The original 3 parts from The Natural Law Review journal w/ hot links to original after each part.
(All red notes in parentheses are my commentary. I believe that this article shows an optimistic future of possible change by 2018 but according to author there is only one change that is likely of being made and that change is not the one that is needed most--that there are deleterious health effects beyond thermal--because it does not consider the fact that too many people have already died or are now significantly handicapped ~5% and this singularly so because there are only thermal standards recognized as of yet, while it will take only 5 more generations to find our species eliminated if something is not done now-the clock is ticking.)
RF Exposure Limits-Signs of the Times-Part One
Article By:
Michael T. N. Fitch
This is the first entry of three regarding the FCC's ongoing proceeding addressing human exposure to radio-frequency (RF) fields. Although the FCC proceeding has been pending for some time (15 years), Chairman Pai has informed Congress that further action is a Commision priority. Thus, we expect the FCC to adopt one or more orders in this proceeding in 2018.
Exposure to RF emissions is a persistent concern for segments of the public and some public health and workplace safety advocates. With ever-increasing consumer adoption of wireless communications including unlicensed operations and in-building Wi-F, the emergence of small cells, the Internet of Things; (IoT), and 5G implementation, a review of existing rules, largely unchanged for over 20 years, is warranted to consider more current research and studies and to maintain the credibility of the FCC's regulations regarding RF exposure limits.
The FCC regulations on RF exposure limits impact a wide range of business interests-companies which manufacturer equipment, including wireless medical devices, businesses which use radio equipment in their delivery of other goods and services, public safety organizations of all types, and the general public- both as cell phone or other wireless device users and as beneficiaries of countless wireless applications. Any change in the current RF emission limits could cause significant expense for these groups, especially if there are changes in the limits governing devices having high numbers of consumer adoption --smart-phones, tablets and WiFi routers.
The long-pending FCC proceeding addresses a very broad range of issues. The FCC re-states its confidence in the current exposure limits adopted in 1996 (for thermal only). However, it acknowledges that intervening research, the ubiquity of device adoption, advances in technology and developments in international standards warrant a far more current and up-to-date record on these matters (RF is known now to cause cancer while now used as a tool to break DNA strands plus the fact that the ELF communication pulses riding on the RF create malise with essential real time cellular respiratory functions see also: https://rfsiteevaluations.weebly.com/blog/though-proven-dna-bonds-are-broken-rf-radiation-reigns ).
The current FCC limits differentiate between general public and occupational/controlled exposure limits. The latter apply to personnel with expertise and training regarding RF exposure safety. For that reason, the exposure levels are higher than for the general public. In today's increasingly wireless world, a closer: look at exposure levels for the general public appears warranted (training seems a slippery slope for the already dangerously high standards for the uninformed public).
The current FCC proceeding actually dates back to March 2003, when the FCC issued a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) to ''provide more efficient, practical and consistent application of compliance procedures" relating to rules ''to ensure that the public is appropriately protected from any potential adverse effects from RF exposure .... “In March 2013, the FCC adopted a First Report and Order (R&O), Further NPRM, and Notice of Inquiry (NOI).
In the First R&O, the FCC clarified power evaluation procedures and references to determine compliance with FCC limits and made changes to its regulations regarding labeling of RF devices. Key changes include:
1. Amending the rules to reference the underlying whole-body and partial-body exposure limits for SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) and to allow evaluation of SAR instead of power density or field strength for demonstrating compliance for fixed and mobile RF sources below 6 GHz.
2. Maintaining use of maximum permissible exposure (MPE) as a basis for evaluation subject to certain conditions.
3. Discontinuing Supplement C of OET Bulletin 65, which provided guidance on RF limits for portable and mobile devices because more updated information is available in OET's ''Knowledge Database" (KDB}.
4. Classifying the outer ear (''Pinna'') as an "extremity'' and subject to exceptions for localized SAR limits for "extremities."
5. Adopting more specific labeling requirements for occupational/controlled exposure to mobile and portable devices. The occupationally controlled limits apply when individuals are "fully aware" and can "exercise control' over exposure. For these situations there is a two-tiered approach: (1) written and/or verbal information must be provided to an individual that exposure is part of their employee and (2) appropriate training regarding work practices to ensure awareness and control must be provided.
6. For fixed sites with multiple transmitters, noting that failure to comply with the rules can result in penalties for all transmitter operators whose system; contribute significantly to the exposure.
7. Declining to require a new evaluation for existing sites that were excluded from evaluation under its prior evaluation criteria.
(Grandfathered but he's dead now so who cares?) The regulated community did not raise significant objections to these rules largely because there were few substantive changes from existing requirements. The next phases of the proceeding may prove more challenging for device manufactures and services providers (only because they have resisted health standards by creating exemptions like these).
© 2018 Keller and Heckman LLP
Source URL: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/rf-signs-times-part-one
Part Two will review the changes proposed by the FCC in its Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Part Two :
Part One of this series summarized the FCC's long-pending proceeding and initial set of decisions on human exposure to radio-frequency (RF) fields. Generally, the more complicated and difficult decisions were deferred. In light of Chairman Pai's commitments to Congress, we expect the FCC to resolve at least some of the remaining issues in 2018. Let us now examine areas that are likely up next for decision.
In addition to the decisions in its First Report and Order (R&O), the FCC adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) and Notice of Inquiry (NOI). The FCC summarized the FNPRM as follows:
We are proposing to broadly revise and harmonize the criteria for determining whether single or multiple fixed, mobile, or portable RF sources are subject to routine evaluation for compliance with the RF exposure limits or are exempted from such evaluations (in the real world there is no essential distinction between these categories-smart meters are considered mobile when they are fixed, while cell phones left operating while charging on the bed stand at night are not much different). 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. [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. . . . The new, general exemptions wound instead apply to all sub-parts authorizing RF sources. . . 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. Important proposed changes in the FNPRM include:
1. Clarified definitions of "power'' for consistency throughout the Rules.
2. Changes to general exemption criteria based on power, distance, and frequencies involved for all services using fixed,
mobile, and portable transmitters including implants; elimination of distinctions between different services.
3. A blanket exemption for single transmitter operations with up to 1 milliwatt (mW) available maximum time-averaged power independent of frequency and service; minimum two-centimeter separation between multiple transmitters operation at up to 1 mW (ignoring the dangers of pulsed power being more harmful as there are no non-thermal standards yet).
4. For single transmitter operation above 1 mW, requiring routine environmental evaluation above a ''sliding scale" of values for minimum distance as a function of wavelength and maximum power as a function of frequency and distance for five frequency ranges from 0.3-100,000 MHz. The FNPRM acknowledges that the formulas used for the sliding scale are based on worst-case calculations but states that they trigger further evaluation, not necessarily a finding of noncompliance with permitted exposure limits (again ignoring the dangers of pulsed power being more harmful as there are no non-thermal standards yet)..
5. A multi-step equation to sum the effect of multiple fixed transmissions in proximity to each other and determine whether further evaluation is required (multiple fixed transmissions of fixed, portable & mobile this is already available see my store at: https://rfsiteevaluations.weebly.com/store/p4/Body%2FBedroom%2FHome%2FOffice_radio_frequency_radiation_%28RFR%29_3-D_Exposure_Mapping..html).
6. Additional exemption criteria based primarily on Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) limits for single fixed, mobile, and portable transmitters in the frequency range 300 MHz..6 GHz at distances of 0.5-40 centimeters from a human body
and formulas to determine whether additional evaluation is required for multiple portable and multiple portable and mobile transmitters (don't rock the SAR-thermal boat as this would recognize there are other needed health standards). The FNPRM also proposes changes regarding mitigation of exposure to RF, stating that " ... 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." (these cannot change decades old habits) Specifically, these proposals include:
1. Clarification of transient exposure and how to apply exposure limits in controlled environments with respect to averaging time (again ignoring the dangers of pulsed power being more harmful as there are no non-thermal standards yet).
2. Specific new training, access restriction, and signage requirements for fixed transmitter sites with a new four-category system based on an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) standard.
There are four-categories of proposed signage requirements. Signage would be required for Categories 2-4 but optional for Category 1.
Category: 1 is exposure up to the General Population (GP) limit. No signage would be required. Green ''INFORMATION" signs stating that a transmitting some of RF energy is nearby but compliant with FCC exposure limits would be optional.
Category: 2 is exposure above the GP limit and up to the Occupational (O) limit. Signs and access control would be required surrounding the area in which the GP limit is exceeded. Blue "NOTICE" signs would have to be large enough to be visible at the separation distance required to comply with the GP limit. Training would be required for occupational personnel with access to the area. Use of personal RF monitors would be recommended but not required.
Category: 3 is exposure above the O limit and up to 10 times the O limit. In addition to the Category 2 mitigation requirements, yellow "CAUTION" signs would be required surrounding the area in which the 0 limit is exceeded. Transient individuals would not be permitted in the Category 3 area. Use of personal protective gear would be recommended but not required.
Category: 4 is exposure to more than 10 times the O limit. In addition to the Category 3 mitigation requirements, orange 'WARNING" signs would be required where the O limit could be exceeded by a factor of 10 and red ''DANGER" signs would be required wherever immediate and serious injury would occur. If power reduction would not sufficiently protect in the event of human presence considering additional use of optional personal protective equipment, lockout/tagout procedures would have to be followed (this certainly recognizes current ubiquitous FCC violations, unlike the courts).
The signage for Categories 2, 3, and 4 would require inclusion of the "radiating antenna" RF energy advisory symbol and explanation of the RF source, behavior necessary to comply with exposure limits, and contact information for a timely response in addition to the color and key words listed for each category (too bad many antennas are slot circuit-board ones that are not easily recognized or located see pictures at top of this page for what a slot antenna looks like, where one would find one, and how small it is).
The FNPRM states that barriers may not be appropriate for all Category 2 environments and that the FCC continues to support suggested Engineering and Technology (OET) exceptions not to require barriers in remote areas with unlikely public access. The FNPRM also reiterates the principle that licensees cannot exclusively on natural barriers for protection unless specifically approved by the FCC on a case-by-case basis. The FCC Enforcement Bureau can require corrective action and impose fines or other sanctions for non-compliance.
© 2018 Keller and Heckman LLP
Source URL: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/rf-signs-times-part-two
Osure RF Signs of the Times-Part Three
Article By:
Michael T. N. Fitch
This third entry on the FCC's ongoing review of RF exposure limits highlights the Notice of Inquiry that focuses on possible changes to the current RF exposure limits.
The NOI reiterates that the current exposure limits were adopted in 1996 and while expressing confidence in these limits, the NOI observes that intervening research studies, the ubiquity of device adoption, advances in technology, and developments in international standards support updating the record on RF exposure limits. Accordingly, the NOI seeks comment on whether the current exposure limits should be changed, and the costs and benefits of any suggested changes. The FCC explains its intent is to adequately protect the public without imposing an undue burden on industry." It adds that its goal "is to open a science-based examination of the efficacy, currency, am adequacy of the Commission's exposure limits for RF electromagnetic fields."
The tenor of the NOI is that, while safety concerns regarding the exposure limits have not been scientifically substantiated (this is a lie, just ask all those still living who know otherwise from experience about 5% of the population), there are extensive research and standards bodies activity on many aspects related to RF exposure. These include partial-body and whole-body averaging of exposure; averaging area for power density; averaging for limits; among others. The FCC must review a vast array of technical studies and information compiled since the adoption of the current limits as the agency consider whether and how to proceed (this is actually how many studies are eliminated from FCC consideration ie the ones that use real FCC approved devices instead of trying to figure out actual dosimetry then are so eliminated on grounds there was no dosimetry). The views of other federal agencies with health and safety expertise will be particularly important to the FCC in this process (another lie, as these are those above studies).
Specific issues raised in the NOI may categorized as follows:
Exposure Limits. Issues of interest to the FCC include partial-body and whole-body averaging of exposure; averaging area and averaging time considerations; whether there should be peak pulsed field limits and/or limits on contact RF currents; whether the frequency range for FCC limits should be broadened from the current 100 KHz- 100 GHz range; and conductive implanted objects.
Consumer Information. The FCC notes that it makes a variety of information on RF electromagnetic fields available to the public, but it seeks comment on whether it should make additional information available. If so, what form would be most useful to the public. It also asks whether it should require that more information be made available in equipment manuals, at point-of- sale, or on websites.
Exposure Reduction Policies. The FCC asks whether, in addition to its current "conservative, bright line limit[s]", it should consider a general technical approach to reduce exposure below its limits in some situations, requesting comment on cost-benefit and other trade-offs of such an approach and that interested parties specify the specific circumstances, tangible benefits, and impact on the cost and performance of such an approach.
Evaluation. The FCC defines evaluation as: "the determination of compliance with its exposure limits by measurement or computation" The FCC requests comment on the pros and cons of measurement versus computation and variants thereof In addition, the FCC requests comments on the effectiveness of its SAR and MPE limits in certain situation and whether any of the non-bindings matters in its Knowledge Database (KDB) should be made mandatory.
Portable RF Sources. The FCC notes that, although Supplement C of OET Bulletin 65 recommends Maintaining separation of about one inch during the testing of consumer portable body-worn devices, many radiating devices may be used without any separation from the human body (e.g., Bluetooth headsets). The FCC states that its calculations suggest that some devices may not be compliant with its exposure limits without the use of a spacer to maintain a separation distance when body-worn It asks for comments on whether it should consider zero spacing or actual contact with the body when testing some devices.
As this summary discussion demonstrates, the NOI is extremely broad and is important to equipment manufacturers, spectrum licensees, and many classes of RF device users. It is possible that, after developing an up-to-date record on appropriate exposure levels, the FCC may deem that the current exposure limits remain valid. The FCC frequently states that the current values are cautious and in many cases, equipment operates below the permitted levels.
On the other hand, if the FCC concludes that changes in the exposure limits are necessary or appropriate, the FCC likely would issue a Notice of Proposed Rule-making setting forth the basis for and the details of the changes it proposes.
We believe the FCC's next action in this proceeding will be adoption of many of the changes it proposed in its FNPRM discussed in the second entry of this three-part series, including some form of the more detailed signage requirements. Those signage changes, if adopted as proposed, will impose tangible costs for many FCC licensees. These include a significant financial impact-the costs of determining where signage is required and obtaining and installing the new signage. There is also the potential for significant fines from the FCC if licensees do not fully comply with the updated FCC rules.
© 2018 Keller and Heckman LLP
Michael T. N. Fitch
- SENIOR COUNSEL
- DIRECT DIAL: +1 202.434.4264
- FAX: +1 202.434.4646
- PROFESSIONAL ASSISTANTS: BEVERLY HARDING AND CASSANDRA HALL, PH: +1 202.434.4344
1001 G Street NW
Suite 500 West
Washington, DC 20001
Michael Fitch has over 40 years of experience in wireless, international, infrastructure, satellite and other telecommunications regulatory matters. Mr. Fitch advises clients on a wide range of issues in these areas.
Mr. Fitch began his career at the Federal Communications Commission, where he advanced from staff attorney to Bureau Chief and Senior Legal and International Advisor to the Chairman. He also served as a Presidential Exchange Executive from the FCC to the Westinghouse Electric Corporation in Pittsburgh for one year.
He moved to the U.S. Department of State, where he was an Office Director and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Communications and Information Policy Bureau. He led U.S. delegations to Inmarsat, Intelsat, and International Telecommunication Union meetings.
Mr. Fitch then became the Vice President of Regulatory Affairs and Spectrum Management at Hughes Communications, part of Hughes Electronics in Los Angeles. While at Hughes, he was a member of the Board of Directors and the Chairman of the Board of the Satellite Industry Association. When Hughes Space and Communications was acquired by Boeing, he continued his telecommunications responsibilities as well as new programs involving Homeland Security. While at Boeing, he was Vice President of the U.S. ITU Association.
From 2005-2012, he was President and CEO of WIA – The Wireless Infrastructure Association. At WIA, he led a successful legislative effort that resulted in the passage of Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, which mandates collocation by right at many wireless towers and sites in the U.S. He is an officer and member of the Board of Directors of the California Wireless Association and a Fellow in the Radio Club of America.
Source URL: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/rf-signs-times-part-three
(All red notes in parentheses are my commentary. I believe that this article shows an optimistic future of possible change by 2018 but according to author there is only one change that is likely of being made and that change is not the one that is needed most--that there are deleterious health effects beyond thermal--because it does not consider the fact that too many people have already died or are now significantly handicapped ~5% and this singularly so because there are only thermal standards recognized as of yet, while it will take only 5 more generations to find our species eliminated if something is not done now-the clock is ticking.)