidating our recommended procedures in the KDB to reflect the state of standards development. We
see no alternative to using the KDB or similar online Commission-controlled mechanism as an
informative aid to communicate our policies on evaluation procedures to rapidly approve new devices
while fulfilling our responsibility to transparently assure compliance with our exposure limits. In the
competitive proprietary device market the first public information on a device often comes from our
approval process. Because of this, manufacturers proposing to use a new technology often submit
applications for approval late in their process and request expedited approval in an attempt to be
significantly first to market and ahead of the competition. The use of the KDB as a reflection of our
policies has thus evolved to meet the industry need for rapid approval of non-standard technologies which
is clearly a significant, if not an easily quantifiable, benefit to early adopters of a new technology in a
competitive industry. Moreover, the KDB provides benefits to parties seeking equipment authorizations,
by providing information on the Commission’s RF safety policies regarding new devices more quickly
than technical standards bodies can develop independent procedures for those devices. Clearly, there are
also costs associated with the ongoing uncertainty and the process of maintaining current awareness of
such a rapidly changing and complex online resource as the KDB. However, these costs are outweighed
by the significant benefits of the KDB as a more responsive means of guidance on evaluation procedures
for new technology than can be offered by Supplement C.
41.
We are also adopting our proposal to modify the language of section 2.1093(d)(3) to
require that adequate documentation be provided in all cases relying on computational modeling. This is
not redundant, as argued by Motorola,72 since the change from an “upon request” regime would alter the
timing of the submission and relieve the Commission of having to engage in an ad hoc process of issuing
information requests for this type of material. Since our evaluation of the appropriateness of
computational modeling techniques and protocols that an applicant uses to demonstrate compliance with
the SAR limits will typically necessitate our review of the documentation supporting these techniques and
protocols, the most efficient approach for conducting this evaluation is to require the applicant to submit
such documentation upfront, as a matter of course, in all cases where computational modeling is used.

72 See Motorola comments at 11-12.

16

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

3.

Pinna (Outer Ear) Classification as an Extremity

42.
Summary. Currently, the outer ear, or “pinna,” is not included on the list of exceptions
from the localized SAR limits for “extremities” in the Commission’s rules.73 Nor has the Commission
treated the pinna as subject to the localized SAR limits applicable to the head; nor has it required parties
seeking equipment authorizations to measure or calculate localized SAR in the pinna.74 This is because
there is no standard for SAR measurement in the pinna. IEEE Std 1528-2003 describes the measurement
procedure to be used for SAR measurement in the human head from cell phones. It states in pertinent part
that, “[t]he measurement of SAR induced in the external tissues of the head, e.g., the external ear (pinna),
is not addressed in this standard.”75 It states further that, “[t]his recommended practice does not address
the measurement of SAR induced in the external tissues of the head, e.g., the external ear (pinna).”76
However, as explained further below, the IEEE subsequently initiated deliberations to consider
classifying the pinna as an extremity.
43.
Accordingly, in the Notice, we requested comment on classifying the pinna (outer ear) as an
extremity, to which less stringent exposure criteria would apply. While we received comments both for and
against this classification, we amend section 1.1310 of our rules to subject the pinna to the same RF exposure
limit currently applicable to hands, wrists, feet, and ankles.77
44.
Background. Our localized SAR limit for the general population is 1.6 W/kg as averaged
over any one gram cube of tissue, except for extremities, explicitly defined in our existing rules as the
hands, wrists, feet, and ankles, where the limit is 4 W/kg as averaged over any ten gram cube of tissue.78
(For occupational exposure, the localized SAR limit is 8 W/kg as averaged over any one gram cube of
tissue, except for within the extremities where it is limited to 20 W/kg as averaged over any ten gram
cube of tissue.) In the Notice,79 we referred to deliberations by the IEEE of a standard revision that would
treat the pinna of the human ear also as an extremity for the purpose of SAR evaluation.80 We invited
comment on whether we should consider adopting such a revision once approved by the IEEE. In the
meantime, IEEE revisions characterizing the pinna as an extremity have been issued in IEEE Standards
C95.1b-2004 and C95.1-2005. We note that classification of the pinna is only relevant to evaluation of
localized SAR and not MPE. The MPE limits were derived under the assumption of whole body
exposure, and control of localized SAR is implicit in their derivation.
45.
Comments. Ericsson and Motorola both supported those revisions, and Motorola
recommended that the Commission adopt it by reference in a separate rulemaking. Additionally, the

73 Section 2.1093(d)(2) of the Commission’s rules.
74 Seehttp://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/eameasurements.html"> http://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/eameasurements.html (visited on Oct. 2, 2012) (Commission web page
including IEEE Std 1528-2003 in list of documents providing guidance to equipment authorization applicants).
75 “IEEE Recommended Practice for Determining the Peak Spatial-Average Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in the
Human Head From Wireless Communications Devices: Measurement Techniques” at Abstract.
76 Id. at Introduction.
77 See § 1.1310 in Appendix B infra.
78 See 47 CFR § 2.1093(d)(2).
79 See Notice at para. 35.
80 This revision has now been adopted by the IEEE as Amendment 2 to IEEE Std. C95.1 (IEEE Std. C95.1b-2004).
The pinna is the external part of the ear that extends away from the skull, consisting primarily of cartilage.

17

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

FDA81 commented that the resulting “increase in allowable power deposition [due to treating the pinna as
an extremity] will not be significant enough to cause concern.”82
46.
However, the EMR Network stated that consideration of relaxing the SAR standard for
the pinna raises the general issue of exposure limits, and it went on to suggest that the research on which
the Commission exposure limits are based is outdated.83 It attached abstracts and summaries of research
supporting its contention that “non-thermal” biological effects are plentiful and raised the question of
whether these effects imply harm to humans.84 Additionally, the EMR Network summarized research
showing skin temperature increases in the pinna while using a cell phone.85 Further, it referred to a July
2003 letter from the federal Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group (RFIAWG Letter) to the IEEE, in
which the RFIAWG stated that the IEEE should present a clear rationale for treating the pinna as an
extremity.86 In that letter, the RFIAWG stated that this rationale should include the biological properties
of the pinna that qualify it to be treated as an extremity and recommends that, if thermal effects are to be
the basis of the IEEE standard, the thermophysiology of the pinna and adjacent tissues should be
discussed for all body sizes exposed.87
47.
Decision. We conclude that classification of the pinna as an extremity is supported by
the expert determinations of the FDA and of the IEEE, will have no practical impact on the amount of
human exposure to RF radiation, and is therefore appropriate. The FDA in particular has statutory
responsibility to carry out a program designed to protect public health and safety from electronic product
radiation and we therefore place heavy reliance on its public health and safety determinations.88
48.
As a standard-setting body that thoroughly reviewed the relevant research, the IEEE has
made a similar determination based upon its technical expertise in the measurement of human exposure to
RF radiation. Its rationale for adopting the extremity classification as a standard revision was that the
tissue composition of the pinna is similar to that of the other extremities, and that the thermal tolerance of
skin and cartilage, two types of tissue which comprise a majority of the tissue in the pinna, are well above
that of the brain.89 In particular, IEEE asserts that during device use “an increase in pinna temperature is
principally due to thermal conduction from the device, not from RF absorption,” and that this temperature
effect varies significantly between device models. According to IEEE, an increase in the pinna surface
temperature may occur if convective cooling by air is impeded due to the pinna being pressed against the

81 Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (FDA).
82 See FDA Comments at 1.
83 EMR Network comments at 3-4.
84 EMR Network reply comments at 1-2. Since we would consider discussion of “non-thermal” biological effects to
be outside of the scope of ET Docket 03-137 which explicitly excluded discussion of the exposure limits
themselves, we encourage EMR Network to file these and other comments related to the broader issue of the
adequacy of our exposure limits in response to the new docket we are opening in the Inquiry infra at ¶¶ 205-252.
85 Id. at 2, 7.
86 Id. at 1. This letter, from Norbert N. Hankin to C-K. Chou, dated July 16, 2003, is reproduced in the EMR Policy
Institute comments at 18.
87 RFIAWG Letter at 1.
88 21 USC §§ 360hh-360ss, including the authority to take action, such as requiring manufacturers to recall or
replace mobile phones shown to emit RF energy at a level that is hazardous.

89 See IEEE Std C95.1-2005, IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency
Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, section C.2.2.2.3, Rationale for applying the peak spatial-average SAR
values for the extremities to the pinna.

18

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

head, but for longer use “convective heat transfer by the blood will stabilize pinna temperature.” IEEE
reports that the surface of the pinna is normally cooler than average skin surface temperature under
thermoneutral conditions, but “[e]ven in hot environments or after exercise, an additional increase of 1–
2°C from use of a mobile phone would result in pinna temperatures that are well below the level at which
cellular injury or pain will occur.”
49.
We find that the IEEE’s expert consideration of recent research has alleviated the
concerns raised about the pinna by the EMR Network and the RFIAWG.90 Accordingly, we see no basis
to subject the pinna to a different RF exposure limit than is applicable to the extremities and will modify
our rules to specifically classify the pinna as an extremity.91 We note that this specification has no
practical effect on human exposure. Standard evaluation procedures have not measured or calculated RF
exposure in the pinna, but instead have measured RF exposure within the mannequin head, with the
molded pinna of the mannequin acting effectively as a spacer that separates the phone from the head.
However, based on numerical computations performed by the IEEE, we conclude that devices that meet
the localized SAR limits applicable to the head will typically meet the SAR limit for extremities with
respect to the pinna.92 The same devices that were approved before will continue to be approved, and the
same devices that could not receive approval before this specification will not receive approval after this
specification.
50.
This action falls within the scope of this proceeding because the Commission in the
Notice93 invited comment on what consideration it might give to a change in the IEEE’s Standard
Revision that would treat the pinna as an extremity. Our inclusion of the pinnae with the ankles, wrists,
feet, and hands for purposes of RF exposure compliance is properly guided by our consideration of
recommendations by federal agencies or organizations with expertise in measuring RF exposure and
evaluating its environmental effects, including safety and human health.94 We are mindful of the broader
issues raised by the EMR Network and we will continue to work closely with the RFIAWG in supporting
the evaluations and recommendations of the federal health and safety agencies on these important topics.

90 See IEEE Std C95.1b-2004, IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, Amendment 2: Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) Limits for the
Pinna.
91 We note that this specification has no practical effect on human exposure, as standard evaluation procedures have
measured within the mannequin head, with the molded pinna of the mannequin acting effectively as a spacer
separating the phone from the head. The safety of or the effect on the pinna itself does not seem to be contested by
commenters. We note that EMR’s objection to the extremity classification is not based on the properties of or effect
on the pinna, but rather is based on an interest in the consequent or secondary effect of reducing SAR within the
head below what is currently consistent with our SAR guidelines, based on its concern over the propriety of our
fundamental SAR guidelines. We also note that this last concern was explicitly excluded from this rulemaking, but
is the subject of the Inquiry, infra, in which venue EMR Network’s position can be presented and considered.
92 See Beard, B., et al., Comparisons of Computed Mobile Phone Induced SAR in the SAM Phantom to That in
Anatomically Correct Models of the Human Head, IEEE Trans. on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 48, No. 2,
May 2006. The list of co-authors in this technical paper includes staff members from the FDA.
93 See Notice at para. 35.
94 See EMR Network v. Federal Communications Commission, 391 F.3d at 273, citing Cellular Taskforce, 205 F.3d
at 90 (finding that the Commission did not abdicate its responsibilities under NEPA, or act in an arbitrary and
capricious manner, in refusing to undertake a rulemaking to reassess its RF exposure limits based on new evidence
but had properly credited outside experts, including IEEE and federal agencies composed of experts in this area; and
that the Commission’s decision to maintain the status quo when the Environmental Protection Agency (and other
agencies) saw no reason to jump in represents the sort of agency priority setting that the courts are not inclined to
second-guess).

19

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

In this regard, the broader issue of the adequacy of our exposure limits will be raised in a separate Inquiry
as previously discussed.95
4.

Part 1 / Part 95 MedRadio (formerly Medical Implant Communications
Service) Measurement Consistency

51.
Summary. Section 1.1307(b)(2) requires initial SAR evaluation for medical devices
within the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio Service) by either computation or
measurement, but, for MedRadio medical implant transmitters, section 95.1221 allows only computation
for initial evaluation of these devices. Our amendment to section 95.1221 herein corrects this
inconsistency to allow either computation or measurement in both sections.
52.
Original Proposals. The MedRadio Service currently permits the transmission of non-
voice data for the purpose of facilitating diagnostic and/or therapeutic functions involving both implanted
and body-worn medical devices.96 MedRadio was formerly known as the Medical Implant
Communications Service (MICS) and did not include body-worn transmitters in its original definition. In
the Notice, we pointed out an inconsistency in our rules regarding requirements for implanted transmitters
to comply with Commission guidelines on RF exposure.97 At the time of the Notice, section 95.603(f) of
the Commission’s rules required that applications for equipment authorization of devices operating under
this section include a report showing the results of computational modeling of patient exposure using
finite difference time domain (FDTD) techniques.98 This rule further stated that the Commission may
also request the submission of measurement data for specific absorption rate (SAR). On the other hand,
with the introduction of body-worn transmitters in the MedRadio service, section 1.1307(b)(2) of the
rules continues to specify that compliance of the new MedRadio Service transmitters with the SAR limits
in section 2.1093 may be demonstrated by either FDTD analysis or submission of SAR measurement
data, with the Commission retaining the option of also requesting measurement data to support an FDTD
analysis, if appropriate. We proposed that the latter, flexible rule is more appropriate, providing an
applicant the option of demonstrating compliance either by use of computational techniques or by a
laboratory measurement study. We therefore proposed to revise section 95.603(f) to make it consistent
with section 1.1307(b)(2). For completeness, we also proposed to add language to section 2.1093(d)(3)
which addresses compliance of portable devices including those in the MedRadio Service. Since
proposing this revision, our rules regarding requirements for MedRadio Service transmitters have been

95 See ¶¶ 5-7, 12, footnote 84 supra, and Inquiry infra at ¶¶ 205-252.
96 47 CFR § 95.1201 et seq. At the time of the Notice, this service was more limited in scope and was referred to as
the Medical Implant Communications Service (MICS). However, a recent rulemaking expanded MICS into the
MedRadio Service and permitted the operation of body-worn, as well as implanted medical devices, including those
using either listen-before-talk (LBT) frequency monitoring or non-LBT spectrum access methods, in designated
portions of the 401-406 MHz band. See Report and Order, ET Docket No. 03-92 (Biotronik, Inc., Request for
Waiver of the Frequency Monitoring Requirements of the Medical Implant Communications Service Rules); ET
Docket No. 05-213 (DexCom, Inc., Request for Waiver of the Frequency Monitoring Requirements of the Medical
Implant Communications Service Rules); RM-11271 (Amendment of Parts 2 and 95 of the Commission’s Rules to
Establish the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service at 401-402 and 405-406 MHz); and ET Docket No. 06-
135 (Investigation of the Spectrum Requirements for Advanced Medical Technologies), FCC 09-23, released March
20, 2009.
97 See Notice at para. 48.
98 Finite difference time domain (FDTD) analysis is a method for calculating RF electric and magnetic fields inside
materials by stepping through time at a grid of spatial points in a computer simulation. FDTD is used in this context
to determine the SAR, which is simply related to the electric field in simulated tissue.

20

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

relocated to Subpart I of Part 95, and the content of section 95.603(f) is now located in section 95.1221,
entitled “RF exposure.”99
53.
Comments. Only two commenters addressed this issue, and both were critical of FDTD
analysis.100 The FDA states that it is not sufficient to specify only that manufacturers of MedRadio
Service implants report the results of computational modeling of patient exposure using FDTD
techniques. The FDA says that FDTD simulations may lead to significant uncertainty and/or errors if
inappropriate parameters and models are used. It recommends that additional guidelines and
specifications be supplied if FDTD is to be an option for demonstrating compliance. FDA states that
computational modeling for MedRadio Service implants must specifically address the electrical behavior
of the transmitter very close to the body. It urges the Commission to identify scientific papers showing
that compliance can be demonstrated using computational modeling. It asserts that FDA experts have
reviewed submissions to the Commission from medical device manufacturers using computational
modeling, and they have found technical irregularities in these submissions.
54.
The IT’IS Foundation101 asserts that an FDTD analysis can be reliable, but only if the
device is being simulated correctly.102 Otherwise, IT’IS claims, there is no way to determine the accuracy
of the analysis. According to IT’IS, studies have shown that FDTD results can be “grossly off” if the
persons performing the analysis are inexperienced. IT’IS states that, according to its experience,
measurements are much more reliable indicators of compliance than computations, and it strongly
recommends that the Commission require measurements for evaluating compliance for MedRadio Service
implants. IT’IS also cautions that very localized temperature increases in tissue can in theory be
substantial (several degrees) near implanted conductors, even when the 1-g average SAR limits are not
exceeded.
55.
Decision. The goal of our original proposal was to correct an inconsistency in the rules
with respect to this issue, and our final rules clarify this intent. The inconsistency originated with the
promulgation of section 95.603(f) and was perpetuated when the Commission relocated that section to
another location in Part 95, renumbering it as section 95.1221, as a result of the establishment of the new
MedRadio Service.103 We did not, however, intend to alter the approach we established when we first
codified section 1.1307(b)(2), which permits an applicant for authorization of a MedRadio device – either
body-worn or designed for implant – to demonstrate compliance with RF exposure requirements either
through computational modeling or laboratory measurement techniques, subject to the Commission’s
discretion to require the submission of measurement data where the applicant based its showing on
computational modeling. 104 Additionally, we intend to provide guidelines in the future for using
computational modeling to demonstrate compliance in a future OET Laboratory Division Knowledge
Database (KDB) document.105 This approach should alleviate concerns expressed by the FDA and IT’IS
regarding potential analysis inaccuracies and irregularities. Thus, we herein replace the current language
of section 95.1221 with a paragraph similar to that which we had proposed for section 95.603(f) in the
Notice.106 Moreover, herein, below in the Further Notice, we propose more specific requirements to

99 Amendment of Parts 2 and 95 of the Commission’s Rules to Establish the Medical Device Radiocommunication
Service at 401-402 and 405-406 MHz, RM-11271, Report and Order (MedRadio Order), 24 FCC Rcd 3493 (paras.
66-68), 3509 (2009); see also 47 CFR § 95.1221.
100 See FDA comments at 1-2, IT’IS Foundation comments at 3.
101 IT’IS Foundation, Dr. Niels Kuster (IT’IS).
102 See IT’IS Foundation comments at 3.
103 See MedRadio Order, footnote 99 supra.
104 See 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(2).
105 See para. 28 supra.

21

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

ensure that any software models used to compute SAR give sufficiently accurate results to confirm
compliance.107
56.
In summary, the rule revisions we adopt here eliminate an inconsistency in the rules. The
benefits of these revisions include clarifying the rules, thereby reducing confusion among regulated
parties. There should be no cost associated with these rule changes, and thus benefits of these changes
outweigh their costs.

B.

Mitigation

57.
Mitigation matters are post-evaluation procedures to ensure exposure limits are not
exceeded, such as labels, signs, barriers, enforcement, and occupational issues. We include in this section
clarifications related to the application of occupational exposure limits for devices and at fixed transmitter
sites. A summary of significant comments and discussion on topics initiated by the Notice but that do not
necessitate changes to our rules are provided in Appendix H. Specifically pertaining to mitigation,
Appendix H discusses the topic of local zoning concerns.
1.

Labeling and Instructions for Mobile and Portable Devices Intended for
Occupational Use Only

58.
Summary. In the Notice, we proposed more specific labeling and instructional
requirements for devices intended to be operated only in an occupational setting. Comments received
were generally supportive, and we adopt our proposed changes in sections 2.1091(d)(3) and 2.1093(d)(1)
of our rules.
59.
Original Proposals. With respect to portable and mobile devices intended for
occupational use only, we proposed to modify our rules to specify that product/equipment labels may be
used to satisfy the requirements for making workers aware of the potential for exposure from such
portable and mobile devices, consistent with labeling guidelines developed by the Telecommunications
Industry Association (TIA). We proposed that such labels must indicate that a device is for occupational
use only, refer the user to specific instructional information on RF exposure (e.g., in a user manual), and
note that the label and its referenced information are required for RF exposure compliance. We also
proposed to require that the label be legible and clearly visible to a user. We further proposed to require
that the instructional material provide the user with information on how to use the device in such a way as
to ensure compliance with the applicable occupational/controlled limit, e.g., instructions as to proper
device position, duty factor requirements, proper use of accessories, etc. We proposed that a sample of
the label, illustrating its location on the device, and the accompanying instructional material, be filed with
the Commission along with the application for equipment authorization.
60.
Comments. Commenters that addressed our proposals for labeling requirements for
mobile and portable devices for occupational use generally supported them.108 TIA elaborated on the
guidance included in its TSB-133109 that was referenced in the Notice110 and provides guidelines on
advisory labeling and information for inclusion in user manuals. Motorola supported the proposals for
labeling and noted that the labeling provisions in TSB-133 were being used by leading manufacturers for
mobile devices at the time Motorola filed its comments. TIA pointed out that the scope of the
(Continued from previous page)
106 See section 95.603(f) in Appendix A of the Notice.
107 See para. 168 infra.
108 See Cisco comments at 14; Motorola comments at 12-14; TIA comments at 11-12.
109 Telecommunications Industry Association, Telecommunications Systems Bulletin, TSB-133, June 2003.
110 See Notice at para. 40.

22

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

information outlined in TSB-133 is aimed at providing “adequate” written and/or verbal information to
the end user and believed that the content of the label specified in TSB-133 should be sufficient for
complying with the Commission’s requirements. TIA urged the Commission to specifically state that a
manufacturer’s responsibility to make a user “fully aware” is limited to providing the information
outlined in TSB-133 in an appropriate user manual or instruction booklet and that the ultimate
responsibility to provide this information to the end user rests solely with the employer. On the other
hand, Dr. Dina Simunic suggested that holders of grants for mobile and portable devices used in
occupational settings should be required by the Commission to coordinate with end users to ensure that
they provide appropriate RF safety training.111
61.
TIA proposed that the Commission’s rules provide that a “screen flash” upon power up,
containing the same contents as the TSB-133 label, will also satisfy the Commission’s requirements.112
When a label is used, TIA continued, the Commission’s rules should require that it be in an easily
viewable location. TIA argued that label placement in battery compartments is appropriate, in particular
for maintaining label integrity and legibility.
62.
Decision. We are adopting labeling requirements related to occupational/controlled
exposure from mobile and portable devices, consistent with our proposals and the comments we received,
by modifying sections 2.1091(d)(3) and 2.1093(d)(1) to provide that labels may be used to satisfy the
requirements for making workers aware of the potential for exposure under the conditions proposed in the
Notice. In addition, we will update OET Laboratory Division publications as necessary to provide more
detailed guidance on complying with the requirements for labeling devices intended for occupational use.
While we appreciate the argument by TIA that placement in the battery compartment helps ensure
integrity and legibility of a label, we do not consider that such placement is clearly visible to the user.
However, we agree with TIA’s concept of a “screen flash” option on power up as a more practical
solution than external labeling and refer in general to either labels or a screen flash as “visual advisories”
required in the final rules.113 On the other hand, we do not specify a format for visual advisories at this
time as suggested by TIA but rather encourage development of labeling standards that parallel our
signage proposals in the Further Notice using similar symbols, colors, and signal words.114 With respect
to requirements for coordination between equipment manufacturers and end users on training, we are
adopting language that coordination with end-user organizations is encouraged but not required.
However, as discussed in the next section, training is required for persons subject to exposure in excess of
our general population exposure limits.
63.
Workers must be made aware of the steps necessary to protect against exposure to RF
energy to avoid exceeding our occupational limits. By clarifying the content of labels which we already
require and allowing further flexibility through screen flash, as suggested by comments, we conclude that
the measures we are adopting are the most cost-effective way to reliably achieve awareness.
2.

Clarification of Application of Occupational Exposure Limits

64.
Summary. Our occupation/controlled limits apply in part when individuals are “fully aware”
of and can “exercise control” over their exposure. We proposed to state in our rules that appropriate
information and training is necessary to achieve full awareness and control of exposure and we herein adopt
these proposals with minor modification based on the comments received. We are also adding language to

111 See Dr. Dina Simunic comments at 4.
112 See TIA comments at 11-12.
113 If the potential RF exposure generated by the device exceeds the occupational exposure limits such that it is
necessary to warn that the device not be used or even turned on without first taking advance protective measures, we
here prohibit the use of the “screen flash” option. See Appendix A.
114 See para. 190 infra.

23

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

remind licensees of their obligation to consider worker as well as public exposure. Finally, we codify in our
rules the extent to which occupation/controlled limits apply to amateur radio licensees.
65.
Original Proposals. The occupational/controlled exposure limits in our rules apply “in
situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment provided those persons are
fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure.”115 The limits for
occupational/controlled exposure also apply “in situations when an individual is transient through a
location where occupational/controlled limits apply provided he or she is made aware of the potential for
exposure.”116 (The general population/uncontrolled exposure limits apply “in situations in which the general
public may be exposed, or in which persons that are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not
be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure.”)117
66.
The meaning of key terms used in the definition of the application of occupational
exposure may be subject to interpretation. We proposed to clarify in our rules that being “fully aware”
means that an exposed person has received written and verbal information concerning the potential for RF
exposure and has received training regarding appropriate work practices relating to controlling or
mitigating his or her exposure. We proposed to specify that to “exercise control” means that an exposed
person is able to reduce or avoid exposure by administrative or engineering controls. Examples of such
controls would include providing workers with RF safety training, use of personal RF monitors by
workers, use of RF protective suits, placing of appropriate physical restrictions on areas where high RF
fields exist, and limiting time of exposure or proximity to the RF source. As specified in our existing
rules, transient individuals must simply be made aware of their potential exposure.118 We proposed in the
Notice that this awareness could be achieved by means of written and/or verbal information, including,
for instance, appropriate signage.119
67.
We also noted that some licensees have not always properly considered their
responsibilities to ensure compliance for workers at their site when evaluating exposure of the general
public. We accordingly proposed to add language to section 1.1310 of our rules to remind licensees and
applicants of their obligation to consider exposure of workers near RF sources as well as exposure of the
public.120
68.
Comments. Most commenters supported providing further guidance on when
occupational/controlled exposure limits apply; however, they expressed a variety of opinions as to the
details of our requirements. Cingular Wireless LLC (Cingular) supported the proposals and stated that
they reflect existing standard industry practice.121 TIA supported our proposals to assure workers are
properly informed about exposure at antenna sites and refers to its Telecommunications Systems Bulletin
92 (TSB-92) that addresses the need for licensees to implement RF safety programs for fixed station
equipment/antenna sites.122 Many of the comments were only peripherally related to the proposals made
in the Notice.
69.
The interpretation of what it means to be “fully aware” of the potential for occupational
RF exposure generated the most comment and concern. Some commenters supported the proposed note

115 See 47 CFR § 1.1310 Table 1 Note 1; emphasis added in italics.
116 Id.
117 See 47 CFR § 1.1310 Table 1 Note 2.
118 Id.
119 See Notice at para. 38.
120 See Notice at para. 39.
121 See Cingular comments at 15.
122 See TIA comments at 11-12.

24

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

to section 1.1310 more or less as written,123 but others objected to this proposal or requested further
clarification regarding how this requirement can be satisfied. For example, several commenters did not
agree that both written and verbal information should be required in order to make persons fully aware of
the potential for exposure.124 CTIA noted that training concerning RF exposure and controlling or
mitigating exposure is often part of an integrated program, and it recommended that the Commission
allow either written or verbal information relating to exposure and safe work practices. Sprint maintained
that there is no rationale for requiring licensees to provide both written and verbal information. Motorola
argued that the Commission should not require that employers provide three “layers” of information, i.e.,
written information, verbal information, and comprehensive training, when a single “performance based”
requirement for training should be sufficient. Motorola suggested that the note to section 1.1310 should
indicate that a number of information and training resources are available or under development, and the
Commission should allow a licensee or site manager the flexibility to select the option most suitable for a
given antenna site and work force.
70.
Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP (BSL) said that different situations warrant different
procedures and suggested requiring written “and/or” verbal information.125 For example, some situations
may require only signage, while others may require personal instruction. BSL recommended that the
Commission rely on the reasonable judgment of the licensees in the context of each particular situation as
to how to provide the relevant information. BSL advised its clients that they maintain a written “access
and control of RFE” policy so that it can be readily communicated to employees and outside contractors.
It suggested that the Commission might want to consider adding to its rules a requirement that each
licensee have such a policy on file and share it with workers on a regular basis, as appropriate.
71.
The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) noted that, as a practical matter, studios
and transmitters might be located in the same facility where non-technical personnel may work.126 NAB
was concerned that these non-technical employees “may not be currently apprised with both written and
verbal information about occupational exposure” when common practice is for licensees to post advisory
signs in transmitter areas of such a facility where the general population exposure limits might be
exceeded. These areas would generally be off-limits to non-technical employees. However, these
employees might occasionally transit through such areas. If both written and verbal information is
necessary, NAB wanted to know specifically what information must be provided to these employees.
Similarly, AT&T Corporation (AT&T) asked what constitutes appropriate verbal information.127
72.
With respect to “transient” individuals, Pinnacle, Southern,128 and Hammett and Edison
suggested that RF warning/alerting signage is probably the most effective means to provide RF safety
information. 129 They also agreed that in some cases there is indiscriminate posting of signs (i.e.,
inappropriate quantity and/or type), while in other cases not enough basic instructions are given on the
sign to ensure compliance. Pinnacle encouraged the Commission to remind licensees to provide specific
safety guidelines and information on RF warning/alerting signs, especially those on rooftops. It also
urged the Commission to consider establishing unambiguous guidelines for when RF signs would be

123 See Cingular comments at 15; Cisco comments at 14; Fry comments at 1; EMR Network comments at 4; Global
comments at 1-2.
124 See BSL comments at 16; CTIA comments at 12-13; Motorola comments at 12-14; Pinnacle comments at 5-7;
Southern reply comments at 6-8; Sprint comments at 2-3.
125 See BSL comments at 16.
126 See NAB comments at 2-3.
127 See AT&T comments at 1.
128 Southern Communications Services, Inc. & Southern Company Services, Inc. (Southern).
129 See Pinnacle comments at 5-7; Southern reply comments at 6-8; Hammett and Edison comments at 1-2.

25

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

required for different antenna sites. RSI Educational Foundation (RSI) also stated that there is a need for
proper assessment of signage, and it asked the Commission to consider requiring more specific and
comprehensive programs for dealing with RF levels above the general population limits.130 RF People
also asked that the Commission provide more detailed guidance on what is needed, especially at rooftop
locations.131 Global RF Solutions (Global) claimed that its investigations at “several hundred” existing
communications sites indicated that personnel were never given written or verbal instructions concerning
RF safety.132 Global also noted that signage for warning personnel is seldom posted in a correct manner
at most of the sites it has visited.
73.
Southern stated that providing too much specificity could create standards that do not
account for the variable nature of different facilities and the character and size of a licensee’s
workforce.133 Southern agreed with Motorola that the Commission’s rules should set a single
“performance based” requirement for training and that licensees should have the flexibility to use the type
of training best suited to their operations and workforce. Southern stated that there is no evidence that
worker training has been a major problem that would warrant the Commission providing detailed and
specific requirements. Southern maintained that other agencies, such as the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA), are a better source for such information.
74.
Hammett and Edison were concerned that there may be uncertainty or excessive burden
associated with any requirement to provide RF training to “third party” workers not under the control of a
licensee. Hammett and Edison argued that it is impractical for Commission licensees to have advance
notice of worker access when a licensee is one of many tenants at a site. It maintained that OSHA already
has established procedures for adequate notice and/or training in occupational settings, and it
recommended that the Commission not duplicate or overlap OSHA’s regulatory jurisdiction.
75.
Decision. The fundamental purpose of our rules regarding occupational/controlled
exposure is to require that workers at the higher permitted levels of exposure have the appropriate level of
awareness and control to ensure that they are not exposed above the occupational/controlled limits. We
agree with commenters that argue that flexibility is needed with respect to how such information is
provided to adapt to the needs of various sites and circumstances.134 Therefore, we are specifying that for
individuals exposed as a consequence of their employment, using the occupational/controlled limits,
written and/or verbal (orally-communicated) information must be provided, at the discretion of the
responsible party as is necessary to ensure compliance with the occupational/controlled limits. In
addition, with the exception of transient individuals, appropriate training regarding work practices that
will ensure that exposed persons are “fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control
over their exposure” is required to be provided. We conclude that this two-tiered approach will provide
sufficient information to ensure that people are adequately protected.
76.
Regarding specific guidelines on what kind of information is required and what
constitutes adequate training, we intend to rely primarily on instructional and training resources already
available. Section 1.1310 of our rules already references OET Bulletin 65 as one resource, and we plan to
update this bulletin after the conclusion of this docket to provide additional information regarding RF
safety programs and available resources, including information now incorporated in the IEEE C95.7
recommended practice for RF safety programs referenced in the Notice. We agree with the requests of
several commenters that we propose more specific guidelines; thus we are proposing specific rules

130 See RSI comments at 1-2.
131 See RF People comments at 1-3.
132 See Global comments at 1-2.
133 See Southern reply comments at 6-8.
134 See para. 69 supra.

26

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

elaborating upon written and/or verbal information, appropriate training, and signage and barrier
requirements in the Further Notice, including consideration of third-party workers. We note that training
is not required for transient individuals, but they must receive written and/or verbal information and
notification (for example, using signs) concerning their exposure potential and appropriate means
available to mitigate their exposure. We further note that the designation of “transient individual” applies
to visitors and people traversing the site, not to third-party workers performing maintenance on the site
for an extended period. However, in the event of complaints that result in enforcement investigations, we
will evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, whether the information requirements are met, and if not whether
the general population/uncontrolled exposure limits are appropriate to apply in a specific area where
transient access is permitted.
77.
It should be helpful to licensees to codify our earlier adopted policy with regard the use
of occupational/controlled limits at amateur radio stations. This policy was established in the RF Report
and Order of 1996,135 but was not incorporated in the rules at that time. It allows amateur stations to be
evaluated with respect to occupational/controlled exposure limits as long as appropriate training and
information has been provided to the amateur licensee and members of his or her immediate household.
We here codify this policy be adding a paragraph to new sub section 1.1310.136
78.
We adopt our proposal at section 1.1310(e)(3) as shown in Appendix A to require
licensees and applicants to properly consider their responsibilities to ensure compliance for workers as
well as the public at their site. We disagree with comments that we should defer to OSHA with regard to
RF safety issues. First, OSHA does not appear to have a particularized program in place to ensure worker
safety with regard to RF exposure from the wide variety of RF transmitters regulated by the Commission.
Second, although we do collaborate with OSHA staff regarding matters related to RF safety, and both
agencies are members of an inter-agency RF working group,137 we are not aware that OSHA has adequate
resources to ensure compliance with our limits for occupational/controlled exposure among our licensees
and grantees.
79.
Costs of these new rules adopted herein should be minimal since, with the exception of
transient personnel, workers in controlled environments near fixed transmitter sites have been required to
be fully aware of their potential for exposure,138 and we expect that they accordingly should have already
been receiving some degree of RF safety training. In addition to the obvious benefit to the public and
workers of requiring application of controls intended to avoid excess exposure, another anticipated benefit
of these actions in this Order is a reduction of uncertainty as to what is necessary to establish compliance
near RF transmitters. By this Order, transient individuals are not required to be trained, so the associated
training cost are negligible, with the exception that these individuals must receive written and/or verbal
information and notification (for example, using signs); however we propose in the Further Notice
extensions of these adopted rules, and we seek comment on their associated costs and benefits. For
example, transient individuals would be required to be supervised by trained personnel.139 In the Further
Notice we generally propose to extend requirements to include aspects of RF safety programs that have
been developed in coordination with industry in the intervening years since the Notice with the goal of
ensuring compliance and the safety of workers, particularly near high power transmitting antennas, in the
most efficient, flexible, and least burdensome manner possible.

135 Report and Order, ET Docket 93-62, Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radio frequency
Radiation, 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1996), para. 161.
136 See § 1.1310(e)(4) in Appendix A infra.
137 Radiofrequency Interagency Working Group (RFIAWG).
138 See § 1.1310, Table 1, Note 1.
139 See para. 184 infra.

27

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

3.

Responsibility for Compliance at Fixed Sites with Multiple Transmitters

80.
Summary. Our rules do not address apportionment of responsibility among licensees that
exceed 5% of the exposure limits and are not categorically excluded. Comments received suggested that
it is necessary for an individual licensee to be assigned primary responsibility for compliance at a multiple
use site. However, we clarify that this is not the case and emphasize cooperation and that failure to
comply at multiple use sites can result in penalties for all site occupants that contribute significantly to
exposure, not just the newest occupant or the occupant which contributes the most to exposure.
81.
Background. The Commission’s rules effectively place limits on the total exposure due
to multiple fixed transmitters in any environment. A significant issue raised by several commenters
involved difficulties encountered in determining compliance responsibility and cooperation at
communications sites with multiple transmitters. Such multi-user sites probably constitute the majority of
contemporary broadcast and fixed wireless base station installations. Our current rules assign
responsibility for compliance to new and renewal applicants at such sites but do not provide guidance for
cooperation of these applicants with existing tenants in the process of bringing non-compliant sites into
compliance.140 This subject was not raised in the Notice, and we are not changing our rules here with
respect to this issue, but, we do provide herein some clarification of our rules in response to this issue.
82.
Comments. BSL noted that the exclusion thresholds for routine evaluation of multiple
transmitter sites are based on the emissions of individual antennas.141 However, BSL continued, section
1.1306(a) of the Commission’s rules implementing the NEPA requires that environmental effects be
evaluated on a cumulative, as well as an individual, basis, thus implying that the proposed thresholds for
exclusion should be based on cumulative emissions when multiple transmitters are present.142 BSL
suggested that there should be a threshold below which the operator of a transmitter can be assured that its
facility will be in compliance with the Commission’s RF guidelines regardless of what other emitters are
present. BSL stated that using the “5%” rule in section 1.1307(b)(3) of the rules is useful in simplifying
analysis of responsibility at multiple transmitter sites.143 However, it proposed that we apply a “second
tier” to Table 1 to indicate where there is a need for routine evaluation by individual contributors at
multiple emitter sites.
83.
T-Mobile maintained that the Commission’s rules for dealing with multiple emitter sites
are sometimes impractical or confusing.144 T-Mobile noted that while the current rules require
newcomers to a site to evaluate the RF environment and, if necessary, submit an Environmental
Assessment (EA), they are not required to take primary responsibility to resolve any subsequent non-
compliance, nor are they required to advise existing carriers at the site that the additional transmitter
could create a non-compliant situation. T-Mobile and Southern urged the Commission to clarify that
although existing licensees at multiple emitter sites must cooperate with a newcomer in resolving RF
issues, the newcomer bears primary responsibility for ensuring compliance.145 Such a policy would
assign appropriate responsibility instead of the current situation where, according to Southern, no one in
particular is responsible for ensuring ongoing compliance. Southern also recommended that the

140 See 47 CFR §§ 1.1307(b)(3)(i) and (ii).
141 See BSL comments at 10-15.
142 See 47 CFR § 1.1306(a).
143 The “5%” rule specifies that when multiple fixed transmitters are present in an accessible area, actions necessary
to ensure compliance are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce power density levels
that exceed 5% of the appropriate exposure limit at the area in question. 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(3).
144 See T-Mobile comments at 16-17; Southern reply comments at 8-10.
145 See Southern reply comments at 8-10.

28

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Commission urge site owners, leasers, and managers to provide a mechanism by which lessees may be
able to exchange relevant information regarding site compliance.
84.
Discussion. The commenters suggest that our current rules do not address in all
particulars the issue of licensee and applicant responsibility at multiple emitter sites, specifically, that our
rules do not include an apportionment of responsibility among licensees that exceed 5% of the exposure
limits and are not categorically excluded. While we clarify our present rules regarding responsibility by
the discussion herein, we also include more information on the subject of joint RF safety programs and
address mitigation in the Further Notice infra,146 and intend to include further guidance in subsequent
updates to OET Bulletin 65. Given the variety of situations presented by multiple transmitter sites,
responsibility for compliance and preparation of Environmental Assessments continues to apply to
multiple transmitter sites as described in section 1.1307(b)(3) of our rules, and “significant” transmitters
can be assumed to be based on the same threshold of 5% defined there. We note that when routine
evaluations are required at such sites, all relevant co-located licensees are responsible for compliance.
Therefore, it is in the interest of these licensees to share information about power and other operating
characteristics in order to achieve accurate representations of the RF environment. The Commission
continues to encourage all site occupants, owners,147 leasers, and managers to cooperate in these
endeavors, and we note that site user agreements are particularly useful and desirable to achieve this end.
As demonstrated in the record,148 all licensees that exceed five percent of the RF exposure limit at any
non-compliant location are jointly and severally responsible, and the Commission may impose forfeiture
liability on all such licensees.149 Regarding BSL’s comments on multiple transmitter sites, we seek
comment on a proposal to sum exclusion thresholds due to multiple fixed RF sources in the Further
Notice infra.150 We also propose to eliminate the current Table 1 in the Further Notice, infra, and BSL
can raise its comment regarding a separate threshold for individual contributors at multi-emitter sites if it
deems it relevant in context of the proposed rule.151
4.

Labeling and Installation of Fixed Consumer Transmitters

85.
Summary. We originally proposed in the Notice152 to modify our rules dealing with
labels placed on consumer subscriber transceiver antennas, which are required regardless of output power
or exposure potential in specific rule parts as listed in Table 1 of section 1.1307(b) of our rules. We do
not adopt our original proposals in this Order since we are proposing modifications to this rule in the
Further Notice under a broader scope of mitigation issues dealing with labeling and signage. While we
raised the issue of installation requirements of fixed subscriber transceiver antennas in the Notice, we did
not make any specific proposals. We do not specify installation requirements for these antennas in our
rules, and we make no change in this Order.
86.
Original Proposals. The Commission currently requires labels for certain consumer
products that use wireless technology to provide users with information on RF exposure. These labeling
requirements apply to subscriber transceiver antennas in certain service categories. Licensees in these
services are required to attach a label to subscriber transceiver antennas that: (1) provides adequate notice
regarding potential radiofrequency safety hazards, e.g., information on the safe minimum separation

146 See para. 193 infra.
147 See 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(3), where “[o]wners of transmitter sites are expected to allow applicants and licensees to
take reasonable steps to comply…”
148 See, e.g., Radio One Licenses, et. al., 19 FCC Rcd 23922 (2004), recon. denied, 21 FCC Rcd 14271 (2006).
149 See 47 U.S.C. § 312.
150 See paras. 139-141 infra.
151 BSL - or any other party - should specify the particulars of any such proposal.
152 See section III. G. of the Notice.

29

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

distance required between persons and transceiver antennas; and (2) references the applicable
Commission-adopted limits for radiofrequency exposure specified in section 1.1310 of our rules. In the
Notice, we asked for comment on whether there are conditions under which we could forgo labeling
requirements.153
87.
We proposed to use criteria based on power and frequency to trigger labeling
requirements and to apply the labeling requirements for fixed consumer devices equivalently across all
service categories for which they currently apply. We also proposed a new labeling requirement for fixed
consumer/subscriber transceivers in the 39 GHz services governed by Part 101, Subpart C, which operate
similarly to other consumer devices affected by these rules. We further proposed to exclude devices from
labeling requirements if the responsible party demonstrates by any appropriate means that MPE or SAR
limits could not be exceeded regardless of proximity to the antenna.154
88.
We asked for comment on these proposals and on whether different criteria are
appropriate for certain services or circumstances and whether there are other services to which these or
other labeling requirements should apply. For example, should these or other labeling requirements apply
to cellular, PCS, and other CMRS licensees that choose to offer consumer-based fixed services? We also
requested comment on whether the term “subscriber” adequately encompasses the potential users of such
transceiver antennas.155
89.
We discussed issues related to professional installation and other safety measures taken to
ensure the safe operation of the subscriber antennas. We noted the desirability of having these antennas
professionally installed, and we encouraged certain safeguards, such as the incorporation of safety “cut-
off” devices to reduce or shut down power to an antenna when the transmitted beam is blocked by a
person. We also noted that instructional materials should be provided to users and installers that advise as
to safety precautions and minimum separation distances. We invited comment on these proposals in the
Notice,156 but we decide not to adopt these proposals in this Order.
90.
Comments. Several commenters indicated that the use of labels to provide disclosure of
possible RF exposure is reasonable or appropriate,157 and no commenters addressing these issues
explicitly objected to the use of labels. IEEE 802 and Wi-Fi expressed support for using certain power
thresholds as a trigger for evaluation of low-power section 15.247 devices to determine when labeling
would be required.158 Some of the comments referred to portable or mobile consumer devices; however,
labeling has not been required nor was it proposed in the Notice for these devices; this section deals only
with fixed consumer transceiver antennas.159
91.
IEEE 802 also believed that providing samples of advisory labels and user manual
informational disclosures with applications is appropriate.160 PalmOne noted that the user manual is the
proper place for detailed exposure information, and it said that some international regulatory bodies

153 See Notice at para. 42.
154 See Notice at para. 42.
155 See Notice at para. 42.
156 See Notice at para. 43.
157 See EMR Network comments at 4; PalmOne comments at 5; IEEE 802 comments at 5-8; TIA comments at 11-
12; Wi-Fi comments at 7.
158 See IEEE 802 comments at 5-8; Wi-Fi comments at 7.
159 See PalmOne comments at 5.
160 See IEEE 802 comments at 5.

30

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

already require that RF exposure information be included in a prominent location in user manuals for
consumer products such as cellular telephones.161
92.
Nokia noted that the labeling proposals apply only to specific service categories, and did
not support extending labeling requirements to CMRS low-power transmitters.162 Cisco suggested that
for consumer wireless devices such as home networks, garage door remotes, and other low power devices,
RF safety information provided in user manuals is sufficient.163 In addition, Cisco continued, a consumer
is more likely to read safety information in a user manual than text on a small label. T-Mobile supported
the proposal to not require labeling of subscriber transceiver antennas if the responsible party
demonstrated compliance with MPE or SAR limits regardless of proximity to the antenna.164 It concurred
that labeling may be considered sufficient to ensure compliance if labels will effectively prevent exposure
in areas near antennas where the limits may be exceeded.
93.
Regarding installation requirements, Nokia commented that, for self-installed subscriber
transceivers, clear instructions should be included in the user’s manual stipulating that the antenna should
be mounted so that no person can approach closer than the minimum separation distance.165 Nokia said
that the text for such instructions should be submitted to the Commission along with an application for
equipment authorization.
94.
Cisco gave two examples relevant to the installation issue, suggesting reliance on the
manuals accompanying the devices in both cases.166 The first involved a consumer installing a low power
radio device in a laptop or PDA. For devices not excluded from routine evaluation, Cisco suggested that
relevant exposure information could be provided in the user manual. In the second case, a consumer self-
installs an external transmitter used to extend the range of a wireless networking system. In such cases,
Cisco recommended RF safety warnings and instructions on safe installation also be provided in manuals.
Furthermore, Cisco believed that consumers likely to install such equipment tend to be “reasonably
sophisticated” in their use of RF equipment, so that instructions in manuals should be sufficient to ensure
compliance.
95.
Wireless Communications Association International (WCA) fully supported the
Commission’s decision not to propose mandatory requirements for professional installation of subscriber
transceiver antennas.167 WCA argued that safety-related concerns regarding wireless broadband
consumer equipment are already addressed by the “safety exception” to the Commission’s “OTARD”
rules (47 CFR § 1.4000), which prohibits “safety-related” antenna restrictions that impair installation,
maintenance or use of subscriber wireless antennas unless they serve a clearly defined and legitimate
safety objective. Section 1.4000(c) of our rules additionally requires labeling of fixed transmitting
antennas to provide notice of potential RF exposure for the provisions of section 1.4000 to apply.
96.
Discussion. We again note that many of the comments are made with respect to portable
devices, which are not subject to these requirements and were not addressed in the Notice. Nonetheless,
the ideas and arguments advanced are useful in our consideration for fixed devices. Most commenters
appear to agree that providing information on RF exposure, where required and effective, through labels
or instructions in user manuals is an acceptable method to ensure compliance with our RF exposure

161 See PalmOne comments at 5.
162 See Nokia comments at 8.
163 See Cisco comments at 15.
164 See T-Mobile comments at 14-15.
165 See Nokia comments at 2-3 and 8.
166 See Cisco comments at 13.
167 See WCA comments at 1-3.

31

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

limits. For all relevant services involving fixed subscriber transceiver antennas, we are not at this time
adopting the modified rules proposed in the Notice regarding labeling requirements using criteria based
on power and distance in this Order. Instead, we are proposing modifications to these rules in the
Further Notice under a broader scope of mitigation issues dealing with labeling and signage.168 In our
Notice, we proposed labeling as sufficient only with respect to devices governed by Parts 21 (Subpart K),
74 (Subpart I), and 101 (Subparts C, G, and L). We are now proposing in the Further Notice not to
require labels for any fixed subscriber transceiver antenna (or any transmitting antenna in general) if it is
demonstrated that the appropriate general population/uncontrolled exposure limits cannot be exceeded in
any case, even with persons immediately adjacent to an antenna, which we define as “intrinsic
compliance.” We find no basis for requiring labels for situations where the exposure limits cannot be
exceeded. However, this makes it particularly important to fully evaluate the required separation
distances from subscriber antennas by measurements or modeling. In the interim, while we will continue
to require labels in general, they may state that a device is intrinsically compliant with our exposure limits
if such is the case. Methods to achieve intrinsic compliance include, for example, the use of radomes or
other surfaces to preclude access to non-compliant spatial regions near energized antenna elements or
safety “cut-off” devices, discussed above, to reduce or shut down power to an antenna when a person may
be in the path of and too close to the source of the RF energy. We find this concept of intrinsically
compliant fixed devices to be useful in the context of our discussion in the Further Notice, and thus we
use this term in the context of our proposals below.169
97.
We have not been presented with any evidence that our present policy of not establishing
mandatory requirements regarding professional installation or device design has resulted in non-
compliance with the exposure limits. Accordingly, we find no justification for making any changes in
this area. We will continue to advise manufacturers and licensees to provide information in user manuals
regarding proper and safe installation. We conclude that our labeling requirements, in conjunction with
such information in user manuals, if necessary, will be sufficient to ensure that proper caution is taken in
the placement of these devices. With respect to Cisco’s comments, we note that the scope of the present
discussion involves the labeling of fixed consumer transceiver antennas, not mobile or portable devices.

C.

Effective Date

98.
Original Proposal. In the Notice, we recognized that licensees and applicants will need
some period of time to become familiar with any changes to our rules that could require additional routine
evaluation for some previously excluded transmitters and devices and to modify their processes and
procedures accordingly. Therefore, we proposed in the Notice to provide a transition period of six months
after we adopt any new rules in this proceeding before they become effective. We now defer many of our
decisions as proposals in the Further Notice, and those adopted here are not as extensive as those we
originally proposed. We expect that they can be readily complied with, and so we here adopt an effective
date of 60 days after publication in the Federal Register for the final rules in Appendix A.
99.
Comments. This issue generated a fairly large number of comments. Many commenters
favored a more lengthy transition period than the six months proposed. CTIA and other commenters
urged the Commission to allow a one-year transition period or longer, maintaining that anything shorter
would be overly burdensome.170 Many of the requests for longer periods of time to transition are
premised on the need to re-evaluate sites under the rules proposed in the Notice, but we are not modifying
our exclusion criteria in this Order.

168 See para. 176 infra.
169 See para. 196 infra.
170 See Cingular comments at 16; CTIA comments at 13-14; Dobson reply comments at 4-6; Ericsson comments at
8-9; Motorola comments at 15; Pinnacle comments at 8-9; T-Mobile comments at 12-14; Winstar comments at 3.

32

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

100.
Most commenters strongly urged the Commission to clarify that the new requirements for
routine evaluation be applied “prospectively.”171 Many of these commenters urged that we “grandfather”
existing sites from evaluation, although a few commenters opposed this.172 The EMR Network said the
Commission would be derelict in its duty to safeguard the public from RF exposure if it allows
grandfathered transmitters to remain unexamined. Similarly, RF People opposed grandfathering and
maintained that such an action would sweep large numbers of sites with potential RF hazards under the
rug. Southern maintained, on the other hand, that a system-wide re-evaluation would constitute an
enormous effort, and Sprint similarly noted that the proposals for rooftop antennas are more restrictive
than the existing standard, so that a significant number of existing sites could be subject to routine
evaluation. This, according to Sprint, would represent an immense burden for licensees, and the
Commission should not impose it absent clear and convincing evidence that transmitter sites that have
been excluded under the existing rules pose an unacceptable risk of non-compliance. Winstar
Communications, LLC (Winstar) similarly asserted that retroactive application of the proposed exclusion
criteria could impose unreasonable economic and administrative burdens on wireless providers.
101.
T-Mobile concurred that the new rule changes for exclusions from evaluation should be
prospective only, because existing facilities have been constructed in compliance with existing guidelines
and are, in fact, safe. Also, T-Mobile noted that the Commission’s environmental rules are promulgated
pursuant to the NEPA, and the NEPA is a prospective statute, enforceable only prior to the construction
of federally-licensed facilities. According to T-Mobile, the courts have consistently held that the NEPA
does not authorize relief after the fact of construction, absent bad faith on the part of an agency.173
102.
Some other commenters proposed that we allow a “concurrent system” of applicability,
whereby any new rules would become effective immediately but would not become mandatory until
later.174 During that time period, manufacturers and others would be able to choose between the current
or newly adopted rules. Dell, Nokia, and others noted that this would allow industry and consumers to
immediately benefit from some of the proposed changes.
103.
Decision. We will not require a new evaluation of all existing sites that were excluded
from evaluation under previous criteria. As pointed out by T-Mobile, the NEPA is a prospective
statute.175 Moreover, even if NEPA or the Communications Act provided discretionary authority to
require such existing sites to be evaluated under our new rules, we would find that such evaluation would
not be necessary in this case. The rule revisions set forth in Appendix A below are generally procedural.
We are not adopting any changes to the exclusion criteria in the rules at this time. In other words, if a site
was “categorically excluded” or “exempt” from routine evaluation under the previous rules, it will still be
exempt from routine evaluation under the rules we adopt today. We note, however, that regardless of
whether a site is exempt from routine evaluation, licensees are required to ensure that existing sites are in

171 See CTIA comments at 13-14; Dobson Communications reply comments at 4-6; NAB comments at 4; Southern
Communications comments at 8-9 and reply comments at 3-4; Sprint comments at 3-4; T-Mobile comments at 12-
14; Winstar Communications at 3; Wireless Communications Association International (WCA) comments at 2-5.
172 See EMR Network comments at 2, RF People reply comments at 1-4.
173 See T-Mobile comments at 13-14.
174 See Dell comments at 3; IEEE 802 comments at 8; Nokia comments at 8-9; TIA comments at 13; Wi-Fi
comments at 10.
175 T-Mobile comments at 13-14, citing Ogunquit Village Corporation v. Davis, 553 F.2d 243, 246 (1st Cir.1977);
Richland Park Homeowners Ass’n. v. Pierce, 671 F.2d 935, 941 (5th Cir. 1982), citing Aertsen v. Landrieu, 637
F.2d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 1980). See Section 102(2)(C)(i) of NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(i). See also Citizens and
Landowners v. United States Dept. of Energy, 683 F.2d 1171 (8th Cir. 1982) (refusing to afford remedy post-
construction).

33

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

compliance with our exposure limits.176 Furthermore, we caution that the Commission may take
enforcement action against licensees that do not comply with the exposure limits in the rules, regardless
of whether their transmitters were “categorically excluded” or “exempt” from routine evaluation in the
past.
104.
We have deferred many of the decisions of the Order to the Further Notice, and so our
final changes to the rules in this Order are relatively minor, most of which are allowing greater flexibility
in determination of compliance and thus are not associated with any increase in cost to affected parties.
However, we recognize that any such changes require a reasonable period of time to be implemented.
Therefore, we are setting an effective date of 60 days after publication in the Federal Register for the final
rules in Appendix A.

D.

Deletion of Old Rules and Update of Portable and Mobile Service Evaluation List

105.
We note that an administrative change is necessary in the rules dealing with RF exposure.
When we last adopted major changes to these rules in 1996 and 1997, we also adopted certain “Transition
Provisions.”177 These transition provisions, contained in sections 1.1307(b)(4) and (5) of our rules, no
longer have any effect and are thus not necessary. “All existing transmitting facilities, operations and
devices” the Commission regulates were required to be in compliance with section 1.1307(b)(1) through
(b)(3), by September 1, 2000 in accord with section 1.1307(b)(5).178 We state in section 1.1307(b)(1) of
our rules that our exposure limits “are generally applicable to all facilities, operations, and transmitters

176 The Commission’s authority to adopt and enforce RF exposure limits beyond the prospective limitations of
NEPA is well established. See, e.g., Section 704(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104
(directing Commission to “prescribe and make effective rules regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency
emissions” upon completing action in then-pending rulemaking proceeding that included proposals for, inter alia,
maximum exposure limits); 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) (recognizing legitimacy of FCC’s existing regulations on
environmental effects of RF emissions of personal wireless service facilities, by proscribing state and local
regulation of such facilities on the basis of such effects, to the extent such facilities comply with Commission
regulations concerning such RF emissions); 47 U.S.C. § 151 (creating the FCC “[f]or the purpose of regulating
interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to
all the people of the United States, . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio
communication service, . . . for the purpose of [inter alia] promoting safety of life and property through the use of
wire and radio communications”). See also H.R. Rep. No. 204(I), 104th Cong., 1st Sess. 94 (1995), reprinted in 1996
U.S.C.C.A.N. 10, 61 (1996) (in legislative history of Section 704 of 1996 Telecommunications Act, identifying
“adequate safeguards of the public health and safety” as part of a framework of uniform, nationwide RF
regulations); Farina v. Nokia, Inc., 625 F.3d 97 (3d Cir. 2010) (affirming that FCC regulation of cell phone RF
emissions – including those rules addressing health effects – preempted state lawsuit dependent on claims of adverse
health effects from FCC-compliant cell phone RF emissions), cert. denied, 132 S.Ct. 365 (2011). In Farina, 625
F.3d at 130, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit stated that “[p]rotecting public safety [with RF
emissions regulation] is clearly within the mandate of the FCC,” observing that “although the FCC’s RF regulations
were triggered by the Commission’s NEPA obligations, health and safety considerations were already within the
FCC’s mandate, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 332(a), and all RF regulations were promulgated under the rulemaking authority
granted by the [Communications Act of 1934, as amended].” Id. at 128. The court also recognized that in
promulgating RF exposure standards, the Commission was not only acting in accordance with its public safety
mandate, but also in accordance with its mandate to ensure the rapid development of an efficient and uniform
nationwide communications system: “In order to satisfy both its mandates to regulate the safety concerns of RF
emissions and to ensure the creation of an efficient and uniform nationwide network, the FCC was required to weigh
those considerations and establish a set of standards that limit RF emissions enough to protect the public and
workers while, at the same time, leave RF levels high enough to enable cell phone companies to provide quality
nationwide service in a cost-effective manner.” Id. at 125.
177 See 47 CFR §§ 1.1307(b)(4) and (5).
178 See 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(5).

34

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

regulated by the Commission.” Thus, there are no facilities operating pursuant to the requirements in
effect before the transition period that would become non-compliant with the rules as a result of the
elimination of the transition period. Moreover, there are no pending enforcement cases where compliance
with the transition deadline is at issue. We are, therefore, sua sponte deleting these transition provisions
from this rule part.
106.
We also note that we are making necessary minor administrative changes for clarification
and consistency between sections 1.1307(b)(2), 2.1091(c), and 2.1093, which list services requiring
routine RF evaluation for portable and mobile devices. Specifically, we add “Miscellaneous” to all three
sections to correctly name the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Service defined by part 27 of our
rules; we add “the 4.9 GHz Band Service” and “the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service
(MedRadio)” to section 1.1307(b)(2) to reflect their inclusion in section 2.1093(c); and we add “the 3650
MHz Wireless Broadband Service” to sections 2.1091(c) and 2.1093(c), since this change was already
adopted in the Report and Order in ET Docket 04-151, published in the Federal Register on May 11,
2005, but was never actually incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations. These changes do not
affect evaluation requirements for compliance or applicability of these sections to portable or mobile
devices.
107.
The regulatory changes discussed in the two preceding paragraphs do not require prior
notice and opportunity for comment. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, notice and opportunity for
comment are not required “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief
statement of reasons therefor[e] in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”179 Here, the Commission for good cause
finds that notice and comment are unnecessary for eliminating 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(b)(4) and (5),
because, for the reasons provided in paragraph 105, above, these rules have outlived their purpose and no
longer serve any function. Similarly, the Commission for good cause finds that notice and comment are
unnecessary for amending 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(b)(2), 2.1091(c), and 2.1093, to the extent and for the
reasons provided in paragraph 106.

179 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). The “unnecessary” exception to the notice requirement is “confined to those situations in
which the administrative rule is a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to
the industry and to the public.” Utility Solid Waste Activities Group v. EPA, 236 F.3d 749, 755 (D.C. Cir., 2001)
citing Texaco v. FPC, 412 F.2d 740, 743 (3d Cir., 1969). “‘Unnecessary’ refers to the issuance of a minor rule or
amendment in which the public is not particularly interested.” Texaco, 412 F.2d at 743 n.3.

35

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

IV.

FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING

108.
This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Further Notice) focuses on specific items
not acted upon in the Report and Order (Order), which that have either been raised or have evolved
significantly since the Notice.180 In summary, this Further Notice proposes: new power- and distance-
based exemptions181 that streamline the determination of whether preparation of a routine radiofrequency
(RF) evaluation is necessary; post-evaluation mitigation procedures to ensure that people are not exposed
to RF levels that exceed prescribed limits (procedures that include use of labels, signs, and barriers); and
clarifications to our rules involving the use, in the RF evaluation process, of calculation or measurement
methodologies to determine potential exposure levels. Consistent with the scope of discussion of the
Notice,182 this Further Notice does not invite comment on the exposure limits themselves; however, with
the Inquiry portion of this document, set out below, we initiate a new proceeding that will reexamine the
efficacy of these limits to determine whether any changes are warranted.
109.
In proposing, in this Further Notice, changes to our RF safety rules, our intent is to
appropriately protect the public without imposing an undue burden on industry. While acknowledging
the potential difficulty of quantifying benefits and burdens, we need to determine whether the overall
costs of the regulation are outweighed by the benefit to consumers, workers, and other members of the
public. We therefore request comment, below, on a wide range of questions that will enable us to weigh
those costs and benefits of our proposed rules. We also request comment on the most cost-effective
approach for modifying existing policies and practices to achieve the goals of our proposed rules while
still ensuring appropriate protection of the public. For each cost or benefit addressed, we ask that
commenters provide specific data and information such as actual or estimated dollar figures, including a
description of how the data or information was calculated or obtained and any supporting documentation.
All comments will be considered and given appropriate weight. Vague or unsupported assertions
regarding costs or benefits generally will receive less weight and be less persuasive than the more specific
and supported statements.

A.

Definition of Terms Related to our Further Proposals

110.
Summary. Comments received in response to the Notice requested consistent
terminology when referring to “power” in general. Various commenters also raised issues that are
related, at least in part, to our existing rules for categorical exclusions. We thus propose clarification of
our definitions related to power and propose a new definition of “exemption” as applied to routine
evaluation, both of which are relevant to our further proposals.
111.
Comments. In the current rules, the term “total power of all channels” means the sum of
the total ERP of all channels defined as “all co-located simultaneously operating transmitters owned and
operated by a single licensee.”183 Dr. John Moulder184 noted that the proposed rule amendments appended
to the Notice do not include this language. Dr. Moulder strongly urged the Commission to maintain the
present definition and to broaden it to include all co-located transmitters at a given site, not just those
operated by a single licensee.185 Some commenters noted that the terms used for “power” in the Notice

180 See Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Notice), ET Docket 03-137, Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rules
Regarding Human Exposure to Radio frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 18 FCC Rcd 13187 (2003) at paras. 1-5.
181 See an explanation of the use of the term “exemption” instead of “categorical exclusion” in footnote 29 supra.
182 See Notice at para. 5.
183 See 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(1).
184 Dr. John Moulder, Ph.D., Medical College of Wisconsin (Dr. Moulder).
185 See Moulder comments at 1-2.

36

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

are not always consistent.186 For example, Hammett and Edison noted that the text mixes usage of the
terms “transmitter power” and “ERP,” and it urged that we maintain the distinction between these terms.
Nokia similarly pointed out that the Notice uses several terms for power and suggested that we use two
terms consistently in the new rules: “maximum time-averaged output power” and “maximum time-
averaged ERP/EIRP.” “Time-averaged” would refer to the averaging period specified in the MPE
guidelines in section 1.1310 of the rules. As pointed out by BSL in its comments to the Notice,187 use of
the term “exclusion” to signify the more limited exemption from performing a routine evaluation for RF
exposure may be confusing. BSL also suggested that it is important to make clear that a “routine
evaluation” need not be some rigid process requiring a lot of paperwork and, as noted by Richard A. Tell
and RF People, exclusion from routine evaluation is not an exclusion from compliance.188
112.
Further Proposal. With respect to our use of varied definitions for “power,” we are
proposing explicit and consistent power definitions appropriate for the conditions of use and underlying
exposure limits. We here clarify for the purposes of our proposals here the definitions that we will use
consistently throughout this Further Notice. ERP is defined as the product of the net power delivered to
the antenna (i.e., excluding reflected and/or dissipated power not transferred to the antenna) and its
maximum gain, where the “maximum gain” is the largest far-field total power gain relative to a dipole in
any direction for all transverse polarization components. Available power is defined as the matched
conducted power when a source having finite internal impedance is perfectly matched to its load.
Delivered power is defined as the net power supplied to the load. With respect to time averaging, “time-
averaged” for a fixed RF source is an average over any 30 minute time period (or 6 minutes for
occupational exposure evaluation but not exemption), in contrast with “time-averaged” for a mobile or
portable RF source, which is an average over a period inherent from device transmission
characteristics.189 Combining these definitions, the “maximum time-averaged ERP” for a fixed RF source
is the product of the maximum delivered power to the antenna and its maximum gain as averaged over
any 30 minute time period;190 the “available maximum time-averaged power” is the maximum available
power as averaged over any 30 minute time period;191 and the “delivered maximum time-averaged
power” is the net maximum delivered or supplied power as averaged over any 30 minute time period.192
113.
We are also proposing a modification to the terminology we use in the context of
providing for “exclusions” from routine evaluation. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), requires an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a major federal action
that significantly affects the quality of the human environment. Under regulations promulgated by the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to implement this procedural responsibility, an agency may utilize
a briefer Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine if an EIS is required and may “exclude” from
environmental processing a category of proposed actions that do not have a significant environmental
impact.193 Section 1.1306 of the Commission’s NEPA procedures, 47 C.F.R. 1.1306, establishes a

186 See Hammett and Edison comments at 3; Nokia comments at 2-3.
187 See BSL comments at 2-7.
188 See Richard Tell comments at 1-2; RF People comments at 1-3.
189 See para. 222 infra.
190 In contrast, the “maximum time-averaged ERP” for a mobile or portable RF source is the product of the
maximum delivered power to the antenna and its maximum gain as averaged over a period inherent from device
transmission characteristics.
191 In contrast, the “available maximum time-averaged power” for a mobile or portable RF source is the maximum
available power as averaged over a period inherent from device transmission characteristics.
192 In contrast, the “delivered maximum time-averaged power” for a mobile or portable RF source is the net
maximum delivered or supplied power as averaged over a period inherent from device transmission characteristics.
193 See 40 CFR §§ 1508.4, 1508.9.

37

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

categorical “exclusion” for actions not specifically defined by sections 1.1307(a) or (b), or determined by the
processing bureau under sections 1.1307(c) or (d), to have a potentially significant environmental impact that
requires the applicant or license to prepare an EA. An EA or an EIS is a specialized document, subject to the
format and content requirements specified in CEQ rules and the Commission’s rules (e.g., 47 C.F.R. §
1.1311). Other environmental factors besides RF, such as location in a wilderness area or flood plain (see 47
C.F.R. § 1.1307(a)), may require the applicant or licensee to prepare an EA. Thus, a facility that is “exempt”
from a routine evaluation for RF exposure may still have other environmental considerations, which
precludes “exclusion” from the environmental processing requirements of preparing a formal EA or EIS.
Therefore, to avoid confusion, we are proposing a change in the language used in the rules, so that an
“exemption” will refer to an exemption from performing a routine RF evaluation, while the term
“exclusion” will continue to be used in the context of an exclusion from preparation of any EA or other
additional environmental document. Consistent with this proposal, we use these terms in this manner
throughout the text of this Further Notice.

B.

Exemption: Power and Distance Criteria to Streamline Determination of
Compliance

114.
Summary. The Commission’s rules identify particular categories of existing or proposed
transmitting facilities for which licensees and applicants are required to conduct routine environmental
evaluations to determine whether these facilities comply with our RF guidelines. All other transmitting
facilities have been “categorically excluded”194 from such routine evaluations because we determined that
they offer negligible potential for causing exposures in excess of our guidelines, based on factors such as
operating power and accessibility.195 After years of experience in analyzing RF exposure potential from
various sources, we proposed in the Notice certain modifications to these categories.196 Current
categorical exclusion rules for certain fixed197 transmitting facilities with similar exposure characteristics
are based on combinations of effective radiated power (ERP)198 and antenna height above ground, so we
proposed in the Notice relatively minor modifications to the categories in Table 1 of section 1.1307(b) of
our rules,199 considering both total ERP and separation distance, rather than height above ground, to
determine whether a routine evaluation is necessary. Separation distance in this context would be defined
as the minimum distance from the radiating structure of the transmitting antenna in any direction to any
area that is accessible to a worker or to a member of the general public.200 In proposing these rules in the
Notice, we indicated we were also concerned that the separation distances and ERP levels contained in the

194 As noted above, in this Further Notice, we propose to modify this terminology to refer to an “exemption” from
routine evaluation.
195 Accessibility generally relates to such factors as the height above ground of an antenna or whether an antenna is
mounted on a tower or accessible on a rooftop, as well as lateral distance from the closest point of possible human
presence.
196 See section III. A. of the Notice.
197 In this context, we are using the term “fixed” to refer to those transmitters referenced in Table 1 of 47 CFR §
1.1307(b) that are not considered “mobile” or “portable” as defined in 47 CFR § 2.1091 and § 2.1093. This
definition includes transmitters that are physically secured at one location on a temporary basis. An example of such
a case would be a mobile wireless base station used to accommodate increased call volume at a special event.
198 Equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) equals ERP times 1.64.
199 See Appendix A and section III. A. of the Notice.
200 These separation distances and power levels were derived from calculations taking into account the current RF
safety guidelines and the technical rules governing the affected transmitting facilities contained in the Commission’s
rules. See Notice at para. 11. Also see the Commission’s OET Bulletin 65 for detailed information on such
calculations.

38

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

rules that trigger routine evaluation might not be appropriate in all situations.201 For example, under our
current guidelines, a cellular transmitting facility with an antenna less than 10 meters high would not be
subject to routine evaluation for RF exposure even if it operated at an ERP level that approaches the
threshold level for routine RF evaluation (such as 999 W). We made several proposals for routine
evaluation and exclusion in the Notice and proposed to apply them uniformly across multiple services.202
Here we propose exemption criteria based on power, frequency, and separation distance (rather than
antenna height above ground) uniformly across all services (rather than just the services in Table 1 of
section 1.1307(b) of our rules).
115.
Comments. Commenters generally expressed support for our proposals in the Notice to
make the RF exposure rules simple and more consistent across service categories.203 However, various
commenters also advocated modifying certain of the proposed exclusion criteria to eliminate additional
evaluations.204 Cisco and Southern proposed that rather than using discrete cut-off values, the exclusion
criteria should be a continuous “sliding scale” formula of transmitter power versus separation distance.205
Based on its evaluation of several hundred communications sites where changes in transmitting facilities
have occurred, Global recommended that both the proposed separation distance and output power criteria
be reduced.206 Other commenters contended that the Commission mostly struck an appropriate balance in
proposing exclusion criteria based on separation distance and power.207
116.
Some commenters acknowledged that the proposed changes would likely increase the
number of new facilities requiring routine evaluation, but they viewed the changes as “positive” and
likely to improve both levels of confidence and compliance efficiency.208 Professor John Moulder noted
that the proposed rule changes would make the Commission’s exclusion criteria much easier to explain to
non-technical audiences concerned about exposure from wireless base stations.209 According to T-
Mobile, the proposed rules would not be significantly more burdensome than procedures already being
used by it and other wireless carriers to determine whether facilities are excluded from environmental
processing.210 T-Mobile also encouraged the Commission to issue additional technical guidance to
licensees and applicants to help confirm compliance at transmitter sites.211

201 See Notice at para. 9.
202 See Notice at paras. 9-16.
203 See, for example, CTIA comments at 1; Dell comments at 1; Ericsson comments at 1; IEEE 802 comments at 1-
4; ITI comments at 2-3; Motorola comments at 3-5; Nokia comments at 1; Pinnacle comments at 2-4; Sirius Satellite
Radio, Inc. (Sirius) comments at 1-3; T-Mobile comments at 1-2; TIA comments at 4-6; Wi-Fi comments at 4-5;
WCA comments at 1-2; and XM Radio comments at 1-2.
204 See AT&T comments at 1; Cingular comments at 3-12; CTIA comments at 3-7; Dobson reply comments at 3-4;
Ericsson comments at 3-4; Motorola comments at 3-5; Moulder comments at 2; Nokia comments at 2-3; Pinnacle
comments at 2-4; Southern comments at 2-7 and reply comments at 2-6; Sprint comments at 2; TIA comments at 4-
6; Winstar comments at 2-3.
205 See Cisco comments at 4-7; Southern comments at 2-7; reply comments at 5-6.
206 See Global comments at 1.
207 See T-Mobile comments at 4-11; reply comments at 3-4; Sirius comments at 1-3; BSL comments at 8; Pinnacle
comments at 2-4.
208 See, e.g., T-Mobile comments at 4-11.
209 See Moulder comments at 2.
210 See T-Mobile comments at 6.
211 See T-Mobile comments at 7.

39

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

117.
Other than comments that suggested the use of additional criteria or a continuous sliding
scale formula, described above, most comments regarding specific criteria for separation distance and
power were directed at low-power (close proximity) installations. Many commenters supported our
proposals for exclusion thresholds for low-power fixed transmitters.212 For example, T-Mobile believed
the proposed thresholds combine a high degree of safety with reasonable efficiency. T-Mobile submitted
test data that it asserted indicate that exposure levels drop significantly within a very short distance from
the face of typical “microcell” base station antennas and are typically about 50% of public MPE limits at
20 cm.213 Motorola and the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) supported the proposed low
power exclusion thresholds, provided that antenna gain in different directions can be used to calculate
ERP.214 Nokia asserted that the power thresholds proposed, coupled with the 20 cm separation
requirement, would provide the public with sufficient protection while ensuring that these devices can be
installed without delay.215 IT’IS expressed concern that the bases for the minimum distances proposed,
and for which evaluations would be required, were not obvious and urged that these distances be justified
based on expert agreement so that they will ensure the basic restrictions in terms of whole-body and
spatial peak specific absorption rates (SARs) are met under all circumstances.216
118.
On the other hand, CTIA and Cingular stated that the proposed exclusion thresholds for
very low power transmitters were too restrictive.217 CTIA supported the adoption of exclusion thresholds
but argued that the proposal did not take into account low power transmitters operating at slightly higher
power levels that were slightly farther from people who are transient through public areas. CTIA
recommended that the Commission adopt an intermediate threshold to extend the exclusion to very low-
power transmitters normally located at least 60 cm from persons and with power levels slightly higher
than those proposed. Cingular maintained that microcell antennas are often mounted in or above ceiling
tiles and are typically 2 feet or more above the head of a six-foot adult. Therefore, based on its analysis,
Cingular submitted that the power thresholds should be raised to 8 W ERP for frequencies below 1.5 GHz
and 26 W ERP for frequencies above 1.5 GHz, both based on a separation distance of 2 feet (60 cm) in
front of an antenna. Dobson Communications Corp. (Dobson) concurred that either the Cingular or the
CTIA proposal is preferable to the proposed rule.218 Southern Communications also supported Cingular’s
alternative219 and further maintained that because the MPE limits already incorporate a “significant
margin of safety,” it is not necessary to add yet an additional margin for low power fixed devices.
119.
Further Proposal. We propose here to adopt general exemption criteria applying to
single RF sources and then further generalized to multiple RF sources in section 1.1307(b) of our rules,
described in detail below, based on power, distance, and frequency, for all services using fixed, mobile,
and portable transmitters, including implants. We propose that these criteria apply to all of our rules
authorizing RF sources – in short, to treat like sources similarly. These proposed criteria based on
physical properties are more appropriate than the existing distinctions between service classifications,

212 See Ericsson comments at 3-4; IEEE 802 comments at 3-4; ITI comments at 3-4; Nokia comments at 2-3; T-
Mobile comments at 11-12; Sirius comments at 1-3; Wi-Fi comments at 4.
213 See T-Mobile comments at 11-12.
214 See Motorola comments at 3-5; TIA comments at 4-6.
215 See Nokia comments at 2-3.
216 See IT’IS comments at 3. Margaret Brown also expresses concern that the proposed exclusion levels could
expose individuals to RF levels above the MPE values. However, she provides no basis for this concern, and we
will not consider it further. See Margaret Brown comments at 1.
217 See CTIA comments at 7-8; Cingular comments at 13-14.
218 See Dobson reply comments at 3-4.
219 See Southern comments at 2-7, reply comments at 3.

40

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

allow greater simplicity, are technologically neutral, and do not have to be modified to accommodate new
or converging services. The exemption thresholds proposed in this Further Notice are based on the
general population exposure limits because any exposure above the general population limit would need
to be evaluated to facilitate awareness of such exposures given our occupational awareness, control, and
training requirements in the Order adopted herein supra.220 These proposed general exemption criteria
for single RF sources, described in detail in Appendices C and D herein infra, offer a layered approach to
facilitate determination of compliance with our exposure limits. As shown in Figure D-1 of Appendix D,
the simplest exemption criteria are the most conservative, while less restrictive exemption criteria, test
reduction procedures, or evaluation processes become incrementally more involved, requiring
consideration of more specific technical aspects of the RF source for compliance determination as the
exposure potential increases. Later in this Further Notice, we propose to employ, under certain defined
circumstances, generally applicable summation formulas for determining whether multiple RF sources
meet proposed exemption criteria.221
120.
In the event that RF sources in fact cause human exposure to levels of RF radiation in excess
of the limits in section 1.1310 of the rules, a routine RF evaluation or exemption from such an evaluation
would not be sufficient to show that there is no significant effect on the quality of the human environment or
that the RF sources are categorically excluded from environmental processing. Further, RF sources are
subject to review under sections 1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) of the rules regardless of whether those RF
sources have either been determined to be exempt from routine RF evaluation or have been satisfactorily
evaluated for compliance. Given the technical complexity of some evaluations, and the assumptions
made in deriving the proposed relatively simple exemption criteria herein, there still may be a possibility
under atypical circumstances that the procedures to determine compliance are not valid. However, the
exemption criteria proposed here should greatly reduce our dependence on review under sections
1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) for RF compliance. We encourage interested parties to comment on the relative
costs and benefits of the proposed changes in this section, as well as those of alternative approaches.
1.

Blanket 1 mW Exemption

121.
Summary. Supported by comments received in response to the Notice, we propose here
adoption of an exemption from routine environmental evaluation for a single transmitter operating with
up to one milliwatt available maximum time-averaged power. This proposed 1 mW exemption threshold
for any single transmitter would be independent of frequency and service type.222 We also propose a
minimum two-centimeter separation distance between multiple transmitters operating up to 1 mW and
seek comment on whether multiple transmitters using this exemption could under normal operating
conditions exceed our exposure limits.
122.
Consideration of the fundamental limits on SAR as a function of power is useful for
placing a blanket threshold on exemptions from routine evaluation for portable devices. For example, the
localized SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg averaged over 1 gram cannot be exceeded if the available power from a
transmitter is less than 1.6 mW. This determination is independent of frequency and distance over the
applicable SAR frequency range of 100 kHz to 6 GHz. For purposes of establishing the exemption
threshold based on conservation of energy, only the available maximum time-averaged power223 from a
transmitter is relevant.

220 See para. 75 supra.
221 See paras. 139, 142, 154, and 161 infra.
222 See § 1.1307(b)(1) in Appendix B infra.
223 To obtain the available power from a source having finite internal impedance, the impedance of the load must be
matched, that is, equal to the complex conjugate of the impedance of the source as viewed from the output terminals.
See para. 112 supra.

41

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

123.
Comments. In comments received in response to the Notice, Motorola, Sony Ericsson
and Bluetooth SIG, Inc. (Bluetooth SIG) suggested using a SAR-based threshold of 20 mW according to
the ICNIRP 2.0 W/kg 10-gram-average SAR limit.224 Those commenters neglected to proportionally
scale this proposed threshold down to the 1.6 W/kg 1-g SAR level required for compliance with our
exposure limits.
124.
Further Proposal. The 20 mW threshold introduced by comments received would be the
appropriate threshold for a single transmitter if the Commission exposure limit were 2 W/kg as averaged
over 10 grams, which is not the case. Our exposure limit would imply a 1.6 mW threshold for a single
transmitter. Similar to the localized SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg being averaged over 1 gram, the extremity
SAR limit of 4 W/kg that applies to the pinnae (outer ears), hands, feet, wrists, and ankles is averaged
over 10 grams. So, if the available power from a transmitter is less than 40 mW, then the extremity SAR
limit cannot be exceeded due to that transmitter operating alone. Likewise, the Commission’s localized
occupational SAR limit allows 8 W/kg averaged over 1 gram, which would imply an 8 mW exemption
threshold, and for extremities where a limit of 20 W/kg averaged over 10 grams is specified, a 200 mW
exemption threshold would be appropriate.225 However, setting a device exemption threshold based on an
extremity limit does not necessarily ensure localized SAR compliance beyond that extremity. Further,
ensuring a condition where only extremities are exposed is unlikely to be universally practical. As stated
previously,226 our proposed exemption thresholds should be based solely on the general population
exposure limits, not occupational exposure limits; thus, an 8 mW blanket threshold for occupational use is
not considered appropriate.
125.
As a worst-case example, transmitting medical implants have a high potential for most of
their energy to be absorbed in one gram of tissue. Considering this case and accounting for device output
power measurement variations in situ, we propose a single transmitter threshold of 1.0 mW available
maximum time-averaged RF output power at frequencies up to 6 GHz for exemption from routine
evaluation. Above 6 GHz, we propose the same exemption threshold for continuity, but now based on a
reasonably restrictive assumption that the 1 mW of available maximum time-averaged power would be
averaged over a contiguous area of 1 cm2. Analogous to the use of a 1-g cube for the case of SAR, 1 cm2
would be approximately the area of the surface of one side of such a 1-g cube. Thus, the proposed 1 mW
exemption threshold is nominally independent of frequency from 100 kHz to 100 GHz. Further, the
proposed 1 mW exemption threshold is also independent of service type and is applicable to single fixed,
mobile, or portable RF sources. We seek comment on this proposal. We seek comment specifically on
whether the 1 mW exemption threshold will be useful in streamlining approval of very-low power
implanted and body-mounted medical devices that operate intermittently and with a low transmitter duty
cycle.
126.
The proposed 1 mW blanket exemption assumes the transmitted power is either absorbed
in an approximate cubic centimeter of tissue or incident on a square centimeter of tissue, depending on
frequency. Because of these assumed small regions, the likelihood of multiple blanket exempt
transmitters significantly exposing the same tissue is small, and that significant overlap in exposure can
only occur for blanket exempt transmitting antennas within one centimeter of each other. Based on this
consideration, we conservatively propose two centimeters as a required separation distance between any
portion of a blanket exempt radiating structure and the nearest portion of any other radiating structure in
order to qualify for the 1 mW blanket exemption. Conversely, for the case of multiple transmitters having
antennas within two centimeters of each other, we propose that the power from all such transmitters be
added together, treated conservatively as a single transmitting antenna, and compared with the blanket 1
mW exemption. We seek comment on whether additive multiple transmitters operating at 1 mW at least

224 See Motorola comments at 8; Sony Ericsson comments at 4-6; Bluetooth SIG comments at 3-4.
225 International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC 62479, Draft Edition 1, Distributed March 12, 2010.
226 See para. 119 supra.

42

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

two centimeters apart could under normal operating conditions exceed our exposure limits. We seek
further comment on whether addition of a blanket exempt transmitter could cause our exposure limits to
be exceeded when other compliant transmitters are present, exempt or not. Additionally, we seek
comment on whether the blanket exemption as proposed may not be adequate to prevent exposure over
our limits, for example, in a situation involving multiple high-gain millimeter-wave radiators. We
encourage interested parties to comment on the relative costs and benefits of the proposed changes in this
section, as well as those of alternative approaches.
2.

MPE-Based Exemption of Fixed, Mobile, and Portable RF Sources

127.
We proposed in the Notice to apply existing mobile exemptions to fixed transmitters
based on the assumption that both fixed and mobile transmitting antennas would normally operate at least
20 cm from people and thus, evaluation with respect to MPE limits is appropriate. Briefly, instead of
defining an invariant power threshold beyond a certain distance, we propose herein to establish varying
exemption criteria based on MPE limits for fixed, mobile, and portable RF sources so long as the
separation distance for the operating frequency is beyond the distance where the reactive near-field
dominates (i.e., at distances beyond λ/2π, where λ is the free-space operating wavelength).227
a.

Single Transmitters

128.
Summary. In addition to the blanket 1 mW exemption threshold proposed above, we
propose here a revised table in section 1.1307(b)(1)228 that specifies conservative frequency-dependent
criteria, as derived in Appendix C, to exempt from routine environmental evaluation a single transmitter
operating with up to a calculated maximum time-averaged effective radiated power given a separation
distance. Similar to the blanket 1 mW exemption threshold, these exemption criteria for any single
transmitter are also independent of service type.
129.
Comments. As discussed above,229 most comments received in response to the Notice
supported the idea of simplifying our criteria and making them consistent across all services. Some also
suggested that we consider a “sliding scale”230 or a more detailed scheme for defining exemptions based
on simple calculation methods.
130.
Further Proposal. Since exposure levels are dependent on power, distance, and
frequency, we agree that these suggestions for consistent “sliding scale” criteria across all services have
merit and would improve upon our original proposals for exemption criteria in the Notice. In addition,
power levels and frequencies authorized for new types of transmitters in new and existing services are
subject to frequent change, making it difficult to maintain an up-to-date scheme for exemptions from
evaluation that is based solely on service category. Therefore, rather than identify these criteria by
service, as has been done in the past, we are proposing a revised table for single fixed, mobile, and
portable antennas that specifies power and distance criteria for each of the five frequency bands used for
the MPE limits that would apply regardless of service category. The new proposed criteria are shown in
Table 1 below. We propose to apply these criteria to single fixed, mobile, and portable RF sources at
separation distances from any part of the radiating structure of at least λ/2π in all service categories231 and

227 See para. 130 and Table 1 infra, where the term “λ/2π” is explained in further detail.
228 See § 1.1307(b)(1) in Appendix B infra.
229 See paras. 115 through 118 supra.
230 See para. 115 supra.
231 In the proposed Table 1 below, if R < λ/2π, then evaluation is required. Since λ/2π is > 20 cm at frequencies
below 239 MHz, these exemption criteria do not apply to portable devices that are operated both at less than 20 cm
from the body and at frequencies below 239 MHz. In general, less restrictive exemption criteria may be used in
accordance with the formulas below Table 2 in para. 153 infra, but these portable exemptions are not valid below
(continued….)

43

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

to use them to determine whether routine evaluation is necessary. The proposed thresholds in Table 1 are
based on the general population maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits with a single perfect
reflection, outside of the reactive near-field, and in the main beam of the radiator, to be compared with the
maximum time-averaged effective radiated power. As discussed in Appendix C, these proposed
thresholds will generally be conservative in the radiating near-field, but they may not be conservative in
the reactive near-field. Reactive near fields dominate at separation distances of less than λ/2π and may be
stronger than the fields calculated based on the far-field gain, particularly in the case of electrically short
antennas.232 In the literature on electrically small antennas, the boundary at the distance λ/2π is also
referred to as a “radiansphere.”233 The distance equivalent to λ/2π may be calculated in meters from
47.7/f where f is the frequency in MHz. Appendix C explains in detail how the criteria were derived for
Table 1.

Table 1. Single Fixed, Mobile, and Portable Transmitting Antennas Proposed to be Subject to
Routine Environmental Evaluation

Transmitter Frequency

Threshold ERP

(MHz)
(watts)
Regardless of ERP, evaluation is required if the separation distance from the radiating structure, R,
is less than λ/2π, where λ is the free-space operating wavelength, unless the available maximum
time-averaged power is less than one milliwatt. In addition, evaluation is required if the ERP in
watts is greater than the value given by the formula below for the appropriate frequency, f, in MHz
at the separation distance, R, in meters.
0.3 – 1.34
ERP ≥ 1,920 R²
1.34 – 30
ERP ≥ 3,450 R²/f²
30 – 300
ERP ≥ 3.83 R²
300 – 1,500
ERP ≥ 0.0128 R²f
1,500 – 100,000
ERP ≥ 19.2 R²

131.
In the context of the proposed Table 1, we propose to define ERP,234 as the product of the
maximum time-averaged power delivered to the antenna235 and its maximum gain in any direction relative
(Continued from previous page)
300 MHz. Thus, there are no exemption criteria below 239 MHz proposed for portable devices other than the 1 mW
blanket exemption.
232 Environmental Protection Agency, Near-Field Radiation Properties of Simple Linear Antennas with Applications
to Radiofrequency Hazards and Broadcasting, Tell, Richard A., ORP/EAD 78-4, June 1978.
233 See e.g., Proceedings of the IRE, The Radiansphere Around a Small Antenna, Wheeler, Harold A., 1959.
234 The equivalent isotropically-radiated power (EIRP), defined as the product of the maximum time-averaged
power delivered to the antenna and its maximum gain in any direction relative to an isotropic antenna, equals 1.64
times the ERP. ERP can be derived from the power spectral density (PSD) (e.g., W/m2/MHz) if the bandwidth
(BW) is known, as ERP = PSD * BW * 4πR2 / 1.64, where R is the distance used to determine the PSD and
generally will not be the separation distance used for determination of exemption. This assumes that power spectral
density was determined in the far-field of an antenna.
235 To obtain the maximum delivered power from a source having finite internal impedance, the impedance of the
load is that of the antenna which may not necessarily be matched, that is, delivered power excludes reflected and/or
dissipated power not transferred to the antenna.

44

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

to a half-wave dipole. The maximum gain is the largest far-field total power gain relative to a dipole in
any direction for all transverse polarization components. The maximum time-averaged power delivered
to the antenna is averaged over any 30 minute time period for fixed sources and is averaged over a period
inherent to the device transmission characteristics for mobile and portable sources.236 The term
“separation distance” in Table 1 is defined as the minimum distance in any direction, from any part of the
radiating structure of a transmitting antenna or antenna array, to the body of a nearby person. For these
exemptions to apply, we propose that separation distance shall be required to be maintained for all
persons, including those occupationally exposed, during operation at the ERP used for comparison to the
applicable formula in the table above.237 The table above would strictly apply only to single transmitters;
however, we propose that it may also be used with multiple fixed transmitters in conjunction with the
summations discussed in paragraph 141, or it may be used with multiple mobile or portable transmitters
within the same device in conjunction with the summations discussed in paragraph 164, but we propose
that these two types of permissible summations may not be used together.238
132.
To the extent that the separation from the source is beyond the distance to the reactive
near-field region (R ≥ λ/2π), the proposed criteria in Table 1 may also be applied to portable devices, as
defined in section 2.1093, or to any antenna operated within 20 cm of the body, or to mobile devices, as
defined in section 2.1091, operated at least 20 cm from the body. Somewhat less restrictive specific
exemptions from routine evaluation proposed later in this document may be applied regardless of λ/2π at
any distance between 0.5 and 40 cm from the body of a nearby person for both single and multiple
transmitters, regardless of service classification.239 Taken together, either of these proposed exemption
criteria, whether MPE-based or SAR-based, if adopted, would be applied at distances between λ/2π and
40 cm. However, we would apply the SAR-based exemption criteria in cases in which the separation
distance is less than λ/2π but more than 0.5 cm, and only at frequencies between 300 MHz and 6 GHz.
Also, we would apply the MPE-based exemption criteria exclusively in cases in which the separation
distance is greater than 40 cm at frequencies between 300 MHz and 6 GHz. Finally, we would permit the
proposed SAR-based exemption criteria to be combined with the proposed MPE-based exemption criteria
for multiple transmitting antennas within the same device where some antennas are between 0.5 and 40
cm from the body and others are at a greater distance.240
133.
The formulas in Table 1 are based on worst-case calculations, and it is important to
remember that these proposed criteria are intended to identify only situations where further evaluation is
necessary. As these proposed exemption criteria are intended to be worst-case, they do not necessarily
indicate that a transmitting station is not in compliance with the Commission’s exposure limits; rather
they simply point to the need for a more detailed analysis to determine if evaluation is necessary.
134.
We expect that this approach to exemption will provide ease of application for licensees
and provide a better level of understanding for the public. Also, these proposed criteria are reliably and
consistently quantifiable. We agree with those that commented in response to the Notice that complex
exemption criteria would essentially create the same burden as the routine evaluations they would be
intended to excuse and thus would offer no real benefit to licensees. Similarly, in the reactive near-field
region at R < λ/2π, development of more complicated general exemptions beyond those proposed here
may broaden their applicability but would certainly require a more complex exemption formulation.
Additionally, as some commenters pointed out,241 a relatively simple approach to exemptions would be

236 See para. 112 supra.
237 See para. 119 supra.
238 See paras. 142 and 165 infra.
239 See para. 151 infra.
240 See para. 164 infra.
241 See para. 116 supra.

45

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

useful to persons who seek a simple tool for independent confirmation of the distance from an individual
antenna which would strongly indicate compliance with our rules. Also, broad applicability coupled with
a sound technical basis should help provide assurance that additional sources of RF energy do not result
in non-compliance with our RF exposure limits. Finally, we note that not all Commission licensees are
expert in RF exposure matters, and a simple set of criteria based on readily evident information, i.e.,
frequency, power, and distance, will help ensure understanding and compliance with our regulations.
135.
We propose to apply the power and distance criteria consistently across all services. No
commenter took issue with this original general proposal in the Notice, and we can find no reason to treat
like facilities differently from an RF exposure perspective based solely on the nature of the service
provided. While we recognize that services in the past have been exempt because they only involve
occupational exposure,242 we are basing these exemptions across all services on the general population
exposure limits. By basing our exemption criteria on power and separation distance according to
operating frequency, we also avoid problems and confusion that may arise when we approve new services
that may have operating characteristics different from those that already exist.
136.
We acknowledge that the trade-off in the simplicity of the exemption guidelines we
propose may, in some cases, lead to evaluations that a more complex formulation for exemption might
have excused. We suggest that this conservative approach in conjunction with the greater simplicity
afforded by our exemption guidelines would be likely to offer an additional layer of utility in contrast to
more complicated evaluation procedures in our guidance documents. A more detailed evaluation can be,
and often is, a simple mathematical calculation that demonstrates compliance, but our ongoing policy to
consider other methods and procedures if based on sound engineering practice does not preclude other
more complex procedures which sufficiently demonstrate compliance. In the simple case of a roof-
mounted antenna or a directional antenna, a routine evaluation can often take into account relevant
characteristics of the antenna and the site to readily demonstrate compliance through a calculation. In a
more complex case, we recently permitted the use of finite element method (FEM)-based computational
modeling as an alternative to finite difference time domain (FDTD)-based computational modeling for
evaluation of MedRadio devices.243 We seek comment on the expected cost associated with performing
these calculations compared with existing procedures as well as the benefit of the proposed consistent
application of these exemption criteria across all services.
137.
With respect to our initial proposal in the Notice to exempt low-power single fixed
transmitters, we now propose to delete the existing mobile power exemptions244 and apply the new
proposed general fixed transmitter power exemptions to mobile and portable devices as well. Since the
mobile services currently listed in section 2.1091(c) operate above 800 MHz and tend to be used in non-
reflective settings,245 the existing power exemption criteria were based on free-space calculations at 20
cm using the public MPE limits at approximately 800 and 1,500 MHz, and while they are useful for these
mobile sources, they are not as generally applicable as the proposed new exemption proposal. The new
exemption proposal would allow higher powers at greater distances for both mobile and fixed devices,
would apply to all services, and would be valid in possibly reflective environments and at lower
frequencies; however, this proposal would necessarily reduce the exemption power for mobile devices
used at 20 cm. For example at frequencies above 1,500 MHz, this proposed MPE-based exemption
power would be reduced by a factor of 4 to an ERP of approximately 0.75 W at 20 cm, while the

242 See para. 119 supra.
243 See Order granting ANSYS Inc. Request for Waiver of 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(2) of Commission Rules, ET Docket
10-166, 26 FCC Rcd 1034, Adopted Feb. 1, 2011.
244 47 CFR 2.1091(c) of the rules specifies 1.5 or 3.0 W ERP (depending on frequency) for categorical exclusion of
mobile antennas for separation distances greater than 20 cm.
245 See para. 66 of Report and Order in ET Docket 93-62 (Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of
Radio frequency Radiation), 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1996).

46

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

proposed SAR-based exemption criteria would allow an ERP of approximately 3 W at 20 cm up to 40
cm.246 Further, a maximum time-averaged ERP of up to 6.9 W at 60 cm would be exempt for a single
antenna using the proposed MPE-based exemption criteria.247 We seek comment on whether these
proposals are acceptable alternatives to the values suggested by CTIA and Cingular in their comments.248
Devices installed in ceilings at a separation distance of 60 cm (about 2 feet) or greater would be covered
under these new proposed criteria without special consideration. We also reiterate here that these
proposed criteria are simply meant to determine whether an evaluation is required. Once that has been
determined, such an evaluation need not necessarily be a complex or difficult task. As has been and will
continue to be the case, an affected party may undertake an evaluation in lieu of determining exemption
status. Parties that determine that they are not exempt, as well as parties that do not determine exemption
status, must perform an evaluation.
138.
As stated previously, one goal of the general exemptions from routine RF exposure
evaluation proposed here is to avoid specific exemptions for particular services and ensure a consistent set
of rules without exceptions. Thus, we propose to delete the special exemptions from evaluation in the
Amateur Radio Service in section 97.13(c) of our rules. We appreciate that amateur radio operators are
knowledgeable about the appropriate use of their equipment such that separation distances are likely to be
maintained to ensure compliance with our exposure limits. However, since the existing amateur
exemptions are based only on transmitter power and do not consider separation distance or antenna gain,
exempt transmitting antennas that are unusually close to people could potentially lead to non-compliant
exposure levels. For example, a separation distance of at least 24 feet would meet our proposed
exemption criteria, considering a currently-exempt 50-watt transmitter at VHF in accord with section
97.13(c) and assuming an antenna gain of 6 dBd. Existing classification of amateur exposure as
occupational249 is consistent with use of our proposed general exemption criteria based on general
population exposure limits because awareness of exposure greater than the general population limits is
required in all occupational settings, including amateur households.250 Application of the general
exemptions proposed here to amateur radio installations would preclude the possibility of overexposure
and require further evaluation only when necessary, giving guidance for both fixed and mobile
transmitting antennas. We invite comment as to the impact of this proposal on the amateur community.
Parties that support maintaining the current exemption based on power alone are requested to explain how
it provides adequate assurance that the public is protected against exposure to RF energy in excess of our
limits and the extent of the burden imposed by this proposal. We encourage interested parties to comment
on the relative costs and benefits of the proposed changes in this section, as well as those of alternative
approaches.

b.

Multiple Fixed Transmitters

139.
Summary. Multiple transmitters are commonly collocated on the same structure, for
example either a tower or a building. Also, multiple towers are often collocated close to one another, for
example on an antenna farm. Thus, exemptions that apply only to single fixed transmitters are of limited
practical use in such situations. Since the use of the proposed exemptions in Table 1 (above) and Table 2
(below) are limited to single transmitters, we propose here a summation procedure to determine whether
multiple fixed transmitters using these tables are collectively exempt from evaluation. Mobile and
portable transmitters within a device are not included in this summation but are considered below.

246 See para. 151 infra.
247 See para. 130 supra.
248 See para. 118 supra.
249 See § 1.1310(e)(4) in Appendix A infra.
250 See para. 77 supra.

47

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

140.
Comments. In the Notice, we proposed a separation distance criterion for some fixed
transmitters.251 As mentioned previously, comments we received suggested we consider a “sliding
scale”252 or a more detailed scheme for defining exemptions based on simple calculation methods. Based
on those comments, we proposed in the Further Notice above to define exemptions for single RF sources
on the basis of power, distance, and frequency.253 As discussed in the Order herein supra,254 many of the
comments we received involved apportionment of responsibility at multiple-use fixed transmitter sites.
Although this issue of responsibility was not specifically initiated by the Notice and does not explicitly
relate to exemptions per se, it does demonstrate the need for consideration of multiple fixed transmitters
in the development of these proposed exemption criteria.
141.
Further Proposal. To quantitatively exempt multiple transmitting antenna configurations
and transmitters255 where ambient exposure determined from a previous evaluation (measured or
computed) may be significant, we propose to apply Table 1 in the previous section to multiple antennas
operating in the same 30-minute time averaging period256 as follows: a summation of the fractional
contributions to the exemption threshold for each antenna may be determined by calculating the ratio of
the maximum time-averaged ERP for the antenna to the appropriate frequency- and distance-dependent
exemption threshold calculated using either the formulas in Table 1 supra or Table 2 infra, summing
these ratios, and adding any contributions from RF sources with known SAR257 as well as any significant
ambient exposure (expressed as the “ambient exposure quotient,” (AEQ), i.e., a fraction of the MPE that
exists in the environment prior to considering the relevant sources) at a specific location, as defined
below. An AEQ greater than 0.05 is considered significant.258 If the total is 1 or more, further evaluation
would be required. In addition to ERP, if the configuration of a fixed RF source operating between 300
MHz and 6 GHz in frequency permits a minimum separation distance between 0.5 cm and 40 cm or less
than λ/2π, we also propose alternatively to the MPE-based exemption criteria that the SAR-based
exemption criteria may be used.259
Accordingly, evaluation is proposed to be required if:
b
∑SAR
a
j
c
j 1
Pi
=
ERPk
∑
+
+ ∑
+ AEQ ≥ 1
i=
1.6 W kg
1
k 1
P
=
th,i
ERPth,k
Where
a
= number of fixed RF sources using Table 2 (paragraph 151).
b
= number of existing fixed RF sources with known SAR.
c
= number of fixed RF sources using ERP, according to restrictions on ERPk.

251 See section III. A. of the Notice.
252 See para. 115 supra.
253 See para. 119 supra.
254 See para. 84 supra.
255 Multiple transmitters using the same physical antenna should be treated as multiple antennas at the same
location.
256 See para. 131 supra.
257 See para. 20 supra.
258 See 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(3).
259 See para. 132 supra and para. 151 infra.

48

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Pi
= the available maximum time-averaged power or the ERP, whichever is greater, for RF source i
between 0.5 cm and 20 cm (inclusive).
Pth,i
= the threshold power according to Table 2 for RF source i.
SARj
= the maximum SAR reported from the jth fixed RF source.260
ERPk
= ERP of RF source k.
ERPth,k = exemption threshold ERP for RF source k, either at a distance of at least 20 cm up to 40 cm
if using Table 2 or at any distance of λ/2π or greater, if using Table 1 (paragraph 130).
AEQ
= the ambient exposure quotient (AEQ) for the general population/uncontrolled Maximum
Permissible Exposure (MPE)261 limit from an existing evaluation at the site of exposure from
fixed sources. AEQ is the sum of the quotient(s) of each ambient power density or field
strength squared and their respective MPE(s) for a particular frequency, also commonly
referred to as “fraction of standard.” Note that the AEQ is due to RF sources not included in
the ERP summations.
We seek comment on this proposal. We encourage interested parties to comment on the relative costs and
benefits of the proposed changes in this section, as well as those of alternative approaches, including as
referenced above, whether and how certain individual transmitters at a multiple transmitter site can be
exempted.
c.

Summation for RF Sources without Definable Physical Relationships
is not Required

142.
Summary. Given our summation proposals applicable for exemption of more than one
transmitter depending on whether the transmitters are fixed or are mobile or portable, we posit that
exposure summation of fixed transmitters with either mobile or portable devices is impractical and is not
proposed to be required for exemption calculations since there is no inherent spatial relationship between
fixed transmitters and either mobile or portable devices. However, we propose that summation of
multiple mobile and portable transmitters is required when the transmitters are associated with a single
device.
143.
Further Proposal. While it is reasonable to sum exposure due to all well-characterized
sources, we see no practical method to quantitatively determine compliance for multiple RF sources that
have no fixed physical relationship to one another. There is no definite positional relationship between
multiple mobile/portable devices or between such devices and fixed transmitters. However, particularly
for localized SAR, consideration of the typical spatial separation between RF sources diminishes the
practical relevance of this issue. More simply, we expect that the locations of maximum SAR in the body
from different RF sources do not normally overlap. For these reasons, summation of potential exposure
due to spatially uncorrelated sources is not routinely required and is consistent with all known compliance
activities to date. First, an environment containing a portable or mobile device may also experience
highly variable and location-dependent exposure from fixed RF sources. Since exposure diminishes
exponentially with increasing distance, additional signal losses occur due to non-line-of-sight conditions
from distant sources, and separation from fixed sources is typically large, exposure from fixed RF sources
is normally much less than the limit. Moreover, we expect that exposure from devices near a person’s
body would generally be more significant than exposure from distant fixed RF sources. Secondly,
exposure from each portable or mobile device near a person will generally be highly localized, affecting
only a specific small area of body tissue and thus may be considered independent of other portable or
mobile devices close to the body, which would affect another area or areas of body tissue. Additionally,
highly localized exposure would not result in significant contributions to whole-body average SAR.

260 See para. 158 infra.
261 See Table 1 of 47 CFR § 1.1310 for MPE limits.

49

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Thus, for multiple exempt RF sources without an inherent spatial relationship, regardless of their
classification as fixed, mobile, or portable, it is not likely that the localized or whole-body SAR limits
would be exceeded.
144.
We therefore propose to not require exemption summations where there is no inherent
spatial relationship between RF sources. However, we emphasize that we will continue to routinely
consider summation of multiple mobile and portable transmitters (including modular transmitters that
may be installed) for the purpose of evaluation and/or FCC Laboratory test reduction procedures as long
as these transmitters are within a single device and a clear spatial relationship among multiple transmitters
within this single device is apparent. Notwithstanding this policy, we emphasize sections 1.1307(c) and
(d) of the Commission rules would require further environmental processing if the staff determined, on its
own or based upon the allegations of an interested party in a written petition, that the particular use of a
device(s) ordinarily exempt from routine RF evaluation exceed(s) the applicable exposure limits. We
solicit comment on this proposed approach to multiple transmitters and on the advantages and
disadvantages of alternative approaches. We encourage interested parties to comment on the relative
costs and benefits of the proposed changes in this section, as well as of any alternative approaches
identified.
3.

SAR-Based Exemption of Fixed, Mobile, and Portable RF Sources

145.
Summary. One of the topics in the Notice was to clarify the procedures for evaluating RF
exposure from mobile and portable devices. This included proposals on requirements for: (1) evaluating
the SAR of certain unlicensed devices authorized under section 15.247;262 (2) RF evaluation of modular
transmitters;263 and (3) SAR requirements for multiple transmitting devices operating at the same time.264
The Notice requested specific comments concerning these subtopics and stated that alternative
suggestions should be justified with detailed documentation, data, or observations relevant to potential
human exposure from RF emissions.265
146.
Comments. Among comments we received, which included many alternative but not
necessarily well supported suggestions,266 there was also significant general support in response to the
Notice for power- and distance-dependent exemption thresholds for portable devices. IT’IS
recommended that the Commission issue distance-dependent and frequency-dependent exemption
thresholds based on worst-case considerations.267 Qualcomm proposed that section 2.1091(c) of the rules
be amended to state requirements in terms of power level, not technology, for mobile devices.268 Cisco
stated that a single “frequency independent” power threshold is overly restrictive and noted that it and ITI
were studying the effects of frequency on SAR values but the complete results of this study were not yet
available. 269
147.
Further Proposal. In the previous section, we propose exemption criteria strictly based
on MPE limits for all services. Here we propose to establish additional exemption criteria based
primarily on SAR limits for fixed, mobile, and portable RF sources near a human body, when the

262 See section III. B. of the Notice.
263 See section III. C. of the Notice.
264 See section III. D. of the Notice.
265 See Notice at para. 1.
266 See, e.g., Appendix H infra at Sections 1 and 2.
267 See IT’IS reply comments at 1.
268 See Qualcomm comments at 9. Qualcomm erroneously referred to Section “2.109(c)(1),” rather than to
“2.1091(c).”
269 See Cisco comments at 9-10.

50

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

separation distance may be less than λ/2π. These proposed additional exemption criteria are applicable
between 300 MHz and 6 GHz in frequency and between 0.5 cm and 40 cm in separation distance. We
seek comment on this proposal. We encourage interested parties to comment on the relative costs and
benefits of the proposed changes in this section, as well as those of alternative approaches.
a.

Single Transmitters

148.
Summary. In addition to both the blanket 1 mW exemption threshold and the MPE-based
exemption criteria proposed above, we propose here a frequency-dependent formula in section
1.1307(b)(1)270 to determine whether a single transmitter operating with up to a calculated maximum
time-averaged effective radiated power or available maximum time-averaged power, given a separation
distance, is exempt from routine environmental evaluation. This proposed exemption threshold, derived
in Appendix D and based on a simple model of SAR, applies to single transmitters at any prescribed
separation distance between 0.5 and 40 centimeters. Similar to the proposed exemptions above, this
proposed exemption threshold is also independent of service type.
149.
Comments. Near-field energy absorption in tissues depends upon both the frequency and
the separation distance between a user and the RF source. Issues dealing with frequency- and distance-
dependent thresholds, antenna gain and impedance, traffic-based duty factors, and conducted versus
effective radiated power thresholds were identified in some of the comments in response to the Notice;
however, detailed analyses and substantiation were generally not given.271 Although well-defined
thresholds and detailed analyses are thus unavailable from these comments, the need for frequency-,
power-, and distance-dependent SAR-based thresholds to streamline SAR test requirements were
expressed both directly and indirectly.
150.
Further Proposal. The need is apparent for simple frequency- and distance-dependent
average power thresholds to address exemptions from SAR testing of portable devices, such as cordless
phones and various wireless LAN transmitters. However, we recognize that there are other important
variables besides frequency, distance, and power that affect the SAR; these variables include antenna type
and impedance (and its relationship to RF current) and must be treated conservatively in order to define
thresholds that will avoid exemption of devices with unusual antenna configurations that could result in a
SAR above the limit. For the model used to develop our proposal, we found a 4.5 to 7.4 dB margin above
the SAR calculated for half-wave dipoles was adequately conservative (see Appendix D) to account for
the possibility of electrically small low-impedance antennas having an associated higher RF current and
magnetic field, potentially resulting in a SAR increase relative to a half-wave dipole. To qualify for the
proposed exemption, we would require both the ERP and matched or available conducted power to be
less than the threshold. This consideration is to avoid problems with high gain or poorly matched
antennas. The derivation of these proposed SAR-based exemption thresholds shown in Table 2 below are
detailed in Appendix D.
151.
We propose general frequency and separation distance dependent maximum time-
averaged power thresholds for any RF source (i.e., portable, mobile, and fixed) to support an exemption
from SAR testing between 300 MHz and 6 GHz in frequency and between 0.5 cm and 20 cm in
separation distance. Additionally, in this same frequency range, we propose to extend the values obtained
at exactly 20 cm from that distance to 40 cm for mobile devices so that will be continuous with the
exemption criteria in Table 1 at 40 cm. Further, these exemption criteria are proposed to be applied to
single fixed transmitters at any prescribed separation distance between 0.5 and 40 cm in this same
frequency range, since there is no restriction on separation distance for sources classified as fixed.
152.
The proposed thresholds are derived according to the frequency-, power-, and distance-
dependent criteria for single transmitters. For convenience, the proposed thresholds for select frequency

270 See § 1.1307(b)(1) in Appendix B infra.
271 See, e.g., Appendix H infra at Sections 1 and 2.

51

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

bands are listed in Table 2 below for select distances. However, the formulas below the table define the
proposed SAR-based exemption thresholds in general for either available maximum time-averaged power
or maximum time-averaged ERP, whichever is greater.272 If the ERP of a portable device is not easily
obtained, we propose that available power may be used (i.e., without consideration of ERP) for
comparison with the proposed criteria below only if the device antenna(s) or radiating structure(s) do not
exceed an electrical length of λ/4.273 As for devices such as “leaky” coaxial distribution systems, RF
heating equipment, and devices in general where the gain is not well defined but always less than that of a
half-wave dipole, we propose that the RF power generated by the device may be used in place of the ERP
in comparison with either the MPE-based or the SAR-based exemptions, depending on separation
distance and frequency.
153.
The proposed exemption threshold, Pth, is defined in terms of maximum time-averaged
power and in accordance with the source-based time averaging requirements described in section
2.1093(d)(5). Time-averaged power measurements are necessary to determine if the maximum output of
a transmitter is above or below the proposed threshold for exemption or routine SAR evaluation. The
power measurement and SAR test procedures required to determine the number and types of SAR tests
necessary to demonstrate device compliance will be available in procedures established by the OET
Laboratory athttp://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea"> www.fcc.gov/oet/ea. Information describing the method used to derive these proposed
frequency- and distance-dependent power thresholds can be found in Appendix D.



272 For some portable devices, ERP, defined as the product of the maximum time-averaged power delivered to the
antenna and its maximum gain in any direction relative to a half-wave dipole, may not be readily available. As
discussed in the previous section, equivalent isotropically-radiated power (EIRP), defined as the product of the
maximum time-averaged power supplied to the antenna and its maximum gain in any direction relative to an
isotropic antenna, equals 1.64 times the ERP. ERP can be derived from the power spectral density (PSD) (e.g.,
W/m2/MHz) if the bandwidth (BW) is known. ERP = PSD * BW * 4πd2 / 1.64, where d is the distance used to
determine the PSD and generally will not be the separation distance used for determination of exemption. This
assumes that power spectral density was determined in the far-field of an antenna.
273 See Harrington, R. F., Effect of Antenna Size on Gain, Bandwidth, and Efficiency, Journal of Research of the
National Bureau of Standards, Radio Propagation, Vol. 64D, No. 1, January-February 1960, pp. 1-12.

52

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Table 2. Time-Averaged Power Thresholds for Single Portable, Mobile, and Fixed Transmitting
Antennas Proposed to be Subject to Routine Environmental Evaluation

Distance (cm)

0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
5
7
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
40
0.3
39
65
88
110
130
220
280
360
430
490
550
610
610
0.45
22
44
67
89
110
230
320
460
570
690
800
920
920

0.835
9.2
25
44
66
90
240
390
640
880
1100
1400
1700
1700
z)
H
0.9
8.3
23
42
63
88
240
400
670
920
1200
1500
1800
1800
G
(
1.45
4.3
15
30
50
74
250
460
870
1300
1800
2300
3000
3000
cy
en
u
1.8
3.5
13
26
45
67
240
450
860
1300
1800
2400
3060
3060
r
eq
1.9
3.4
12
26
44
66
240
440
850
1300
1800
2400
3060
3060
F
2.45
2.7
10
22
38
59
220
420
820
1300
1800
2400
3060
3060
3
2.3
9.0
20
35
53
210
400
790
1200
1700
2400
3060
3060
5.2
1.5
6.3
15
26
42
170
350
730
1200
1700
2300
3060
3060
5.8
1.4
5.9
14
25
40
170
340
720
1100
1700
2300
3060
3060

Evaluation is required if either matched conducted or effective radiated power (ERP) is greater than:

x
 d

P (mW) = ERP

th
20cm 

 20 cm 



x = −

60

where:
log
and
10 

 ERP
f
20cm

2040 f 0

GH

3
.
z ≤ f < 1 GH

5
.
z
ERP
(m

W) =

cm

20
306

0
GH

5
.
1

z ≤ f ≤
GH

6
z

Valid only at distances from 0.5 cm to 20 cm and frequencies from 0.3 GHz to 6 GHz. However, values
obtained in the formula at exactly 20 cm may be used between 20 and 40 cm.

We seek comment on this proposal. We encourage interested parties to comment on the relative costs and
benefits of the proposed changes in this section, as well as those of alternative approaches.
b.

Multiple Portable Transmitters

154.
Summary. As stated previously,274 we propose that summation should be required when
multiple portable transmitters are associated with a single device. We propose here a summation to
determine whether multiple portable transmitters using Table 2 above collectively are exempt from
evaluation.

274 See para. 142 supra.

53

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

155.
Comments. In the Notice, in our proposal for exemption of transmitter modules, we
discussed how devices may incorporate multiple modules for simultaneous transmission.275 As
demonstrated in Appendix H,276 we received numerous comments regarding treatment of multiple
transmitters in device evaluation. Although the issue of multiple transmitters was not specifically related
to exemptions, it demonstrates the need for consideration of multiple portable transmitters in the
development of these proposed exemption criteria. Simultaneous transmission over different networks
using today’s technology further demonstrates the need for new proposals for multiple transmitter
exemptions beyond those provided in the Notice.
156.
Further Proposal. To rationally exempt multiple transmitters, some of which may be
modular, which are operating at the same time in the same device, further quantitative considerations are
necessary. The proposed frequency- and body-to-antenna separation distance-dependent maximum time-
averaged power thresholds for exemption from SAR evaluation given in the formulas below Table 2
could also apply to a single isolated licensed or unlicensed portable transmitter or to a single isolated
modular or non-modular portable transmitter that operates in the range of 0.3 to 6 GHz, as long as
multiple transmitters that operate in the same source-based time averaging period are not present. A
conservative extension of these thresholds for use with a set of several transmitters operating at the same
time in the same device is proposed below for practical application of these thresholds.
157.
We propose that the total fraction of the exemption threshold may be determined by
calculating for each transmitter the ratio of the maximum time-averaged power (either available power or
ERP, whichever is greater) for the transmitter to the appropriate frequency- and distance-dependent
threshold calculated using the formulas below Table 2 and then summing these ratios. If the ratios for all
transmitters operating in the same time averaging period are included in the sum and the sum is less than
one, the device (i.e., all transmitters within the device) is proposed to be exempt from routine evaluation.
158.
For the case where one or more transmitters are being added to a device containing
existing transmitters that already required SAR evaluation, we are proposing that the remaining SAR
margin be used to potentially exempt the additional transmitter(s). If the sum of the previously measured
maximum 1-gram average SAR for the existing transmitters is less than 1.6 W/kg and the sum of the
above defined ratios for the transmitters to be added is less than the ratio of the SAR margin to 1.6 W/kg,
then the additional transmitters are proposed to be exempt from further SAR evaluation. As an example,
for a device with an aggregate maximum measured SAR of 0.9 W/kg for the existing transmitters, the
margin is 0.7 W/kg (which is 1.6 W/kg minus 0.9 W/kg), and the ratio of the margin to 1.6 W/kg is 0.44;
so if the sum of the power threshold ratios for the additional transmitters is less than 0.44, then the
additional transmitters would be exempt from further SAR evaluation for the specific host configurations.
We also propose that, in order to use exemption criteria for multiple transmitters, each additional
transmitter being added to a device must also be exempt from evaluation for this to apply to avoid small
incremental contributions that might approach our exposure limit.
159.
Conventionally, the use of maximum time-averaged power requires that the power (and
SAR) of multiple transmitters operating in the same time averaging period be summed even if they do not
transmit at the same instant. For the purpose of implementing exemption thresholds of products that can
operate with multiple transmitters, the proposed formula below must take into consideration all
transmitters that can operate at the same time and transmit with or without overlapping transmissions to
determine if evaluation exemption applies. The proposed values for Pi and SARj are determined
according to the source-based time averaging requirements of section 2.1093(d)(5), and summing these
values represents conservatively the maximum calculated exposure. As the extent of overlapping
transmissions may vary among individual products and host configurations, the details of how to conduct

275 See section III. C. of the Notice.
276 See Appendix H, Sections 1 and 2 infra, Localized SAR Summation for Evaluation of Multiple Portable
Transmitters and Modular Transmitters Installed in Various End-Use Products.

54

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

evaluations and determine compliance are generally addressed in FCC Laboratory test procedures. For
transmitters operating in the same device and in the same time averaging period, we propose that
evaluation is required if:
b
∑SAR
a
j
c
j 1
Pi
=
ERPk
∑
+
+ ∑
≥ 1
i=
1.6 W kg
1
k 1
P
=
th,i
ERPth,k
Where
a
= number of portable transmitters that use Pth, including existing transmitters and those being
added.
b
= number of existing portable transmitters with known SAR.
c
= number of portable transmitters using ERP, including existing transmitters and those being
added.
Pi
= the available maximum time-averaged power or the ERP whichever is greater for portable
transmitter i.
Pth,i
= the threshold power according to Table 2 above for portable transmitter i.
SARj
= the maximum SAR reported for equipment certification from the jth portable transmitter in the
device.
ERPk
= ERP of portable transmitter k.
ERPth,k = exemption threshold ERP for portable transmitter k, either according to Table 2 above or Table 1
above, as applicable.

160.
The above proposed summation scheme for multiple transmitters makes the conservative
assumption that antennas that are at the same body-to-antenna or radial distance are also at the same
location; that is, the antenna-to-antenna or lateral distance would be zero such that SAR distributions will
always overlap to the maximum extent. We seek comment on this proposal. We note that, for some types
of equipment, the FCC Laboratory has used the lateral distance between antennas and measured peak
SAR locations to reduce testing requirements. This is particularly useful for antennas in portable
radiotelephones held against the body where the SAR distributions from antennas located in different
parts of the phone do not overlap significantly. This lack of overlap is due to the fact that the lateral
distance is large compared to the radial distance. Accordingly, for some specific types of equipment
where certain FCC Laboratory procedures apply, consideration of lateral separation has already been
implemented in these procedures to streamline evaluation requirements, and this will continue. However,
since the necessary lateral antenna-to-antenna or SAR peak location separation distance to avoid
significant SAR overlap is a complex function of the radial antenna-to-body distance and antenna
characteristics, we are proposing not to allow a general exemption from routine evaluation based on
lateral distance at this time. We encourage further development and implementation of more efficient
evaluation procedures in this area by the Laboratory and others. We request interested parties to
comment on the relative costs and benefits of the proposed changes in this section, as well as those of
alternative approaches.
c.

Multiple Portable and Mobile Transmitters

161.
Summary. Devices such as cell phones typically contain only portable transmitters; but
devices such as laptops may contain a combination of portable (≤ 20 cm) and mobile (> 20 cm)
transmitters. Summation is required when multiple mobile and portable transmitters are associated with a
single device. We propose here a summation to determine whether multiple mobile and portable
transmitters using either Table 1 or Table 2 above collectively are exempt from evaluation.

55

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

162.
Further Proposal. A device may contain a combination of portable and mobile
transmitters, that is, some at less than 20 cm and some at greater than 20 cm separation distances from the
body, respectively. Other devices may contain either only mobile or only portable transmitters. In any
case, the fractional contributions to the threshold can be determined according to our proposal by
calculating for each transmitter the ratio of the maximum time-averaged power (matched conducted
power and/or ERP, as appropriate) for the transmitter and comparing to the appropriate frequency- and
distance-dependent threshold using the equations in Table 1277 and below Table 2278 and then summing
those ratios. If the ratios for all transmitters in a device operating in the same time averaging period are
included in the sum and the sum is less than one, the device (i.e. all transmitters within the device) is
proposed to be exempt from routine evaluation. We propose that all transmitters must be included in the
summation of multiple transmitters in a device, including those that may be added subsequently under our
permissive change authorization procedures.
163.
For devices that have already been evaluated for compliance based on SAR, if one or
more portable transmitters are being added, the additional transmitters are proposed to be exempt from
further evaluation if all of the following conditions apply: (1) the summation of the ratios of either the
available maximum time-averaged power or the ERP, whichever is greater, for the portable transmitters to
be added and existing portable transmitters that do not require SAR evaluation to the threshold powers
according to the formulas below Table 2; (2) the ratio of the summation of previously measured
maximum 1-gram average SAR for the existing portable transmitters to 1.6 W/kg; and (3) the summation
of the ratios of the maximum time-averaged ERP for mobile transmitters to the exemption thresholds
according to either Table 2 or Table 1 above, as applicable – all sum to less than one.
164.
As discussed in previous sections, we propose that the use of maximum time-averaged
power would require that the power (and SAR) of multiple transmitters operating in the same time
averaging period be summed even if they do not transmit at the same instant. For the purpose of
implementing exemption thresholds of products that can operate with multiple transmitters, we propose
that the applicant take into consideration all transmitters that can operate within the same time averaging
period and transmit with or without overlapping transmissions using the formula below. The values for
Pi, SARj, and ERPk, where applicable, are proposed to be determined according to the source-based time
averaging requirements of sections 2.1093(d)(5) and 2.1091(d)(2), and the sum of those values represents
conservatively the total calculated exposure. The proposed formula may be used even if some of the three
terms do not apply (i.e., where those terms would be zero). As the extent of overlapping transmissions
may vary among individual products and host configurations, FCC Laboratory test procedures may
address the details of how to conduct evaluations and determine compliance for specific types of devices.
Accordingly, for transmitters operating in the same device and in the same time averaging period, we
propose that evaluation is required if:
SAR
a
∑b
∑
j
c
j =
Pi + 1
+ ∑ ERPk ≥ 1
6
.
1
1
W kg
i=
k =
Pth,i
1 ER
th
P ,k
Where
a
= number of mobile or portable transmitters that use Pth, including existing transmitters and those
being added.
b
= number of existing mobile or portable transmitters with known SAR.

277 See para. 130 supra.
278 See para. 153 supra.

56

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

c
= number of mobile or portable transmitters using ERP, including existing transmitters and those
being added.
Pi
= the available maximum time-averaged power or the ERP, whichever is greater, for mobile or
portable transmitter i.
Pth,i
= the threshold power according to Table 2 above for portable transmitter i.
SARj
= the maximum SAR reported for equipment certification from the jth mobile or portable
transmitter in the device.
ERPk
= ERP of mobile or portable transmitter k.
ERPth,k = exemption threshold ERP for mobile or portable transmitter k, either according to Table 2
above or Table 1 above, as applicable.

165.
The ambient exposure quotient (AEQ) proposed to be applicable in the summation of
multiple fixed sources is not proposed to be applicable in the summation of multiple mobile and portable
sources, because AEQ could vary significantly depending on the spatial location of the device and is thus
indeterminate.279 We seek comment on this proposal. We encourage interested parties to comment on the
relative costs and benefits of the proposed changes in this section, as well as those of alternative
approaches.
d.

Portable Transmitters with Operating Frequencies above Six
Gigahertz or at Distances Greater than λ/2π

166.
The proposed portable device exemptions280 above are derived from SAR and apply only
at frequencies below six GHz, because only power density exposure limits apply at higher frequencies.
Thus, the third term involving ERP in the formula above (para. 164 but only using Table 1 for ERPth,k
values) would be the only term used for the purpose of the development of a proposed exemption
determination of multiple transmitters for devices operating above 6 GHz. We therefore propose that
above 6 GHz, the more conservative exemptions using the equations proposed in Table 1 must be used for
portable devices if the separation distance is greater than λ/2π,281 again using only the third term
involving ERP in the formula above. In general, any RF source operating above 6 GHz may use only the
blanket 1 mW exemption and the MPE-based exemption in Table 1. We seek comment on this proposal.
We encourage interested parties to comment on the relative costs and benefits of these proposed changes,
as well as those of alternative approaches.

C.

Evaluation of Portable Devices

167.
Generally, we propose that our policy on recommended best practices for evaluation
techniques should be contained in our Bulletins and in other supplemental materials, such as the OET
Laboratory Knowledge Database (KDB).282 Evaluation documentation is typically submitted individually
as part of the licensing or equipment authorization process and the Commission has the discretion to
decide whether any particular routine evaluation process adequately demonstrates compliance with its
exposure limits. Changes in technology of devices being evaluated and in the evaluation technology itself
make this a rapidly evolving area that is more readily guided by good engineering practice rather than

279 See para. 142 supra.
280 See para. 151 supra.
281 See para. 130 supra.
282 Seehttps://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/"> https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/.

57

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

specific regulations.283 Further, the process of evaluation itself can be objectively verified even when
various methods are used. We therefore propose to remove material from the rules, as specifically
described below, that is more properly addressed by our guidance on evaluation procedures by
measurement and computation. This guidance will continue to be updated as necessary in our Bulletins
and in other supplemental materials such as the KDB.
1.

Consistency in Usage of Any Valid Method for SAR Computation

168.
Summary. In the Order,284 we corrected an inconsistency in our rules to allow either
computation or measurement for medical devices in both sections 95.1221 and 1.1307(b)(2) of our rules,
but when computation is used, these rules only allow one specific method. Here we propose to allow any
valid computational method by removing from our rules the reference to this specific method. We also
propose to apply only the 1 mW blanket exemption to medical implant devices.
169.
Further Proposal. In the Order adopted herein,285 we modified section 95.1221 of our
rules to remove an inconsistency with section 1.1307(b)(2). This modification allows additional
flexibility for MedRadio Service transmitters to demonstrate compliance with SAR limits in section
2.1093 by either finite difference time domain (FDTD) analysis or the submission of SAR measurement
data, with the Commission retaining the option of requesting measurement data to support an FDTD
analysis, if appropriate. There are other numerical methods that provide equivalent results to FDTD. For
example, finite integration technique (FIT) and finite element method (FEM) are two of many examples
of discrete computational approximations to Maxwell’s equations286 that, when appropriate, may also
acceptably predict RF fields in biological media. We are thus proposing to modify the language in
sections 1.1307(b)(2) and 95.1221 to allow any valid computational method by removing from our rules
specific references to FDTD.287 However, we received significant comments to the Notice concerning the
reliability of FDTD calculations that would also be of concern for any other numerical method that may
be used.288 Thus, we also propose in these sections of our rules to ensure that both the software and
models used to compute results submitted to the FCC are fully validated and use standard protocols.
Specifically, we propose that computational modeling “must be supported by adequate documentation
showing that the numerical method as implemented in the computational software has been fully
validated; in addition, the equipment under test and exposure conditions must be modeled according to
protocols established by numerical computation standards or available FCC procedures for the specific
computational method.”289 We seek comment on these proposals. We encourage interested parties to
comment on the relative costs and benefits of the proposed changes in this section, as well as those of
alternative approaches.

283 See para. 37 supra.
284 See para. 55 supra.
285 Id.
286 Maxwell’s equations are a concise set of equations which form the basis for predicting the behavior of
electromagnetic waves.
287 See Order granting ANSYS Inc. Request for Waiver of 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(2) of Commission Rules, ET Docket
10-166, 26 FCC Rcd 1034, Adopted Feb. 1, 2011.
288 See para. 53 supra.
289 See Appendix B infra, §§ 1.1310 and 2.1093(d)(1).

58

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

2.

Removal of Minimum Evaluation Distance Requirement from Rules for
Frequencies above Six Gigahertz

170.
Summary. Currently section 2.1093(d) of our rules requires measurements and
calculations to demonstrate compliance for devices operating above six gigahertz (GHz) to be made at a
minimum separation distance of five centimeters. We propose to remove this distance limitation from our
rules since it appears to be outdated by technological developments.
171.
Section 2.1093(d) of our rules states that “[m]easurements and calculations to
demonstrate compliance with MPE field strength or power density limits for devices operating above 6
GHz should be made at a minimum distance of 5 cm from the radiating source.” IEEE C95.1-1991 which
was a significant consideration in determining our current exposure limits recommended a minimum
measurement distance of 20 cm, but we anticipated future revisions of IEEE’s standard to include a
minimum 5-cm measurement stipulation. In specifying a 1 cm2 area for averaging the spatial peak MPE,
IEEE Std C95.1-2005 states that 1 cm2 is “a practical limit for spot size at 5 cm or 3 probe diameters
(whichever is greater) from an RF source for assessing compliance with the MPE to avoid undesirable
coupling between the probe and the source.”290 Consistent with the IEEE standard, we use 1 cm2 as a
spatial peak averaging area in deriving our 1 mW blanket exemption above 6 GHz proposed herein.291
Accordingly, we now propose that accurate measurement over a single square centimeter (or less) is
possible considering currently available probes, which have diameters as small as approximately 5 mm
(and which would equate to a three-probe diameter minimum measurement distance of 1.5 cm).
Additionally, evaluation may also be based on computation, for which there may be no practical
limitation on minimum distance.
172.
Further Proposal. There is no apparent reason why measurement or calculation to
demonstrate compliance with MPE field strength or power density limits could not be achieved at
distances of less than five centimeters, provided, of course, that proper equipment and techniques are
used. The 5-cm minimum distance appears to be no longer appropriate, and we therefore propose to
remove it. Further, as discussed previously, we propose that such specific guidance on evaluation is
generally inappropriate for the rules and will be documented in our Bulletins or other supplemental
materials.292 We seek comment on this proposal. We encourage interested parties to comment on the
relative costs and benefits of the proposed changes in this section, as well as those of alternative
approaches.
3.

Technical Evaluation References in Rules

173.
Summary. In the Order we amended section 2.1093(d)(3) to reference the OET
Knowledge Database (KDB),293 which provides supplemental technical evaluation information and
references to informative technical evaluation standards as guidelines, instead of directly referencing such
resources in our existing rules. Here we propose to utilize this concept elsewhere within our rules.
174.
Further Proposal. Consistent citation to OET Bulletin 65 in general was resolved in the
Order for those rules discussed in the Notice;294 however citations in specific rule sections not raised in
the Notice similarly can lead to out-of-date references or confusing interpretations. As with our action in

290 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to
Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE Std C95.1-2005, copyright
2006 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), New York, New York 10016-5997.
291 See para. 125 supra.
292 See para. 167 supra.
293 See para. 28 supra.
294 Id.

59

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

the Order, we propose to eliminate references in our rules to outside documents or specific editions of
OET Bulletins and supplements when offering guidance on acceptable procedures for evaluating
compliance. Thus, we specifically propose to remove the reference to IEEE Std C95.3-1991 in section
24.51(c). However, we also note and seek comment on the potential implication of this overarching
general proposal as it may affect cross-references by other federal agencies that may utilize our existing
guidance that we are proposing to discontinue. Specifically, we note Federal Railroad Administration,
Department of Transportation, 49 CFR 236, Appendix E, section (h)(2), which mentions our exposure
limits along with OET Bulletin 65 and some of its supplements, including Supplement C which has been
retired as a result of our action in the Order supra.295 We seek comment on the above proposal. We
encourage interested parties to comment on the relative costs and benefits of the proposed changes in this
section, as well as those of alternative approaches.

D.

Mitigation

175.
As stated previously, mitigation matters involve post-evaluation procedures to ensure that
our exposure limits are not exceeded. Such measures include labels, signs, barriers, occupational training,
and enforcement. Here we review in detail our definitions related to power and clarify issues related to
the transient exposure of untrained individuals in controlled environments for short periods of time and
the proper use of averaging time, whether “source-based” or “behavior-based.” In this context, we
propose that “behavior-based” refers to circumstances where specific behavior may be necessary to
maintain compliance. Additionally, we propose to provide further guidance on specific mitigation actions
such as proximity restriction and disclosure requirements for fixed RF sources.
176.
Fixed RF sources are physically attached to one location, sometimes temporarily, and are
not able to be easily moved to another location while transmitting.296 Here we clarify general population
and occupational exposure requirements, as well as controlled and uncontrolled exposure requirements,
and propose components of RF safety programs, where necessary, based on more recent developments in
this area. We also clarify the applicability of occupational exposure limits to transient untrained
individuals in controlled environments and establish access restriction and disclosure requirements near
fixed sources. As we use the term “exposure limits” herein for fixed RF sources, we are referring to the
exposure limits without consideration of “behavior-based” time averaging for indefinite time periods.
That is, brief exposure levels higher than the limits, with appropriate controls (except for transient
individuals above the occupational limit), may be permitted for shorter exposure times, as long as the
average exposure over the specified averaging time is less than the limits.
1.

Transient Exposure in Controlled Environments near Fixed RF Sources

177.
Summary. Our definition of the term “transient persons” in section 1.1310 of our rules
could be subject to varying interpretations. Thus, we seek to clarify by proposing a definition of transient
exposure with respect to averaging time, where transient individuals in controlled environments should
not be exposed in excess of the general population limit considering averaging time, and not in excess of
the occupational limit for continuous exposure at any time.

295 See para. 37 supra.
296 cf. 47 CFR § 2.1091(b) – a mobile device is used in locations other than fixed locations in such a way that a
separation distance of at least 20 centimeters is normally maintained. The term “fixed location” means that the
device is physically secured at one location and is not able to be easily moved to another location while transmitting.
Temporary fixed transmitters such as a “cell-on-wheels” (COW) or a temporary fixed earth station (TFES) are
considered fixed sources which may be able to be easily moved to another location, but since these types of
transmitters are not licensed to transmit while in motion they would also conform to the proposed description of the
term “fixed RF source.”

60

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

178.
Further Proposal. Since 1996, we have had rules that allow occupational exposure levels
to apply to individuals that are transiently exposed if they are made aware of their exposure, even though
the exposure is not a consequence of their employment. In the Order adopted herein, we established
paragraph (e)(1) of section 1.1310 of our rules, which states “[l]imits for occupational/controlled
exposure also apply in situations when a person is transient through a location where
occupational/controlled limits apply provided he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure. …
[T]raining is not required for transient persons, but they must receive written and/or verbal information
and notification (for example, using signs) concerning their exposure potential and appropriate means
available to mitigate their exposure.”297 In the course of this proceeding, it became apparent that this
language could be subject to differing interpretations. We seek to clarify the applicability of transient
exposure and how to apply our exposure limits in controlled environments with respect to averaging time.
Since transient exposure assessment involves consideration of averaging time, we will propose a
clarification of averaging time.
179.
The 1992 ANSI/IEEE guidelines specify two sets of exposure limits based on the
“environment” in which the exposure takes place. These environments are classified as either
“controlled” or “uncontrolled.” Controlled environments are defined as locations where “there is
exposure that may be incurred by persons who are aware of the potential for exposure as a concomitant of
employment, by other cognizant persons, or as the incidental result of transient passage through areas
where analysis shows the exposure levels may be above [the exposure and induced current levels
permitted for uncontrolled environment but not those permitted for controlled environments].”298
Uncontrolled environments are defined as “locations where there is the exposure of individuals who have
no knowledge or control of their exposure. The exposures may occur in living quarters or workplaces
where there are no expectations that the exposure levels may exceed [the exposure and induced current
levels permitted for uncontrolled environments].”299 The NCRP report designates exposure limits in
terms of “occupational” and “general population” exposure; however, it does not provide specific
definitions of these terms.300 We generally associate controlled environments with occupational
exposures, while uncontrolled environments are associated with general population exposure. Examples
of controlled environments include fenced areas near tower sites or antennas on rooftops with locked
access.
180.
The NCRP report mentions transient exposure in its section about averaging time.301 It
states that “the 30-min time-averaging period is responsive to some special circumstances for the public at
large. Examples are transient passage by the individual past high-powered RFEM sources, and brief
exposure to civil telecommunications systems.”302 These “special circumstances” are intended to be
“brief and non-repetitive,” involving exposure of “only small groups of the population,” where “the
occupational exposure levels are permitted for such cases.”303 While the former statement seems to
support the idea that transient exposure simply involves application of the 30-minute time averaging
criteria which is used to apply the general population exposure limit, the latter statement implies that the

297 See Appendix A infra, § 1.1310(e)(1).
298 See IEEE C95.1-1991, Section 2 – definition of controlled environment.
299 See IEEE C95.1-1991, Section 2 – definition of uncontrolled environment.
300 See Report and Order in ET Docket 93-62 (Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radio
frequency Radiation), 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1996), para. 35.
301 See Section 17.4.3, Time Averaging for the General Population, NCRP Report No. 86, Biological Effects and
Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.
302 Id.
303 See Section 17.4.4, Special Circumstances for Population Exposure, NCRP Report No. 86, Biological Effects
and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields.

61

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

occupational limit would apply to “special circumstances” involving brief exposure without any specific
definition of “brief.”
181.
We interpret the terms “transient” and “brief” to imply that the general population
exposure limits would apply to transient individuals near fixed RF sources within controlled
environments, considering a time averaging period of 30 minutes. In a controlled environment and with
supervision, “behavior-based” time averaging such as moving through a specific area promptly would be
feasible, while we have not found it to be generally feasible in an uncontrolled environment.304 Thus, we
propose the definition of transient exposure with respect to averaging time to mean general
population/“controlled,” that is, transient exposure should not exceed the general population limit
considering 30-minute time averaging in a controlled environment. Additionally, we propose that
transient exposure should not exceed the continuous305 occupational limit at any time, accounting for
source-based time averaging. In other words, we propose that behavior-based time averaging may be
used in controlled situations to maintain compliance with the general population exposure limits (this is
the essence of our transient exposure interpretation), while behavior-based time averaging may not be
used to maintain compliance with the occupational exposure limits for individuals classified as transient.
182.
As established in the Order adopted herein, occupational personnel must receive written
and/or verbal information and training. Transient individuals are currently afforded temporary access to
controlled areas where only occupational personnel may normally enter, provided they are made aware of
their potential for exposure.306 In the Order, we clarify this awareness through requiring written and/or
verbal information to be presented to these transient individuals.307 Here we further propose to also
require supervision of transient individuals by trained occupational personnel within the controlled area
where the general population limit is exceeded.308 We clarify herein that transient individuals in a
controlled area may be any individual who would normally be subject to the general population exposure
limits in uncontrolled environments, including occupational personnel that have not received training. In
the context of satisfying the requirement to present written and/or verbal information to transient
individuals and occupational personnel within controlled environments, we also clarify here that written
information may include signs, maps, or diagrams showing where exposure limits are exceeded, and
verbal information may include prerecorded messages.
183.
Averaging time is an intrinsic part of the existing exposure limits, and as such, our intent
is that averaging time may be used whenever there is adequate control over time of exposure.309 As we

304 See OET Bulletin 65, Page 53, “In some cases, the time-averaging aspects of the exposure limits may be used by
placing appropriate restrictions on occupancy in high-field areas. However, such restrictions are often not possible
where continuous exposure of the public may occur. In general, time averaging of exposures is usually more
practical in controlled situations where occupational exposure is the only issue.” Also see OET Bulletin 65,
Supplement B, Page 12, “It is important to note that for general population/uncontrolled exposures it is usually not
possible or practical to control access or otherwise limit exposure duration to the extent that averaging times can be
applied. In those situations, it would normally be necessary to assume continuous exposure to RF fields that would
be created by the on/off cycles of the radiating source.”
305 Our continuous exposure limits are the values listed in § 1.1310 in Appendix A and may not be exceeded over an
indefinite period of time but may be exceeded over shorter definite time periods given consideration of time
averaging, whether “source-based” or “behavior-based.” The continuous exposure limits are generally used to
define the boundaries of controlled areas where “behavior-based” time averaging may be necessary. We generally
refer to simply the “exposure limit,” when “behavior-based” time averaging is not considered. See paras. 112 and
183.
306 See Note 1 to Table 1 in 47 CFR § 1.1310.
307 See § 1.1310(e)(1) in Appendix A.
308 See § 1.1307(b)(2)(ii) in Appendix B.
309 See 47 CFR § 1.1310.

62

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

have proposed here for transient exposure, where the general population limit is exceeded (but not the
occupational limit) and adequate controls are in place, averaging time may be used to comply with the
general population limit.310 For example, a transient individual walking in a controlled area may be
exposed above the general population limit in one location and below this limit in another location, but
the average over any 30-minute time period should be compliant with the general population limit. We
seek comment on all of these proposals to better define transient exposure conditions beyond what has
already been adopted in the Order herein. Specifically, we solicit comment on the expected cost
associated with requiring supervision of transient individuals, where licensees would benefit from
compliance certainty. We encourage interested parties to comment on both the relative costs as well as
the benefits of the proposed changes in this section, as well as those of alternative approaches.
2.

Proximity Restriction and Disclosure Requirements for Fixed RF Sources

184.
Summary. In response to comments received in this proceeding, we propose specific
training, access restriction, and signage requirements for fixed transmitter sites considering recent
standards activity working toward defining industrial RF safety programs. Following the lead of IEEE
Std C95.7-2005, we propose to define categories which require different mitigation actions depending on
the level of exposure in an area.
185.
Further Proposal. In the course of this proceeding, we received comments urging further
guidance and clarification on specific mitigating actions that are sufficient to control radiofrequency (RF)
exposure to maintain compliance with the limits.311 Thus, we propose training, access restriction, and
signage requirements for fixed transmitter sites considering recent standards activity working toward
defining industrial RF safety programs. In particular, we use, in part, a combination of certain concepts,
programs, specifications, and actions contained in IEEE Std C95.7-2005,312 IEEE Std C95.2-1999,313
NCRP 2002 Letter Report,314 and Chapter 2.4 of the NAB Engineering Handbook315 in the derivation of
our proposed rules. These documents include details, such as specification of types of signs and when
certain signs are appropriate, proper usage of access restrictions, and subjects to be included in
appropriate training programs depending on the anticipated level of exposure. The Commission realizes
that rigid requirements may not be practical in all cases, but clear rules that can be followed where
feasible can help avoid both inadvertent over-exposure and unnecessary public concern. To be specific as
to how our proposals would be implemented, we provide example scenarios herein and seek comment on
these issues.

310 Such time averaging may be “source-based” or “behavior-based” in analogy with the occupational hygiene field,
where source-based time averaging would be an engineering control and behavior-based time averaging would be an
administrative control. Source-based time averaging is defined in terms of an inherent property, such as duty-cycle,
of a transmitter, as long as the available maximum time-averaged power levels are used and does not depend on any
specific action by the user. We define behavior-based time averaging where specific user behavior over time may
be necessary to maintain compliance.
311 See RSI Educational Foundation Comments at 1-2, RF People LLC Comments at 2, Pinnacle Telecom Group,
LLC Comments at 6-7, Hammett & Edison, Inc. Comments at 1-2 Southern Communications Services Reply
Comments at 8.
312 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE Recommended Practice for Radio Frequency Safety
Programs, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, C95.7-2005.
313 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE Standard for Radio-Frequency Energy and Current-Flow
Symbols, C95.2-1999.
314 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Letter Report on Wireless Telecommunications
Radiofrequency Safety Issues for Building Owners and Managers, Scientific Committee 89-6, December 20, 2002.
315 National Association of Broadcasters Engineering Handbook, 10th Edition, Chapter 2.4.

63

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

186.
While IEEE Std C95.7-2005 is intended as a set of guidelines to avoid potentially
hazardous exposures to RF sources and suggests that “other schemes may be equally effective,” we
propose to develop a set of specific mandatory rules to establish accountability among licensees and
operators of fixed transmitters authorized under our rules so as to protect occupational personnel and the
general public from exposure above our limits. We note that fixed radio transmitters are no longer
located only on towers or facilities such as utility poles. Radio transmitters and their antennas have been
deployed in a wide variety of forms, often designed as trees, chimneys, or panels on a building for
aesthetic reasons, and their presence therefore might not be obvious. We realize that each transmitter site
is different and that a wide range of exposure environments may exist, and so we seek comment on how
to simultaneously provide flexibility and certainty to licensees and site owners while at the same time
ensuring enforceable compliance with our exposure limits.
187.
IEEE Std C95.7-2005 and other technical references316 discuss the potential for RF
sources to interfere with medical or other devices at field levels lower than the Commission’s human
exposure limits for the general population. Medical devices are regulated by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). However, the Commission works with the FDA to address the potential for
electromagnetic interference to the normal function of medical devices. Further, electro-explosive
devices oversight and standards exist through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), and the National Fire Code (NFC). The
Commission’s exposure rules are intended to limit exposure of humans, not devices, to a specified
acceptable level of RF energy. Thus, the Commission is specifically not considering in its proposal
portions of IEEE Std C95.7-2005 that involve compatibility with medical devices, implants, or electro-
explosive devices.
188.
Additionally, the Commission rules do not presently establish limits on induced body
current, contact current, or contact voltage, and in ET Docket 03-137 did not consider whether to
introduce limits on these quantities. Adoption of these aspects would be a change to our exposure limits,
and thus considering them is outside of the scope of this Further Notice. However, we do consider these
aspects in the Inquiry below.317
189.
IEEE Std C95.7-2005 offers one solution for implementing an RF safety program by
classifying exposure locations into one of four categories and specifying appropriate RF safety program
elements for each category.318 Relating terminology of Commission exposure limits to this IEEE
standard for the purpose of this discussion, the general term “action level” used in the IEEE standard
should be considered equivalent to the Commission exposure limit for the general population in an
uncontrolled environment;319 similarly, the general term “exposure limit” used by the IEEE should be
considered equivalent to the Commission exposure limit for occupational personnel in a controlled
environment. We emphasize that the general population exposure limit is a legal limit enforced by the
Commission and should not be considered as merely action guidance, nor does this proposal suggest any
different exposure limit than those currently in effect. The proposed mitigation actions in this section are
meant to supplement the exposure limits themselves by facilitating compliance with them.
190.
We propose to adapt the four IEEE Std C95.7-2005 categories as follows: Category One
– locations where operational characteristics of sources would not cause the exposure limit for the general
population to be exceeded; Category Two – locations where the exposure limit for the general population
would be exceeded but not the exposure limit for occupational personnel; Category Three – locations

316 AAMI TIR18:2010; IEEE Std C95.7-2005.
317 See para. 205 infra.
318 Note that exempt locations in relation to an RF source (see paras. 113 through 165 supra herein) or intrinsically
compliant devices would fall into Category One. See also paras. 190 and 196 infra.
319 See IEEE Std C95.7-2005, Section 1.3.

64

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

where the exposure limit for occupational personnel would be exceeded and has the potential to exceed
this limit by up to a factor of ten; Category Four – locations where the exposure limit for occupational
personnel would be exceeded by at least a factor of ten or where there is a possibility for serious contact
injury such as a severe burn, permanent tissue damage, or electrocution. For a visual depiction of these
proposed categories and a general summary of the corresponding signage symbology, refer to Figure 1
below, adapted from IEEE Standards C95.7-2005 and C95.2-1999, since these categories have been
amended slightly from their definition in IEEE Std C95.7-2005 to establish clearly enforceable
boundaries. As further elaborated in our proposal, we seek to unambiguously define boundaries between
each category based on the maximum time-averaged power over the appropriate time averaging period
(six minutes for occupational or 30 minutes for general population). We seek comment on our proposed
mitigation requirements. Specifically, we request comment on anticipated costs related to implementing
this proposal for clear definition of compliance boundaries, given that most sites already likely comply
with these proposed requirements, and we intend to allow sufficient time for licensees to inspect each of
their sites for compliance if there may be any uncertainty.

Figure 1. Graphical Representation of Exposure Categories and Associated Signage Requirements

NOTE: Where immediate and serious injury would occur on contact regardless of category,
is required pursuant to the description of Category Four below.320
Adapted from IEEE Std C95.7-2005 and IEEE Std C95.2-1999.


320 See para. 196 infra.

65

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

191.
We propose that the determination of the appropriate category should not be based on
proposed or existing exemption from routine evaluation321 but instead by an accurate evaluation,
consistent with our existing recommendations and rules for routine evaluation of compliance by
measurement or computation.322 Such methods as spatial averaging of equivalent power-density, source-
based time averaging, and specific absorption rate (SAR) determinations may be continue to be utilized
where appropriate to determine compliance with an applicable limit and/or classification of the
environment into one of the four proposed categories. We seek comment on how potential equipment
failures or non-routine or auxiliary operation that may cause exposure over our limits should be
considered in the determination of these categories. For example, for high-power fixed licensed
operations, we presently require licensees to reduce power or cease operation as necessary to comply with
exposure limits for persons having access to the site (including the tower, transmitter, transmission lines,
and antenna)
192.
We again emphasize that the general population exposure limit for uncontrolled
environments is a definite legal limit enforced by the Commission. We propose that the establishment of
a controlled environment where this limit is exceeded (i.e., a Category Two, Three, or Four environment)
would generally require some type of “positive restriction on access”323 (referred to herein as positive
access control)324 and members of the general public should not be expected to be aware of or act on
posted exposure conditions. We agree with the IEEE Std C95.7-2005 standard that Category One should
not include “situations in which compliance with the applicable exposure limit requires some action by
the exposed person, such as limiting the amount of time spent in certain locations.”325 IEEE’s guidance
that “physical barriers” are optional for Categories Two and Three appears to be inconsistent with
maintaining a controlled environment and with existing Commission policy.326 Consider for example the
case offered by IEEE of a location where signs have been placed where the exposure limit for the general
population is exceeded and a visually impaired person enters this area. Signs alone would not likely
provide an effective control to keep this particular member of the general public from exposure above the
limit. Other examples are readily apparent, such as access by non-English speakers and children, who
may not necessarily be fully aware of conditions necessary to avoid exposure through the use of signs
alone. We have in the past allowed only signage without the use of barriers “in a remote area not likely to
be visited by the public.”327 Similarly, the IEEE suggests that signs alone are sufficient in remote
areas.328 The question becomes one of determining whether an area can be considered “remote.”
Evidence of public access, such as litter and trails, has been used by the Commission in past inspections

321 See paras. 121, 130, and 151 supra.
322 OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01, August 1997.
323 See IEEE Std C95.7-2005, definition 3.1.22.
324 Positive access control includes locked doors, ladder cages, or effective fences, as well as enforced prohibition of
public access to external surfaces of buildings, or generally, active preclusion of unauthorized access. However, it
may not include natural barriers which tend to limit access but may not be effective or other access restrictions that
did not require any action on the part of the licensee or property management.
325 See IEEE Std C95.7-2005, Section 1.3.
326 Appendix B of OET Bulletin 65, “Summary of 1986 Mass Media Bureau Public Notice on RF Compliance.”
327 In Situation B of Appendix B in OET Bulletin 65, there is an assumption “that there is no significant effect on the
human environment with regard to exposure of the general public” if the non-compliant area is marked by
appropriate warning signs and is “in a remote area not likely to be visited by the public.”
328 We use here the word “remote” specifically for the purpose of making a determination of compliance with
respect to our radiofrequency exposure rules.

66

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

to show that an area is not “remote.”329 As an additional consideration, regions that are over the general
population limit could coincide with locations not under the control of the responsible licensee; therefore
easement for placement of fences and/or signs may not be feasible. Thus, we propose and seek comment
on the feasibility of requiring positive access control for Category Two and the advisability of continuing
the “remote” designation. The four proposed categories are discussed in further detail below.
193.
Assignment of liabilities and level of cooperation between property owners, managers,
licensees, and subcontractors may be an issue when implementing a site safety plan. Section 1.1307(b)(3)
already requires “licensees whose transmitters produce, at the area in question, power density levels that
exceed 5% of the power density exposure limit” to share in responsibility for compliance. We propose
that this shared responsibility for compliance, elaborated in the Order herein supra,330 also include
responsibility for mitigating actions. We seek comment on the extent of the responsibilities of licensees.
For example, what actions should be required when a transmitting antenna located on top of a building
generates fields in excess of our exposure limits at an elevated location on an adjacent property that is
occasionally accessed by service personnel? We also note that our jurisdiction for determination of
liability with respect to towers used for communications purposes is not necessarily limited to just
licensees.331 NCRP’s 2002 Letter Report emphasizes the need for building owners and managers to be
involved in the implementation of an RF safety program. In its Appendices C and D, the NCRP’s 2002
Letter Report also offers examples of appropriate corporate policies, procedures, and lease language to aid
compliance with our exposure limits. However, since it is ultimately the licensee that is responsible for
compliance, we seek comment on how to better encourage cooperation between property owners,
managers, and licensees in the implementation of RF safety programs.
194.
The Commission maintains that accurate placement of appropriate signage is important
and that such placement should make clear both where limits are exceeded and where limits are not
exceeded. We have observed postings that imply that occupational limits are exceeded far outside areas
that approach the general population limit. Such “over-signage” may result in undue alarm, confusion,
and subsequent disregard of meaningful postings. According to IEEE Std C95.7-2005, “RF safety signs

329 See, e.g., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture In The Matter Of Americom Las Vegas Limited Partnership
Licensee of FM Radio Station KWNZ Carson City, Nevada, Facility ID # 53706, DA 02-3218, November 22, 2002,
17 FCC Rcd 23689 at ¶ 15: “Americom asserted in its response to the May 1, 2002, LOI and the May 15, 2002, on-
site inspection that the McClellan Peak site is remote. Americom also asserted that it has historically treated the
areas at the McClellan Peak site which exceeded the public MPE limits as controlled areas subject to the
occupational MPE limits. In support of these assertions, American submitted a statement from the Storey County
Sheriff that his office receives little or no call volume relating to the site. However, we find that ample evidence
exists that the site was publicly accessible and was in fact used by the public, including agent observations of the
public driving ATVs at the site, a publicly accessible, commercially used road leading to the site, ungated and
unfenced dirt paths to the tower locations, off-road ATV trails, ATV tire tracks, campfire rings, beer and wine
bottles, and other trash at the site. We find that this evidence supports a conclusion that the areas were and could
reasonably be expected to be used by the public. See also Forfeiture Order In The Matter Of Americom Las Vegas
Limited Partnership Licensee of FM Radio Station KWNZ Carson City, Nevada, Facility ID # 53706, DA 04-1533,
May 28, 2004, 19 FCC Rcd 9643; Memorandum Opinion and Order In The Matter Of Americom Las Vegas Limited
Partnership Licensee of FM Radio Station KZTQ (Formerly KWNZ) Carson City, Nevada, Facility ID # 53706,
FCC 06-174, December 1, 2006, 21 FCC Rcd 14286; and Order on Reconsideration In The Matter Of Americom
Las Vegas Limited Partnership Licensee of FM Radio Station KZTQ (Formerly KWNZ) Carson City, Nevada,
Facility ID # 53706, DA 07-4720, November 29, 2007, 22 FCC Rcd 20530.
330 See para. 80 supra.
331 Section 503(b)(5) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“Act”), 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5), provides that
forfeiture liability may be determined against any person if such person does not hold a license, permit, certificate,
or other authorization issued by the Commission, if the person involved is a non-licensee tower owner who has
previously received notice of the obligations imposed by Section 303(q) from the Commission or the permittee or
licensee who uses that tower.

67

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

should be installed before reaching the specific region of concern, but as close as practical, with an
attempt to avoid demarcating unnecessarily large regions.”332 Similarly, NCRP’s 2002 Letter Report
states that “[i]nappropriate signage can raise unnecessary concerns.”333 Since each situation is different,
we propose that those responsible for the placement of signs consider the potential implications of over-
signage, and we will consider compliance with these proposed rules on a case-by-case basis.
Unnecessary public concern may also arise from placement of a sign with an inappropriate signal word.
For example, placement of a sign that says “DANGER” or “WARNING” in a location where RF fields
may only approach the general population exposure limit might raise unnecessary alarm despite
compliance in the area, since the words “danger” and “warning” imply conditions leading to imminent or
likely physical harm.
195.
IEEE Std C95.7-2005 states that “RF safety awareness training is normally the single
most important aspect of controlling hazardous exposures to RF energy.”334 We agree that training is
important, as discussed in the Order.335 Specifically with respect to requirements for appropriate training,
we propose to consider the topics outlined in Annex A of IEEE Std C95.7-2005 as guidance to be
referenced in a future revision of OET Bulletin 65. Regarding AT&T’s comment in response to the
Notice in this proceeding seeking clarification on what constitutes verbal information,336 we propose that
either spoken word or pre-recorded audio from an authorized individual qualified to provide such
instructions on how to remain compliant would be acceptable. With respect to the allowance in IEEE Std
C95.7-2005 of training to be optional for Category Two environments,337 we propose that such training is
optional only for transient individuals who must be supervised, and training would be required for all
other controlled situations in Category Two and higher categories consistent with the decision in the
Order.338 Training may include effective web-based or similar programs.
196.
We have used the environmental categories and guidance provided in IEEE Std C95.7-
2005 to develop the following specific proposals that the categories below require the specified control
actions:
•

Category One – INFORMATION

(Below General Population Exposure Limit):
No signs or positive access controls are proposed to be required; optionally a green
“INFORMATION” sign may offer information to the public that a transmitting source of RF energy
is nearby but that it is compliant with Commission exposure limits regardless of duration or usage.
Labels or signs would not be required for fixed transmitters that can determine that the transmitter is
“intrinsically compliant” with the general population exposure limit.339

332 See IEEE Std C95.7-2005, Section 4.3.2.1.
333 See NCRP’s Letter Report, op. cit., December 20, 2002, Section 2A-4.4.
334 See IEEE Std C95.7-2005, Section 4.5.
335 See para. 75 supra.
336 See AT&T comments at 1.
337 See IEEE Std C95.7-2005, op cit., Table 3, Section 4.5.
338 Since anyone in the general public could potentially be a transient individual in a controlled environment, our
proposal would define these circumstances to be general population/“controlled” where the general population
exposure limit must not be exceeded, accounting for appropriate time averaging in the controlled area such that
overall exposure remains compliant with the continuous general population exposure limit; however, these transient
individuals must not be exposed in any circumstance above the continuous occupational exposure limit without
appropriate training. See para. 181 supra.
339 See para. 96 supra.

68

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

•

Category Two – NOTICE

(Exceeds General Population Exposure Limit but Less Than the
Occupational Exposure Limit):
Signs and positive access control are proposed to be required surrounding the areas in which the
general population exposure limit is exceeded, with the appropriate signal word “NOTICE” and
associated color (blue) on the sign. Signs must contain the content described below.340 However, we
propose to allow under certain controlled conditions, such as on a rooftop with limited access (e.g., a
locked door with appropriate signage), “[a] label or small sign attached directly to the surface of an
antenna … if it specifies a minimum approach distance,”341 to be sufficient signage. Allowing a label
or sign to be affixed to an antenna is consistent with our policy for certain low-power fixed
transmitters operating with a minimum separation distance more than 20 centimeters from the body of
persons under normal operating conditions and with our decision in the Order of this proceeding
regarding labeling requirements for fixed consumer subscriber antennas. Of course, a label affixed to
an antenna would be considered sufficient only if it is legible at least at the separation distance
required for compliance with the general population exposure limit in section 1.1310 of our rules.
We propose appropriate training to be required for any occupational personnel with access to the
controlled area where the general population exposure limit is exceeded, and transient individuals to
be supervised by occupational personnel with appropriate training upon entering any of these areas.
Use of time averaging would be required for transient individuals in the area in which the general
population exposure limit is exceeded to ensure compliance with the time-averaged general
population limit. Use of personal RF monitors in the areas in which the general population exposure
limit is exceeded would be recommended but not required.
•

Category Three – CAUTION

(Exceeds Occupational Exposure Limit but by No More Than Ten
Times):
In addition to the mitigation actions required within those areas designated as Category Two,
additional signs (with the appropriate signal word “CAUTION” and associated color (yellow) on the
signs), controls, or indicators (e.g., chains, railings, contrasting paint, diagrams) are proposed to be
required surrounding the area in which the exposure limit for occupational personnel in a controlled
environment is exceeded. A label or small sign may be attached directly to the surface of an antenna
within a controlled environment if it specifies a minimum approach distance where the occupational
exposure limit is exceeded. We propose that transient individuals would not be permitted in any area
in which the occupational exposure limit is exceeded. Additionally, appropriate training would be
required for any occupational personnel with access to the controlled area where the general
population exposure limit is exceeded. Use of personal RF monitors in the areas in which the general
population exposure limit is exceeded is recommended but not proposed to be required. Use of
personal protective gear (such as properly-worn RF protective suits) is recommended for occupational
individuals in the areas in which the occupational exposure limit is exceeded.
•

Category Four – WARNING/DANGER

(Exceeds Ten Times Occupational Exposure Limit or
Serious Contact Injury Possible):
In addition to the mitigation actions required within those areas designated as Category Three,
“WARNING” signs with the associated color (orange) are proposed to be required where the
occupational limit could be exceeded by a factor of ten, and “DANGER” signs with the associated
color (red) are proposed to be required where immediate and serious injury will occur.342 For
example, “DANGER” signs would be required at the base of AM broadcast towers, where serious

340 See para. 200 infra.
341 See IEEE Std C95.7-2005, Section 4.5.1.
342 IEEE Std C95.7-2005 provides examples of the proper use of “DANGER” signs “as in the case of RF burns
and/or RF electrical shocks.”

69

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

injuries due to contact burns may occur. If power reduction would not sufficiently protect against the
relevant exposure limit in the event of human presence considering the optional additional use of
personal protective equipment, lockout/tagout procedures must be followed to ensure human
safety.343
197.
We note that barriers may not be appropriate in all situations for Category Two
environments, and so we reiterate that we continue to support our suggested exceptions from Appendix B
of OET Bulletin 65, Summary of 1986 Mass Media Bureau Public Notice on RF Compliance, to not
require barriers where RF levels exceed the exposure limit in a remote area not likely to be visited by the
public.344 Additionally, we recognize that there are certain routine circumstances, particularly near
wireless base station antennas on the sides of buildings, where physical barriers may not be practical but
third-party worker exposure may occur. Consideration of alternative control actions that may differ from
these proposed rules may be appropriate, such as a posted sign on the exterior of such an antenna or
positive access control.
198.
The FCC Enforcement Bureau can initiate cases where it appears that RF exposure limits
might be exceeded, and where non-compliance is found, the Bureau can require corrective action and
impose fines or other sanctions. An example of a corrective action is an effective physical barrier such as
enclosure of an area by a locked six-foot high chain-link fence or securing access to a rooftop by a locked
door with signs posted to notify the public not to proceed because of the potential exposure to RF fields
(applicable only where our exposure limits could be exceeded).345 However, besides an absence of
signage,346 some other examples of where the Commission has declared existing control actions to be
inadequate include: signs without contact information, signs placed incorrectly,347 improper types of
signs, insufficient barriers,348 and unsecured entryways. We expect that these proposals throughout this
section of the Further Notice will not create a significant new burden for transmitter site operators and
licensees, since most high-power fixed licensees already implement RF safety programs, and much of this
material is a codification of existing industry practice and standards. Nonetheless, we seek comment on
this issue.
199.
The Commission has maintained through its enforcement proceedings349 the importance
of actions to control access to areas where the general population may be exposed to RF field levels in
excess of its guidelines.350 Specifically, the Commission has made clear its intention to hold accountable
fixed transmitter site licensees that fail to maintain an effective enclosure to prohibit public access to

343 According to the National Association of Broadcasters Engineering Handbook, 10th Edition, OSHA’s
“lockout/tagout” requirement (OSHA Regulations, Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations, § 1910.147) would require
the appropriate transmitter to be shut down during the presence of occupational personnel. To prevent unexpected
activation of the transmitter, “the circuit breaker feeding the transmitter should be locked (using a padlock) into the
off position, and a warning tag placed to indicate that the transmitter may not be operated until the lock and tag are
removed by the person who installed them.”
344 See note 328 supra.
345 Forfeiture Order In The Matter of HTV/HTN/Hawaiian TV Network, Ltd., Licensee of Class A Television
Station KHLU-LP Honolulu, Hawaii, Facility ID # 27969, DA 07-2138, May 24, 2007, 22 FCC Rcd 9241.
346 Forfeiture Order In The Matter of Entravision Holdings, LLC, Licensee of Station WVEA-LP Tampa, Florida
Facility ID # 3602, DA 07-549, February 6, 2007, 22 FCC Rcd 2279.
347 Order on Review In The Matter of Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Florida, Licensee of Station WQYK-FM
Tampa, Florida Facility ID # 28619, FCC 09-27, April 7, 2009, 24 FCC Rcd 4270.
348 See footnote 352, infra.
349 See Forfeiture Order In the Matter of Real Life Broadcasting, Licensee of AM Station WIFI, Florence, New
Jersey Facility ID # 55310, DA-09-1991, Released September 3, 2009.
350 See footnote 326, supra.

70

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

areas where RF fields may exceed our limit.351 Natural barriers are sometimes cited as adequate to
prevent public access, however neither our rules nor case law permit natural barriers to meet the
requirement that access to AM broadcast towers be limited to prevent RF contact burns as specified in
section 73.49.352 While OET Bulletin 65 does not contain any reference to the height, type, or condition
of fencing, it does provide guidance on the use of an effective fence to restrict access,353 and this is one
method of complying with the exposure limits in section 1.1310 of our rules by avoiding exposure to the
general public above our limits. Fences used to limit human exposure to RF field levels under section
1.1310 may also be used to meet the AM fencing requirements under section 73.49 of our rules, but only
if such fences are considered “effective locked fences or other enclosures.”354 We propose that natural
barriers should also not be considered acceptable to comply with section 1.1310 of our rules, unless
specifically approved by the Commission on a case-by-case basis. As an example, a natural body of
water would not provide an acceptable barrier along a shoreline.
200.
We also propose to require the following in the content of the sign, adapted from Section
2.4 of the National Association of Broadcasters Engineering Handbook, 10th Edition. Specifically, RF
exposure advisory signs are proposed to include at least the following components:
• Appropriate signal word and associated color in accord with IEEE Std C95.2-1999 (e.g.,
“DANGER,” “WARNING,” “CAUTION,” or “NOTICE”)
• RF energy advisory symbol (Figure A.3 of C95.2-1999)
• An explanation of the RF source (e.g., transmitting antennas)
• Behavior necessary to comply with the exposure limits (e.g., do not climb tower while antennas
are energized)
• Contact information (e.g., phone number or email address resulting in a timely response)
201.
The discussion herein clarifies our proposals with respect to appropriate signal word use
and appropriate explanations and methods for avoiding RF exposure in excess of our limits, while prior
enforcement action justifies the need for including contact information in proposed sign content.355 We
seek comment on these proposed rules. We are particularly interested in information as to the
implementation cost and effectiveness of any required signs or other mitigation actions. We also request
views as to what would be a reasonable timeframe, for example one year, within which to require
compliance at new or existing sites and how to weigh this against any risks to the public or workers.

351 Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture In The Matter Of Americom Las Vegas Limited Partnership Licensee
of FM Radio Station KWNZ Carson City, Nevada, Facility ID # 53706, DA 02-3218, November 22, 2002, 17 FCC
Rcd 23689.
352 Forfeiture Order In the Matter of Pittman Broadcasting Services, LLC, Licensee of Broadcast Stations
KAOK(AM), Lake Charles, Louisiana, and KAOK-FM, DeRidder, Louisiana, Covington, Louisiana, August 9,
2004, DA-04-2473, 19 FCC Rcd 15320.
353 OET Bulletin 65 at 11, 53, and Appendix B.
354 See 47 CFR § 73.49.
355 Order on Review In The Matter Of Infinity Broadcasting Corporation Of Florida Licensee of Station WQYK-FM
Tampa, Florida Facility ID # 28619, 24 FCC Rcd 4270 (2009).

71

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

202.
For the optional information sign discussed in Category One above, we recommend that
it include at least the following information:
• Appropriate signal word (e.g., “INFORMATION”) and associated color (green)
• An explanation of safety precaution
• Contact information
• Reminder to obey all postings and boundaries (if higher categories are nearby)
203.
Note that the inclusion of the RF energy advisory symbol and directions on how to avoid
a potential hazard are excluded from these recommendations on the optional “INFORMATION” sign,
since inclusion of these aspects on a sign where the general public exposure limit is not exceeded may
cause confusion or unnecessary public alarm. If, for example, a member of the general public proceeds
past an information sign and continues toward a source of RF energy, only at the point where that
individual approaches the general population exposure limit should there be information on how to
remain in areas where RF field levels are less than the public limit. Once this individual approaches the
boundary where the general population exposure limit is exceeded, then the “NOTICE” sign would
explain how to avoid exceeding the limits and positive access control would keep the individual from
doing so. The use of language(s) other than English on an “INFORMATION” sign would be particularly
advisable since the information sign would not include the universal RF energy symbol. We seek
comment on these proposals. We encourage interested parties to comment on the relative costs and
benefits of the proposed changes in this section, as well as those of alternative approaches.

E.

Review and Update All RF Safety Text in Parts 1 and 2 for Clarity and Consistency

204.
Given the rather extensive changes we propose in this Further Notice and have already
made in the Order, we take this opportunity to propose a careful rewording of some of our rules in
sections 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency. We
caution that a thorough examination of these proposed changes, provided in Appendix B, may be
necessary. Changes to specific sections of Parts 15, 24, 25, 95, and 97 are necessarily dependent on our
proposed changes in Parts 1 and 2. Since we propose that our general exemption criteria apply to all rule
parts authorizing RF sources, specific exceptions in rule parts other than in Parts 1 and 2 are not
necessary. We propose to substitute our general exemption criteria for the exclusion from routine
evaluation of television band devices (TVBDs) based on power and distance in section 15.709(d); we
propose to delete the references to IEEE Std C95.1-1991 and IEEE Std C95.3-1991 in section 24.51(c)
and substitute our general exemption criteria for the exclusion from routine evaluation in section 24.52;
we propose to remove the five percent criterion for earth station licensees in section 25.117(g) and
introduce similar language to section 25.115, paragraph (j), section 25.129, paragraph (c), section 25.149,
paragraph (c)(3), and section 25.226, paragraph (b)(8); we propose to substitute our general exemption
criteria for the exclusion from routine evaluation in section 27.52, section 73.404, paragraph (e)(10), and
section 90.1217; we propose to correct paragraph references in section 95.628(g); we propose to
substitute our general exemption criteria for the exclusion from routine evaluation of amateur radio
licensees based on power alone in section 97.13(c)(1) ; and we propose to substitute our general
exemption criteria for the exclusion from routine evaluation of the Multichannel Video Distribution and
Data Service (MVDDS) stations in the 12.2–12.7 GHz frequency band with output powers less than 1640
watts EIRP in section 101.1425. We seek comment on this proposal. We invite commenters to
recommend similar types of corrective and conforming revisions to the Commission’s rules as
alternatives to what we propose herein. We encourage interested parties to comment on the relative costs
and benefits of all of these proposed changes, as well as those of any alternative approaches.

72

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

V.

NOTICE OF INQUIRY

A.

Introduction

205.
The first Commission Notice of Inquiry (1979 Inquiry) on the subject of biological effects
of radiofrequency radiation occurred in 1979 in response to the need for the Commission to implement the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969.356 The most recent proceeding inviting comment on
exposure limits was initiated in 1993 and culminated in a Report and Order in 1996, which resulted in our
present limits. The instant rulemaking that is underway, initiated with the 2003 Notice, specifically
excludes consideration of the exposure limits themselves. We continue to have confidence in the current
exposure limits, and note that more recent international standards have a similar basis. At the same time,
given the fact that much time has passed since the Commission last sought comment on exposure limits, as
a matter of good government, we wish to develop a current record by opening a new docket with this
Notice of Inquiry (Inquiry).
206.
We recognize that a great deal of scientific research has been completed in recent years
and new research is currently underway, warranting a comprehensive examination of this and any other
relevant information. Moreover, the ubiquity of device adoption as well as advancements in technology
and developments in the international standards arena since establishing our present policies in 1996
warrant an inquiry to gather information to determine whether our general regulations and policies limiting
human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation are still appropriately drawn. We also note the
recommendation of the United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) in a report for Congress
that the Commission formally reassess its current RF energy exposure limit, including the effects on
human health, and that it solicit the opinions of relevant health and safety agencies in deciding whether any
change in the current RF energy exposure limit is appropriate.357
207.
We also received comments that addressed our present exposure limits in response to the
Notice, even though those comments were beyond the scope of that Notice.358 In addition, EMR Network
petitioned for the Commission to initiate an inquiry to consider an amendment of our exposure limits in
2003.359 Since our Notice excluded discussion of our exposure limits, we exercised our discretion at that
time to defer investigation of the propriety of our exposure limits, which was upheld in court in 2004.360
In this Inquiry, we seek comment on whether our limits should be more restrictive, less restrictive, or
remain the same.
208.
As long ago as the 1979 Inquiry we sought to gather information “in light of the
increased concern about the biological effects of radio frequency radiation.”361 At that time, just as is

356 See 42 U.S.C. § 4321.
357 United States Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional Requesters,
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Exposure and Testing for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed, GAO-12-771 (July
2012).
358 See The EMR Network comments at 1; Roger J. Mattson comments at 1; The EMR Policy Institute comments at
4; Margaret A. Brown comments at 1; Niels Kuster comments at 11, 12; Richard A. Tell reply comments at 10, 11;
Hatfield and Dawson Consulting Engineers, LLC reply comments at 2.
359 18 FCC Rcd 16822, 16827, ¶ 12 (2003).
360 See EMR Network v. FCC, 391 F.3d 269 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
361Notice of Inquiry, “In the Matter of Responsibility of the Federal Communications Commission to consider
biological effects of radio frequency radiation when authorizing the use of radio frequency devices,” Gen. Docket
No. 79-144, 72 FCC 2d 482 (1979).

73

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

evident today,362 there were “considerable differences of opinion about the biological effects of low level
(i.e., non-thermal or athermal) and long-term (chronic) exposure to RF radiation.”363 While we limited
our scope of the 2003 Notice to implementation issues, we nonetheless received comments addressing a
range of additional topics including induced and contact currents, dosimetry,364 and potentially adverse
non-thermal biological effects.
209.
In considering whether there is a need for changes to our RF exposure limit rules, our
intent is to adequately protect the public without imposing an undue burden on industry. While
acknowledging the potential difficulty of quantifying benefits and burdens in considering the overall costs
of the regulation, we need to be mindful of our fundamental responsibility to provide for the appropriate
protection of consumers, workers, and other members of the public. We therefore request comment,
below, on a wide range of questions that will enable us to weigh those costs and benefits. We also
request comment on the most cost-effective approach for modifying existing exposure limit policies and
practices, if such modifications are needed, to achieve our goals. For each cost or benefit addressed, we
ask that commenters provide specific data and information such as actual or estimated dollar figures,
including a description of how the data or information was calculated or obtained and any supporting
documentation. All comments will be considered and given appropriate weight. Vague or unsupported
assertions regarding costs or benefits generally will receive less weight and be less persuasive than the
more specific and supported statements.
210.
Although the Commission is aware of recent scientific and technical standard
publications, it is important to gather additional pertinent information and authoritative expert views to
ensure we are meeting our regulatory responsibilities. Continued use of our present exposure limits is
currently supported by statements from significant qualified expert organizations and governmental
entities.365 But we specifically seek the opinions of federal agencies with jurisdiction by law or scientific
expertise in this area as to the adequacy of our current RF exposure limits, in terms of safety and effects
on human health and environmental effects. Some critics of our exposure limits have contrasting
opinions, and we are aware of the general concerns raised some members of the public. The purpose of
this Inquiry is to open a science-based examination of the efficacy, currency, and adequacy of the
Commission’s exposure limits for RF electromagnetic fields. We underscore that in conducting this
review we will work closely with and rely heavily – but not exclusively – on the guidance of other federal
agencies with expertise in the health field. This approach will ensure that we will have fully discharged
our regulatory responsibility and also will be appropriately responsive to the public’s interest in knowing
that our RF exposure guidelines are based on the most current information, analysis, and expertise
available.

B.

Background

211.
The Commission is required to evaluate its actions for possible significant impact on the
environment366 and is also required to prescribe rules regarding the environmental effects of RF
emissions.367 The Commission first adopted limits for public and worker exposure to RF fields in 1985368

362 For contrasting examples of peer-reviewed published literature, see Bioelectromagnetics, Supplement 6, 2003 vs.
Pathophysiology, Volume 16, Issues 2-3, 2009.
363 See 1979 Inquiry, Gen. Docket 79-144, 72 FCC 2d 482 (1979), at 1.
364 In the context of RF radiation, the term “dosimetry” is the determination of specific absorption rate (SAR) from
exposure fields. For example, the MPE values are derived from whole-body SAR by dosimetric calculations.
365 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Biological Effects of Modulated Radiofrequency
Fields, (NCRP commentary No. 18), December 2003.
366 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.
367 See footnote 176, supra.

74

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

and updated those limits in 1996369 based on exposure criteria published by the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)370 and an exposure standard published by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, Inc.
(IEEE).371 Since the Commission is not a health and safety agency itself, adoption of these exposure
criteria for human exposure to RF electromagnetic fields followed recommendations received from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other
federal health and safety agencies.
212.
The Commission’s rules include two types of guidelines limiting exposure to RF energy:
specific absorption rate (SAR) and maximum permissible exposure (MPE).372 For portable transmitting
devices held close to the body such as cell phones, we enforce a limit on the localized SAR, which is a
measure of the RF power absorbed inside a small part of the body. For transmitters and antennas located
relatively far from the body, such as broadcast stations, cellular base stations, and two-way mobile
vehicular radios, the MPE limits apply to the environmental level of RF field strength (energy) or power
density (illumination) without the body present. At frequencies up to 6 GHz the MPE values are derived
from the whole-body average SAR limits. As discussed in the Order herein,373 SAR is the primary metric
for compliance with regard to exposure to RF energy, applicable to all transmitters operating from 100
kHz to 6 GHz. The MPE limit on power density is the primary metric from 6 to 100 GHz.374
213.
The International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) published
exposure guidelines in 1998,375 and the IEEE published a major revision to its RF exposure standard in
2006.376 Every IEEE standard is subjected to review at least once every five years for revision or
reaffirmation, so either a new revision of IEEE Std C95.1 or a reaffirmation of the latest version is
expected in the near future. Having already released its latest guidelines on low frequency fields in
(Continued from previous page)
368 See 1979 Inquiry, Gen. Docket 79-144, 72 FCC 2d 482 (1979).
369 Report and Order, ET Docket 93-62, 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1996).
370 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria
for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, NCRP Report No. 86, Sections 17.4.1, 17.4.1.1, 17.4.2, 17.4.3 and
17.4.5, copyright 1986 by NCRP, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. The National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements is a nonprofit corporation chartered by Congress in 1964 primarily to collect, analyze, develop, and
disseminate information on radiation protection.
371 American National Standards Institute (ANSI), IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human
Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, ANSI/IEEE Std C95.1-1992, Sections 4.1
and 4.2, copyright 1991 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), New York, New York
10017. IEEE is a non-profit international professional association of electrical and electronics engineers involved in
technology standards development. ANSI is a private, not-for-profit organization that oversees its members and
constituents throughout the process of standards development.
372 47 CFR § 1.1310.
373 Report and Order, in ET Docket 03-137.
374 The 1979 Inquiry opened discussion of RF exposure limits over the 0 to 300 GHz frequency range, but the limits
eventually adopted include frequencies between 100 kHz and 100 GHz.
375 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to
Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (Up to 300 GHz), Health Physics 74 (4): 494-522,
1998. ICNIRP is an international non-profit-making body of independent scientific experts addressing the
possibility of adverse effects on human health of exposure to non-ionizing radiation.
376 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), IEEE Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to
Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz, IEEE Std C95.1-2005, copyright
2006 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), New York, New York 10016-5997.

75

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

2010,377 we anticipate that ICNIRP may also release a revision of its RF standard in the near future, and
we invite parties to comment on this standard if it is released during the comment period established for
this Inquiry. These more recent international exposure standards activities have a fundamentally similar
basis in protecting against established adverse health effects due to tissue heating. It is noteworthy that
both IEEE and ICNIRP localized SAR limits are 2.0 W/kg averaged over 10 grams as opposed to our
existing localized SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg averaged over 1 gram. Thus, our SAR limits for devices held
close to the body are somewhat more restrictive than other more recently adopted international SAR
limits.378 However, we also note that our MPE limits – for more distant transmitters – are slightly less
restrictive than those specified by ICNIRP at some frequencies.379 We seek to examine the bases for
these determinations by other qualified and responsible expert bodies and ensure that there is a
justification for our differing conclusions or adjust those conclusions accordingly.
214.
As stated previously, our exposure limits are based in part on NCRP’s exposure criteria
from 1986. Although NCRP has not updated its criteria since its release, it did subsequently comment in
2002 that:
“[a]vailable evidence and research to date indicate that adherence to the FCC guidelines
will avoid adverse effects of RF exposure on the nervous system and animal behavior,
effects on vision and the neuroendocrine system, cardiovascular and hematological
effects, and immune system effects. Similarly, the available evidence indicates that
exposure to RF fields at levels in compliance with FCC guidelines does not lead to
additional risk for cancer or adverse effects on potentially sensitive tissues involved in
reproduction, embryonic development, and post-natal development.”380
NCRP went on to state that:
“[r]ecent reviews of the epidemiological literature, including extensive studies on humans
exposed to modulated RF signals from wireless telecommunication systems, do not
indicate that exposure to these fields leads to carcinogenic effects… Based on the body
of current evidence from laboratory and human studies on the biological effects of
modulated RF fields, there is no firm basis on which to modify the current FCC
guidelines to make them more stringent.”381
In the event that the Commission may propose to adopt new exposure limits in this proceeding, we seek
comment on the preference, costs, and benefits of adopting any of the present or future standards being
developed by IEEE, ICNIRP, or possibly by NCRP, keeping in mind the potential for international
harmonization, the adequacy of supporting documentation, the differences in process and openness in
development, and the technical completeness of each standard. Notwithstanding the above, we generally

377 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to
time-Varying Electric and Magnetic Fields (1 Hz - 100 kHz), Health Physics 99(6): 818-836, 2010.
378 A larger averaging volume of similar shape would permit a higher spatial peak field in a small area of that mass,
as there is more non-peak-exposed mass considered in the averaging. Therefore, the spatial peak exposure in a 10-
gram cube could be more than the spatial peak exposure in a 1-gram cube for the same averaged SAR value. See
para. 220 infra, where we request comment on whether there may be significant differences between using an
averaging mass of 10 grams over a contiguous layer of tissue (viz. ICNIRP) versus an averaging mass of a 1-gram
cube (viz. our existing localized SAR limit).
379 See paras. 220-230 infra for a more comprehensive discussion of the specific differences and potential
shortcomings of each of these international standards.
380 National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), Letter Report on Wireless
Telecommunications Radiofrequency Safety Issues for Building Owners and Managers, (2002 Letter Report),
Scientific Committee 89-6, December 20, 2002.
381 Id. at 11.

76

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

invite comment on any other present or future standards that the Commission should consider but which
may not specifically be mentioned herein.
215.
As already noted, the Commission is guided by the expertise of federal safety, health, and
environmental agencies and institutes that, subject to any budgetary constraints, perform regular reviews
of scientific research and periodically recommend any appropriate changes to, or reaffirm the validity of,
the Commission’s exposure criteria. Nonetheless, the Commission is confident of its own ability to
remain abreast of scientific developments and research, and to participate in standards development and
implementation, as is necessary to make an independent determination as to the adequacy of its exposure
limits in the absence of affirmative input from agencies with more health and safety expertise. Because
the Commission does not claim expertise as a de facto health agency, it necessarily considers the views of
federal health and safety agencies and institutes that continue to address RF exposure issues382 in
formulating such judgments. We note that the international community has been active in this area, with
the World Health Organization (WHO) initiating its electromagnetic fields (EMF)383 program in 1996384
and continuing its broad efforts in this area. As we continue to monitor such activity and information, we
seek comment on the appropriate consideration of the evaluations of research conducted by international
organizations or by activities in other countries. Moreover, we seek comment from federal agencies and
institutes as to whether there may be any additional information or resources that could be provided by
the Commission to support their ongoing activities.

C.

Discussion

216.
Although we continue to have confidence in our exposure limits, which are
fundamentally similar to more recent standards activity, we nonetheless seek comment on whether we
should consider any alternative limits, based on all currently available reliable and pertinent research and
in light of the increase in numbers and usage of fixed transmitters and portable and mobile devices, as
well as changes in usage and consequent exposure patterns. As stated previously, this Inquiry is intended
to open a discussion on the propriety of the Commission’s exposure limits and policies pertaining to RF
exposure, relying on the guidance of other expert federal health and safety agencies and institutes.
217.
In the first section below, which considers the general exposure limits per se, we request
analyses of technical differences that have been raised in more recent standards-setting activities and
ongoing research, such as: partial-body and whole-body averaging of exposure, averaging time, averaging
area, peak pulsed RF fields, contact currents, frequency range, and conductive implanted objects. In the
second section, we solicit comment on how to better provide information to consumers and the public
about RF exposure. In the third section, on approaches to controlling RF exposure, we seek comment on
the contrasting use of conventional exposure limits versus other precautionary measures and differences
in current worldwide implementations of these philosophies. In the fourth section – which addresses
evaluation issues - we ask about how the process developing our evaluation procedures might be
improved. Finally, the last section, also related to evaluation, we seek comment on our current portable
device separation distance policy when determining compliance.

382 See, e.g.,http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/assets/docs_a_e/cell-phone-june-2011.pdf"> http://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/assets/docs_a_e/cell-phone-june-2011.pdf,
http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/newsevents/workshopsconferences/ucm199103.htm">http://www.fda.gov/medicaldevices/newsevents/workshopsconferences/ucm199103.htm, and
http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/ucm116340.htm">http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-
EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/ucm11634
0.htm.
383 In the context of the WHO, EMF encompasses the frequency range of 0 to 300 GHz, including extremely low
frequency (ELF) fields.
384 Seehttp://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/EMF_Project/en/index.html"> http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/EMF_Project/en/index.html.

77

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

1.

Exposure Limits

218.
Introduction. As discussed above, since we adopted our exposure limits in 1996, ICNIRP
has developed guidelines (supported by the WHO), IEEE has revised its standard, and NCRP continued to
support its criteria as used by the Commission. Similar to our present limits, the more recent limits are
based on the avoidance of known adverse health effects. The adjustments underlying these newer limits
are primarily due to significant developments in dosimetry. Also, several other exposure variables in the
more recent standards more clearly specify various evaluation requirements, such as spatial averaging,
spatial peak field limits, time averaging, overlapping frequency range for heating and shock effects, etc.
While we recognize these developments, it is not clear that for the types of sources regulated by the
Commission such details are essential beyond consideration in our non-regulatory informational materials
(i.e., Bulletins). While evaluation of compliance with our exposure limits appears at times to be
increasingly more complex, because it is based on the straightforward restriction of time-averaged SAR
up to 6 GHz, it can be well defined independently of advancements in technology. Nonetheless, this
Inquiry will be helpful to establish whether the present limits are insufficiently protective, appropriately
protective, or overly restrictive.
219.
As an initial matter, while there has been increasing public discussion about the safety of
wireless devices, to date organizations with expertise in the health field such as the FDA have not
suggested that there is a basis for changing our standards or similar standards applied in other parts of the
world. As stated above, our purpose in opening this proceeding is to provide a forum for a full and
transparent discussion to determine whether any action may be appropriate. Accordingly, we ask
generally whether our current standards should be modified in any way, notwithstanding the detailed
discussion below. We specifically solicit information on the scientific basis for such changes as well as
the advantages and disadvantages and the associated costs of doing so. In addition to seeking input from
federal health and safety agencies and institutes, we solicit comment from national and international
standards organizations (specifically including NCRP and IEEE) on the currency of their exposure limits
and supporting documents in light of recent research and IARC’s announcement on its classification of
RF fields.385 We note that IARC’s detailed monograph on this classification is not yet available, but may
become available to inform our consideration during the course of this proceeding, and we invite parties
to comment on this monograph if it is released during the comment period established for this Inquiry.
Although IEEE Std 1528-2003, which we use to determine the compliance of devices such as cell phones
intended to be used against the head, states that the mannequin in its measurement test setup “represents a
conservative case for men, women, and children” alike,386 we specifically seek comment as to whether
our current limits are appropriate as they relate to device use by children.387
220.
Partial-body and Whole-body averaging of exposure. For localized SAR, both the
ICNIRP and the newest IEEE standard limit exposure to 2.0 W/kg averaged over 10 grams of tissue as
opposed to our existing localized SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg averaged over 1 gram. However, the definitions
of the 10-gram averaging volume differ slightly between ICNIRP and IEEE. The ICNIRP guidelines
specify an “averaging mass” over “any 10 g of contiguous tissue,” while IEEE Standard C95.1-2005
specifies an averaging volume or mass over “any ten-grams of tissue in the shape of a cube.” In contrast,
for whole-body exposures in the frequency range between 100 kHz and 3 GHz, the ICNIRP and newest
IEEE whole-body SAR limits, upon which MPEs are based in part, do not differ from our present

385 See IARC Classifies Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields as Possibly Carcinogenic to Humans,
http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf">http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf.
386 See IEEE Recommended Practice for Determining the Peak Spatial-Average Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in
the Human Head from Wireless Communications Devices: Measurement Techniques, IEEE Std 1528-2003.
387 See Wireless Substitution: Early Release of Estimates From the National Health Interview Survey, January–June
2011, Blumberg, S. and Luke, J., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, Figure 1, December 21, 2011.

78

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

exposure limits. Our MPE limits, in conjunction with spatial averaging, should reasonably be expected to
ensure compliance with the local SAR, whole-body SAR and power density limits.388 SAR provides a
clear primary metric for compliance below 6 GHz. Power density is used as both a primary metric and
MPE at higher frequencies above 6 GHz due to the shallow depth of penetration at these high frequencies.
The purpose of using MPEs is to permit compliance measurements of more easily determined external
fields without a body present. Depending on the exposure criteria used internationally, SAR would be the
metric between 100 kHz and upper frequencies varying from 3 to 10 GHz (the exact upper limit depends
on the particular exposure standard being applied), while power density is the metric at higher
frequencies. Dosimetry is used to establish MPE values where SAR is primary. Thus, differences in
MPEs between the standards are primarily due to variations in dosimetric modeling. We request
comment on the significance, if any, of the differences between these standards. For example, we request
comment on whether using an averaging mass of 10 grams over a contiguous layer of tissue would yield a
significantly different SAR value than that averaged over a 1-gram cube and whether that difference
would be consistently higher or lower, particularly with enough consistency to be able to establish a
definable relationship between the measurement methods.
221.
Averaging Area. The NCRP criteria and our regulations do not specify an averaging area
for power density or a spatial maximum power density limit, while both the ICNIRP guidelines and the
IEEE standards specify a spatial maximum power density, at least at higher frequencies (e.g., between 3
and 10 GHz) of 20 times the whole-body MPE limit, generally averaged over 1 cm2. In addition, IEEE
Std C95.1-2005 specifies frequency-dependent averaging areas for power density above 3 GHz. As
portable devices are developed for operation at higher frequencies, lack of clear definitions of spatial peak
and spatially averaged power density in our limits may become more significant. We invite comment on
whether we should change or clarify spatial averaging requirements and spatial maximum power density
limits, at least at higher frequencies, either in our rules limiting human exposure to RF energy or in our
non-mandatory materials. What are the advantages and disadvantages of any changes or clarifications,
and would they be cost effective? More generally, we seek comment on whole-body spatial averaging
techniques, particularly as applied to children at any frequency.389
222.
Averaging Time. While different time averaging periods are defined in the various
exposure standards, all use time averaging to demonstrate compliance with both SAR and MPE limits.390
These limits refer to a time-averaged SAR or power density, which may be determined over any interval
equal to the time averaging period. This averaging time is sometimes misinterpreted to imply a limit on
cumulative exposure over long time periods, which is not the case. None of these exposure standards
considers exposure accumulation, since these standards are based on threshold thermal effects, where
exposure below a threshold is assumed to cause no effect regardless of how long it lasts. Averaging time
only affects compliance determination where there is power variation during intervals shorter than the
time averaging period and does not affect application of the limits over longer time periods. Our
exposure limits are intended for continuous exposure, that is, for indefinite time periods. The limits may
be applied generally without time averaging, where the limits listed (typically in tables) would then be
considered continuous exposure limits. While the averaging time for our exposure limits is six minutes
for occupational and 30 minutes for general population exposure, the ICNIRP guidelines specify six
minutes in both cases. IEEE Std C95.1-2005 specifies six minutes for occupational and 30 minutes for
general population exposure at frequencies between 3 MHz and 3 GHz. We note that C95.1-2005 is more
restrictive at lower and higher frequencies (i.e., shorter time averaging periods are specified above and
below those frequency limits). While the IEEE’s shorter time averaging periods at higher frequencies are
more restrictive for avoiding short-term surface heating effects, the ICNIRP guidelines are likely also

388 See para. 20 in the Order and Appendix H infra.
389 See Appendix H infra.
390 See para. 112 supra.

79

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

effective in avoiding these effects due to more restrictive limits in power density at these frequencies.
Below 3 MHz, our MPE limits, extracted from the 1986 NCRP criteria, could allow a higher short-term
exposure for the general population than for a short-term occupational exposure of the same duration
when accounting for averaging times. However, such scenarios are of limited practical importance given
that such time averaging near fixed sources would not be applicable for the general population.
Moreover, contact burns are the primary issue at such low frequencies and high fields, as discussed
below.391 We invite comment on whether we should modify our time averaging periods. If so, should we
comport with recent standards activities? Alternatively from a precautionary perspective, should we
consider any potential risk due to long-term exposure as relevant to our time averaging periods, and if so,
what scientific evidence supports this?
223.
In sections 2.1091(d)(2) and 2.1093(d)(5) of our existing rules, portable and mobile
consumer devices may not use the 30-minute averaging time specified in section 1.1310. However,
“source-based” time averaging may be used for these consumer products based on inherent transmission
properties of a device. The rationale for restricting time averaging to “source-based” properties, provided
in the 1996 Report and Order, was that “there is no control over usage of consumer devices,”392 thus
usage of a certain percentage of a 30-minute time interval for a device with, for example, push-to-talk
capabilities could not guarantee that the device would not be used for the entire 30-minute period. Where
the previous example would be an example of “behavior-based” time averaging,393 an example described
in our existing rules where “source-based” time averaging is appropriate would be consideration of the
inherent transmission duty-cycle in determining exposure from a device that employs a time-division
multiple-access (TDMA) scheme. Other examples of “behavior-based” time averaging include increasing
the separation distance between an RF device and the body, or maintaining a certain angle between an
antenna and the body, such that the directional properties of the antenna are used to reduce exposure.
These “behavior-based” actions involving portable or mobile consumer devices may not be realistic
expectations for users in circumstances where the device is intended to be near the body and usage time is
not necessarily limited. Since “source-based” averaging often involves consideration of transmit
periodicity to determine the time interval over which to average at the maximum power achievable by the
device, a 30-minute time averaging interval containing many identical periods at maximum power would
result in the same average power as one period. For “source-based” time averaging the time period for
evaluation is less than 30 minutes. Thus, if the periodicity of a device exceeds 30 minutes, then the
largest “source-based” time averaging interval to be used for evaluation is 30 minutes. Notwithstanding
our current policy, we request comment on whether consumers would prefer to be given an informed
choice to behave in such a manner that may result in somewhat exceeding the exposure limits.
224.
Peak Pulsed RF Fields. The present Commission rules do not include limits on peak
pulsed RF fields, and independent standard-setting bodies have adopted differing standards applicable to
such fields. The 1986 NCRP criteria state that “[t]he time averaging of and the limits on power densities
and SARs as provided in the criteria in this report preclude circumstances in which excessive
instantaneous peak power levels can occur. There is, therefore, no need to specify a limit on peak power,
as such.”394 However, these criteria also state that “[b]ecause limited data are available to establish the
relation between the biological effects of CW and pulsed sources,”395 it is necessary to employ time
averaging to ensure compliance. The ICNIRP guidelines agree that “little information is available on the

391See para. 225 infra.
392 Report and Order in ET Docket 93-62 (Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radio frequency
Radiation), 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1996).
393 See, e.g., para. 181 supra, for an analogy of “behavior-based” time averaging to fixed RF sources.
394 NCRP Report No. 86, Section 17.4.8.
395 NCRP Report No. 86, Section 17.4.1.

80

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

relation between biological effects and peak values of pulsed fields,” but it nonetheless set peak limits for
the general public with an electric (E) field of approximately 130 volts per meter (V/m) at 100 kHz as its
most restrictive reference level and a power density of 10,000 watts per square meter (W/m2) “as
averaged over the pulse width” from 2 to 300 GHz as its least restrictive reference level.396 The IEEE Std
C95.1-2005 states that “[f]or exposures to pulsed RF fields in the range of 100 kHz to 300 GHz, the peak
(temporal) value of the MPE for the instantaneous peak E field is 100,000 V/m [power density
~18,800,000 W/m2 averaged over a square pulse].”397 However, IEEE has taken the approach of limiting
specific absorption by using variable averaging times to deal with short-term exposure. Clearly, there is a
lack of harmonization among these standards due to limited information about the biological effects of
peak pulsed fields. We request comment on whether we should adopt peak pulsed field limits for RF
sources regulated by the Commission and, if so, what limits, if any, would be appropriate considering the
costs and benefits of various approaches to this issue, including the possibility of maintaining our existing
limits.
225.
Contact Currents. Contact currents can be a safety issue in the vicinity of AM broadcast
facilities.398 According to the ICNIRP guidelines, “[i]n the frequency range of about 100 kHz–110 MHz,
shocks and burns can result either from an individual touching an ungrounded metal object that has
acquired a charge in a field or from contact between a charged individual and a grounded metal object.”399
Thus, the ICNIRP guidelines specify reference levels for contact and induced currents up to 110 MHz.
RF fields create induced RF currents on electrically large metal structures in the vicinity of standard AM
broadcast towers. Commission rules limit direct human exposure near AM towers to about 600 V/m.
However, large elevated conductive objects that are not effectively grounded in fields as low as 10 to 20
V/m can cause an RF burn when touched. Situations involving potential RF burns are typically
discovered at construction sites within 300 meters of an existing high-power AM broadcast antenna. RF
burns have occurred at structures including cranes, water towers, bridges, metal roofs, steel support
cables, inactive power lines, and ungrounded fences. We are not aware of similar hazards near other
transmitters operated by Commission licensees aside from those used by AM stations. Considering the
wavelengths necessary to induce significant currents on large objects, it is not expected that higher
frequency RF sources would cause comparable problems, especially given the lack of complaints at these
frequencies.
226.
In the Further Notice, we have already proposed placement of “DANGER” signs where
immediate and serious injury would occur, such as making contact with an AM broadcast tower that has a
high RF voltage at its base.400 We note that contact RF burns do not always result in serious injury. RF
burns due to induced currents may be minor (or associated with only a startle reaction) but are often

396 See International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), Guidelines for Limiting
Exposure to time-Varying Electric and Magnetic Fields (1 Hz - 100 kHz), Health Physics 99(6): 818-836, 2010,
Table 7, Notes 4 and 5, and Table 4, Note 3, “For frequencies up to 100 kHz, peak current density values can be
obtained by multiplying the rms value by √2 (~1.414). For pulses of duration tp the equivalent frequency to apply in
the basic restrictions should be calculated as f = 1/(2tp). Between 100 kHz and 10 MHz, peak values for the field
strengths are obtained by interpolation from the 1.5-fold peak at 100 kHz to the 32-fold peak at 10 MHz. For
frequencies exceeding 10 MHz it is suggested that the peak equivalent plane wave power density, as averaged over
the pulse width does not exceed 1,000 times the Seq restrictions, or that the field strength does not exceed 32 times
the field strength exposure levels given in the table.”
397 IEEE Std C95.1-2005, Table 9, Note e.
398 See, e.g., OSHA Safety Hazard Information Bulletin on Radiofrequency Radiation-caused Burns, September 5,
1990,http://www.osha.gov/dts/hib/hib_data/hib19900905.html"> http://www.osha.gov/dts/hib/hib_data/hib19900905.html, which recognizes burns of this type, caused by AM
radio, to be a “potentially serious hazard.”
399 See footnote 377 supra.
400 See para. 196 supra.

81

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

unacceptable to workers, may delay construction projects, and may place unexpected burdens on the
contractor who must navigate around an unfamiliar hazard. Here, we seek to expand upon our proposal in
the Further Notice by requesting comment on the appropriate Commission’s strategy to promote
awareness for construction and maintenance project contractors and planners where the potential for
contact RF burns, whether serious or minor, could occur. For example, would it be beneficial for the
Commission to provide publicly available maps showing areas where electric fields exceed 10 V/m from
AM broadcast stations? If so, we invite comment as to whether AM broadcast stations currently have this
information and, if not, to explain the impact of collecting this information and making it available to the
Commission. How much time should be required to do so and what would be the costs and benefits?
227.
Generally, Commission involvement in RF contact burn cases has been limited to
providing technical advice on mitigation strategies and emphasizing cooperation between the broadcaster
and the affected person(s). Historically, the broadcaster and the affected party (usually a construction
contractor) both have an interest in mitigation because, aside from the question of safety regarding contact
RF burns, the radiation pattern of the AM broadcast station may be disturbed by nearby construction.401
We note that only the field and not the burn hazard existed before a structure was placed in the field. It is
neither the field nor the structure alone, but the combination of the two that causes the problem. The AM
station may be a long-standing facility, while recent development has generated the construction nearby.
We seek comment on whether the cost of dealing with this issue when it arises should be the
responsibility of the station, the affected party, or both. We also seek comment as to whether the
Commission is the appropriate body to address this issue.
228.
In section 1.1310 of our rules, we state that our MPE limits are based in part on Section
4.1 of ANSI/IEEE Std C95.1-1992 (IEEE Std C95.1-1991), which includes not only field strength and
power density limits, but also induced and contact current limits. The limits for induced and contact
currents were updated in the latest IEEE Std C95.1-2005 between 3 kHz and 110 MHz, where induced
current is limited to considering conditions (impedance) in the human body for both feet and one foot on
the ground and contact current is divided into both grasp and touch contact to protect against RF shock
and burn hazards. In addition to induced and contact current, IEEE Std C95.1-2005 also specifies a limit
for contact voltage to protect against RF burns. We explicitly adopted only the field strength and power
density limits of Section 4.1, opting not to include induced and contact current limits mainly due to the
difficulty of measurement standardization at that time.402 Specifically, in our 1996 Report and Order we
stated that, “[a]lthough we are not adopting limits for induced and contact currents in this proceeding, we
recognize the desirability for limits to be adopted in the future, particularly if more accurate measuring
instruments become available. Accordingly, we will continue to monitor the issues raised in this
proceeding with respect to induced and contact currents, and we may revisit this issue and issue a specific
proposal for controlling such exposures.”403 In addition, there are practical difficulties with routine
evaluation of contact currents because of the unpredictable nature of interactions between fields and
various structures in the environment. While contact burns are a universally recognized hazard of
variable severity, adoption of numerical limits on contact RF currents over a broad frequency range may
not be effective in avoiding situations where burns actually occur. We request comment on the
feasibility, efficacy, and burden of contact current limits versus other, perhaps informational, approaches
such as mapping.404

401 See 47 CFR §§ 22.371, 27.63, and 73.1692.
402 See Report and Order in ET Docket 93-62 (Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radio
frequency Radiation), 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1996), paras. 130 through 151.
403 Report and Order in ET Docket 93-62 (Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radio frequency
Radiation), 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1996).
404 See para. 226 supra.

82

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

229.
Frequency Range. The 1979 Inquiry405 opened discussion of exposure limits over the 0
to 300 GHz frequency range, but the limits eventually adopted in 1996 included only frequencies between
100 kHz and 100 GHz as this was the extent of the frequency scope of the standards we adopted and there
were few sources of considerable significance outside of this scope at that time.406 The IEEE and ICNIRP
guidelines also encompass the frequency range between 0 and 300 GHz. Given that this Inquiry,
analogous to the prior 1979 Inquiry, considers exposure from RF sources included in the frequency range
from 0 to 300 GHz, we request comment on whether, in addition to the limits already established for RF
fields between 100 kHz and 100 GHz, we should also explore actions to control exposure outside of this
frequency range (e.g., in the range between 0 and 100 kHz and/or 100 and 300 GHz) due to sources
authorized by the Commission. We note that some wireless inductive chargers operate at frequencies
below our current frequency scope, and all terahertz (THz) sources operate at frequencies above our
current frequency scope. We also request comment on whether explicitly controlling exposure in these
additional frequency ranges may have a broader impact on or be in conflict with our rules and what the
relative costs and benefits would be. Currently, our frequency range is applied through the use of SAR
between 100 kHz and 6 GHz and MPE between 300 kHz and 100 GHz. We note that below 100 kHz (for
SAR) or below 300 kHz (for MPE), as well as above 100 GHz (for MPE), there are still general
compliance obligations under sections 1.1307(c) and (d) for sources regulated by the Commission.
230.
Conductive Implanted Objects. Electrically conductive objects in or on the body may
interact with sources of RF energy in ways that are not easily predicted. Examples of conductive objects
in the body include implanted metallic objects. Examples of conductive objects on the body include
eyeglasses, jewelry, or metallic accessories. We seek comment on whether the present volume-averaged
SAR limits are protective for the more localized SAR that may occur near the tip of a conductive object
such as the end of an implanted wire. In general, we seek comment on whether high levels of RF
exposure may cause internal thermal injury at the site of conductive implants.407 Commenters are
specifically advised to provide scientific research or analysis to support their arguments and to propose
practical and effective regulatory responses for any such assertion, and we seek comment on the costs and
benefits of any such approach.
2.

Consumer Information

231.
The Commission has continually provided information to the general public regarding the
potential hazards of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.408 The information provided regarding RF
safety includes the Commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Bulletins 56 and 65 (and
their Supplements),409 the Local Official’s Guide,410 the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
(CGB) Consumer Guides,411 and other information (including links to external resources) on our

405 See 1979 Inquiry, Gen. Docket 79-144, 72 FCC 2d 482 (1979).
406 See United States Frequency Allocations: The Radio Spectrum, U.S. Department of Commerce, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Office of Spectrum Management, October 2003. In
particular, see the allocations between 9 kHz and 100 kHz.
407 See Virtanen, H., et. al, Interaction of Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields and Passive Metallic Implants –
A Brief Review, Bioelectromagnetics, 27:431-439, 2006, and Crouzier D, et. al., Risk assessment of electromagnetic
fields exposure with metallic orthopedic implants: A cadaveric study, Journal of Orthopaedics & Traumatology:
Surgery & Research, 25 Jan 2012 [Epub ahead of print].
408 See FCC OET Bulletin 56, Questions and Answers about Biological Effects and Potential Hazards of
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, Fourth Edition, August 1999.
409 Seehttp://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/"> http://www.fcc.gov/oet/info/documents/bulletins/.
410 A Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and
Practical Guidance (June 2, 2000) (“Local Official’s Guide”).
411 Seehttp://www.fcc.gov/cgb/information_directory.html"> http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/information_directory.html.

83

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

website.412 OET Bulletin 56 was designed to answer general non-technical questions about biological
effects of RF fields and explain our exposure limits, and OET Bulletin 65 is intended to be a technical
document with supplements designed to provide practical guidance on determining compliance with the
Commission’s exposure limits. In contrast to the general information provided in OET Bulletin 56, CGB
FCC Consumer Guides provide information on specific topics on which the Commission has received
numerous inquiries, such as cellular base stations, mobile antennas, wireless devices, and specific
absorption rate (SAR).413 The Local Official’s Guide provides a framework for local and state
governments and wireless service providers to cooperate in the determination of compliance with the
Commission’s RF exposure limits. We request comment on what additional information should be
provided to consumers and in what format to assist in making decisions about reducing exposure.414 We
also specifically seek comment on how we can ensure that such information is presented in formats that
are accessible to people with disabilities.
232.
We continue to receive inquiries on various subjects related to RF exposure, particularly
as infrastructure is deployed to support new wireless technologies. Some of those inquirers perceive
deployment of fixed transmitters to support a wireless network as an action that may affect them
involuntarily (as opposed to use of a cell phone, which is a voluntary activity and exposure). For
example, even though exposures generated by fixed wireless base stations (and fixed RF sources in
general) are typically orders of magnitude less than those from cell phones and other portable devices
(due to proximity), exposures due to fixed RF sources are both involuntary and long-term. However,
even if continuous exposure is assumed from wireless base stations, the total energy absorbed from a
nearby base station is typically much less on average than that due to using a cell phone. We seek
comment on what additional information we should develop relating to exposures from common fixed
sources.
233.
Several general strategies are available for users of portable devices that want to reduce
their exposure. While increasing distance from the device and decreasing time of use are obvious actions
to reduce exposure, the benefits of other strategies are not immediately obvious and could be subject to
significant research to determine whether they may be effective. For example, factors such as power
control (e.g., the relationships of indicated signal level (“bars”), geographic location, and network
technologies to SAR),415 modulation, low frequency fields, headset use, texting instead of talking, device
antenna location, etc., could all affect exposure, but whether exposure awareness and control of these
factors can reduce exposure may depend on many variables. Some aftermarket products, such as small
patches or shields,416 whether conductive or not, could either have no effect on exposure or could affect
exposure in an unpredictable manner, with the possibility of increasing exposure given certain
conditions.417

412 Seehttp://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/"> http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/ ahttp://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html#Q28">nd http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety/rf-faqs.html#Q28.
413 Seehttp://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/mobilephone.html"> http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/mobilephone.html.
414 e.g., Switzerland’s approach:http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/strahlung/00053/index.html?lang=en"> http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/strahlung/00053/index.html?lang=en and
http://www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/00686/index.html?lang=en">http://www.bafu.admin.ch/publikationen/publikation/00686/index.html?lang=en.
415 See Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, Measured Radiofrequency Exposure During
Various Mobile-Phone Use Scenarios, Kelsh, M., et. al., pp. 1–12, 16 June 2010; doi:10.1038/jes.2010.12.
416 See Bioelectromagnetics, Testing the Effectiveness of Small Radiation Shields for Mobile Phones, Oliver, J., et.
al., 24:66 – 69, 2003. Also see Federal Trade Commission, Listen Up: Tips to Help Avoid Cell Phone Radiation
Scamshttp://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt109.shtm">, http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt109.shtm, September 2011.
417 See Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft, Topics – Radiation, Radioactivity and Sound – Electromagnetic Fields –
EMF Fact Sheets – Mobile Phones, that states “[b]e wary of radiation shields and other such protective devices that
are claimed to limit exposure to radiation. They may reduce the connection quality and therefore force the phone to
transmit at a higher output power.”
http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/strahlung/00053/00673/04265/index.html?lang=en">http://www.bag.admin.ch/themen/strahlung/00053/00673/04265/index.html?lang=en.

84

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

234.
The Consumers Union suggests that the Commission “mandate that the SAR information
included with phones be more consistent.”418 We agree that there is inconsistency in the supplemental
information voluntarily provided in the manuals provided with portable and mobile devices. We also note
that for a variety of reasons, the maximum SAR value that is normally supplied is not necessarily a
reliable indicator of typical exposure and may not be useful for comparing different devices. For
example, the SAR values are obtained based on the maximum power of the device, but the amount of
time the device operates at maximum power may depend on the network and typical usage conditions.
Furthermore, many devices today include multiple radios, each one of which has a different SAR rating,
which could easily be confusing to consumers. Moreover, SAR varies with different phone positions, and
so the same phone may result in varying levels of RF absorption depending on how the phone is used.
We request comment on whether the Commission should consistently require either disclosure of the
maximum SAR value or other more reliable exposure data in a standard format, perhaps in manuals, at
point-of-sale, or on a website.
235.
Information on the SAR of a particular device is available from the Commission’s
website if an individual knows the FCC ID, which is printed on every device. We recognize that it is not
always easy for some to access the SAR information, because the FCC ID is not tied to the model number
or marketing name of the device, and there may be multiple records for each FCC ID, potentially creating
confusion. Given that private organizations have already linked FCC IDs to device model numbers, we
request comment on whether the Commission should also take actions that would better enable
consumers to correlate the make and model number of their device to an FCC ID.419 If so, how could
this be accomplished and what would be the impact on industry? We request comment in general on the
information discussed that would be most useful to provide precautionary guidance to consumers.420
3.

Exposure Reduction Policies

236.
The Commission has a responsibility to “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.”421 The intent of our exposure limits is to provide a cap that both
protects the public based on scientific consensus and allows for efficient and practical implementation of
wireless services. The present Commission exposure limit is a “bright-line rule.” That is, so long as
exposure levels are below a specified limit value, there is no requirement to further reduce exposure. The
limit is readily justified when it is based on known adverse health effects having a well-defined threshold,
and the limit includes prudent additional safety factors (e.g., setting the limit significantly below the
threshold where known adverse health effects may begin to occur). Our current RF exposure guidelines
are an example of such regulation, including a significant “safety” factor, whereby the exposure limits are
set at a level on the order of 50 times below the level at which adverse biological effects have been
observed in laboratory animals as a result of tissue heating resulting from RF exposure. This “safety”
factor can well accommodate a variety of variables such as different physical characteristics and
individual sensitivities – and even the potential for exposures to occur in excess of our limits without
posing a health hazard to humans.
237.
Despite this conservative bright-line limit, there has been discussion of going even
further to guard against the possibility of risks from non-thermal biological effects, even though such

418 See Consumer Reports, How Risky is Cell-Phone Radiation?, p. 31, January 2011.
419 See, e.g.http://reviews.cnet.com/cell-phone-radiation-levels/">, http://reviews.cnet.com/cell-phone-radiation-levels/.
420 See para. 240 infra.
421 Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket 93-62, 12 FCC
Rcd 13494 (1997), para. 2.

85

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

risks have not been established by scientific research. As such, some parties have suggested measures of
“prudent avoidance”422 – undertaking only those avoidance activities which carry modest costs. For
example, New Zealand has not set a specific precautionary environmental limit beyond its adoption of the
ICNIRP guidelines, opting instead to minimize, “as appropriate, RF exposure which is unnecessary or
incidental to achievement of service objectives or process requirements, provided that this can be readily
achieved at modest expense.”423 However, the environmental exposure levels from fixed transmitters,
such as broadcast facilities and cellular base stations, are normally not only far below the MPE limit, but
also well below exposure from a portable device such as a cell phone. Thus, the adoption and
enforcement of considerably more restrictive MPE limits might have little, or no, practical effect under
most environmental exposure scenarios, but may significantly increase infrastructure costs which would
ultimately be paid by consumers. Nonetheless, some countries have implemented extra “precautionary”
environmental limits for fixed transmitters far below the prevailing scientifically-based values, sometimes
limited to specific locations.424 The SAR limits for portable devices, however, have not been
correspondingly reduced by these considerations because of various practical limitations on device
design.
238.
In this regard, we stress that while we must be cognizant of and considerate of other
countries’ standards or agencies’ activities or recommendations, we would be guided by them only to the
extent we would have confidence in the research, analysis, and principles upon which they are based, as
well as the tangible benefits they would provide. Additionally, the concept of “prudent avoidance”
encourages a balance between exposure reduction and cost. Imposing additional precautionary
restrictions on device design and/or on the siting of fixed transmitting facilities to reduce exposure may
entail significant costs that licensees and equipment manufacturers would need to consider when
developing communications systems or designing equipment. Nevertheless, we note, some jurisdictions
have adopted precautionary restrictions or comparable requirements. For example, the California Public
Utilities Commission requires utility companies to allocate a small percentage of total project cost to ELF
field exposure reduction actions during power line construction.425 We request comment on whether any
general technical approach to reduce exposure below our limits in some situations is appropriate or
feasible, particularly in cases in which there is no specific quantitative goal for improvement.
239.
There are natural trade-offs that come into play when considering extra precautionary
aspects of system design. For example, increased antenna height tends to reduce exposure levels nearby
at ground level, but taller towers may increase cost, may possibly have a greater environmental impact,426

422 See U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Biological Effects of Power Frequency Electric &
Magnetic Fields—Background Paper, OTA-BP-E-53, May 1989.
423 See Ministry for the Environment / Ministry of Health, New Zealand, National Guidelines for Managing the
Effects of Radiofrequency Transmitters, Page 24, Decemberhttp://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/radio-freq-guidelines-dec00.html"> 2000, http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/rma/radio-
freq-guidelines-dec00.html.
424 As examples of precautionary environmental limits, according tohttp://www.who.int/docstore/peh-emf/EMFStandards/who-0102/Worldmap5.htm"> http://www.who.int/docstore/peh-
emf/EMFStandards/who-0102/Worldmap5.htm, Switzerland has “installation limit values” between 3 and 8.5 V/m;
and Italy has “attention values” and “quality goals” of 6 V/m (according to a translation by Dr. Paolo Vecchia),
which are more restrictive than ICNIRP guidelines (ICNIRP limits are as low as 28 V/m in the 10 to 400 MHz
frequency range). India has recently (November 2011) set its base station exposure limit to 1/10th of ICNIRP
guidelines. Additionally, Russia has a general public electric field strength limit down to 3 V/m (in the 30 to 300
MHz frequency range).
425 See California Public Utilities Commission, Order Instituting Investigation on the Commission's Own Motion to
Develop Policies and Procedures for Addressing the Potential Health Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields of
Utility Facilities, Decision No. 93-11-013, Investigation No. 91-01-012, (Filed January 15, 1991), 1993 Cal. PUC
LEXIS 844; 52 CPUC2d 1, November 2, 1993.
426 See Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for the Antenna Structure Registration Program, released
March 13, 2012, at 7-1http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0313/DOC-312921A1.pdf">, http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0313/DOC-312921A1.pdf
(continued….)

86

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

and may be inconsistent with community zoning goals.427 In addition, higher mounting of antennas could
negatively impact system architecture, constraining the provision of service. Local efforts to avoid
placement of fixed wireless base stations in particular areas can unintentionally result in increased
exposure to users of portable devices within those areas where personal portable devices would transmit
using greater power in order to communicate with distant base stations, thus increasing the RF emissions
and consequent exposure from the device itself. Finally, distributed antenna systems (DAS) can offer
more advanced services from multiple carriers with a single physical network of less visually intrusive
lower profile antenna installations and may likely reduce exposure to device users, but we seek comment
on whether such installations reduce or increase environmental exposures.
240.
Given the complexity of the information on research regarding non-thermal biological
effects, taking extra precautions in this area may fundamentally be qualitative and may not be well-served
by the adoption of lower specific exposure limits without any known, underlying biological mechanism.
Additionally, adoption of extra precautionary measures may have the unintended consequence of
“opposition to progress and the refusal of innovation, ever greater bureaucracy,… [and] increased anxiety
in the population.”428 Nevertheless, we invite comment as to whether precautionary measures may be
appropriate for certain locations which would not affect the enforceability of our existing exposure limits,
as well as any analytical justification for such measures. Parties advocating such measures should suggest
specific situations in which more restrictive limits (and corresponding thresholds) or alternative
requirements should be applied, and provide their scientific basis and substantive information as to the
tangible benefits and corresponding costs. If such action were taken, we solicit views as to whether it
should it be applied only prospectively or also to existing situations, and if so, what would be the impact
on existing systems in terms of costs and performance and what period of time should be afforded for
compliance?
241.
We seek comment on the possibility that there may be other precautionary measures not
involving reduction of time-averaged SAR that could possibly reduce potential risk, without necessarily
assuming that such risks are known. For example, such precautionary measures could include limitations
on characteristics that have little or no impact on performance, such as ELF fields, peak pulsed RF fields,
or modulation. We request comment on what aspects of extra precautionary measures could be effective,
what aspects may be counterproductive or unnecessary, and what other extra precautionary measures
could be efficiently and practically implemented at modest cost.
242.
We significantly note that extra precautionary efforts by national authorities to reduce
exposure below recognized scientifically-based limits is considered by the WHO to be unnecessary but
acceptable so long as such efforts do not undermine exposure limits based on known adverse effects.429
Along these lines, we note that although the Commission supplies information to consumers on methods
to reduce exposure from cell phones, it has also stated that it does not endorse the need for nor set a target
value for exposure reduction, and we seek comment on whether these policies are appropriate. We also
observe that the FDA has stated that, “available scientific evidence—including World Health
(Continued from previous page)
andhttp://www.fcc.gov/pea"> http://www.fcc.gov/pea. See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(a). For example, towers could be located in a wilderness
area or a flood plain.
427 According to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, “[n]o State or local
government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of personal
wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that
such facilities comply with the Commission’s regulations concerning such emissions.”
428 See Tubiana M., Centre Antoine Béclère, Faculté de Médecine, Paris, [Conclusions. The Precautionary
Principle: Its Advantages and Risks] [Abstract Only], Bull Acad Natl Med. 2000; 184(5):969-93,
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11077719">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11077719.
429 See World Health Organization (WHO), Model Legislation for Electromagnetic Fields Protection,
Articles 2.1, 7.4 and 7.5, 2006, ISBN 978 92 4 159432 http://www.who.int/peh-emf/standards/EMF_model_legislation_2007.pdf">5, http://www.who.int/peh-
emf/standards/EMF_model_legislation_2007.pdf

87

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Organization (WHO) findings released May 17, 2010—shows no increased health risk due to
radiofrequency (RF) energy, a form of electromagnetic radiation that is emitted by cell phones.”430 At the
same time, the FDA has stated that “[a]lthough the existing scientific data do not justify FDA regulatory
actions, FDA has urged the cell phone industry to take a number of steps, including … [d]esign[ing] cell
phones in a way that minimizes any RF exposure to the user.”431 We seek information on other similar
hortatory efforts and comment on the utility and propriety of such messaging as part of this Commission’s
regulatory regime.
243.
While we may not take further action related to the regulatory concepts discussed here,
we request comment on the financial impact and the introduction of regulatory uncertainty due to any
initiative to minimize exposure beyond scientifically-established specific limits.
4.

Evaluation

244.
Evaluation is a rapidly evolving area, keeping pace with technological changes, that is
most effectively guided by good engineering practice rather than specific regulations. As noted above,
we use the term “evaluation” to mean the determination of compliance with our exposure limits by
measurement or computation.432 Evaluation is objectively verifiable in principle, even when various
methods are used. However, engineering decisions or assumptions are sometimes required based on
limited information. These assumptions are generally argued to be conservative, but verification of these
assumptions is not always straightforward. On occasion, some prior presumably conservative assumption
is later found to be questionable and warrants further analysis. While non-mandatory evaluation
techniques are referenced and reflected in our OET Bulletins and in the FCC Laboratory Knowledge
Database (KDB), development of them is the result of international engineering efforts by standards
setting groups of the IEEE and International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) and is generally self-
correcting as information and analysis becomes more readily available. These are often dosimetric issues
that can be resolved by our reliance on SAR as a primary metric for compliance. However, SAR
measurement and modeling methods themselves are complex and continue to evolve to achieve greater
accuracy. In particular, SAR evaluation for portable devices (e.g., cell phones) has been a significant
undertaking and standards development in this area is a continuous process.
245.
Except for the extremities, our SAR limits for the general public are 0.08 W/kg, as
averaged over the whole body, and a peak spatial-average SAR of 1.6 W/kg, averaged over any 1 gram of
tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube) and refer to continuous exposure over time.
Evaluation with respect to the SAR limits “must demonstrate compliance with both the whole-body and
peak spatial-average limits using technically supportable methods and exposure conditions in advance of
authorization (licensing or equipment certification) and in a manner that permits independent
assessment.”433 While these regulations refer to a cube of tissue, measurement standards have used
simplified adult human models, and computational methods may be subject to errors where modeling
requirements are not standardized. Most evaluations submitted to the Commission are based on

.430 See U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No Evidence Linking Cell Phone Use to Risk of Brain Tumors,
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm212273.htm">http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm212273.htm.
431 See U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Radiation-Emitting Products – Cell Phones – Research,
http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/ucm116335.htm">http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-
EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/ucm11633
5.htm.
432 See para. 18 supra.
433 See the final rules, § 1.1310, in Appendix A infra.

88

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

measurement using the standardized specific anthropomorphic mannequin (SAM).434 The SAM does not
model children, tissue layers, or a hand holding the device but SAM was designed to be conservative
relative to these factors.435 Computational standards can in principle more realistically model a range of
variables not present using mannequins. Various numerical models of humans (both male and female of
different age groups) have been developed, and presumably CAD models of devices can also be made
available. However, using this information to produce accurate and practical computational models for
individual devices to evaluate SAR on a routine basis may not be ideal for all situations. Since it is not
possible to measure the SAR in a 1-gram cube of tissue within the head of a real human being, and given
that each human being is different, we request comment on the pros and cons of measurement versus
computation, as well as standardization of human models in general, and the significance of these issues
in comparison with procedures that have already been standardized. We recognize that a measurement
model is standardized by IEEE with the SAM for the head and a flat model for the body; however we
seek comment on whether computation should use the same modeling and test configurations as used for
measurement to maintain consistency of results and/or whether more complex human models should be
used for computation.
246.
As we have established in the Order adopted supra,436 both whole-body and localized
SAR are primary metrics for compliance in the frequency range from 100 kHz to 6 GHz for exposure.
Other than in the area of portable devices, development of standard procedures for SAR evaluation is
more limited. While we generally state that we require appropriate practices using technically
supportable methods for all cases, because of the lack of standard procedures, we request comment on
how SAR evaluation methods should be supported for fixed and mobile RF sources. We also realize that
there may be limitations with any approach to evaluation of SAR due to fixed RF sources, and that the
existing MPE limits may not ensure SAR compliance in all cases, in particular where whole-body spatial
averaging is used.437 While this dosimetric issue may be resolved in newer versions of standards, we
mention it here because of its close connection with evaluation using SAR. We request information to
address these issues. Since no OET Bulletin 65 supplement has yet focused on measurement procedures
(or SAR evaluation) near fixed RF sources, we request comment on whether we should develop a future
technical supplement to OET Bulletin 65 for fixed evaluation including SAR recognizing the
development of the IEC 62232 base station standard.438
247.
OET Bulletin 65 (including its Supplements) is not mandatory. Rather, the Bulletins
provide non-binding policy statements on the procedures available for demonstrating compliance with the
RF safety rules. We seek comment as to whether some material in the KDB that should be made
mandatory, or in other words, is more appropriately included in the rules so that they would become
enforceable requirements. We have already proposed this for some material in the Further Notice. In

434 The standard procedure for measurement evaluation involves a specific anthropomorphic mannequin (SAM) in
accord with IEEE Std 1528-2003. The SAM is based on a simplified adult human head model with uniform
dielectric properties. When a portable device is held to the SAM head during evaluation, a plastic pinna spacer is
used to simulate the separation distance from the head caused by the pinna, but without a model of the hand. See
Douglas, M. G., et. al., Hand Phantom Models for the Assessment of SAR in the Head from Cellular Telephones,
Asia-Pacific Symposium on Electromagnetic Compatibility (APEMC), 12-16 April 2010, pp. 385 – 388.
435 See para. 219 supra.
436 Report and Order, in ET Docket 03-137.
437 See Kühn, S., et. al., Assessment of Induced Radio-Frequency Electromagnetic Fields in Various Anatomical
Human Body Models, Phys. Med. Biol. 54 875–890, 2009.
438 See International Electrotecnical Commission, Determination of RF field strength and SAR in the vicinity of
radiocommunication base stations for the purpose of evaluating human exposure, 62232 ed. 1.0, TC/SC 106, 2011,
http://www.iec.ch/">http://www.iec.ch/.

89

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

addition to the proposed retirement of Supplement C and its replacement by the KDB,439 we will review
the scope of remaining OET Bulletins 56 and 65 to determine whether any suggestions remaining in those
bulletins should be removed, and included in a future Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to consider making
them mandatory. We ask interested parties for suggestions for changes to these documents.
5.

Proximity Restriction and Disclosure Requirements for Portable RF Sources

248.
Since 2001, Supplement C of OET Bulletin 65, Edition 01-01, (Supplement C)440 has
recommended maintaining a body-worn441 device separation distance up to 2.5 cm (about one inch)
during testing of consumer portable devices,442 since accessories such as holsters would normally be used
to wear devices on the body and maintain this distance. Note that, in contrast to the body-worn testing
configuration, for consumer portable devices intended to be held against the head during normal use, the
device must be placed directly against a head mannequin during testing.443 Manufacturers have been
encouraged since 2001 to include information in device manuals to make consumers aware of the need to
maintain the body-worn distance – by using appropriate accessories if they want to ensure that their actual
exposure does not exceed the SAR measurement obtained during testing. The testing data for body-worn
configurations would not be applicable to situations in which a consumer disregards this information on
separation distance and maintains a device closer to the body than the distance at which it is tested. In
such situations, it could be possible that exposure in excess of our limits might result, but only with the
device transmitting continuously and at maximum power – such as might happen during a call with a
headset and the phone in a user’s pocket at the fringe of a reception area.
249.
Handsets and wireless technologies have evolved significantly since the release of
Supplement C. Body-worn accessories such as holsters have become a matter of consumer choice and are
not always supplied with the device. The availability of low power Bluetooth headsets has enabled cell
phones to be used away from the head, which may reduce exposure to the head. However, because
today’s cell phones are smaller and typically have no external antenna, the phone may be placed in a shirt
or pants pocket against the body without the consumer appreciating that it is still transmitting. Handsets
may also include wireless router functions that require simultaneous transmission of multiple transmitters
to support unattended body-worn operations where, unlike with a traditional voice call, users are unaware
that transmissions are occurring. With the introduction of LTE technologies (4G), handsets are operating
with multiple higher-output power transmitters, which enable simultaneous voice and data connections in
both next-to-ear and body-worn use configurations.
250.
As devices have continued to evolve, so too have our policies. Portable devices must
comply with the localized SAR limits as they are normally used. In fact, we have established evaluation
procedures for newer technologies with reduced body-worn separation distances as small as 0.5

439 See para. 174 supra.
440 The Commission plans to retire the usage of OET Bulletin 65 Supplement C. See para. 174 supra. However, we
provide this reference as a reflection on its past policy and as a rationale for this discussion herein.
441 The term “body-worn” refers to circumstances where portable devices are physically worn against the body,
which corresponds to SAR testing procedures using a flat body model. Examples of a body-worn usage
configuration include operation using a headset while the device is in a pocket, holster, or clip. Thus, usage with the
device held against the head (i.e., held to the ear) is not considered body-worn, and compliance with the SAR limits
are established using a special head mannequin with a simulated plastic pinna (outer ear).
442 Portable devices are designed to be used within 20 centimeters of the user are the subject of this section. For
mobile consumer devices where the a separation distance of at least 20 cm is normally maintained, we will continue
to allow awareness of exposure from devices to be accomplished by the use of advisory labels and by providing
users with information concerning minimum separation distances from transmitting structures and proper
installation of antennas, as established in the Order adopted supra, in ET Docket 03-137.
443 See footnotes 434 and 441 supra. See also footnote 447 infra.

90

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

centimeters.444 Manufacturers have achieved compliance using various methods. Some have used
proximity sensors to reduce power when close to the body of the user, although device power reduction in
general may degrade performance. Others have simply reduced the power of the device or changed its
design. The manual should include operating instructions and advisory statements so that users are
aware of the body-worn operating requirements for RF exposure compliance. This allows users to make
informed decisions on the type of body-worn accessories and operating configurations that are
appropriate for the device.445
251.
Commission calculations similar to those in Appendix D suggest that some devices may
not be compliant with our exposure limits without the use of some spacer to maintain a separation
distance when body-worn,446 although this conclusion is not verifiable for individual devices since a test
without a spacer has not been routinely performed during the body-worn testing for equipment
authorization. Yet, we have no evidence that this poses any significant health risk. Commission rules
specify a pass/fail criterion for SAR evaluation and equipment authorization. However, exceeding the
SAR limit does not necessarily imply unsafe operation, nor do lower SAR quantities imply “safer”
operation. The limits were set with a large safety factor, to be well below a threshold for unacceptable
rises in tissue temperature. As a result, exposure well above the specified SAR limit should not create an
unsafe condition. We note that, even if a device is tested without a spacer, there are already certain
separations built into the SAR test setup, such as the thickness of the mannequin shell, the thickness of
the device exterior case, etc., so we seek comment on the implementation of evaluation procedures
without a spacer for the body-worn testing configuration. We also realize that SAR measurements are
performed while the device is operating at its maximum capable power, so that given typical operating
conditions, the SAR of the device during normal use would be less than tested. In sum, using a device
against the body without a spacer will generally result in actual SAR below the maximum SAR tested;
moreover, a use that possibly results in non-compliance with the SAR limit should not be viewed with
significantly greater concern than compliant use.
252.
In sum, there could be certain circumstances where test configurations may not reflect
actual use, and newer technological solutions may exist to allow for devices to be evaluated as close as is
feasible to a simulated human under a body-worn configuration. Accordingly, we invite comment as to
what steps, if any, the Commission should take relative to our policies for testing of devices on the basis
of an expectation of some separation from the body, including whether it is appropriate to consider “zero”
spacing, or actual contact with the body when testing.447 We also seek comment on the potential negative
impacts of such measuring protocols on the design and performance of portable devices and, by
extension, network architecture. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether both requiring that advisory

444 See KDB 941225 athttp://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?switch=P&id=26930"> http://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?switch=P&id=26930.
445 OET Bulletin 65, Supplement C, Page 43.
446 See footnote 441 supra. See also footnote 447 infra.
447 We also take this opportunity to clarify a misconception, apparently held by some in the public, of our policy
dealing with separation distance between portable devices and the body. Some cell phone users apparently believe
that certain devices need to be kept at least a specified distance (up to 2.5 cm) from the head during normal use to
ensure compliance with our SAR limits. Such a requirement does not exist and would clearly be impractical. The
testing recommendation in Supplement C (Edition 01-01) allowing for up to 2.5 cm of separation from the body
using spacers for SAR measurement applied only to body-worn operation and reflected, for example, the use of belt-
clips or holsters or keeping the device in a purse or backpack. For the purpose of SAR determination, the human
head and the body are simulated differently. Laboratories perform SAR measurements using a head-shaped
mannequin for testing devices held next to the head but use a flat body model for testing to simulate body-worn use.
No spacers are allowed when the device is held to the head mannequin; however, since the body-worn test has been
typically conducted with a spacer to separate the device from the body by some distance, the same distance must be
maintained during body-worn use for compliance to be ensured.

91

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

information be more prominent and detailed448 and supplying accessories to the consumer could be an
effective means to ensure adequate awareness and capability to ensure adherence to the SAR standards
under all potential usage conditions. Given the considerable safety margin in our requirements, would the
potential number of occurrences resulting from inattention to manual instruction and the extent of
resulting exposure constitute a health hazard? We request information on the costs and benefits of these
or other options that will help the Commission progress on this front.

VI.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

A.

Final and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

253.
As required by § 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 603, the Commission
has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the possible economic impact on small entities of
the policies and rules adopted in this First Report and Order. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
is set forth in Appendix E.
254.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 449 the Commission has
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on
small entities of the policies and rules proposed in the Further Notice. The IRFA is found in Appendix F.
We request written public comment on the analysis. Comments must be filed in accordance with the
same deadlines as comments filed in response to the Further Notice, and must have a separate and distinct
heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.

B.

Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

255.
This Report and Order contains modified information collection requirements subject to
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public,
and other federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information collection
requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought
specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
256.
We received no comments in response to our request in the Notice dealing with
information collection burdens for small businesses with fewer than 25 employees. In this present
document, we have imposed stricter requirements on RF safety labeling of mobile and portable
occupational transmitting devices and for occupational RF safety training in the vicinity of fixed
transmitter sites. A sample of a portable or mobile occupational device RF safety label must be submitted
with an application for equipment authorization. Such applications are normally submitted by
manufacturers or importers of portable or mobile occupational devices, which generally tend to be large
businesses. We are not aware that any of these businesses have fewer than 25 employees. While we are
aware of numerous businesses with fewer than 25 employees which may now be subject to our new
requirements for RF safety training, none of the rules adopted in this First Report and Order affect the
information collection requirements applicable to businesses with fewer than 25 employees.
257.
This Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking contains proposed modified information
collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens,
invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the

448 See § 2.1093(d)(1) of Appendix A for required advisory information for occupational use of portable devices.
449 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.

92

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further
reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
258.
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the
information collections contained herein should be submitted to Nicholas A. Fraser, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), (202) 395-5887, or via fax at (202) 395-5167, or via the Internet at
Nicholas_A._Fraser@omb.eop.gov and to Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov, Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). To submit your comments by e-mail send them to: PRA@fcc.gov.

C.

Filing Requirements

259.
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 1.419,
interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
 Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the
ECFS:http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/"> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
 Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each
filing. Parties filing comments and/or replies in response to the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking must file their documents in ET Docket No. 03-137. Parties filing comments and/or
replies in response to the Notice of Inquiry must file their documents in ET Docket No. 13-84.
 Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
 All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary
must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St., SW, Room TW-A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
 Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority
Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
 U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12th
Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.
260.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible formats for people with
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).
261.
For further information, send an e-mail to Ed Mantiply at ed.mantiply@fcc.gov, Martin
Doczkat at martin.doczkat@fcc.gov, or the Commission’s RF Safety Program at rfsafety@fcc.gov, or call
the Office of Engineering and Technology at (202) 418-2470.

D.

Ex Parte Rules

262.
The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding
in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.450 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a

450 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200 et seq.

93

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two
business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies).
Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation
must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the
presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or
other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be
found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission
staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed
consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing
oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment
filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.

E.

Congressional Review Act

263.
The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the
Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.451

VII.

ORDERING CLAUSES

264.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303(r), 307,
308, 309, 332(a)(1), 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303(r), 307, 308, 309, 332(a)(1), 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), 403; the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq.; and Section 704(b) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, this First Report and Order

IS HEREBY
ADOPTED

.
265.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s rules

ARE AMENDED

as set forth
in Appendix A. These rule revisions in this First Report and Order will become effective [60

DAYS
AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION FEDERAL REGISTER

], except for Section 2.1091(d)(3) of the
rule which contains information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104-13, that are not effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register
announcing OMB approval and the effective date of this rule.
266.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 1, 4(i),
4(j), 301, 303(r), 307, 308, 309, 332(a)(1), 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303(r), 307, 308, 309, 332(a)(1), 332(c)(7)(B)(iv),
403; the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq.; and Section 704(b) of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

IS
ADOPTED

and comments will be sought on these proposals.
267.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303(r), 307,
308, 309, 332(a)(1), 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 303(r), 307, 308, 309, 332(a)(1), 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), 403; the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq.; and Section 704(b) of the

451 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

94

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, this Notice of Inquiry

IS ADOPTED

and
comment will be sought.
268.
IT IS ALSO ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau, Reference Information Center,

SHALL SEND

a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
269.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center

SHALL SEND

a copy of the First Report and Order,
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Government Accountability Office pursuant to
the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of the First Report and Order and
FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION




Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary

95

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

APPENDIX A

Final Rules

For the reasons set forth above, Parts 1, 2, and 95 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations are
amended as follows:

PART 1 – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

1. The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r), and 309

2. Section 1.1307(b) is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:

§1.1307 Actions that may have a significant environmental effect, for which Environmental
Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(2)(i) Mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services
pursuant to part 20 of this chapter; the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this
chapter; the Personal Communications Services (PCS) pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the Satellite
Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless
Communications Services pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth stations
only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, the 4.9 GHz Band
Service, or the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; or the
Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS), or the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service
(MedRadio) pursuant to part 95 of this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF
exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, as specified in §§ 2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter.

(ii) Unlicensed PCS, unlicensed NII and millimeter wave devices are also subject to routine
environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, as specified in §§
15.253(f), 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of this chapter.

(iii) Portable transmitting equipment for use in the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS) is
subject to routine environment evaluation as specified in §§ 2.1093 and 95.1125 of this chapter.

(iv) Equipment authorized for use in the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio)
as a medical implant device or body-worn transmitter (as defined in Appendix 1 to Subpart E of part
95 of this chapter) is subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment
authorization, as specified in §§ 2.1093 and 95.1221 of this chapter by finite difference time domain
(FDTD) computational modeling or laboratory measurement techniques. Where a showing is based
on computational modeling, the Commission retains the discretion to request that supporting
documentation and/or specific absorption rate (SAR) measurement data be submitted.

(v) All other mobile, portable, and unlicensed transmitting devices are categorically excluded from
routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure under §§ 2.1091, 2.1093 of this chapter except as
specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.

96

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

(3) * * *

3. Section 1.1307(b)(4) is deleted.

4. Section 1.1307(b)(5) is deleted.

5. Section 1.1310 is amended to read as follows:

§ 1.1310 Radiofrequency radiation exposure limits.

(a) Specific absorption rate (SAR) shall be used to evaluate the environmental impact of human exposure
to radiofrequency (RF) radiation as specified in § 1.1307(b) within the frequency range of 100 kHz to 6
GHz (inclusive).

(b) The SAR limits for occupational/controlled exposure are 0.4 W/kg, as averaged over the whole body,
and a peak spatial-average SAR of 8 W/kg, averaged over any 1 gram of tissue (defined as a tissue volume
in the shape of a cube). Exceptions are the parts of the human body treated as extremities, such as hands,
wrists, feet, ankles, and pinnae, where the peak spatial-average SAR limit for occupational/controlled
exposure is 20 W/kg, averaged over any 10 grams of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a
cube). Exposure may be averaged over a time period not to exceed 6 minutes to determine compliance
with occupational/controlled SAR limits.

(c) The SAR limits for general population/uncontrolled exposure are 0.08 W/kg, as averaged over the
whole body, and a peak spatial-average SAR of 1.6 W/kg, averaged over any 1 gram of tissue (defined as a
tissue volume in the shape of a cube). Exceptions are the parts of the human body treated as extremities,
such as hands, wrists, feet, ankles, and pinnae, where the peak spatial-average SAR limit is 4 W/kg,
averaged over any 10 grams of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube). Exposure may be
averaged over a time period not to exceed 30 minutes to determine compliance with general
population/uncontrolled SAR limits.

(d)(1) Evaluation with respect to the SAR limits in this section and in § 2.1093 of this chapter must
demonstrate compliance with both the whole-body and peak spatial-average limits using technically
supportable methods and exposure conditions in advance of authorization (licensing or equipment
certification) and in a manner that permits independent assessment.

(2) At operating frequencies less than or equal to 6 GHz, the limits for maximum permissible exposure
(MPE), derived from whole-body SAR limits and listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section, may
be used instead of whole-body SAR limits as set forth in paragraph (a) through (c) of this section to
evaluate the environmental impact of human exposure to RF radiation as specified in § 1.1307(b),
except for portable devices as defined in § 2.1093 as these evaluations shall be performed according to
the SAR provisions in § 2.1093 of this chapter.

(3) At operating frequencies above 6 GHz, the MPE limits shall be used in all cases to evaluate the
environmental impact of human exposure to RF radiation as specified in § 1.1307(b).

(4) Both the MPE limits listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section and the SAR limits as set
forth in paragraph (a) through (c) of this section and in § 2.1093 of this chapter are for continuous
exposure, that is, for indefinite time periods. Exposure levels higher than the limits are permitted for
shorter exposure times, as long as the average exposure over the specified averaging time in Table 1 is
less than the limits. Detailed information on our policies regarding procedures for evaluating
compliance with all of these exposure limits can be found in the FCC’s OET Bulletin 65, “Evaluating
Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,”

97

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

and in supplements to Bulletin 65, all available at the FCC’s Internet Web site:
http://www.fcc.oet/rfsafety">http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety.

Note to Paragraphs (a) through (d): SAR is a measure of the rate of energy absorption due to exposure to
RF electromagnetic energy. The SAR limits to be used for evaluation are based generally on criteria
published by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for localized SAR in Section 4.2 of “IEEE
Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3
kHz to 300 GHz,” ANSI/IEEE Std C95.1-1992, copyright 1992 by the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York, New York 10017. The criteria for SAR evaluation are similar to
those recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in
“Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” NCRP Report No.
86, Section 17.4.5, copyright 1986 by NCRP, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. Limits for whole body SAR and
peak spatial-average SAR are based on recommendations made in both of these documents. The MPE
limits in Table 1 are based generally on criteria published by the NCRP in “Biological Effects and
Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” NCRP Report No. 86, Sections 17.4.1,
17.4.1.1, 17.4.2 and 17.4.3, copyright 1986 by NCRP, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. In the frequency range
from 100 MHz to 1500 MHz, these MPE exposure limits for field strength and power density are also
generally based on criteria recommended by the ANSI in Section 4.1 of “IEEE Standard for Safety Levels
with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz,”
ANSI/IEEE Std C95.1-1992, copyright 1992 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
New York, New York 10017.

(e) Table 1 below sets forth limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) to radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields.

Table 1—Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)

Frequency range

Electric field strength

Magnetic field strength

Power density

Averaging time

(MHz)
(V/m)
(A/m)
(mW/cm2)
(minutes)
(A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure
0.3 – 3.0
614
1.63
100 *
6
3.0 – 30
1842/f
4.89/f
900/f2 *
6
30 – 300
61.4
0.163
1.0
6
300 – 1,500
–
–
f/300
6
1,500 – 100,000
–
–
5
6
(B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure
0.3 – 1.34
614
1.63
100 *
30
1.34 – 30
824/f
2.19/f
180/f2 *
30
30 – 300
27.5
0.073
0.2
30
300 – 1,500
–
–
f/1500
30
1,500 – 100,000
–
–
1.0
30
f = frequency in MHz

* = Plane-wave equivalent power density

(1) Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a
consequence of their employment provided those persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure
and can exercise control over their exposure. Limits for occupational/controlled exposure also apply
in situations when a person is transient through a location where occupational/controlled limits apply

98

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

provided he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure. The phrase fully aware in the context
of applying these exposure limits means that an exposed person has received written and/or verbal
information fully explaining the potential for RF exposure resulting from his or her employment.
With the exception of transient persons, this phrase also means that an exposed person has received
appropriate training regarding work practices relating to controlling or mitigating his or her exposure.
Such training is not required for transient persons, but they must receive written and/or verbal
information and notification (for example, using signs) concerning their exposure potential and
appropriate means available to mitigate their exposure. The phrase exercise control means that an
exposed person is allowed to and knows how to reduce or avoid exposure by administrative or
engineering controls and work practices, such as use of personal protective equipment or time
averaging of exposure.

(2) General population/uncontrolled exposure limits apply in situations in which the general public
may be exposed, or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not
be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure.

(3) Licensees and applicants are responsible for compliance with both the occupational/controlled
exposure limits and the general population/uncontrolled exposure limits as they apply to transmitters
under their jurisdiction. Licensees and applicants should be aware that the occupational/controlled
exposure limits apply especially in situations where workers may have access to areas in very close
proximity to antennas and access to the general public may be restricted.

(4) In lieu of evaluation with the general population/uncontrolled exposure limits, amateur licensees
authorized under part 97 of this chapter and members of his or her immediate household may be
evaluated with respect to the occupational/controlled exposure limits in this section, provided
appropriate training and information has been provided to the amateur licensee and members of
his/her household. Other nearby persons who are not members of the amateur licensee’s household
must be evaluated with respect to the general population/uncontrolled exposure limits.

PART 2 – FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS

6. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.

7. Section 2.1091 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d)(3) to read as follows:

§ 2.1091 Radio frequency radiation exposure evaluation: mobile devices.

* * * * *

(c)(1) Mobile devices that operate in the Commercial Mobile Radio Services pursuant to part 20 of this
chapter; the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the Personal
Communications Services pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the Satellite Communications Services
pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to part
27 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth station devices only) pursuant to part 80 of this
chapter; and the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, and the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service
pursuant to part 90 of this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to
equipment authorization or use if:

(i) they operate at frequencies of 1.5 GHz or below and their effective radiated power (ERP) is
1.5 watts or more, or

99

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

(ii) they operate at frequencies above 1.5 GHz and their ERP is 3 watts or more.

(2) Unlicensed personal communications service devices, unlicensed millimeter wave devices and
unlicensed NII devices authorized under §§ 15.253(f), 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of this
chapter are also subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment
authorization or use if their ERP is 3 watts or more or if they meet the definition of a portable device as
specified in § 2.1093(b) requiring evaluation under the provisions of that section.

(3) All other mobile and unlicensed transmitting devices are categorically excluded from routine
environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, except as specified in
§§ 1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) of this chapter.

(4) Applications for equipment authorization of mobile and unlicensed transmitting devices subject to
routine environmental evaluation must contain a statement confirming compliance with the limits
specified in paragraph (d) of this section. Technical information showing the basis for this statement
must be submitted to the Commission upon request.

(d) * * *

(1) * * *

(2) * * *

(3) If appropriate, awareness of exposure from devices in this section can be accomplished by the use
of visual advisories (such as labeling, embossing, or on an equivalent electronic display) and by
providing users with information concerning minimum separation distances from radiating structures
and proper installation of antennas.

(i) Visual advisories shall be legible and clearly visible to the user from the exterior of the
device.

(ii) Visual advisories used on devices that are subject to occupational/controlled exposure limits
must indicate that the device is for occupational use only, must refer the user to specific
information on RF exposure, such as that provided in a user manual, and must note that the
advisory and its information is required for FCC RF exposure compliance. Such instructional
material must provide the user with information on how to use the device in order to ensure
compliance with the occupational/controlled exposure limits.

(iii) A sample of the visual advisory, illustrating its location on the device, and any instructional
material intended to accompany the device when marketed, shall be filed with the Commission
along with the application for equipment authorization.

(iv) For occupational devices, details of any special training requirements pertinent to limiting
RF exposure should also be submitted. Holders of grants for mobile devices to be used in
occupational settings are encouraged, but not required, to coordinate with end-user organizations
to ensure appropriate RF safety training.

* * * * *

8. Section 2.1093 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:

§ 2.1093 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: portable devices.

100

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

* * * * *

(c)(1) Portable devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this
chapter; the Personal Communications Service (PCS) pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the Satellite
Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless
Communications Services pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth station
devices only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized Mobile Radio Service, the 4.9 GHz Band
Service, and the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; the Wireless
Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS) and the Medical Device Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio),
pursuant to subparts H and I of part 95 of this chapter, respectively, and unlicensed personal
communication service, unlicensed NII devices and millimeter wave devices authorized under 15.253(f),
15.255(g), 15.257(g), 15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of this chapter are subject to routine environmental
evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use.

(2) All other portable transmitting devices are categorically excluded from routine environmental
evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, except as specified in sections
1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) of this chapter.

(3) Applications for equipment authorization of portable transmitting devices subject to routine
environmental evaluation must contain a statement confirming compliance with the limits specified in
paragraph (d) of this section. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be
submitted to the Commission upon request.

(d) * * *

(1) The SAR limits for occupational/controlled exposure are 0.4 W/kg, as averaged over the whole
body, and a peak spatial-average SAR of 8 W/kg, averaged over any 1 gram of tissue (defined as a
tissue volume in the shape of a cube). Exceptions are the parts of the human body treated as
extremities, such as hands, wrists, feet, ankles, and pinnae, where the peak spatial-average SAR limit
for occupational/controlled exposure is 20 W/kg, averaged over any 10 grams of tissue (defined as a
tissue volume in the shape of a cube). Exposure may be averaged over a time period not to exceed 6
minutes to determine compliance with occupational/controlled SAR limits.

(i) Occupational/Controlled limits apply when persons are exposed as a consequence of their
employment provided these persons are fully aware of and exercise control over their exposure.
Awareness of exposure can be accomplished by use of visual advisories (such as labeling,
embossing, or on an equivalent electronic display) or by specific training or education through
appropriate means, such as an RF safety program in a work environment.

(ii) Visual advisories on portable devices designed only for occupational use can be used as part
of an applicant’s evidence of the device user’s awareness of occupational/controlled exposure
limits.

(A) Such visual advisories shall be legible and clearly visible to the user from the exterior of
the device.

(B) Visual advisories must indicate that the device is for occupational use only, refer the user
to specific information on RF exposure, such as that provided in a user manual and note that
the advisory and its information is required for FCC RF exposure compliance.

(C) Such instructional material must provide the user with information on how to use the
device in order to ensure compliance with the occupational/controlled exposure limits.

101

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

(D) A sample of the visual advisory, illustrating its location on the device, and any
instructional material intended to accompany the device when marketed, shall be filed with
the Commission along with the application for equipment authorization. Details of any
special training requirements pertinent to limiting RF exposure should also be submitted.

(E) Holders of grants for portable devices to be used in occupational settings are encouraged,
but not required, to coordinate with end-user organizations to ensure appropriate RF safety
training.

(2) The SAR limits for general population/uncontrolled exposure are 0.08 W/kg, as averaged over the
whole body, and a peak spatial-average SAR of 1.6 W/kg, averaged over any 1 gram of tissue
(defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube). Exceptions are the parts of the human body
treated as extremities, such as hands, wrists, feet, ankles, and pinnae, where the peak spatial-average
SAR limit is 4 W/kg, averaged over any 10 grams of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of
a cube). Exposure may be averaged over a time period not to exceed 30 minutes to determine
compliance with general population/uncontrolled SAR limits.

(i) General Population/Uncontrolled limits apply when the general public may be exposed, or
when persons that are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be fully aware of
the potential for exposure or do not exercise control over their exposure.

(ii) Visual advisories (such as labeling, embossing, or on an equivalent electronic display) on
consumer devices such as cellular telephones will not be sufficient reason to allow these devices
to be evaluated subject to limits for occupational/controlled exposure in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section.

(3) Compliance with SAR limits can be demonstrated by either laboratory measurement techniques
or by computational modeling. The latter must be supported by adequate documentation showing that
the test device and exposure conditions have been correctly modeled in accordance with the operating
configurations for normal use. Guidance regarding SAR measurement techniques can be found in the
Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Laboratory Division Knowledge Database (KDB). The
staff guidance provided in the KDB does not necessarily represent the only acceptable methods for
measuring RF exposure or emissions, and is not binding on the Commission or any interested party.

PART 95 – PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES

9. The authority citation for Part 95 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.

10. Section 95.1221 is amended to read as follows:

§ 95.1221 RF exposure.

A MedRadio medical implant device or medical body-worn transmitter is subject to the radiofrequency
radiation exposure requirements specified in §§ 1.1307(b) and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.
Applications for equipment authorization of devices operating under this section must demonstrate
compliance with these requirements using either finite difference time domain (FDTD) computational
modeling or laboratory measurement techniques. Where a showing is based on computational modeling,
the Commission retains the discretion to request that supporting documentation and/or specific absorption
rate (SAR) measurement data be submitted.

102

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

APPENDIX B

Proposed Rules

For the reasons set forth above, Parts 1, 2, 15, 24, 25, 95 and 97 of title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 1 – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

1. The authority citation for Part 1 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r), and 309.

2. Section 1.1307 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

§1.1307 Actions that may have a significant environmental effect, for which Environmental
Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.

* * * * *

(b) In addition to the actions listed in paragraph (a) of this section, Commission actions granting or
modifying construction permits, licenses or renewals thereof, temporary authorities, equipment
authorizations, or any other authorizations for radiofrequency (RF) sources require the preparation of an
Environmental Assessment (EA) if those RF sources would cause human exposure to levels of RF radiation
in excess of the limits in § 1.1310 of this chapter. Applications to the Commission for construction permits,
licenses or renewals thereof, temporary authorities, equipment authorizations, or any other authorizations
requesting either approval or modification of RF sources must contain a statement confirming compliance by
RF evaluation with the limits in § 1.1310 of this chapter unless those RF sources are exempt from such RF
evaluation, as discussed below. Technical information showing the basis for compliance with the limits in §
1.1310 of this chapter, either by RF evaluation or exemption, must be submitted to the Commission upon
request. Notwithstanding the above, in the event that RF sources cause human exposure to levels of RF
radiation in excess of the limits in § 1.1310 of this chapter, such RF evaluations and exemptions are not
deemed sufficient to show that there is no significant effect on the quality of the human environment or that
the RF sources are categorically excluded from environmental processing.

(1) Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in § 1.1310 of this chapter is required only for
RF sources not exempt from such evaluation. Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits may
be based on either computation or measurement in accordance with § 1.1310 of this chapter.
Exemption from evaluation may be based on frequency, power, and separation distance. However,
all single RF sources having less than an available maximum time-averaged power of 1 mW are
exempt from evaluation, as specified in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section. The “available maximum
time-averaged power” for a fixed RF source is the maximum available power as averaged over any 30
minute time period, and for a mobile or portable RF source is the maximum available power as
averaged over a period inherent from device transmission characteristics. Evaluation of compliance
with the exposure limits in § 1.1310 of this chapter is necessary for single fixed, mobile, or portable
RF sources above 1 mW and having an ERP greater than listed in Table 1 specified in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section or single fixed, mobile, or portable RF sources greater than the threshold Pth
for separation distances between 0.5 cm and 20 cm (inclusive) or ERP20cm for separation distances of
at least 20 cm up to 40 cm as listed in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section. Mobile devices, as defined
in § 2.1091(b) of this chapter, and portable devices, as defined in § 2.1093(b) of this chapter, with
multiple RF sources shall refer to §§ 2.1091(c) and 2.1093(c), respectively, for relevant exemption
criteria. For the purposes of this section, a fixed RF source is defined as one that is physically secured at
one location, even temporarily, and is not able to be easily moved to another location.

103

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

(i) Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in § 1.1310 of this chapter, and preparation
of an EA if the limits are exceeded, is necessary for single RF sources either above an available
maximum time-averaged power of 1 mW or above the ERP listed in Table 1 below, whichever is
greater. The ERP, defined as the product of the maximum antenna gain and the maximum
delivered time-averaged power summed over all polarizations, shall be used for comparison with
the value calculated from the applicable formula in Table 1, where the term “maximum antenna
gain” is the largest far-field total power gain relative to a dipole in any direction for all transverse
polarization components and the term “delivered maximum time-averaged power” is the largest
net power delivered or supplied to the antenna as averaged over any 30 minute time period for
fixed sources and as averaged over a period inherent from device transmission characteristics for
mobile and portable sources. The term “separation distance,” R in Table 1, is defined as the
minimum distance in any direction from any part of the radiating structure of a transmitting
antenna or antenna array to the body of a nearby person.

Table 1—Single RF Sources Subject to Routine Environmental Evaluation

Transmitter Frequency

Threshold ERP

(MHz)
(watts)
Regardless of ERP, evaluation is required if the separation distance R is less than λ/2π from the
radiating structure, where λ is the free-space operating wavelength, unless the available maximum
time-averaged power is less than one milliwatt. In addition, evaluation is required if the ERP in
watts is greater than the value given by the formula below for the appropriate frequency, f, in MHz
at the separation distance, R, in meters.
0.3 – 1.34
ERP ≥ 1,920 R²
1.34 – 30
ERP ≥ 3,450 R²/f²
30 – 300
ERP ≥ 3.83 R²
300 – 1,500
ERP ≥ 0.0128 R²f
1,500 – 100,000
ERP ≥ 19.2R²

(ii) Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in § 1.1310 of this chapter is necessary for
single RF sources not exempted by paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section if either its available
maximum time-averaged power or effective radiated power (ERP) is greater than the threshold Pth
listed in the formula below, which shall only be used at distances from 0.5 to 20 centimeters and
at frequencies from 0.3 to 6 GHz. For distances from 20 to 40 centimeters at frequencies from
0.3 to 6 GHz, evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in § 1.1310 of this chapter is
necessary if the ERP is greater than ERP20cm in the formula below. If the ERP of a single RF
source at distances from 0.5 to 40 centimeters and at frequencies from 0.3 to 6 GHz is not easily
obtained, then the available maximum time-averaged power may be used (i.e., without
consideration of ERP) in comparison with the formula below only if the device antenna(s) or
radiating structure(s) do not exceed the electrical length of λ/4.

x
P (m

W) = ERP
(d /
cm

20
)
th
20cm

Where

104

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39



x = −

60

log
and f is in GHz;
10 

 ERP
f
20cm

2040 f
GH

3
.
0
z ≤ f <
GH

5
.
1
z
ERP
(m

W) =

cm

20
306

0
GH

5
.
1

z ≤ f ≤
GH

6
z
d = the minimum separation distance in any direction from any part of the device antenna(s) or
radiating structure(s) to the body of the device user

(iii) In order for the 1 mW exemption criterion in paragraph (b)(1) of this section to apply, a
separation distance of two centimeters is required between any portion of a radiating structure
operating at less than 1 mW and the nearest portion of any other radiating structure in the same
device.

(iv) A routine RF evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in § 1.1310 of this chapter is
necessary for single fixed RF sources that exceed the thresholds defined in paragraph (b)(1),
(b)(1)(i), or (b)(1)(ii) of this section. Multiple fixed RF sources require evaluation of compliance
with the exposure limits in § 1.1310 of this chapter if the sum of the fractional contributions to
the applicable ERP thresholds and the ambient exposure quotient (AEQ) is greater than or equal
to 1 as indicated in the equation below.

b
∑SAR
a
j
c
j 1
Pi
=
ERPk
∑
+
+ ∑
+ AEQ ≥ 1
i=
1.6 W kg
1
k 1
P
=
th,i
ERPth,k
Where
a
= number of fixed RF sources using paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
b
= number of existing fixed RF sources with known SAR.
c
= number of fixed RF sources using ERP, either according to (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of this section.
Pi
= the available maximum time-averaged power or the ERP, whichever is greater, for RF source i
Pth,i
= the threshold power according to the formula in (b)(1)(ii) of this section for RF source i.
SARj
= the maximum SAR reported from the jth fixed RF source.
ERPk
= ERP of RF source k.
ERPth,k = exemption threshold ERP for RF source k, either according to (b)(1)(ii) of this section or
(b)(1)(i) of this section, as applicable.
AEQ
= the ambient exposure quotient (AEQ) for the general population/uncontrolled limit from an
existing evaluation of exposure at the site from fixed sources not included in the summations.
An AEQ less than 0.05 may be considered insignificant.

(v) Where applicable, for multiple mobile or portable RF sources within a device operating in the
same time averaging period, evaluation is required if:

SAR
a
∑b
∑
j
c
j =
Pi + 1
+ ∑ ERPk ≥ 1
6
.
1
1
W kg
i=
k =
Pth,i
1 ER
th
P ,k
Where

105

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

a
= number of mobile or portable transmitters that use Pth, including existing transmitters and those
being added.
b
= number of existing mobile or portable transmitters with known SAR.
c
= number of mobile or portable transmitters using ERP, according to either (b)(1)(i) or (b)(1)(ii) of
this section, including existing transmitters and those being added.
Pi
= the available maximum time-averaged power or the ERP, whichever is greater, for mobile or
portable transmitter i.
Pth,i
= the threshold power according to the formula in § 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) for mobile or portable
transmitter i.
SARj
= the maximum SAR reported for equipment certification from the jth mobile or portable
transmitter in the device.
ERPk
= ERP of mobile or portable transmitter k.
ERPth,k = exemption threshold ERP for mobile or portable transmitter k, either according to (b)(1)(ii)
of this section or (b)(1)(i) of this section, as applicable.

(vi) Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, any other single or multiple RF source(s) is
exempt from routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to authorization (licensing
or equipment certification), except as specified in §§ 1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) of this chapter.

(2) Specific mitigation actions are required for fixed RF sources in order to ensure compliance with
our exposure limits, including the implementation of an RF safety plan, restriction of access to those
RF sources, and disclosure of spatial regions where exposure limits are exceeded. For the purpose of
this section, Category One described in paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section is defined as compliant with
the general population exposure limit in § 1.1310 of this chapter at any separation distance; Category
Two described in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section is defined as above the general population
exposure limit but compliant with the occupational exposure limit in § 1.1310 of this chapter within
its defined spatial region; Category Three described in paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section is defined
as above the occupational exposure limit but no more than ten times the occupational exposure limit
in § 1.1310 of this chapter within its defined spatial region; and Category Four described in paragraph
(b)(2)(iv) of this section is defined as more than ten times the occupational exposure limit in § 1.1310
of this chapter within its defined spatial region.

(i) Category One – INFORMATION: No mitigation actions are required. Optionally a green
“INFORMATION” sign may offer information to those persons who might be approaching RF
sources. This optional sign should include at least the following information: appropriate signal
word “INFORMATION” and associated color (green) in accord with section 5.8 of IEEE Std
C95.2-1999, a specification of the RF source, contact information, and a reminder to obey all
postings and boundaries.

(ii)

Category Two – NOTICE:

Mitigation actions are required in the form of signs and positive
access control surrounding the areas in which the general population exposure limit is exceeded,
with the appropriate signal word “NOTICE” and associated color (blue) on the signs. Signs must
contain the components discussed in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section. Under certain controlled
conditions, such as on a rooftop with limited access, a sign containing the components discussed
in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of this section attached directly to the surface of an antenna will be
considered a sufficient mitigation action if the sign specifies and is legible at the separation
distance required for compliance with the general population exposure limit in § 1.1310 of this
chapter. Appropriate training is required for any occupational personnel with access to controlled
areas within restrictive barriers where the general population exposure limit is exceeded, and
transient individuals must be supervised by trained personnel upon entering any of these areas.

106

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Use of time averaging is required for transient individuals in the area in which the general
population exposure limit is exceeded to ensure compliance with the time-averaged general
population exposure limit.

(iii)

Category Three – CAUTION

: In addition to the mitigation actions required within those
areas designated as Category Two, further signs, controls, or indicators are required surrounding
the area in which the occupational exposure limit is exceeded, with the appropriate signal word
“CAUTION” and associated color (yellow) on the signs. If signs are used at the occupational
exposure limit boundary, they must contain the components discussed in paragraph (b)(2)(v) of
this section. If the boundaries between Category Two and Three are such that placement of both
Category Two and Three signs would be in the same location, then the Category Two sign is
optional. A label or small sign may be attached directly to the surface of an antenna within a
controlled environment if it specifies a minimum approach distance where the occupational
exposure limit is exceeded. If signs are not used at the occupational exposure limit boundary,
controls or indicators (e.g., chains, railings, contrasting paint, diagrams, etc.) must designate the
spatial regions where the occupational exposure limit is exceeded. Transient individuals are not
permitted in any area for any period of time in which the occupational exposure limit is exceeded.
Further mitigation by reducing exposure time in accord with six minute time averaging is
required for occupational personnel in the area in which the occupational exposure limit is
exceeded. However, proper use of RF personal protective equipment may be considered
sufficient in lieu of time averaging for occupational personnel in the areas in which the
occupational exposure limit is exceeded.

(iv)

Category Four – WARNING/DANGER

: In addition to the mitigation actions required
within those areas designated as Category Three, “WARNING” signs with the associated color
(orange) are required where the occupational limit is exceeded by a factor of ten, and
“DANGER” signs with the associated color (red) are required where immediate and serious
injury will occur on contact. Signs must contain the components discussed in paragraph (b)(2)(v)
of this section. If the boundaries between Category Three and Four are such that placement of
both Category Three and Four signs would be in the same location, then the Category Three sign
is optional. If power reduction, and therefore Category reduction, is not feasible, then
lockout/tagout procedures in 29 CFR § 1910.147 must be followed.

(v) RF exposure advisory signs must include at least the following five components:

(A) Appropriate signal word and associated color {i.e., “DANGER” (red), “WARNING”
(orange), “CAUTION,” (yellow) “NOTICE” (blue)} in accord with IEEE Std C95.2-1999,
“IEEE Standard for Radio-Frequency Energy and Current-Flow Symbols,” copyright 1999 by
the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York, New York 10017

(B) RF energy advisory symbol (Figure A.3 of IEEE Std C95.2-1999)

(C) An explanation of the RF source

(D) Behavior necessary to comply with the exposure limits

(E) Contact information

(3) In general, when the exposure limits specified in § 1.1310 are exceeded in an accessible area due to
the emissions from multiple fixed RF sources, actions necessary to bring the area into compliance or
preparation of an Environmental Assessment as specified in § 1.1311 are the shared responsibility of all
licensees whose RF sources produce, at the area in question, levels that exceed 5% of the applicable
exposure limit. Field strengths must be squared to be proportional to SAR or power density.

107

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Specifically, these compliance requirements apply if the square of the electric or magnetic field strength
exposure level applicable to a particular RF source exceeds 5% of the square of the electric or magnetic
field strength limit at the area in question where the levels due to multiple fixed RF sources exceed the
exposure limit. Site owners and managers are expected to allow applicants and licensees to take
reasonable steps to comply with the requirements contained in § 1.1307(b) and, where feasible, should
encourage co-location of RF sources and common solutions for controlling access to areas where the RF
exposure limits contained in § 1.1310 might be exceeded. Additionally, applicants for proposed RF
sources and applicants for renewal of licenses for RF sources shall inform other licensees at a site in
question of evaluations indicating possible non-compliance with the exposure limits.

(i) Applicants for proposed RF sources that would cause non-compliance with the limits specified in
§ 1.1310 at an accessible area previously in compliance must submit an EA if emissions from the
applicant's RF source would produce, at the area in question, levels that exceed 5% of the applicable
exposure limit. Field strengths must be squared if necessary to be proportional to SAR or power
density.

(ii) Renewal applicants whose RF sources would cause non-compliance with the limits specified in
§ 1.1310 at an accessible area previously in compliance must submit an EA if emissions from the
applicant's RF source would produce, at the area in question, levels that exceed 5% of the applicable
exposure limit. Field strengths must be squared if necessary to be proportional to SAR or power
density.

* * * * *

3. Section 1.1310 is amended to read as follows:

§ 1.1310 Radiofrequency radiation exposure limits.

(a) Specific absorption rate (SAR) shall be used to evaluate the environmental impact of human exposure
to radiofrequency (RF) radiation as specified in § 1.1307(b) within the frequency range of 100 kHz to 6
GHz (inclusive).

(b) The SAR limits for occupational/controlled exposure are 0.4 W/kg, as averaged over the whole body,
and a peak spatial-average SAR of 8 W/kg, averaged over any 1 gram of tissue (defined as a tissue volume
in the shape of a cube). Exceptions are the parts of the human body treated as extremities, such as hands,
wrists, feet, ankles, and pinnae, where the peak spatial-average SAR limit for occupational/controlled
exposure is 20 W/kg, averaged over any 10 grams of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a
cube). Exposure may be averaged over a time period not to exceed 6 minutes to determine compliance
with occupational/controlled SAR limits.

(c) The SAR limits for general population/uncontrolled exposure are 0.08 W/kg, as averaged over the
whole body, and a peak spatial-average SAR of 1.6 W/kg, averaged over any 1 gram of tissue (defined as a
tissue volume in the shape of a cube). Exceptions are the parts of the human body treated as extremities,
such as hands, wrists, feet, ankles, and pinnae, where the peak spatial-average SAR limit is 4 W/kg,
averaged over any 10 grams of tissue (defined as a tissue volume in the shape of a cube). Exposure may be
averaged over a time period not to exceed 30 minutes to determine compliance with general
population/uncontrolled SAR limits.

(d)(1) Evaluation with respect to the SAR limits in this section must demonstrate compliance with both the
whole-body and peak spatial-average limits using technically supported measurement or computational
methods and exposure conditions in advance of authorization (licensing or equipment certification) and in
a manner that facilitates enforcement. Numerical computation of SAR must be supported by adequate
documentation showing that the numerical method as implemented in the computational software has been

108

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

fully validated; in addition, the equipment under test and exposure conditions must be modeled according
to protocols established by numerical computation standards or available FCC procedures for the specific
computational method.

(2) For operation within the frequency range of 300 kHz and 6 GHz (inclusive), the limits for
maximum permissible exposure (MPE), derived from whole-body SAR limits and listed in Table 1 of
paragraph (e) of this section, may be used instead of whole-body SAR limits as set forth in paragraph
(a) through (c) of this section to evaluate the environmental impact of human exposure to RF radiation
as specified in § 1.1307(b), except for portable devices as defined in § 2.1093 as these evaluations shall
be performed according to the SAR provisions in § 2.1093 of this chapter.

(3) At operating frequencies above 6 GHz, the MPE limits listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this
section shall be used in all cases to evaluate the environmental impact of human exposure to RF
radiation as specified in § 1.1307(b).

(4) Both the MPE limits listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section and the SAR limits as set
forth in paragraph (a) through (c) of this section are for continuous exposure, that is, for indefinite time
periods. Exposure levels higher than the limits are permitted for shorter exposure times, as long as the
average exposure over the specified averaging time in Table 1 is less than the exposure limits.
Detailed information on our policies regarding procedures for evaluating compliance with all of these
exposure limits can be found in the most current edition of FCC's OET Bulletin 65, “Evaluating
Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,”
and its supplements, all available at the FCC’s Internet Web site:http://www.fcc.oet/rfsafety"> http://www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety.

Note to Paragraphs (a) through (d): SAR is a measure of the rate of energy absorption due to exposure to
RF electromagnetic energy. These SAR limits to be used for evaluation are based generally on criteria
published by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) for localized SAR in Section 4.2 of “IEEE
Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3
kHz to 300 GHz,” ANSI/IEEE Std C95.1-1992, copyright 1992 by the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, Inc., New York, New York 10017. These criteria for SAR evaluation are similar to
those recommended by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) in
“Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” NCRP Report No.
86, Section 17.4.5, copyright 1986 by NCRP, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. Limits for whole body SAR and
peak spatial-average SAR are based on recommendations made in both of these documents. The MPE
limits in Table 1 are based generally on criteria published by the NCRP in “Biological Effects and
Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” NCRP Report No. 86, Sections 17.4.1,
17.4.1.1, 17.4.2 and 17.4.3, copyright 1986 by NCRP, Bethesda, Maryland 20814. In the frequency range
from 100 MHz to 1500 MHz, these MPE exposure limits for field strength and power density are also
generally based on criteria recommended by the ANSI in Section 4.1 of “IEEE Standard for Safety Levels
with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz,”
ANSI/IEEE Std C95.1-1992, copyright 1992 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc.,
New York, New York 10017.


109

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

(e) Table 1 below sets forth limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) to radiofrequency
electromagnetic fields.

Table 1—Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)

Frequency range

Electric field strength

Magnetic field strength

Power density

Averaging time

(MHz)
(V/m)
(A/m)
(mW/cm2)
(minutes)
(A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure
0.3–3.0
614
1.63
*(100)
6
3.0–30
1842/f
4.89/f
*(900/f2)
6
30–300
61.4
0.163
1.0
6
300–1500


f/300
6
1500–100,000


5
6
(B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure
0.3–1.34
614
1.63
*(100)
30
1.34–30
824/f
2.19/f
*(180/f2)
30
30–300
27.5
0.073
0.2
30
300–1500


f/1500
30
1500–100,000


1.0
30

f = frequency in MHz
* = Plane-wave equivalent power density

(1) Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a
consequence of their employment provided those persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure
and can exercise control over their exposure. Limits for occupational/controlled exposure also apply
in situations when a person is transient through a location where occupational/controlled limits apply
provided he or she is made aware of the potential for exposure. The phrase fully aware in the context
of applying these exposure limits means that an exposed person has received written and/or verbal
information fully explaining the potential for RF exposure resulting from his or her employment.
With the exception of transient persons, this phrase also means that an exposed person has received
appropriate training regarding work practices relating to controlling or mitigating his or her exposure.
See § 1.1307(b)(2) of this chapter. The phrase exercise control means that an exposed person is
allowed and also knows how to reduce or avoid exposure by administrative or engineering work
practices, such as use of personal protective equipment or time averaging of exposure.

(2) General population/uncontrolled exposure limits apply in situations in which the general public
may be exposed, or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not
be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. For
example, RF sources intended for consumer use shall be subject to the limits for general
population/uncontrolled exposure in this section.

* * * * *

4. Section 1.4000(c) is deleted.


110

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

PART 2 – FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS

5. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.

6. Section 2.1091 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), (d)(1), and (d)(2) to read as follows:

§ 2.1091 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: mobile devices.

* * * * *
(b) For purposes of this section, a mobile device is defined as a transmitting device designed to be used
in other than fixed locations and to generally be used in such a way that a separation distance of at least
20 centimeters is normally maintained between the transmitter's radiating structure(s) and the body of the
user or nearby persons. In this context, the term “fixed location” means that the device is physically
secured at one location and is not able to be easily moved to another location while transmitting.
Transmitting devices designed to be used by consumers or workers that can be easily re-located, such as
wireless devices associated with a personal desktop computer, are considered to be mobile devices if they
meet the 20 centimeter separation requirement.

(c) Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in § 1.1310 of this chapter, and preparation of an
EA if the limits are exceeded, is necessary for mobile devices with single RF sources either more than an
available maximum time-averaged power of 1 mW or more than the ERP listed in Table 1 of §
1.1307(b)(1)(i), whichever is greater. For mobile devices not exempt by § 1.1307(b)(1)(i) at distances
from 20 to 40 centimeters and frequencies from 0.3 to 6 GHz, evaluation of compliance with the exposure
limits in § 1.1310 of this chapter is necessary if the ERP of the device is greater than ERP20cm in the
formula below. If the ERP of a single RF source at distances from 20 to 40 centimeters and frequencies
from 0.3 to 6 GHz is not easily obtained, then the available maximum time-averaged RF output power
may be used (i.e., without consideration of ERP) in comparison with the formula below only if the device
antenna(s) or radiating structure(s) do not exceed the electrical length of λ/4.

2040 f .
0 GH

3
z ≤ f < .
1 GH

5
z
ERP
(m

W) =

cm

20
306

0
.
1

GH

5
z ≤ f ≤
GH

6
z

(1) For multiple mobile RF sources within a device operating in the same time averaging period,
when all transmitting antennas are at a separation distance of at least 20 centimeters, evaluation is
required if:

b
∑SAR
a
j
c
j 1
Pi
=
ERPk
∑
+
+ ∑
≥ 1
i=
1.6 W kg
1
k 1
P
=
th,i
ERPth,k
Where
a
= number of mobile transmitters that use Pth, including existing transmitters and those being added.
b
= number of existing mobile transmitters with known SAR.
c
= number of mobile transmitters using ERP, according to either § 1.1307(b)(1)(i) or §
1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter, including existing transmitters and those being added.
Pi
= the available maximum time-averaged power or the ERP, whichever is greater, for mobile
transmitter i.

111

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Pth,i
= the threshold power according to the formula in § 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter for mobile
transmitter i.
SARj
= the maximum SAR reported for equipment certification from the jth mobile transmitter in the
device.
ERPk
= ERP of mobile transmitter k.
ERPth,k = exemption threshold ERP for mobile transmitter k, either according to § 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of
this chapter or § 1.1307(b)(1)(i) of this chapter, as applicable.

(2) For multiple mobile or portable RF sources within a device operating in the same time averaging
period, routine environmental evaluation is required if the formula in § 2.1093(c)(2) of this chapter is
applied to determine the exemption ratio and the result is greater than or equal to 1.

(3) Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, any other single mobile or multiple mobile and
portable RF source(s) associated with a device is exempt from routine environmental evaluation for
RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, except as specified in §§ 1.1307(c) and
1.1307(d) of this chapter.

(d) Applications for equipment authorization of mobile transmitting devices subject to routine
environmental evaluation must contain a statement confirming compliance with the limits specified in §
1.1310 of this chapter as part of their application. Technical information showing the basis for this
statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request. In general, maximum time-averaged
power levels must be used for evaluation. All unlicensed personal communications service (PCS) devices
and unlicensed NII devices shall be subject to the limits for general population/uncontrolled exposure.

(1) For purposes of analyzing mobile transmitting devices under the occupational/controlled criteria
specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter, time averaging provisions of the limits may be used in
conjunction with maximum duty factor to determine maximum time-averaged exposure levels under
normal operating conditions.

(2) Such time averaging provisions based on maximum duty factor may not be used in determining
exposure levels for devices intended for use by consumers in general population/uncontrolled
environments as defined in § 1.1310 of this chapter. However, “source-based” time averaging based
on an inherent property of the RF source is allowed. An example of this is the determination of
exposure from a device that uses digital technology such as a time-division multiple-access (TDMA)
scheme for transmission of a signal.

(3) * * *

(4) * * *

7. Section 2.1093 is amended by revising paragraphs (c) and (d) to read as follows:

§ 2.1093 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: portable devices.

* * * * *

(c) Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in § 1.1310 of this chapter, and preparation of an
EA if the limits are exceeded, is necessary for portable devices with single RF sources with more than an
available maximum time-averaged power of 1 mW, more than the ERP listed in Table 1 of §
1.1307(b)(1)(i), or more than the Pth in the formula below, whichever is greater. The formula below shall
only be used in conjunction with portable devices not exempt by § 1.1307(b)(1)(i) at distances from 0.5 to

112

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

20 centimeters and frequencies from 0.3 to 6 GHz. If the ERP of a single RF source at distances from 0.5
to 20 centimeters and frequencies from 0.3 to 6 GHz is not easily obtained, then available maximum time-
averaged power may be used (i.e., without consideration of ERP) in comparison with the formula below
only if the device antenna(s) or radiating structure(s) do not exceed the electrical length of λ/4.

x
P (m

W) = ERP
(d /
cm

20
)
th
20cm

Where


x = −

60

log
and f is in GHz;
10 

 ERP
f
20cm

2040 f
GH

3
.
0
z ≤ f <
GH

5
.
1
z
ERP
(m

W) =

cm

20
306

0
GH

5
.
1

z ≤ f ≤
GH

6
z
d = the minimum separation distance in any direction from any part of the device antenna(s) or radiating
structure(s) to the body of the device user

(1) For multiple portable RF sources within a device operating in the same time averaging period,
when all transmitting antennas are at a separation distance of up to 20 centimeters, evaluation is
required if:

b
∑SAR
a
j
c
j 1
Pi
=
ERPk
∑
+
+ ∑
≥ 1
i=
1.6 W kg
1
k 1
P
=
th,i
ERPth,k
Where
a
= number of portable transmitters that use Pth, including existing transmitters and those being
added.
b
= number of existing portable transmitters with known SAR.
c
= number of portable transmitters using ERP, according to either § 1.1307(b)(1)(i) or §
1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter, including existing transmitters and those being added.
Pi
= the available maximum time-averaged power or the ERP, whichever is greater, for portable
transmitter i.
Pth,i
= the threshold power according to the formula in § 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter for portable
transmitter i.
SARj
= the maximum SAR reported for equipment certification from the jth portable transmitter in the
device.
ERPk
= ERP of portable transmitter k.
ERPth,k = exemption threshold ERP for portable transmitter k, either according to § 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of this
chapter or § 1.1307(b)(1)(i) of this chapter, as applicable.

(2) For multiple mobile or portable RF sources within a device operating in the same time averaging
period, evaluation is required if:

SAR
a
∑b
∑
j
c
j =
Pi + 1
+ ∑ ERPk ≥ 1
6
.
1
1
W kg
i=
k =
Pth,i
1 ER
th
P ,k

113

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Where
a
= number of mobile or portable transmitters that use Pth, including existing transmitters and those
being added.
b
= number of existing mobile or portable transmitters with known SAR.
c
= number of mobile or portable transmitters using ERP, according to either § 1.1307(b)(1)(i) or §
1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter, including existing transmitters and those being added.
Pi
= the available maximum time-averaged power or the ERP, whichever is greater, for mobile or
portable transmitter i.
Pth,i
= the threshold power according to the formula in § 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter for mobile or
portable transmitter i.
SARj
= the maximum SAR reported for equipment certification from the jth mobile or portable
transmitter in the device.
ERPk
= ERP of mobile or portable transmitter k.
ERPth,k = exemption threshold ERP for mobile or portable transmitter k, either according to §
1.1307(b)(1)(ii) of this chapter or § 1.1307(b)(1)(i) of this chapter, as applicable.

(3) Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, any other single portable or multiple mobile and
portable RF source(s) associated with a device is exempt from routine environmental evaluation for
RF exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, except as specified in §§ 1.1307(c) and
1.1307(d) of this chapter.

(d) Applications for equipment authorization of portable transmitting devices subject to routine
environmental evaluation must contain a statement confirming compliance with the limits specified in §
1.1310 of this chapter as part of their application. The limits to be used for evaluation shall apply for
portable devices transmitting in the frequency range from 100 kHz to 6 GHz in terms of the SAR limits
specified in §§ 1.1310(a) through (c) of this chapter. The device must be evaluated at a separation
distance applicable to the operating configurations and exposure conditions of the device. Portable
devices that transmit at frequencies above 6 GHz are to be evaluated in terms of the MPE limits specified
in Table 1 of § 1.1310(e) of this chapter. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must
be submitted to the Commission upon request. In general, maximum time-averaged power levels must be
used for evaluation. All unlicensed personal communications service (PCS) devices and unlicensed NII
devices shall be subject to the limits for general population/uncontrolled exposure.

(1) Evaluation of compliance with the SAR limits can be demonstrated by either laboratory
measurement techniques or by computational modeling. The latter must be supported by adequate
documentation showing that the numerical method as implemented in the computational software has
been fully validated; in addition, the equipment under test and exposure conditions must be modeled
according to protocols established by numerical computation standards or available FCC procedures
for the specific computational method. Guidance regarding SAR measurement techniques can be
found in the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Laboratory Division Knowledge Database
(KDB). The staff guidance provided in the KDB does not necessarily represent the only acceptable
methods for measuring RF exposure or emissions, and is not binding on the Commission or any
interested party.

(2) For purposes of analyzing portable transmitting devices under the occupational/controlled SAR
criteria specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter, the time averaging provisions of these SAR criteria may
be used to determine maximum time-averaged exposure levels under normal operating conditions.

(3) The time averaging provisions for occupational/controlled SAR criteria, based on maximum duty
factor, may not be used in determining typical exposure levels for portable devices intended for use

114

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

by consumers, such as cellular telephones, that are considered to operate in general
population/uncontrolled environments as defined in § 1.1310 of this chapter. However, “source-
based” time averaging based on an inherent property of the RF source is allowed. An example of this
would be the determination of exposure from a device that uses digital technology such as a time-
division multiple-access (TDMA) scheme for transmission of a signal.

(4) Visual advisories (such as labeling, embossing, or on an equivalent electronic display) on
portable devices designed only for occupational use can be used as part of an applicant’s evidence of
the device user’s awareness of occupational/controlled exposure limits. Such visual advisories shall
be legible and clearly visible to the user from the exterior of the device. Visual advisories must
indicate that the device is for occupational use only, refer the user to specific information on RF
exposure, such as that provided in a user manual and note that the advisory and its information is
required for FCC RF exposure compliance. Such instructional material must provide the user with
information on how to use the device in order to ensure compliance with the occupational/controlled
exposure limits. A sample of the visual advisory, illustrating its location on the device, and any
instructional material intended to accompany the device when marketed, shall be filed with the
Commission along with the application for equipment authorization. Details of any special training
requirements pertinent to limiting RF exposure should also be submitted. Holders of grants for
portable devices to be used in occupational settings are encouraged, but not required, to coordinate
with end-user organizations to ensure appropriate RF safety training.

(5) General population/uncontrolled exposure limits defined in § 1.1310 of this chapter apply to
portable devices intended for use by consumers or persons who are exposed as a consequence of their
employment and may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over
their exposure. No communication with the consumer including either visual advisories or manual
instructions will be considered sufficient to allow consumer portable devices to be evaluated subject
to limits for occupational/controlled exposure specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter.

PART 15 – RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

8. The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, and 544a.

9. Section 15.709(d) is amended to read as follows:

* * * * *

(d) Compliance with radio frequency exposure requirements. TVBDs shall ensure compliance with the
Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter,
where applicable.

PART 24 – PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

10. The authority citation for Part 24 continues to read as follows:

Authority

: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 309 and 332.

11. Section 24.51(c) is deleted and reserved.

12. Section 24.52 is amended to read as follows:


115

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

§ 24.52 RF exposure.

Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency exposure
requirements in § 1.1307(b) of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required if RF
radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with radiation from other sources, cause RF
power density or field strength in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in § 1.1310
of this chapter. Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices operating under
this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements for both
fundamental emissions and unwanted emissions. Technical information showing the basis for this
statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.

PART 25 – SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

13. The authority citation for Part 25 continues to read as follows:

Authority

: 47 U.S.C. 701–744. Interprets or applies Sections 4, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332 of the
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332, unless
otherwise noted.

14. Section 25.115(j) is amended to read as follows:

§ 25.115 Application for earth station authorizations.

* * * * *

(j) The licensee and grantees shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency exposure
requirements in § 1.1307(b) of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required if RF
radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with radiation from other sources, cause RF
power density or field strength in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in § 1.1310
of this chapter. See § 1.1307(b)(3)(i).

15. Section 25.117(g) is amended to read as follows:

* * * * *

(g) The licensee and grantees shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency exposure
requirements in § 1.1307(b) of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required if RF
radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with radiation from other sources, cause RF
power density or field strength in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in § 1.1310
of this chapter. See § 1.1307(b)(3)(ii).

16. Section 25.129(c) is amended to read as follows:

* * * * *

(c) In addition to the information required by § 2.1033(c) of this chapter, applicants for certification
required by this section shall submit any additional equipment test data necessary to demonstrate
compliance with pertinent standards for transmitter performance prescribed in § 25.138, § 25.202(f), §
25.204, § 25.209, and § 25.216, and shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency
exposure requirements in § 1.1307(b) of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required if
RF radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with radiation from other sources, cause
RF power density or field strength in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in §
1.1310 of this chapter. Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices operating

116

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

under this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements for both
fundamental emissions and unwanted emissions. Technical information showing the basis for this
statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.

(d) * * *

17. Section 25.149(c)(3) is amended to read as follows:

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) * * *

(2) * * *

(3) Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency
exposure requirements in § 1.1307(b) of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required
if RF radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with radiation from other sources,
cause RF power density or field strength in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits
specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter. Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable
devices operating under this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these
requirements for both fundamental emissions and unwanted emissions. Technical information
showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.

* * * * *

18. Section 25.226(b)(8) is amended to read as follows:

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(2) * * *

(3) * * *

(4) * * *

(5) * * *

(6) * * *

(7) * * *

(8) All VMES applicants shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency exposure
requirements in § 1.1307(b) of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required if RF
radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with radiation from other sources, cause
RF power density or field strength in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in §
1.1310 of this chapter. VMES applicants with VMES terminals that will exceed the guidelines in §
1.1310 of this chapter for radio frequency radiation exposure shall provide, with their environmental

117

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

assessment, a plan for mitigation of radiation exposure to the extent required to meet those guidelines.
All VMES licensees shall ensure installation of VMES terminals on vehicles by qualified installers
who have an understanding of the antenna's radiation environment and the measures best suited to
maximize protection of the general public and persons operating the vehicle and equipment. A
VMES terminal exhibiting radiation exposure levels exceeding 1.0 mW/cm2 in accessible areas, such
as at the exterior surface of the radome, shall have a label attached to the surface of the terminal
warning about the radiation hazard and shall include thereon a diagram showing the regions around
the terminal where the radiation levels could exceed 1.0 mW/cm2. All VMES applicants shall
demonstrate that their VMES terminals are capable of automatically ceasing transmissions upon the
loss of synchronization or within 5 seconds of loss of reception of the satellite downlink signal,
whichever is the shorter timeframe.

* * * * *

PART 27 – MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

19. The authority citation for Part 27 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, and 337 unless otherwise noted.

20. Section 27.52 is amended to read as follows:

§ 27.52 RF exposure.

Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency exposure
requirements in § 1.1307(b) of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required if RF
radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with radiation from other sources, cause RF
power density or field strength in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in § 1.1310
of this chapter. Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices operating under
this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements for both
fundamental emissions and unwanted emissions. Technical information showing the basis for this
statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.

PART 73 – RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES

21. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336, and 339.

22. Section 73.404(e)(10) is amended to read as follows:

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(1) * * *

(2) * * *

(3) * * *

(4) * * *


118

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

(5) * * *

(6) * * *

(7) * * *

(8) * * *

(9) * * *

(10) Licensees and permittees shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency
exposure requirements in § 1.1307(b) of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required
if RF radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with radiation from other sources,
cause RF power density or field strength in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits
specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter.

PART 90 – PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES

23. The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g), 303(r), 332(c)(7).

24. Section 90.1217 is amended to read as follows:

§ 90.1217 RF exposure.

Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency exposure
requirements in § 1.1307(b) of this chapter. An environmental assessment may be required if RF
radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with radiation from other sources, cause RF
power density or field strength in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in § 1.1310
of this chapter. Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices operating under
this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements for both
fundamental emissions and unwanted emissions. Technical information showing the basis for this
statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.

PART 95 – PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES

25. The authority citation for Part 95 continues to read as follows:

Authority:

Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.

26. Section 95.628(h) is amended to read as follows:

§ 95.628 MedRadio transmitters.

* * * * *

(h) Measurement procedures.

(1) MedRadio transmitters shall be tested for frequency stability, radiated emissions and EIRP limit
compliance in accordance with paragraphs (h)(2) and (h)(3) of this section.


119

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

(2) Frequency stability testing shall be performed over the temperature range set forth in (f) of this
section.

(3) Radiated emissions and EIRP measurements may be determined by measuring the radiated field
from the equipment under test at 3 meters and calculating the EIRP. The equivalent radiated field
strength at 3 meters for 1 milliwatt, 25 microwatts, 250 nanowatts, and 100 nanowatts EIRP is 115.1,
18.2, 1.8, or 1.2 mV/meter, respectively, when measured on an open area test site; or 57.55, 9.1, 0.9,
or 0.6 mV/meter, respectively, when measured on a test site equivalent to free space such as a fully
anechoic test chamber. Compliance with the maximum transmitter power requirements set forth in §
95.639(f) shall be based on measurements using a peak detector function and measured over an
interval of time when transmission is continuous and at its maximum power level. In lieu of using a
peak detector function, measurement procedures that have been found to be acceptable to the
Commission in accordance with §2.947 of this chapter may be used to demonstrate compliance.

(i) For a transmitter intended to be implanted in a human body, radiated emissions and EIRP
measurements for transmissions by stations authorized under this section may be made in
accordance with a Commission-approved human body simulator and test technique. The
reference to be used for dielectric properties of the tissue-equivalent material for the body
simulator is in 2.1093(d)(1) of this chapter.

27. Section 95.1125 is amended to read as follows:

§ 95.1125 RF exposure.

Portable devices as defined in §2.1093(b) of this chapter operating in the WMTS shall ensure compliance
with the Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in § 1.1307(b) of this chapter. An
environmental assessment may be required if RF radiation from the proposed facilities would, in
combination with radiation from other sources, cause RF power density or field strength in an accessible
area to exceed the applicable limits specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter. Applications for equipment
authorization of WMTS devices operating under this section must contain a statement confirming
compliance with these requirements for both fundamental emissions and unwanted emissions. Technical
information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.

28. Section 95.1221 is amended to read as follows:

§ 95.1221 RF exposure.

A MedRadio medical implant device or medical body-worn transmitter is subject to the radiofrequency
radiation exposure requirements specified in §§ 1.1307(b) and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.
Applications for equipment authorization of devices operating under this section must demonstrate
compliance with these requirements using either computational modeling or laboratory measurement
techniques. Where a showing is based on computational modeling, the Commission retains the discretion
to request that supporting documentation and/or specific absorption rate (SAR) measurement data be
submitted, as described in 2.1093(d)(1).

PART 97 – AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE

29. The authority citation for Part 97 continues to read as follows:

Authority

: 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064–1068,
1081–1105, as amended; 47 U.S.C. 151–155, 301–609, unless otherwise noted.

30. Section 97.13 is amended to read as follows:

120

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

§ 97.13 Restrictions on station location.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(1) The licensee shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency exposure
requirements in §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter, where applicable. In lieu of
evaluation with the general population/uncontrolled exposure limits, amateur licensees may evaluate
their operation with respect to members of his or her immediate household using the
occupational/controlled exposure limits in § 1.1310, provided appropriate training and information
has been supplied to the amateur licensee and members of his/her household. Other nearby persons
who are not members of the amateur licensee’s household must be evaluated with respect to the
general population/uncontrolled exposure limits. Appropriate methodologies and guidance for
evaluating amateur radio service operation is described in the Office of Engineering and Technology
(OET) Bulletin 65, Supplement B.

(2) * * *

PART 101 – FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICE

31. The authority citation for Part 101 continues to read as follows:

Authority

: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.

32. Section 101.1425 is amended to read as follows:

§ 101.1425 RF exposure.

MVDDS stations in the 12.2–12.7 GHz frequency band shall ensure compliance with the Commission's
radio frequency exposure requirements in § 1.1307(b) of this chapter. An environmental assessment may
be required if RF radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with radiation from other
sources, cause RF power density or field strength in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits
specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter.



121

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

APPENDIX C

Derivation of General MPE-Based Exemption from RF Evaluation for Single RF Sources

1. FCC Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)

The FCC’s maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits for radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic energy
are given in section 1.1310 of the FCC’s rules. The following table illustrates the general
population/uncontrolled exposure limits. As can readily be seen, these limits can be divided into five
broad frequency ranges. The exposure limits for bands (2) and (4) vary with frequency, while bands (1),
(3) and (5) are fixed values.

Frequency

Frequency range

Electric field strength

Magnetic field strength

Power density

Averaging time

Band

(MHz)
(V/m)
(A/m)
(mW/cm2)
(minutes)
(1)
0.3–1.34
614
1.63
*(100)
30
(2)
1.34–30
824/f
2.19/f
*(180/f2)
30
(3)
30–300
27.5
0.073
0.2
30
(4)
300–1500


f/1500
30
(5)
1500–100,000


1.0
30

f = frequency in MHz
* = Plane-wave equivalent power density


2. Basis for Exemptions from Routine Evaluation

Table 1 defining exemption criteria for single RF sources proposed in the Further Notice for section
1.1307(b) is reproduced below. The values in this table were derived for effective radiated power (ERP)
depending on separation distance (and frequency for bands (2) and (4)) using the MPE exposure limits of
section 1.1310 for general population/uncontrolled and far-field calculations for each of the five
frequency bands noted above. This conservative derivation is assumed to be worst-case due to the use of
100% reflection in the far-field of the main-beam. The rationale for this derivation is that if these
conservative ERP and separation distance exemption criteria are met then there is minimal likelihood for
the exposure limits for the general public to be exceeded.


122

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Table 1—Single RF Sources Subject to Routine Environmental Evaluation

Transmitter Frequency

Threshold ERP

(MHz)
(watts)
Regardless of ERP, evaluation is required if the separation distance R is less than λ/2π from the
radiating structure, where λ is the free-space operating wavelength, unless the available maximum
time-averaged power is less than one milliwatt. In addition, evaluation is required if the ERP in
watts is greater than the value given by the formula below for the appropriate frequency f in MHz
at the separation distance R in meters.
0.3 – 1.34
ERP ≥ 1,920 R²
1.34 – 30
ERP ≥ 3,450 R²/f²
30 – 300
ERP ≥ 3.83 R²
300 – 1,500
ERP ≥ 0.0128 R²f
1,500 – 100,000
ERP ≥ 19.2R²

In the context of Table 1 above, the ERP is defined as the product of the maximum antenna gain and the
delivered maximum time-averaged power summed over all polarizations, the term “maximum antenna
gain” is the largest far-field total power gain relative to a dipole in any direction for all transverse
polarization components, and the term “delivered maximum time-averaged power” is the largest net
power delivered or supplied to the antenna as averaged over any 30 minute time period for fixed sources
and as averaged over a period inherent from device transmission characteristics for mobile and portable
sources. The term “separation distance” in Table 1 is defined as the minimum distance in any direction
from any part of the radiating structure of a transmitting antenna or antenna array to the body of a nearby
person. To the extent that R is ≥ λ/2π, the proposed criteria in Table 1 above may be applied to fixed,
mobile, or portable RF sources.

While these conditions are conservative in the radiating near-field they may not be conservative in the
reactive near-field. Thus, for exposure within the “radiansphere”1 where R < λ/2π where this could be a
concern further evaluation is required. Reactive near fields generally dominate at separation distances of
less than λ/2π and may be stronger than the fields calculated based on the far-field gain, particularly in
the case of electrically short antennas. “[F]or distances beyond λ/2π the electric field varies as 1/r …
which corresponds to the classical far field. For sufficiently [electrically] short dipoles at distances less
than λ/2π the field [theoretically] varies [as much] as 1/r3 … and this comprises the so called near field or
reactive zone of the antenna.”2 This behavior is a characteristic of any differential dipole element that
may exist anywhere in the radiating structure. For example, the tips of a half-wave dipole have electric
fields that increase more rapidly than 1/r at less than λ/2π. Therefore, the separation distance is defined
as above to be from any part of the radiating structure of a transmitting antenna.

For far-field conditions, a worst-case estimate for power density with 100% reflection of incoming
radiation (OET Bulletin 65 equation (6)) can be calculated from the following general equation:

1 Proceedings of the IRE, The Radiansphere Around a Small Antenna, Wheeler, Harold A., 1959.
2 Environmental Protection Agency, Near-Field Radiation Properties of Simple Linear Antennas with Applications
to Radiofrequency Hazards and Broadcasting, Tell, Richard A., ORP/EAD 78-4, June 1978.

123

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

( 2
2
2
2 )1.64
2
2
ERP
PG
EIRP
S =
=
=

2
2
2
4π R
4π R
4π R

Where S = power density (W/m2), P = power (W), G = antenna gain, and R = distance (m).

2
SR
π
Solving for ERP in the above equation, ERP =
.
1 64
.

Substituting the value for S from the MPE exposure limits allows for the derivation of these MPE-based
exemption criteria, as discussed in further detail below.

It is likely that operation in frequency band (1) will require evaluation due to the magnitude of λ/2π in
this frequency band, because from 0.3 MHz to 1.34 MHz evaluation is required if the separation distance
is less than λ/2π, which ranges across the band from 159 meters to 35.6 meters, respectively. The most
restrictive (general population/uncontrolled) exposure limit in this frequency band is a constant value of
1000 W/m2. The antennas most commonly used for transmitting at these frequencies are AM monopole
towers. Evaluation for these facilities can be facilitated through the use of Bulletin 65 Supplement A, and
most licensees in this band should already be aware of this obligation. A worst-case approximation for
maximum ERP dependent on separation distance can be derived for these frequencies based on the far-
field equation with 100% reflection. Thus, maximum ERP can be obtained according to:

ERP = 1920 R2

From 1.34 MHz to 30 MHz (frequency band (2)) evaluation is required if the separation distance is less
than λ/2π, which ranges across the band from 35.6 meters to 1.59 meters, respectively, and the general
population exposure limit varies according to the inverse square of the frequency as follows:

Exposure limit (power density) = 1800
2 W/m2 where f is frequency in MHz.
f

Using the far-field equation, maximum ERP can be obtained according to:

2
R
ERP = 3450

2
f

From 30 to 300 MHz (frequency band (3)) evaluation is required if the separation distance is less than
λ/2π, which ranges across the band from 1.59 meters to 0.159 meters, respectively. In this band, the
general population exposure limit is a constant value (2 W/m2). Using the far-field equation, maximum
ERP can be obtained according to:

ERP = 3.83 R2

From 300 to 1,500 MHz (frequency band (4)) evaluation is required if the separation distance is less than
λ/2π, which ranges across the band from 159 mm to 31.8 mm, respectively and the general population
exposure limit varies according to frequency as follows:

f
Exposure limit (power density) =
W/m2 where f is frequency in MHz.
150

124

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Using the far-field equation, maximum ERP can be obtained according to:

ERP = 0.0128 R2f

From 1500 MHz to 100 GHz (frequency band (5)) evaluation is required if the separation distance is less
than λ/2π, which ranges across the band from 31.8 mm to 0.48 mm, respectively. In this band, the
general population exposure limit is a constant value of 10 W/m2. Using the far-field equation, maximum
ERP can be obtained according to:

ERP = 19.2R2


125

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

APPENDIX D

Derivation of General SAR-Based Exemption From RF Evaluation for Single RF Sources

As a general approach the Commission in this Further Notice proposes to adopt frequency- and distance-
dependent power thresholds. The purpose of this Appendix is to derive these frequency- and distance-
dependent time-averaged power thresholds, below which single portable RF sources operating in the
frequency range of 300 MHz (0.3 GHz) to 6 GHz may be exempt from RF evaluation. These thresholds
are based on both the 1.6 W/kg 1-gram SAR limit1 and constant values for effective radiated power (ERP)
using formulas derived from OET Bulletin 65 equation (5) at exactly 20 centimeters (cm) from the body.
Here we ensure a conservative model with consideration of electrically small antennas with practical
bandwidths.2

The strategy in developing the exemption thresholds is to separate the frequency dependence from the
distance dependence of these thresholds in a two step process. Briefly, first we approximate a frequency
dependence exponent (-0.5) to relate power density to SAR for normal (perpendicular) plane wave
illumination of an infinite uniform planar half-space having standard tissue values of dielectric constant
and conductivity obtained from OET Bulletin 65, Supplement C. Second, half-wave dipoles at a
separation distance of approximately 2 cm are used to determine a constant multiplier (60) for the
frequency dependence factor (1 f ) to derive power thresholds in mW. In deriving these power
thresholds in mW, the associated units used are cm for distance and GHz for frequency. The distance
dependence is then computed according to an exponential function between 2 and 20 cm using the
threshold power found above at 2 cm and the constant values for ERP using the formulas derived in
Appendix C (except also assuming no reflection from close objects) at exactly 20 cm. To test this simple
model, half-wave dipoles and planar tissue half-spaces are used to verify the SAR versus distance and
frequency relationship at the resulting power thresholds. The results of this model are verified by
independent SAR computations and are found to be significantly less than the 1.6 W/kg 1-gram limit.

Due to the distance where λ/2π is equal to 20 cm, the lowest frequency used for these power thresholds is
300 MHz. Separation distances less than λ/2π are not allowed in the MPE-based exemption criteria due
to the reactive near field, as discussed in Appendix C. Since λ/2π is 20 cm at 239 MHz, the MPE-based
exemption criteria cannot be used to exempt antennas operating below 239 MHz if the separation distance
is 20 cm or less. For the case of portable RF sources where separation distance is defined to be less than
20 cm, the lowest frequency at which these SAR-based exemption criteria established herein are valid
will be 0.3 GHz (using the conventional frequency breakpoint at 300 MHz), thereby avoiding violation of
the λ/2π requirement at 20 cm for the MPE-based exemption criteria.

Canonical sources such as resonant half-wave dipoles have been used extensively to simulate the field
conditions required for various RF exposure investigations. In theory, electrically short antennas may
have considerably higher SAR for a given power than the resonant half-wave dipoles used in this
analysis, for example, electrically short dipoles that are as short as one-sixteenth wavelength with
bandwidths of a few percent.3 Further, SAR values in practice for real devices are expected to be several
times less and rarely more than half the SAR of resonant half-wave dipoles operating at the same power

1 See 47 CFR § 2.1093(d)(2) (proposed § 1.1310).
2 International Electrotechnical Commission, IEC 62479, Draft Edition 1, Distributed March 12, 2010.
3 Abu T. M. Sayem, et. al., Correlating Threshold Power With Free-Space Bandwidth for Low-Directivity Antennas,
IEEE Trans. on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 51, No. 1, Feb 2009 25-37.

126

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

as the device.4 However, necessary modifications that are required for some prototype devices to be
compliant with SAR limits would not be required to undergo such modifications with inadequately
restrictive exemption criteria.5 Based on these considerations, we propose that use of half-wave dipoles
resulting in SAR values significantly less than 1.6 W/kg over 1-g is adequately conservative to ensure
with reasonable certainty that the variety of real single portable RF sources having power less than the
derived thresholds will have measured SAR values less than the specified limit. As shown in Table D-4,
the maximum resultant 1-g SAR values occur at short distances and at higher frequencies, where there is
less tendency to use electrically short antennas. Therefore, using resonant half-wave dipoles to model the
expected SAR for RF sources should generally be conservative.

1. Derivation of ERP20cm

Constant values are derived by defining a common value at exactly 20 cm without the use of 100%
reflection in the far-field of the main-beam. There are two reasons for not considering 100% reflection in
the derivation of these portable exemption criteria. First, the evaluation process for portable devices to
determine compliance with our exposure limits does not involve an environment where a reflection would
occur. A typical SAR measurement facility measures exposure from portable devices using a mannequin
to test devices in normal use configurations to account for coupling concerns. Second, during the typical
usage of portable devices, it is not likely that a perfect reflection would occur, since metallic objects are
not expected to be near a device during normal use. Thus, using these exemption criteria, there is a low
probability that the exposure limits for the general public could be exceeded. Using the formula in OET
Bulletin 65 equation (5) (without 100% reflection), values at exactly 20 cm can be calculated as follows,
accounting for appropriate unit conversion, where effective radiated power = ERP (mW), frequency = f
(GHz), and separation distance = R (cm).

For “far-field” conditions, a worst-case estimate for power density without 100% reflection of incoming
radiation (OET Bulletin 65 equation (5)) can be calculated from the following general equation

EIRP
64
.
1
ERP
4
2
SR
π
S =
=
, or ERP =

2
2
4 R
π
4 R
π
64
.
1

The first relevant frequency band for these SAR-based exemption criteria is from 0.3 to 1.5 GHz.

4π ( f /
)(
5
.
1
cm

20
)2
ERP (m

W) =
≈ 2040 f
64
.
1

The other frequency band for these SAR-based exemption criteria is from 1.5 GHz to 6 GHz.

4π 1
(
)(
0
.
cm

20
)2
ERP (m

W) =
≈ 3060
1 64
.

Thus, in summary, the ERP in the range of 0.3 to 6 GHz, at exactly 20 cm is:


4 Mohammod Ali, et al., Threshold Power of Canonical Antennas for Inducing SAR at Compliance in the 300-3000
MHz Frequency Range, IEEE Trans. on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 49, No. 1, Feb 2007 143-152.
5 See APREL comments to Notice at 2; IT'IS comments to Notice at 3.

127

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

2040 f
GH

3
.
0
z ≤ f <
GH

5
.
1
z
ERP
(m

W) =

cm

20
306

0
GH

5
.
1

z ≤ f ≤
GH

6
z

These values of ERP20cm will be used in section 4 of this appendix in the exemption threshold formula for
distances less than 20 cm.

2. Plane Wave Models

A plane uniform wave normally incident on a planar homogeneous tissue model enables the calculation of
both localized and 1-gram average SAR for specific tissue dielectric properties and frequencies.6 The
incident power densities are computed at 15 frequencies according to the head and body tissue dielectric
parameters in OET Bulletin 65 Supplement C 01-01. The results are summarized in Tables D-1 and D-2.
The power density can be computed within the 0.3 – 6 GHz range for both head and body tissue
parameters according to the fitted function 5 f
, where 5 has been estimated as the analytical power
(GHz)
density value in Tables D-1 and D-2 at 1 GHz and the square root in the denominator is an approximation
to fitted exponents near -0.5. Where a closer fit might be achieved by varying the approximated
coefficient of 5, the only information used later in this appendix is the exponent of -0.5 for the frequency
dependence.

Table D-1 - Plane Wave Power Density (mW/cm2) Computed for Head Tissues per W/kg (1-g SAR)

GHz

0.3
0.45
0.835
0.9
0.915
1.45
1.61
1.8
1.9
2
2.45
3
4.5
5.2
5.8
ε r
45.3
43.5
41.5
41.5
41.5
40.5
40.3
40
40
40
39.2
38.5
36.8
35.4
35.3
σ (S/m)
0.87
0.87
0.9
0.97
0.98
1.2
1.29
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.8
2.4
3.94
4.66
5.27
analytical
8.01
6.75
5.66
5.35
5.30
4.39
4.15
3.91
3.89
3.88
3.30
2.85
2.37
2.26
2.22
(mW/cm2)
fitted
9.13
7.45
5.47
5.27
5.23
4.15
3.94
3.73
3.63
3.54
3.19
2.89
2.36
2.19
2.08
(mW/cm2)
difference
14.0
10.4
-3.3
-1.4
-1.3
-5.4
-5.1
-4.5
-6.7
-8.7
-3.4
1.5
-0.5
-3.2
-6.4
%



6 See Niels Kuster and Quirino Balzano, Energy Absorption Mechanisms by Biological Bodies in the Near Field of
Dipole antennas Above 300 MHz, IEEE Trans. on Vehicular Technology, Vol. 41, No. 1, Feb 1992. See also Gang
Kang and Om P. Gandhi, Effect of Dielectric Properties on the Peak 1- and 10-g SAR for 802.11 a/b/g Frequencies
2.45 and 5.15 to 5.85 GHz, IEEE Trans. on Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 46, No. 2, May 2004.

128

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Table D-2 - Plane Wave Power Density (mW/cm2) Computed for Body Tissues per W/kg (1-g SAR)

GHz

0.3
0.45
0.835
0.9
0.915
1.45
1.61
1.8
1.9
2
2.45
3
4.5
5.2
5.8
ε r
58.2
56.7
55.2
55
55
54
53.8
53.3
53.3
53.3
52.7
52
50
49
48.2
σ (S/m)
0.92
0.94
0.97
1.05
1.06
1.3
1.4
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.95
2.73
4.48
5.3
6
analytical
8.63
7.43
6.48
6.09
6.04
5.03
4.76
4.47
4.46
4.44
3.79
3.18
2.64
2.53
2.46
(mW/cm2)
fitted
9.13
7.45
5.47
5.27
5.23
4.15
3.94
3.73
3.63
3.54
3.19
2.89
2.36
2.19
2.08
(mW/cm2)
difference
5.8
0.3
-15.6
-13.4
-13.4
-17.6
-17.2
-16.5
-18.5
-20.3
-15.8
-9.1
-10.4
-13.3
-15.6
%


3. Resonant Half-Wave Dipole Models

Reliable 1-g SAR values are available for resonant half-wave dipoles at selected frequencies between 0.3
and 3 GHz in IEEE Standard 1528-2003.7 Additional SAR values are also available in the IEEE 1528b
draft and IEC 62209-2 between 30 MHz and 6 GHz.8 These SAR values have been verified extensively9
using finite difference time domain (FDTD) simulations and laboratory measurements at distances of 15
mm at frequencies up to and including 1 GHz and at 10 mm for higher frequencies to provide benchmarks
for verifying SAR measurement system accuracy. For the present study, SAR values were computed
using the method of moments (MoM) Numerical Electromagnetics Code (NEC-4.1),10 recruiting the
ground plane to simulate standard head tissue with the frequency-dependent dielectric properties shown in
Table D-1 above. NEC-4.1 with the Sommerfeld/Norton ground condition was used to compute 1-g SAR
values in a cubic centimeter volume just below the ground plane at frequencies up to 3 GHz and these
were compared to those specified in IEEE 1528-2003; the results showed good agreement within 3%.
The SAR values computed at 5.2 and 5.8 GHz were about 20% lower than that in IEC 62209-2. This
difference is suspected to be related to the 1-g SAR averaging method and spatial resolution necessary to
capture the steeper field gradients due to the much smaller penetration depth at higher frequencies.11 The
result of these NEC-4.1 calculations are shown in Table D-5, where separation distance in this context is
defined as the distance from the center of the dipole to the surface of the ground plane, as used in IEEE
Standard 1528-2003 for direct comparison. Although this definition of separation distance is in conflict

7 IEEE Standards Coordinating Committee 34 (SCC34), Subcommittee 2. Recommended Practice for Determining
the Peak Spatial-Average Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) in the Human Body Due to Wireless Communications
Devices: Experimental Techniques. IEEE Standard 1528-2003.
8 See International Electrotechnical Commission, Human exposure to radio frequency fields from hand-held and
body-mounted wireless communication devices - Human models, instrumentation, and procedures - Part 2:
Procedure to determine the specific absorption rate (SAR) for wireless communication devices used in close
proximity to the human body (frequency range of 30 MHz to 6 GHz), March 30, 2010.
9 Id.
10 NEC-4.1, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), P.O. Box 808, L-156, Livermore, CA 94550.
11 E-fields are calculated at 1 mm resolution using NEC-4.1 and averaged in an Excel spreadsheet over a 1 cm3
volume centered over the dipole feed-point to determine the 1-g SAR. While this simple grid-by-grid averaging
method is convenient, it may not be as accurate as computing the SAR by averaging the 8 corner points surrounding
each 1 mm grid volume for extremely steep field gradients at higher frequencies. As higher spatial resolutions are
used or denser grid points closer to the tissue surface are selectively chosen in the NEC-4.1 computations, the 1-g
SAR gradually exceeds those in IEC 62209-2. The IEC working group also experienced certain difficulties above 3
GHz.

129

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

with our general usage of separation distance,12 this usage provides a more conservative result, especially
at close distances.


4. Plane Wave/Dipole Model to Determine Threshold Power

Given the 1 f
frequency dependence in the plane wave model for power density versus SAR, we
(GHz)
assume the same frequency dependence for power into a resonant dipole versus SAR and determine a new
coefficient (60) for dipoles at approximately 2 cm separation distance. This formula at approximately 2
cm is then exponentially fitted to the values at exactly 20 cm using ERP20cm derived in section 1 of this
appendix. This avoids discontinuities in the threshold when transitioning between SAR- and MPE-based
exemption criteria for portable and mobile exposure conditions, providing flexibility for both portable (<
20 cm) devices and mobile (≥ 20 cm) devices up to 40 cm. Finally, the resulting model is validated
against NEC-calculated values of SAR at a range of frequencies from 0.3 to 5.8 GHz and separation
distances from 0.5 to 20 cm.

The function 60/f(GHz) has in the past been used as a low power threshold by Telecommunications
Certification Bodies (TCBs) in the processing of equipment authorization applications. We observe that
60
f
(mW) provides conservative power thresholds from 0.3 to 6 GHz at a separation distance of
(GHz)
approximately 2 cm. Using this 2 cm formula and according to our NEC calculations, the 1-g SAR varies
over a range from 0.29 to 0.57 W/kg, which is 7.4 to 4.5 dB less, respectively, than the limit of 1.6 W/kg
over 1 gram.

Field strength, and hence SAR, are expected to attenuate as exponential functions of distance, i.e. d-x. The
SAR-based criteria considered with a coefficient of 60 and a separation distance of 2 cm can be
approximated according d-x, where x is determined from 60 f
(mW) at 2 cm and the values of
(GHz)
ERP20cm from section 1 of this appendix for continuity between portable and mobile devices at 20 cm.
For this reason, we propose to allow the use of the values calculated without reflection at exactly 20 cm to
be flat out to a separation distance of 40 cm where the values of the MPE-based exemption criteria in
Appendix C (with reflection) equal these flat values from 20 cm (without reflection) developed here. The
values are extrapolated according to the following equations at selected frequencies and for distances
between 0.5 and 20 cm as shown in Table D-3 in milliwatts.

x
P (m

W) = ERP
(d /
cm

20
)
th
20cm


60

2040 f 0
. GH

3
z ≤ f < 1. GH

5
z
where: x = −log 
 and ERP
(m

W) =

cm

10 

20
 ERP
f
306

0
1
. GH

5
z ≤ f ≤
GH

6
z
20cm


For the powers in Table D-3, 1-g SAR values estimated using NEC-4.1, half-wave dipoles and the head
tissue dielectric parameters specified in OET Bulletin 65 Supplement C (Edition 01-01) and IEEE Std
1528-2003 are shown in Table D-4. The maximum 1-g SAR at various frequencies and distances in
Table D-4 are significantly less than 1.6 W/kg over 1-g. The much smaller (< 0.1 W/kg) 1-g SAR values
at larger distances (approaching 20 cm) are mainly due to the proposed frequency-dependent mobile
exemption power constraint at 20 cm (ERP20cm). This constraint is derived from the MPE limits and OET
Bulletin 65 equation (5). The MPE limits assume whole body exposure, which is feasible for humans at

12 See para. 131 supra.

130

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

20 cm, while the SAR-based exemption criteria derived here at less than 20 cm assume only partial body
exposure because a planar model is used throughout this appendix.

Pth (mW) should be compared with either the available maximum time-averaged power or the maximum
time-averaged ERP for a device, which ever is greater, for two reasons. First, it is necessary to use device
ERP because for any device with an antenna of significant gain, exemption should be based on the
incident power density. Second, it is necessary to use transmitter power because near-field energy
coupling effects between a device and the body of a user should be considered due to induced SAR from
magnetic fields generated by current flowing along a transmitting antenna or other radiating device
structures, especially at distances less than λ/2π. However, if the ERP of a portable device is not easily
obtained, then available power may be used (i.e., without consideration of ERP) in comparison with the
table only if the device antenna(s) or radiating structure(s) do not exceed the electrical length of λ/4.13

5. Concluding Remarks

Our existing power exclusion thresholds for mobile devices in section 2.1091(c), which assume that
persons are normally not closer than 20 cm from any part of the radiating structure, are 1.5 W ERP for
transmitters operating at frequencies at or below 1.5 GHz and 3 W ERP for transmitters operating at
frequencies above 1.5 GHz. The proposed exemption criteria are similar to these existing power
exclusion thresholds above 1.5 GHz between 20 and 40 cm, but consider the potential for whole body
resonance at frequencies below 1.5 GHz. These proposed exemption criteria are less restrictive than the
existing power exclusion thresholds between 0.8 and 1.5 GHz and additionally allow for extension of
these exclusion thresholds down to 0.3 GHz.14 We propose to allow the use of these exemption criteria
out to a separation distance of 40 cm for mobile and fixed RF sources operating between 300 MHz and 6
GHz. At 40 cm, the MPE-based exemption criteria and these SAR-based exemption criteria would be
equal.

We recognize that the formulation of exemption criteria is an area of current research15 and that our
independent proposals do not consider the useful variable of bandwidth and resulting electric length
limitation. However, such considerations are not consistent with our premise of a model based only on
power, distance, and frequency. In addition, such research is only published out to 5 cm and does not
consider continuity with far-field exemption criteria. We encourage further research in this area and use
of these somewhat more complex exemptions in a sequential approach to determination of compliance,
with the goal of eliminating unnecessary SAR measurements where it can be stated with confidence that
our limits will not be exceeded.

Generally this sequence for single portable RF sources includes the following steps: (1) determination of
1 mW blanket exemption under section 1.1307(b)(1); (2) determination of exemption under the proposed
MPE-based section 1.1307(b)(1)(i) if (1) is not met; (3) determination of exemption under the proposed
SAR-based section 1.1307(b)(1)(ii) if both (1) and (2) are not met; (4) streamlined test reduction



13 See Harrington, R. F., Effect of Antenna Size on Gain, Bandwidth, and Efficiency, Journal of Research of the
National Bureau of Standards, Radio Propagation Vol. 64D, No. 1, January-February 1960, pp. 1-12.
14 See para. 137 supra.
15 See references in this appendix supra.

131

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

procedures for evaluation by the FCC Laboratory which may reference current research based on
bandwidth, etc. if (1), (2), and (3) are not met; (5) evaluation by SAR measurement or computation if (1),
(2), (3), and (4) are not met; then (6) Environmental Assessment (EA) if none of the previous are met
(i.e., our exposure limits would be exceeded).16 This process has been illustrated in the flow chart
included herein as Figure D-1.

16 See Appendix B supra.

132

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Table D-3 – Threshold Powers (mW) at Selected Frequencies (GHz) and Distances from 0.5 to 20 cm


Distance (cm)


0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
0.3
39
65
88
110
130
150
180 220 250 280 310 340 360
430
490
550
610
0.45
22
44
67
89
110
130
180 230 270 320 360 410 460
570
690
800
920

0.835
9.2
25
44
66
90
120
170 240 310 390 470 550 640
900
1100 1400 1700
z)
H
0.9
8.3
23
42
63
88
110
170 240 320 400 480 570 670
900
1200 1500 1800
G
(
1.45
4.3
15
30
50
74
100
170 250 350 460 580 720 870 1300 1800 2300 3000
cy
1.8
3.5
13
26
45
67
94
160 240 340 450 570 710 860 1300 1800 2400 3060
en
u
1.9
3.4
12
26
44
66
92
160 240 330 440 560 700 850 1300 1800 2400 3060
r
eq
2.45
2.7
10
22
38
59
83
140 220 310 420 540 670 820 1300 1800 2400 3060
F
3
2.3
9.0
20
35
53
76
130 210 290 400 510 650 790 1200 1700 2400 3060
5.2
1.5
6.3
15
26
42
61
110 170 250 350 460 590 730 1200 1700 2300 3060
5.8
1.4
5.9
14
25
40
58
110 170 250 340 450 580 720 1100 1700 2300 3060

Table D-4 – Estimated 1-g SAR (W/kg) for λ/2 Dipole Corresponding to the Threshold Powers in Table D-3


Distance (cm)


0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
0.3
0.17 0.23 0.27 0.29 0.29 0.30 0.28 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.17 0.14 0.12 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.03
0.45
0.16 0.26 0.33 0.37 0.39 0.38 0.38 0.34 0.28 0.23 0.18 0.16 0.13 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.04

0.835 0.14 0.30 0.41 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.37 0.30 0.24 0.20 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.11 0.10 0.11 0.11
z)
H
0.9
0.15 0.32 0.45 0.51 0.52 0.47 0.38 0.31 0.25 0.20 0.17 0.15 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.13 0.13
G
(
1.45
0.17 0.43 0.56 0.57 0.51 0.44 0.34 0.27 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.29 0.24 0.20 0.22
cy
1.8
0.21 0.50 0.56 0.53 0.46 0.39 0.30 0.26 0.25 0.27 0.30 0.33 0.34 0.27 0.24 0.28 0.26
en
u
1.9
0.21 0.48 0.56 0.51 0.44 0.37 0.29 0.26 0.25 0.28 0.31 0.34 0.33 0.26 0.25 0.28 0.25
r
eq
2.45
0.27 0.53 0.53 0.45 0.37 0.32 0.27 0.30 0.35 0.39 0.37 0.32 0.29 0.34 0.32 0.29 0.32
F
3
0.33 0.56 0.50 0.40 0.33 0.31 0.31 0.40 0.43 0.39 0.33 0.33 0.36 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.34
5.2
0.39 0.39 0.33 0.30 0.36 0.44 0.43 0.37 0.44 0.44 0.40 0.46 0.44 0.47 0.47 0.46 0.46
5.8
0.34 0.32 0.29 0.31 0.39 0.46 0.40 0.41 0.46 0.40 0.46 0.45 0.44 0.42 0.46 0.46 0.47


133

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Table D-5 – 1-g SAR of λ/2 Dipole at 1.0 W Input (Computed with NEC-4 using dipole specs from IEEE 1528 & IEC 62209-2)


Distance (cm)


0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0 10.0 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0
0.3
4.42 3.57
3.03
2.60 2.25 1.97 1.53 1.19 0.92 0.71 0.55 0.43 0.33 0.19 0.11 0.07 0.05
0.45
7.45 5.97
4.94
4.14 3.50 2.96 2.10 1.47 1.03 0.72 0.51 0.38 0.28 0.15 0.09 0.06 0.04

0.835
15.2 12.0
9.35
7.15 5.38 3.99 2.20 1.25 0.78 0.50 0.34 0.25 0.19 0.12 0.09 0.08 0.07
z)
H
0.9
18.0 14.0 10.73
8.02 5.88 4.26 2.25 1.29 0.77 0.50 0.35 0.25 0.20 0.13 0.10 0.09 0.07
G
(
1.45
40.7 29.0 18.67 11.42 6.95 4.36 2.00 1.08 0.68 0.49 0.39 0.33 0.30 0.22 0.13 0.09 0.07
cy
1.8
58.7 38.2 21.60 11.81 6.85 4.16 1.87 1.08 0.75 0.60 0.52 0.46 0.39 0.21 0.13 0.12 0.09
en
u
1.9
62.7 39.7 21.71 11.53 6.64 3.99 1.82 1.07 0.76 0.63 0.55 0.48 0.38 0.20 0.14 0.12 0.08
r
eq
2.45 100.6 53.0 23.98 11.74 6.32 3.85 1.95 1.35 1.12 0.93 0.69 0.48 0.36 0.26 0.18 0.12 0.10
F
3.0 143.8 61.8 24.75 11.42 6.28 4.05 2.41 1.91 1.49 0.98 0.65 0.51 0.46 0.29 0.20 0.15 0.11
5.2 262.6 62.3 21.69 11.68 8.52 7.17 3.95 2.15 1.75 1.24 0.88 0.77 0.60 0.39 0.27 0.20 0.15
5.8 240.8 54.4 20.38 12.23 9.73 7.92 3.62 2.42 1.85 1.19 1.02 0.77 0.61 0.38 0.27 0.20 0.15



134

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Figure D-1 – General Sequence for Determination of Procedure to Establish Compliance with

Exposure Limits for a Single RF Source

Evaluation Type
Y
Power
< 1 mW
?
“Blanket” Exempt –
N
No evaluation
required.
§ 1.1307(b)(1)
N
Y
ERP <
< 40 cm
Table 1
< 6 GHz
for R?
?
Y
N
N
> 0.5 cm?
“MPE” Exempt – No
evaluation
required.
Y
§ 1.1307(b)(1)(i)
N
N
Power &
Pass Lab
ERP <
proc.?
Pth?
Y
Y
“SAR” Exempt – No
evaluation
required.
§ 1.1307(b)(1)(ii)
Evaluation by
measurement or
computation
(Knowledge Database)
Laboratory test
N
Pass
evaluation
Evalua-
reduction
tion?
procedures
(Knowledge Database)
Y
Environmental
Submit
Assessment
demonstration of
§ 1.1307
compliance
FCC Review


135

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

APPENDIX E

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),1 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was
incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in ET Docket 03-137.2 The Commission
sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA.3 This
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

A.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order.

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.4 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
radiofrequency (RF) energy emitted by FCC-regulated transmitters, facilities and devices.5

The Report and Order amends Parts 1, 2 and 95 of our rules relating to the compliance of FCC-regulated
transmitters, facilities, and devices with the guidelines for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy
adopted by the Commission in l996 and 1997. Specifically we are making certain revisions in the rules that
we believe will result in more efficient, practical and consistent application of compliance procedures.

B.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA.

No public comments were filed in response to the IRFA in this proceeding. In addition, no comments were
submitted concerning small business issues.

C.

Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.

Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, the Commission is required to respond to any comments
filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and to provide a detailed
statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did
not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

D.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which Rules Will Apply.

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted.6 The RFA generally

1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601-612 has been amended by the Contract With America
Advancement Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
2 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in ET Docket 03-137 (Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rules Regarding
Human Exposure to Radio frequency Electromagnetic Fields), 18 FCC Rcd 13187 (2003).
3 See 5 U.S.C. § 604.
4 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4335.
5 See 47 CFR 1.1307(b).
6 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

136

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”7 In addition, the term “small business” has the
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.8 A “small business
concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.9

Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 29.6 million small businesses,
according to the SBA.10

Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our action may, over
time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at the
outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards.11 First, nationwide, there are a total of
approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the SBA.12 In addition, a “small organization”
is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.”13 Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small organizations.14
Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”15
Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the
United States.16 We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88, 506 entities may qualify as “small
governmental jurisdictions.”17 Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

7 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
8 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
9 15 U.S.C. § 632.
10 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,http://web.sba.gov/faqs">” http://web.sba.gov/faqs (accessed Jan. 2009).
11 See 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(3)–(6).
12 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” web.sba.gov/faqs (last visited May 6,2011;
figures are from 2009).
13 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
14 INDEPENDENT SECTOR, THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC & DESK REFERENCE (2010).
15 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
16 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES: 2011, Table 427 (2007)
17The 2007 U.S Census data for small governmental organizations indicate that there were 89, 476 “Local
Governments” in 2007. (U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 2011,
Table 428.) The criterion by which the size of such local governments is determined to be small is a population of
50,000. However, since the Census Bureau does not specifically apply that criterion, it cannot be determined with
precision how many of such local governmental organizations is small. Nonetheless, the inference seems reasonable
that substantial number of these governmental organizations has a population of less than 50, 000. To look at Table
428 in conjunction with a related set of data in Table 429 in the Census’s Statistical Abstract of the U.S., that
inference is further supported by the fact that in both Tables, many entities that may well be small are included in
the 89,476 local governmental organizations, e.g. county, municipal, township and town, school district and special
district entities. Measured by a criterion of a population of 50,000 many specific sub-entities in this category seem
more likely than larger county-level governmental organizations to have small populations. Accordingly, of the
(continued….)

137

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Experimental Radio Service (Other Than Broadcast).

The majority of experimental licenses are
issued to companies such as Motorola and Department of Defense contractors such as Northrop,
Lockheed and Martin Marietta. Businesses such as these may have as many as 200 licenses at one time.
The majority of these applications are from entities such as these. Given this fact, the remaining 30
percent of applications, we assume, for purposes of our evaluations and conclusions in this FRFA, will be
awarded to small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.

The Commission processes approximately 1,000 applications a year for experimental radio operations.
About half or 500 of these are renewals and the other half are for new licenses. We do not have adequate
information to predict precisely how many of these applications will be impacted by our rule revisions.
However, based on the above figures we estimate that as many as 300 of these applications could be from
small entities and potentially could be impacted.

International Broadcast Stations. Commission records show that there are 19 international high
frequency broadcast station authorizations. We do not request nor collect annual revenue information,
and are unable to estimate the number of international high frequency broadcast stations that would
constitute a small business under the SBA definition. Since all international broadcast stations operate
using relatively high power levels, it is likely that they could all be impacted by our rule revisions.

Satellite Telecommunications Providers

. Two economic census categories address the satellite
industry. The first category has a small business size standard of $15 million or less in average annual
receipts, under SBA rules.18 The second has a size standard of $25 million or less in annual receipts.19
The category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing
telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting
industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling
satellite telecommunications.”20 Census Bureau data for 2007 show that 512 Satellite
Telecommunications firms that operated for that entire year.21 Of this total, 464 firms had annual receipts
of under $10 million, and 18 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.22 Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that
might be affected by our actions.

The second category, i.e. “All Other Telecommunications” comprises “establishments primarily engaged
in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in
providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial
systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from,
satellite systems. Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet protocol (VoIP)
services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.”23 For this
(Continued from previous page)
89,746 small governmental organizations identified in the 2007 Census, the Commission estimates that a substantial
majority is small. 17 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
18 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517410.
19 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517919.
20 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, 517410 Satellite Telecommunications.
21 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&;-
_lang=en.
22 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&;-
_lang=en.
23 http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517919&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.

138

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

category, Census Bureau data for 2007 shows that there were a total of 2,383 firms that operated for the
entire year.24 Of this total, 2,347 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million and 12 firms had annual
receipts of $25 million to $49, 999,999.25 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
All Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our actions.

Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. There are approximately 4,303 earth station
authorizations, a portion of which are Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. We do not request
nor collect annual revenue information, and are unable to estimate the number of the earth stations that
would constitute a small business under the SBA definition. However, the majority of these stations
could be impacted by our revised rules.

Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations.

There are approximately 4,303 earth station
authorizations, a portion of which are Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. We do not
request nor collect annual revenue information, and are unable to estimate the number of fixed small
satellite transmit/receive earth stations that would constitute a small business under the SBA definition.
However, the majority of these stations could be impacted by our revised rules.

Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Systems

. These stations operate on a primary
basis, and frequency coordination with terrestrial microwave systems is not required. Thus, a single
"blanket" application may be filed for a specified number of small antennas and one or more hub stations.
There are 492 current VSAT System authorizations. We do not request nor collect annual revenue
information, and are unable to estimate the number of VSAT systems that would constitute a small
business under the SBA definition. However, it is expected that many of these stations could be impacted
by our revised rules.

Mobile Satellite Earth Stations.

There are 19 licensees. We do not request nor collect annual revenue
information, and are unable to estimate the number of mobile satellite earth stations that would constitute
a small business under the SBA definition. However, it is expected that many of these stations could be
impacted by our revised rules.

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). This industry comprises establishments
engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications
via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that
spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video
services.26 The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers. The size standard for that category is that a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees.27 Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to
be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.28 For this category, census data for 2007 show that there

24 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&;-
_lang=en.
25http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&;-
_lang=en.
26http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search"> http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search
27 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
28 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210. The now-superseded, pre-2007 C.F.R. citations were 13 C.F.R. §
121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).

139

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.29 Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or
fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or more.30 Thus under this category and the
associated small business size standard, , the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless
telecommunications carriers(except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our proposed
actions.31

Licenses Assigned by Auctions. Initially, we note that, as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the
number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track
subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are
implicated.

Paging Services. Neither the SBA nor the FCC has developed a definition applicable exclusively to
paging services. However, a variety of paging services is now categorized under Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). 32 This industry comprises establishments engaged in
operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that
spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video
services. Illustrative examples in the paging context include paging services, except satellite; two-way
paging communications carriers, except satellite; and radio paging services communications carriers. The
SBA has deemed a paging service in this category to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.33 For
this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.34
Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000
employees or more.35 Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, , the
Commission estimates that the majority of paging services in the category of wireless telecommunications
carriers(except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our actions.36

In addition, in the Paging Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted a size standard for “small
businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits.37

29 U.S. Census Bureau, Subject Series: Information, Table 5, “Establishment and Firm Size: Employment Size of
Firms for the United States: 2007 NAICS Code 517210” (issued Nov. 2010).
30 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of
1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “100 employees or more.”
31Shttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en">ee http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en
32 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except
Satellite)”;http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517210.HTM#N517210"> http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517210.HTM#N517210
33 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except
Satellite)”
34 U.S. Census Bureau, Subject Series: Information, Table 5, “Establishment and Firm Size: Employment Size of
Firms for the United States: 2007 NAICS Code 517210” (issued Nov. 2010).
35 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of
1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “100 employees or more.”
36Shttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en">ee http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en
37 Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems,
Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 2732, 2811-2812, paras. 178-181 (“Paging Second Report and Order”); see
also Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging
(continued….)

140

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

A small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.38 The SBA has approved this
definition.39 An initial auction of Metropolitan Economic Area (“MEA”) licenses was conducted in the
year 2000. Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were sold.40 Fifty-seven companies claiming small
business status won 440 licenses.41 A subsequent auction of MEA and Economic Area (“EA”) licenses
was held in the year 2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned, 5,323 were sold.42 One hundred thirty-two
companies claiming small business status purchased 3,724 licenses. A third auction, consisting of 8,874
licenses in each of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in all but three of the 51 MEAs, was held in 2003.
Seventy-seven bidders claiming small or very small business status won 2,093 licenses. 43 A fourth
auction of 9,603 lower and upper band paging licenses was held in the year 2010. 29 bidders claiming
small or very small business status won 3,016 licenses.

2.3 GHz Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation,
and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission defined “small business” for the wireless
communications services (“WCS”) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for
each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” as an entity with average gross revenues of
$15 million for each of the three preceding years.44 The SBA approved these definitions.45 The
Commission conducted an auction of geographic area licenses in the WCS service in 1997. In the
auction, seven bidders that qualified as very small business entities won 31 licenses, and one bidder that
qualified as a small business entity won a license.

1670-1675 MHz Services. This service can be used for fixed and mobile uses, except aeronautical
mobile.46 An auction for one license in the 1670-1675 MHz band was conducted in 2003. The
Commission defined a “small business” as an entity with attributable average annual gross revenues of
not more than $40 million for the preceding three years, which would thus be eligible for a 15 percent
discount on its winning bid for the 1670-1675 MHz band license. Further, the Commission defined a
“very small business” as an entity with attributable average annual gross revenues of not more than $15
million for the preceding three years, which would thus be eligible to receive a 25 percent discount on its
winning bid for the 1670-1675 MHz band license. The winning bidder was not a small entity.

(Continued from previous page)
Systems, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 10030, 10085-10088, ¶¶ 98-107
(1999).
38 Paging Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 2811, ¶ 179.
39 See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“WTB”), FCC (Dec. 2, 1998) (“Alvarez Letter 1998”).
40 See “929 and 931 MHz Paging Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 4858 (WTB 2000).
41 See id.
42 See “Lower and Upper Paging Band Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21821 (WTB 2002).
43 See “Lower and Upper Paging Bands Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 11154 (WTB 2003). The
current number of small or very small business entities that hold wireless licenses may differ significantly from the
number of such entities that won in spectrum auctions due to assignments and transfers of licenses in the secondary
market over time. In addition, some of the same small business entities may have won licenses in more than one
auction.
44 Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service (WCS), Report
and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10785, 10879, para. 194 (1997).
45 See Alvarez Letter 1998.
46 47 C.F.R. § 2.106; see generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.1–.70.

141

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Wireless Telephony

. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services, and
specialized mobile radio telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).47 Under the SBA small business
size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.48 Census data for 2007 shows that
there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.49 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees,
and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated small business
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. According to Trends in Telephone Service
data, 434 carriers reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony.50 Of these, an estimated 222
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 212 have more than 1,500 employees.51 Therefore, approximately
half of these entities can be considered small. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers
reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service,
Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services.52
Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.53
Consequently, the Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can be
considered small. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be
considered small.

Broadband Personal Communications Service. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The
broadband personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks
designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission initially
defined a “small business” for C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40
million or less in the three previous years.54 For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size
standard for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates,
has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.55 These small
business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA.56 No
small businesses within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in
Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that claimed small business status in the first two C-
Block auctions. A total of 93 bidders that claimed small and very small business status won
approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses in the first auction for the D, E, and F Blocks.57 On April
15, 1999, the Commission completed the re-auction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction

47 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
48 Id.
49 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009),
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.

50 Trends in Telephone Service, at tbl. 5.3.
51 Id.
52 See Trends in Telephone Service, at tbl. 5.3.
53 See id.
54 See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission’s Rules – Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the
Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap; Amendment of the Commission’s Cellular/PCS Cross-Ownership
Rule, WT Docket No. 96-59, GN Docket No. 90-314, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7850–52 ¶¶ 57–60
(1996) (“PCS Report and Order”); see also 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b).
55 See PCS Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 7852 ¶ 60.
56 See Alvarez Letter 1998.
57 See Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, Public Notice, Doc. No. 89838 (rel. Jan. 14, 1997).

142

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

No. 22.58 Of the 57 winning bidders in that auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277
licenses.

On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Block Broadband PCS
licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status.59
Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a
total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission
completed an auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of the 24 winning
bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business status and won 156 licenses.60 On May 21, 2007, the
Commission completed an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71.61 Of the
14 winning bidders in that auction, six claimed small business status and won 18 licenses.62 On August
20, 2008, the Commission completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS licenses
in Auction No. 78.63 Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband PCS licenses in that auction, six
claimed small business status and won 14 licenses.64

Advanced Wireless Services. In 2006, the Commission conducted its first auction of Advanced
Wireless Services licenses in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (“AWS-1”), designated as
Auction 66.65 For the AWS-1 bands, the Commission has defined a “small business” as an entity with
average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a “very small
business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15
million.66 In 2006, the Commission conducted its first auction of AWS-1 licenses.67 In that initial AWS-

58 See C, D, E, and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 6688 (WTB 1999). Before
Auction No. 22, the Commission established a very small standard for the C Block to match the standard used for F
Block. Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Installment Payment Financing for Personal
Communications Services (PCS) Licensees, WT Docket No. 97-82, Fourth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15743,
15768 ¶ 46 (1998).
59 See C and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd
2339 (2001).
60 See Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 58, Public Notice, 20
FCC Rcd 3703 (2005).
61 See Auction of Broadband PCS Spectrum Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 71,
Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 9247 (2007).
62 Id.
63 See Auction of AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 78, Public
Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 12749 (WTB 2008).
64 Id.
65 See Auction of Advanced Wireless Services Licenses Scheduled for June 29, 2006; Notice and Filing
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments and Other Procedures for Auction No. 66, AU Docket
No. 06-30, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 4562 (2006) (“Auction 66 Procedures Public Notice”);
66 See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, Report and Order, 18 FCC
Rcd 25,162, App. B (2003), modified by Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services In the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz
Bands, Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 14,058, App. C (2005).
67 See Auction of Advanced Wireless Services Licenses Scheduled for June 29, 2006; Notice and Filing
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments and Other Procedures for Auction No. 66, AU Docket
No. 06-30, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 4562 (2006) (“Auction 66 Procedures Public Notice”).

143

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

1 auction, 31 winning bidders identified themselves as very small businesses won 142 licenses.68
Twenty-six of the winning bidders identified themselves as small businesses and won 73 licenses.69 In a
subsequent 2008 auction, the Commission offered 35 AWS-1 licenses.70 Four winning bidders identified
themselves as very small businesses, and three of the winning bidders identifying themselves as a small
businesses won five AWS-1 licenses.71

Narrowband Personal Communications Services. In 1994, the Commission conducted two auctions of
Narrowband PCS licenses. For these auctions, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity
with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million.72 Through
these auctions, the Commission awarded a total of 41 licenses, 11 of which were obtained by four small
businesses.73 To ensure meaningful participation by small business entities in future auctions, the
Commission adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report
and Order.74 A “small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has
average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $40 million.75 A “very small
business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for
the three preceding years of not more than $15 million.76 The SBA has approved these small business
size standards.77 A third auction of Narrowband PCS licenses was conducted in 2001. In that auction,
five bidders won 317 (Metropolitan Trading Areas and nationwide) licenses.78 Three of the winning
bidders claimed status as a small or very small entity and won 311 licenses.

Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted criteria for defining three groups
of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
credits.79 The Commission defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and

68 See Auction of Advanced Wireless Services Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 66,
Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 10,521 (2006) (“Auction 66 Closing Public Notice”).
69 See id.
70 See AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Procedures Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 7499. Auction 78 also included an
auction of broadband PCS licenses.
71 See Auction of AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 78, Down
Payments Due September 9, 2008, FCC Forms 601 and 602 Due September 9, 2008, Final Payments Due
September 23, 2008, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 12,749 (2008).
72 Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding Narrowband PCS, Third
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 175, 196, para. 46
(1994).
73 See “Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of Ten Nationwide Narrowband PCS Licenses, Winning Bids
Total $617,006,674,” Public Notice, PNWL 94-004 (rel. Aug. 2, 1994); “Announcing the High Bidders in the
Auction of 30 Regional Narrowband PCS Licenses; Winning Bids Total $490,901,787,” Public Notice, PNWL 94-
27 (rel. Nov. 9, 1994).
74 Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services, Narrowband PCS,
Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 10456, 10476, para. 40
(2000) (“Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order”).
75 Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 10476, para. 40.
76 Id.
77 See Alvarez Letter 1998.
78 See “Narrowband PCS Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 18663 (WTB 2001).
79 See Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), Report and
Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1022 (2002) (“Channels 52-59 Report and Order”).

144

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three
years.80 A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.81
Additionally, the Lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small business status for
Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (“MSA/RSA”) licenses —“entrepreneur”— which is defined as an
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not
more than $3 million for the preceding three years.82 The SBA approved these small size standards.83 An
auction of 740 licenses was conducted in 2002 (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one
license in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)). Of the 740 licenses available for auction,
484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small
business, very small business, or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. 84 A second auction
commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and included 256 licenses.85 Seventeen winning
bidders claimed small or very small business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders
claimed entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses.86 In 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 5
licenses in the lower 700 MHz band (Auction 60). All three winning bidders claimed small business
status.

In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 MHz band in the 700 MHz Second
Report and Order.87 An auction of A, B and E block licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band was held in
2008.88 Twenty winning bidders claimed small business status (those with attributable average annual
gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years).
Thirty three winning bidders claimed very small business status (those with attributable average annual
gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years). In 2011, the Commission
conducted Auction 92, which offered 16 lower 700 MHz band licenses that had been made available in
Auction 73 but either remained unsold or were licenses on which a winning bidder defaulted. Two of the
seven winning bidders in Auction 92 claimed very small business status, winning a total of four licenses.


80 See Channels 52-59 Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1087-88, ¶ 172.
81 See id.
82 See id, 17 FCC Rcd at 1088, ¶ 173.
83 See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, WTB, FCC (Aug. 10, 1999)
(“Alvarez Letter 1999”).
84 See “Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 17272 (WTB 2002).
85 See Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes, Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 11873 (WTB 2003).
86 See id.
87 Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 06-150, Revision of the
Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-
102, Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephone, WT Docket No. 01-
309, Biennial Regulatory Review – Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various
Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 03-264, Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper700
MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 06-169,
Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, PS Docket No.
06-229, Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State, and Local
Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, Second Report and
Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289 (2007) (“700 MHz Second Report and Order”).
88 See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 4572 (WTB 2008).

145

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses

. In the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the Commission revised its
rules regarding Upper 700 MHz licenses.89 On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction
73 in which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for licensing: 12 Regional
Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block, and one nationwide license in the D Block.90 The
auction concluded on March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business status (those
with attributable average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three
years) and winning five licenses.

700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. In 2000, the Commission adopted the 700 MHz Guard Band Report
and Order, in which it established rules for the A and B block licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band,
including size standards for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining
their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits.91 A small business in this service is an
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding
$40 million for the preceding three years.92 Additionally, a very small business is an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million
for the preceding three years.93 SBA approval of these definitions is not required.94 An auction of these
licenses was conducted in 2000.95 Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were won by nine bidders.
Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz
Guard Band licenses was held in 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders.
One of these bidders was a small business that won a total of two licenses.96

Specialized Mobile Radio. The Commission adopted small business size standards for the purpose of
determining eligibility for bidding credits in auctions of Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) geographic
area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The Commission defined a “small business” as an
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding
$15 million for the preceding three years.97 The Commission defined a “very small business” as an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3
million for the preceding three years.98 The SBA has approved these small business size standards for
both the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR Service.99 The first 900 MHz SMR auction was completed in
1996. Sixty bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard

89 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289.
90 See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 4572 (WTB 2008).
91 See Service Rules for the 746-764 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, Second
Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299 (2000) (“700 MHz Guard Band Report and Order”).
92 See 700 MHz Guard Band Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 5343, para. 108.
93 See id.
94 See id., 15 FCC Rcd 5299, 5343, para. 108 n.246 (for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands, the
Commission is exempt from 15 U.S.C. § 632, which requires Federal agencies to obtain SBA approval before
adopting small business size standards).
95 See “700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 18026
(2000).
96 See “700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 4590
(WTB 2001).
97 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.810, 90.814(b), 90.912.
98 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.810, 90.814(b), 90.912.
99 See Alvarez Letter 1999.

146

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

won 263 licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. In 2004, the Commission held a second auction of 900
MHz SMR licenses and three winning bidders identifying themselves as very small businesses won 7
licenses.100 The auction of 800 MHz SMR licenses for the upper 200 channels was conducted in 1997.
Ten bidders claiming that they qualified as small or very small businesses under the $15 million size
standard won 38 licenses for the upper 200 channels.101 A second auction of 800 MHz SMR licenses was
conducted in 2002 and included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder claiming small business status won five
licenses.102

The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR licenses for the General Category channels was conducted in
2000. Eleven bidders who won 108 licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR
band qualified as small or very small businesses.103 In an auction completed in 2000, a total of 2,800
Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were awarded.104 Of the
22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small or very small business status and won 129 licenses. Thus,
combining all four auctions, 41 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band
claimed to be small businesses.

In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees and licensees with extended
implementation authorizations in the 800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide
800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor
how many of these providers have annual revenues not exceeding $15 million. One firm has over $15
million in revenues. In addition, we do not know how many of these firms have 1500 or fewer
employees.105 We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining existing extended
implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that small business size standard is approved
by the SBA.

220 MHz Radio Service – Phase I Licensees. The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II
licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515
such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized to operate in the 220
MHz band. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard for small entities
specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such
licensees that are small businesses, the Commission applies the small business size standard under the
SBA rules applicable. The SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees.106 For this service, the SBA uses the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite). Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that

100 See 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced,”
Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd. 3921 (WTB 2004).
101 See “Correction to Public Notice DA 96-586 ‘FCC Announces Winning Bidders in the Auction of 1020 Licenses
to Provide 900 MHz SMR in Major Trading Areas,’” Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 18367 (WTB 1996).
102 See “Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).
103 See “800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Service General Category (851-854 MHz) and Upper Band
(861-865 MHz) Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 17162 (2000).
104 See, “800 MHz SMR Service Lower 80 Channels Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice,
16 FCC Rcd 1736 (2000).
105 See generally 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
106 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210 (2007 NAICS). The now-superseded, pre-2007 C.F.R. citations were
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).

147

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.107 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees,
and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated small business
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

220 MHz Radio Service – Phase II Licensees. The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II
licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service licenses are assigned by auction, where mutually exclusive
applications are accepted. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted a small
business size standard for defining “small” and “very small” businesses for purposes of determining their
eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits.108 This small business standard indicates that a
“small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.109 A “very small business” is defined
as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that do
not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years.110 The SBA has approved these small size
standards.111 Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on and closed in 1998.112 In the first auction, 908
licenses were auctioned in three different-sized geographic areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional
Economic Area Group (EAG) Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of the 908 licenses
auctioned, 693 were sold.113 Thirty-nine small businesses won 373 licenses in the first 220 MHz auction.
A second auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses. Fourteen companies
claiming small business status won 158 licenses.114 A third auction included four licenses: 2 BEA
licenses and 2 EAG licenses in the 220 MHz Service. No small or very small business won any of these
licenses.115 In 2007, the Commission conducted a fourth auction of the 220 MHz licenses, designated as
Auction 72.116 Auction 72, which offered 94 Phase II 220 MHz Service licenses, concluded in 2007.117
In this auction, five winning bidders won a total of 76 licenses. Two winning bidders identified
themselves as very small businesses won 56 of the 76 licenses. One of the winning bidders that identified
themselves as a small business won 5 of the 76 licenses won.

107 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009),
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
108 Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide For the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the
Private Land Mobile Radio Service, Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70 ¶¶ 291-295 (1997).
109 Id. at 11068 ¶ 291.
110 Id.
111 See Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated January 6, 1998 (Alvarez to
Phythyon Letter 1998).
112 See generally 220 MHz Service Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 605 (WTB 1998).
113 See FCC Announces It is Prepared to Grant 654 Phase II 220 MHz Licenses After Final Payment is Made,
Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 1085 (WTB 1999).
114 See Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (WTB 1999).
115 See Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes, Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).
116 See “Auction of Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Scheduled for June 20, 2007, Notice and Filing
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments and Other Procedures for Auction 72, Public Notice, 22
FCC Rcd 3404 (2007).
117 See Auction of Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 72,
Down Payments due July 18, 2007, FCC Forms 601 and 602 due July 18, 2007, Final Payments due August 1,
2007, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period, Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 11573 (2007).

148

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Private Land Mobile Radio (“PLMR”). PLMR systems serve an essential role in a range of industrial,
business, land transportation, and public safety activities. These radios are used by companies of all sizes
operating in all U.S. business categories, and are often used in support of the licensee’s primary (non-
telecommunications) business operations. For the purpose of determining whether a licensee of a PLMR
system is a small business as defined by the SBA, we use the broad census category, Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This definition provides that a small entity is any such
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.118 The Commission does not require PLMR licensees to
disclose information about number of employees, so the Commission does not have information that
could be used to determine how many PLMR licensees constitute small entities under this definition. We
note that PLMR licensees generally use the licensed facilities in support of other business activities, and
therefore, it would also be helpful to assess PLMR licensees under the standards applied to the particular
industry subsector to which the licensee belongs.119

As of March 2010, there were 424,162 PLMR licensees operating 921,909 transmitters in the PLMR
bands below 512 MHz. We note that any entity engaged in a commercial activity is eligible to hold a
PLMR license, and that any revised rules in this context could therefore potentially impact small entities
covering a great variety of industries.

Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common carrier,120 private-operational fixed,121
and broadcast auxiliary radio services.122 They also include the Local Multipoint Distribution Service
(“LMDS”),123 the Digital Electronic Message Service (“DEMS”),124 and the 24 GHz Service,125 where
licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status.126 The Commission has
not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services. For purposes of this IRFA, the
Commission will use the SBA’s definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
satellite)—i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons is considered small.127 For the category of
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2007 shows that there were
1,383 firms that operated that year.128 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms
had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard,

118 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
119 See generally 13 C.F.R. § 121.201.
120 See 47 C.F.R. Part 101, Subparts C and I.
121 See id. Subparts C and H.
122 Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47 of the Commission’s Rules. See 47 C.F.R. Part
74. Available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network entities, broadcast auxiliary
microwave stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or between
two points such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio. The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which relay
signals from a remote location back to the studio.
123 See 47 C.F.R. Part 101, Subpart L.
124 See id. Subpart G.
125 See id.
126 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.533, 101.1017.
127 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
128 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009),
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
(continued….)

149

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

the majority of firms can be considered small. The Commission notes that the number of firms does not
necessarily track the number of licensees. The Commission estimates that virtually all of the Fixed
Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under the
SBA definition.

39 GHz Service. The Commission adopted small business size standards for 39 GHz licenses. A “small
business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million in the preceding three years.129 A “very small business” is
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
of not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.130 The SBA has approved these small
business size standards.131 In 2000, the Commission conducted an auction of 2,173 39 GHz licenses. A
total of 18 bidders who claimed small or very small business status won 849 licenses.

Local Multipoint Distribution Service. Local Multipoint Distribution Service (“LMDS”) is a fixed
broadband point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way video telecommunications.132
The Commission established a small business size standard for LMDS licenses as an entity that has
average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous years.133 An additional small
business size standard for “very small business” was added as an entity that, together with its affiliates,
has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.134 The SBA has
approved these small business size standards in the context of LMDS auctions.135 There were 93 winning
bidders that qualified as small entities in the LMDS auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business
bidders won approximately 277 A Block licenses and 387 B Block licenses. In 1999, the Commission re-
auctioned 161 licenses; there were 32 small and very small businesses winning that won 119 licenses.

218-219 MHz Service. The first auction of 218-219 MHz Service (previously referred to as the
Interactive and Video Data Service or IVDS) licenses resulted in 170 entities winning licenses for 594
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (“MSAs”).136 Of the 594 licenses, 557 were won by 167 entities qualifying
as a small business. For that auction, the Commission defined a small business as an entity that, together
with its affiliates, has no more than a $6 million net worth and, after federal income taxes (excluding any
carry over losses), has no more than $2 million in annual profits each year for the previous two years.137
In the 218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission revised its
(Continued from previous page)

129 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands, ET Docket
No. 95-183, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 18600 (1997).
130 Id.
131 See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Kathleen O’Brien Ham, Chief, Auctions and Industry
Analysis Division, WTB, FCC (Feb. 4, 1998); see Letter from Hector Barreto, Administrator, SBA, to Margaret
Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, WTB, FCC (Jan. 18, 2002).
132 Shttps://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=122&db=0004493&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2027888090&serialnum=1997260934&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F7F00C7D&referenceposition=12689&rs=WLW12.04">ee Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, 25, of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz
Frequency Band, Reallocate the 29.5-30.5 Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint
Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, CC Docket No. 92-297, Second Report and Order, Order on
Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 12 FCC Rcd 12545, 12689-90, para. 348 (1997)
(“LMDS Second Report and Order”).
133 Shttps://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=122&db=4493&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2027888090&serialnum=1997260934&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F7F00C7D&referenceposition=12689&rs=WLW12.04">ee LMDS Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12689-90, para. 348.
134 See id.
135 See Alvarez to Phythyon Letter 1998.
136 See “Interactive Video and Data Service (IVDS) Applications Accepted for Filing,” Public Notice, 9 FCC Rcd
6227 (1994).
137 Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding, Fourth Report and Order, 9
FCC Rcd 2330 (1994).

150

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

small business size standards for the 218-219 MHz Service and defined a small business as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and their affiliates,
has average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.138 The
Commission defined a “very small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or
entities that hold interests in such an entity and its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not
exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years.139 The SBA has approved these definitions.140

Location and Monitoring Service (“LMS”). Multilateration LMS systems use non-voice radio
techniques to determine the location and status of mobile radio units. For auctions of LMS licenses, the
Commission has defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with controlling interests and
affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million.141
A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has
average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $3 million.142 These
definitions have been approved by the SBA.143 An auction of LMS licenses was conducted in 1999. Of
the 528 licenses auctioned, 289 licenses were sold to four small businesses.

Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a size standard for small businesses
specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service.144 A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service
is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (“BETRS”).145 For purposes of its analysis of the Rural
Radiotelephone Service, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite),” which is 1,500 or fewer employees.146 Census
data for 2007 shows that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.147 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had
fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the
associated small business size standard, the majority of firms in the Rural Radiotelephone Service can be
considered small.

Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.148 The Commission has previously used the SBA’s small
business definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), i.e., an entity
employing no more than 1,500 persons.149 There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground

138 Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service,
Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 1497 (1999).
139 Id.
140 See Alvarez to Phythyon Letter 1998.
141 Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Adopt Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring
Systems, Second Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15182, 15192, ¶ 20 (1998) (“Automatic Vehicle Monitoring
Systems Second Report and Order”); see also 47 C.F.R. § 90.1103.
142 Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems Second Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 15192, para. 20; see also 47
C.F.R. § 90.1103.
143 See Alvarez Letter 1998.
144 The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.
145 BETRS is defined in sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757 and 22.759.
146 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
147 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009),
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
148 The service is defined in § 22.99 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.
149 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517210.

151

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Radiotelephone Service, and under that definition, we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small
entities under the SBA definition. For purposes of assigning Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses
through competitive bidding, the Commission has defined “small business” as an entity that, together
with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years
not exceeding $40 million.150 A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with
controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not
exceeding $15 million.151 These definitions were approved by the SBA.152 In 2006, the Commission
completed an auction of nationwide commercial Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 800
MHz band (Auction 65). The auction closed with two winning bidders winning two Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Services licenses. Neither of the winning bidders claimed small business status.

Aviation and Marine Radio Services. Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio services use a
very high frequency (“VHF”) marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency position-
indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency locator transmitter. The Commission has not
developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to these small businesses. For purposes
of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite),” which is 1,500 or fewer employees.153 Census data for
2007 shows that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.154 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than
100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated
small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on several UHF television broadcast channels
that are not used for television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of Mexico.155
There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this service. The Commission is unable to estimate at
this time the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small business size
standard for the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under that
standard.156 Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees.157 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.158 Of
those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus

150 Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission’s Rules to Benefit the Consumers of Air-Ground Telecommunications
Services, Biennial Regulatory Review – Amendment of Parts 1, 22, and 90 of the Commission’s Rules, Amendment
of Parts 1 and 22 of the Commission’s Rules to Adopt Competitive Bidding Rules for Commercial and General
Aviation Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, WT Docket Nos. 03-103 and 05-42, Order on Reconsideration and
Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 19663, ¶¶ 28-42 (2005).
151 Id.
152 See Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, SBA, to Gary D. Michaels, Deputy Chief, Auctions and
Spectrum Access Division, WTB, FCC (Sept. 19, 2005).
153 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
154 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009),
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
155 This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the Commission’s Rules. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.1001-22.1037.
156 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
157 Id.
158 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009),
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.

152

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small.

Multiple Address Systems (“MAS”)

. Entities using MAS spectrum, in general, fall into two categories:
(1) those using the spectrum for profit-based uses, and (2) those using the spectrum for private internal
uses. The Commission defines a small business for MAS licenses as an entity that has average gross
revenues of less than $15 million in the preceding three years.159 A very small business is defined as an
entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $3 million for the
preceding three years.160 The SBA has approved these definitions.161 The majority of these entities will
most likely be licensed in bands where the Commission has implemented a geographic area licensing
approach that would require the use of competitive bidding procedures to resolve mutually exclusive
applications. The Commission’s licensing database indicates that, as of March 5, 2010, there were over
11,500 MAS station authorizations. In 2001, an auction of 5,104 MAS licenses in 176 EAs was
conducted.162 Seven winning bidders claimed status as small or very small businesses and won 611
licenses. In 2005, the Commission completed an auction (Auction 59) of 4,226 MAS licenses in the
Fixed Microwave Services from the 928/959 and 932/941 MHz bands. Twenty-six winning bidders won
a total of 2,323 licenses. Of the 26 winning bidders in this auction, five claimed small business status and
won 1,891 licenses.

With respect to entities that use, or seek to use, MAS spectrum to accommodate internal communications
needs, we note that MAS serves an essential role in a range of industrial, safety, business, and land
transportation activities. MAS radios are used by companies of all sizes, operating in virtually all U.S.
business categories, and by all types of public safety entities. For the majority of private internal users,
the small business size standard developed by the SBA would be more appropriate. The applicable size
standard in this instance appears to be that of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).
This definition provides that a small entity is any such entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.163
The Commission’s licensing database indicates that, as of January 20, 1999, of the 8,670 total MAS
station authorizations, 8,410 authorizations were for private radio service, and of these, 1,433 were for
private land mobile radio service.

1.4 GHz Band Licensees. The Commission conducted an auction of 64 1.4 GHz band licenses in the
paired 1392-1395 MHz and 1432-1435 MHz bands, and in the unpaired 1390-1392 MHz band in 2007.164
For these licenses, the Commission defined “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates
and controlling interests, had average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three
years, and a “very small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests,
has had average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.165
Neither of the two winning bidders claimed small business status.166

159 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
11956, 12008, ¶ 123 (2000).
160 Id.
161See Alvarez Letter 1999.
162 See “Multiple Address Systems Spectrum Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21011 (2001).
163 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
164 See “Auction of 1.4 GHz Band Licenses Scheduled for February 7, 2007,” Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 12393
(WTB 2006); “Auction of 1.4 GHz Band Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 69,” Public
Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 4714 (2007) (“Auction No. 69 Closing PN”).
165 Auction No. 69 Closing PN, Attachment C.
166 See Auction No. 69 Closing PN.

153

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Incumbent 24 GHz Licensees. This analysis may affect incumbent licensees who were relocated to the
24 GHz band from the 18 GHz band, and applicants who wish to provide services in the 24 GHz band.
For this service, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite),” which is 1,500 or fewer employees.167 To gauge small
business prevalence for these cable services we must, however, use the most current census data. Census
data for 2007 shows that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.168 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had
fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the
associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. The Commission
notes that the Census’ use of the classifications “firms” does not track the number of “licenses”. The
Commission believes that there are only two licensees in the 24 GHz band that were relocated from the 18
GHz band, Teligent169 and TRW, Inc. It is our understanding that Teligent and its related companies have
less than 1,500 employees, though this may change in the future. TRW is not a small entity. Thus, only
one incumbent licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small business entity.

Future 24 GHz Licensees. With respect to new applicants for licenses in the 24 GHz band, for the
purpose of determining eligibility for bidding credits, the Commission established three small business
definitions. An “entrepreneur” is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and
affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding $40 million.170
A “small business” is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has
average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding $15 million.171 A “very small
business” in the 24 GHz band is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates,
has average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years.172 The SBA has
approved these small business size standards.173 In a 2004 auction of 24 GHz licenses, three winning
bidders won seven licenses.174 Two of the winning bidders were very small businesses that won five
licenses.

Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Broadband Radio Service systems,
previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (“MDS”) and Multichannel Multipoint
Distribution Service (“MMDS”) systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video programming to
subscribers and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the

167 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
168 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009),
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.

169 Teligent acquired the DEMS licenses of FirstMark, the only licensee other than TRW in the 24 GHz band whose
license has been modified to require relocation to the 24 GHz band.
170 Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commission’s Rules To License Fixed Services at 24 GHz, Report
and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16934, 16967 ¶ 77 (2000) (“24 GHz Report and Order”); see also 47 C.F.R.
§ 101.538(a)(3).
17124 GHz Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16967 ¶ 77 ; see also 47 C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(2).
172 24 GHz Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16967 ¶ 77; see also 47 C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(1).
173 See Letter to Margaret W. Wiener, Deputy Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Gary M. Jackson, Assistant Administrator, SBA (July 28, 2000).
174 Auction of 24 GHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 56, Down
Payments Due August 16, 2004, Final Payments Due August 30, 2004, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period, Public
Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 14738 (2004).

154

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Broadband Radio Service (“BRS”) and Educational Broadband Service (“EBS”) (previously referred to as
the Instructional Television Fixed Service (“ITFS”).175 In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the
Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross
revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three years.176 The BRS auctions resulted in 67
successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (“BTAs”). Of the 67
auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations
authorized prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction
winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA
authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities.177
After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not
already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as
small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission’s rules. In 2009, the Commission conducted
Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas.178 The Commission offered three levels of bidding
credits: (i) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not
exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (small business) will receive a 15 percent discount on its
winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not
exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) will receive a 25 percent discount
on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3
million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) will receive a 35 percent discount on its winning
bid.179 Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses.180 Of the ten winning bidders, two
bidders that claimed small business status won 4 licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business
status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.

In addition, the SBA’s Cable Television Distribution Services small business size standard is applicable
to EBS. There are presently 2,032 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational
institutions. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities.181 Thus, we estimate
that at least 1,932 licensees are small businesses. Since 2007, Cable Television Distribution Services
have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers;
that category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease

175 Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint
Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 94-131, PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 10
FCC Rcd 9589, 9593 ¶ 7 (1995).
176 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).
177 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of
Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). For these pre-auction licenses, the
applicable standard is SBA’s small business size standard of 1500 or fewer employees.
178 Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Licenses, Scheduled for October 27, 2009, Notice and Filing
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 86, Public Notice, 24
FCC Rcd 8277 (2009).
179 Id. at 8296.
180 Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 86, Down
Payments Due November 23, 2009, Final Payments Due December 8, 2009, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period,
Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13572 (2009).
181 The term “small entity” within SBREFA applies to small organizations (nonprofits) and to small governmental
jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with populations of
less than 50,000). 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4)–(6). We do not collect annual revenue data on EBS licensees.

155

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.”182 For
these services, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite),” which is 1,500 or fewer employees.183 To gauge small
business prevalence for these cable services we must, however, use the most current census data.
According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 955 firms in this previous category that
operated for the entire year.184 Of this total, 939 firms employed 999 or fewer employees, and 16 firms
employed 1,000 employees or more.185 Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small.

Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged
in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting studios
and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.”186 The SBA has created
the following small business size standard for Television Broadcasting firms: those having $14 million or
less in annual receipts.187 The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television
stations to be 1,387.188 In addition, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Advisory Services,
LLC’s Media Access Pro Television Database on March 28, 2012, about 950 of an estimated 1,300
commercial television stations (or approximately 73 percent) had revenues of $14 million or less.189 We
therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities.

We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above
definition, business (control) affiliations190 must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates
the number of small entities that might be affected by our action because the revenue figure on which it is
based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the
definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at
this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is
dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may
apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is
therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.


182 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, 517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers, (partial definition),
www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.
183 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
184 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 5, Employment Size of Firms
for the United States: 2007, NAICS code 5171102 (issued November 2010).
185 Id.
186 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “515120 Television Broadcasting” (partial definition);
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND515120.HTM#N515120">http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND515120.HTM#N515120.
187 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 515120 (updated for inflation in 2010).
188 See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2011,” dated January 6, 2012;
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf">http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311837A1.pdf.
189 We recognize that BIA’s estimate differs slightly from the FCC total given supra.
190 “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other
or a third party or parties controls or has to power to control both.” 13 C.F.R. § 21.103(a)(1).

156

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE)
television stations to be 396.191 These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small
entities.192

In addition, there are also 2,528 low power television stations, including Class A stations (LPTV).193
Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under
the above SBA small business size standard.

Radio Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in
broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio, from
an affiliated network, or from external sources.”194 The SBA has established a small business size
standard for this category, which is: such firms having $7 million or less in annual receipts.195 According
to Commission staff review of BIA Advisory Services, LLC’s Media Access Pro Radio Database on
March 28, 2012, about 10,759 (97%) of 11,102 commercial radio stations had revenues of $7 million or
less. Therefore, the majority of such entities are small entities.

We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above size
standard, business affiliations must be included.196 In addition, to be determined to be a “small business,”
the entity may not be dominant in its field of operation.197 We note that it is difficult at times to assess
these criteria in the context of media entities, and our estimate of small businesses may therefore be over-
inclusive.

Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and Other Program Distribution Services. This service involves a
variety of transmitters, generally used to relay broadcast programming to the public (through translator
and booster stations) or within the program distribution chain (from a remote news gathering unit back to
the station). The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to broadcast
auxiliary licensees. The applicable definitions of small entities are those, noted previously, under the
SBA rules applicable to radio broadcasting stations and television broadcasting stations.198

The Commission estimates that there are approximately 6,099 FM translators and boosters.199 The
Commission does not collect financial information on any broadcast facility, and the Department of
Commerce does not collect financial information on these auxiliary broadcast facilities. We believe that

191 See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2011,” dated January 6, 2012;
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf">http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf.
192 See generally 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4), (6).
193 See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2011,” dated January 6, 2012;
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf">http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf.
194 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “515112 Radio Stations”;
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND515112.HTM#N515112">http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND515112.HTM#N515112.
195 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 515112 (updated for inflation in 2010).
196 “Concerns and entities are affiliates of each other when one controls or has the power to control the other, or a
third party or parties controls or has the power to control both. It does not matter whether control is exercised, so
long as the power to control exists.” 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(a)(1) (an SBA regulation).
197 13 C.F.R. § 121.102(b) (an SBA regulation).
198 13 C.F.R. 121.201, NAICS codes 515112 and 515120.
199 See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2011,” dated January 6, 2012;
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf">http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf.

157

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

most, if not all, of these auxiliary facilities could be classified as small businesses by themselves. We
also recognize that most commercial translators and boosters are owned by a parent station which, in
some cases, would be covered by the revenue definition of small business entity discussed above. These
stations would likely have annual revenues that exceed the SBA maximum to be designated as a small
business ($7.0 million for a radio station or $14.0 million for a TV station). Furthermore, they do not
meet the Small Business Act's definition of a "small business concern" because they are not
independently owned and operated. 200

Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service. MVDDS is a terrestrial fixed microwave service
operating in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. The Commission adopted criteria for defining three groups of small
businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits. It
defines a very small business as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $3 million
for the preceding three years; a small business as an entity with average annual gross revenues not
exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years; and an entrepreneur as an entity with average annual
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.201 These definitions were
approved by the SBA.202 On January 27, 2004, the Commission completed an auction of 214 MVDDS
licenses (Auction No. 53). In this auction, ten winning bidders won a total of 192 MVDDS licenses.203
Eight of the ten winning bidders claimed small business status and won 144 of the licenses. The
Commission also held an auction of MVDDS licenses on December 7, 2005 (Auction 63). Of the three
winning bidders who won 22 licenses, two winning bidders, winning 21 of the licenses, claimed small
business status.204

Amateur Radio Service. These licensees are held by individuals in a noncommercial capacity; these
licensees are not small entities.

Personal Radio Services. Personal radio services provide short-range, low power radio for personal
communications, radio signaling, and business communications not provided for in other services. The
Personal Radio Services include spectrum licensed under Part 95 of our rules.205 These services include
Citizen Band Radio Service (“CB”), General Mobile Radio Service (“GMRS”), Radio Control Radio
Service (“R/C”), Family Radio Service (“FRS”), Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (“WMTS”),
Medical Implant Communications Service (“MICS”), Low Power Radio Service (“LPRS”), and Multi-
Use Radio Service (“MURS”).206 There are a variety of methods used to license the spectrum in these

200 See 15 U.S.C. § 632.
201 Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-
Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency Range; Amendment of the Commission’s
Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite Licenses and
their Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC Broadband Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to
provide A Fixed Service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 98-206, Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614, 9711, ¶ 252 (2002).
202 See Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, to Margaret W. Wiener,
Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, WTB, FCC (Feb.13, 2002).
203 See “Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 1834
(2004).
204 See “Auction of Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced
for Auction No. 63,” Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 19807 (2005).
205 47 C.F.R. part 90.
206 The Citizens Band Radio Service, General Mobile Radio Service, Radio Control Radio Service, Family Radio
Service, Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, Medical Implant Communications Service, Low Power Radio
Service, and Multi-Use Radio Service are governed by subpart D, subpart A, subpart C, subpart B, subpart H,
(continued….)

158

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

rule parts, from licensing by rule, to conditioning operation on successful completion of a required test, to
site-based licensing, to geographic area licensing. Under the RFA, the Commission is required to make a
determination of which small entities are directly affected by the rules being proposed. Since all such
entities are wireless, we apply the definition of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),
pursuant to which a small entity is defined as employing 1,500 or fewer persons.207 Many of the licensees
in these services are individuals, and thus are not small entities. In addition, due to the mostly unlicensed
and shared nature of the spectrum utilized in many of these services, the Commission lacks direct
information upon which to base an estimation of the number of small entities under an SBA definition
that might be directly affected by our action.

Public Safety Radio Services. Public Safety radio services include police, fire, local government,
forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical services.208 There are a total of
approximately 127,540 licensees in these services. Governmental entities209 as well as private businesses
comprise the licensees for these services. All governmental entities with populations of less than 50,000
fall within the definition of a small entity.210

IMTS Resale Carriers

. Providers of IMTS resale services are common carriers that purchase IMTS from
other carriers and resell it to their own customers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees.211 Census data for 2007 show that 1,523 firms provided resale services
during that year. Of that number, 1,522 operated with fewer than 1000 employees and one operated with
more than 1,000.212 Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority
of these local resellers can be considered small entities. According to Commission data, 213 carriers have
reported that they are engaged in the provision of local resale services.213 Of these, an estimated 211 have
(Continued from previous page)
subpart I, subpart G, and subpart J, respectively, of part 95 of the Commission’s rules. See generallyhttp://web2.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?DB=1000547&DocName=47CFRS95%2E401&FindType=L&AP=&RS=WLW2.86&VR=2.0&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw&FN=_top"> 47 C.F.R. part
95.
207 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 517210.
208 With the exception of the special emergency service, these services are governed by subpart B of part 90 of the
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.15-90.27. The police service includes approximately 27,000 licensees that
serve state, county, and municipal enforcement through telephony (voice), telegraphy (code) and teletype and
facsimile (printed material). The fire radio service includes approximately 23,000 licensees comprised of private
volunteer or professional fire companies as well as units under governmental control. The local government service
is presently comprised of approximately 41,000 licensees that are state, county, or municipal entities that use the
radio for official purposes not covered by other public safety services. There are approximately 7,000 licensees
within the forestry service which is comprised of licensees from state departments of conservation and private forest
organizations who set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground crews. The
approximately 9,000 state and local governments are licensed for highway maintenance service to provide
emergency and routine communications to aid other public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular
traffic. The approximately 1,000 licensees in the Emergency Medical Radio Service (“EMRS”) use the 39 channels
allocated to this service for emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of emergency
medical treatment.http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=47CFRS90.15&FindType=L"> 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.15-90.27. The approximately 20,000 licensees in the special emergency service
include medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, handicapped persons, disaster relief organizations,
school buses, beach patrols, establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities, and emergency
repair of public communications facilities.http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=47CFRS90.33&FindType=L"> 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.33-90.55.
209 47 C.F.R. § 1.1162.
210 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
211 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
212 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=800&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&;-
_lang=en.
213 See Trends in Telephone Service, at tbl. 5.3.

159

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees.214 Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of IMTS resellers are small entities that may be affected by our action.

Wireless Carriers and Service Providers

. Included among the providers of IMTS resale are a number
of wireless carriers that also provide wireless telephony services domestically. The Commission
classifies these entities as providers of Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS). At present, most, if
not all, providers of CMRS that offer IMTS provide such service by purchasing IMTS from other carriers
to resell it to their customers. The Commission has not developed a size standard specifically for CMRS
providers that offer resale IMTS. Such entities would fall within the larger category of wireless carriers
and service providers. For those services subject to auctions, the Commission notes that, as a general
matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not
necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not
generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust
enrichment issues are implicated.

D.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

The amendments being made in this Order do not change reporting requirements but may require additional
training consistent with industry RF safety program standards regarding compliance with our RF exposure
limits for certain transmitting facilities, such as broadcast sites, some wireless base stations and some
antennas at multiple transmitter sites Also, we are clarifying that in order for the occupational/controlled
SAR or MPE limits to be used in evaluating compliance for a portable or mobile device, certain conditions
must be met that may include placing a visual advisory such as a label on a device that provides a user with
specific information on RF exposure. We are also requiring a sample of the advisory and instructional
material be filed with the Commission along with the application for equipment authorization.

E.

Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant
Alternatives Considered

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.215

F.

Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rule

The Commission will send a copy of the Order, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress
pursuant to the SBREFA.216 In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Order, including the
FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Order and the FRFA (or
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.217

214 Id.
215 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).
216 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a) (1) (A).



160

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

APPENDIX F

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),1 the Commission has prepared this Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Further Notice). Written
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and
must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided in paragraph 254 in this Further Notice. The
Commission will send a copy of this Further Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).2 In addition, the Further Notice and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.3

A.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules.

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.4 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
radiofrequency (RF) energy emitted by FCC-regulated transmitters, facilities and devices.5

The Notice proposes to amend Parts 1, 2, 15, 24, 25, 95 and 97 of our rules relating to the compliance of
FCC-regulated transmitters, facilities, and devices with the guidelines for human exposure to radiofrequency
(RF) energy adopted by the Commission in l996 and 1997. Specifically we are proposing to make certain
revisions in our rules that we believe will result in more efficient, practical and consistent application of
compliance procedures.

B.

Legal Basis.

The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303(r), 307, 308, 309, 332(a)(1),
332(c)(7)(B)(iv), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i),
154(j), 301, 303(r), 307, 308, 309, 332(a)(1), 332(c)(7)(B)(iv), 403; the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq.; Section 704(b) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L.
No. 104-104; and Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553.

C.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed Rules
Will Apply.

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of
small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted.6 The RFA generally
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small

1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601 - 612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2 See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
3 Id.
4 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4335.
5 See 47 CFR 1.1307(b).
6 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

161

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”7 In addition, the term “small business” has the
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.8 A “small business
concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.9

Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 29.6 million small businesses,
according to the SBA.10

Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our action may, over
time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at the
outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards.11 First, nationwide, there are a total of
approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the SBA.12 In addition, a “small organization”
is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.”13 Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small organizations.14
Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”15
Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the
United States.16 We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88, 506 entities may qualify as “small
governmental jurisdictions.”17 Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.

7 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
8 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
9 15 U.S.C. § 632.
10 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,”http://web.sba.gov/faqs"> http://web.sba.gov/faqs (accessed Jan. 2009).
11 See 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(3)–(6).
12 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” web.sba.gov/faqs (last visited May 6,2011;
figures are from 2009).
13 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
14 INDEPENDENT SECTOR, THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC & DESK REFERENCE (2010).
15 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
16 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES: 2011, Table 427 (2007)
17The 2007 U.S Census data for small governmental organizations indicate that there were 89, 476 “Local
Governments” in 2007. (U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 2011,
Table 428.) The criterion by which the size of such local governments is determined to be small is a population of
50,000. However, since the Census Bureau does not specifically apply that criterion, it cannot be determined with
precision how many of such local governmental organizations is small. Nonetheless, the inference seems reasonable
that substantial number of these governmental organizations has a population of less than 50, 000. To look at Table
428 in conjunction with a related set of data in Table 429 in the Census’s Statistical Abstract of the U.S., that
inference is further supported by the fact that in both Tables, many entities that may well be small are included in
the 89,476 local governmental organizations, e.g. county, municipal, township and town, school district and special
district entities. Measured by a criterion of a population of 50,000 many specific sub-entities in this category seem
more likely than larger county-level governmental organizations to have small populations. Accordingly, of the
89,746 small governmental organizations identified in the 2007 Census, the Commission estimates that a substantial
majority is small. 17 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

162

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Experimental Radio Service (Other Than Broadcast).

The majority of experimental licenses are
issued to companies such as Motorola and Department of Defense contractors such as Northrop,
Lockheed and Martin Marietta. Businesses such as these may have as many as 200 licenses at one time.
The majority of these applications are from entities such as these. Given this fact, the remaining 30
percent of applications, we assume, for purposes of our evaluations and conclusions in this FRFA, will be
awarded to small entities, as that term is defined by the SBA.

The Commission processes approximately 1,000 applications a year for experimental radio operations.
About half or 500 of these are renewals and the other half are for new licenses. We do not have adequate
information to predict precisely how many of these applications will be impacted by our rule revisions.
However, based on the above figures we estimate that as many as 300 of these applications could be from
small entities and potentially could be impacted.

International Broadcast Stations. Commission records show that there are 19 international high
frequency broadcast station authorizations. We do not request nor collect annual revenue information,
and are unable to estimate the number of international high frequency broadcast stations that would
constitute a small business under the SBA definition. Since all international broadcast stations operate
using relatively high power levels, it is likely that they could all be impacted by our proposed rule
revisions.

Satellite Telecommunications Providers

. Two economic census categories address the satellite
industry. The first category has a small business size standard of $15 million or less in average annual
receipts, under SBA rules.18 The second has a size standard of $25 million or less in annual receipts.19
The category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing
telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting
industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling
satellite telecommunications.”20 Census Bureau data for 2007 show that 512 Satellite
Telecommunications firms that operated for that entire year.21 Of this total, 464 firms had annual receipts
of under $10 million, and 18 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.22 Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite Telecommunications firms are small entities that
might be affected by our proposals.

The second category, i.e. “All Other Telecommunications” comprises “establishments primarily engaged
in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in
providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial
systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from,
satellite systems. Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet protocol (VoIP)
services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.”23 For this
category, Census Bureau data for 2007 shows that there were a total of 2,383 firms that operated for the

18 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517410.
19 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517919.
20 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, 517410 Satellite Telecommunications.
21 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&;-
_lang=en.
22 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&;-
_lang=en.
23 http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517919&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.

163

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

entire year.24 Of this total, 2,347 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million and 12 firms had annual
receipts of $25 million to $49, 999,999.25 Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of
All Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by our action.

Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. There are approximately 4,303 earth station
authorizations, a portion of which are Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. We do not request
nor collect annual revenue information, and are unable to estimate the number of the earth stations that
would constitute a small business under the SBA definition. However, the majority of these stations
could be impacted by our proposed rules.

Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations.

There are approximately 4,303 earth station
authorizations, a portion of which are Fixed Satellite Small Transmit/Receive Earth Stations. We do not
request nor collect annual revenue information, and are unable to estimate the number of fixed small
satellite transmit/receive earth stations that would constitute a small business under the SBA definition.
However, the majority of these stations could be impacted by our proposed rules.

Fixed Satellite Very Small Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Systems

. These stations operate on a primary
basis, and frequency coordination with terrestrial microwave systems is not required. Thus, a single
"blanket" application may be filed for a specified number of small antennas and one or more hub stations.
There are 492 current VSAT System authorizations. We do not request nor collect annual revenue
information, and are unable to estimate the number of VSAT systems that would constitute a small
business under the SBA definition. However, it is expected that many of these stations could be impacted
by our proposed rules.

Mobile Satellite Earth Stations.

There are 19 licensees. We do not request nor collect annual revenue
information, and are unable to estimate the number of mobile satellite earth stations that would constitute
a small business under the SBA definition. However, it is expected that many of these stations could be
impacted by our proposed rules.

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). This industry comprises establishments
engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications
via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that
spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video
services.26 The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers. The size standard for that category is that a business is small if it has 1,500
or fewer employees.27 Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to
be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.28 For this category, census data for 2007 show that there
were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.29 Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or

24 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&;-
_lang=en.
25http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&;-
_lang=en.
26http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search"> http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search
27 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
28 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210. The now-superseded, pre-2007 C.F.R. citations were 13 C.F.R. §
121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).
29 U.S. Census Bureau, Subject Series: Information, Table 5, “Establishment and Firm Size: Employment Size of
Firms for the United States: 2007 NAICS Code 517210” (issued Nov. 2010).

164

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or more.30 Thus under this category and the
associated small business size standard, , the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless
telecommunications carriers(except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our proposed
action.31

Licenses Assigned by Auctions. Initially, we note that, as a general matter, the number of winning
bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the
number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track
subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are
implicated.

Paging Services. Neither the SBA nor the FCC has developed a definition applicable exclusively to
paging services. However, a variety of paging services is now categorized under Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). 32 This industry comprises establishments engaged in
operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that
spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video
services. Illustrative examples in the paging context include paging services, except satellite; two-way
paging communications carriers, except satellite; and radio paging services communications carriers. The
SBA has deemed a paging service in this category to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.33 For
this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.34
Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000
employees or more.35 Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, , the
Commission estimates that the majority of paging services in the category of wireless telecommunications
carriers(except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our proposed action.36
In addition, in the Paging Second Report and Order, the Commission adopted a size standard for “small
businesses” for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits.37
A small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross

30 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of
1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “100 employees or more.”
31Shttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en">ee http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en
32 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except
Satellite)”;http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517210.HTM#N517210"> http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517210.HTM#N517210
33 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except
Satellite)”
34 U.S. Census Bureau, Subject Series: Information, Table 5, “Establishment and Firm Size: Employment Size of
Firms for the United States: 2007 NAICS Code 517210” (issued Nov. 2010).
35 Id. Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of
1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “100 employees or more.”
36Shttp://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en">ee http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en
37 Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems,
Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 2732, 2811-2812, paras. 178-181 (“Paging Second Report and Order”); see
also Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging
Systems, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 10030, 10085-10088, ¶¶ 98-107
(1999).

165

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.38 The SBA has approved this
definition.39 An initial auction of Metropolitan Economic Area (“MEA”) licenses was conducted in the
year 2000. Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were sold.40 Fifty-seven companies claiming small
business status won 440 licenses.41 A subsequent auction of MEA and Economic Area (“EA”) licenses
was held in the year 2001. Of the 15,514 licenses auctioned, 5,323 were sold.42 One hundred thirty-two
companies claiming small business status purchased 3,724 licenses. A third auction, consisting of 8,874
licenses in each of 175 EAs and 1,328 licenses in all but three of the 51 MEAs, was held in 2003.
Seventy-seven bidders claiming small or very small business status won 2,093 licenses. 43 A fourth
auction of 9,603 lower and upper band paging licenses was held in the year 2010. 29 bidders claiming
small or very small business status won 3,016 licenses.

2.3 GHz Wireless Communications Services. This service can be used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation,
and digital audio broadcasting satellite uses. The Commission defined “small business” for the wireless
communications services (“WCS”) auction as an entity with average gross revenues of $40 million for
each of the three preceding years, and a “very small business” as an entity with average gross revenues of
$15 million for each of the three preceding years.44 The SBA approved these definitions.45 The
Commission conducted an auction of geographic area licenses in the WCS service in 1997. In the
auction, seven bidders that qualified as very small business entities won 31 licenses, and one bidder that
qualified as a small business entity won a license.

1670-1675 MHz Services. This service can be used for fixed and mobile uses, except aeronautical
mobile.46 An auction for one license in the 1670-1675 MHz band was conducted in 2003. The
Commission defined a “small business” as an entity with attributable average annual gross revenues of
not more than $40 million for the preceding three years, which would thus be eligible for a 15 percent
discount on its winning bid for the 1670-1675 MHz band license. Further, the Commission defined a
“very small business” as an entity with attributable average annual gross revenues of not more than $15
million for the preceding three years, which would thus be eligible to receive a 25 percent discount on its
winning bid for the 1670-1675 MHz band license. The winning bidder was not a small entity.

Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular, personal communications services, and
specialized mobile radio telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business size

38 Paging Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 2811, ¶ 179.
39 See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Amy Zoslov, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (“WTB”), FCC (Dec. 2, 1998) (“Alvarez Letter 1998”).
40 See “929 and 931 MHz Paging Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 4858 (WTB 2000).
41 See id.
42 See “Lower and Upper Paging Band Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21821 (WTB 2002).
43 See “Lower and Upper Paging Bands Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 11154 (WTB 2003). The
current number of small or very small business entities that hold wireless licenses may differ significantly from the
number of such entities that won in spectrum auctions due to assignments and transfers of licenses in the secondary
market over time. In addition, some of the same small business entities may have won licenses in more than one
auction.
44 Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service (WCS), Report
and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10785, 10879, para. 194 (1997).
45 See Alvarez Letter 1998.
46 47 C.F.R. § 2.106; see generally 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.1–.70.

166

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).47 Under the SBA small business
size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.48 Census data for 2007 shows that
there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.49 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees,
and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated small business
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. According to Trends in Telephone Service
data, 434 carriers reported that they were engaged in wireless telephony.50 Of these, an estimated 222
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 212 have more than 1,500 employees.51 Therefore, approximately
half of these entities can be considered small. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers
reported that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony, including cellular service,
Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services.52
Of these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.53
Consequently, the Commission estimates that approximately half or more of these firms can be
considered small. Thus, using available data, we estimate that the majority of wireless firms can be
considered small.

Broadband Personal Communications Service. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The
broadband personal communications services (PCS) spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks
designated A through F, and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission initially
defined a “small business” for C- and F-Block licenses as an entity that has average gross revenues of $40
million or less in the three previous years.54 For F-Block licenses, an additional small business size
standard for “very small business” was added and is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates,
has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.55 These small
business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA.56 No
small businesses within the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for licenses in
Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that claimed small business status in the first two C-
Block auctions. A total of 93 bidders that claimed small and very small business status won
approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses in the first auction for the D, E, and F Blocks.57 On April
15, 1999, the Commission completed the re-auction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction

47 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
48 Id.
49 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009),
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.

50 Trends in Telephone Service, at tbl. 5.3.
51 Id.
52 See Trends in Telephone Service, at tbl. 5.3.
53 See id.
54 See Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission’s Rules – Broadband PCS Competitive Bidding and the
Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap; Amendment of the Commission’s Cellular/PCS Cross-Ownership
Rule, WT Docket No. 96-59, GN Docket No. 90-314, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 7824, 7850–52 ¶¶ 57–60
(1996) (“PCS Report and Order”); see also 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b).
55 See PCS Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 7852 ¶ 60.
56 See Alvarez Letter 1998.
57 See Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, Public Notice, Doc. No. 89838 (rel. Jan. 14, 1997).

167

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

No. 22.58 Of the 57 winning bidders in that auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277
licenses.

On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of 422 C and F Block Broadband PCS
licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35 winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status.59
Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency determinations, resulted in a
total of 163 C and F Block licenses being available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission
completed an auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of the 24 winning
bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business status and won 156 licenses.60 On May 21, 2007, the
Commission completed an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71.61 Of the
14 winning bidders in that auction, six claimed small business status and won 18 licenses.62 On August
20, 2008, the Commission completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS licenses
in Auction No. 78.63 Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband PCS licenses in that auction, six
claimed small business status and won 14 licenses.64

Advanced Wireless Services. In 2006, the Commission conducted its first auction of Advanced
Wireless Services licenses in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (“AWS-1”), designated as
Auction 66.65 For the AWS-1 bands, the Commission has defined a “small business” as an entity with
average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a “very small
business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15
million.66 In 2006, the Commission conducted its first auction of AWS-1 licenses.67 In that initial AWS-

58 See C, D, E, and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 6688 (WTB 1999). Before
Auction No. 22, the Commission established a very small standard for the C Block to match the standard used for F
Block. Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Installment Payment Financing for Personal
Communications Services (PCS) Licensees, WT Docket No. 97-82, Fourth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15743,
15768 ¶ 46 (1998).
59 See C and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd
2339 (2001).
60 See Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 58, Public Notice, 20
FCC Rcd 3703 (2005).
61 See Auction of Broadband PCS Spectrum Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 71,
Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 9247 (2007).
62 Id.
63 See Auction of AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 78, Public
Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 12749 (WTB 2008).
64 Id.
65 See Auction of Advanced Wireless Services Licenses Scheduled for June 29, 2006; Notice and Filing
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments and Other Procedures for Auction No. 66, AU Docket
No. 06-30, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 4562 (2006) (“Auction 66 Procedures Public Notice”);
66 See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, Report and Order, 18 FCC
Rcd 25,162, App. B (2003), modified by Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services In the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz
Bands, Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 14,058, App. C (2005).
67 See Auction of Advanced Wireless Services Licenses Scheduled for June 29, 2006; Notice and Filing
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments and Other Procedures for Auction No. 66, AU Docket
No. 06-30, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 4562 (2006) (“Auction 66 Procedures Public Notice”).

168

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

1 auction, 31 winning bidders identified themselves as very small businesses won 142 licenses.68
Twenty-six of the winning bidders identified themselves as small businesses and won 73 licenses.69 In a
subsequent 2008 auction, the Commission offered 35 AWS-1 licenses.70 Four winning bidders identified
themselves as very small businesses, and three of the winning bidders identifying themselves as a small
businesses won five AWS-1 licenses.71

Narrowband Personal Communications Services. In 1994, the Commission conducted two auctions of
Narrowband PCS licenses. For these auctions, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity
with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million.72 Through
these auctions, the Commission awarded a total of 41 licenses, 11 of which were obtained by four small
businesses.73 To ensure meaningful participation by small business entities in future auctions, the
Commission adopted a two-tiered small business size standard in the Narrowband PCS Second Report
and Order.74 A “small business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has
average gross revenues for the three preceding years of not more than $40 million.75 A “very small
business” is an entity that, together with affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues for
the three preceding years of not more than $15 million.76 The SBA has approved these small business
size standards.77 A third auction of Narrowband PCS licenses was conducted in 2001. In that auction,
five bidders won 317 (Metropolitan Trading Areas and nationwide) licenses.78 Three of the winning
bidders claimed status as a small or very small entity and won 311 licenses.

Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted criteria for defining three groups
of small businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
credits.79 The Commission defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and

68 See Auction of Advanced Wireless Services Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 66,
Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 10,521 (2006) (“Auction 66 Closing Public Notice”).
69 See id.
70 See AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Procedures Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 7499. Auction 78 also included an
auction of broadband PCS licenses.
71 See Auction of AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 78, Down
Payments Due September 9, 2008, FCC Forms 601 and 602 Due September 9, 2008, Final Payments Due
September 23, 2008, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 12,749 (2008).
72 Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding Narrowband PCS, Third
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 10 FCC Rcd 175, 196, para. 46
(1994).
73 See “Announcing the High Bidders in the Auction of Ten Nationwide Narrowband PCS Licenses, Winning Bids
Total $617,006,674,” Public Notice, PNWL 94-004 (rel. Aug. 2, 1994); “Announcing the High Bidders in the
Auction of 30 Regional Narrowband PCS Licenses; Winning Bids Total $490,901,787,” Public Notice, PNWL 94-
27 (rel. Nov. 9, 1994).
74 Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish New Personal Communications Services, Narrowband PCS,
Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 10456, 10476, para. 40
(2000) (“Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order”).
75 Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 10476, para. 40.
76 Id.
77 See Alvarez Letter 1998.
78 See “Narrowband PCS Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 18663 (WTB 2001).
79 See Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), Report and
Order, 17 FCC Rcd 1022 (2002) (“Channels 52-59 Report and Order”).

169

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three
years.80 A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.81
Additionally, the Lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small business status for
Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (“MSA/RSA”) licenses —“entrepreneur”— which is defined as an
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not
more than $3 million for the preceding three years.82 The SBA approved these small size standards.83 An
auction of 740 licenses was conducted in 2002 (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and one
license in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)). Of the 740 licenses available for auction,
484 licenses were won by 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed small
business, very small business, or entrepreneur status and won a total of 329 licenses. 84 A second auction
commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and included 256 licenses.85 Seventeen winning
bidders claimed small or very small business status and won 60 licenses, and nine winning bidders
claimed entrepreneur status and won 154 licenses.86 In 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 5
licenses in the lower 700 MHz band (Auction 60). All three winning bidders claimed small business
status.

In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700 MHz band in the 700 MHz Second
Report and Order.87 An auction of A, B and E block licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band was held in
2008.88 Twenty winning bidders claimed small business status (those with attributable average annual
gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three years).
Thirty three winning bidders claimed very small business status (those with attributable average annual
gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years). In 2011, the Commission
conducted Auction 92, which offered 16 lower 700 MHz band licenses that had been made available in
Auction 73 but either remained unsold or were licenses on which a winning bidder defaulted. Two of the
seven winning bidders in Auction 92 claimed very small business status, winning a total of four licenses.


80 See Channels 52-59 Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1087-88, ¶ 172.
81 See id.
82 See id, 17 FCC Rcd at 1088, ¶ 173.
83 See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, WTB, FCC (Aug. 10, 1999)
(“Alvarez Letter 1999”).
84 See “Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 17272 (WTB 2002).
85 See Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes, Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 11873 (WTB 2003).
86 See id.
87 Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 06-150, Revision of the
Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No. 94-
102, Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephone, WT Docket No. 01-
309, Biennial Regulatory Review – Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize Various
Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 03-264, Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper700
MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 06-169,
Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, PS Docket No.
06-229, Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State, and Local
Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, Second Report and
Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289 (2007) (“700 MHz Second Report and Order”).
88 See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 4572 (WTB 2008).

170

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses

. In the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the Commission revised its
rules regarding Upper 700 MHz licenses.89 On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction
73 in which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for licensing: 12 Regional
Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block, and one nationwide license in the D Block.90 The
auction concluded on March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business status (those
with attributable average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding three
years) and winning five licenses.

700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. In 2000, the Commission adopted the 700 MHz Guard Band Report
and Order, in which it established rules for the A and B block licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band,
including size standards for “small businesses” and “very small businesses” for purposes of determining
their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits.91 A small business in this service is an
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding
$40 million for the preceding three years.92 Additionally, a very small business is an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million
for the preceding three years.93 SBA approval of these definitions is not required.94 An auction of these
licenses was conducted in 2000.95 Of the 104 licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were won by nine bidders.
Five of these bidders were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction of 700 MHz
Guard Band licenses was held in 2001. All eight of the licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders.
One of these bidders was a small business that won a total of two licenses.96

Specialized Mobile Radio. The Commission adopted small business size standards for the purpose of
determining eligibility for bidding credits in auctions of Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) geographic
area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900 MHz bands. The Commission defined a “small business” as an
entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding
$15 million for the preceding three years.97 The Commission defined a “very small business” as an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3
million for the preceding three years.98 The SBA has approved these small business size standards for
both the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR Service.99 The first 900 MHz SMR auction was completed in
1996. Sixty bidders claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million size standard

89 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289.
90 See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 4572 (WTB 2008).
91 See Service Rules for the 746-764 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, Second
Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299 (2000) (“700 MHz Guard Band Report and Order”).
92 See 700 MHz Guard Band Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 5343, para. 108.
93 See id.
94 See id., 15 FCC Rcd 5299, 5343, para. 108 n.246 (for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands, the
Commission is exempt from 15 U.S.C. § 632, which requires Federal agencies to obtain SBA approval before
adopting small business size standards).
95 See “700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 18026
(2000).
96 See “700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 4590
(WTB 2001).
97 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.810, 90.814(b), 90.912.
98 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.810, 90.814(b), 90.912.
99 See Alvarez Letter 1999.

171

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

won 263 licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. In 2004, the Commission held a second auction of 900
MHz SMR licenses and three winning bidders identifying themselves as very small businesses won 7
licenses.100 The auction of 800 MHz SMR licenses for the upper 200 channels was conducted in 1997.
Ten bidders claiming that they qualified as small or very small businesses under the $15 million size
standard won 38 licenses for the upper 200 channels.101 A second auction of 800 MHz SMR licenses was
conducted in 2002 and included 23 BEA licenses. One bidder claiming small business status won five
licenses.102

The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR licenses for the General Category channels was conducted in
2000. Eleven bidders who won 108 licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR
band qualified as small or very small businesses.103 In an auction completed in 2000, a total of 2,800
Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels of the 800 MHz SMR service were awarded.104 Of the
22 winning bidders, 19 claimed small or very small business status and won 129 licenses. Thus,
combining all four auctions, 41 winning bidders for geographic licenses in the 800 MHz SMR band
claimed to be small businesses.

In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees and licensees with extended
implementation authorizations in the 800 and 900 MHz bands. We do not know how many firms provide
800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended implementation authorizations, nor
how many of these providers have annual revenues not exceeding $15 million. One firm has over $15
million in revenues. In addition, we do not know how many of these firms have 1500 or fewer
employees.105 We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining existing extended
implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as that small business size standard is approved
by the SBA.

220 MHz Radio Service – Phase I Licensees. The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II
licenses. Phase I licensing was conducted by lotteries in 1992 and 1993. There are approximately 1,515
such non-nationwide licensees and four nationwide licensees currently authorized to operate in the 220
MHz band. The Commission has not developed a small business size standard for small entities
specifically applicable to such incumbent 220 MHz Phase I licensees. To estimate the number of such
licensees that are small businesses, the Commission applies the small business size standard under the
SBA rules applicable. The SBA has deemed a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees.106 For this service, the SBA uses the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite). Census data for 2007, which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that

100 See 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced,”
Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd. 3921 (WTB 2004).
101 See “Correction to Public Notice DA 96-586 ‘FCC Announces Winning Bidders in the Auction of 1020 Licenses
to Provide 900 MHz SMR in Major Trading Areas,’” Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 18367 (WTB 1996).
102 See “Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).
103 See “800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Service General Category (851-854 MHz) and Upper Band
(861-865 MHz) Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 17162 (2000).
104 See, “800 MHz SMR Service Lower 80 Channels Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice,
16 FCC Rcd 1736 (2000).
105 See generally 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
106 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210 (2007 NAICS). The now-superseded, pre-2007 C.F.R. citations were
13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).

172

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.107 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees,
and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated small business
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

220 MHz Radio Service – Phase II Licensees. The 220 MHz service has both Phase I and Phase II
licenses. The Phase II 220 MHz service licenses are assigned by auction, where mutually exclusive
applications are accepted. In the 220 MHz Third Report and Order, the Commission adopted a small
business size standard for defining “small” and “very small” businesses for purposes of determining their
eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits.108 This small business standard indicates that a
“small business” is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.109 A “very small business” is defined
as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that do
not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years.110 The SBA has approved these small size
standards.111 Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on and closed in 1998.112 In the first auction, 908
licenses were auctioned in three different-sized geographic areas: three nationwide licenses, 30 Regional
Economic Area Group (EAG) Licenses, and 875 Economic Area (EA) Licenses. Of the 908 licenses
auctioned, 693 were sold.113 Thirty-nine small businesses won 373 licenses in the first 220 MHz auction.
A second auction included 225 licenses: 216 EA licenses and 9 EAG licenses. Fourteen companies
claiming small business status won 158 licenses.114 A third auction included four licenses: 2 BEA
licenses and 2 EAG licenses in the 220 MHz Service. No small or very small business won any of these
licenses.115 In 2007, the Commission conducted a fourth auction of the 220 MHz licenses, designated as
Auction 72.116 Auction 72, which offered 94 Phase II 220 MHz Service licenses, concluded in 2007.117
In this auction, five winning bidders won a total of 76 licenses. Two winning bidders identified
themselves as very small businesses won 56 of the 76 licenses. One of the winning bidders that identified
themselves as a small business won 5 of the 76 licenses won.

107 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009),
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
108 Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide For the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the
Private Land Mobile Radio Service, Third Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10943, 11068-70 ¶¶ 291-295 (1997).
109 Id. at 11068 ¶ 291.
110 Id.
111 See Letter to Daniel Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, dated January 6, 1998 (Alvarez to
Phythyon Letter 1998).
112 See generally 220 MHz Service Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 605 (WTB 1998).
113 See FCC Announces It is Prepared to Grant 654 Phase II 220 MHz Licenses After Final Payment is Made,
Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 1085 (WTB 1999).
114 See Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (WTB 1999).
115 See Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes, Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).
116 See “Auction of Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Scheduled for June 20, 2007, Notice and Filing
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments and Other Procedures for Auction 72, Public Notice, 22
FCC Rcd 3404 (2007).
117 See Auction of Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 72,
Down Payments due July 18, 2007, FCC Forms 601 and 602 due July 18, 2007, Final Payments due August 1,
2007, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period, Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 11573 (2007).

173

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Private Land Mobile Radio (“PLMR”)

. PLMR systems serve an essential role in a range of industrial,
business, land transportation, and public safety activities. These radios are used by companies of all sizes
operating in all U.S. business categories, and are often used in support of the licensee’s primary (non-
telecommunications) business operations. For the purpose of determining whether a licensee of a PLMR
system is a small business as defined by the SBA, we use the broad census category, Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This definition provides that a small entity is any such
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.118 The Commission does not require PLMR licensees to
disclose information about number of employees, so the Commission does not have information that
could be used to determine how many PLMR licensees constitute small entities under this definition. We
note that PLMR licensees generally use the licensed facilities in support of other business activities, and
therefore, it would also be helpful to assess PLMR licensees under the standards applied to the particular
industry subsector to which the licensee belongs.119

As of March 2010, there were 424,162 PLMR licensees operating 921,909 transmitters in the PLMR
bands below 512 MHz. We note that any entity engaged in a commercial activity is eligible to hold a
PLMR license, and that any revised rules in this context could therefore potentially impact small entities
covering a great variety of industries.

Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common carrier,120 private-operational fixed,121
and broadcast auxiliary radio services.122 They also include the Local Multipoint Distribution Service
(“LMDS”),123 the Digital Electronic Message Service (“DEMS”),124 and the 24 GHz Service,125 where
licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status.126 The Commission has
not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services. For purposes of this IRFA, the
Commission will use the SBA’s definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
satellite)—i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons is considered small.127 For the category of
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2007 shows that there were
1,383 firms that operated that year.128 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms
had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered small. The Commission notes that the number of firms does not

118 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
119 See generally 13 C.F.R. § 121.201.
120 See 47 C.F.R. Part 101, Subparts C and I.
121 See id. Subparts C and H.
122 Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47 of the Commission’s Rules. See 47 C.F.R. Part
74. Available to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable network entities, broadcast auxiliary
microwave stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or between
two points such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio. The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which relay
signals from a remote location back to the studio.
123 See 47 C.F.R. Part 101, Subpart L.
124 See id. Subpart G.
125 See id.
126 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.533, 101.1017.
127 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
128 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009),
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.


174

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

necessarily track the number of licensees. The Commission estimates that virtually all of the Fixed
Microwave licensees (excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under the
SBA definition.

39 GHz Service. The Commission adopted small business size standards for 39 GHz licenses. A “small
business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million in the preceding three years.129 A “very small business” is
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
of not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.130 The SBA has approved these small
business size standards.131 In 2000, the Commission conducted an auction of 2,173 39 GHz licenses. A
total of 18 bidders who claimed small or very small business status won 849 licenses.

Local Multipoint Distribution Service. Local Multipoint Distribution Service (“LMDS”) is a fixed
broadband point-to-multipoint microwave service that provides for two-way video telecommunications.132
The Commission established a small business size standard for LMDS licenses as an entity that has
average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the three previous years.133 An additional small
business size standard for “very small business” was added as an entity that, together with its affiliates,
has average gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.134 The SBA has
approved these small business size standards in the context of LMDS auctions.135 There were 93 winning
bidders that qualified as small entities in the LMDS auctions. A total of 93 small and very small business
bidders won approximately 277 A Block licenses and 387 B Block licenses. In 1999, the Commission re-
auctioned 161 licenses; there were 32 small and very small businesses winning that won 119 licenses.

218-219 MHz Service. The first auction of 218-219 MHz Service (previously referred to as the
Interactive and Video Data Service or IVDS) licenses resulted in 170 entities winning licenses for 594
Metropolitan Statistical Areas (“MSAs”).136 Of the 594 licenses, 557 were won by 167 entities qualifying
as a small business. For that auction, the Commission defined a small business as an entity that, together
with its affiliates, has no more than a $6 million net worth and, after federal income taxes (excluding any
carry over losses), has no more than $2 million in annual profits each year for the previous two years.137
In the 218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission revised its
small business size standards for the 218-219 MHz Service and defined a small business as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and persons or entities that hold interests in such an entity and their affiliates,

129 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6 GHz and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands, ET Docket
No. 95-183, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 18600 (1997).
130 Id.
131 See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Kathleen O’Brien Ham, Chief, Auctions and Industry
Analysis Division, WTB, FCC (Feb. 4, 1998); see Letter from Hector Barreto, Administrator, SBA, to Margaret
Wiener, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, WTB, FCC (Jan. 18, 2002).
132 Shttps://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=122&db=0004493&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2027888090&serialnum=1997260934&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F7F00C7D&referenceposition=12689&rs=WLW12.04">ee Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, 25, of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz
Frequency Band, Reallocate the 29.5-30.5 Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint
Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, CC Docket No. 92-297, Second Report and Order, Order on
Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 12 FCC Rcd 12545, 12689-90, para. 348 (1997)
(“LMDS Second Report and Order”).
133 Shttps://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=122&db=4493&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2027888090&serialnum=1997260934&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=F7F00C7D&referenceposition=12689&rs=WLW12.04">ee LMDS Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12689-90, para. 348.
134 See id.
135 See Alvarez to Phythyon Letter 1998.
136 See “Interactive Video and Data Service (IVDS) Applications Accepted for Filing,” Public Notice, 9 FCC Rcd
6227 (1994).
137 Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding, Fourth Report and Order, 9
FCC Rcd 2330 (1994).

175

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

has average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.138 The
Commission defined a “very small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and persons or
entities that hold interests in such an entity and its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues not
exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years.139 The SBA has approved these definitions.140

Location and Monitoring Service (“LMS”). Multilateration LMS systems use non-voice radio
techniques to determine the location and status of mobile radio units. For auctions of LMS licenses, the
Commission has defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with controlling interests and
affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million.141
A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has
average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $3 million.142 These
definitions have been approved by the SBA.143 An auction of LMS licenses was conducted in 1999. Of
the 528 licenses auctioned, 289 licenses were sold to four small businesses.

Rural Radiotelephone Service. The Commission has not adopted a size standard for small businesses
specific to the Rural Radiotelephone Service.144 A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service
is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (“BETRS”).145 For purposes of its analysis of the Rural
Radiotelephone Service, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite),” which is 1,500 or fewer employees.146 Census
data for 2007 shows that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.147 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had
fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the
associated small business size standard, the majority of firms in the Rural Radiotelephone Service can be
considered small.

Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.148 The Commission has previously used the SBA’s small
business definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), i.e., an entity
employing no more than 1,500 persons.149 There are approximately 100 licensees in the Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Service, and under that definition, we estimate that almost all of them qualify as small
entities under the SBA definition. For purposes of assigning Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses

138 Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service,
Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 1497 (1999).
139 Id.
140 See Alvarez to Phythyon Letter 1998.
141 Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Adopt Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring
Systems, Second Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15182, 15192, ¶ 20 (1998) (“Automatic Vehicle Monitoring
Systems Second Report and Order”); see also 47 C.F.R. § 90.1103.
142 Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems Second Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 15192, para. 20; see also 47
C.F.R. § 90.1103.
143 See Alvarez Letter 1998.
144 The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.
145 BETRS is defined in sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.757 and 22.759.
146 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
147 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009),
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
148 The service is defined in § 22.99 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 22.99.
149 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS codes 517210.

176

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

through competitive bidding, the Commission has defined “small business” as an entity that, together
with controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years
not exceeding $40 million.150 A “very small business” is defined as an entity that, together with
controlling interests and affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not
exceeding $15 million.151 These definitions were approved by the SBA.152 In 2006, the Commission
completed an auction of nationwide commercial Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 800
MHz band (Auction 65). The auction closed with two winning bidders winning two Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Services licenses. Neither of the winning bidders claimed small business status.

Aviation and Marine Radio Services. Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio services use a
very high frequency (“VHF”) marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an emergency position-
indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an emergency locator transmitter. The Commission has not
developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to these small businesses. For purposes
of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite),” which is 1,500 or fewer employees.153 Census data for
2007 shows that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.154 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than
100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the associated
small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

Offshore Radiotelephone Service. This service operates on several UHF television broadcast channels
that are not used for television broadcasting in the coastal areas of states bordering the Gulf of Mexico.155
There are presently approximately 55 licensees in this service. The Commission is unable to estimate at
this time the number of licensees that would qualify as small under the SBA’s small business size
standard for the category of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). Under that
standard.156 Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees.157 Census data for 2007 shows that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.158 Of
those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus
under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small.


150 Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission’s Rules to Benefit the Consumers of Air-Ground Telecommunications
Services, Biennial Regulatory Review – Amendment of Parts 1, 22, and 90 of the Commission’s Rules, Amendment
of Parts 1 and 22 of the Commission’s Rules to Adopt Competitive Bidding Rules for Commercial and General
Aviation Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, WT Docket Nos. 03-103 and 05-42, Order on Reconsideration and
Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 19663, ¶¶ 28-42 (2005).
151 Id.
152 See Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, SBA, to Gary D. Michaels, Deputy Chief, Auctions and
Spectrum Access Division, WTB, FCC (Sept. 19, 2005).
153 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
154 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009),
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
155 This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the Commission’s Rules. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.1001-22.1037.
156 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
157 Id.
158 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009),
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.

177

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Multiple Address Systems (“MAS”)

. Entities using MAS spectrum, in general, fall into two categories:
(1) those using the spectrum for profit-based uses, and (2) those using the spectrum for private internal
uses. The Commission defines a small business for MAS licenses as an entity that has average gross
revenues of less than $15 million in the preceding three years.159 A very small business is defined as an
entity that, together with its affiliates, has average gross revenues of not more than $3 million for the
preceding three years.160 The SBA has approved these definitions.161 The majority of these entities will
most likely be licensed in bands where the Commission has implemented a geographic area licensing
approach that would require the use of competitive bidding procedures to resolve mutually exclusive
applications. The Commission’s licensing database indicates that, as of March 5, 2010, there were over
11,500 MAS station authorizations. In 2001, an auction of 5,104 MAS licenses in 176 EAs was
conducted.162 Seven winning bidders claimed status as small or very small businesses and won 611
licenses. In 2005, the Commission completed an auction (Auction 59) of 4,226 MAS licenses in the
Fixed Microwave Services from the 928/959 and 932/941 MHz bands. Twenty-six winning bidders won
a total of 2,323 licenses. Of the 26 winning bidders in this auction, five claimed small business status and
won 1,891 licenses.

With respect to entities that use, or seek to use, MAS spectrum to accommodate internal communications
needs, we note that MAS serves an essential role in a range of industrial, safety, business, and land
transportation activities. MAS radios are used by companies of all sizes, operating in virtually all U.S.
business categories, and by all types of public safety entities. For the majority of private internal users,
the small business size standard developed by the SBA would be more appropriate. The applicable size
standard in this instance appears to be that of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).
This definition provides that a small entity is any such entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.163
The Commission’s licensing database indicates that, as of January 20, 1999, of the 8,670 total MAS
station authorizations, 8,410 authorizations were for private radio service, and of these, 1,433 were for
private land mobile radio service.

1.4 GHz Band Licensees. The Commission conducted an auction of 64 1.4 GHz band licenses in the
paired 1392-1395 MHz and 1432-1435 MHz bands, and in the unpaired 1390-1392 MHz band in 2007.164
For these licenses, the Commission defined “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates
and controlling interests, had average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three
years, and a “very small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests,
has had average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.165
Neither of the two winning bidders claimed small business status.166


159 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd
11956, 12008, ¶ 123 (2000).
160 Id.
161See Alvarez Letter 1999.
162 See “Multiple Address Systems Spectrum Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21011 (2001).
163 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
164 See “Auction of 1.4 GHz Band Licenses Scheduled for February 7, 2007,” Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 12393
(WTB 2006); “Auction of 1.4 GHz Band Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 69,” Public
Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 4714 (2007) (“Auction No. 69 Closing PN”).
165 Auction No. 69 Closing PN, Attachment C.
166 See Auction No. 69 Closing PN.

178

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Incumbent 24 GHz Licensees

. This analysis may affect incumbent licensees who were relocated to the
24 GHz band from the 18 GHz band, and applicants who wish to provide services in the 24 GHz band.
For this service, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite),” which is 1,500 or fewer employees.167 To gauge small
business prevalence for these cable services we must, however, use the most current census data. Census
data for 2007 shows that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.168 Of those 1,383, 1,368 had
fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus under this category and the
associated small business size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. The Commission
notes that the Census’ use of the classifications “firms” does not track the number of “licenses”. The
Commission believes that there are only two licensees in the 24 GHz band that were relocated from the 18
GHz band, Teligent169 and TRW, Inc. It is our understanding that Teligent and its related companies have
less than 1,500 employees, though this may change in the future. TRW is not a small entity. Thus, only
one incumbent licensee in the 24 GHz band is a small business entity.

Future 24 GHz Licensees. With respect to new applicants for licenses in the 24 GHz band, for the
purpose of determining eligibility for bidding credits, the Commission established three small business
definitions. An “entrepreneur” is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and
affiliates, has average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding $40 million.170
A “small business” is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has
average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not exceeding $15 million.171 A “very small
business” in the 24 GHz band is defined as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates,
has average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years.172 The SBA has
approved these small business size standards.173 In a 2004 auction of 24 GHz licenses, three winning
bidders won seven licenses.174 Two of the winning bidders were very small businesses that won five
licenses.

Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Broadband Radio Service systems,
previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (“MDS”) and Multichannel Multipoint
Distribution Service (“MMDS”) systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video programming to
subscribers and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the
Broadband Radio Service (“BRS”) and Educational Broadband Service (“EBS”) (previously referred to as

167 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
168 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Sector 51, 2007 NAICS code 517210 (rel. Oct. 20, 2009),
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=700&;-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.

169 Teligent acquired the DEMS licenses of FirstMark, the only licensee other than TRW in the 24 GHz band whose
license has been modified to require relocation to the 24 GHz band.
170 Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commission’s Rules To License Fixed Services at 24 GHz, Report
and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16934, 16967 ¶ 77 (2000) (“24 GHz Report and Order”); see also 47 C.F.R.
§ 101.538(a)(3).
17124 GHz Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16967 ¶ 77 ; see also 47 C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(2).
172 24 GHz Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16967 ¶ 77; see also 47 C.F.R. § 101.538(a)(1).
173 See Letter to Margaret W. Wiener, Deputy Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, from Gary M. Jackson, Assistant Administrator, SBA (July 28, 2000).
174 Auction of 24 GHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 56, Down
Payments Due August 16, 2004, Final Payments Due August 30, 2004, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period, Public
Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 14738 (2004).

179

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

the Instructional Television Fixed Service (“ITFS”).175 In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the
Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross
revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three years.176 The BRS auctions resulted in 67
successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (“BTAs”). Of the 67
auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations
authorized prior to the auction. At this time, we estimate that of the 61 small business BRS auction
winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA
authorizations, there are approximately 392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities.177
After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not
already counted, we find that there are currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as
small businesses under either the SBA or the Commission’s rules. In 2009, the Commission conducted
Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS areas.178 The Commission offered three levels of bidding
credits: (i) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not
exceed $40 million for the preceding three years (small business) will receive a 15 percent discount on its
winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not
exceed $15 million for the preceding three years (very small business) will receive a 25 percent discount
on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3
million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) will receive a 35 percent discount on its winning
bid.179 Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses.180 Of the ten winning bidders, two
bidders that claimed small business status won 4 licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business
status won three licenses; and two bidders that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.

In addition, the SBA’s Cable Television Distribution Services small business size standard is applicable
to EBS. There are presently 2,032 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by educational
institutions. Educational institutions are included in this analysis as small entities.181 Thus, we estimate
that at least 1,932 licensees are small businesses. Since 2007, Cable Television Distribution Services
have been defined within the broad economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers;
that category is defined as follows: “This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease
for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using wired telecommunications networks.

175 Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Filing Procedures in the Multipoint
Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 94-131, PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 10
FCC Rcd 9589, 9593 ¶ 7 (1995).
176 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1).
177 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of
Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). For these pre-auction licenses, the
applicable standard is SBA’s small business size standard of 1500 or fewer employees.
178 Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Licenses, Scheduled for October 27, 2009, Notice and Filing
Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 86, Public Notice, 24
FCC Rcd 8277 (2009).
179 Id. at 8296.
180 Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 86, Down
Payments Due November 23, 2009, Final Payments Due December 8, 2009, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period,
Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13572 (2009).
181 The term “small entity” within SBREFA applies to small organizations (nonprofits) and to small governmental
jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with populations of
less than 50,000). 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4)–(6). We do not collect annual revenue data on EBS licensees.

180

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.”182 For
these services, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for the category “Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite),” which is 1,500 or fewer employees.183 To gauge small
business prevalence for these cable services we must, however, use the most current census data.
According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there were a total of 955 firms in this previous category that
operated for the entire year.184 Of this total, 939 firms employed 999 or fewer employees, and 16 firms
employed 1,000 employees or more.185 Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small.

Television Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged
in broadcasting images together with sound. These establishments operate television broadcasting studios
and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.”186 The SBA has created
the following small business size standard for Television Broadcasting firms: those having $14 million or
less in annual receipts.187 The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television
stations to be 1,387.188 In addition, according to Commission staff review of the BIA Advisory Services,
LLC’s Media Access Pro Television Database on March 28, 2012, about 950 of an estimated 1,300
commercial television stations (or approximately 73 percent) had revenues of $14 million or less.189 We
therefore estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities.

We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above
definition, business (control) affiliations190 must be included. Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates
the number of small entities that might be affected by our action because the revenue figure on which it is
based does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. In addition, an element of the
definition of “small business” is that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are unable at
this time to define or quantify the criteria that would establish whether a specific television station is
dominant in its field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to which rules may
apply does not exclude any television station from the definition of a small business on this basis and is
therefore possibly over-inclusive to that extent.

In addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational (NCE)
television stations to be 396.191 These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small
entities.192

182 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, 517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers, (partial definition),
www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.
183 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
184 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 5, Employment Size of Firms
for the United States: 2007, NAICS code 5171102 (issued November 2010).
185 Id.
186 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “515120 Television Broadcasting” (partial definition);
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND515120.HTM#N515120">http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND515120.HTM#N515120.
187 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 515120 (updated for inflation in 2010).
188 See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2011,” dated January 6, 2012;
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf">http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311837A1.pdf.
189 We recognize that BIA’s estimate differs slightly from the FCC total given supra.
190 “[Business concerns] are affiliates of each other when one concern controls or has the power to control the other
or a third party or parties controls or has to power to control both.” 13 C.F.R. § 21.103(a)(1).
191 See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2011,” dated January 6, 2012;
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf">http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf.

181

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

In addition, there are also 2,528 low power television stations, including Class A stations (LPTV).193
Given the nature of these services, we will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify as small entities under
the above SBA small business size standard.

Radio Broadcasting. This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged in
broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Programming may originate in their own studio, from
an affiliated network, or from external sources.”194 The SBA has established a small business size
standard for this category, which is: such firms having $7 million or less in annual receipts.195 According
to Commission staff review of BIA Advisory Services, LLC’s Media Access Pro Radio Database on
March 28, 2012, about 10,759 (97%) of 11,102 commercial radio stations had revenues of $7 million or
less. Therefore, the majority of such entities are small entities.

We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above size
standard, business affiliations must be included.196 In addition, to be determined to be a “small business,”
the entity may not be dominant in its field of operation.197 We note that it is difficult at times to assess
these criteria in the context of media entities, and our estimate of small businesses may therefore be over-
inclusive.

Auxiliary, Special Broadcast and Other Program Distribution Services. This service involves a
variety of transmitters, generally used to relay broadcast programming to the public (through translator
and booster stations) or within the program distribution chain (from a remote news gathering unit back to
the station). The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable to broadcast
auxiliary licensees. The applicable definitions of small entities are those, noted previously, under the
SBA rules applicable to radio broadcasting stations and television broadcasting stations.198

The Commission estimates that there are approximately 6,099 FM translators and boosters.199 The
Commission does not collect financial information on any broadcast facility, and the Department of
Commerce does not collect financial information on these auxiliary broadcast facilities. We believe that
most, if not all, of these auxiliary facilities could be classified as small businesses by themselves. We
also recognize that most commercial translators and boosters are owned by a parent station which, in
some cases, would be covered by the revenue definition of small business entity discussed above. These
stations would likely have annual revenues that exceed the SBA maximum to be designated as a small
business ($7.0 million for a radio station or $14.0 million for a TV station). Furthermore, they do not
(Continued from previous page)
192 See generally 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4), (6).
193 See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2011,” dated January 6, 2012;
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf">http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf.
194 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “515112 Radio Stations”;
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND515112.HTM#N515112">http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND515112.HTM#N515112.
195 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 515112 (updated for inflation in 2010).
196 “Concerns and entities are affiliates of each other when one controls or has the power to control the other, or a
third party or parties controls or has the power to control both. It does not matter whether control is exercised, so
long as the power to control exists.” 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(a)(1) (an SBA regulation).
197 13 C.F.R. § 121.102(b) (an SBA regulation).
198 13 C.F.R. 121.201, NAICS codes 515112 and 515120.
199 See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2011,” dated January 6, 2012;
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf">http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0106/DOC-311837A1.pdf.

182

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

meet the Small Business Act's definition of a "small business concern" because they are not
independently owned and operated. 200

Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service. MVDDS is a terrestrial fixed microwave service
operating in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. The Commission adopted criteria for defining three groups of small
businesses for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding credits. It
defines a very small business as an entity with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $3 million
for the preceding three years; a small business as an entity with average annual gross revenues not
exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years; and an entrepreneur as an entity with average annual
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.201 These definitions were
approved by the SBA.202 On January 27, 2004, the Commission completed an auction of 214 MVDDS
licenses (Auction No. 53). In this auction, ten winning bidders won a total of 192 MVDDS licenses.203
Eight of the ten winning bidders claimed small business status and won 144 of the licenses. The
Commission also held an auction of MVDDS licenses on December 7, 2005 (Auction 63). Of the three
winning bidders who won 22 licenses, two winning bidders, winning 21 of the licenses, claimed small
business status.204

Amateur Radio Service. These licensees are held by individuals in a noncommercial capacity; these
licensees are not small entities.

Personal Radio Services. Personal radio services provide short-range, low power radio for personal
communications, radio signaling, and business communications not provided for in other services. The
Personal Radio Services include spectrum licensed under Part 95 of our rules.205 These services include
Citizen Band Radio Service (“CB”), General Mobile Radio Service (“GMRS”), Radio Control Radio
Service (“R/C”), Family Radio Service (“FRS”), Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (“WMTS”),
Medical Implant Communications Service (“MICS”), Low Power Radio Service (“LPRS”), and Multi-
Use Radio Service (“MURS”).206 There are a variety of methods used to license the spectrum in these
rule parts, from licensing by rule, to conditioning operation on successful completion of a required test, to
site-based licensing, to geographic area licensing. Under the RFA, the Commission is required to make a

200 See 15 U.S.C. § 632.
201 Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-
Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency Range; Amendment of the Commission’s
Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite Licenses and
their Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC Broadband Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to
provide A Fixed Service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 98-206, Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614, 9711, ¶ 252 (2002).
202 See Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, to Margaret W. Wiener,
Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, WTB, FCC (Feb.13, 2002).
203 See “Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 1834
(2004).
204 See “Auction of Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced
for Auction No. 63,” Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 19807 (2005).
205 47 C.F.R. part 90.
206 The Citizens Band Radio Service, General Mobile Radio Service, Radio Control Radio Service, Family Radio
Service, Wireless Medical Telemetry Service, Medical Implant Communications Service, Low Power Radio
Service, and Multi-Use Radio Service are governed by subpart D, subpart A, subpart C, subpart B, subpart H,
subpart I, subpart G, and subpart J, respectively, of part 95 of the Commission’s rules. See generallyhttp://web2.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?DB=1000547&DocName=47CFRS95%2E401&FindType=L&AP=&RS=WLW2.86&VR=2.0&SV=Split&MT=Westlaw&FN=_top"> 47 C.F.R. part
95.

183

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

determination of which small entities are directly affected by the rules being proposed. Since all such
entities are wireless, we apply the definition of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite),
pursuant to which a small entity is defined as employing 1,500 or fewer persons.207 Many of the licensees
in these services are individuals, and thus are not small entities. In addition, due to the mostly unlicensed
and shared nature of the spectrum utilized in many of these services, the Commission lacks direct
information upon which to base an estimation of the number of small entities under an SBA definition
that might be directly affected by our proposed actions.

Public Safety Radio Services. Public Safety radio services include police, fire, local government,
forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical services.208 There are a total of
approximately 127,540 licensees in these services. Governmental entities209 as well as private businesses
comprise the licensees for these services. All governmental entities with populations of less than 50,000
fall within the definition of a small entity.210

IMTS Resale Carriers

. Providers of IMTS resale services are common carriers that purchase IMTS from
other carriers and resell it to their own customers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees.211 Census data for 2007 show that 1,523 firms provided resale services
during that year. Of that number, 1,522 operated with fewer than 1000 employees and one operated with
more than 1,000.212 Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority
of these local resellers can be considered small entities. According to Commission data, 213 carriers have
reported that they are engaged in the provision of local resale services.213 Of these, an estimated 211 have
1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees.214 Consequently, the Commission
estimates that the majority of IMTS resellers are small entities that may be affected by our proposed
actions.

207 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS Code 517210.
208 With the exception of the special emergency service, these services are governed by subpart B of part 90 of the
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.15-90.27. The police service includes approximately 27,000 licensees that
serve state, county, and municipal enforcement through telephony (voice), telegraphy (code) and teletype and
facsimile (printed material). The fire radio service includes approximately 23,000 licensees comprised of private
volunteer or professional fire companies as well as units under governmental control. The local government service
is presently comprised of approximately 41,000 licensees that are state, county, or municipal entities that use the
radio for official purposes not covered by other public safety services. There are approximately 7,000 licensees
within the forestry service which is comprised of licensees from state departments of conservation and private forest
organizations who set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground crews. The
approximately 9,000 state and local governments are licensed for highway maintenance service to provide
emergency and routine communications to aid other public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular
traffic. The approximately 1,000 licensees in the Emergency Medical Radio Service (“EMRS”) use the 39 channels
allocated to this service for emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of emergency
medical treatment.http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=47CFRS90.15&FindType=L"> 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.15-90.27. The approximately 20,000 licensees in the special emergency service
include medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, handicapped persons, disaster relief organizations,
school buses, beach patrols, establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities, and emergency
repair of public communications facilities.http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=++++1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000547&DocName=47CFRS90.33&FindType=L"> 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.33-90.55.
209 47 C.F.R. § 1.1162.
210 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
211 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
212 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=800&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&;-
_lang=en.
213 See Trends in Telephone Service, at tbl. 5.3.
214 Id.

184

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Wireless Carriers and Service Providers

. Included among the providers of IMTS resale are a number
of wireless carriers that also provide wireless telephony services domestically. The Commission
classifies these entities as providers of Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS). At present, most, if
not all, providers of CMRS that offer IMTS provide such service by purchasing IMTS from other carriers
to resell it to their customers. The Commission has not developed a size standard specifically for CMRS
providers that offer resale IMTS. Such entities would fall within the larger category of wireless carriers
and service providers. For those services subject to auctions, the Commission notes that, as a general
matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not
necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not
generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust
enrichment issues are implicated.

D.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

The proposals being made in this Further Notice, may require additional analysis and mitigation activities
regarding compliance with our RF exposure limits for certain facilities, operations and transmitters, such as
some wireless base stations, particularly those on rooftops, and some antennas at multiple transmitter sites. In
other cases, current analytical requirements are being relaxed.

E.

Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant
Alternatives Considered

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its
proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.215 In
this proceeding, our proposals are consistent with (2), in that our goal is making our RF rules more
consistent and clarifying certain areas that have created confusion in the past. In addition, due to our
revisions in our policy on categorical exclusions, we are providing exemptions from routine RF
evaluation for many small entities that should reduce the overall impact on small entities (see number 4
above).

F.

Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule

None.

215 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).

185

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

APPENDIX G

List of Commenters

COMMENTS

(1) American Petroleum Institute (API)
(2) AT&T Corporation (Kimberly Kantner)
(3) Broadcast Signal Lab, LLP (BSL)
(4) Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA)
(5) Cingular Wireless LLC (Cingular)
(6) Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco)
(7) Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C.
(8) The EMR Network
(9) The EMR Policy Institute
(10) Dell Inc. (Dell)
(11) Ericsson, Inc., and SONY Ericsson Mobile Communications, Inc. (Ericsson)
(12) Dave Fry, Intermec
(13) Garmin International, Inc.
(14) Global RF Solutions (Global)
(15) Hammett and Edison, Inc.
(16) Hatfield and Dawson Consulting Engineers, LLC (Hatfield and Dawson)
(17) IEEE Local and Metropolitan Area Networks Standards Committee, IEEE 802 (IEEE 802)
(18) Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)
(19) IT’IS Foundation, Dr. Niels Kuster (IT’IS)
(20) Itron, Inc. (Itron)
(21) Dr. Ronal W. Larson
(22) Jim Martin
(23) Roger J. Mattson, Ph.D.
(24) Motorola, Inc. (Motorola)
(25) John Moulder, Ph.D., Medical College of Wisconsin
(26) National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
(27) Neviana Nikoloski (for IT’IS Foundation)
(28) Nokia, Inc. (Nokia)
(29) palmOne Inc. (palmOne)
(30) Pinnacle Telecom Group (Pinnacle)
(31) Qualcomm, Inc. (Qualcomm)
(32) RF People, Tim Noyes (1)
(33) RF People, Tim Noyes (2)
(34) RF People, Davidson Scott (1)
(35) RF People, Davidson Scott (2)
(36) RF People, Davidson Scott (3)
(37) RF People, Davidson Scott (4)
(38) RF People, Davidson Scott (5)
(39) RF Safety Solutions, Richard Strickland
(40) RSI Educational Foundation (RSI) (1)
(41) RSI (2)
(42) Dr. Dina Simunic
(43) Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc. (Sirius)
(44) Southern Communications Services, Inc. & Southern Company Services, Inc. (Southern)
(45) Sprint Corporation (Sprint)
(46) T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile)

186

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

(47) Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
(48) Vocollect, Inc. (Vocollect)
(49) Wi-Fi Alliance (Wi-Fi)
(50) Winstar Communications, LLC (Winstar)
(51) Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (WCA)
(52) Holland & Knight LLP
(53) IBM
(54) Mobile Computing GBU, IPSG
(55) University of Rome La Sapienza


REPLY COMMENTS

(1) Margaret Brown
(2) Cisco
(3) Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C.
(4) Dobson Communications Corp. (Dobson)
(5) The EMR Network
(6) Hammett and Edison, Inc.
(7) IT’IS
(8) Motorola
(9) palmOne
(10) PCIA – The Wireless Infrastructure Association (PCIA)
(11) Qualcomm
(12) Richard A. Tell
(13) Southern
(14) T-Mobile
(15)


EX PARTE & LATE-FILED COMMENTS

(1) APREL Laboratories and Spectrum Sciences Institute (APREL)
(2) Bluetooth SIG, Inc. (Bluetooth SIG)
(3) CTIA (1)
(4) CTIA (2)
(5) CTIA (3)
(6) CTIA (4)
(7) Cisco (1)
(8) Cisco (2)
(9) Cisco (3)
(10) Dell
(11) Food and Drug Administration, Center for Devices and Radiological Health (FDA)
(12) Angela Flynn
(13) Hammett and Edison, Inc.
(14) Hatfield and Dawson
(15) Hitachi Data Systems (Hitachi)
(16) Motorola (1)
(17) Motorola (2)
(18) National Assoc. of Radio and Telecommunications Engineers, Inc. (NARTE)
(19) Novatel (1)
(20) Novatel (2)

187

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

(21) palmOne
(22) PCIA – The Wireless Infrastructure Association (PCIA) (2)
(23) PCIA (2)
(24) Qualcomm (1)
(25) Qualcomm (2)
(26) Qualcomm (3)
(27) Qualcomm (4)
(28) Qualcomm (5)
(29) Qualcomm (6)
(30) Qualcomm (7)
(31) Qualcomm (8)
(32) Qualcomm (9)
(33) RF People, Tim Noyes (1)
(34) RF People, Tim Noyes (2)
(35) RF People, Davidson Scott (1)
(36) RF People, Davidson Scott (2)
(37) TCB Council
(38) TIA
(39) Towerswitch, LLC (1)
(40) Towerswitch, LLC (2)
(41) T-Mobile (1)
(42) T-Mobile (2)
(43) XM Radio Inc.

188

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

APPENDIX H

Summary of Comments and discussion on Non-Action Topics from the

2003 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

1.

Localized SAR Summation for Evaluation of Multiple Portable Transmitters

Summary. We requested information on techniques to sum SAR due to multiple transmitters in portable
devices. SAR is intended to be the total due to all relevant transmitters, and summation of SAR for
multiple transmitters is implicit in our rules. Based on the record and our experience in the equipment
authorization program we choose not to modify the rules and instead will continue to provide informative
procedural guidance through the OET Laboratory Division Knowledge Database (KDB).
Original Proposals. In the Notice, we discussed issues relating to the evaluation of specific absorption
rate (SAR) in RF devices with multiple transmitters.1 We noted that when multiple RF transmitters
operate simultaneously in a device, they typically use different frequencies and that evaluation of
compliance for each device is dependent on the specific transmitter frequencies involved. We stated that
a convenient way to evaluate the SAR of a single device with multiple transmitters using present
measurement systems is to add together the SAR values individually obtained for each transmitter in
order to estimate the total SAR for a given device. At the same time, we recognized that this procedure
would generally overestimate true RF exposure levels from such devices. Nonetheless, in the absence of
any specific procedure developed by expert organizations, we proposed to specify that the maximum RF
exposure levels of all transmitters and associated antennas within a single portable device that could
functionally transmit at the same time be added together in order to determine RF exposure values for the
device. However, we also requested comment on whether it would be appropriate and practical with
present SAR measurement systems to sum the SAR values at individual evaluation grid points prior to
computing the 1-g average SAR, as opposed to simply summing the 1-g averaged SAR values of each
transmitter. Different results could be obtained depending on which method is used.
Comments. Many commenters who addressed this issue are in agreement that adding individual SAR
values for each transmitter should be allowed as an option for evaluating total exposure,2 even though
such a procedure is likely to overestimate actual SAR in many cases. Other commenters found this
procedure to be unacceptable or noted that alternative methodologies are being developed.3 CTIA and
others urged the Commission also to allow an option whereby SAR distributions – rather than maximum
SAR values – from different transmitters are added, such as a method provided in a then-draft standard
being developed by IEC TC106, PT 62209.4 APREL further urged the Commission to accept alternative
methodologies in future rule-makings, such as the one included in IEC standard 62209-1, since these
techniques were still under development.5 Nokia agreed that adding SAR values together, as proposed,
should be allowed where more accurate methodologies are not available, since this procedure will
consistently provide a conservative total SAR. However, rather than the alternative “grid point” approach
mentioned in the Notice, which Nokia claimed would needlessly require time and resources from SAR

1 See Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket 03-137, Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rules Regarding
Human Exposure to Radio frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 18 FCC Rcd 13187 (2003) at para. 31.
2 See CTIA comments at 10-11; IEEE 802 comments at 7; Motorola comments at 8-9; Nokia comments at 6-7;
PalmOne reply comments at 4; T-Mobile comments at 16; TIA comments at 10; Vocollect comments at 6-7; Wi-Fi
comments at 9.
3 See APREL reply comments at 4; Cisco comments at 11-12; Dell comments at 3; Ericsson comments at 6-7.
4 See CTIA comments at 10-11; Dave Fry comments at 1; Ericsson comments at 6-7; ITI comments at 7-8; Motorola
comments at 8-9.
5 See APREL reply comments at 4.

189

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

measurement system manufacturers, Nokia suggested the alternative of performing individual SAR tests
on all transmitters and basing total SAR evaluation on the addition of area scan distributions.6 The TIA
advocated a similar approach as providing greater accuracy.7
According to Vocollect, Inc. (Vocollect), the two approaches discussed in the Notice: simple 1-g SAR
summation or a grid point approach, should usually give similar results.8 However, Vocollect maintained
that when one transmitter in a given device uses significantly higher power than other transmitters in the
same device, only the higher-powered transmitter should be evaluated, since the contributions of the
others would be negligible. Vocollect suggested that the Commission not require SAR testing of
transmitters whose combined power is less than 10% of the most powerful transmitter in the device.
Cisco noted that unless antennas within a host device are co-located or located within a distance of two to
three times the dimension of the largest antenna, the body does not absorb RF energy in the same
location, and the multiple devices thus do not compound the SAR at any location on or in the body.
Cisco suggested that, in such situations, testing for compliance with the SAR rules should be required
only for antennas of differing physical characteristics; i.e., there is no need to test two or more identical
antennas. Cisco also proposed that the Commission require, when necessary, SAR evaluation only for
those channels that radiate “maximum power.”9
Discussion. We agree with commenters that there may be multiple valid ways to determine SAR from
co-located transmitters operating simultaneously.10 SAR as defined in the literature is clearly the total
SAR due to all relevant transmitters and summation of SAR for multiple transmitters is implicit in our
rules.11 In view of the technical comments provided, where we have not taken action already, the KDB
guidance will continue to be revised to further clarify SAR summation techniques based upon 1-gram-
averages. Other accepted procedures will be incorporated into the KDB once the feasibility and reliability
of such procedures are established and measurement methodologies are developed. These procedures
potentially include each and all of the alternatives proposed by commenters outlined above and methods
presently being considered by standards-developing organizations such as International Electrotechnical
Commission Technical Committee 106. Acceptable alternatives have been specified in updated versions

6 See Nokia comments at 6-7.
7 See TIA comments at 10.
8 See Vocollect comments at 6-7.
9 See Cisco comments at 11-12.
10 Exposures due to multiple transmitters are considered “simultaneous” if these exposures occur in the same time
averaging period. For example, for two variable power consumer transmitters averaged over the same source-based
time averaging period, the exposure based on the time-averaged SARs must be summed even though either
transmitter may not necessarily be transmitting at the same instant. In principle, time averaging periods up to 30
minutes could be required; however, shorter time averaging periods less than 30 minutes are permitted, and in fact
are required for mobile and portable consumer devices, to avoid redundant or repetitive measurements, provided that
measurements performed using a shorter time averaging period result in the maximum aggregate time-averaged
SAR of the multiple transmitters being summed (i.e., accounting for maximum duty cycle, maximum transmitted
power, overlapping transmission, etc.). Alternatively, short time averaging periods (e.g., over one pulse at
maximum power) may be selected to conservatively measure SAR and avoid the need to sum SARs from multiple
transmitters during non-overlapping transmission.
11 See 47 CFR § 2.1093(d).

190

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

of OET Laboratory Division publications, including procedures to identify co-located simultaneous
transmission conditions for SAR evaluation and test reduction or exclusion.12
2.

Modular Transmitters Installed in Various End-Use Products

Summary. In the Notice, we proposed grouping of transmitter modules as used in various devices into
three classes (cell phones, laptops, and PDAs), intended to reflect different exposure conditions and
spatial relationships of transmitters to different parts of the body. However, these classifications have
been overtaken by the ongoing evolution of communications products that have a wide variety of designs
and capabilities. OET Laboratory guidance and intervening rule changes have addressed exposure issues
particular to modules. Also, our general exemption proposals in the Further Notice apply equally to
modules and other transmitters that may be installed in a single device making specific rules for modular
exemption unnecessary.
Background. Transmitter modules are designed for installation in a variety of products, either by product
manufacturers, OEM integrators, or as after-market accessories installed by users. Many of these licensed
and unlicensed modules or module-like transmitters can be either permanently installed internally in host
devices such as laptop computers by system integrators or temporarily installed externally as plug-in
cards or USB dongles. Key RF exposure issues for modules include: (1) the fact that the host mechanical
environment and installed separation distance from the body, which both affect SAR, may not be known
on approval; and (2) modules are often operated at the same time as other transmitters within the host,
which can change the overall SAR distribution or exceed the exposure limit.
Modular device technology and modular RF exposure policy and procedures have both progressed
significantly since issuance of the Notice. Since the Notice, a rule making creating section 15.212 has
defined general requirements for modular transmitters13 and the Laboratory has published and
implemented streamlined test reduction and evaluation procedures in response to requests for more
detailed guidelines to appropriately manage the number of SAR measurements that are required for
complex multiple transmitter configurations and to allow TCB approval of most devices.14 Section
15.212(a)(1)(viii) requires that modular transmitters must comply with any applicable RF exposure
requirements in their final configuration and section 15.212(b) provides for limited modular approval
“where compliance with RF exposure rules is demonstrated only for particular product configurations.”
Limited modular approval requires the applicant to state how it will ensure compliance of the end
product. In the past, we have categorically excluded the majority of Part 15 devices from routine RF
evaluation (except for Unlicensed Personal Communications Service, Unlicensed National Information
Infrastructure, and millimeter wave devices); however, for section 15.247 modular transmitters using
IEEE 802.11, we have required RF evaluation on a case-by-case basis due to power and proximity to the
body as 802.11 products and technologies continue to evolve.15 While we include this section on modular
transmitters to support a complete discussion of the record, we will not take further action with respect to
modular transmitters at this time.

12 Recent procedures provided by the FCC Laboratory have already taken into consideration both the 1-g and grid-
point summing methods. Since the grid-point summing method has measurement constraints and is very time-
consuming, the Laboratory has also provided additional test reduction criteria in different test procedures to
streamline SAR simultaneous transmission requirements.
13 After release of the Notice, the Commission codified procedures in § 15.212 in Public Notice DA 00-1407, 15
FCC Rcd 25,415 (2000).
14 See documents at the FCC Equipment Authorization website ahttp://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/">t: http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/.
15 In accordance with §1.1307(c) and (d) of our rules (47 CFR § 1.1307(c), (d)).

191

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Original Proposals. In the Notice, we made several proposals and requested comment and information
regarding rules and guidelines for approval of modular transmitters for ensuring compliance with our RF
exposure limits. In particular, manufacturers desired a protocol under which a module may be approved
on a “host-independent” basis so that it can be used in different hosts without subjecting the host devices
to new or additional RF exposure evaluation. Moreover, general or generic host-independence is the
defining characteristic of an unlimited modular transmitter approval. We proposed general requirements
in order to establish host-independence for any type of host for a given module; such modules are referred
to as generic modules. We asked for comment on whether the standard power threshold (100 mW peak)
would be suitable for generic modules. We sought comment on whether we should require measurements
in certain typical host device configurations or whether we should permit physically similar
configurations under our permissive change rules, and if a permissive change would be allowed, whether
it should be Class I or II.16
We recognized in the Notice that specific categories of hosts have different operating characteristics that
could influence the RF exposure potential of an installed module. Accordingly, we proposed to adopt
distinct RF exclusion and evaluation criteria for section 15.247 modules that would only be installed in
one of three specific categories of hosts. These categories were: (1) radiotelephones, (2) laptop
(notebook) computers and (3) personal digital assistants (PDAs). For radiotelephones, pagers, and other
devices that are used in close proximity to the head or body, we proposed that we would not require SAR
evaluation subsequent to the addition of any modular transmitter that operates at or below 2 mW (peak
radiated or conducted output power). For transmitting modules that are added to the keyboard section of
a laptop computer, we proposed that any modular RF transmitter need not undergo RF exposure analysis
if it operates at less than 10 mW (peak radiated power). For transmitting modules where the radiating
element is to be mounted in the screen portion of a laptop, we proposed that when the radiating element
will be more than 20 cm from the user’s body, we would permit a power level up to 200 mW without
requiring an RF evaluation. We proposed that for transmitter modules designed to be incorporated into a
handheld PDA, we would use a threshold value of 25 mW for exclusion from routine SAR evaluation for
a PDA that is used exclusively as a handheld device. For PDAs that can be used in contact with the head
or worn against the body, we proposed to use the same 2 mW threshold for additional transmitting
modules that we proposed for modules used in mobile phones.
Comments. Generic Modules: Ericsson, Motorola, and the Information Technology Industry Council
(ITI) were generally supportive of the 100 mW exclusion threshold of generic modules in certain
configurations and exposure conditions.17 Cisco claimed the 100 mW exclusion threshold is overly
restrictive and FDA requested an explanation for a basis and were critical of the exclusion threshold of
generic modules.18 Vocollect offered data in support of a 125 mW threshold instead of the proposed
exclusion threshold power. APREL, IT’IS, and Dr. Dina Simunic provided SAR calculations and data to
argue that the proposed exclusion threshold would exceed our SAR limit in certain situations.19
Motorola, CTIA, PalmOne, Ericsson IEEE 802, Wi-Fi, and others generally supported use of the
permissive change rules as a basis to allow the use of previously authorized modules in new host
devices, 20 accounting for measurement uncertainty,21 and supported conditioning an initial grant to

16 See 47 CFR § 2.1043 for description of permissive changes.
17 See Ericsson comments at 4; Motorola comments at 5-8; CTIA comments at 8-9; ITI comments at 7.
18 See Cisco comments at 9-10; FDA comments at 1.
19 See APREL comments at 4; IT’IS reply comments at 1; Dr. Simunic comments at 2.
20 See PalmOne comments at 2; Ericsson comments at 5; IEEE 802 comments at 6; Wi-Fi comments at 7; Motorola
comments at 6; CTIA comments at 9; Vocollect comments at 8.
21 See Motorola comments at 7; CTIA comments at 10; PalmOne comments at 2; PalmOne reply comments at 2.

192

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

configurations where the host device is physically similar.22 TIA and Ericsson recommended that if such
modules cannot be used simultaneously there should be no limit on the number of transmitters than can be
added without re-evaluation. Qualcomm, Dell, Inc. (Dell), HP, Novatel Wireless, Inc. (Novatel), and
PalmOne asked that considerations for modules apply to both licensed and unlicensed devices.23 Hitachi
Data Systems (Hitachi) and Novatel endorsed in part Qualcomm’s proposal to provide for an expedited
and streamlined approach to licensed modular approvals.24
Radiotelephones: Many commenters thought that the proposed 2 mW threshold for modules added to
radiotelephones is too conservative.25 Others suggested various alternative values above the proposed
threshold.26 ITI believed that having a variety of exclusion thresholds based on the type of device will
create confusion for Test Certification Bodies (TCBs), as well as for manufacturers.27 PalmOne
maintained that the Commission must be clear on how to handle the following two scenarios: (1) the new
SAR value increases less than the level of uncertainty but exceeds the allowed SAR limit; and (2) the
initial SAR measurement is scaled up, and the scaled value exceeds the allowable SAR limit, while the
measured result is below the limit.28
Laptop (Notebook) Computers: Many commenters suggested that the 10 mW threshold for modules
added to laptops may be overly conservative, proffering instead a higher threshold than that proposed in
the Notice.29 IEEE 802 proposed to allow multiple modules in a laptop keyboard section when the
aggregate power of such modules is less than 10 mW.30 Nokia said it agreed with the proposed exclusion
thresholds for modules in laptop computers31 but noted that the proposed new rules make no reference to
laptops that have not previously been evaluated for RF exposure, i.e., laptops without built-in
transmitters. PalmOne noted that it is the location of the transmitting antenna, rather than the type of
module, that determines the SAR value and, therefore, should be the major consideration.32 Nokia
supported the 200 mW exclusion for laptop display screen modules.33
Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) and Similar Handheld Devices: Nokia and Ericsson believed that the
proposed 25 mW exclusion threshold for hand-only exposure is too conservative.34 ITI requested that the
Commission allow a higher power threshold for PDAs using lower gain antennas and consider PDAs as

22 See also Dell comments at 2; Ericsson comments at 5-6; TIA comments at 8-9.
23 See Qualcomm comments at i-ii, 1-4, 9; Dell ex parte at 1; HP comments at 1; Novatel comments at 1; PalmOne
comments at 4.
24 See Hitachi comments at 1; Novatel reply comments at 1.
25 See Ericsson comments at 5-6; Motorola comments at 8.
26 See Bluetooth SIG comments at 3-4; Motorola comments at 8 and Appendix C; Nokia comments at 3-6.
27 See ITIC comments at 5-7.
28 See PalmOne reply comments at 2-3.
29 See Dell comments at 2-3; Ericsson comments at 5-6; ITI comments at 6; Qualcomm comments at 8-9, ex parte at
1-4; Dell comments at 2-3; HP comments at 1; IEEE 802 comments at 7.
30 See IEEE 802 comments at 7.
31 See Nokia comments at 5.
32 See PalmOne comments at 3.
33 See Nokia comments at 5.
34 See Nokia comments at 5-6; Ericsson comments at 5-6.

193

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

handheld computers.35 For hand-only exposure, Dell suggested using 100 mW instead of the 25 mW
threshold proposed in the Notice.36 Dell and PalmOne noted that it is difficult to determine when a PDA
device would be used exclusively as a handheld device or as a handheld and body-worn device.37
Discussion. With respect to inclusion of licensed modules in the scope of this proceeding, while the
context of the Notice was Part 15 unlicensed modules, the exposure considerations were general and
apply equally to licensed modules. While the Commission introduced the three host categories in the
Notice, as products and technologies have continued to advance we have moved away from the concept of
device categories and instead have developed generic policies that are more relevant to today’s products
and technologies – multiple licensed and unlicensed transmitters capable of simultaneous transmission in
varying hosts. In the course of this proceeding, the specific three categories of hosts and associated
exclusion powers proposed in the Notice have been overtaken with the general power exemption
thresholds proposed in the Further Notice below in this proceeding and dealing with these types of hosts
individually in the rules is unnecessary. Aside from power exclusion, the remaining issues specific to
modular transmitters are primarily procedural and administrative; for example, the FCC Laboratory can
handle permissive changes, OEM integration, and user operating/installation issues within the broad
scope of the current rules.
3.

Spatial Averaging for Fixed Transmitters as a Valid Approach to be Considered in a Future
Revision of OET Bulletin 65

Summary. We requested information on techniques and the fundamental validity of spatial averaging as
an approach to evaluating compliance with field intensity limits at fixed transmitter sites. Spatial
averaging is not codified in our rules and we did not propose any changes to our rules in the Notice.
However, the concept of spatial averaging is described briefly in OET Bulletin 65. After full
consideration, we are not adopting specific guidelines in our rules with respect to spatial averaging at this
time. However, we intend to update OET Bulletin 65 based on the information received with
consideration of SAR as a primary compliance metric.
Original Proposal. Compliance with the Commission’s MPE limits for fixed antennas is based on the
concept of averaging power density or field strength squared over a prescribed area, as recommended in
IEEE and NCRP standards and publications.38 There can be situations where a highly localized (“spatial
peak”) field intensity exceeds our MPE limits near an antenna where public or worker access is possible,
while a spatially-averaged measurement over a larger area indicates compliance. It is possible that such
localized “hot spots” could lead to SAR values in the body of a nearby person that exceed the partial-body
value for SAR adopted by the Commission while not exceeding the whole-body limit. This can be
relevant for exposures from both fixed antennas and antennas associated with mobile devices since our
rules also allow evaluation of exposure in terms of field strength or power density. Accordingly, we
asked for comment on whether spatial averaging is appropriate in these circumstances.
In the Notice, we did not make any specific proposals regarding spatial averaging, rather we asked for
comment on the best way to ensure compliance in these situations, other than requiring burdensome SAR
evaluations for localized and/or whole-body SAR, which could be impractical and costly. We requested
comment on the issue of when spatial averaging of exposure is appropriate and how to deal with localized
exposure in situations where spatial peak measurements may exceed the MPE limit values.

35 See ITI comments at 7.
36 See Dell comments at 3.
37 See Dell comments at 3; PalmOne comments at 4-5.
38 See IEEE Std. C95.3-2002, Section 4.2.1.2; NCRP Report No. 119, Section 3.3.5.

194

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

We also asked for comment on procedures for averaging spatially over the whole body. Current
procedures involve averaging readings made in specific locations representing the position of the whole
body of a potentially exposed person. Slightly different procedures have been suggested for situations in
which single emitters are present and those in which multiple emitters are present and no single RF source
predominates. We asked for comment on this approach, including whether using the maximum of several
readings taken with the measurement probe in different orientations would be more appropriate. We
asked whether the Commission should adopt or recommend a specific technique or procedure for whole-
body spatial averaging to determine compliance with the exposure limits and, if so, what technique or
procedure we should adopt. We suggested that such guidance could be issued in the form of a Public
Notice or could be incorporated into a new edition of OET Bulletin 65.
Comments. Many commenters agreed that spatial averaging of RF exposure is not appropriate in close
proximity to RF sources. They provided a variety of recommendations regarding, first, when spatial
averaging should be invoked or required and, second, how it should be performed when appropriate. On
the primary issue of whether spatial averaging is adequate to ensure compliance with the partial-body
SAR limits, there appears to be agreement that whole body spatial averages are not appropriate in all
circumstances, particularly those involving partial body exposure close to transmitting antennas.
Pinnacle Telecom Group (Pinnacle) supported the position that spatially-averaged measurements are not
appropriate in areas very close to antennas (such as on a rooftop), because exposure is not truly “whole-
body.”39 Pinnacle believes that this issue is best addressed in a future revision of OET Bulletin 65.
Pinnacle noted that farther away from such antennas, where the exposure may be closer to whole-body,
spatial peak measurements may overstate whole-body exposure, but peak measurements are still typically
low enough to demonstrate compliance. Therefore, Pinnacle suggested simply requiring spatial peak
measurements in a rooftop environment. It said that this method is easy to apply in practice and is
consistent with a conservative approach to RF safety. RF People made a similar suggestion for
considering use of spatial peak readings.40 In addition, RF People suggested that, in situations where
whole-body averaging may not be appropriate, averaging could be carried out over smaller regions of the
projected area of the whole-body, with the maximum of these averages used for demonstrating
compliance.
Richard Strickland of RF Safety Solutions (Strickland) said that a serious misuse of spatial averaging
occurs when an individual is exposed to a very strong RF field over only part of his or her body when in
close proximity to an antenna.41 An example of this is when a tower climber is located on the tower with
his or her head in the aperture of a high-power broadcast antenna. Strickland noted that a similar situation
can occur near the panels of sector antennas used for wireless telecommunications, although the field
levels from these systems would be expected to be much lower. On the other hand, Strickland pointed
out, for microwave sources having very high power levels, the risk to the eyes may be greater. Strickland
maintained that, when appropriate, spatial averaging can significantly reduce the level of measurement
uncertainty and that spatially-averaged measurements will be significantly less variable and more
meaningful than spatial peak measurements.
Cisco agreed that there can be situations where spatially-averaged measurements may indicate
compliance while localized exposures could lead to SAR values that exceed partial-body limits (but not
whole-body limits).42 Under these circumstances, Cisco believed that the best way to ensure compliance

39 See Pinnacle comments at 7-8.
40 See RF People reply comments at 1-2.
41 See Richard Strickland (RF Safety Solutions) comments at 1-3.
42 See Cisco comments at 12.

195

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

is by use of computational modeling supported by adequate documentation. It pointed to a study by
Professor Om Gandhi that illustrates how this technique can be used to evaluate compliance.43
The IT’IS Foundation stated that its evaluations of plane-wave conditions indicated that current MPE
limits are inconsistent with spatial peak SAR limits.44 Therefore, IT’IS maintained that spatial averaging
is not advisable. Until more data are available, IT’IS recommended the use of “non-averaged spatial peak
SAR values” for demonstrating compliance with spatial peak SAR values. It also noted that compliance
can only be reliably demonstrated in the near field of a transmitter if both incident electric and magnetic
fields are measured and compared with MPE limits. The FDA commented that it is important to ensure
that the partial-body limit not be exceeded and it urged the Commission to provide more information on
how to ensure compliance.45 T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile) supported consideration of both spatial and
time averaging to determine compliance with MPE limits, but only for occupational/controlled exposure
situations.46
Hammett and Edison, Inc. (Hammett and Edison) believed that spatial averaging does not have to be part
of a typical compliance survey.47 It maintained that for many situations spatial peak measurements are
sufficient to determine compliance, since the spatial average cannot exceed the spatial peak. Therefore,
Hammett and Edison recommended that the Commission not require spatial averaging in circumstances
where compliance can be demonstrated using spatial peak measurements.
With respect to the secondary issue regarding how spatial averaging should be performed when
appropriate, there were comments on technique, uncertainty and repeatability, and more general
measurement issues. Hammett and Edison noted that a variety of procedures may be used but submitted
that there is no guidance as to which is best. It stated that results using various techniques can differ by
more than 1 dB, and it maintains that use of the vertical line method, mentioned in the Notice, is not a
whole-body average.48 Hammett and Edison recommended that the Commission adopt the technique
described by the Canadian government’s Safety Code 6, which specifies spatial averaging over a planar
region at the torso level, while also allowing use of alternative techniques, including the current vertical-
line method for “non-critical” surveys. To ensure a conservative result, Hammett and Edison
recommended that spatial peak measurements be made while varying the orientation of the operator and
instrument probe, with the center of the probe held at a fixed location, in order to determine the
orientation that results in the highest reading. It continued that the spatial average should then be made in
this orientation from 20 cm above ground to a height no greater than 2 meters. To prevent perturbation of
the probe due to the ground, Hammett and Edison suggested that it is not appropriate to make
measurements within 20 cm of the ground.
Strickland pointed out that fields at complex sites can vary dramatically over small distances in any
direction. He noted that it is often necessary to perform at least five spatially-averaged measurements in
the same location to be confident of a reasonably accurate evaluation. He suggested that if an initial
evaluation in one position indicates that field levels are close to the MPE limits, four to five spatially-
averaged measurements should be made with the operator standing in one position and then repeated in a

43 See Cisco comments at 12 and Appendix A.
44 See IT’IS comments at 3.
45 See FDA comments at 1.
46 See T-Mobile comments at 16.
47 See Hammett and Edison comments at 4-5.
48 Id.

196

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

minimum of four different positions. He believed that if the results are within 10 percent of the mean
value, then the evaluation is reasonably accurate.
Richard A. Tell (Tell) also stressed the need for multiple measures of spatial averages in the field,
especially when strong VHF fields are being measured and when they are vertically polarized.49 He
submitted results of studies showing that measures of spatially-averaged fields can vary by as much as a
factor of five, depending on orientation of the observer. Tell believed that the mean value of multiple
spatial averages is a better estimator of an unperturbed field than any single measurement. He suggested
a series of spatially averaged measurements be performed using four to eight different orientations, or
alternatively, at least four measurements, spaced 90 degrees apart, may be sufficient. But, he noted, when
the overall average is close to the actual MPE limit, it becomes more important to use a greater number of
measurements to obtain the mean value. Tell recommended that the repeatability of measurements be
documented for compliance purposes. This can be accomplished, he suggested, by performing repeated
measurements at a specific location and calculating the standard deviation, expressing the result as
percentage of the overall mean value.
Tell reported his observation that it is not reasonable to expect better than about 8% repeatability in
making a spatially-averaged measurement and that variability in measurement results increases with the
complexity of a site.50 For this reason Tell recommended a simple, straight, vertical line method for
performing a spatial average as the method that will generally be the least susceptible to variation over
repeated measurements. He suggested that vertical line spatial averages be determined from near ground
to a height of six feet.
Several commenters referred us to IEEE Standard C95.3-2002 for guidance on these issues.51 Motorola
contended that if there are areas where this standard is unclear or requires interpretation, the Commission
should bring this to the attention of the IEEE before adopting its own specific techniques or procedures
through rule-making. The C95.3 standard deals mainly with the secondary issue of how spatial averaging
should be defined and performed when appropriate. It does not address in detail the primary issue of the
appropriateness and limitations of spatial averaging with respect to localized SAR compliance.
Discussion. Spatial averaging is an evaluation issue and as such is not covered in our rules; it is generally
described in OET Bulletin 65 and we do not intend to change this approach. Nonetheless, the comments
we received are very helpful. They have been discussed here to illuminate our considerations as we
develop recommendations in a revised version of OET Bulletin 65. We may also develop a supplement to
OET Bulletin 65 to provide guidelines on appropriate field measurement techniques to use when
evaluating exposure in terms of field strength and/or power density. This approach will provide greater
flexibility with respect to future modifications to procedures that may be recommended over time by
expert standards organizations, and we wish to maintain flexibility in our ability to promptly implement
such modifications.
We plan to provide guidance in OET Bulletin 65 that will ensure safety and also provide for repeatability
of measurements to the greatest extent possible. Until more specific guidance is given in OET Bulletin
65, we caution that at locations close to antennas where spatial averaging may not be appropriate (because
the localized SAR limit may be exceeded), the spatial peak field should be used to determine compliance.
The peak value will always be greater than or equal to the average and thus conservative for determining

49 See Richard Tell reply comments at 2-5.
50 See Richard Tell reply comments at 5-7.
51 See Ericsson comments at 8; Hatfield and Dawson comments at 1; IEEE 802 comments at 8; Motorola comments
at 15; Nokia comments at 8; Wi-Fi comments at 10.

197

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

compliance. The Commission will continue the practice for routine enforcement activities near fixed RF
sources of performing linear spatial averages at frequencies less than 6 GHz and using spatial peak power
density at frequencies above 6 GHz. If it becomes clear in specific cases that the local SAR may exceed
limits, the Commission may require the use of spatial peak field measurements.
Revisions to OET Bulletin 65 will specifically address measurement uncertainty and repeatability. For
example, the suggestion offered by Richard Tell for reporting the standard deviation of a measurement
survey has merit and we will consider it in developing our revision. We also herein indicate and intend to
reiterate in a future revision of OET Bulletin 65 that parties making measurements have the option of
performing spatial peak measurements in lieu of spatial averages in any circumstance, since compliance
with peak measurements will always be more conservative than compliance with average values. The
comments of Hammett and Edison, Strickland, and others regarding the various techniques available for
spatial averaging are informative and will be used in recommending procedures that will be technically
supportable and will reduce measurement uncertainty to the greatest degree possible consistent with
current knowledge of these matters.
The IEEE Standard C95.3-2002, which some commenters support, does not provide sufficient
information on the rationale for spatial averaging to resolve the primary issue of SAR compliance we
raised in the Notice. For example, whole-body spatial averaging over an area significantly larger than the
whole body of some persons including children may not ensure SAR compliance in all situations.
However, as suggested by Motorola, we will consider requesting interpretations or clarifications from the
IEEE as necessary, including additional guidance from the IEEE with respect to averaging under partial-
body exposure conditions. We are aware of and will consider the more recent IEEE Standard C95.1-
2005, which addresses some of the limitations of spatial averaging, defining frequency-dependent spatial
averaging areas and explicit spatial peak field limits. We will also consider the recent activity pertaining
to spatial averaging in the deliberations of IEC’s wireless base station evaluation project 6223252 and
recent research on the validity of spatial averaging with respect to SAR compliance.53
4.

Local Zoning Concerns

Summary. Although not specifically raised in the Notice, commenters addressed the issue of the extent
that preemption permits state and local governments to require additional technical showings
demonstrating compliance with our exposure limits that go beyond those outlined in the Local Official’s
Guide. We reiterate our policy that certain requests by state or local governments for additional technical
showings or other similar requirements may be unnecessarily burdensome on personal wireless service
providers.
In the course of this proceeding, several parties have commented that local jurisdictions, apparently
unaware of the extent of Federal Government preemption in the area of RF safety, have promulgated
ordinances or zoning regulations that require local personal wireless service providers to provide detailed
technical showings of their compliance with our exposure limits (without regard to our criteria for
categorically excluding sites where there is no reason to believe an exposure issue exists) or to have their
cell sites evaluated by an outside party at the company’s expense.54 In many cases, they alleged, such

52 International Electrotechnical Commission, Technical Committee 106, Project 62232.
53 See Findlay, R. P. and Dimbylow, P. J., Spatial Averaging of Fields from Half-Wave Dipole Antennas and
Corresponding SAR Calculations in the NORMAN Human Voxel Model Between 65 MHz and 2 GHz, Physics in
Medicine and Biology, 54 2437-2447, 2009. See also Findlay, R. P. and Dimbylow, P. J., Calculated SAR
distributions in a human voxel phantom due to the reflection of electromagnetic fields from a ground plane between
65 MHz and 2 GHz, Physics in Medicine and Biology, 53 2277-2289, 2009.
54 See T-Mobile ex parte (dated Nov. 18, 2004) at 2, 4, 6-7, 11-16 and 19; T-Mobile Supplemental ex parte (dated
Dec. 10, 2004) at 1-3; T-Mobile Second Supplemental ex parte (dated Dec. 23, 2005) at 1, 6-10, 21 and 24 ; CTIA
(continued….)

198

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

evaluations are required on a recurring basis.55 These parties requested that the Commission clarify and
reaffirm that the Commission has exclusive authority in determining whether personal wireless service
transmitters are compliant with its RF exposure rules and that local governments with concerns about
licensee compliance must raise those matters with the Commission.56
Discussion. Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Communications Act provides that “[n]o State or local
government or instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and modification of
personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of radiofrequency emissions
to the extent that such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such emissions.”57
Pursuant to section 332(c)(7) of the Communications Act and consistent with the Commission’s general
authority to regulate the operation of radio facilities,58 the Commission, in the RF Procedures Report and
Order in WT Docket No. 97-192, found that state and local governments are “broadly preempted from
regulating the operation of personal wireless service facilities based on RF emission considerations.”59 A
local government, for example, “may not require a facility to comply with RF emissions or exposure
limits that are stricter than those set forth in the Commission’s rules and it may not restrict how a facility
authorized by the Commission may operate based on RF emissions or any other cause.”60 State or local
authority with respect to personal wireless service facilities is limited to regulation of the placement,
construction, and modification of such facilities.61
In the RF Procedures Report and Order, the Commission also considered the extent to which state and
local governments are permitted to request that wireless service providers demonstrate compliance with
the Commission’s RF exposure guidelines.62 The Commission recognized the need to balance the state
and local governments’ “legitimate interest in ascertaining that facilities will comply with the RF
exposure limits set forth in [the Commission’s] rules” and the carriers’ concerns that “certain
requirements related to demonstrating compliance can be unnecessarily burdensome.”63 The Commission
decided that a binding rule governing demonstrations of compliance was not necessary.64 The
(Continued from previous page)
ex parte (dated Jan. 11, 2005) at 1; CTIA Supplemental ex parte (dated Jan. 28, 2005,) at 1-4, 11, 13, 20, 25, 27-32,
34-37, 42 and 44; PCIA reply comments at 2, 9, 12 and 15-16; PCIA ex parte (dated Nov. 18, 2004) at 1.
55 See T-Mobile ex parte (dated Nov. 18, 2004) at 13 and 16; T-Mobile Second Supplemental ex parte (dated Dec.
23, 2005) at 1 and 9-10; CTIA Supplemental ex parte (dated Jan. 28, 2005) at 4, 28-29, 34 and 36; PCIA reply
comments at 4, 9 and 15.
56 See T-Mobile ex parte (dated Nov. 18, 2004) at 2; T-Mobile Supplemental ex parte (dated Dec. 10, 2004) at 1-2;
T-Mobile Second Supplemental ex parte (dated Dec. 23, 2005) at 1-2; CTIA ex parte (dated Jan. 11, 2005) at 1-2;
CTIA Supplemental ex parte (dated Jan. 28, 2005) at 1-3; PCIA reply comments at 4.
57 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).
58 47 U.S.C. § 301.
59 Procedures for Reviewing Requests for Relief From State and Local Regulations Pursuant to Section 332(c)(7)(B)(v)
of the Communications Act of 1934, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 22821 (2000) (“RF Procedures Report and
Order”). The Commission’s plenary authority in this area has been upheld by the courts. See Cellular Phone
Taskforce v. FCC, 205 F.3d 82, 95-96 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1070 (2001). But cf. Sprint Spectrum,
283 F.3d 404, 415-422 (2d Cir. 2002) (preemption does not apply to non-regulatory decisions of a local
governmental entity).
60 Id. at 8.
61 Id. at 8.
62 Id. at 8-9.
63 Id. at 8.
64 Id. at 9.

199

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

Commission expected that the nonbinding Local Official’s Guide, released jointly with the Local and
State Government Advisory Committee (LSGAC),65 would facilitate the resolution of many disputes
regarding demonstrations of compliance with its RF emissions rules, without resorting to litigation or
other formal dispute resolution and in a manner that would allow personal wireless services to be
deployed and delivered to consumers as rapidly as possible, while preserving the authority of state and
local jurisdictions in land use matters and in protecting the public health.66
The principles set forth in the Local Official’s Guide provide a framework for local and state governments
and wireless service providers to work cooperatively on this issue.67 In particular, these principles
provide guidance to local governments attempting to determine if a radio transmission facility might raise
compliance concerns by helping local governments readily recognize sites that do not raise RF exposure
compliance concerns (e.g., through the use of effective radiated power and separation distance tables and
a checklist to determine categorical exclusions), as well as information for initiating a Commission
inquiry in instances where a facilities operator is unable to dispel a local government’s concerns about
compliance. We note, however, that any substantive determination of compliance with the RF exposure
rules remains within the exclusive purview of the Commission.68
Where there is a genuine question regarding a site’s compliance with the RF exposure limits, e.g., when a
site cannot be determined to be compliant using the criteria found in the Local Official’s Guide, the
Commission indicated that its staff would promptly take all appropriate actions to ensure compliance. In
particular, “if a local government were to make a Commission inquiry regarding a site’s compliance with
RF exposure limits in a case where compliance cannot be readily demonstrated by applying the principles
set forth in the Local Official’s Guide, [the Commission] would require the operator of the facility to
provide sufficient information to demonstrate compliance.”69 The Commission also indicated that it
would consider whether a particular requirement to demonstrate compliance violates section 332(c)(7) in
a properly filed case.70

65 The LSGAC was a body of elected and appointed local, state, and tribal government officials appointed by the
Chairman of the Commission. It provided advice and information to the Commission on key issues that concern
local and state governments and communicated state and local government policy concerns regarding proposed
Commission actions. We note that the LSGAC is now the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee (IAC). See
Modification of Subpart G, Section 0.701 of the Commission’s Rules, Order, FCC 03-180 (2003).
66 A Local Government Official’s Guide to Transmitting Antenna RF Emission Safety: Rules, Procedures, and
Practical Guidance (June 2, 2000) (“Local Official’s Guide”).
67 The Local Official’s Guide provides information and voluntary guidance to local governments to facilitate their
ability to devise reasonable and effective procedures for assuring that antenna facilities located within their
boundaries comply with Commission limits for human exposure to RF emissions. It provides, among other things, a
summary of the RF exposure guidelines and the Commission’s procedures for ensuring licensee compliance and
enforcing its rules, including brief descriptions of various licensing requirements by type of service. See RF
Procedures Report and Order at 8.
68 See 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv); Cellular Phone Taskforce, 205 F. 3d at 95-96; RF Procedures Report and
Order at 8; see also 5 U.S.C. §§ 502 (forfeiture provisions for violations of Commission rules and regulations).
69 RF Procedures Report and Order at 9. The provision of such information is consistent with the operator’s
affirmative obligation to confirm compliance for all facilities that are not excluded. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b). In
addition, we note that an operator must evaluate and determine compliance for a facility that is otherwise excluded
if specifically requested to do so by the Commission. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(c), 1.1307(d); Local Official’s Guide
at 7.
70 Parties seeking Commission review of state or local regulation of personal wireless service facilities based on the
environmental effects of RF emissions are required to file a request for declaratory ruling pursuant to Section 1.2 of
the Commission’s rules. See RF Procedures Report and Order at 5. These petitions are generally subject to the
(continued….)

200

---

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 13-39

In summary, we reiterate our position stated in the RF Procedures Notice.71 As discussed above, while
state and local governments have a legitimate interest in ascertaining that personal wireless service
facilities will comply with our rules, the Commission has the exclusive authority to determine substantive
compliance with its RF exposure regulations.72 Given that conformance with our RF exposure rules is a
condition of any licensee’s authorization,73 certain requests by state or local governments for additional
technical showings or requirements may be unnecessarily burdensome on personal wireless service
providers.74 Of course, we do not here adjudicate any particular local ordinance or regulation. A party
that seeks Commission review of a specific state or local government regulation on wireless service
facilities based on RF emission considerations should file a request pursuant to the Commission’s
declaratory ruling process, as described in the RF Procedures Report and Order.75 Although the
principles set forth in the Local Official’s Guide are still applicable for individual transmitters, we note
that we propose in the Further Notice significant changes to our categorical exclusion criteria – which are
listed in the Local Official’s Guide – and so we will consider a future technical addendum for this guide
to reflect any changes that are adopted.
(Continued from previous page)
Commission’s procedures applicable to petitions for declaratory ruling. Id.; see, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.45-1.49 (filing
procedures) and 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(a)(3) (permit-but-disclose ex parte status). However, the Commission, in order
to accommodate state and local government entities, adopted both a policy for extended pleading cycles and
additional service requirements (petitioners are required to serve a copy of such petitions on the state or local
government that is the subject of the petition, as well as on any state or local government that is otherwise
specifically identified in the petition as inconsistent with federal law. Petitions that are not served “will be
dismissed without consideration.”). Id. at 5-7.
71 See WT Docket No. 97-192, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12
FCC Rcd 13494 (1997) (RF Procedures Notice).
72 See RF Procedures Report and Order at 8-9.
73 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)-(e).
74 See RF Procedures Report and Order at 18.
75 See supra footnote 70.

201

---

Document Outline

• I. INTRODUCTION
• II. BACKGROUND
• III. REPORT AND ORDER
  • A. Evaluation of RF Exposure
    • 1. Primacy of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) over Power Density or Field Strength below 6 GHz
    • 2. Technical Evaluation References in Rules
    • 3. Pinna (Outer Ear) Classification as an Extremity
    • 4. Part 1 / Part 95 MedRadio (formerly Medical Implant Communications Service) Measurement Consistency
  • B. Mitigation
    • 1. Labeling and Instructions for Mobile and Portable Devices Intended for Occupational Use Only
    • 2. Clarification of Application of Occupational Exposure Limits
    • 3. Responsibility for Compliance at Fixed Sites with Multiple Transmitters
    • 4. Labeling and Installation of Fixed Consumer Transmitters
  • C. Effective Date
  • D. Deletion of Old Rules and Update of Portable and Mobile Service Evaluation List
• IV. Further notice of proposed rule making
  • A. Definition of Terms Related to our Further Proposals
  • B. Exemption: Power and Distance Criteria to Streamline Determination of Compliance
    • 1. Blanket 1 mW Exemption
    • 2. MPE-Based Exemption of Fixed, Mobile, and Portable RF Sources
      • a. Single Transmitters
      • b. Multiple Fixed Transmitters
      • c. Summation for RF Sources without Definable Physical Relationships is not Required
    • 3. SAR-Based Exemption of Fixed, Mobile, and Portable RF Sources
      • a. Single Transmitters
      • b. Multiple Portable Transmitters
      • c. Multiple Portable and Mobile Transmitters
  • C. Evaluation of Portable Devices
    • 1. Consistency in Usage of Any Valid Method for SAR Computation
    • 2. Removal of Minimum Evaluation Distance Requirement from Rules for Frequencies above Six Gigahertz
    • 3. Technical Evaluation References in Rules
  • D. Mitigation
    • 1. Transient Exposure in Controlled Environments near Fixed RF Sources
    • 2. Proximity Restriction and Disclosure Requirements for Fixed RF Sources
  • E. Review and Update All RF Safety Text in Parts 1 and 2 for Clarity and Consistency
• V. NOTICE OF INQUIRY
  • A. Introduction
  • B. Background
  • C. Discussion
    • 1. Exposure Limits
    • 2. Consumer Information
    • 3. Exposure Reduction Policies
    • 4. Evaluation
    • 5. Proximity Restriction and Disclosure Requirements for Portable RF Sources
• VI. Procedural Matters
  • A. Final and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
  • B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
  • C. Filing Requirements
  • D. Ex Parte Rules
  • E. Congressional Review Act
• VII. ordering clauses

---