Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rules 
Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency 
Electromagnetic Fields
Reassessment of Federal Communications 
Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and 
Policies
Targeted Changes to the Commission’s Rules 
Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency 
Electromagnetic Fields)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)ET Docket No. 03-137
(Terminated)
ET Docket No. 13-84
(Terminated)
ET Docket No. 19-226
RESOLUTION OF NOTICE OF INQUIRY, SECOND REPORT AND ORDER, NOTICE OF 
PROPOSED RULEMAKING, AND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  November 27, 2019 Released:  December 4, 2019
Comment Date: [30 days from publication in the Federal Register]
Reply Comment Date: [60 days from publication in the Federal Register]
By the Commission:  Commissioner Rosenworcel concurring.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................1
II. BACKGROUND.....................................................................................................................................6
III. RESOLUTION OF NOTICE OF INQUIRY ........................................................................................10
IV. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER.......................................................................................................17
A. Exemptions from the RF Exposure Evaluation Requirement.........................................................20
1. Exemption Criteria - Single RF Source....................................................................................35
a. 1-mW Blanket Exemption .................................................................................................36
b. SAR-Based Exemption ......................................................................................................42
c. MPE-Based Exemption......................................................................................................48
2. Exemption Criteria - Multiple RF Sources...............................................................................55
a. 1-mW Exemption...............................................................................................................56
b. Use of Summation Formulas .............................................................................................57
(i) Multiple RF Sources with Fixed Physical Relationship..............................................58
(ii) RF Sources without Fixed Physical Relationships......................................................66
B. Environmental Evaluation ..............................................................................................................69
1. Consistency in Usage of Any Valid Method for SAR Computation .......................................71
2. Removal of Minimum Evaluation Distance Requirement from Rules for Frequencies 
above 6 GHz.............................................................................................................................73Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
23. Technical Evaluation References in Rules...............................................................................74
C. Mitigation Measures to Ensure Compliance with Exposure Limits ...............................................80
1. Transient Exposure...................................................................................................................82
2. Signage and Access Control.....................................................................................................89
3. Training to Ensure Compliance..............................................................................................104
4. Responsibility for Mitigation Measures .................................................................................107
D. Transition Periods .........................................................................................................................115
E. Conforming Edits..........................................................................................................................118
V. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING .......................................................................................119
A. Extension of Exposure Limits to Additional Frequencies ............................................................122
1. Localized Exposure Limit for Higher Frequencies ................................................................127
2. Averaging Area for Higher Frequencies ................................................................................129
B. Transmitter-Based and Device-Based Time-Averaging...............................................................131
C. Wireless Power Transfer Devices.................................................................................................137
VI.  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ...................................................................................148
VII.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS.............................................................................................................155
VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES ...............................................................................................................165
APPENDIX A – Final Rules
APPENDIX B – Proposed Rules
APPENDIX C – Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
APPENDIX D – Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
APPENDIX E – List of Commenters to 2013 RF Order and Further Notice
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Modern communications technologies are an ever-increasingly critical part of our 
everyday lives and play a vital role in the execution of our businesses and daily affairs.  The number and 
types of radiofrequency (RF) devices have proliferated, and the ways we interact with them are 
continuously changing.  As a result, our environment is populated with RF sources, at times located in 
close proximity to humans.  The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires the 
Commission to evaluate the effects of our actions on the quality of the human environment, including 
human exposure to RF energy emitted by Commission-regulated transmitters and facilities.1  The 
Commission has accordingly promulgated rules that set limits for RF exposure and, through the years, has 
created a framework to ensure compliance with these limits.  Today, we take a number of steps regarding 
these limits to ensure the health and safety of workers and consumers of wireless technology, while also 
clarifying and streamlining rules to reduce regulatory burdens on licensees.
2. First, we resolve a Notice of Inquiry that sought public input on, among other issues, 
whether the Commission should amend its existing RF emission exposure limits.2  After reviewing the 
extensive record submitted in response to that inquiry, we find no appropriate basis for and thus decline to 
propose amendments to our existing limits at this time.  We take to heart the findings of the Food & Drug 
Administration (FDA), an expert agency regarding the health impacts of consumer products, that “[t]he 
weight of scientific evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems.”3  Despite requests 
1 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, (NEPA) 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4335; Proposed Changes in 
the Commission's Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, ET Docket No. 03-
137, First Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of Inquiry, 28 FCC Rcd 3498, 
3503, para. 10 (2013) (hereinafter 2013 RF Order and Notice); see also 47 CFR § 1.1307(b).
2 See generally infra Section III.
3 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Do cell phones pose a health hazard?, https://www.fda.gov/Radiation-
EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/HomeBusinessandEntertainment/CellPhones/ucm11628
2.htm (last updated Dec. 4, 2017).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
3from some to increase and others to decrease the existing limits, we believe they reflect the best available 
information concerning safe levels of RF exposure for workers and members of the general public, 
including inputs from our sister federal agencies charged with regulating safety and health and from well-
established international standards.  
3. Second, based on our existing limits, we revise our implementing rules to reflect modern 
technology and today’s uses.  We streamline our criteria for determining when a licensee is exempt from 
our RF exposure evaluation criteria, replacing our prior regime of service-based exemptions with a set of 
formulas for situations in which the risk of excessive RF exposure is minimal.  For those licensees who 
do not qualify for an exemption, we provide more flexibility for licensees to establish compliance with 
our RF exposure limits.  And we specify methods that RF equipment operators can use to mitigate the risk 
of excess exposure, both to members of the public and trained workers (such as training, supervision, and 
signage).  
4. Third, we notice further targeted proposals on the application of our RF emission 
exposure limits for future uses of wireless technologies.   Specifically, we propose to formalize an 
additional limit for localized RF exposure and the associated methodology for compliance for portable 
devices operating at high frequencies (gigahertz (GHz) frequencies). on top of our already existing limits 
that apply at these frequencies, and propose to extend this to terahertz (THz) frequencies as well4  We also 
propose to allow wireless power transfer (WPT) equipment under Parts 15 and 18 of the Commission’s 
rules and propose specific exposure limits for such operations.
5. Fourth, and finally, we deny a pending petition for reconsideration and affirm our prior 
finding that the pinnae (outer ears) should be treated like other extremities for purposes of determining 
compliance with our RF emission exposure limits.
II. BACKGROUND
6. The Commission has the responsibility to set standards for RF emissions.5  The 
Commission has exercised that responsibility previously on multiple occasions.  In a Report and Order 
adopted in 1996, the Commission last established a set of guidelines for evaluating the environmental 
effects of RF exposure.6  These guidelines remain in effect today and include limits for specific 
4 The standards for localized specific absorption rate (SAR) that are normally applied for testing compliance of 
consumer devices operating below 6 GHz were derived from the Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) whole 
body limits that extend up to 100 GHz.  The Commission currently employs a similar derivation to apply localized 
limits where appropriate for testing consumer devices operating above 6 GHz, and we propose in this item to 
formalize that approach.  
5 NEPA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4335.  The Commission’s authority to adopt and enforce RF exposure limits pursuant to 
the Communications Act and consistent with NEPA is well established.  See, e.g., Telecommunications Act of 1996, 
Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 704(b), 101 Stat. 56, 152 (directing Commission to “prescribe and make effective rules 
regarding the environmental effects of radio frequency emissions”); 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) (recognizing 
Commission’s predominant role in regulating RF emissions by proscribing state and local regulation of placement, 
construction, and modification of FCC-compliant personal wireless service facilities based on  environmental effects 
of such RF emissions).  See also Robbins v. New Cingular Wireless LLC, 854 F.3d 315, 319-20 (6th Cir. 2017) (“By 
delegating the task of setting RF-emissions levels to the FCC, Congress authorized the federal government—and not 
local governments—to strike the proper balance between protecting the public from RF-emissions exposure and 
promoting a robust telecommunications infrastructure.”); Farina v. Nokia, Inc., 625 F.3d 97 (3d Cir. 2010) (FCC 
regulation of health effects of cell phone RF emissions preempted state lawsuit alleging adverse health effects from 
FCC-compliant cell phone RF emissions); Cellular Phone Taskforce v. FCC, 205 F.3d 82 (2d Cir. 2000) 
(Commission complied with NEPA in adopting RF emissions safety rules and properly preempted state or local 
regulation of RF emissions).
6 Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, ET Docket No. 93-62, Report 
and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1996) (1996 Order).  The Commission affirmed the 1996 Order in its Second 
Memorandum Opinion and Order.  Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
4absorption rate (SAR, the present metric for highly-localized, close-in exposure at commonly-used 
frequencies) and maximum permissible exposure (MPE, the measure for more-distant, whole-body 
exposure and for whole-body exposure at higher frequencies).7  The use of separate SAR and MPE 
standards, taken together, addresses limits for partial-body and whole-body exposures.8  In promulgating 
these guidelines, the Commission recognized that the potential for environmental impact from excluded 
devices was not significant,9 and established exemptions10 from the obligation to perform routine RF 
exposure evaluation for radio stations and existing facilities with technical characteristics that minimized, 
at that time, the likelihood of exceeding our limits.11  The various exemptions were established over time 
based on assumptions about typical use particular to each service.12  
7. In 2003, the Commission sought comment on exempting some transmitting antennas and 
devices from routine environmental evaluation for RF compliance and proposed to clarify the 
responsibilities of licensees and grantees and make the exemptions more practical, consistent, and 
efficient.13  To this end, the Commission made several proposals related to compliance with the human 
exposure limits for fixed, mobile, and portable transmitters.14  In 2013, the Commission addressed several 
of those proposals; specifically, it clarified procedures for evaluating whether a particular RF source 
would exceed the established exposure limits.15  The Commission also clarified references used to 
determine compliance with its limits, including making explicit that SAR limits predominate MPE limits 
as a compliance metric (although MPE limits are practical and may still be used as an alternative to 
demonstrate compliance in most cases), as well as treating the pinnae (outer ears) similarly to extremities 
of the body for purposes of determining exposure limits.16  
8. In a 2013 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission sought additional 
comment on changes to the compliance procedures to provide more efficient, practical, and consistent 
application of evaluation procedures and mitigation measures.17  The Commission proposed to define 
certain key terms and broadly revise and harmonize the criteria for determining whether single or multiple 
portable, mobile, or fixed RF sources18 are subject to routine evaluation for compliance with the RF 
(Continued from previous page)  
Radiation et al., ET Docket Nos. 93-62 et al, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rule 
Making, 12 FCC Rcd 13494 (1997) (Second Memorandum Opinion and Order).
7 The guidelines were based on criteria published by the National Council on Radiation Protection and 
Measurements (NCRP) and the American National Standards Institute/Institute of Electrical and Electronics 
Engineers, Inc. (ANSI/IEEE).  The 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 (1986) (NCRP Report No. 86).  The NCRP is a nonprofit corporation 
chartered by Congress in 1964 primarily to collect, analyze, develop, and disseminate information on radiation 
protection.  The 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 IEEE 1992).  The content of IEEE C95.1-1991 is equivalent to that of ANSI/IEEE 
C95.1-1992.  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 facilitates 
standards development.
8 See 1996 Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15123, para. 2 & n.3.
9 See 47 CFR § 1.1306.  See also Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, 
ET Docket No. 93-62, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 8 FCC Rcd 2849, para. 5 (1993).
10 As discussed in the 2013 RF Order and Notice, and to avoid confusion in the NEPA context, we will use the term 
“exemption” (rather than “exclusion” or “categorical exclusion”) to refer to an exemption from the obligation to 
perform an RF exposure routine evaluation.  2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3534-35, para. 113.  By 
contrast, under NEPA and the Commission’s environmental rules, the term “categorical exclusion” refers to an 
exclusion of categories of actions from obligations to prepare an environmental assessment or other environmental 
evaluation.  See 40 CFR § 1508.4; 47 CFR § 1.1306(a).  The Commission’s categorical exclusions for actions that 
have no potentially significant environmental impact do not apply to actions that have specified impacts on certain 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
5exposure limits or are exempted from such evaluations.19  Additionally, the Commission proposed 
clarifications of evaluation requirements for portable and medical implant devices.20  Further, the 
Commission proposed to adopt new requirements for signs and barriers at fixed transmitter sites.21  The 
Commission also proposed a clarification of the definition of and requirements for “transient exposure” to 
better ensure compliance with exposure limits.22  It also sought comment on establishing and clarifying 
who should bear responsibility for compliance with the RF emissions exposure requirements.23
9. In 2013, the Commission inquired whether it should reevaluate its RF exposure limits and 
policies in light of recent scientific opinions, authoritative expert views, changes in RF devices, and/or the 
prevalence and usage patterns of RF devices.24  In particular, the Commission asked whether these 
considerations warrant changes in the basic RF exposure limits, the RF evaluation procedures for devices, 
or the content and manner in which information regarding RF exposure by FCC-regulated devices are 
conveyed to the public.25
III. RESOLUTION OF NOTICE OF INQUIRY 
10. We resolve and terminate the inquiry to review our RF exposure standards and certain 
related policies initiated in the 2013 RF Order and Notice.26  In the proceeding, the Commission solicited 
comment on a variety of issues, including RF exposure limits, consumer information, exposure reduction 
policies, emissions exposure evaluation, and proximity restrictions and disclosure requirements for 
portable RF sources.27  Upon review of the record, we find no appropriate basis for and thus decline to 
initiate a rulemaking to reevaluate the existing RF exposure limits.  This decision is supported by our 
expert sister agencies, and the lack of data in the record to support modifying our existing exposure limits.  
Specifically, no expert health agency expressed concern about the Commission’s RF exposure limits.  
Rather, agencies’ public statements continue to support the current limits.  The Director of FDA’s Center 
for Devices and Radiological Health advised the Commission, as recently as April 2019, that “no changes 
to the current standards are warranted at this time.”28  The record does not demonstrate that the science 
(Continued from previous page)  
natural resources or actions that result in human exposure to RF radiation in excess of applicable safety standards.  
See 47 CFR §§ 1.1306(b), 1.1307(a) & (b).  
11 These exemptions were modified in the 1997 Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 13509, 
para. 40.  The Commission concluded that for mobile devices operating above 1.5 GHz with an effective radiated 
power of less than 3 watts, in addition to a similar provision for mobile devices operating below 1.5 GHz with an 
effective radiated power of less than 1.5 watts, the likelihood of exceeding established RF exposure limits was 
minimal.  See Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket 93-62, released August 25, 1997, FCC 97-303, 
12 FCC Rcd at 13494 (1997).
12 See, e.g., any item generally that introduces a new rule part or service, such as Use of Spectrum Bands above 24 
GHz for Mobile Radio Services, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 8014, 
8192, Appx. A (2016) (2016 Spectrum Frontiers R&O and Further Notice) or Amendment of the Commission's 
Rules with Regard to Commercial Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, Report and Order and Second Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 3959, 4095, Appx. A.  In each case, 47 CFR § 1.1307 was amended to 
include exemptions for each new service.
13 Proposed Changes in the Commission’s Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic 
Fields, ET Docket No. 03-137, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 18 FCC Rcd 13187 (2003) (2003 RF NPRM).
14 Id. at 13189-206, paras. 6-49.
15 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3500, para. 1.
16 See id. at 3505 et. seq., paras. 14-107.  As extremities, the pinnae – along with the hands, wrists, feet, and ankles – 
is subject to less stringent localized RF exposure limits than the rest of the body.  See id. at 3514, paras. 42-50.
17 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3533, paras. 108-09.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
6underpinning the current RF exposure limits is outdated or insufficient to protect human safety.  Nor does 
the record include actionable alternatives or modifications to the current RF limits supported by 
scientifically rigorous data or analysis.   For all these reasons, we terminate the inquiry, but will continue 
to study and review publicly available science and collaborate with other federal agencies and the 
international community to ensure our limits continue to reflect the latest science.  If an appropriate basis 
for launching a new Commission proceeding arises, we are confident that the Commission will undertake 
further evaluation of our rules in light of that review. 
11. Our existing exposure limits were adopted following recommendations from the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other federal 
health and safety agencies.29  While research on the health effects of RF energy continues,30 no evidence 
has moved our sister health and safety agencies to issue substantive policy recommendations for 
strengthening RF exposure regulation.  Indeed, the FDA maintains that “[t]he weight of scientific 
evidence has not linked cell phones with any health problems”31 and that “the current safety limits for cell 
phones are acceptable for protecting the public health.”32  Accordingly, it is imprudent to revise these 
scientifically accepted recommendations without appropriate evidence supporting such a change,33 
especially when the FDA itself has found no evidence to support any revisions.34  We take our duty to 
protect the public from any potential harm due to RF exposure seriously.  Indeed, as noted in the inquiry, 
our limits for devices held close to the body are more restrictive than other more recently published 
international limits.35  
12. In the inquiry, we sought comment to determine whether our general rules and 
(Continued from previous page)  
18 RF source is a more general term than transmitter or transmitting antenna and applies to Commission-regulated 
equipment and devices that may not be intentional transmitters but radiate RF energy.  See generally 2013 RF Order 
and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3549, et. seq.
19 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3535, para. 114.
20 Id. at 3555, para. 168.
21 Id. at 3560, para. 184.
22 Id. at 3557, para. 177.
23 Id. at 3564, para. 193, at 3567-68, paras. 198, 199.
24 Id. at 3570, para. 205-52.  
25 Id. at 3570, para. 205.
26 See ET Docket No. 13-84.
27 2013 RF Order and Notice,. 28 FCC Rcd at 3574-89, paras. 216-52.
28 See Letter from Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug 
Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, to Julius Knapp, FCC, (dated April 24, 2019) (FDA 
Letter) at 2.
29 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3570, para. 205; 1996 Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15124, para 2.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
7regulations limiting RF exposure are still appropriately drawn.36  Over 1,000 comments or ex parte 
presentations were filed in the proceeding.  The vast majority of filings were unscientific, and even the 
filings that sought to present scientific evidence failed to make a persuasive case for revisiting our 
existing RF limits.  While the record includes some research information, there is no persuasive case in 
the record to evaluate the quality and significance of that research.  Nor do cases advocating alternatives 
in the record provide sufficient scientific evidence or explanation justifying why the proposed reductions 
are the appropriate value(s), or how they might affect the viability or performance of wireless services 
and devices.  In other words, while the record includes scientific papers of variable quality and 
significance that allude to more restrictive RF exposure limits under certain circumstances, they fail to 
provide any specific, pragmatic recommendation for how our RF exposure limits could be adjusted as a 
result of this research.37  The Inquiry requested 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.38  Commenters that provided scientific 
articles did not answer our request for a specific, quantitative goal but many provided descriptive 
references to the BioInitiative Report and Building Biology, which specify extremely low limits (0.3-0.6 
nW/m2 and 0.1 µW/m2, respectively) for RF energy exposure—limits that are millions to billions times 
more restrictive than FCC limits.39  No device could reliably transmit any usable level of energy by 
today’s technological standards while meeting those limits.40  Further, there is no scientific evidence in 
the record that such restrictive limits would produce any tangible benefit to human health, or provide any 
improvement over current protections against established risks.41 Moreover as noted by the FDA, there is 
no evidence to support that adverse health effects in humans are caused by exposures at, under, or even in 
some cases above, the current RF limits.42  Indeed, no scientific evidence establishes a causal link 
between wireless device use and cancer or other illnesses.43
13. While some commenters seek Commission action to tighten RF exposure standards, 
others suggest that the Commission should revise its RF exposure standards to be consistent with less-
restrictive international standards, like the IEEE or the ICNIRP RF standard.44  For similar reasons that 
(Continued from previous page)  
30 Since the release of the 2013 RF Order and Notice, the World Health Organization (WHO) is in the process of 
revising its Environmental Health Criteria (EHC) on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields. The EHC summarizes 
the review of a panel of expert scientists concerning the physical characteristics of electromagnetic fields, as well as 
“measurement techniques, applications of electromagnetic fields and sources of exposure, mechanisms of 
interaction, biological effects, and guidance on the development of protective measures, such as regulations or safe-
use guidelines,” and it will be used as input by international standards bodies in their development of future 
guidelines limiting human exposure to radiofrequency energy.  See  http://www.who.int/peh-
emf/research/rf_ehc_page/en/ (“The World Health Organization is undertaking a health risk assessment of 
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, to be published as a monograph in the Environmental Health Criteria Series.  
This publication will complement the monographs on static fields (2006) and extremely low frequency fields (2007) 
and will update the monograph on radiofrequency fields (1993).”); see also 1993 WHO EHC 137 on RF-EMF 
(ISBN 92-4-157137-3), available at http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc137.htm; National Toxicology 
Program, Cell Phone Radiation Studies, available at 
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/cell_phone_radiofrequency_radiation_studies_508.pdf (NTP is 
collaborating with NIST and IT’IS to develop additional short-term measurement techniques and studies to 
investigate so that future shorter term studies can be conducted to evaluate different RFR frequencies and 
modulations reflecting the changing technologies in the telecommunications industry.) (Nov. 2018).
31 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Do cell phones pose a health hazard? (“The weight of scientific evidence has 
not linked cell phones with any health problems.”), https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-
phones/health-issues (last updated Dec. 4, 2017).  
32 Statement from Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health on 
the recent National Toxicology Program draft report on radiofrequency energy exposure (Feb. 2, 2018), 
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-jeffrey-shuren-md-jd-director-fdas-center-
devices-and-radiological-health-recent-national.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
8we decline to make changes that would tighten the current standard, we decline to make any changes that 
would effectively relax our current standard.45  Accordingly, we conclude that the best available evidence, 
including our consideration of the opinions provided by our expert sister agencies, supports maintaining 
our current RF exposure standards.  
14. We also decline to revisit our RF exposure evaluation procedures for consumer portable 
devices, especially phones.  Current evaluation procedures require consumer portable devices to be tested 
at maximum power under normal use conditions.  For phones testing is performed against the head, 
representing normal use during a phone call, and at a separation distance of up to 2.5 centimeters (about 
one inch) from the body to represent phone use in other ways.46  Even though some parties claim that the 
RF exposure evaluation procedures for phones should require testing with a “zero” spacing – against the 
body – this is unnecessary.  First, phones are tested against the head without any separation distance to 
represent normal use conditions during a phone call.  Second, at maximum power, even though they are 
not consistently operated at such power levels.  This means that testing is performed under more extreme 
conditions than a user would normally encounter, so any potential dangers at zero-space would be 
mitigated.47  Third, actual testing separation distances tend to be less than the 2.5 cm prescribed for many 
devices.  For example, phones with tethering capabilities (i.e., “hotspot mode”) are tested at a maximum 
separation distance from the human body of 1 cm.48  Fourth, our existing exposure limits are set with a 
large safety margin, well below the threshold for unacceptable rises in human tissue temperature.  Thus, 
even if certified or otherwise authorized devices produce RF exposure levels in excess of Commission 
limits under normal use, such exposure would still be well below levels considered to be dangerous, and 
therefore phones legally sold in the United States pose no health risks.49 
15. We further decline to revisit our RF exposure policy as it pertains to children.  Under 
IEEE Std 1528-2003—the standard for determining the compliance of devices such as cell phones—the 
measurement test setup that is used was designed to test for effects on children as well as adults.50 
(Continued from previous page)  
33 The National Toxicology Program (NTP) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has released final 
reports of its findings, stating that its study found increases in the incidences of malignant schwannoma in the hearts 
of male rats exposed to cell phone radiation. https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/results/areas/cellphones/index.html (last 
updated May 7, 2019) (NTP Animal Studies).  Another animal study was conducted by the Ramazzini Institute 
published in Environmental Research reporting results of research involving 1.8 GHz RF exposure in rats, in Report 
of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural 
death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz GSM base station environmental emission, 
165 Environmental Research 496-503 (pub. Aug. 2018), available at 
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935118300367 (Ramazzini Study).  NTP has not suggested 
in its findings what this research may mean relative to human beings, including anything that would help to indicate 
appropriate exposure levels, and its research work is ongoing at this time.  In particular, John Bucher, an NTP senior 
scientist, stated that “[t]he exposures used in the studies cannot be compared directly to the exposure that humans 
experience when using a cell phone.”  National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, High Exposure to Radio 
Frequency Radiation Associated with Cancer in Male Rats (Nov. 1, 2018).  Dr. Bucher suggested that the results 
cannot be extrapolated to humans because (1) the rats and mice received RF radiation across their whole bodies; (2) 
the exposure levels were higher than what people receive under the current rules; (3) the duration of exposure was 
longer than what people receive; and (4) the studies were based on 2G and 3G phones and did not study WiFi or 5G.  
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/newsroom/releases/2018/november1/index.cfm (November 1, 2018).  Additionally, 
FDA officials reviewing this research also note that “based on our ongoing evaluation of this issue and taking into 
account all available scientific evidence we have received, we have not found sufficient evidence that there are 
adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure 
limits.”  See Statement from Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological 
Health on the recent National Toxicology Program draft report on radiofrequency energy exposure (Feb. 2, 2018), 
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-jeffrey-shuren-md-jd-director-fdas-center-
devices-and-radiological-health-recent-national; id. (“Even with frequent daily use by the vast majority of adults, we 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
9Similarly the FDA maintains that “[t]he scientific evidence does not show a danger to any users of cell 
phones from RF exposure, including children and teenagers.”51  Since the inquiry, scientific debate has 
continued about whether either dosimetric (e.g., higher conductivity of skull and brain tissues in 
children’s heads) or anatomical differences (e.g., characteristically smaller sized heads and outer ears) in 
children could result in unacceptably high exposures depending on use conditions.52  While we agree that 
there are differences in actual exposure in real human heads,53 and acknowledge that possible age-related 
differences in absorption of RF energy in the heads of mobile phone users could result in differences in 
exposure to the head, these considerations were appropriately taken into account and incorporated into the 
measurement standards.54  Therefore, based on the evidentiary record, we see no reason to revisit our 
equipment authorization procedures as a result. 
16.We also continue to ensure that relevant information is made available to the public.  
First, the Commission maintains several webpages that provide information about RF exposure to the 
public.  These range from general RF exposure information to information on specific topics, including 
wireless devices and health concerns.55  Second, guidance from the FCC Laboratory continue 
recommending that device manuals include operating instructions and advisory statements for RF 
exposure compliance.56  This information allows users to make informed decisions on the type of body-
worn accessories and operating configurations that are appropriate for their usage.  Third, we make 
available information on the characterization of typical RF exposure levels emitted from base stations.  
Relatedly, we note that the World Health Organization (WHO) states that “[f]rom all evidence 
accumulated so far, no adverse short-or long-term health effects have been shown to occur from the RF 
signals produced by base stations.”57  WHO goes on to say that the erroneous public perception of a 
(Continued from previous page)  
have not seen an increase in events like brain tumors.  Based on this current information, we believe the current 
safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for protecting the public health.”).     
34 See Letter from Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug 
Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, to Julius Knapp, FCC, (dated April 24, 2019) (FDA 
Letter) at 2 (“NTP’s experimental findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage, the available scientific 
evidence to date does not support adverse health effects in humans due to exposures at or under the current limits, 
and the FDA is committed to protecting public health and continues its review of the many sources of scientific 
literature on this topic.”).  ICNIRP discussing both the NTP Animal Studies and the Ramazzini Study concluded that 
“these studies do not provide a reliable basis for revising the existing radiofrequency exposure guidelines” and noted 
various inconsistencies, limitations, and further need to review the application of animal studies to human 
carcinogenicity research that affect the usefulness of the studies in setting exposure guidelines.  International 
Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, ICNIRP Note on Recent Animal Carcinogenesis Studies, 
Munich, Germany (Apr. 9, 2018), https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPnote2018.pdf 
(summarizing the studies and providing initial conclusions).
35 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3572-73, 3575-76, paras. 213, 220.  IEEE Std C95.1-2005 and the 
ICNIRP HF Guidelines establish localized SAR limits of 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.  Id. at 3573, para. 213.  Applying this approach, 
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, based on the application of this 
approach, the spatial peak exposure in a 10-gram cube as would be measured for compliance in any other more 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
10possible risk from such exposure may, even while unsupported by evidence, still contribute to a feeling of 
uncertainty or a lack of control.  That is why the context and placement of RF exposure information is so 
important.  Given the federal safety determination, the information on the FCC’s websites and in device 
manuals are both adequate to inform consumers of these issues and do not risk contributing to an 
erroneous public perception or overwarning of RF emissions from FCC certified or authorized devices.  
The FCC will continue to evaluate public information materials and update as appropriate.
IV. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER 
17. This Second Report and Order revises the rules regarding the two methods of complying 
with our RF exposure limits: exemption—consideration of whether a particular device or deployment is so 
clearly compliant with our rules that it qualifies as exempt from the requirement to undertake a more 
thorough analysis; and evaluation—a more specific examination of an individual site or device, which 
considers factors beyond those used for exemption for less obvious cases and may be performed with a 
variety of computation and/or measurement methodologies.58  In addition, we discuss mitigation—the 
measures taken to restrict or limit RF exposure, for example in controlled areas, to keep exposure within 
our limits.  We emphasize that this Second Report and Order makes no changes to the existing limits for 
RF exposure.  The new methods that we adopt herein only affect how parties determine and demonstrate 
that they are in compliance with those standards.
(Continued from previous page)  
recently adopted international limits is likely more than the spatial peak exposure in a 1-gram cube for the same 
averaged SAR value specified in our rules. 
36 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3570-71, paras. 205-10.  We also noted the recommendation of the 
United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) in a report to 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.  Id. at 3570, para. 206 (citing United States Government Accountability Office, Report to Congressional 
Requesters, TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Exposure and Testing for Mobile Phones Should Be Reassessed, GAO-12-
771 (July 2012)).  
37 Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, Second Memorandum Opinion 
and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 13494, 13505, para. 31 (1997).
38 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3583, para. 238.
39 See BioInitiative Working Group, BioInitiative 2012 Report (2012), https://www.bioinitiative.org/table-of-
contents; BAUBIOLOGIE MAES / Institut für Baubiologie + Ökologie IBN, Standard of Building Biology Testing 
Methods, SBM-2008 (2008), https://www.baubiologie.de/downloads/building-biology-guidelines-english.pdf.
40 See MWF Reply at 6 (noting that the BioInitiative Reports’ suggested limits would result in compliance zones 
around base station sites that would extend several kilometers for a macro base station).
41 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3584, para. 240.
42 See Statement from Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health 
on the recent National Toxicology Program draft report on radiofrequency energy exposure (Feb. 2, 2018), 
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-jeffrey-shuren-md-jd-director-fdas-center-
devices-and-radiological-health-national; id. (“We … must thoroughly evaluate and take into consideration the 
totality of the data, and do so within the context of the complete body of evidence rather than drawing conclusions 
from the results of a single study. As part of our commitment to protecting the public health, the FDA has reviewed, 
and will continue to review, many sources of scientific and medical evidence related to the possibility of adverse 
health effects from radiofrequency energy exposure in both humans and animals and will continue to do so as new 
scientific data are published. Based on our ongoing evaluation of this issue, the totality of the available scientific 
evidence continues to not support adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current 
radiofrequency energy exposure limits. We believe the existing safety limits for cell phones remain acceptable for 
protecting the public health.”)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
1118. The new rules we adopt are consistent with general engineering principles and the 
exposure limits themselves.  The level of exposure is a function of the power and frequency of the RF 
transmission, a person’s distance from the source, and the duration of the exposure.  The new rules 
account for these variables, permitting a more streamlined exemption process in low-exposure situations 
(low power, relatively large distance between the source and a person’s body, and/or short duration), 
while requiring a more thorough evaluation in potentially higher-exposure situations (higher power, 
smaller distance between the source and a person’s body, and/or longer duration).  Our rules also reflect 
that more restrictive limits are appropriate for the general public than for those persons (typically 
workers) who are trained to understand the need to limit their exposure and have the knowledge and 
capability to do so.  
19. This Second Report and Order proceeds in three parts.  First, we address the exemptions 
from the RF evaluation requirement, identifying broad criteria that apply to single and multiple RF 
sources based on power, distance, and frequency, irrespective of service classifications.  The Office of 
Engineering and Technology (OET)59 will offer more detailed case-specific guidance as needed through 
the Knowledge Database (KDB), as well as through technical bulletins and supplements, such as OET 
Bulletin 65.60  Second, we clarify the calculation or measurement methodologies that should be used, in 
cases where no exemption applies, to determine potential RF exposure levels in the RF evaluation 
process.  In the third and final section, we address post-evaluation mitigation procedures, like access, 
signage, and training, to ensure that persons—both the general public and trained personnel—are not 
exposed to RF emissions in excess of our established exposure limits.  The new rules clarify the 
obligations of licensees to provide safety training to workers and to supervise any members of the general 
public (including untrained workers) who are permitted to enter a restricted area.
(Continued from previous page)  
43 FCC, Wireless Devices and Health Concerns (Aug. 6, 2018), https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-
devices-and-health-concerns. 
44 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (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, IEEE Std C95.1-
2005, copyright 2006 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), New York, New York 
10016-5997; International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP HF Guidelines), 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 organization comprised of independent 
scientific experts that provides scientific advice and guidance on the health and environmental effects of non-
ionizing radiation (NIR) to protect people and the environment from detrimental NIR exposure.  
45 See International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), Draft ICNIRP Guidelines, 
Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz TO 300 
GHz), Appx. A: Review of Studies on Dosimetry, section 3.3.2 (“Spatial averaging considerations”) at 10, 
https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/consultation_upload/ICNIRP_RF_Guidelines_PCD_Appx._A_2018_07_11.pdf 
(July 11, 2018).; See also Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE Std C95.1-2019), IEEE 
Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields, 0 
Hz to 300 GHz, IEEE Std C95.1-2019, copyright 2019 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. 
(IEEE), New York, New York 10016-5997, https://standards.ieee.org/standard/C95_1-2019.html (October 4, 2019).  
We observe that this standard is intended for RF protection of military personnel, and while our intent is to protect 
the broader public, these standards can be illuminating in that regard.  See IEEE Std C95.1-2345-2014 - IEEE 
Standard for Military Workplaces--Force Health Protection Regarding Personnel Exposure to Electric, Magnetic, 
and Electromagnetic Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz (May 30, 2014), http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/C95.1-
2345-2014.html.
46 KDB Publication 447498 D01, “RF Exposure Procedures and Equipment Authorization Policies for Mobile and 
Portable Devices.”  See FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Laboratory Division, Knowledge Database, 
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
12A. Exemptions from the RF Exposure Evaluation Requirement
20. We adopt the proposals in the 2013 RF Further Notice to revise the various specific 
criteria that governed the exemptions from our RF evaluation requirements in favor of a single, generally-
applicable set of formulas for both single and multiple sources of RF emissions based on power, distance, 
and frequency of fixed, mobile, and portable transmitters.61  
21. The rules we adopt replace a patchwork of outdated and inconsistent rules.  Specifically, 
the old rules are outdated because they were developed before the more recent proliferation of RF 
sources, particularly fixed RF antennas now commonly found on rooftops, lampposts, and other places 
not previously used for such applications.62  The old rules also are inconsistent because they exempt 
transmitters from evaluation for compliance with the RF limits depending on the service they offer and 
certain technical characteristics, typically power and/or height.63  Those rules incorporate various 
assumptions that result in dissimilar requirements for similar services.  For example, a Part 101 
transmitter and a Part 30 transmitter both using millimeter wave spectrum, with similar antenna gain and 
transmitter power, are treated differently under the old rules—while the Part 30 transmitter requires an 
evaluation, the Part 101 does not.64  Further, the old rules treat certain RF transmitters—like ship earth 
station transmitters under Part 80—as requiring evaluation regardless of technical characteristics,65 while 
there are whole categories of transmitters—like Part 90 transmitters that do not fall under subparts P or 
S—that are exempt.66  As a result, while certain classes of RF transmitters were categorically subject to 
evaluation, others were not, without a consistent rationale.67
22. The new exemption criteria apply to all of our rules authorizing RF sources.68  
(Continued from previous page)  
47 Further, certain manufacturers design their phones to include features like proximity sensors, which reduce power 
when close to a user’s body, to ensure that they are compliant even if the phones are used in a nonconforming 
manner, and any potential dangers at zero-space would be detected anyway.  Other manufacturers have changed 
device form factors, including antenna design, to ensure reduced RF exposure to the user.  Power control and 
discontinuous transmission on the devices assures that devices operate well below maximum power for the vast 
majority of the time, and hence result in lower RF exposure. See Nokia Comments at 17; MWF Comments at 7.
48 KDB Publication 941225 D06, “SAR Evaluation Procedures for Portable Devices with Wireless Router 
Capabilities” (Oct. 2015).  See FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Laboratory Division, Knowledge 
Database, https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/.
49 We note that any claim as to the adequacy of the FCC required testing, certification, and authorization regime is 
no different than a challenge to the adequacy of the federal RF exposure limits themselves.  Both types of claims 
would undermine the FCC’s substantive policy determinations.  
50 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 (the test 
setup represents a conservative case “for men, women, and children” alike).
51 See https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/children-and-cell-phones.
52 See, e.g., Foster, K. R. and Chou, C.-K., Are Children More Exposed to Radio Frequency Energy from Mobile 
Phones than Adults?, IEEE Access, vol. 2, pp. 1497-1509, Dec. 2014; Gandhi, O. P., Yes the Children Are More 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
13Specifically, we create three broad classes of RF exemptions: (i) for extremely low-power devices that 
transmit at no more than 1 mW; (ii) for somewhat higher-power devices with transmitting antennas that 
operate within 40 cm of the body, a formula based primarily on the localized specific absorption rate 
(SAR) limits; and (iii) for all other transmitters based on a set of formulas for the maximum permissible 
exposure (MPE) limits.  For each class, we provide for both the single-transmitter case and the multiple-
transmitter case.  If the device or transmitter falls under one of these classes of RF exemptions, no 
additional action is necessary.  If, on the other hand, the device or transmitter does not fall under one of 
these exemptions, the applicant or licensee will have to perform a routine RF evaluation to determine 
compliance with the exposure limits.  Under the new rules, every applicant for equipment authorization 
and every licensee prior to deployment or commencement of operations seeking to be exempt will use the 
calculations in our rules to determine whether the device or transmitter falls under one of the three classes 
of exemptions.69  If the applicant or licensee does not fall under one of the exemptions, it must perform a 
routine evaluation to determine compliance with our RF exposure rules.  
23. The new rules do not impose any significant burdens on the impacted parties because the 
underlying exposure rules have not changed and the parties’ obligations to comply with the RF exposure 
limits remain the same.  The principal difference between the new exemptions and the old rules is the 
uniform consideration of the distance between the RF source and the location where a human could 
potentially experience exposure (i.e., separation distance), rather than wholesale exemption of service 
classes or operational presumptions. 70  We anticipate that in the vast majority of situations the 
transmitting antennas installed at stations used by the various services are separated from the public by 
distances greater than those specified in the new rules.  In such cases, no further action will be necessary.  
For example, microwave stations operating under Part 101 of the rules were subject to the RF exposure 
limits but did not require routine evaluation.  These stations operate on towers that are separated from the 
public by a distance greater than required for evaluation.  On the other hand, if a transmitting antenna is 
located near to the ground and closer to the public than the specified distance, it would be appropriate for 
(Continued from previous page)  
Exposed to Radiofrequency Energy from Mobile Telephones Than Adults, IEEE Access, vol. 3, pp. 985-988, June 
2015.
53 SAR quantities in actual human heads do not vary as they do in homogeneous liquids that are used for 
standardized compliance testing, but the properties of those liquids were chosen to conservatively represent the 
heterogeneous tissues in real human heads, including age variation.
54 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, 
pp. 397–407 (May 2006).  See also Christ, A., et. al., Age-Dependent Tissue-Specific Exposure of Cell Phone Users, 
Phys. Med. Biol., vol. 55, pp. 1767–1783 (Mar. 2010).  See also Hadjem A., et. al., Analysis of Power Absorbed by 
Children’s Head as a Result of New Usages of Mobile Phones, IEEE Trans. Electromagnetic Compatibility, Vol. 52, 
No. 4, pp. 812–819 (Nov. 2010).
55 See https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns.  See also 
https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-products/cell-phones/reducing-exposure-hands-free-kits-and-other-
accessories.
56 The Commission does not endorse the need to take measures to further reduce exposure to RF energy.  However, 
for any consumers who are skeptical of the science and/or the analysis that underlies the Commission’s RF exposure 
guidelines, the Commission provides information on simple steps that you can take to reduce your exposure to RF 
energy from wireless phones.  See FCC, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Wireless Devices and Health 
Concerns, Consumer Guide, https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/wireless-devices-and-health-concerns.
57 https://www.who.int/peh-emf/publications/facts/fs304/en/
58 We reiterate that regardless of whether a site is exempt from RF exposure routine evaluation, licensees are 
responsible for a device’s or transmitter’s compliance with our RF exposure limits.  See 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(1), 
(b)(2)(v), (b)(3)(i), (ii).  In the event that RF levels would result in human exposure in excess of our limits, a formal 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
14that station to be evaluated.71 In sum, we expect that if an RF source was “categorically excluded” or 
“exempt” from routine evaluation under the old rules, it will most likely still be exempt from routine 
evaluation under the rules we adopt today.72  
24. For those relatively few instances where an evaluation may be required under the new 
rules, we expect this will be fairly straightforward.  The calculations require only information that the 
applicants already have on hand, notably the operating frequency and effective radiated power.   For the 
most part, these calculations will result in conclusions that are similar to our old rules.  We note that this 
information is not required to be routinely filed with the FCC.  Further, to ease the transition to the new 
rules, we establish a transition period below to allow licensees and manufacturers an opportunity to 
determine whether they meet the criteria for an exemption.73    
25. The proposals we adopt today received substantial support from commenters.  The IT’IS 
Foundation, for example, supported the new exemption standards outright.74  There were also several 
commenters, including WIA, Verizon, and AT&T, who provided qualified support for the proposal, 
favoring the Commission’s general approach to the issue, but voicing concerns over the loss of existing 
exemptions.75  Opposition to the proposal came primarily from parties that objected to the loss of service-
based exemptions—Part 90 licensees, Part 101 licensees, and amateur radio operators—and claimed the 
changes would be unnecessary or burdensome.76  Part 90 Private Users contend that the uniform 
application of the proposed exemptions would increase financial burdens on licensees that are not in the 
business of providing radio communications and do not control all of their antenna sites,77 because it 
would require them to review each antenna site and verify adequate separation distances, even though 
there is no evidence in the record of non-compliance with the RF exposure limits.78  Similarly, the Fixed 
Wireless Communications Coalition, Inc. (FWCC), representing the interests of terrestrial fixed 
microwave communications, argues that the proposals will require at least a preliminary calculation for 
every facility and that an “anomaly” in the exemption would require many installations to undergo further 
evaluation.79  UTC also opposes the elimination of the existing exemptions by service for Part 90 and Part 
(Continued from previous page)  
Environmental Assessment must be conducted to initiate processing under NEPA to determine whether it presents a 
hazard to humans irrespective of its noncompliance with our exposure limits.  See 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4335.  To date, 
no applicant or licensee has submitted an Environmental Assessment for RF exposure to the Commission.
59 OET has developed a substantial body of guidance that is available via public notices, frequently asked questions 
(FAQs), and specific process guidance, all of which is compiled in our online Knowledge Database (KDB).  See 
FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Laboratory Division, Knowledge Database, 
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/.  Equipment authorization topics that relate to new services and devices authorized by 
the Commission are often addressed in the KDB.  This includes, for example, simple answers to questions, guidance 
on how to file for authorization of new types of devices, and guidance on how to conduct compliance testing.  The 
staff guidance provided in the KDB is non-binding and is intended to assist the public in following Commission 
requirements.
60 FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure 
to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01 (1997) (OET Bulletin 65).  OET 
Bulletin 65 provides guidance in determining whether proposed or existing transmitting facilities or operations 
comply with FCC rules limiting human exposure to RF energy.  Id. at 1.  Supplements A and B to OET Bulletin 65 
provide specialized guidance for specific services—broadcasting and amateur radio, respectively—in their 
compliance determinations.
61 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3537-38, para. 119.  The Commission also proposed using the 
term “exemption” (as opposed to “exclusion”) for this topic and proposed a set of technical definitions related to 
output power and separation distance.  Id. at 3534-35, para. 113.  No commenting party opposed the terminology or 
the definitions and we adopt them as shown in the Final Rules.  See infra Appx. A.  A list of commenters to the 2013 
RF Order and Notice appears in Appx. E. 
62 See 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(1), tbl. 1, (b)(2).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
15101 because the antennas deployed for these services are typically mounted on structures with limited 
access and “generally do not pose a significant risk of exceeding the Commission’s RF exposure limits.”80      
26. We note that RF exposure compliance requirements have been generally applicable to all 
facilities, operations, and transmitters regulated by the Commission.  We recognize that the majority of 
the RF sources deployed by these parties and their members are mounted on towers or other structures 
well above ground with limited access.  However, much has changed since the time exemption from RF 
evaluation of microwave installations on towers was first established.  Fixed services are now often used 
for backhaul for wireless communications and can be located on publicly accessible rooftops and 
structures near ground level that are not necessarily spatially removed from publicly accessible areas at 
similar height.81  The Commission’s objective is consistently reliable compliance with the existing 
exposure limits, and these sorts of installations warrant an affirmative determination that they are in fact 
exempt from routine RF exposure evaluation.82  Even though such an affirmative determination might 
require certain licensees to engage in additional effort, the Commission seeks to ensure that the public is 
adequately protected as new technologies, like 5G, flourish and more transmitters are deployed.  We 
reiterate that the affirmative determinations only involve a simple analysis to determine whether an 
exemption is applicable.83  Only in cases where the simple RF exemption criteria are not met would an 
evaluation, and likely a simple one, be needed to establish compliance.84  
27. We also recognize that many licensees do not control all of the sites at which their 
antennas are located.  However, licensees cannot walk away from their obligations on this basis.  Such 
leasing arrangements are contractual, and licensees can provide for owner attention to this obligation, 
including responsibility for any losses due to their failure to maintain compliance, as specific provisions 
of the lease.    
28. Verizon contends that our rules may result in a number of network facilities losing their 
RF-exempt status.85  We recognize that the new rules may, in some cases, require applicants and licensees 
to determine whether an evaluation for compliance with our RF exposure limits is necessary.86  Assuming 
(Continued from previous page)  
63 Id.  For example, the old rules determined an exemption depending whether a transmitter was above an ERP 
threshold depending on which service rules applied, and how the transmitter was installed (e.g., 10 meters above 
ground, building-mounted, etc.) rather than distance from human presence.  See id.
64 Transmitters in the relevant subparts of Part 101 are exempt if building-mounted and their EIRP is less than 1640 
watts, while all transmitters mounted on buildings operating under Part 30 must be evaluated.  See 47 CFR 
§ 1.1307(b)(1), tbl. 1.
65 Id.  The rule presumes that all transmitters on ships operating under Part 80 are not exempt regardless of how they 
are installed and, by a lack of inclusion in the table, simultaneously presumes that all non-ship transmitters are 
exempt.  Id.  Similarly, Satellite Communications Services (part 25), Radio Broadcast Services (part 73), and 76-81 
GHz Radar Service (part 95): “Evaluation is required if . . . [a]ll included.”  Id.  On the other hand, services not 
listed in the Table are not required to be evaluated.  See id. § 1.1307(b)(1) “[E]xposure limits in §§ 1.1310 and 
2.1093 of this chapter are generally applicable to all facilities . . . .”).
66 The language in the rule stating that “[e]valuation required if” certain conditions exist for the enumerated services 
serves to exclude other conditions and categories of transmitters.  See id.
67 Id. § 1.1307(b)(1), tbl. 1.  For example, Table 1 indicates that building-mounted antennas with effective radiated 
powers as high as 2,000 watts are not required to be evaluated, depending on the applicable service rules, regardless 
of how far a distance these transmitters are separated from areas where persons can access.  Id.  Effective radiated 
powers this high could be noncompliant at short distances (e.g., ten meters as described in other parts of the Table) if 
not appropriately installed.  Id.
68 See infra Appx. A, Amended Rule 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(1).
69 See infra Appx. A, Amended Rule 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(2)(i)-(ii).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
16that these facilities comply with the existing RF exposure standards, we do not anticipate any different 
outcomes. 87  Moreover, we anticipate that the number of installations that meet the criteria where 
evaluation is needed will be relatively few.  In those cases, as noted earlier licensees already have the 
necessary information on their transmitters and their installations and would only need to run very simple 
calculations to ensure compliance with the RF exposure limits.88  This presumes, of course, strict 
adherence to—and where necessary, maintenance of—their installation protocols, and we are confident 
that licensees will so act.  If there are cases where an RF evaluation is necessary and shows a particular 
RF source is out of compliance, mitigation or modification of the facility is obviously warranted.
29. Although the rules do not require Part 15 devices, except those operating under the 
provisions of Sections 15.255, 15.257, 15.319, and 15.407,89 to provide a routine environmental RF 
exposure evaluation prior to equipment authorization,90 the Commission, nonetheless, requires an 
evaluation where there is a potential for RF exposure caused by either higher-power emissions or 
operation in close proximity to users, such as Wi-Fi routers used in residential environments.91  
Commenters like the Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC) and UTC argue that low-
power/unlicensed devices, used in for example smart meters in homes and businesses, should continue to 
be exempt as they would be under the old rule.92  Our actions in this Order will not change these and 
similarly situated parties’ obligations or burdens because the formula underlying the new rules results in 
similar exemptions as the old rules.93
30. We further clarify that equipment authorized prior to the effective date of this Order may 
continue to be marketed and used under their existing authorizations.  Parties deploying such equipment 
need only ensure that the equipment is installed consistently with the information in the installation 
manual or user instructions, as provided in the equipment approval, and no further analysis is necessary.  
In other words, no determination or evaluation for compliance with the RF exposure rules will be required 
for example low power or unlicensed devices that have been determined compliant with the RF exposure 
rules under the existing equipment authorization process.94
(Continued from previous page)  
70 See 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(1), tbl. 1. Where previously applicants would compare the operating frequency specified, 
the maximum effective radiated power (ERP), and considerations including how high antennas are above ground or 
where they are intended to be mounted (e.g., on a building) to identify any possible exemption from evaluation 
provided for their particular service in the table, now the applicants will determine whether they are exempt based 
on the applicant’s operating frequency, maximum ERP, and separation distance regardless of service type.
71 Separation distance can be ascertained when installers visit the transmitter site to install equipment prior to 
operation.  See generally 47 CFR § 1.1307(b) regarding ongoing compliance expectations for all facilities, 
operations, and transmitters regulated by the Commission.  But see Whedbee Comments at 3-9 (raising concerns 
about definitions of terms.  We observe that separation distance is well-defined in relation to the radiating structure 
(i.e., antenna) and any part of the human body, and that by convention antenna efficiency is taken into account in 
antenna gain (G = ηD) used to determine ERP).
72 The new exemption criteria will permit up to 1 kW ERP for a wireless base station operating at 850 MHz, or up to 
2 kW ERP for a wireless base station operating at 1900 MHz, each separated by approximately ten meters to be 
exempt from evaluation, which is similar to what Table 1 presently allows.  See 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(1). 
Additionally, low-power broadcast stations operating at less than 100 W ERP would continue to be exempt if 
separated by at least five meters. See id. 
73 See infra, Section IV.C, paras. 108-10. 
74 See IT’IS Foundation Comments at 3 (supports the exemptions as proposed). 
75 See WIA, formerly PCIA – The Wireless Infrastructure Association and The HetNet Forum (PCIA) Comments at 
4-5; WIA Reply at 2-3  (generally supporting the proposed approach but argues proposed exemption criteria are 
needlessly restrictive); Verizon Comments at 3-4 (proposing a modified exemption formula, concerned that the 
proposed exemption criteria would result in network facilities losing their exempt status, including small cell and 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
1731. As with any other service that would have been otherwise categorically exempt from 
routine evaluation,95 the replacement of the service-based exemptions effectively eliminates the 
exemption from routine RF exposure evaluation for Part 18 devices. Many types of Part 18 devices are 
Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) equipment often subject to regulatory requirements from other 
federal agencies96 that, due to their controlled occupational operating environments (most often in 
industrial, medical, or manufacturing facilities), do not present issues or concerns regarding human 
exposure to RF.97  Although the new rules will now require a demonstration of compliance for all Part 18 
devices by way of an RF exposure exemption determination or a routine RF exposure evaluation, many of 
these devices already undergo extensive evaluations associated with RF exposure as part of the regulatory 
compliance obligations of other federal agencies.  The new rules do not require any additional evaluation 
beyond what they should already undertake.  Further, because many Part 18 devices tend to operate in a 
closely controlled professional environment, any RF concerns can be addressed through mitigation.   
32. The American Radio Relay League (ARRL) argues that the routine evaluation exemption 
for amateur radio stations that operate below a certain power threshold should be maintained.98  We are 
not persuaded that the existing requirement, which limits routine evaluation only to higher-powered 
amateur station transmitters regardless of distance, is adequate to avoid inadvertent non-compliance with 
the RF exposure limits.  Amateur radio licensees operate a variety of installations of different size, power, 
and frequency, which can be located in close proximity to people, giving rise to various RF exposure 
concerns.  This further supports the need for consideration of more than just transmitter power alone, as 
the previous rules had done, as a basis for determining compliance with our RF exposure rules.  If the 
antenna performance characteristics are known, then the process of determining whether the facility is 
exempt from routine RF exposure evaluation would be as simple as accounting for distance separation to 
accessible areas in conjunction with the known ERP and operating frequency.99  For situations where 
antenna performance characteristics may not be well understood for a particular amateur radio 
installation, the most feasible option of demonstrating compliance remains to be evaluated, and various 
resources exist to alleviate any burdens that may exist.100  In addition, for low-frequency, low-efficiency 
(Continued from previous page)  
distributed antenna system (DAS) transmitters); AT&T Reply at 4-6 (acknowledging the benefit of streamlining the 
Commission’s exemption rules, but supports the continued exemption of Part 101 microwave facilities).
76 See CTIA Reply at 33-35 (echoing Verizon’s concern, arguing that small cell sites “qualify as a case that presents 
little to no risk”); Private Users Comments at 2-4; FWCC Comments at 2-5; UTC Reply at 1, 3-7; AICC Reply at 1, 
10, 14 (arguing to retain the existing service-based exemption for Part 90 Private Land Mobile Radio Service 
licensees; adopt the proposed exemption as an option, adopt a 2-watt blanket exemption at least for devices that are 
typically mounted with a separation distance of 20 cm, and apply any rule changes prospectively; suggests that there 
should be an automatic exemption at greater than 20 cm but that it is not clear whether our proposed exemption 
would apply at a separation distance of 20 cm or at 40 cm). 
77 Private Users Comments at 2-4.
78 Private Users Comments at 2.
79 FWCC Comments at 2-5.  The commenters mention of a potential “anomaly” in an exemption rests on a 
misunderstanding of what entails an exemption versus a requirement for an evaluation described in more detail in 
Section IV.A and IV.B, respectively.  The formulas in OET Bulletin 65 describe solutions for ERP at given 
distances rather than distance given ERP.  See generally OET Bulletin 65, supra note 60. 
80 UTC Reply at 1, 3-7; see also AT&T Reply at 4-6 (supports the continued exemption of Part 101 microwave 
facilities, claiming that “microwave antennas are not typically placed where persons could intersect the microwave 
path … [and] are typically deployed at substantial heights and produce a narrow beam” presenting a low risk of 
exposure).
81 Commenters discuss “typical” placements but do not address other placements, which are precisely the situations 
that may not be exempt and would appropriately require evaluation to ensure compliance.  See Private Users 
Comments at 2-4; FWCC Comments at 2-5; UTC Reply at 1, 3-7; AICC Reply at 1, 10, and 14; AT&T Reply at 4-6.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
18antennas such as those used by many amateur radio licensees, evaluation generally was already required 
and will continue to be required under the new rules.101  
33. We disagree with ARRL’s interpretation of the impact of the new exemptions on amateur 
radio service operations.102  Contrary to ARRL’s desire to interpret our exemptions as precluding any 
local or municipal RF regulation on amateur radio, our rules will have the same effect on amateur radio – 
amateur radio facilities were always subject to evaluation when warranted for a particular installation.103  
Exemptions are a first step in determining RF compliance, and licensees or operators are permitted to 
choose between determining whether a facility is exempt from routine RF exposure evaluation, or 
complies with the RF exposure limits based on an evaluation.104  An exemption determination alleviates 
the burden of evaluating RF exposure compliance by establishing the unlikelihood of causing exposures 
that exceed the limits under normal conditions of use, but is not an exemption from compliance, only 
from routine RF exposure evaluation.
(Continued from previous page)  
82 See supra Section IV.E(where we adopt a two-year transition period for licensees to determine if RF exposure 
evaluations are required, to perform them where necessary, and to comply with the more specific mitigation 
requirements we adopt in this order as may be necessary).
83 The factors and calculations used to determine whether a transmitter is exempt can be reused to provide a generic 
template for ready exemption from evaluation of numerous sites.  Even when a full evaluation is conducted, such 
evaluation may only involve a rough calculation to show that RF levels are less than the exposure limits in our rules.  
84 FWCC argues that no evaluation should be required where there an installation in which the lowest antenna is 6.3 
meters or more above accessible areas, using typical power and antenna directivity, because they demonstrate that 
compliance can be readily achieved at this distance.  In considering antenna directivity—which is not included in 
our exemption formula—FWCC has performed an evaluation and demonstrated its relative simplicity, and any site 
with similar characteristics is readily determined to be compliant.  Facilities with lower power, greater directivity, or 
greater height are obviously already effectively evaluated without site-by-site application of the formula.  Letter 
from Cheng-yi Liu, Counsel, Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, ET 
Docket No. 13-84, Attach. at 12 (filed Mar. 3, 2016).
85 Verizon Comments at 3-4.
86 Currently, 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(1), tbl. 1 identifies services with operations and facilities meeting specific power, 
location and frequency criteria to be subject to RF exposure evaluation.  In addition, 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(2) requires 
mobile and portable transmitting devices operating under certain service rules to be evaluated.  The new rules will 
replace these services with the streamlined exemption criteria and remove the specific references in the rules.  
87 MPE-based exemptions are derived from the MPE exposure limits in Section 1.1310 and Equation 6 of OET 
Bulletin 65 (Edition 97-01).  “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.”  See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3620, App. C.
88 To whatever extent such a review may reveal that prior practices resulted in potential noncompliance with our RF 
exposure rules, such new information cannot be considered a new “burden,” and the obligation to comply has been 
in place prior to this action.  
89 47 CFR §§ 15.255, 15.257, 15.319, 15.407.
90 These exemptions are based on calculations and measurement data indicating that such devices under conditions 
of normal use are unlikely to cause exposures exceeding the guidelines.  It should be emphasized, however, that 
these are not exemptions from compliance, but, rather, only exemptions from routine evaluation.  Transmitters or 
facilities that are otherwise exempt from routine evaluation may be required, on a case-by-case basis, to demonstrate 
compliance when evidence of potential non-compliance of the transmitter or facility is brought to the Commission's 
attention, pursuant to 47 CFR § 1.1307(c), (d).
91 See KDB Publications 447498, 616217, 680106.
92 AICC Reply at 1, 10, 14; UTC Reply at 3.  Like with mobile devices defined in Section 2.1091(b), smart meters 
are designed generally to be used in such a way that a separation distance of at least 20 centimeters is normally 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
1934. We accordingly conclude that as wireless technology rapidly advances, the new 
requirements of determining and demonstrating RF exposure compliance will best serve all stakeholders.  
Eliminating service-based exemptions and replacing them with exemptions that are applied uniformly, 
regardless of the service being offered, simplifies the compliance framework.  It ensures that RF sources 
qualifying for an exemption are in consistently reliable compliance with the applicable exposure limits.  
The exemptions are tailored to apply only to those uses where the potential of harm to the public is 
minimal, and the clear and easily applicable standards allow for manufacturers and innovators to readily 
determine compliance with RF exposure limits.  By adopting a service-agnostic approach to exemptions, 
our rules will no longer unduly burden developers who are making new uses of wireless technology.
1. Exemption Criteria - Single RF Source
35. As proposed in the 2013 RF Further Notice, a single RF source will be exempt from 
routine RF exposure evaluation under any one of three circumstances:  1) the RF source transmits at no 
more than 1 mW average power; 2) the RF source normally operates between 0.5 cm and 40 cm 
separation from the body, in the frequency range between 300 MHz and 6 GHz, and transmits at no more 
than the average power threshold result of the formula we adopt based on localized specific absorption 
rate (SAR) limits; or 3) for all other transmitters, (a) the RF source transmits at no more than the average 
power threshold result of the set of formulas we adopt based on the maximum permissible exposure 
(MPE) limits, and (b) the intended operation is normally separated at a distance from any part of the 
radiating structure of at least λ/2π, where λ is the free-space operating wavelength.  These specific 
exemption criteria are a generally-applicable set of formulas, based on power, distance, and frequency, for 
all services using fixed, mobile, and portable transmitters.  We explain each of these three criteria in turn. 
a. 1-mW Blanket Exemption
36. For fixed, mobile, and portable RF sources, we adopt a blanket exemption of 1 mW of 
time-averaged available (matched conducted) power for RF sources irrespective of distance from the 
(Continued from previous page)  
maintained between the transmitter’s radiating structure(s) and the bodies of any nearby persons; as such, such 
devices qualify for exposure evaluation using MPE limits rather than SAR limits.
93 See App. A Section 1.1307(b)(1)(B).
94 Where the transmitter is approved as a modular transmitter under Section 15.212, and gets integrated into a host 
device, the host device manufacturers must ensure compliance with the conditions of the modular equipment 
authorization grant or must perform a new separate evaluation for the host for RF exposure compliance.  For 
example, a module approved for a mobile device application and used in a portable device application will need a 
new RF exposure evaluation to the extent that the integration is not conforming with the condition of the module’s 
underlying equipment authorization.
95 Radio services wholly exempt from RF exposure routine evaluation are not explicitly included in either Table 1 of 
Section 1.1307(b)(1) or in Section 1.1307(b)(2). 
96 For example, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) systems and medical equipment subject to Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) regulations.  See, e.g., 21 CFR § 1010.2.
97 See Amendment of Part 18 of the FCC Rules to exempt medical ultrasonic diagnostic and monitoring equipment 
from technical standards, Gen Docket No. 85-303, Report and Order, 1 FCC Rcd 553, 553, para. 6 (1986) (stating 
that “we find that it would be in the public interest to exempt non-consumer medical ultrasonic diagnostic and 
monitoring equipment from certain administrative and technical standards of Part 18” and that “this exemption will 
enhance the benefits derived by society from the application of ultrasonics in the field of medicine by reducing the 
design (including research and development) and marketing costs of monitoring and diagnostic equipment”).  Later, 
in 1994, the Commission added magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) equipment to this list.  See Amendment of Part 
18 of the FCC Rules to Remove Unnecessary Regulations Regarding Magnetic Resonance Systems, ET Docket No. 
92-255, Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 3389, 3389-90, paras. 6-9 (1994); see also 
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/index.html.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
20body, as proposed in the 2013 RF Further Notice.105  The 1-mW exemption is independent of service type 
and covers the full range of 100 kHz to 100 GHz, but it may not be used in conjunction with other 
exemption criteria or in devices with higher-power transmitters operating in the same time-averaging 
period.  Exposure from these higher-power transmitters would invalidate the underlying assumption that 
exposure from the lower-power transmitter is the only contributor to SAR in the relevant volume of 
tissue.106  Also, we clarify that the 1-mW blanket exemption applies at separation distances less than 0.5 
cm,107 including where there is no separation.  The record reflects that, at this level of power, emissions 
from RF sources would fall safely under our existing SAR or MPE exposure limits, which we do not 
disturb today.108  Therefore, at these power levels, a blanket exemption, rather than a requirement for RF 
exposure evaluation or determination of exemption by other means, is appropriate.   
37. The medical implant community largely supports the new rule.  Medtronic, Inc. 
(Medtronic), for example, states that it strongly supports the exemption on the ground that it will 
streamline approval and lower development costs and time-to-market for new medical devices.109  The 
Cardiac Rhythm Management Device Committee/Working Group 2 on EMC Protocols of the Association 
for Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI-CRMD) similarly supports the underlying 
principles of the 1 mW exemption, commenting that such a measure would simplify regulatory approval 
for all medical device manufacturers.110
38. Medtronic and the AAMI-CRMD recommend a more relaxed threshold of 20 mW to 
align with more recent RF exposure guidelines and to support future devices, which are expected to have 
improved batteries and may operate with greater average power.111  They contend that while most of the 
existing (transmitting) implants would fall below the 1-mW threshold because of existing battery 
constraints, greater power will be needed in the future to accommodate the increased range, data rates, 
and reliability anticipated in the next generations of devices.112  We decline to increase the 1-mW 
threshold.  The blanket 1-mW exemption is based on the existing Commission SAR limit below 6 GHz 
(Continued from previous page)  
98 See ARRL Comments, ET Docket No. 13-84, at 2-6.  Under 47 CFR 97.13(c)(1), amateur radio operators were 
exempt from evaluation based on power regardless of separation distance.  ARRL states that its concern arises from 
an apparently uneven regulatory burden that disproportionately prejudices amateur radio licensees, and it further 
asks the Commission to state unequivocally that its exemption criteria “are the preemptive standard, and that States, 
municipalities, and private land use regulatory authorities such as homeowners’ associations cannot adopt their own, 
more stringent standards which might preclude or unreasonably restrict the installation of Amateur Radio stations, 
allegedly due to RF exposure considerations.”  Id. at 6; see also Whedbee Comments at 3-9 (arguing that for 
amateur operations, technical considerations such as antenna efficiency at lower frequencies and defining separation 
distance make the proposed exemptions unenforceable); Leggett Comments at 2-5 (claiming that there could be 
various negative impacts on the amateur community due to the proposals, but that these impacts could be alleviated 
by authoritative computer models of RF exposure and additional written information provided by the Commission).
99 Various simplifying conservative assumptions can be made; for example, if the height of an antenna above 
unpopulated space is known and is greater than required by the applicable exemption criterion, there is no need to 
measure lateral distance and calculate the hypotenuse, as that distance will always be greater than the (known) 
vertical distance.
100 When evaluation is required, additional guidance is available in tabulated generic analyses of compliance for 
broad classes of antennas and installations from the Commission and third parties.  See FCC Office of Engineering 
at Technology, Additional Information for Amateur Radio Stations, OET Bulletin 65, Supplement B, (1997); Ed 
Hare, RF Exposure and You, The Amateur Radio Relay League (1998).  This guidance has been available for years 
and is an acceptable method to determine compliance.  These resources were developed by the Commission and 
private amateur groups, including the ARRL, to aid in determining compliance with the exposure limits.  See id.
101 That is because exposure is in the reactive near-field and therefore requires further analysis to ensure compliance 
with our RF exposure rules.  See 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).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
21(and on the existing Commission MPE limit above 6 GHz).113  They do not compellingly make the case to 
change the Commission’s existing underlying SAR limit to another upon which 20 mW would be based, 
and we decline to do so at this time.  Moreover, our new rules do not prohibit the authorization of medical 
implants operating with power exceeding 1-mW; only that such devices would require routine evaluation 
for certification, which until now had been the case for all implant devices that contain wireless 
communications capabilities.114
39. Motorola suggests that the general public SAR limits should not apply when requesting 
an exemption for exposure from implanted medical devices.115  Instead, Motorola suggests applying IEC 
60601-2-33 for implanted medical devices,116 which provides higher SAR limits, (e.g., normal partial 
body SAR ranging between 2 W/kg and 10 W/kg, as averaged over 10 grams, depending on exposed 
mass) on the grounds that these devices are implanted under medical supervision.117  We will not consider 
such a change, as the issue is outside the scope of this rulemaking.  Our rules will continue to provide that 
all devices using RF energy for communications (or, e.g., power transfer) in a medical context are subject 
to Commission RF exposure limits for purposes of requesting an exemption.  
40. Motorola urges the Commission to adopt the International Electrotechnical Commission 
(IEC) 62479 (2010) criteria,118 which provides a 1.6-mW exemption from 100 kHz to 6 GHz as a blanket 
exemption.  We disagree. Adopting the 1.6 mW standard is not appropriate because it does not include a 
margin for power measurement uncertainty.119  As a result, a 1.6 mW standard could reasonably result in 
RF exposure in excess of our SAR limit.    
41. CDE expresses caution with respect to use of the 1-mW threshold for non-medical 
devices because of possible device software reconfiguration to operate at higher power.120  CDE is 
concerned of possible changes to the device after its grant of authorization.   However, our rules require 
that the responsible parties certify that the equipment marketed under the grant of certification conforms 
with the rated operational characteristics of the unit for which measurements were filed with the 
(Continued from previous page)  
102 ARRL Comments at 24 (arguing that the Commission should preempt non-federal RF exposure standards more 
restrictive than those adopted by the Commission absent a showing that a scientific basis exists for a compelling 
need for the more stringent regulation or restriction).  
103 ARRL Comments at 6-7.
104 Although Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) expressly prohibits local governments from regulating “personal wireless 
service” facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of RF emissions to the extent that such facilities comply 
with the regulations contained in this chapter concerning the environmental effects of such emissions, these 
restrictions do not apply to the amateur service.  Modification and Clarification of Policies and Procedures 
Governing Siting and Maintenance of Amateur Radio Antennas and Support Structures, and Amendment of Section 
97.15 of the Commission’s Rules Governing the Amateur Radio Service, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 19413 (1999) (“Section 
704 of the Telecom Act, which, among other things, bars state or local regulations that prohibit or have the effect of 
prohibiting the provision of personal wireless services, does not apply to stations or facilities in the amateur radio 
service.”).
105 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3538, para. 121.
106 See id.
107 See IT’IS Foundation Comments at 3(seeking clarification that the 1 mW exemption applies at separation 
distances less than 0.5 cm, even while the SAR-based exemptions are not valid at less than 0.5 cm); 2013 RF Order 
and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3555, para. 168.  Modern transmitting implants are generally too small to allow 0.5 cm 
or more of separation distance and the impact on SAR of dielectric material that could be used to increase separation 
between antennas and tissue is unknown.  See Appx. A, 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(1)(i)(A). 
108 See Motorola Comments at 4( “As the Commission notes, under current rules, any transmitter with power of 1.6 
mW or lower will be inherently compliant with the Commission’s specific absorption rate (“SAR”) limit, so 
conducting routine evaluations on any such devices is unnecessary.”); Medtronic Comments at 3 (“The 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
22application of certification.121  Any radio in which the software is designed to be modified by a third-party 
other than the manufacturer must comply with the requirements of a software defined radio specified in 
Section 2.944 of our rules.122  The applications for certification will have to show clearly the maximum 
possible power of operation and, if there is software to control it, also describe the procedures to ensure 
that it cannot be modified.123  If the device is capable of operating at power levels greater than permitted 
by the exemption threshold, it will not be authorized.  If there is unauthorized modification, the device 
will be operating outside its grant of authorization and subject to enforcement action.124
b. SAR-Based Exemption
42. The SAR-based thresholds are derived based on the frequency, power, and separation 
distance of the RF source.125  The formula in Table 1 defines the thresholds in general for either available 
maximum time-averaged power or maximum time-averaged ERP, whichever is greater.126  If the ERP of a 
device is not easily determined, such as for a portable device with a small form factor, the applicant may 
use the available maximum time-averaged power127 exclusively if the device antenna128 or radiating 
structure does not exceed an electrical length of λ/4.129  As for devices with antennas of length greater 
than λ/4 where the gain is not well defined but always less than that of a half-wave dipole (length λ/2), the 
available maximum time-averaged power generated by the device may be used in place of the maximum 
time-averaged ERP, where that value is not known.  This would apply, for instance, to “leaky” coaxial 
distribution systems, RF heating equipment, and other (typically unintentionally) radiating or Industrial, 
Scientific, and Medical (ISM) devices.  The SAR-based exemption threshold P th 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 transmitting antenna (ERP) or transmitter matched conducted power is above the 
proposed threshold for exemption or routine SAR evaluation.130  
(Continued from previous page)  
Commission’s 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, regardless of frequency and distance over the applicable SAR frequency 
range of 100 kHz to 6 GHz.  Put differently, single transmitters operating at 1 mW cannot exceed the Commission’s 
exposure limits based on conservation of energy principles.  Thus, a blanket exemption from routine environmental 
evaluation for these transmitters is appropriate.”); Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 3 (“the proposed 1 mW exclusion 
and the scale proposed by the Commission are overly conservative and are inconsistent with current devices. 
Adoption of the IEC standard will reduce unnecessary and costly compliance testing.”); Wi-Fi Alliance Reply at 11 
(“Many parties agreed with Wi-Fi Alliance that the current 1 mW exclusion is unnecessarily conservative and that 
the Commission should adopt the IEC 62479 standard instead.”).
109 See Medtronic Comments at 2-3.
110 See AAMI-CRMD Comments at 5.
111 See Medtronic Comments at 2-3, 5; AAMI-CRMD Comments at 5.
112 AAMI-CRMD suggests that the Commission increase the exemption level consistent with the SAR limits from 
IEEE standards and ICNIRP guidelines.  IEEE-ICES urges the Commission to adopt the local SAR limit of 2 W/kg 
averaged over 10 g of tissue that would result in a blanket exemption power of 20 mW.  (IEEE-ICES Comments at 
9.)  As discussed in our resolution of this issue, these arguments are based on SAR limits that are different from 
those in our extant rules and thus are outside the scope of this rulemaking.  See supra para. 37.
113 See 47 CFR § 1.1310. 
114 See 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(2).
115 See Motorola Comments at 6.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
23
(Continued from previous page)  
116 International Electrotechnical Commission, International Standard IEC 60601-2-33, Edition 3.0, “Medical 
electrical equipment - Part 2-33: Particular requirements for the basic safety and essential performance of magnetic 
resonance equipment for medical diagnosis” (2010).
117 See id at 4-7.
118 International Electrotechnical Commission, International Standard IEC 62479, Edition 1.0, “Assessment of the 
compliance of low-power electronic and electrical equipment with the basic restrictions related to human exposure 
to electromagnetic fields (10 MHz to 300 GHz)” (2010).
119 Analogously, in the FCC Laboratory’s guidance on SAR compliance, test reduction procedures incorporate an 
additional margin (typically 1.2 W/kg or less compared to 1.6 W/kg) for similar reasons.
120 See CDE Comments at 2.
121 47 CFR § 2.931.
122 47 CFR § 2.944.
123 47 CFR § 2.1033.
124 47 CFR § 2.803. 
125 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3624, Appx. D.  The separation distance is the smallest distance 
from any part of the antenna or radiating structure for all persons, including those occupationally exposed, during 
operation at the applicable ERP.  In the case of mobile or portable devices, the separation distance is from the outer 
housing of the device where it is closest to the antenna.   
126 Certain service rules use equivalent isotropically-radiated power (EIRP) rather than ERP, which is defined in our 
new rules (47 CFR § 1.1307(b)) for exemption purposes 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.  EIRP equals 1.64 
times the ERP.  Similar to the definition of ERP, the definition of EIRP is the product of the maximum time-
averaged power supplied to the antenna and its maximum gain in any direction relative to an isotropic antenna.  
Since our exemption criteria are defined in terms of ERP, we do not include this definition for EIRP in our rules, 
rather the exemptions for EIRP for service rules that use it may be derived by multiplying instances of ERP in our 
exemption formulas by this 1.64 factor.
127 This available maximum time-averaged power would be the maximum power delivered into a matched antenna, 
considering line loss or any other loss that diminishes power delivered to an antenna.
128 A coherent phased array of antenna elements is to be treated as a single antenna or RF source because coherent 
fields sum by field strength and not by power, so the summation given later should not be used in this case. 
Separation distance of a coherent phased array of antenna elements is from the nearest element.
129 See Roger F. Harrington, Effect of Antenna Size on Gain, Bandwidth, and Efficiency, 64D, No. 1, Journal of 
Research of the National Bureau of Standards, Radio Propagation 1-12 (January-February 1960).
130 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 and 
published in the KDB. KDB publications have referenced 3GPP and 3GPP2 power measurement requirements; 
however, when such test configurations and procedures are not appropriate for SAR or RF exposure evaluation 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
2443. This formula provides a straightforward and easy-to-use method for regulated parties to 
use as part of the process in evaluating their compliance with the existing RF exposure limits.  The 
algorithm accounts for the major contributing variables in RF exposure (frequency, distance, and power), 
ensuring that exposure levels stay safely below our established limits.  We have set the parameters of this 
formula to cover a wide range of use cases, while not unnecessarily complicating the calculations, 
allowing parties to readily determine if a device qualifies for the exemption.  
44. A number of parties support the Commission’s uniform formula for SAR exemption.131  
For example, the IT’IS Foundation supported the principle of the SAR-based exemption, agreeing that the 
exemption should be based on physical characteristics rather than service type and that such exemptions 
are consistent with protecting the public, while reducing the costs of regulation.132  
45. Other commenters suggested alternatives to our proposed approach, but we decline to 
adopt them.  The Wi-Fi Alliance contends that the proposed SAR-based exemptions are too conservative 
and inconsistent with the operation of current devices.133  Similarly, IEEE-ICES urges the Commission to 
adopt a higher SAR exposure limit of 2 W/kg averaged over 10 g, a limit used elsewhere in the world and 
resulting in RF exposure levels that are significantly higher than those under our rules.134  Instead, these 
parties support the use of technical standard IEC 62479 (2010), which provides alternative 
recommendations for exemption of low-power devices based on SAR.135  
46. We are not persuaded that the IEC standard should be adopted at this time.  Even though 
the IEC’s standard—like our proposal—uses dipoles and flat phantoms136 as a starting point for modeling 
and the same frequency range (300 MHz-6 GHz), it departs significantly with respect to the applicable 
range of separation distances and use of bandwidth, with increased complexity in the resulting formulas.  
In an effort to maintain simplicity, we have limited the exemptions to those based solely on the 
relationship of power (both available or matched power and ERP), distance, and frequency without other 
inputs that would effectively render an exemption determination as complex as an evaluation (such as 
antenna pattern or bandwidth).  Additionally, while our proposal uses a separation distance of 0.5- cm to 
40 cm, the IEC standard uses a smaller distance, 0.5 cm to 2.5 cm.  This is problematic, because 
numerous devices that might be subject to the SAR-based exemption operate with a separation distance of 
more than 2.5 cm.137  Further, the rules we adopt use a reduced target SAR value in derivation in order to 
(Continued from previous page)  
purposes, the OET Laboratory will provide power measurement guidance.  Moreover, some power measurement 
procedures may be specific to the particular wireless technology under consideration (e.g., Wi-Fi).
131 See IT’IS Foundation Comments at 3 (supports the exemptions as proposed and finds them consistent with its 
research and easy to apply).  As indicated in the 2013 RF Order and Notice, this approach to exemptions came about 
from commenters in response to our 2003 Notice offering broad support for the idea of simplifying our criteria and 
making them consistent across all services, and for the Commission to consider a “sliding scale” or a more detailed 
scheme for defining exemptions based on simple calculation methods.  See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 
at 3545, para. 140.
132 See IT’IS Foundation Comments at 2-3.
133 Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 3.
134 IEEE-ICES Comments at 9 (referencing Annex A of IEC 62479 and recognizing that the blanket exemption (up 
to 6 GHz) has been derived from the existing SAR limit). 
135 See Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 3; IEEE-ICES Comments at 9; Motorola Comments at 5-6; MWF Comments at 
4,13-14 (encourages the use of IEC 62479, but also supports the use of time-averaged power). 
136 A flat phantom is a planar model of absorbing tissue.
137 MWF suggests we include an explanation of why our SAR-based exemptions are constant at separation distances 
between 20 cm and 40 cm.  See MWF Comments at 14.  We clarify that these constant values avoid discontinuities 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
25cover the range of several device parameters including bandwidth, while IEC uses transmitter bandwidth 
as a parameter to allow higher powers for wider bandwidth devices,138 reducing the simplicity of this SAR 
exemption.  
47. As the IT’IS Foundation and Whedbee point out, there are several other parameters that 
could be considered besides bandwidth, but we conclude that additional complexity in the exemption 
formula would result in regulations that are of little or no practical utility as a simple exemption protocol; 
additional factors can be taken into account as needed or appropriate in a more thorough evaluation to 
demonstrate compliance.139  Finally, the IEC model does not directly incorporate antenna directivity and 
states that it may not apply to devices with highly directive antennas;140 however, the new rules address 
this by limiting ERP (in addition to available power) which accommodates the greater exposure that may 
result from antenna directivity.  In addition, with respect to IT’IS Foundation’s suggestion that we extend 
the SAR-based exemption formula from 0.5 cm to 0 cm to account for wearable technologies, we decline 
to do so, because there is no modeling data that validates such an extension.141
c. MPE-Based Exemption 
48. We also adopt our proposed general frequency and separation-distance dependent MPE-
based effective radiated power (ERP) thresholds in Table 2 to support an exemption from further 
evaluation from 300 kHz through 100 GHz in frequency, as proposed in the 2013 RF Order and Notice.142  
The table we adopt applies to any RF source (i.e. single fixed, mobile, and portable transmitters) and 
specifies power and distance criteria for each of the five frequency ranges used for the MPE limits.  These 
criteria, shown in Table 2 below, apply at separation distances from any part of the radiating structure of 
at least λ/2π.143  The thresholds in Table 2 are based on the general population MPE limits with a single 
perfect reflection, outside of the reactive near-field, and in the main beam of the radiator.  When the 
maximum time-averaged effective radiated power is no more than the value calculated from the formulas, 
the source is exempt from further evaluation.144  The record reflects that, at the levels of power, distance, 
in the threshold when transitioning between SAR-based and MPE-based exemption criteria at 40 cm, considering 
the importance of reflections. 
138 SAR is simpler and results in no more exposure (and often less) than the IEC formulation.  See 2013 RF Order 
and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3624, Appx. D.
139 IT’IS Foundation Comments at 3; Whedbee Comments at 9 (Whedbee objects to the purported complexity of our 
proposed exemption criteria but appears to overlook that not all potential exemption input parameters are necessary 
to ensure compliance in most situations and that further simplicity could make the exemptions more conservative 
than necessary).
140 IEC 62479, Edition 1.0, at 14, Annex B.
141 See IT’IS Foundation Comments at 3.
142 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3540-44, paras. 128-138.
143 In Table 2, if R < λ/2π, 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 SAR-based exemption criteria may be used in accordance 
with the formulas specified in Table 2, but these SAR-based exemptions are not valid below 300 MHz.  Thus, there 
are no exemption criteria below 239 MHz for portable devices (or for any antenna at less than 20 cm) other than the 
1 mW blanket exemption.  The λ/2π distance in meters may be conveniently calculated using the formula: 47.7/f 
where f is the operating frequency in megahertz.  
144 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3620, Appx. C; see also OET Bulletin 65, Equation 6.  In some 
cases, where ERP is not well defined the available maximum time-averaged power may be used as Threshold ERP.  
See id. at 3512, para. b.  Also, rather than specify inequality formulas in Table 2, we instead, specify thresholds 
where an equal or lesser ERP to the Threshold ERP specified in Table 2 for the transmitter operating frequency 
would be considered exempt from evaluation. Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
26and frequency reflected by this formula, emissions from RF sources would fall safely under our existing 
MPE exposure limits, which we do not disturb today.145  Therefore, an exemption at the threshold ERP 
levels reflected in Table 2, rather than case-by-case evaluation, is appropriate. 
Table 2.  Single RF Sources Subject to Routine Environmental Evaluation under 
MPE-Based Exemptions, R ≥ λ/2π
Transmitter Frequency Threshold ERP
0.3 – 1.34 1,920 R²
1.34 – 30 3,450 R²/f²
30 – 300 3.83 R²
300 – 1,500 0.0128 R²f
1,500 – 100,000 19.2 R²
Note: Transmitter Frequency is in MHz, Threshold ERP is in watts, R is in meters, f is in MHz.
49. Single RF sources are exempt if, using Table 2 above, for the frequency (f in MHz) and 
separation distance (R in meters) at which the source operates, the ERP (in watts) is no more than the 
calculated value prescribed for that frequency.  For the exemption in Table 2 to apply, the separation 
distance in meters, R,146 must be at least λ/2π, where λ is the free-space operating wavelength.  If the ERP 
of a single RF source is not easily obtained, then the available maximum (source-based) time-averaged 
power may be used in lieu of ERP if the device antenna(s) or radiating structure(s) do not exceed the 
electrical length of λ/4.  If the ERP of the single RF source and transmitting antenna(s) (including 
coherent array) exceeds the ERP threshold, then the RF source is not exempt and the applicant must 
prepare an evaluation.147
50. As with our SAR-based exemption, we have crafted our MPE-based exemption to ensure 
that any source falling within the exemption will not expose members of the public to RF levels beyond 
our established standards.  The formula for the MPE-based exemption is designed to apply to a wide 
range of applications, while still ensuring a relatively simple calculation.  
51. A number of commenters expressed support for our proposed approach.  WIA 
commented in favor of replacing service-based exemptions with broadly applicable standards, noting that 
service-based exemptions were subject to change and thus difficult to keep up to date.148  Similarly, 
Motorola generally supported the notion of developing an MPE-based exemption based on power, 
distance, and frequency, noting that because RF exposure is a function of these factors “it is sensible to 
145 See WIA Comments at 4; Motorola Comments at 4; Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 2; Verizon Reply at 2-4.
146 The definition for separation distance in this calculation is identical to that concerning SAR-based thresholds. See 
supra para. 42.
147 At sites with multiple fixed transmitters, or with multiple mobile or portable transmitters within the same device, 
the formulas would be applied in conjunction with the summations discussed in the section on Exemption Criteria - 
Multiple RF Sources, Section IV.A.2 below. 
148 See WIA Comments at 4.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
27identify minimum thresholds below which evaluation is unnecessary.”149
52. Even though WIA supports this approach, it contends that the exemption criteria are too 
restrictive and suggests adjusting the formulas to more readily exempt transmitters mounted on dedicated, 
access-controlled wireless support structures in the frequency range of 300 MHz to 3 GHz.150  Similarly, 
Verizon proposes a modified exemption formula—one that would apply between 400 MHz and 3 GHz,151 
concerned that the proposed exemption criteria would result in a number of network facilities losing their 
exempt status.152  WIA and Verizon argue that certain transmitters would present a de minimis risk of non-
compliance with our rules.153  
53. Given recent developments in wireless infrastructure deployment, we conclude it is more 
appropriate to adopt refraining from such a broad alternative exemption formula for small cell or DAS 
transmitters. Rather, the exemption formulas we adopt in this Order will apply to small cell or DAS 
transmitters, as it does to other transmitters as well.154 Further, for similarly-located small cell 
deployments that share technical characteristics (i.e. a small cell deployment with the same equipment 
placed at the same height), licensees can use the same exemption for all such small cell deployments. 
Although small cell and DAS transmitters were likely to be exempt under our previous rules, those 
exemptions were premised on the assumption that they were not being placed in or near publicly 
accessible areas.155  The fact that small cell or DAS transmitters are “building-mounted” today does not 
preclude persons from having access to the front of antennas that could previously be presumed to always 
be distant from people, particularly when mounted low to the ground or in other accessible locations, and 
the actual distance from potential human presence should be taken into consideration.156  
54. Further, we decline to adopt Verizon’s proposal to relax the standard for “transmitters 
located on structures where access can more readily be controlled.”157  While a supporting structure, such 
as a utility pole, may not be publicly accessible, adjacent spaces, like sidewalks, yards, or rights-of-way, 
(Continued from previous page)  
149 See Motorola Comments at 5.
150 WIA Comments at 4-5; WIA Reply at 2-3; Verizon Comments at 3-4 (contends that the Commission’s proposal 
mixes spatially-averaged and spatial-peak power density which results in an over-estimation of far-field power 
density and a threshold power density that is too low, which would result in more transmitters not being considered 
exempt).
151 Verizon Comments at 3-4.
152 Verizon Comments at 3-4; Verizon claims that while the Commission’s use of 100 percent reflection in its 
derivation is appropriate to predict peak power density, it is inappropriate for predicting spatially-averaged power 
density, based on ground reflection and spatial averaging along a vertical line.  Verizon is the only commenter to 
attempt to substantiate its argument - in its Technical Appx. A, it provides a technical justification of its conclusion 
that between 400 MHz and 3 GHz access-limited transmitters should be exempt if their ERP in watts is less than 76 
R2 with R the separation distance in meters.  See Verizon Comments at 4, Appendix A Verizon uses the same 
formula as the Commission, including 100 percent reflection, but incorporates the IEEE Std C95.1-2005 spatial peak 
power density value of 40 W/m2 between 400 MHz and 3 GHz to calculate an ERP threshold of 76 R2.  Id.; see also 
AT&T Comments (AT&T provides an example of a base station transmitter that would be exempt under the current 
rules but would no longer be exempt under the proposed rules, agreeing with WIA and Verizon and supporting their 
proposal for a modified exemption formula where access is controlled); CTIA Reply at 33-35 (arguing that small 
cell sites present little or no risk).
153 See WIA Comments at 4; Verizon Reply at 2-4. 
154 WIA and Verizon’s proposed alternative formula that would take into account additional relevant characteristics 
of the antenna and the site will result into a formula that more closely resembles the evaluation rather than the 
exemption process. Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
28may be accessible, rendering the transmitter appropriate for evaluation.158  Although small cells and DAS 
transmitters may not be exempt under our new rules, the necessary determination of exemption or 
evaluation can be done simply and inexpensively.  In the typical case of a structure as suggested by 
Verizon, the appropriate placement of the antenna can provide the basis for an exemption and can be 
readily replicated for other structures.159  For a typical building- or roof-mounted antenna or a directional 
antenna, a routine evaluation can often take into account relevant characteristics of the antenna and the 
site to demonstrate compliance through a simple calculation.  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, such as performance of an RF exposure 
evaluation using the methods similar to those WIA and Verizon have proposed.  We acknowledge that in 
some cases the simplicity of the exemption provisions may require an evaluation that would not be 
required if the formula was more complex.  We conclude, however, that we have struck the right balance 
between simplicity, accuracy, and ensuring safety, as well as between requiring more complex analysis in 
all cases and requiring it in only a small percentage of cases.  Further, we find that Verizon’s alternative 
formula is based on inappropriate assumptions,160 and cannot ensure compliance with the Commission’s 
RF exposure limits.
2. Exemption Criteria - Multiple RF Sources
55. In this section, we address how to treat multiple RF sources in determining whether they 
are exempt from routine RF exposure evaluation.  We adopt a modified version of our 2013 proposals 
describing the appropriate summation formulas and the circumstances in which they apply.161 
a. 1-mW Exemption
56. For multiple RF sources inside a single device,162 each of which is capable of no more 
than 1 mW, we adopt a minimum 2-cm separation distance between antennas that operate in the same 
(Continued from previous page)  
155 See 1996 Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15157, para. 89 (discussing that some transmitting facilities, regardless of 
service, may pose exposure concerns above MPE limits because high operating power, location or relative 
accessibility and use of such variables that apply generally to all transmitting facilities); Id. at 15158, para. 91 
(discussing high operating power transmitters may need to be evaluated if certain conditions apply, such as when 
workers or the public could have access to the transmitter site, supporting need for routine evaluation) 
156 See Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd at 13534, para. 
104.  The Commission replaced the term “rooftop” with the term “building-mounted” in its rules “to make it clear 
that our [exemptions from RF exposure routine evaluation requirements] apply to transmitters mounted on the sides 
of buildings as well as those mounted on building roofs . . . [to] remove possible confusion in the existing rules and . 
. . avoid potential situations where persons could be exposed to RF emissions in excess of our guidelines.”  Id.
157 See Verizon Comments at 4.
158 Verizon Comments at 3-7; WIA Reply at 2, 3.  While Verizon’s analysis purports to demonstrate that the 
maximum spatially-averaged exposure at ground level would be 17.1 percent of the Commission general 
population/uncontrolled limit and a similar analysis at the height of the antenna gives a maximum exposure of 57.1 
percent of the limit, this analysis was performed with the minimum transmitter power and minimum antenna gain 
for small cells—a best case, rather than a worst case (or even typical case).  See Verizon Comments at Appendix B.  
It is not apparent that realistically higher power and/or gain would not cause exposure over the limit.  As Verizon 
itself shows, its proposed exemption formula gives a potential ERP threshold for an occupant of the example phone 
booth of 44.13 watts which is 4.413 times greater than the 10 watt ERP used in its calculation; resulting in a 
calculation of exposure that is 252 percent of the general population exposure limit at the height of the antenna and 
up to 75.5 percent spatially averaged at ground level, suggesting a significant risk of excessive exposure in the space 
occupied by a body (i.e., appreciably above ground level).  See id. (The ERP ratio of 4.413 (from 44.13 W/10 W) 
times 17.1% and 57.1% gives 75.5% and 252%, respectively.).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
29time-averaging period, as proposed in the 2013 RF Further Notice.163  In other words, if there are two or 
more RF sources inside a single device operating at the same time and the nearest parts of the antenna 
structures are separated by less than two centimeters, the 1-mW exemption will not apply.  However, if 
the sum of multiple sources that can operate at the same time is less than 1 mW during the time-averaging 
period, they may be treated as a single source (separation is not required), and exempted accordingly.  As 
with the exemption for a single RF source, this exemption cannot be used in conjunction with other 
exemption criteria, and medical implant devices may use only this 1-mW exemption.  The record reflects 
that, based on these separation distances, emissions from multiple RF sources at no more than 1 mW 
power each would fall safely under our existing RF exposure limits, which we do not disturb today.164  
Therefore, we conclude that a blanket exemption, rather than case-by-case evaluation, is appropriate. 
b. Use of Summation Formulas
57. In situations where RF exposure is generated from multiple sources at the same time, all 
such sources are considered in the aggregate to determine compliance with the exposure limits.  The 
SAR- and MPE-based exemptions may be used along with known existing exposure levels to exempt 
multiple RF sources.165  This is accomplished by normalizing each source power level to each matching 
exemption threshold power and determining whether the total of all the normalized powers166 is no more 
than 1, meaning the summation of the percentages of the threshold from each RF source involved is no 
more than 100 percent of the threshold for the given exposure conditions.  In addition, if pre-existing 
exposure levels are known, they may also be normalized to the exposure limits to determine the 
remaining margin for exemption of additional sources to demonstrate compliance with the limit.  These 
concepts are applied to the antennas of multiple transmitters in a single device and to multiple fixed 
(Continued from previous page)  
159 For example, if calculation determines that for a particular transmitter power and antenna type, the closest 
location at which the exposure limit is exceeded is X, installation elements that assure the antenna distance exceeds 
X can be repeatedly used without further assessment of each site.
160 Verizon’s alternative formula assumes inappropriately that reflections cause only peak field exposure and it uses 
IEEE (2005) peak field limits while ignoring both the IEEE and the Commission’s whole-body exposure limits.  The 
Commission’s rules do not set a relaxed limit on spatial peak power density.  Even a simple free-space (without 
reflection) calculation shows that, accepting Verizon’s proposed change, the formula would allow a uniform power 
density over the body (independent of distance R) to considerably exceed the Commission’s general population 
exposure limit; for example, at 400 MHz, it would exceed the limit almost 4 times (a factor of 3.72).  (See OET 
Bulletin 65 eq. (5), S = 1.64 ERP/4πR2, inserting Verizon’s formula of ERP = 76 R2 gives a constant power density 
of S = 9.92 W/m2 and the Commission general population/uncontrolled limit at 400 MHz is S = 2.67 W/m2 
(9.92/2.67 = 3.72) and rises to 10 W/m2 at 1500 MHz.)  While this overage would be smaller at higher frequencies, 
it does not consider reflections, which would increase exposure beyond that calculated for free-space.  As for spatial 
field variations, Verizon’s argument that reflections only result in partial body exposures is not valid.  For example, 
in the case of an individual standing between a vertical reflector (e.g., a wall with metallic elements or a large metal 
appliance or pole) and a transmitting antenna, the electric field at one-quarter wavelength and continuing at one-half 
wavelength intervals from the reflector could be doubled (with 4 times the equivalent power density) and uniform as 
measured over a vertical line – a standard method for spatial averaging.  Verizon fails to account for such vertical 
reflectors and resulting spatially-averaged field enhancements, which are particularly relevant at urban wireless 
facilities as powers increase and antennas continue to be installed on and adjacent to buildings.
161 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3544-47, paras. 139-44, 3550-54, paras. 154-65.
162 See 47 CFR § 2.1 Terms and definitions.  End Product. A completed electronic device that has received all 
requisite FCC approvals and is suitable for marketing.
163 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3538, para. 121, 3555, para. 168.
164 See Motorola Comments at 4; Medtronic Comments at 3; Wi-Fi Alliance Comments at 3; Wi-Fi Alliance Reply 
at 11.
165 See infra Appx. A, Amended Rule 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(1)(ii).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
30transmitters, as explained below. 
(i) Multiple RF Sources with Fixed Physical Relationship
58. Typical devices today contain several transmitters and radiating antennas, some of which 
can operate at the same time.  To address these various exposure conditions, we adopt the single 
summation formula below for all RF sources, regardless of whether portable, mobile, or fixed, which has 
been modified since our 2013 proposals which provided for different formulas for portable, mobile and 
fixed transmitters, to combine these disparate efforts into a single formula for more general 
applicability.167  For sites or devices with multiple transmitters, the summation formula shown below will 
determine whether multiple transmitters using the single transmitter formulas are collectively exempt 
from evaluation.  This formula includes three summation terms, the first two of which are summations for 
the exemptions, the third is to account for exposure from existing evaluations, which we will describe in 
more detail below.
59. To quantitatively exempt any new or modified transmitter in a device or at a multiple 
transmitter location,168 one must add the contribution of each source expressed as a percentage of the 
allowable maximum and those percentages must add up to no more than 100 percent of the allowance in 
the applicable formulas in Table 1 or Table 2 above, as expressed by this formula:
  
a
∑
i=1Pi
Pth, i+b
∑
j=1ERP j
ERP th, j+c
∑
k=1Evaluated k
Exposure Limit k≤1
Where
a        = number of fixed, mobile, or portable RF sources claiming exemption using the Table 1 formula 
for P th, including existing exempt transmitters and those being added.
b       = number of fixed, mobile, or portable RF sources claiming exemption using the applicable Table 
2 formula for Threshold ERP, including existing exempt transmitters and those being added.
c        = number of existing fixed, mobile, or portable RF sources with known evaluation for the 
specified minimum distance.
Pi      = the available maximum time-averaged power or the ERP, whichever is greater, for fixed, 
mobile, or portable RF source i at a distance between 0.5 cm and 40 cm (inclusive).
166 Normalization here means dividing an RF source power level by the corresponding exemption threshold power; 
if the result is less than 1 for a single source, then that source is exempt.  For example, if the source power is 30 W 
and the exemption threshold is 40 W, the normalized power would be 0.75, which is less than 1, so the single source 
would be exempt.  If a second source is at 0.14 of its exemption threshold, the two together will sum to 0.89 of the 
threshold, which would be an exempt 2-transmitter installation.  If an existing exposure is known to be (by 
calculation or measurement) 0.10 of the limit, the total is still 0.99 and the facility is exempt.
167 In 2013 we proposed different formulas for summing multiple fixed transmitters (2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 
FCC Rcd at 3544-46, paras. 139-141), multiple portable transmitters (2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 
3550-52, paras. 154-160), and multiple portable and mobile transmitters (2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 
3552-54, paras. 161-165), all with similarly defined terms, appearing in multiple places in the proposed rules (2013 
RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3601, App. B).  This decision here combines these duplicate parallel 
summation processes into a single formula generally applicable across any sum of multiple exempt RF sources, as 
applicable.  The combined formula does not affect the results of any of the 2013 proposals, rather it reduces the 
number of possible paths in summing the exemptions of RF sources by broadening the applicability of a single 
formula across multiple use cases.
168 Multiple transmitters using the same physical antenna should be treated as multiple antennas at the same location. Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
31Pth,i    = the exemption threshold power (P th) according to the Table 1 formula for fixed, mobile, or 
portable RF source i. 
ERP j   = the available maximum time-averaged power or the ERP, whichever is greater, of fixed, 
mobile, or portable RF source j.
ERP th,j    = exemption threshold ERP for fixed, mobile, or portable RF source j, at a distance of at least 
λ/2π, according to the applicable Table 2 formula at the location in question.
Evaluated k   = the maximum reported SAR or MPE of fixed, mobile, or portable RF source k either in the 
device or at the transmitter site from an existing evaluation.
Exposure Limit k   = either the general population/uncontrolled maximum permissible exposure (MPE) or 
specific absorption rate (SAR) limit for each fixed, mobile, or portable sources, as applicable.169
60. The normalized contributions to the total exemption threshold can be determined by 
calculating for each RF source, whether mobile, portable, or fixed, the ratio of the maximum time-
averaged power (matched conducted power or ERP, as appropriate) for the transmitter, comparing it to 
the appropriate frequency- and distance-dependent threshold using the formulas in either Table 1 or Table 
2, and summing those ratios.  If the ratios for all transmitters in a device operating in the same time-
averaging period are included in the total sum and this sum is no more than one (i.e., 100%), the 
cumulative contributions would not have exceeded the permissible limit and a location at a site or the 
device (i.e., all transmitters within the device) would be exempt from routine evaluation.170  All 
transmitters must be considered and all transmitters that can operate at the same time must be included in 
the summation of multiple transmitters.  If a transmitter is subsequently proposed to be added under our 
permissive change authorization procedures for portable or mobile devices, a new calculation must be 
made including the additional transmitter.
61. The basic exemption criteria are contained in the P and ERP summation terms, while the 
Evaluated/Exposure Limit sum accounts for the preexisting exposure levels and correspondingly reduces 
the allowable margin remaining for exemption at the location of interest. 171  For multiple antennas 
operating in the same time-averaging period, the summation formula above172 will apply as follows: sum 
the normalized contributions to the exemption threshold for each antenna by calculating the ratio of the 
maximum time-averaged P i or ERP j for the antenna to the corresponding exemption threshold P th,i or 
ERP th,j, and then, summing these ratios, add any normalized contributions from RF sources with known 
exposure, (i.e., the percentage of the relevant exposure limit that exists prior to considering the subject 
source(s)) at a specific location.  If the total does not exceed one, the configuration is exempt.
62. Only Medtronic commented on the exemption summation proposal for portable or mobile 
devices, supporting the proposal but requesting that the Commission incorporate further technical 
definitions into its rules for terms used in the formula beyond those explicit in the 2013 RF Further 
Notice.  In particular, Medtronic requests definitions for the power quantities “maximum time-averaged 
ERP,” “available maximum time-averaged power,” and “delivered maximum time-averaged power.”173  
The use of maximum time-averaged power requires that the power (and corresponding maximum 
exposure) of multiple transmitters operating in the same time-averaging period be summed even if they 
do not transmit at the same instant (with or without overlapping transmissions) using the formula above.  
Because the exemptions rely on determination of available maximum time-averaged power and ERP, we 
169 See 47 CFR § 1.1310.
170 The sum of the quotient(s) of each absorbed power, ambient power density, or field strength squared and their 
respective SAR(s) or MPE(s) limit(s) for a particular frequency, also commonly referred to as “fraction of standard.”  
Note that this last summation term is due to RF sources not included in the exemption summations.
171 For example, for mobile RF sources, this location of interest would typically be at a separation distance of 20 cm.
172 See supra para. 59.
173 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 15166, para. 112 & nn.190-92.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
32are including definitions of “available maximum time-averaged power,” “effective radiated power 
(ERP),” and “time-averaging period” in the rules.  However, because our exemptions do not rely on 
delivered power but available power, we decline to adopt a definition for “delivered maximum time-
averaged power,” but we clarify here that the definition would be the largest net power delivered or 
supplied to an antenna, as averaged over a time period not to exceed 30 minutes for fixed sources, or as 
averaged over a time period inherent from the device transmission characteristics for mobile and portable 
sources (also not to exceed 30 minutes).  
63. Medtronic also suggests that short time-averaging periods for non-overlapping 
transmission should be included in the rules.174  We agree and further clarify that multiple source 
summations require time averaging over an averaging period during which the maximum power is being 
transmitted.  These clarifications account for simultaneous transmissions while allowing for short time-
averaging periods for non-overlapping transmissions,175 provided that summations (or measurements) 
performed using a shorter time-averaging period correspond to the maximum aggregate time-averaged 
SAR or power density of the multiple transmitters being summed (i.e., accounting for maximum duty 
cycle, maximum transmitted power, overlapping transmission, etc.).  Also, short time-averaging periods 
(e.g., over one pulse at maximum power) may be selected to conservatively determine power and avoid 
the need to sum powers from multiple transmitters when transmissions from the different transmitters do 
not overlap in time.  The values for P i, ERP j, and Evaluated k, where applicable, are 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.  This summation 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, applicants 
may want to consult device-specific procedures developed by the FCC Laboratory addressing the details 
of how to perform evaluations and determine compliance.176
64. There were relatively few other comments directly addressing the proposed summation 
formula for the exemption of multiple fixed transmitters.  While it did not object to the formula, Verizon 
considered each of the methods/summation terms as representing an independent method to determine 
exemption and suggested that different methods could be used for different sources, as appropriate, in 
determining the contribution of individual transmitters at a multiple transmitter site.177  In response, 
Boston & Philadelphia argued that, in the interest of simplicity and consistency, all wireless providers at 
any particular site should agree upon a single method.178   Motorola commented that the Commission 
174 See Medtronic Comments at 5-6.
175 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3502, para. 8 & n.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.”).
176 See infra Section V.C, Transmitter-Based and Device-Based Time-Averaging (we seek comment on how 
applications of these exemption criteria and accounting for overlapping transmissions and time-averaging periods 
might be either similar or different in the context of transmitter/device-based time-averaging).
177 See Verizon Comments at 8-9.
178 See Boston & Philadelphia Reply at 5.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
33should be clear that a single transmitter should only be counted once in the summation formula.179  H&E 
presumed that measurements were required to establish the evaluated summation term and suggested 
simply measuring the actual exposure to avoid the possibility of counting a single source more than 
once.180  In the modified exemption summation formula we adopt here, which differs from our 2013 
proposal, we address commenters’ concerns by making each term in the consistently applied summation 
approach representative of either one of the independent methods of exemption or an evaluation.  We 
emphasize here that parties who may wish to apply different reasonable summation methods may do so, 
but such methods would not be considered as an exemption as described in our rules; instead, an 
alternative summation approach that appropriately demonstrates compliance would be considered a 
routine RF exposure evaluation.
65. We find that there is no reason or circumstance for which a transmitter should be counted 
more than once in the overall sum for any particular exposure location.  At a proposed site with higher-
power fixed transmitters, only the ERP summation terms would normally be used.  At an existing site 
with known exposure levels, the Evaluated third term in the total sum would appropriately reduce the 
margin for (any new) transmitters claiming ERP exemption.  This should be most useful when a fixed 
transmitter is being added to a dense antenna facility.  Where existing exposures collectively are not 
significant,181 the Evaluated third term in the summation may be disregarded.182  For low-power fixed 
transmitters, the P exemption summation term will typically be less restrictive where applicable than the 
ERP exemption term and the margin would be reduced where necessary based on existing SAR 
evaluation data.  The P and Evaluated terms may be most commonly used in situations where, for 
example, multiple transmitter modules are installed in a small device. As far as the discussion by 
commenters of various summation methods, the method we adopt is simple, consistent, and conservative.  
In addition, just as the methods for determining exemption from routine evaluation are not the only means 
to demonstrate compliance with the RF exposure limits, other more sophisticated methods of adding 
contributions from multiple transmitters are acceptable if based on sound engineering practice, but these 
alternative procedures would be considered as part of an RF exposure evaluation demonstration rather 
than an exemption.
(ii) RF Sources without Fixed Physical Relationships
66. In determining the availability of an exemption, we will not require applicants to account 
for multiple RF sources that have no fixed positional relationship between or among each other, as is 
typically the case between a mobile and a broadcast antenna or other fixed source or between two mobile 
sources.183  There is no practical method to quantitatively establish exemption for multiple RF sources 
where there is no definite positional relationship between sources, such as between multiple 
mobile/portable devices or between such devices and fixed transmitters.  None was recommended by 
commenters.  
67. While certain commenters raised concerns about the effect of cumulative RF exposure, 
we find that consideration of the typical spatial separation between RF sources diminishes the practical 
179 See Motorola Comments at 7.
180 See H&E Reply at 3.
181 See 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(3) (“In general, when the guidelines specified in § 1.1310 are exceeded in an accessible 
area due to the emissions from multiple fixed transmitters, actions necessary to bring the area into compliance are 
the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce, at the area in question, power density levels 
that exceed 5% of the power density exposure limit applicable to their particular transmitter or field strength levels 
that, when squared, exceed 5% of the square of the electric or magnetic field strength limit applicable to their 
particular transmitter.”).
182 Id. Greater than 0.05 (5%) is considered significant.
183  See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3546-47, paras. 142-44.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
34relevance of multiple spatially uncorrelated transmitters.184  Exposure from fixed RF sources will vary 
considerably in different environments that contain a portable or mobile device, depending on location 
relative to that fixed RF source.  Additionally, since exposure diminishes exponentially with increasing 
distance, 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 and 
contributes negligible exposure virtually all the time, and we expect that exposure from devices near a 
person’s body would generally be overwhelmingly more significant.  More simply, we expect that the 
locations of maximum SAR in the body from different RF sources that are proximate to the body are 
highly unlikely to overlap, precisely because when the RF sources are close to the body they will be 
exposing smaller areas of the body and separated sources will accordingly expose different areas of the 
body without overlap.  We conclude that for these reasons, the summation of potential exposure due to 
spatially uncorrelated sources should not be routinely required and our conclusion is consistent with all 
known compliance activities to date.    
68. Also, we note that the exposure from each portable or mobile device near a person will 
generally involve low total power absorption while being highly localized and will not result in 
significant contributions to whole-body average SAR.  Thus, for multiple exempt RF sources without an 
inherent spatial relationship, regardless of their classification as fixed, mobile, or portable, it is very 
unlikely the localized or whole-body SAR limits would be exceeded.185
B. Environmental Evaluation 
69. For fixed RF sources where an exemption cannot be invoked, a routine environmental 
evaluation—described in our rules as a “determination of compliance”—must be performed to ensure that 
the exposure limits are not exceeded in places that are accessible to people.  In the great majority of cases, 
such an evaluation is simple and generic and does not require a determination of the precise exposure 
level, only that it can be determined from the information available that any potential of RF exposure is 
less than our limits.  In other cases, the evaluation may be more complex, requiring more precision with 
regard to transmitter power and antenna distance from a space that persons can access.  In such cases, the 
benefit of protecting humans from RF emissions causing exposures in excess of our existing limits 
outweighs the costs that may be associated with such evaluation.
70. The rapidly evolving technology of mobile and portable devices and the evaluation and 
testing technology associated with RF exposure of such devices require that the equipment authorization 
process be updated to reflect such changes.  As proposed in the 2013 RF Further Notice, we remove from 
our rules provisions that specify acceptable approaches to evaluation and will instead allow any valid 
computational method to be used in demonstrating compliance with our RF exposure limits.186  OET 
Bulletins and the KDB will describe acceptable methods for particular applications, and applicants can 
request use of other computational or measurement methods whose reliability and validity they can 
substantiate to the satisfaction of OET staff. 187  As proposed,188 we also eliminate a minimum 
184 B. Blake Levitt & Henry C. Lai (Levitt/Lai) Comments at 14; Hubert Comments at 3 (expressing concern about 
the cumulative effect of exposure from many sources even where the total exposure is far below our exposure 
limits).  Further, Sections 1.1307(c) and (d) of the Commission rules require further environmental processing if the 
staff determines, on its own or based upon the allegations of an interested party in a written submission, that the 
particular use of a device ordinarily exempt from RF exposure routine evaluation exceeds the applicable exposure 
limits.
185 No commenter suggested any way, practical or not, to determine when and how to exempt sources for such 
situations.  
186 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3555, para. 168.  The relevant sections to be amended are 47 CFR 
§§ 1.1307(b)(4)(iv), 95.1221.
187 47 CFR § 2.947(a)(3).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
35measurement distance of 5 cm for devices operating above 6 GHz, since this requirement appears to have 
been rendered obsolete by technological developments and is no longer necessary.189
1. Consistency in Usage of Any Valid Method for SAR Computation
71. We adopt our proposal to modify the language in sections of our rules190 to allow any 
valid computational method by removing specific references to finite difference time domain (FDTD).191  
In the 2013 Order, the Commission corrected an inconsistency in the rules to allow either computation or 
measurement for medical devices in both sections 95.1221 and 1.1307(b)(2) of our rules, but continued to 
require the FDTD method when computation is used.192  In the 2013 RF Further Notice, we proposed to 
allow any valid computational method by removing from our rules the reference to this specific 
method.193  To ensure validity, our rules will require that computational modeling be supported by 
adequate documentation showing that the numerical method as implemented in the computational 
software has been fully validated.194 in I addition, the equipment under test and exposure conditions must 
be modeled according to protocols established by FCC-accepted numerical computation standards or 
available FCC procedures for the specific computational method.”195
72. Most parties support this specific proposal to allow numerical methods other than FDTD, 
and we continue to find that this is the appropriate rule.196  B. Blake Levitt and Henry C. Lai (Levitt/Lai), 
who focus on fixed sites, propose an increased reliance on field measurement rather than computation, 
expressing concern that SAR computation would underestimate exposure, but do not provide an empirical 
basis for this assertion.197  In our experience, computational methods for transmitter facilities are generally 
more restrictive than measurements because computations typically use maximum power and other 
conservative assumptions.  Therefore, actual measurements often result in lower exposure values due to 
these conservative assumptions often employed in computational methods, but using maximum power 
and other conservative assumptions can provide a simpler, less burdensome means of demonstrating 
compliance and will continue to be permitted where they can be successfully supported. 198  Medtronic 
supports our proposal but also seeks clear guidance for software developers about the requirements for 
188 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3556, para. 170.
189 See infra para. 73.
190 While we adopt our proposal to modify the language in Section 95.1221, as they appeared in the 2013 RF Order 
and Notice, we note that some of those rule numbers have changed in the interim (e.g., the Part 95 rules were 
renumbered as part of the 2017 Report and Order).  The numbers modified hereby are identified in Appendix A. See 
§§ 1.1310(d)(1), 2.1093(d)(2), and 95.2585, Appendix A infra.
191 See Order granting ANSYS Inc. Request for Waiver of 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(2) of Commission Rules, ET Docket 
No. 10-166, Order, 26 FCC Rcd 1034 (2011).
192 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3517, para. 51 (2013).
193 See id. at 3555, para. 168.
194 Fully validated means that a method has been tested and shown to provide results equivalent to those derived 
from already accepted methods for the same canonical device(s).  See also CDE Comments at 2.  As cautioned by 
CDE, we will require that to be valid, any SAR computation method must be clearly documented and shown to 
produce consistent results
195 See infra Appx. A; see also 47 CFR §§ 1.1310, 2.1093(d)(1).
196 See TIA Comments at 22 (supports the proposal and endorses the use of IEEE and IEC standards for validation of 
computational methods); Medtronic Comments at 6; CDE Comments at 2.
197 See Levitt/Lai Comments at 7 and 29.
198 In the case of a dispute or a credible concern, in practice, the ultimate determination of compliance will continue 
to be based on FCC measurements.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
36valid software.199  OET will continue to update the KDB to provide appropriate guidance on acceptable 
methods of computation with accepted numerical computation standards or procedures for specific 
computational methods.  
2. Removal of Minimum Evaluation Distance Requirement from Rules for 
Frequencies above 6 GHz
73. In the 2013 RF Order and Notice, we proposed200 to remove the 5-cm minimum 
separation specification for measurements and calculations used to demonstrate compliance for devices 
operating above 6 GHz from Section 2.1093(d) of our rules.201  We adopt our proposal.  The 5-cm 
minimum separation distance has been superseded by technological developments that provide for uses 
with transmitting elements closer to the body, and to the extent any portable devices are operating above 6 
GHz, the measurement distance should be reflective of normal use conditions.  Consumers for Safe Cell 
Phones (CSCP) supports the proposal as one that will better simulate RF exposure in typical situations,202 
and we draw the same conclusion.  Applicants must provide specific justification for measurement 
distances used in compliance testing, describing the normal and feasible usage(s) of the device, and 
certification review will specifically include evaluation of the propriety of this specification, including 
any measures that may be taken to ensure that it is maintained.
3. Technical Evaluation References in Rules
74. In the 2013 RF Order and Notice, we included in our rules a reference to the OET KDB 
in place of a specific (now outdated) external technical reference to IEEE Std C95.3-1991 as a possible 
SAR evaluation reference.203  In doing so, we committed to providing ongoing guidance on technical 
evaluation procedures and standards.  In the 2013 RF Further Notice, we proposed to remove external 
technical evaluation references elsewhere within our rules generally, and to specifically remove reference 
to IEEE Std C95.3-1991 in Section 24.51(c).204  We adopt that proposal.
75. There remains general support for providing ongoing policy guidance consistent with 
advances in the engineering state of art of the field in the KDB rather than specifying specific standards in 
the Commission’s rules.  Like the OET Bulletins, the guidance in the KDB is not binding on the applicant 
or the Commission, and other evaluation methods may be used if they can be shown to be valid.  We also 
recognize that expedited approval of devices by Telecommunications Certification Body (TCB) 
199 See Medtronic Comments at 6.
200 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3556, para. 170.
201 See 47 CFR § 2.1093(d) (requiring a minimum separation distance of five cm for measurements and calculations 
used to demonstrate compliance for devices operating above 6 GHz).  With the development of portable devices 
such as notebook and tablet computers with wireless modules transmitting in the 60 GHz frequency range, it is 
possible that these devices will be used close to the body.  In such cases, we have required measurements at closer 
distances where usage indicated that this is a more realistic representation of the exposure distance, see FCC ID: 
PD918260NG (wireless module installed in a notebook computer), and FCC ID: PD918265NG (wireless module 
installed in a tablet computer).  There has been substantial improvement in applying numerical simulation 
techniques for RF exposure over the last two decades, which is useful for close-in determinations, and applicants for 
equipment authorization have successfully applied a combination of numerical simulation and measurement 
methods to determine power density at these distances to demonstrate compliance.  Also, a miniature electric field 
probe supported by a SAR measurement system capable of making mmWave power density measurements up to 
approximately 90 GHz at 2 mm or more from wireless devices is now commercially available.
202 See CSCP Comments at 2.  No other party commented on this proposal.
203 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3510-13, paras. 28-41; see also 47 CFR § 2.1093(d)(3).
204 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3556-57, paras. 173-74.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
37necessarily involves the use of uniform evaluation procedures as established using the KDB.205  As such, 
we have already been successfully implementing the recommended procedural changes for KDB 
documents of general applicability.  
76. This proposal received significant comment from Motorola, CDE, Nokia Corporation 
(Nokia), and Mobile & Wireless Forum (MWF).206  While Motorola supports use of the KDB for this 
purpose, it expressed some concerns about process and transparency, suggesting that the KDB has the 
potential to compromise notice-and-comment rulemaking process.207  Similarly, MWF and Nokia 
recommended a process for the development of KDB documents that would involve release of a draft 
with opportunity to comment, adequate transition period, harmonization to the extent possible with 
international standards and practices, and flexibility for innovation in both testing and technology.208  
With respect to these suggestions, and as Motorola points out,209 the FCC Laboratory now issues draft 
versions of KDB guidance documents and engages manufacturers and other affected entities early in the 
revision process,210 and that the guidance provides flexibility and the opportunity to harmonize FCC 
standards with existing standards where practical.  These procedures effectively address commenters’ 
concerns regarding process and participation, and the ongoing and responsive nature of the KDB should 
result in better “readability” and usability than rules we might otherwise adopt.  And, we stress again, the 
KDB process consists of up-to-date expert guidance by our staff and is nonbinding, thus preserving the 
option of raising any concern or disagreement with the Commission.211  
77. Commenters generally prefer the Commission’s approach of providing guidance in the 
KDB as opposed to specifying it in the Commission’s rules, although they note various ways that the 
KDB process could be improved.  Motorola suggests that the Commission should consider improvements 
to the process, even as it acknowledges that OET has taken steps to engage the affected entities in the 
process of KDB revision and update in general.212  CDE suggests that the Commission maintain and 
update OET Bulletins 56 and 65 but keep the material readable for the public.  CDE also expresses 
concern about process and content for the KDB, asking about what recourse there is in the case of doubts 
about KDB materials, the potential impact of future personnel or organizational changes on the quality of 
205 See 47 CFR § 2.907.  Under Section 302(e) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 302a(e), the Commission is 
authorized to delegate its equipment testing and certification functions to private organizations.  In 1998, the 
Commission adopted rules allowing accredited TCBs to approve most types of equipment that require certification. 
1998 Biennial Regulatory Review–Amendment of Parts 2, 25 and 68 of the Commission's Rules to Further 
Streamline the Equipment Authorization Process for Radio Frequency Equipment, Modify the Equipment 
Authorization Process for Telephone Terminal Equipment, Implement Mutual Recognition Agreements and Begin 
Implementation of the Global Mobile Personal Communications by Satellite (GMPCS) Arrangements, GEN Docket 
No. 98-68, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 24687, 24703, para. 32 (1998).
206 Formerly Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF).
207 See Motorola Comments at 8. 
208 See MWF Comments at 3-4; Nokia Comments at 5-6.
209 See Motorola Comments at 8.
210 See https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/reports/PublishedDocumentList.cfm; draft publications of the OET Laboratory 
Division are available at that website, including proposed guidance intended for KDB publication and tutorial 
presentations, along with means for submitting public comments.  The public is invited to make comments and 
provide suggestions to the documents made available at this page.  At the end of the comment period, revised 
documents may be published, withdrawn or modified and submitted for additional review.
211 Since the inception of the KDB process, the FCC Laboratory has issued myriad guidance documents on technical 
issues regarding equipment authorization.  The Commission has not received any complaint regarding any of the 
guidance provided and or the process itself.  
212 See Motorola Comments at 7-8.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
38the KDB, and whether the material is useful and readable for the public at large.213  At this time, we 
decline to address these suggestions for improvement of the KDB process.
78. We acknowledge the support of MWF and Nokia for the incorporation of international 
evaluation standards in the KDB and are mindful of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
Circular A-119, which encourages federal participation in the development and use of voluntary 
consensus standards and in conformity assessment activities, to which they refer.214  Contrary to Nokia’s 
suggestion, we decline to implement a presumption in favor of the adoption of standards from a standards 
committee simply because Commission staff sit on that committee.  While Commission staff has been 
and will continue to be involved in standards committees, its availability to participate is not constant, and 
when it does participate it would be premature to assume FCC validation of such standards.  As stated in 
OMB Circular A-119, “agency participation in standards bodies does not connote agency endorsement or 
agreement with decisions by such bodies.”  In evaluating whether to use a standard, which is done on a 
case-by-case basis, an agency needs to consider several factors to determine if it is effective and 
otherwise suitable for meeting the regulatory needs of the Commission, including our review of it in light 
of notice and opportunity to comment.  Further, we also modified our rules for measurement procedures 
to make it clear that “any measurement procedures acceptable to the Commission may be used to prepare 
data demonstrating compliance with the requirements of this chapter.”215  
79. We agree that OET Bulletins 56 and 65 have been useful but need to be updated.  To 
avoid confusion, we will eliminate Bulletin 56 in its present form in deference to more current material on 
the same subject on the Commission’s website.  The staff will maintain and update OET Bulletin 65 as a 
stand-alone document available for download.
C. Mitigation Measures to Ensure Compliance with Exposure Limits
80. While the purpose of evaluation is to establish whether there is a spatial region or area 
near transmitting antennas where the RF exposure limits are exceeded, the purpose of mitigation is to take 
the appropriate steps to keep persons out of that space.  With the proliferation of wireless base stations 
that are increasingly smaller in size, sometimes concealed or camouflaged, and often located close to 
where persons pass, linger, or work, additional measures are needed to ensure that exposure in excess of 
our general population limits is permitted only for those with proper training and capability to limit their 
exposure.  Such post-evaluation mitigation measures include labels, signs, markings, barriers, positive 
access controls, and occupational training. 216  Mitigation requirements depend on the physical 
characteristics of the area and the level of exposure above the pertinent limits.  These measures range 
from precluding members of the general public from entering areas where exposure exceeds the general 
population continuous limit (general population / uncontrolled), to measures allowing only trained 
workers to enter an area that exceeds the continuous occupational limit either briefly, with protective 
clothing, or with an exposure monitor so that compliance with the occupational limit with 6-minute time 
averaging is maintained (occupational/controlled) environments. This pertains primarily to fixed sites; 
mitigation measures for mobile and portable devices are typically based on device features such as 
proximity sensors or device-controlled time averaging.217
213 See CDE Comments at 4.
214 See https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a119/.
215 47 CFR §2.947(a)(3).  The rules permit the use of any advisory information regarding measurement procedures 
that can be found in the KDB, but also permits parties to submit alternatives.
216 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, affirmative physical measures for preclusion of 
unauthorized access.  It does not include natural barriers, which might limit access effectively in some, but not all 
cases, or other access restrictions that did not require any action on the part of the licensee or property management.
217 See supra para. 14; infra Section V.B.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
3981. Our existing rules address mitigation in general terms but lack specificity about how to 
prevent access to spatial regions where the RF exposure limits are exceeded and what measures (i.e. 
access restriction, signage, and training) should be considered adequate.  Given the proliferation of 
antennas, changes in siting practices, and our consequent experience and that reflected in the record as 
responses to our initial proposals in the Notice, the 2013 RF Further Notice proposed specific access 
restriction, signage, and training requirements for fixed transmitter sites where exposure limits may be 
exceeded, considering recent standards activity working toward defining industrial RF safety programs.218 
1. Transient Exposure
82. Currently, our rules provide that occupational exposure limits could apply to untrained 
persons, provided that the exposure is “transient” and they are informed of the exposure potential and the 
appropriate means to mitigate their exposure.219  In the 2013 RF Further Notice, we noted that these rules 
lacked the requisite clarity and could be interpreted in different ways.220  To address this, we proposed to 
define transient exposure as brief exposure in a controlled environment that does not exceed the general 
population limit, which may be averaged over a time interval up to 30 minutes long, and to limit transient 
exposure to the continuous occupational limit at any time.221  
83. We adopt our proposed definition of transient exposure as the brief exposure in a 
controlled environment that does not exceed the general population limit, which may be averaged over a 
time interval up to 30 minutes.222  However, we do not adopt our proposal that transient exposure should 
not exceed the continuous occupational limit at any time.223  As H&E contends, our proposal to limit 
transient exposure above the occupational limit “at any time” would result in a more restrictive exposure 
limit for transient individuals than for the general public for which there is no temporal peak limit.224  Our 
present rules limiting exposure for all populations do not specify a cap at any peak value above the 
continuous limits.225  As long as the average exposure over any applicable time-averaged period provided 
in our rules is compliant with the continuous general population limit, 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.  Our rules do not specify how much above that general population limit an instantaneous 
exposure is permitted to be.  
84. The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) asserts that all aspects of occupational 
exposure should apply to transient persons, including the 6-minute averaging time applicable for 
218 Since the 2013 RF Order and Notice, IEEE has produced a revised version of its 2005 standard, IEEE C95.7-
2014, which closely matches our proposals. 
219 47 CFR § 1.1310(e)(1).
220 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3557, para. 177 et seq.
221 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3558, para. 181.  
222 Numerous commenters expressed support for the adoption of the proposal.  See Portland Comments at 4; UTC 
Reply at 7; Boston Reply at 6.
223 Our continuous exposure limits are the values listed in 47 CFR § 1.1310 without consideration of averaging time 
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.  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.
224 See H&E Reply at 3.
225 See SiteSafe Comments at 2; H&E Reply at 3; Tell Comments at 2 (arguing against limiting transient exposure to 
the continuous occupational limit at any time, as it would make the Commission’s interpretation of transient 
exposure limits in the 2013 RF Order and Notice more restrictive than the public exposure limits, by precluding 
peak levels in excess of the occupational limit even if the time-averaged level is below the public limit.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
40occupational exposure.226  We emphasize here, however, that despite NAB’s interpretation, the time-
averaging period for transient persons is up to 30 minutes, per our rules227 and per the NCRP Report cited 
in our rules, which forms in part the basis of our exposure limits.228  As we stated previously, shorter 
averaging times can also be used during evaluation; while they are generally more conservative, they may 
provide convenience.229  
85. Global RF Solutions (Global RF) expresses concern about the use of the term “general 
population” in conjunction with “controlled,” arguing that a person can be ‘Controlled’ or ‘Uncontrolled’ 
but not both.230  We are not convinced that these concerns over the terminology, and how it is applied, are 
valid.  There are only two sets of limits—those which apply to supervised/trained workers (in an 
occupational setting) and those which apply to the general population (which includes unsupervised and 
untrained workers).231  The environment in which these exposures occur defines whether the exposure is 
in a controlled or uncontrolled setting.232  By definition, a controlled environment is an occupational 
setting.  Because we are also adopting requirements for implementing RF safety programs at fixed sites, 
the only situation where transient exposure would be relevant is in a controlled setting.
86. The rules we adopt today will require, for controlled areas where the general population 
limit is exceeded, access controls and appropriate signage in addition to supervision of transient 
individuals by trained occupational personnel.233  NAB and Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Motorola) both 
argue that the Commission’s requirements that transient individuals be supervised are unnecessary, 
burdensome, and not practical or effective.234  We disagree.  The supervision requirement is reasonable 
because it ensures that within a controlled area exposure above the general public limits is only transient.  
These new rules address the concerns of EMR Policy Institute (EMRPI) about making transient 
individuals aware when they enter (and leave) areas where exposure exceeds the general population 
limits.235  For the case of visitors to a controlled site, again, normal familiarization procedures, such as 
pointing out the meaning of RF signs and boundaries would constitute adequate awareness.  Such 
226 See NAB Comments at 5-7; 47 CFR § 1.1310(b), (e).
227 See 47 CFR § 1.1310(e), tbl. 1.
228 See NCRP Report No. 86, Section 17.4.3: Time Averaging for the General Population: “… 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.”
229 By applying a 30-minute time average to transient individuals, it is also theoretically possible for RF sources 
operating below 1.34 MHz that a transient individual could actually be permitted to be exposed to higher fields 
during some parts of a time period between 6 and 30 minutes than would a worker, because our occupational and 
general population limits are identical at these frequencies.  We do not anticipate that this would occur in practice, 
however, especially given that RF safety programs designed for worker protection would normally be held to the 
continuous occupational exposure limit, but it reinforces the need for transient individuals to be supervised.
230 See Wessel Comments at 1-2.
231 See NCRP Report No. 86, Section 17.4.1: Occupational Exposure Criteria, and Section 17.4.2: General-
Population Exposure Criteria. “[I]ndividuals exposed in the work place should be relatively well informed of the 
potential hazards associated with their occupation.  Furthermore, these workers may have the opportunity to make 
personal decisions in regard to their exposure, based on the relative risk as they perceive it.  Individuals subjected to 
[RF exposure] outside the work place are generally unaware of their exposure, and furthermore, if they are aware, 
they rarely have the option to reduce their level of exposure.”
232 See 1996 Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 15136, para. 35.
233 See infra Appx. A.
234 See NAB Comments at 7-8; Motorola Comments at 9 (questioning what qualifies as “supervision”).
235 See EMRPI Comments at 8.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
41activities could avoid exceeding the general population limit with time averaging during orientation while 
supporting an awareness so that occupational limits would apply to subsequent independent activity.
87. We find no basis for permitting exposure of any untrained individuals—regardless of 
whether they are workers—greater than the general population exposure limit.  The applicability of 
occupational limits requires that a person is fully aware and able to exercise control over his or her work-
related exposure.236  Thus, the occupational exposure limits apply only if a person has been trained and 
has sufficient information to be fully aware of the nearby RF sources and the necessity and means of 
avoiding overexposure.  To satisfy the requirement to present written or oral information to untrained 
transient individuals within controlled environments, we affirm that written information may include 
signs, maps, or diagrams showing where exposure limits are exceeded, and oral information may include 
prerecorded messages.
88. RF Check contends that any workers, including contractors and employees of licensees, 
electricians, roofers, flashers, painters, HVAC personnel, maintenance workers, firefighters, and utility 
workers, who must perform any task or stop in an area that exceeds general population limits must not be 
considered transient and must be trained.237  OSHA shared similar concerns as they related to third-party 
workers who have not received training and may be unaware they are working near RF sources on 
rooftops and buildings.238  We agree with OSHA and RF Check that third-party workers who perform 
tasks near RF sources must be trained and are not considered transient.  With rare exceptions, anyone who 
might enter an area where the general population limits are exceeded should have already received RF 
awareness training prior to accessing the area. 239  As the NCRP Report provides, transient provisions are 
not to be used with any regularity and so would not apply to persons expected to be in locations for 
extended periods where the general population limits are exceeded (tree trimmers, window washers, etc.), 
nor to persons who traverse such an area on a regular basis, such as an employee parking lot or walkway; 
rather, all such persons must receive appropriate training.240
2. Signage and Access Control
89. There are various effective means to achieve compliance with the RF exposure limits.  
Those include signs, roof markings, barriers, exposure level maps, and positive access control.  Under the 
rules we adopt today, signs are not required per se and not all signs are applicable to all services or 
situations.  Specifically, we will require licensees and operators of fixed RF sources to use signs when the 
RF source or combination of RF sources in the same area create locations where exposure is above the 
236 See 47 CFR § 1.1310.
237 See SiteSafe Comments at 2; RF Check Comments at 2-4.
238 See Letter from William Perry, Director, Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, to Julius Knapp, Chief, FCC Office of Engineering and Technology at 3, (July 1, 2015) (OSHA 
Letter).
239 Although we are allowing a brief higher exposure coupled with control of some aspect of a transient person’s 
behavior as a result of supervisory instruction that is given in such a way as to maintain compliance with the general 
population limit, it is the licensee’s responsibility as part of its RF safety program to manage compliance in the 
event that persons (either trained or supervised) are permitted access to areas of their site with the potential to 
exceed the general population exposure limit.
240 See NCRP Report No. 86, Section 17.4.4: Special Circumstances for Population Exposure: 
It is recognized that there are special circumstances in which the exposure limits for the general population 
may unnecessarily inhibit activities that are brief and non-repetitive.  For example, the presence nearby of a 
number of emergency vehicles engaged in telecommunications might cause a brief exposure to fields at 
strengths above the general-population limit.  Because only small groups of the population would be 
exposed under these conditions, and almost certainly not on a repeated basis, the occupational exposure 
levels are permitted for such cases.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
42limit for the general public.  We also allow alternatively the use of indicators (e.g., chains, railing, paint, 
and diagrams) as well as the option to affix signs directly to the surface of an antenna, particularly in 
situations where positive access controls are in place to effectively restrict access only to persons who are 
trained (e.g., on a rooftop with a locked door) in areas within where the public limits are exceeded 
(Category Two and above).  
90. We adopt four categories for specifying RF safety program actions, as proposed, i.e., 
Category One through Category Four, which reflect the potential RF exposure scenarios.  For a visual 
depiction of these categories, refer to Figure 1 below.241    
 Figure 1.  Graphical Representation of Exposure Categories and Associated Signage Requirements 
NOTE 1: Where immediate and serious injury would occur on contact regardless of category, 
 the following sign components are required pursuant to the description 
of Category Four in paragraph 91.
NOTE 2: Drawn from IEEE Std C95.7-2014 and IEEE Std C95.2-1999.
91. Determination of the appropriate Category Two, Three, or Four signage must be based on 
a specific site evaluation, consistent with our existing recommendations and rules for routine evaluation 
of compliance by measurement or computation.242  The standardized signage we adopt in this Order is 
intended to apply to all exposure situations in which they are used, so that when signs are used they 
241 These categories are analogous to the subsequently modified IEEE Std C95.7-2014.  See Figure 1 of IEEE Std 
C95.7-2014 in comparison with Figure 1 of IEEE Std C95.7-2005.
242 See OET Bulletin 65, supra n. 60. Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
43conform to the specification provided in this Order.  The following information must be included in a 
sign, in addition to those specifically identified per each category level below:243  
RF energy advisory symbol (e.g., Figure A.3 of C95.2-1999)
A description of the RF source (e.g., transmitting antennas)
Behavior necessary to avoid over-exposure (e.g., do not climb tower unless you know that 
antennas are not energized; stay behind barrier or off of markings)
Up-to-date contact information (e.g., monitored phone number or email address connected to 
someone with authority and capability to provide prompt response).
92. Category One signage applies to locations where RF sources do not cause continuous or 
source-based time-averaged exposure in excess of the general population limit in Section 1.1310.  
Category One signs are optional and will show a green “INFORMATION” heading.  These Category One 
signs may be used to offer information to the public that a transmitting RF source is nearby but that it is 
compliant with the Commission’s exposure limits regardless of duration or usage.  Specifically, the sign 
could provide an explanation of safety precautions to be observed when closer to the antenna than the 
information sign (where applicable), a reminder to obey all postings and boundaries (if higher categories 
are nearby), and up-to-date licensee (or operator) contact information (if higher categories are nearby), or 
a place to get additional information (such as a website, if no higher categories are nearby).
93. AICC argues that the Category One sign is “dangerous and non-productive” because the 
public may interpret it as indicating a problem when there is none.244  To the extent AICC is concerned 
that a Category One sign would indicate a problem where none exists, our rules already offer a simple 
solution: don’t post one.  Deploying Category One signs is voluntary.  Still, there are situations in which 
some installations might warrant the use of Category One signs, for example, if the location where sign 
placement is feasible is not adjacent to the boundary where the general population exposure limit is 
exceeded,245 the “NOTICE” sign would provide awareness while avoiding oversignage.  
94. Category Two signs and positive access controls are required where the continuous 
exposure limit would be exceeded for the general population, but not for occupational personnel.  
Category Two signs must have the signal word “NOTICE” in blue color.  We allow under certain 
controlled conditions, such as on a rooftop with limited access (e.g., a locked door with appropriate 
signage or antenna concealment), that a sign be attached directly to the antenna.246  A sign attached 
directly to an antenna will be considered sufficient only if it specifies a minimum approach distance and 
is readable from the direction of approach and at least at the separation distance required for compliance 
with the general population exposure limit in Section 1.1310.  Appropriate training is required for any 
occupational personnel with access to the controlled area where the general population exposure limit is 
exceeded, and transient individuals must be supervised by occupational personnel with appropriate 
training upon entering any of these areas.  Use of time averaging is required for transient individuals in 
the area where the general population exposure limit is exceeded.  Though not required, use of personal 
RF monitors in the areas where the general population exposure limit is exceeded is an option to ensure 
compliance.
243 Section 2.4 of the National Association of Broadcasters Engineering Handbook, 10th Edition; see also CDE 
Comments at 2.
244 See AICC Reply at iii, 19 (claiming that the “Category One signage constitutes negative declaration of something 
that the consumer has not linked to the security system in their home or business to begin with.”); see also SiteSafe 
Comments at 4 (finds Category One sign confusing).
245 An example would be a rooftop hatch.
246 See IEEE Std C95.7-2005, Section 4.5.1.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
4495. Category Three applies to locations where the exposure limit for occupational personnel 
would be exceeded potentially by no more than a factor of ten.  Category Three requires signs with the 
appropriate signal word “CAUTION” in yellow color, and controls or indicators (e.g., chains, railings, 
contrasting paint, diagrams), in addition to the positive access control established for Category Two, 
surrounding the area in which the exposure limit is exceeded.  Under conditions where positive access 
controls are in place to effectively restrict access only to authorized persons in areas where the public 
limits are exceeded, we allow a sign to be attached directly to the antenna, and further we allow controls 
or indicators in place of signs, presuming that those authorized persons are trained to recognize and 
understand the actions necessary to control their exposure where the controls or indicators are placed at 
the occupational limit boundary.  A sign affixed to an antenna will be considered sufficient only if it 
specifies a minimum approach distance and is readable from the direction of approach and at least at the 
separation distance required for compliance with the occupational exposure limit in Section 1.1310.  
Additionally, appropriate training is required for any occupational personnel with access to the controlled 
area where the general population exposure limit is exceeded, and transient individuals must be 
supervised by trained occupational personnel upon entering any of these areas.  Use of time averaging is 
required for transient individuals to ensure compliance with the general population exposure limit.   
Though not required, use of personal RF monitors in the areas where the general population exposure 
limit is exceeded is an option to ensure compliance.  Similarly, use of personal protective gear (such as 
properly-worn RF protective suits) is another option to ensure compliance for occupational individuals in 
the areas in which the occupational exposure limit is exceeded but is not a requirement for all situations.  
If such mitigation procedures or power reduction, and therefore Category reduction, are not feasible, then 
lockout/tagout procedures in 29 CFR § 1910.147 must be followed.
96. Category Four applies to locations where the exposure limit for occupational personnel 
would be exceeded by more than a factor of ten or where there is a possibility for serious contact injury.  
Where the occupational limit could be exceeded by more than a factor of ten, “WARNING” signs in 
orange color are required, and “DANGER” signs in red color are required where immediate and serious 
injury will occur on contact, in addition to positive access control.247  For example, “DANGER” signs are 
required at the base of AM broadcast towers where serious 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.248  Category Four signs indicate the most hazardous 
locations, and alert people to protect against potentially serious and immediate harm, even though 
Category Three signs already indicate an area surpassing the occupational exposure limit for continuous 
exposure.  The only apparently adequate mitigation measure within the Category Four area is power 
reduction249 that will bring exposure within the occupational limits.250  The fact that the location of 
247 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.”
248 According to the National Association of Broadcasters Engineering Handbook, 10th Edition, OSHA’s 
“lockout/tagout” requirement (OSHA Regulations, 29 CFR § 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.”
249 As recognized by Tell, turning off power completely (“lockout/tagout”) is an alternative. See Tell Comments at 
14.
250 As for Tell’s request for content requirements of an environmental assessment, we note that those are already 
outlined in 47 CFR § 1.1311.  See Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, DA 15-683, Small 
Entity Compliance Guide, released June 10, 2015.  We further note that no applicant has ever exercised the option to 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
45potential overexposure is temporary—like a scaffolding—does not relieve any of the licensees or 
operators of the obligation to warn or accommodate the workers that may be in the area of 
overexposure.251  
97. H&E urges the Commission to remove the Category Four (10X occupational) 
requirement, because it does not correspond to an exposure limit.252  We disagree.  While ten times the 
limit is not explicitly listed in section 1.1310 of our rules, it forms the underlying basis of human 
protection and is inherently associated with our exposure limits because of the multiplicative margins 
incorporated into these limits when they were derived.  This factor of ten times the occupational limit is 
thermally based on a whole-body SAR threshold of 4 W/kg and is intended to protect against behavioral 
disruption.  Independent of these thermal protections, Category Four additionally seeks to protect against 
the possibility for serious injury (such as shocks or burns) from direct contact with objects having high 
potential, which on its own necessitates action to protect workers accessing such areas.  Moreover, 
Category Four necessarily requires actions above and beyond what would be required under Category 
Three, by prohibiting access to such areas without reduction in power to a lesser Category (e.g., Category 
One, Two, or Three).  Keeping this additional action level in place serves as a reminder to trained 
occupational personnel about the severity of consequences in entering such an area without undertaking 
additional proactive preventative measures.
98. OSHA has expressed general concern about workers who might be unaware of their 
potential for overexposure on a building;253 for example, the exposure level at one side of a door leading 
to a rooftop might be significantly below the public limit, but the limit might be exceeded soon after 
entering the rooftop area.254  If awareness and control of exposure by trained rooftop and other workers 
can be achieved with appropriate postings and markings of regions where the general 
population/uncontrolled limits are exceeded, then these workers may be exposed up to the 
occupational/controlled limits without site-specific training or supervision.  Untrained workers should not 
have access to controlled locations without supervision.  This concept would apply equally to any 
conventional or rooftop transmitter site as it would to a concealed or camouflaged antenna site, such as 
those found installed in church steeples, behind false walls or building facades, within faux vegetation, 
inside of storefront signs, lampposts, kiosks, etc. 255  For the trained worker, in addition to standard signs, 
(Continued from previous page)  
submit an Environmental Assessment rather than take the steps needed to mitigate exposure so as to stay within the 
limits.
251 We recognize the difficulty of this situation, and guidelines for reasonable efforts compliance will be provided in 
the Bulletin 65 to be published by OET.
252 See H&E Reply at 3-4.
253 OSHA Comments at 3 (discussing concerns over the extent to which workers receive RF awareness training and 
the readability of signs outside of the compliance boundary, and encouraging the Commission to develop guidance 
on appropriate procedures for workers accessing multi-use buildings and rooftops).
254 See SiteSafe Comments at 4.
255 We recognize that each transmitter site is unique, and many antennas are designed and installed to meet aesthetic 
goals and/or local zoning and building requirements.  The intent of our signage requirements is to establish 
awareness for persons accessing areas near those antennas where our RF exposure limits are exceeded.  The proper 
placement of such signs need not be obtrusive or counter to design goals.  Where antennas are placed inside of 
structures or behind facades, a sign need be placed outside of that structure only if there is an area outside of that 
structure or facade where the limits are exceeded in a location that the general population could reasonably be 
anticipated to access.  That sign need be of a size and placement only sufficient for legibility at the boundary of such 
area.  Seldom will such a sign pose an aesthetic concern from the further distances and vantages of the general 
public.  Where a concern remains, the antenna can be set further back from the outside of the façade to shrink or 
eliminate the exposure area and the corresponding size of the sign and its orientation.  Where an antenna is atop a 
steeple, for example, it is unlikely there will be an area of human potential presence nearby, except at a high 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
46boundaries may be shown on diagrams at the access point and by rooftop paint markings in the Category 
Two and Three regions, and signs and/or barriers at the boundary of the Category Three region should 
ensure awareness and prevent exposure above the occupational/controlled limits.  Where there are only 
Category Two regions, in addition to standard signs, a diagram at the access point and paint markings in 
the Category Two area would be sufficient, where positive access controls are in place to effectively 
restrict access only to authorized persons in areas where the public limits are exceeded.  Where the 
general public (including untrained workers) may have access to such areas, however, they cannot be 
expected to understand the meanings of markings and signage, and barriers at all boundaries marked at 
regular intervals are required to ensure compliance.
99. Several commenters claim that the signage requirements are burdensome.256  Verizon and 
AT&T urge the Commission to require only a sign associated with the highest category at the site.257   We 
agree that placement of multiple signs contribute to the problem of oversignage, and hence, we provide 
that 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.258  Similarly, only 
a Category Four sign is necessary where Category Three and Category Four apply to the same location.  
Further, parties are not required to place multiple signs in places where exposure boundaries are close 
together.
100.  Other commenters question our proposed rules regarding sign content and readability.259  
The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) claims that existing signs are often 
ambiguous and placed as a general warning, fail to protect IBEW members, and should not be considered 
a catchall for RF compliance.260  However, the four categories of signage specify consistent and widely 
recognized symbols, colors, and vocabulary to reliably convey the meaning of the signs.  Our new rules 
seek to cover all possible exposure situations and to do so in a manner clearly appropriate to each 
situation, especially as technologies are quickly evolving, and these requirements may become relevant in 
the future.  Further, a trained worker will be able to interpret the signs to appropriately control his/her 
exposure.  
101. OSHA and Narda point out that the label or small sign permitted in controlled 
environments might not be readable from a safe distance, and suggest ways to ensure that signs can be 
elevation from the ground and signage at such a location (e.g., the side of a building facing a steeple-mounted 
antenna) similarly should not pose an aesthetic concern.
256 See Verizon Comments at 14-15; see also WIA Comments at 8-9 (opposing any requirement to place multiple 
category signs at a transmitter site or where each tier is exceeded); see also H&E Reply at 3-4 (arguing a signage 
requirement with up to four categories would be burdensome and could result in over-signage and confusion); WIA 
Reply at 4; UTC Reply at 8.
257 See Verizon Comments at 14-15 (arguing the rules should be specific about where signs must be located (access 
points and antennas) and what they should say); see AT&T Reply at 9 (arguing that Category Two NOTICE signs 
will be confusing, conflicting, impractical, and cause undue administrative burdens at sites where Category Three 
CAUTION signs are already required).
258 See infra Appx. A, Amended Rules 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(4)(iii).
259 See Tell Comments at 13-14 (questioning the terminology and consistency of the proposed rules in dealing with 
access, control, and time-averaging and requests several clarifications); SiteSafe Comments at 4 (suggesting that 
signs must provide clear and specific instructions to transient individuals about how to mitigate exposure, which is 
not the case for current signs in common use, and requests that an update to OET Bulletin 65 include example 
language for signs as needed for transient individuals).
260 See IBEW Comments at 2.  IBEW also points to non-rooftop issues and questions whether signs can be effective 
at antennas attached to poles, on the sides of buildings or water tanks, and stealth antennas.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
47read by the time that a worker encounters the exposure limit boundary.261  Our new rules include the 
requirement that signs be legible and readily viewable and readable at a minimum distance of five feet 
(1.52 m) from the boundary (and as necessary on approach to this boundary) at which the applicable 
limits are exceeded, and that controls or indicators be placed at compliance boundaries.  As to what 
would satisfy our requirement to be “readable,” we invoke OSHA rules regarding specifications for 
accident prevention signage.262  Since OSHA’s rules require readability at a minimum distance of five feet 
(1.52 m) “or such greater distance as warranted by the hazard,” we expect that requiring signs to be 
legible, readily viewable, and readable as necessary on approach will satisfy OSHA’s concern.  As also 
suggested by OSHA and SiteSafe in their comments, we will be developing additional guidance in a 
future revision of our supplementary material, including OET Bulletin 65, for compliance at multi-use 
sites.  
102. To avoid oversignage and confusing signage, accurate placement of appropriate signage 
is critical and should make clear both where limits are exceeded and where limits are not exceeded.  A 
number of commenters had specific suggestions on the placement of the signs.  The EMF Safety Network 
suggests mandating setbacks of 1,500 feet from cell towers for signs.263  SiteSafe suggests signs be placed 
at the boundary of OSHA-required fall protection areas where exposure levels exceed our limits, 
indicating antenna locations and areas where exposure limits are exceeded because these areas may be 
accessed by workers using lifting or climbing devices.264  We find the suggested setback as unnecessary, 
impractical and inconsistent with our policies that distance to compliance boundaries be based on the 
effective radiated power and other variables related to the installation of transmitters at a site rather than a 
set distance.  At the same time, we agree with SiteSafe that effective placement of signs is necessary to 
inform workers prior to accessing these areas.  Parties interested in recommendations for sign layout, 
color, symbology, etc., may refer to the detailed description in IEEE Std C95.2-1999, as well as the 
subsequent guidance materials we will offer on categories and signs in a future revised version of OET 
Bulletin 65.  Further, while we also agree that a site safety plan may be an effective part of an acceptable 
routine evaluation, we do not adopt such a measure as a required component.265  Because each site is 
different, our rules are flexible about how to prevent access to spatial regions where the RF exposure 
limits are exceeded and what mitigation measures are adequate for each specific circumstance.  
Additional guidance on best practices for site safety plans may be released in future revisions of our 
supplementary materials, including OET Bulletin 65.
103. As suggested by CSCP, we will require signs to provide an up-to-date point of contact, 
261 See OSHA Letter at 3; Narda Comments at 3.
262 29 CFR § 1910.145, Occupational Safety and Health Standards, Specifications for accident prevention signs and 
tags: “The signal word shall be readable at a minimum distance of five feet (1.52 m) or such greater distance as 
warranted by the hazard”; Howett, G.L., Size of Letters Required for Visibility as a Function of Viewing Distance 
and Observer Acuity, National Bureau of Standards, Washington DC, July 1983.
263 See EMF Safety Network Comments at 10.  EMF Safety Network suggests that transmitters be turned off when 
workers are present.  The Commission supports lockout/tagout procedures to turn off transmitters where necessary 
to maintain a safe working environment.  See infra Appx. A, Amended Rules 47 CFR § 1.1307(b)(4)(iv)-(v).
264 SiteSafe Comments at 2-4 (Fall protection areas are required of employers so as to prevent employees from 
falling off of overhead platforms, elevated work stations or into holes in the floor and walls.  See 
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/fallprotection/.)  In addition to signage, SiteSafe recommends that a safety plan be part 
of a routine evaluation and should be shared with licensees, site management, and personnel working at a site.  For 
small indoor antennas, SiteSafe suggests that placement of signs at the antennas for Wi-Fi or other internet access 
points would not be practical and notes that some jurisdictions require stealth screening of outdoor antennas, which 
complicates sign placement for those antennas.
265 SiteSafe Comments at 4.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
48but we decline RF Check’s suggestion of explicitly requiring 24/7 monitoring.266  We have no evidence 
that continuous round-the-clock monitoring is necessary or practical, , we anticipate  that licensees with 
many installations in diverse locations would provide a contact that can respond expeditiously much as 
they do for maintenance issues that may arise in their networks.  In many cases where the exposure is 
sufficiently limited such that remains below Category Three, there should be no need to contact a licensee 
because power reduction would be unnecessary for compliance with the occupational limits, as long as 
workers are effectively made aware of their exposure and are able to exercise control over their exposure.  
We will monitor complaints about unavailability of contact points as they may arise and work with parties 
as appropriate.  We will not specify a response time, as was suggested by Wessel, because normal good 
business practice should dictate prompt response, and the requirement for identification of the monitored 
contact point should be effective.267  We encourage parties responsible for such contact points to promptly 
respond to complaints and find appropriate solutions. 
3. Training to Ensure Compliance
104. RF safety awareness training is critically important to ensure that exposed persons are 
fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure, as required in 
environments qualifying to apply occupational/controlled limits.268  Adequate training should provide 
trainees with a complete understanding of the actions necessary to ensure their compliance with the 
exposure limits in various circumstances.  In the 2013 RF Further Notice,269 in determining what would 
constitute “appropriate training,” we proposed 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, and to allow for web-
based training or similar programs.270  
105. The record includes numerous requests for clarification regarding what constitutes 
adequate training under our rules.  UTC requests that the Commission clarify mitigation requirements 
regarding “training and notification” and provide flexibility.271  WIA suggests centralized training, either 
administered by the Commission in coordination with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
(OSHA) or through an association or trade group.272  Tell requests a detailed definition of training, 
suggesting that limited but specific instruction on behavior near active antennas is all that is necessary in 
most cases.273  Similarly, Wessel suggests that training for occupational/controlled exposure needs a clear 
and detailed definition and that while it is possible for information conveyed by signs to be sufficient the 
signs might not remain in place.274  H&E suggests that training be consistent with Annex A of IEEE 
C95.7-2005, and subsequently IEEE C95.7-2014, but that some of the material be simplified for building 
266 See CSCP Comments at 3 (supporting requirement for contact information on signs and emphasizes that the 
contact information be up-to-date, so that the public can readily obtain exposure information about sites where they 
have concerns); see also RF Check Ex Parte at 11 (“Safety Center Specialists are accessible 24/7 via Internet or 
phone.”).
267 See Wessel Comments at 3 (stressing the importance of a timely response when using contact information on 
signs as maintenance on rooftops is often a matter of some urgency).
268 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3523, para. 75; see also, IEEE C95.7-2005; IEEE C95.7-2014.
269 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3565, para. 195.
270 See id.
271 See UTC Reply at 1, 7-8.
272 See WIA Comments at 9.
273 See Tell Comments at 2.
274 See Wessel Comments at 3.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
49maintenance personnel.275  H&E also recommends substantive testing and renewal requirements for 
training.276  
106. The level of detail provided in the training section of IEEE C95.7-2014 demonstrates the 
difficulty in prescribing clear and simple criteria for what constitutes appropriate training.  Accordingly, 
we direct OET to consider the topics outlined in Annex A of IEEE C95.7-2005 as training guidance to be 
referenced in a future revision of OET Bulletin 65 as promptly as practicable and with an eye towards 
providing appropriate language for those who will rely on it, and to continue to revise this guideline as 
experience dictates.  For this, OET will coordinate with OSHA, as recommended by WIA, to ensure that 
the revision of Bulletin 65 will provide sufficient guidance to people who work in the presence of RF 
transmitters.  In the case of training using oral information, we clarify that either spoken word or pre-
recorded audio from an authorized individual qualified to provide such instructions on how to remain 
compliant is acceptable.277  Training may also include web-based programs.278  We also make clear that 
instant “training” via signage at an access door is insufficient to achieve the goal of compliance for those 
persons potentially exposed beyond that door, even assuming that diagrams of a rooftop are read and 
understood.  
4. Responsibility for Mitigation Measures
107. Numerous comments requested limitations on a licensee’s responsibility for mitigation 
measures.279  Verizon, WIA, and others argued for a “safe harbor” from actions and events beyond their 
control at the restricted area when the area is not controlled by the licensee.280  Verizon contends that 
there is no practical action it can take to ensure continuously that certain sites are compliant.281  According 
to Verizon, if a rooftop door is left unlocked by a third party despite Verizon’s best efforts to control 
exposure (including posting appropriate signs and implementing access controls), it should not be 
considered to have violated the Commission’s rules.282  Verizon suggests that safe harbor requirements 
include the following elements: category-appropriate signage, access controls, indicative or physical 
barricades, RF safety training, information about RF exposure risks in accessible areas, and 24/7 contact 
275 See also Motorola Comments at 8-9 (supporting the use of IEEE-C95.7-2005); see also IEEE-ICES Comments 
at 2. 
276 See H&E Reply at 4.
277 See AT&T Comments to Notice at 1.
278 SiteSafe Comments at 5 (supporting our training requirement of written or oral instruction, or both, and 
suggesting that training could be accomplished by “class room, computer based, and on-the-job training from a 
competent instructor.”).
279 The Commission clarified the responsibilities of licensees at multi-use transmitter sites, and sought comment on 
the extent and limitation of these responsibilities, as well as how to encourage better cooperation between property 
owners, managers, and licensees, in response to commenters that suggested that our rules do not address the 
apportionment of responsibility among licensees in all situations.  2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3525-
26, 3564, paras. 80-84, 193.
280 See WIA Comments at 2-3, 5-8; Verizon Comments at 2, 10-13; AT&T Reply at 3-4, 8-9; AICC Reply at 20; 
WIA Reply at 1, 4-5; Verizon Reply at 4; Verizon Ex Parte at 2 (February 10, 2014); Verizon Ex Parte at 2 (May 6, 
2015); Verizon Ex Parte at 1 (January 13, 2016); Verizon Ex Parte at 1 (June 15, 2018).  But see Boston & 
Philadelphia Reply at 6; Gil Amelio Letter at 1; IBEW Comment at 1-2; AFGE/AFL-CIO Comment at 1; RF Check 
Ex Parte at 1 (March 4, 2014); RF Check Ex Parte at 1, 19 (October 8, 2014); RF Check Ex Parte at 20 (December 
18, 2015); National Antenna and Tower Safety Center Ex Parte at 14.
281 See Verizon Comments at 2, 10-13; Verizon Reply at 4; Verizon Ex Parte at 2 (February 10, 2014); Verizon Ex 
Parte at 2 (May 6, 2015); Verizon Ex Parte at 1 (January 13, 2016); Verizon Ex Parte at 1 (June 15, 2018).
282 See Verizon Comments at 12; Verizon Ex Parte at 2 (February 10, 2014); Verizon Ex Parte at 1 (May 6, 2015); 
Verizon Ex Parte at 1 (January 13, 2016).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
50information.283  Similarly, WIA urges that mitigation measures should include only those steps that the 
licensees can reasonably control and that the licensee should not be held liable when, despite its best 
efforts, a third party does not comply with mitigation requirements.284  WIA points out that rooftop access 
is typically managed by the building’s owner, whose duty should be to work with licensees to mitigate 
exposure.285  WIA also suggests that RF mitigation rules should not conflict with federal, state, or local 
laws or safety codes.286  Boston and Philadelphia opposed any safe harbor, on the grounds that a safe 
harbor would excuse noncompliance and, instead, suggested that the Commission should look at the facts 
in any given case to determine responsibility.287  IBEW also opposes a safe harbor approach, noting in 
particular that signs by themselves should not be considered sufficient to establish compliance.288  UTC 
and AICC propose that new entrants should be responsible for mitigation at such sites.289
108. RF Check suggests that the Commission recognize that licensees alone cannot ensure 
compliance and that a comprehensive, uniform solution that involves all parties is necessary.290  RF Check 
proposes the creation of a database in which transmitting antennas are registered and their exposure areas 
calculated, with the antenna and exposure areas visually depicted.291  This database would be accessed 
and viewed by a worker at any worksite via smartphone.292  WIA supports a private sector neutral third-
party collecting and distributing RF safety information as consistent with its recommendation that the 
Commission facilitate centralized training.293  We decline to mandate the registration of each transmitting 
antenna in a database.  Such proposal is overbroad and burdensome.  With the implementation of 5G 
technologies such requirement will impose costs to licensees and operators while its benefit is not 
necessarily evident.  Carriers are densifying their networks with an increasing speed, and though at times 
they might place antennas in non-visible locations, most of them can be seen and recognized.  Further, the 
RF characteristics of such antennas vary, impacting the degree of RF exposure.  
109. Such a comprehensive catalogue of sites and “safety” zones would further impose a 
burden on all site owners, regardless of whether they are able to achieve effective compliance without 
such participation.  Moreover, mandating such participation would effectively delegate our responsibility 
to an organization over which we have no oversight or control.294  Additionally, in the absence of full data 
on all RF sources, reliance on such a system could expose unwitting users who rely exclusively on that 
system to RF exposure in excess of our limits from sources not accounted for in that system.  
Accordingly, we do not adopt a safe harbor for site compliance.  If any licensee chooses to outsource its 
compliance function to a third party, it can do so, but the licensee would remain wholly liable for 
compliance.  
283 See Verizon Comments at 12.
284 See WIA Comments at 2-3, 5-8; WIA Reply at 1, 4-5.
285 See WIA Comments at 7.
286 See WIA Comments at 6.
287 See Boston & Philadelphia Reply at 6.
288 See IBEW Comment at 1-2.
289 See UTC Reply at 1; AICC Reply at iii.
290 See RF Check Comments at 3-4, 8.
291 Id.
292 Id.
293 See WIA Reply at 5.
294 See U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, 359 F.3d 554, 565-69 (D.C. Cir. 2004).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
51110. Regarding the effectiveness of mitigation measures at transmitter sites to ensure 
compliance,295 Narda argues that a locked rooftop with posted signs is not effective and that barriers are 
needed because third-party workers who are given access may not be able to identify an antenna so as to 
stay a certain distance away from it.296  EMRPI also states that wireless sites with concealed or 
camouflaged antennas are common, so workers with access to them have no knowledge of their exposure 
and no recognition that a site could be hazardous.297  We agree, and the rules we adopt reflect that signs 
alone do not comprise an RF safety program; however, the composition of a barrier within a controlled 
area might be either a restrictive, physical barrier, or an indicative barrier depending on the unique 
circumstances of the site, so workers, who are required to be trained, may readily recognize the antennas 
in the controlled area.  
111. IBEW states that ensuring compliance with the exposure limits by the licensee is not 
effective and cannot or is not being enforced.  While IBEW believes that the licensee’s responsibility is a 
non-delegable duty, it suggests that practical RF safety should be a shared responsibility maintained 
among regulators, licensees, property owners and managers, employers, employees, and subcontractors.298  
It indicates it is assessing the potential overexposure of its members, and recommends that all parties 
work with RF Check to ensure compliance with the Commission’s exposure limits.299  RF Check suggests 
that the Commission make explicit that a licensee’s compliance with Commission rules does not relieve 
an employer of its duties under OSHA regulations.300
112. These claims of the alleged prevalence of noncompliance at rooftop sites, although 
unsupported by empirical evidence, seem to be animating, in part, the calls for a safe harbor on the part of 
the wireless carriers who fear Commission enforcement action for sites they do not control.  Dependence 
on property owners who may find those controls to be a nuisance or even in conflict with other safety 
goals (e.g., locked egress doors) or legal requirements (e.g., set-backs) is problematic.  We find that a 
licensee’s due diligence in ensuring compliance with the RF exposure requirements is the appropriate test 
for a safe harbor.  As discussed by Verizon, we anticipate that due diligence would include elements such 
as category-appropriate signage, access controls, indicative or physical barricades, RF safety training, 
information about RF exposure risks in accessible areas, and 24/7 contact information.  We recognize that 
the specific elements that are appropriate for any given installation may differ, such as situations where 
local safety codes require access to the roof at all times in case of emergencies.  Therefore, we would 
consider the totality of the measures that were taken in any given instance.  The greater specificity we 
provide regarding effective mitigation measures should go a long way to reducing the concerns of 
licensees301.We appreciate that operators should not be held responsible for things beyond their control.  
295 See 2013 RF Order and Further Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3530, para. 100 & n.172. 
296 See EMRPI Comments at 10; Narda Comments, ET Docket No.13-84, at 1;  see also Wessel Comments at 2 
(contends that few licensees with fixed rooftop transmitters have appropriate signs, associated training, or 
procedures to identify exposure categories, and that access is often granted to individuals without knowledge or 
ability to control exposure, so that restriction on access does not result in a “controlled environment” as defined in 
IEEE Std C95.7-2005/C95.7-2014).
297 See EMRPI Reply at 4.
298 See IBEW Comments at 3.
299 See id.
300 See RF Check Comments at 7.
301 See, e.g., Verizon Ex Parte at 1 (May 6, 2015), in requesting that the Commission adopt a safe harbor “with 
respect to carrier efforts to restrict access to radio frequency transmitters located at rooftop locations, … Verizon is 
committed to operating and does in fact operate safe and effective transmitters, but the actions of third parties that 
carriers cannot control may limit in some cases what carriers can do to prevent unauthorized access to transmitter 
sites.”; Boston & Philadelphia Reply at 6: “[Commission adoption of ‘safe harbors’] would seem to invite any 
number of easy excuses for RF radiation risks to untrained or unaware persons. The better solution, we believe, is 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
52With regard to the various parties raising concerns about a safe harbor, we note that we have taken 
numerous steps in this proceeding to clarify a licensee’s obligations and these requirements are 
enforceable. Moreover, responsibility for maintenance of the conditions that permit a siting within our 
rules can be an enforceable condition of any such lease.302  
113. In reference to UTC’s and AICC’s comments on the responsibilities and potential 
liabilities of new entrants at multiple transmitter sites, we recognize that an entity responsible for new 
construction or modification of existing facilities could bring a compliant site out of compliance.  First, 
we reiterate that all licensees subject to Section 1.1307(b) of our rules continue to share responsibility for 
maintaining compliance and the obligation to bring a previously-compliant site back into compliance, as 
may be necessary.  This requirement, along with the requirement for new and renewal applicants to 
evaluate and ensure compliance at sites, is an important mechanism to maintain ongoing compliance.303  It 
is critical that all occupants of a site share responsibility to ensure that compliance at a site is maintained.  
Second, if an environmental change or other external factor or event occurs that brings a site out of 
compliance, all licensees share the responsibility for any modification or remediation necessary to bring 
the site into compliance.  Finally, if a site is found out of compliance, a licensee that can demonstrate that 
its facility was compliant and did not cause the non-compliance will not be liable in an enforcement 
proceeding relating to the period of non-compliance.  This approach allows the consideration of evidence 
on a case-by-case basis during any appropriate enforcement action and addresses the commenters concern 
to avoid inappropriately assigning liability to innocent parties where the source of noncompliance can be 
identified.
114. We reject Portland’s argument that, in addition to the Commission’s requirements 
concerning warning signs and barriers, local authorities should be allowed to require additional signs and 
access restriction where they deem them appropriate.304  While Section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Act 
permits state and local governments, when making decisions on the “placement, construction, and 
(Continued from previous page)  
give providers every incentive to inform third parties of these risks and enlist their help in protection. In the end, not 
all over-exposure can be prevented, but the facts of any given case should determine whether the provider or the 
interloper or some third party is to blame”; Gil Amelio Letter at 1: “It appears that some carriers are continuing to 
ask the FCC to grant them a safe harbor for merely maintaining the antiquated system of signs and fences that fails 
to protect workers in today’s wireless environment.”; IBEW Comment at 1: “Granting the discussed ‘safe harbors’ 
and reducing the frequency of inspections would only aggravate the already hazardous situation facing our 
members, making it even more difficult for them to assess situations and take the safety precautions needed to 
protect themselves from unnecessary risk.”; AFGE/AFL-CIO Comment at 1: “This is not the first time carriers have 
requested a safe harbor. It appears their concern has more to do with protecting their financial interests rather than 
RF safety. Displaying a lack of willingness to address RF radiation exposure will only result in workers continuing 
to be exposed needlessly.”
302 Wessel contends that there is a lack of cooperation among property owners, managers, licensees, and 
subcontractors amounting to a “systemic failure” in the industry and suggests that since property owners and 
managers have been held accountable by the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau for interference caused by 
equipment on their property the same could be done for violation of RF exposure limits on the property.  See Wessel 
Comments at 2.  (We observe that each of these occasions was related to violations in the use of unlicensed devices, 
which are enforceable under our rules on the users of the device.)  Wessel also references an insurance industry 
article dealing with property manager and owner risks associated with RF exposure.  See Wessel Comments at 3. 
(While this point may illustrate the potential seriousness of violation, it is not obviously relevant to placing 
compliance responsibility, and it is not discussed in our resolution.)
303 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3526, para. 84: 
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, leasers, and managers to 
cooperate in these endeavors, and we note that site user agreements are particularly useful and desirable to 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
53modification” of personal wireless service facilities, to consider whether such facilities comply with the 
Commission’s regulations concerning RF emissions, it expressly prohibits them from imposing their own 
regulations on such facilities on the basis of the environmental effects of such emissions.305  Thus, 
“[p]ursuant to Section 332(c)(7), and consistent with the Commission’s general authority to regulate the 
operation of radio facilities, State and local governments are broadly preempted from regulating the 
operation of personal wireless service facilities based on RF emission considerations.”306  The 
Commission’s rules echo this statutory provision.307  Many courts have confirmed that state or local 
regulation of RF emission safeguards would “disrupt the expert balancing underlying the federal scheme” 
in the context of proceedings such as this one, where the Commission has “weighed the competing 
interests relevant to the particular requirement in question, reached an unambiguous conclusion about 
how those competing considerations should be resolved, and implemented that conclusion via a specific 
mandate.”308 Indeed, as noted above,309 state-level warning regimes risk contributing to an erroneous 
public perception or otherwise disrupt the federal regime.     
D. Transition Periods
115. As an initial matter, we emphasize that compliance with the RF exposure limits is an 
existing requirement that applies to all licensees, as well as grantees of portable, mobile, and unlicensed 
device equipment authorizations, irrespective of whether they were exempt from evaluation under the old 
rules.  Licensees are always responsible for the compliance of their sites and their equipment in protecting 
persons from RF exposure in excess of our limits.  Still, our new rules will provide greater clarity and 
certainty to licensees, equipment manufacturers, and the public.  
116. Even though we anticipate that comparatively few facilities will require evaluation under 
the new rules, and such evaluations will be relatively straightforward, in order to ameliorate any hardship 
caused by the change to the new exemption and evaluation framework, we set a timetable for conducting 
the reevaluation, under the new rules, of antenna locations that were previously exempt from evaluation 
under the existing rules.  We will allow two years from the effective date of the new rules for licensees to 
determine if evaluations are required, to perform them where necessary, and to comply with the more 
specific mitigation requirements we adopt in this order as may be necessary.310  This transition period 
achieve this end.  As demonstrated in the record, 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.
304 City of Portland Comments at 4.
305 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iv).
306 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, 15 FCC Rcd 22821, 22828, para. 17 (2000) (citing Cellular 
Phone Task Force v. FCC, 205 F.3d 82, 95-96 (2d Cir. 2000)); see also New York SMSA Ltd. P’ship v. Town of 
Clarkstown, 612 F.3d 97, 105 (2d Cir. 2010) (the Act “occupies the field” of “regulation of the technical and 
operational aspects of wireless telecommunications service,” to the exclusion of state or local regulation).
307 47 CFR § 1.1307(e).
308 Farina v. Nokia, Inc., 625 F.3d 97, 123, 126 (3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 501 
(1996), and citing Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341, 348 (2001)); accord Robbins v. New 
Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, 854 F.3d 315, 319-20 (6th Cir. 2017) (“By delegating the task of setting RF-emissions 
levels to the FCC, Congress authorized the federal government—and not local governments—to strike the proper 
balance between protecting the public from RF-emissions exposure and promoting a robust telecommunications 
infrastructure.”).
309 See para. 16 supra.
310 See AT&T Reply at 11.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
54comports with the essentially unanimous view of commenters in their consideration of the scope and 
logistics involved,311 and in our experience should be adequate for those with the largest number of sites 
to evaluate or to reevaluate.312  This two-year transition period will allow not only licensees and 
manufacturers to complete the evaluations or determine whether they are exempt from evaluation, but 
will also allow an orderly transition for the licensing Bureaus and the FCC equipment authorization 
program to incorporate the new exemption criteria into their station authorization and certification 
policies and procedures.  
117. We reiterate and emphasize that all licensees and grantees are responsible for compliance 
of their facilities and equipment with our RF exposure rules irrespective of their exemption status.  Even 
though licensees are provided with adequate time to reevaluate locations, they still bear the responsibility 
of protecting persons from RF exposure in excess of our limits.  As such, while lack of utilization of the 
signage and other guidance provided in this Order will not constitute a per se violation of mitigation 
requirements during the transition period, all responsible parties are liable at all times for providing 
appropriate protection from RF exposure above our limits, and thus should be motivated to adopt the 
measures that best ensure our agreement with their compliance—those measures adopted herein—as soon 
as possible. 
E. Conforming Edits
118. In the 2013 RF Further Notice we proposed to reword some of our rules in sectionsS 
1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 as necessary to ensure clarity and consistency.313  In addition, we 
proposed to make changes to specific sections of Parts 15, 24, 25, 95, and 97 for consistency and as 
necessary depending on the substantive changes in Parts 1 and 2.314  Because the Commission proposed 
that our general exemption criteria apply to all rule parts authorizing RF sources, specific exceptions 
provision in rule parts other than in Parts 1 and 2 are not necessary.  Nonetheless, where various existing 
rule parts include paragraphs or sections concerning RF exposure requirements, we are updating those for 
consistency.  No specific comments were received on these proposals and we adopt each of them for the 
reasons set forth in the Further Notice.  Accordingly, 
For applicants for equipment authorizations covered by Parts 15 and 18, in Sections 
15.212(a)(viii), 15.247(i), 15.255(g), 15.257(g), 15.319(i), 15.407(f), 15.709(h), and 
18.313, we substitute our general exemption criteria for the specific exemption from 
routine evaluation;
For applicants and licensees in the Public Mobile Service Personal Communications 
Service, we add and substitute our general exemption criteria for the specific exemption 
from routine evaluation in Sections 22.379 and 24.52;
For applicants and licensees of satellite earth stations, we remove the 5 percent criterion 
in Section 25.117(g) and introduce similar language to Section 25.115, paragraph (p), 
Section 25.129, paragraph (c), Section 25.149, paragraph (c)(3), and Section 25.271, 
paragraph (g);
For applicants and licensees in the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services, 
Radio Broadcast Services, and Private Land Mobile Services we substitute our general 
exemption criteria for the specific exemption from routine evaluation by modifying 
311 H&E Reply at 4; Verizon Comments at 15; WIA Comments at 5; SiteSafe Comments at 5.
312 We note that this is six months longer than the period that was recently agreed to with one of the major cellular 
telephone service providers.  See Cellco Partnership, Order, 29 FCC Rcd 4789, 4794 (EB 2014).
313 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3569, para. 204.
314 Id. Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
55Section 27.52, Section 73.404, paragraph (e)(10), and by adding Section 90.223 and 
removing Section 90.223;
We add mobile devices to Section 95.2385 for WMTS and edit Section 95.2585 to 
eliminate the limited specification of FDTD modeling for MedRadio service medical 
implants;
For applicants and licensees in the Amateur Radio Service, we substitute our general 
exemption criteria for the specific exemption from routine evaluation based on power 
alone in Section 97.13(c)(1) and specify the use of occupational/controlled limits for 
amateurs where appropriate; and
For applicants and licensees in the Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service, we 
substitute our general exemption criteria for the specific exemption from routine 
evaluation of stations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz frequency band with output powers less than 
1640 watts EIRP, in Section 101.1425.
Each of these changes will improve consistency and clarity of the rules.
V. NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
119. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) seeks to develop a record that will enable 
us to address the challenges presented by evolving technological advances.  Devices are operating in new 
frequency bands, changing the way we use wireless devices, the way the supporting wireless 
infrastructure is deployed, and the way RF sources in general are assessed for compliance.  One example 
is technologies using millimeter-wave and sub-millimeter wave frequencies for mobile communications 
applications, where the Commission already has established power density limits across these 
frequencies, but we seek comment below on localized exposure limits for devices held close to the body. 
Another example is new wireless power transfer (WPT) technologies, including some that are designed to 
dynamically focus energy on a device at a distance. where, particularly for inductive WPT equipment, the 
Commission already has established power density limits across many of the frequencies being used for 
such technology, but we seek comment below on internal electric field limits, where appropriate.  These 
and other similar applications of RF energy being developed raise questions as to how to determine 
compliance with the RF exposure limits.  
120. In this NPRM, we seek comment on expanding the range of frequencies for which the RF 
exposure limits apply; (noting that exposure limits are already in effect from 100 kHz to 100 GHz) on 
incorporating into our rules localized exposure limits above 6 GHz in parallel to the localized exposure 
limits already established below 6 GHz; on specifying the conditions under which and the methods by 
which the limits are averaged, in both time and area, during evaluation for compliance with the rules; and 
on addressing new issues raised by WPT devices.  Although we terminated the Inquiry noticed in ET 
Docket No. 13-84 above,315 there are some proposals on which we seek comment in this NPRM that stem 
from matters discussed in that proceeding,316 some of which overlap with the issues identified 
immediately above.317  
121. This NPRM proposes methods and seeks comment on how to best incorporate new RF 
technologies, new methods and techniques for RF transmission, and new usages for a variety of RF 
315 See supra Section III.
316 See RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3570-89, paras. 205-52.
317 The comments from that proceeding will not be included in the instant docket, as the overwhelming majority of 
those comments are unrelated to the issues raised in this docket and those that are relevant here are typically 
intermingled in the same filings as unrelated comments.  Parties should refile in this docket any information or 
comments that they deem to be still relevant to the specific proposals in this docket.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
56spectrum bands into our preexisting exposure framework.  In particular, on the topic of body-worn 
spacing during testing of cell phones, we continue to strive to ensure that such spacing represents realistic 
values for present-day technology and common usage.318  The new technology and use of frequencies 
acknowledged in the 2013 RF Order and Notice but not directly addressed in our rules, and the 
consequent testing methods they entail,319 are also addressed in this NPRM.  As part of this effort, we also 
further explore the issue of approval for equipment using new methods and technologies.  With respect to 
any special considerations for children and consumer information, we refer to the FDA website, which 
states that “[t]he scientific evidence does not show a danger to any users of cell phones from RF 
exposure, including children and teenagers.”320  In general, we will update the information on our website 
as may be necessary to satisfy our commitment to ensure compliance with established exposure limits 
without expressing opinions on potential long-term health impact or current research activities where this 
is a more appropriate role for the health agencies.  Finally, we will provide information to the public that 
is useful in understanding our rules and the way they will be enforced.321 
A. Extension of Exposure Limits to Additional Frequencies
122. Our RF exposure rules provide that specific absorption rate (SAR) will be evaluated 
within the frequency range of 100 kHz to 6 GHz and, similarly, they provide for evaluation of maximum 
permissible exposure (MPE) field strength and power density within the frequency range of 300 kHz and 
100 GHz.322  The standards for localized specific absorption rate (SAR) that are normally applied for 
testing compliance of consumer devices operating below 6 GHz were derived from the Maximum 
Permissible Exposure (MPE) whole body limits.  The Commission currently employs a similar derivation 
to apply localized limits where appropriate for testing consumer devices operating above 6 GHz.  This 
approach, however, is not formalized in our rules.  We most recently invited comments in the 2013 RF 
Order and Notice as to whether the Commission should establish specific exposure limits and 
measurement protocols outside these frequency ranges.323  We noted that some inductive wireless 
chargers operate at frequencies below 100 kHz, and Commission staff has been approached by parties 
seeking guidance on how to determine compliance for wireless car chargers generally operating at 
318 See, e.g., KDB Publication 447498.
319 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3580, para. 229.
320 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Children and Cell Phones, https://www.fda.gov/radiation-emitting-
products/cell-phones/children-and-cell-phones; see also Statement from Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., director of the 
FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health on the recent National Toxicology Program draft report on 
radiofrequency energy exposure (Feb. 2, 2018), https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-
jeffrey-shuren-md-jd-director-fdas-center-devices-and-radiological-health-recent-national (“I want to underscore 
that based on our ongoing evaluation of this issue and taking into account all available scientific evidence we have 
received, we have not found sufficient evidence that there are adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures 
at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits.  Even with frequent daily use by the vast majority of 
adults, we have not seen an increase in events like brain tumors.  Based on this current information, we believe the 
current safety limits for cell phones are acceptable for protecting the public health.”).
321 We acknowledged in the Inquiry the guidance given by WHO that extra precautionary efforts, such as providing 
information describing effective means for the public 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.  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 5, 
http://www.who.int/peh-emf/standards/EMF_model_legislation_2007.pdf?ua=1.
322 See 47 CFR § 1.1310 Radiofrequency radiation exposure limits.  The Commission’s fundamental responsibility 
with respect to health risk to humans for all RF devices is expressed in section 1.1307 of our rules (47 CFR 
§ 1.1307) and our OET has provided case-by-case guidance on WPT issues.
323 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3580, para. 229.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
57similarly low frequencies.324  We are aware of three extant guidelines for RF exposure that extend to 
frequencies below 100 kHz: ICNIRP 2010,325 IEEE Std C95.1-2005,326 and more recently, Health Canada 
Safety Code 6 (2015).327  All of these guidelines are aimed at prevention of electrostimulation due to RF 
electric fields induced internally within the human body in the presence of an external electromagnetic 
field outside the body―the primary human reaction to electromagnetic field energy at these frequencies.  
The internal electric field (E i) would be analogous to SAR as an internal dosimetric measure, in contrast 
to the MPE limits on external fields, but where SAR is intended to prevent excessive body heating, the 
internal electric field avoids neural stimulation effects unrelated to heating.328  The three standards have 
similar values for limiting the internal electric field (E i), although they have rather different approaches to 
the dosimetry used to derive their respective MPE limits on external fields from those E i values.  We seek 
comment on the significance of the differences among the preceding three guidelines.
123. While each of the standards appear to provide appropriate E i guidelines, the ICNIRP 
2010 guidelines are the most recent that are widely accepted internationally.329  Accordingly, we propose 
to adopt limits on E i similar to these ICNIRP 2010 guidelines in our rules for frequencies between 3 kHz 
to 10 MHz.  We do not propose to apply these guidelines below 3 kHz because our table of frequency 
allocations begins at 8.3 kHz and there are no established provisions for devices to operate at lower 
frequencies.330  We seek comments on these proposals and on other relevant and authoritative standards 
that commenters deem appropriate for consideration.
124. We propose to overlay ICNIRP 2010 electrostimulation limits for E i on our existing SAR 
limits for frequencies between 100 kHz and 10 MHz.  Because of the fast response of neural stimulation 
relative to heating, it is appropriate to apply electrostimulation limits without time averaging (in addition 
to time-averaged SAR limits) to fields at frequencies well above 100 kHz.331  However, we do not 
propose to amend or extend our MPE limits on external fields.332  This would place E i alongside SAR as a 
co-primary limit333 between 100 kHz and 10 MHz and continues our policy that MPE limits are 
(Continued from previous page)  
324 See 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3580, para. 229.
325 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.  ICNIRP 
Publication – 2010, available at http://www.icnirp.org.
326 Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (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 
IEEE, New York, New York 10016-5997.  See also the recently published (October 4, 2019) Institute of Electrical 
and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, 
Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz, IEEE Std C95.1-2019, copyright 2019 by IEEE, New 
York, New York 10016-5997.
327 Health Canada Safety Code 6 - Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Energy in the 
Frequency Range from 3 kHz to 300 GHz (2015), available at http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-
semt/consult/_2014/safety_code_6-code_securite_6/final_finale-eng.php (last accessed March 14, 2018).
328 Adverse neural stimulation effects mentioned by these standards include acute effects such as perception of 
tingling, shock, pain, or altered behavior due to excitation of tissue in the body’s peripheral nervous system.  
Applications in these frequencies include wireless power transfer technologies associated with charging electrical 
vehicles.  We note that the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) standard J2954 for automotive WPT has called 
for compliance with ICNIRP 2010.  See https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j2954_201605/.
329 For example, at least Germany, Japan, China, and Canada so far have adopted limits consistent with ICNIRP 
2010, either by adopting limits derived based on similar considerations or directly by reference.  (For example, 
Canada has adopted its recently updated Safety Code 6 which specifies the same internal electric field limits as 
ICNIRP 2010, while Germany and Japan have explicitly cited ICNIRP 2010 in their regulations.)  See, e.g., 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
58secondary.334  Guidance on how to comply with both limits within this frequency range may be developed 
as necessary for particular applications.335  We seek comment on these proposed numerical limits.  , and 
on the guidance demonstrating compliance with such limits
125. As technologies push the boundaries into spectrum ranges not previously used or 
anticipated, we now contemplate new rules on how to determine RF exposure compliance at these 
frequencies and eliminate uncertainty that may delay investment and development of new technologies.  
The Commission has no specific RF exposure limits above 100 GHz for new licensed services and 
unlicensed devices.336  Although the radio spectrum is managed up to 3,000 GHz (3 THz), our exposure 
limits are currently specified only up to 100 GHz.337  And since the exposure limits are constant from 6 
GHz all the way up to 100 GHz338 (due to minimal body penetration), these limits could in principle be 
applied up to far infrared wavelengths.339
126. We are unaware of any reason the limits should be different above 100 GHz than across 
the already existing wide frequency range.  As the difference in body penetration further diminishes 
towards zero, there is no apparent reason to expect that thermal effects will effectively change in the 
increasingly higher frequencies.  Accordingly, we propose to extend the same constant exposure limits 
that presently apply from 6 GHz to 100 GHz up to an upper frequency of 3,000 GHz (3 THz), which is 
considered to be the upper bound of existing radiofrequency bands.340  Starting at 300 GHz or a 
wavelength of 1,000 micrometers (µm), standards have been developed for lasers primarily for 
application in industrial settings.341  In an effort by standards bodies to match the laser standards, RF 
limits have been increased at millimeter wave frequencies;342 however, we do not feel it is appropriate to 
relax our limits at higher frequencies for exposure from consumer communication devices, considering 
the already minimal skin depth at 100 GHz.  Accordingly, we propose to extend our existing limits to 
3,000 GHz (3 THz) to stay ahead of the possibility of technologies being introduced that are only nascent 
or unknown today.  We note that most of the services being contemplated in the Spectrum Horizons 
(Continued from previous page)  
https://www.qualcomm.com/media/documents/files/requirements-for-human-exposure-assessment-of-wireless-
electric-vehicle-charging-wevc-systems.pdf. 
330 47 CFR § 2.106.
331 Neural stimulation time constants are measured in hundreds of microseconds (see Applied Bioelectricity, Reilly, 
J. P., p. 246, Tbl. 1 (1998)), as compared to thermal time constants for RF heating of skin of typically measured in 
tens or hundreds of seconds (see Thermal Response of Human Skin to Microwave Energy: A Critical Review, Foster, 
K. R., et. al., Health Physics, Vol. 111, Issue 6, p. 530, Figure 2 (2016)).
332 We note that, except under rare circumstances, the MPE and SAR limits will be the predominantly more 
restrictive limits above a about few hundred kHz.  In other words, MPE and SAR exposure limits will reliably 
protect against any adverse tissue heating resulting from most (if not all) communications sources of RF energy 
regulated by the Commission, while the proposed internal electric field limit will protect against any adverse 
electrostimulation responses in nervous tissue not directly related to heating, such as extremely fast, short-duration 
pulses of RF energy not common for communications devices over the frequency range in which these limits would 
apply.  Thus, although we expect that most RF sources will be unaffected by this proposed change, preventing 
electrostimulation effects, even under rare circumstances, is necessary to protect the public consistent with our 
obligations under NEPA.
333 This means that both Ei and SAR limits must be met between 100 kHz and 10 MHz.
334 See 47 CFR § 1.1310(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).”); see also 2013 RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3506-09, paras. 20-27 (“Primacy of 
Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) over Power Density or Field Strength below 6 GHz”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
59proceeding are within 95-275 GHz frequencies,343 but there may be other potential applications or 
services being contemplated above these frequency bands.  We seek comment on this proposal.  
Specifically, we seek comment on the frequency range over which these proposed limits would apply. 
1. Localized Exposure Limit for Higher Frequencies
127. Newer technologies that employ techniques such as adaptive array antennas created by 
fluctuating multi-beam sources create complex electromagnetic fields that present challenges for present-
day RF measurement methods.344  The Commission’s RF exposure rules do not yet specify a spatial 
maximum power density limit for localized exposure at higher frequencies.345  As portable devices are 
being developed for operation at higher frequencies for future 5G services in millimeter-wave bands, we 
propose a general localized power density exposure limit above 6 GHz of 4 mW/cm2 averaged over 1 cm² 
for the general population or uncontrolled exposure, applicable up to the upper frequency boundary of 3 
THz, also proposed above.346  We invite comments on this proposal.  Both the ICNIRP guidelines and the 
IEEE standards specify a spatial maximum power density, at least at higher frequencies (e.g., between 
3GHz and 10 GHz) of 20 times the whole-body MPE limit, generally averaged over 1 cm2.347  We also 
propose a localized exposure limit above 6 GHz for occupational or controlled exposure of 20 mW/cm2 
averaged over 1 cm2, which is consistent with the typical increased ratio of 5:1 for the occupational limits 
relative to the general population limits.  We tentatively conclude not to adopt an extremity limit at this 
time.348
128. The proposed general population localized power density value of 4 mW/cm2 matches the 
exposure limit specified at 6 GHz in the IEEE Std C95.1-1991 standard referenced in our rules.349  Our 
reading of the literature suggests that based on planar models, a power density of 4 mW/cm2 just above 
6 GHz is consistent with our 1-gram SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg at 6 GHz.350  Also, the thermal perception 
threshold at frequencies approaching 100 GHz for large areas of exposure is indicated at about 
4 mW/cm2.351  Maintaining 4 mW/cm2 across the entire frequency range (6 GHz to 3 THz) will avoid any 
potential discontinuity between SAR and power density limits at 6 GHz while also preventing the 
(Continued from previous page)  
335 We propose that our policy on recommended best practices for evaluation techniques to comply with both E i and 
SAR in the frequency range between 100 kHz and 10 MHz should be contained in our Bulletins and in other 
supplemental materials, such as the OET Laboratory Knowledge Database (KDB).
336 See Spectrum Horizons, First Report and Order, FCC 19-19, para. 43 (Mar. 15, 2019) (Spectrum Horizons R&O); 
see also Spectrum Horizons, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 33 FCC Rcd 2438, 2473, para. 82 (2018) (Spectrum 
Horizons NPRM).
337 Id.
338 See 47 CFR § 1.1310.  The power density limits specified for general population and occupational exposure for 
1.5 GHz up to 100 GHz are 1 mW/cm2 and 5 mW/cm2 respectively for whole-body continuous exposure.
339 Spectrum Horizons R&O, at para. 43.
340 We note over the frequency range between 1.5 GHz and 6 GHz that the power density limits specified for general 
population and occupational exposure are 1 mW/cm2 and 5 mW/cm2 respectively for whole-body continuous 
exposure.
341 See, e.g., International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) Guidelines on Limits of 
Exposure to Laser Radiation of Wavelengths between 180 nm and 1,000 µm, Health Physics 105(3):271-295; 2013.  
ICNIRP Publication – 2013, available at http://www.icnirp.org.
342 See, e.g., International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), Guidelines for Limiting 
Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (Up to 300 GHz), 74 Health Physics 494 
(1998); 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 (2006). 
343 Spectrum Horizons R&O, FCC 19-19, para. 11; Spectrum Horizons NPRM, 33 FCC Rcd 2438, 2473, para. 82.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
60possibility of perception of warmth at higher millimeter wave frequencies.352  We seek comment on all 
elements of this proposal.  We seek comment on whether our lower-power exemptions above 6 GHz 
should be changed for a localized power density limit in this frequency range.353  Recognizing the 
ongoing work in standards bodies to establish limits on in-tissue power density in lieu of free-space 
power density―analogous to SAR below 6 GHz―we also seek comment on whether we should instead 
adopt such a limit, and if so what that limit should be, or if we should withhold consideration of an in-
tissue power density limit until after the standards have been published at a later date.  Commenters may 
also propose other approaches for determining appropriate exposure limits at higher frequencies, with 
their analysis and justification for using any such protocol.
2. Averaging Area for Higher Frequencies
129. In the 2016 Spectrum Frontiers R&O and FNPRM, the Commission acknowledged as 
reasonable a spatial averaging area of 20 cm2 for power density above 10 GHz―as provided by ICNIRP 
for a whole-body exposure limit.354  However, as we continue to consider this issue, we find little support 
in the technical literature for specifying a large averaging area with respect to the whole-body limit when 
there is also stipulated an averaging area for a spatial maximum limit for localized exposure.  Moreover, 
ICNIRP maintains an averaging area of 1 cm2 for spatial maximum power densities over the frequency 
range of 10 GHz to 300 GHz.  There is growing consensus that a range of from one to a few square 
centimeters would be a more appropriate averaging area for localized spatial maximum power density 
limits rather than the much larger values (20 cm2 or 100 cm2)355 that are provided for the whole-body 
limits in recent published versions of technical standards.356
130. We propose that a 1 cm2 averaging area be applicable to localized exposure conditions 
where the averaged power density would not exceed 4 mW/cm² for the general population or uncontrolled 
exposure (20mW/cm2 for occupational or controlled exposure).  The 1 cm2area is approximately the same 
size as any of the surfaces of a 1 g cube used for portable device SAR evaluation below 6 GHz,357 and we 
(Continued from previous page)  
344 Use of Spectrum Bands above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 8014, 8140-44, paras. 356-63 (2016) (2016 Spectrum Frontiers R&O and 
FNPRM).  Separate from the leveraging of this beamforming technology for use in communications applications 
such as those being contemplated for 5G, some WPT applications contemplate utilizing directed RF energy to 
charge mobile devices from common household appliances such as washing machines.  See Could Your Washer 
Really Charge Your Smartphone From Across The Room? at http://www.engadget.com/2014/10/31/haier-energous-
wireless-charging-really/; see also http://energous.com/technology/; http://www.witricity.com.
345 Over the frequency range from 100 kHz through 6 GHz, our localized SAR limit for the general population is 1.6 
W/kg as averaged over any one gram cube of tissue.  (For occupational exposure over this same frequency range, the 
localized SAR limit is 8 W/kg as averaged over any one gram cube of tissue.)  Similarly, at these frequencies, our 
whole-body SAR limit for the general population is 0.08 W/kg as averaged over the whole human body.  (For 
occupational exposure, the whole-body SAR limit is 0.4 W/kg.)  See 47 CFR § 1.1310(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).”  
See also 47 CFR § 1.1310(b) for occupational limits.
346 TIA Comments at 34-35; Qualcomm Comments, GN Docket No. 14-177, at 15-16.
347 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to 
Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (Up to 300 GHz), 74 Health Physics 494 (1998); 
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (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 (2006); Institute of 
Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE) Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to 
Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz, IEEE Std C95.1-2019 (2019).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
61also note that 4 mW/cm² averaged over 1 cm2 would result in similar exposure as the guidance that the 
FCC Laboratory currently offers to allow 1 mW/cm² to be averaged over 4 cm2 for pertinent equipment 
authorizations.358  We invite comment on this proposal.  We also seek comment on whether it may also be 
appropriate to specify a spatial peak limit coupled with this 1 cm2 averaging area to avoid significant 
excursions under actual non-uniform exposure conditions on a millimeter scale.359  We are aware that this 
1 cm2 averaging area is generally smaller than the actual size of antenna arrays being contemplated for 
use by millimeter-wave portable devices, and we seek comment on whether this presents insuperable or 
significant difficulties, and on other technically valid and practical alternatives.
B. Transmitter-Based and Device-Based Time-Averaging
131. Our RF exposure limits for consumer devices allow for source-based time-averaging, that 
is, based on inherent properties of the source that are not controlled or affected by the user.360  This is 
typically a function of an on/off duty cycle that is fundamental to the underlying transmission protocol 
used to support a device’s operation.  Our rules do not specify a limit for temporal-peak maximum SAR 
or power density during any time-averaging period.361  In Sections 2.1091(d)(2) and 2.1093(d)(5) of our 
existing rules, portable and mobile consumer devices generally may not use the 30-minute averaging time 
specified in Section 1.1310.362  The rationale for restricting time averaging to source-based functions was 
that devices whose usage (and consequent power output) is controlled by consumers could not be 
guaranteed to operate only for the percentage of time upon which its time-averaged compliance was 
based.363  This computed average assumes continuous operation at maximum power and duty cycle, which 
is consistent with the maximum possible exposure over indefinite time periods.  
132. In their comments to the 2013 RF Further Notice, manufacturers asserted that the 
foreclosure of time-averaging the short bursts of data transmissions is unnecessarily constraining the 
capability to offer increasing data capacity for consumer devices, particularly when tested for compliance 
with zero spacing, such as for a notebook computer or a tablet used close to the body.364  Recent 
(Continued from previous page)  
348 In general, specific extremity limits are only used where the basic restriction is SAR.  See 47 CFR § 1.1310.  
They are not used at higher frequencies where power density is the basic limit and exposure is a more local 
phenomenon. See id.
349 The 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 (1991).
350 Gustrau and Bahr, W-Band Investigation of Material Parameters, SAR Distribution, and Thermal Response in 
Human Tissue, IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory and Techniques, Vol. 50, No. 10, October 2002 and 
Colombi et al, Implications of EMF Exposure Limits on Output Power Levels for 5G Devices above 6 GHz, DOI 
10.1109/LAWP.2015.2400331, IEEE Antennas and Wireless Propagation Letters.  Table VI in this paper shows a 1-
gram SAR of 0.24 W/kg at 6 GHz due to a power density of 1 mW/cm2 which implies a power density of 6.67 
mW/cm2 would result our 1-gram SAR limit of 1.6 W/kg.  Also, calculations based on Appx. D, Table D-1, D-2, 
and D-5 in the 2013 RF Order and Notice, imply continuity at 3.42 to 3.94 mW/cm2.  See 2013 RF Order and 
Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3626-32.
351 Blick et al, Thresholds of Microwave-Evoked Warmth Sensations in Human Skin, Bioelectromagnetics 18:403–
409 (1997).  Long duration (10-s), large area (327-cm2) sensation threshold of the human back was measured as 4.5 
± 0.6 mW/cm2 at 94 GHz.  See also, e.g., IEEE Std C95.1-2019 (allowing an epithelial power density limit of up to 4 
mW/cm2 for the general public with an averaging area of 1 cm2 above 30 GHz if the exposed area on the body 
surface is small).  FCC’s power density exposure limits are defined as plane-wave equivalent.  See 47 CFR § 
1.1310.
352 See 2016 Spectrum Frontiers R&O and FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8141, paras. 359-60 (noting that a commenter 
had pointed out the discontinuity between the SAR and MPE limits at 6 GHz).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
62technology has been developed to allow for the optimization of the time-averaged transmit power of a 
device over a predefined time window, using past transmit power levels as a reference to determine the 
maximum time-averaged SAR over that period.365  Based on the device’s own management of time-
averaged SAR, a maximum allowable transmit power for a future fixed time interval would be 
determined, and the device would then operate at a power equal to or less than the maximum allowable 
transmitter power, depending on factors such as the amount of data to be transmitted and network 
conditions.  The device would either back off from a higher transmitter power to a lower power when the 
calculated time-averaged SAR approaches the SAR limit, or it could transmit at a higher power when the 
device gains an additional margin between the calculated time-averaged SAR and the SAR limit.  In 
considering such proposals and to be consistent with our established RF exposure limits, several questions 
related to this type of implementation need to be considered.
133. Many wireless devices (e.g., 4G LTE) transmit in short bursts that are variable depending 
on operational network and user demands.  The present rules for source-based time-averaging do not 
account for the variable nature of such transmissions.  The new technology being developed utilizes both 
the power level and time-averaging duration in a dynamic manner, depending on the device operating 
conditions, to determine SAR compliance in real-time.366  We propose that such active accounting and 
(Continued from previous page)  
353 See supra Section IV.A (adopting the 1 mW exemption and MPE-based exemption).
354 See 2016 Spectrum Frontiers R&O and Further Notice, 31 FCC Rcd at 8142-43, para. 363.
355 Hirata, A., et. al., Setting Exposure Guidelines and Product Safety Standards for Radio-Frequency Exposure at 
Frequencies Above 6 GHz: Brief Review, Annals of Telecommunications, 74:17-24 (2019).  See generally 
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), Draft ICNIRP Guidelines, Guidelines 
for Limiting Exposure to Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic and Electromagnetic Fields (100 kHz TO 300 GHz), 
Appx. A: Review of Studies on Dosimetry, section 3.3.2 (“Spatial averaging considerations”), p. 10, available at: 
https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/consultation_upload/ICNIRP_RF_Guidelines_PCD_Appx._A_2018_07_11.pdf 
(July 11, 2018).  See also IEEE Std C95.1-2019 (specifying an averaging area of 4 cm2 below 30 GHz and 1 cm2 
above 30 GHz).
356 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to 
Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (Up to 300 GHz), 74 Health Physics 494 (1998) 
(ICNIRP Guidelines 300 GHz); 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, 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
63control of the instantaneous output power of the device be defined as device-based time-averaging, in our 
rules, because we expect, especially for portable devices with multiple transmitters, that the cumulative 
transmissions from all RF sources in the device be accounted for in the SAR margin calculations.  We 
recognize that a device may have more than one RF source, some of which might be power-controlled by 
the device and others which might not, and so we seek comment on how to reliably and predictably 
distinguish any such device from a conventional device intending to be certified under our existing 
source-based time-averaging rules.
134. We seek comment on whether to permit this device-based time-averaging where the 
instantaneous transmit power and duration of each transmission burst can be managed by the device over 
some time period in a way that will ensure compliance with the RF exposure rules.  We also seek input as 
to what specifications we should adopt that will confirm compliance and be applied clearly and 
consistently to devices coming on the market.  We propose to allow a practical extension of our existing 
“source-based” definition in our rules to include “device-based” time-averaging.  By adding this 
definition, we distinguish such a device from those already being authorized and recognize its 
responsiveness and applicability to an individual RF source while compliance is ultimately controlled by 
the device based on the device tracking transmission bursts and power levels over time.
135. It is unclear how SAR measurement results based on static conditions at certain power 
levels may be applied to evaluate device compliance for dynamic conditions where both operational and 
IEEE Std C95.1-2005 (2006).  But see IEEE, Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to 
Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz, IEEE Std C95.1-2019 (2019).
357 47 CFR § 1.1310(c).
358 See FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) Presentations, 
RF Exposure: Order/NPRM Issues at 12 (Oct. 2018), https://transition.fcc.gov/oet/ea/presentations/files/oct18/5.1-
TCB-RF-Exposure-OrderNPRM-Issues-MD.pdf.
359 Hashimoto, Y., et. al., On the Averaging Area for Incident Power Density for Human Exposure Limits at 
Frequencies Over 6 GHz, Physics in Medicine and Biology, 62:3124-3138 (2017); see also Use of Spectrum Bands 
above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 11878, 11974-75 para. 324 
& n.574, (2015) (noting that no comments were received in response to our solicitation of comment on the adequacy 
of our 2013 exemption proposals based on a 1 cm2 averaging area in preventing exposure over our limits, for 
example, in a situation involving multiple high-gain millimeter-wave radiators); 2013 RF Order and Notice 28 FCC 
Rcd at 3539, para. 126.
360 47 CFR §§ 2.1091(d)(2) and 2.1093(d)(5).  
361 This is consistent with NCRP Report 86, sections 17.4.3 and 17.4.8.
362 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.
363 See generally, 1996 Order 11 FCC Rcd 15123.  For example, push-to-talk capabilities cannot guarantee that a 
device would not be used over a longer period than assumed for the averaging or even for the entire 30-minute 
period, pushing the exposure over the average limit permitted.  
364 See TIA Comments at 9-11, Qualcomm Reply Comments at 1, CTA Comments at 4, 9-10, MWF Comments at 
28-29, and HP Comments at 1-2.
365 Real-Time Specific Absorption Rate Implementation in Wireless Devices, U.S. Patent No. 9,622,187 B2 (issued 
April 11, 2017).
366 For example, a device could temporarily increase power to accommodate a high upload rate and/or poor 
propagation conditions, and then reduce power during less demanding periods based on the available SAR margin 
for the designated time-averaging period.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
64user exposure conditions are continuously changing.  It will be necessary to select the various parameters 
for applying device-based time-averaging to non-periodic transmissions that are apparently random and 
dynamic, which can be influenced by device operating configurations, network and propagation 
conditions and user operating conditions to ensure that the final measured exposure values still provide 
sufficient margins for various use configurations.  We seek comment on the range and type of parameters 
that need consideration to apply the proposed time-averaging principles.  For example, is it possible to 
develop one or more standard transmission sequences that would reasonably replicate typical operating 
conditions?  Alternatively, would the averaging be demonstrated through representations of the device’s 
software and how would this be validated?   How do we ensure the device software/firmware achieves 
compliance?  We seek comment on the above and any other factors as they may relate to consideration of 
device-based time-averaging in the equipment authorization process.  
136. With respect to the appropriate time-averaging period, we note two references for 
specifying time-averaging limits: (1) the ICNIRP standard provides for averaging over 6 minutes at 
10 GHz and reduces to 10 seconds at 300 GHz on a complex basis,367 and (2) the IEEE standard has an 
averaging time of 25 minutes at 6 GHz dropping to 10 seconds at 300 GHz.368  However, since we do not 
limit temporal-peak SAR or power density, all the energy available in a time-averaging period could be 
deposited in a moment resulting in a well-defined temperature rise and be compliant with the rules.  Thus, 
using the extended time-averaging periods of 6 minutes or 30 minutes set forth in our rules in other 
contexts or either of the alternative time windows specified by ICNIRP and IEEE could allow for 
inappropriate temperature rises in extreme cases when intense exposure occurs only for a brief period.  By 
reducing the time-averaging period, the maximum possible temperature rise can be limited to a reasonable 
quantity.  The potential temperature rise (ΔT) due to an impulse exposure is proportional to the product of 
the allowed continuous-spatial-peak SAR (SAR csp) and the time-averaging period (Δt), so that a 
maximum time-averaging period (Δt) can be calculated from a specified temperature rise (ΔT) from Δt = 
c·ΔT/SAR csp where c is the specific heat of tissue.  SAR csp at higher frequencies occurs at the skin surface, 
depends on the SAR or power density limit (for this calculation 1.6 mW/g or 4.0 mW/cm2) and on the 
depth of energy absorption into tissue, and this depth in turn depends on frequency.  Determination of 
SAR csp was approached with standard calculations using a planar model of uniform dry skin.369  Based on 
this approach, 100 seconds is a supportable averaging time up to about 3 GHz, with smaller averaging 
times down to a second at higher frequencies.  This would permit a device to actively track its RF 
emissions while limiting potential temperature rise in tissue due to an impulse to value of about 0.1 °C, 
less than would be perceptible by the general population.370  Therefore, we propose and seek comment on 
the following maximum time windows to be allowed for any frequency for devices seeking to implement 
device-based time-averaging techniques: 
Table 3 – Proposed Maximum Averaging Times for Device-Based Time-Averaging.
367 International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), Guidelines for Limiting Exposure to 
Time-Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields (Up to 300 GHz), 74 Health Physics 494 (1998).
368 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, (2006); see 
also IEEE, Standard for Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic 
Fields, 0 Hz to 300 GHz, IEEE Std C95.1-2019 (2019).
369 Kenneth R. Foster et al, Thermal Response of Human Skin to Microwave Energy: A Critical Review, 111 Health 
Phys. 528–541 (2016).
370 Kenneth R. Foster et al, Heating of Tissues by Microwaves: A Model Analysis, 19 Bioelectromagnetics 420–428 
(1998) and Joseph C. Stevens and Kenneth K. Choo, Temperature Sensitivity of the Body Surface over the Life Span, 
15 Somatosensory & Motor Research 13-28 (1998). Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
65Frequency 
(GHz):< 2.9 2.9-7.125 7.125-10.5 10.5-15.4 15.4-24 24-37 37-53 53-95 > 95
Time (seconds): 100 49 27 14 7 4 3 2 1
In deriving this table, as a matter of simplicity and practicality, we looked at the bands and bandwidth we 
expect will be used for various types of devices and services, and provide distinct parameters for each 
frequency range.  Comments are welcome on this approach and whether we have best delineated the 
frequency ranges for the purpose of time-averaging limits.  Any comment should include a rigorous 
technical analysis in support of the position it advocates.
C. Wireless Power Transfer Devices
137. A characteristic example of the technical advancement of wireless devices is the 
development and evolution of wireless power transfer devices.  Such devices are not intended for 
communications, but instead allow for the transmission of electrical energy without the use of wires or 
other physical connections.  Specifically, the primary device is a transmitting unit that conveys RF energy 
to one or several secondary devices that act as receiving units, to charge or power the receiving unit.  The 
most familiar consumer applications of wireless power transfer technology are charging pads or fixtures 
for charging the batteries in cell phones, electronic toothbrushes, kitchen appliances, and cordless tools.  
Most of these products have been designed to operate via magnetic induction371 or resonance372 
techniques, where the device is placed on a charger with little or no distance separation between the 
power source (transmitting unit) and the battery or appliance (receiving unit).  Most of the existing 
applications are for battery charging, and charge only one device at a time and at low power.  However, 
use of wireless power transfer for powering of devices and charging of multiple devices at once is 
increasing, and charging (or powering) of devices while in motion is being developed.  
138. Certain new wireless power transfer applications, while designed for relatively close 
coupling between the transmitting and the receiving units, can operate at very high power (e.g., higher 
than 3 kW and up to several tens of kW), and at a variety of frequencies below 100 kHz.373  Other 
advanced wireless power transfer applications can provide charging from a transmitting unit to one or 
more receiving unit(s) located at greater distances (one meter or more) from the transmitting unit, with 
future developments intended at distances suitable for room-size operation, and while the receiving unit is 
in motion.374  These new devices also create significant measurement challenges since the beam forming 
(Continued from previous page)  
371 A typical magnetic inductive wireless power transfer system has two separate components: a transfer unit, or 
“charger”, which connects to a wall outlet and a receiver (the “charged” unit, which receives the power).  Radio 
frequency (RF) energy generated in a coil circuit (primary coil) in the charger is coupled through the air to another 
functional coil circuit (secondary coil) residing in the receiving unit where it is used to charge a battery circuit, or to 
directly power different components.  There is no wire between the charger and charged devices.
372 In wireless power transfer using magnetic resonance, the two coils from the charger and charged devices resonate 
at the same frequency to enhance the efficiency of the magnetic coupling despite the greater distance between them.  
Because other receiving coils (or any other object for that matter) would not resonate at the same frequency as the 
transfer coil in the absence of intentional and precise tuning, only the targeted receiving unit can be charged, making 
power transfer highly selective even at a distance.
373 For example, the Society of Automotive Engineers SAE Surface Vehicle Information Report J2954 (Nov 2017) 
for light-duty vehicles (e.g., cars), specifies a common operating frequency range of 81.38 kHz to 90.00 kHz.  See 
https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j2954_201605/.  Certain international standards specify various frequency 
ranges for WPT in general.  See ETSI EN 303 417 V1.1.1 (2017-09), Wireless power transmission systems, using 
technologies other than radio frequency beam in the 19-21 kHz, 59-61 kHz, 79-90 kHz, 100-300 kHz, 
6765-6795 kHz ranges; Harmonized Standard covering the essential requirements of article 3.2 of Directive 
2014/53/EU (Sept. 2017).
374 See e.g., http://www.energous.com; http://www.ossia.com.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
66provided by the antenna technologies is dynamic and can vary in time and space based on the detection of 
obstruction between the transmitting and receiving units.375
139.Definition. Wireless power transfer devices have been authorized for several years under 
the Commission’s Part 15376 and Part 18377 rules, depending on whether any communication function is 
involved between the transmitting and receiving units.378  As these new and enhanced wireless power 
transfer products, currently under development, will seek a ubiquitous position in modern households and 
workplaces and will require unique considerations in our equipment authorization process, we propose to 
define wireless power transfer devices under Part 18 of our rules as:  
A category of ISM equipment which generates and emits RF energy for local use by inductive, 
capacitive or radiative coupling, for transfer of electromagnetic energy between a power transfer 
unit (TU) and receiving unit(s) (RU) of a Wireless Power Transfer (WPT) system. 
140. We seek comment on the proposed definition.  Is there an alternative definition that 
would better reflect the technological developments in this area?  We also seek to allow limited non-
communications feedback—for example, the receiving unit modulates its resistance to create a 
“feedback” to the transmitting unit to indicate its charge level—as compliant with Part 18 rules.379  Based 
on our discussion of wireless power transfer locally operated and at-a-distance devices below, should we 
also consider a separate definition for wireless power transfer equipment that provides charging of 
receiving units located at a distance from the transfer unit, as this type of equipment may not meet the 
above proposed definition for “local” operation?  We invite comments and input on these issues.
141.Locally operated wireless power transfer system.  Part 18 allows the use of potentially 
unlimited power if a device operates within a designated Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) 
frequency band,380 so long as the device operates “locally.”381  Because the rules do not define what would 
(Continued from previous page)  
375 See, e.g., Energous Corporation, FCC ID 2ADNG-MS300.
376 47 CFR §§ 15.1 et seq.; see, e.g., Powercast Corporation, FCC ID YEST91503.  WPT devices may operate under 
Part 15 of the Commission’s rules as generic unlicensed devices.
377 47 CFR §§ 18.1 et seq.; see, e.g., Energous Corporation, FCC ID 2ADNG-MS300.  WPT devices may operate 
under Part 18 of the Commission’s rules under the category “miscellaneous ISM equipment”.  47 CFR § 18.305(b).
378 To address WPT power transfer at a distance, the OET Laboratory has been providing guidance on a case-by-
case basis.  See, e.g., Energous Corporation, FCC ID 2ADNG-MS300.  Also, OET has provided general guidance 
through KDB publications for compliance with our rules on nascent or evolving technologies such as WPT.  The 
OET Laboratory will continue to provide guidance on WPT until final rules are adopted.
379 Section 18.107(c) defines ISM equipment as “[e]quipment or appliances designed to generate and use locally RF 
energy for industrial, scientific, medical, domestic or similar purposes, excluding applications in the field of 
telecommunication,” 47 CFR § 18.107(c) (emphasis added,) therefore, data transmission for communications 
purposes is prohibited for ISM equipment.  However, the Commission has issued guidance to allow such limited 
communications under Part 18 rules for WPT equipment.  See KDB Publication 680106 at 
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=41701&switch=P.
380 There are eleven (11) designated ISM frequency bands with specific bandwidths.  See 47 CFR § 18.301. 
381 47 CFR § 18.107 requires ISM equipment “to generate and use locally RF energy.”  The Commission’s rules as 
well as other international standards do not quantify a specific distance for the term “local.”  The reason to limit RF 
energy to “local use” in Part 18 is to prevent high-power RF energy reaching outside the immediate vicinity of the 
RF generator source, which is allowed to operate at unlimited power to perform “work” (non-communication 
functions) within the designated ISM frequency bands.  See 47 CFR § 18.305(a).  Microwave ovens are probably the 
best-known example of ISM consumer equipment in that they generate RF energy and use that energy locally to heat 
food within the shielded oven structure.  We note that CISPR has been actively involved in this area, see, e.g., 
CIS/B/710/CD (Aug. 2018), in which a “local” distance for WPT device should not be greater than 50 centimeters 
(~20 inches).  A proposal is also being considered by CISPR for WPT at-a-distance devices, proposing distances up 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
67constitute “local” usage, measurement and compliance challenges arise in assessing wireless power 
transfer devices that provide charging of receiving units located at a distance from the wireless power 
transfer transmitting unit.  We seek comment on whether the term “local” should be defined in terms of 
distance between the transmitting and receiving units.  If we define “local” based on this distance, what is 
the maximum distance between the transmitting and receiving units that should be considered as “local” 
operation?  
142. We note that CISPR382 is considering a definition for the primary device of a wireless 
power transfer system that states that the term “local” is used differently in the context of wireless power 
transfer from other ISM devices: “for the case of WPT systems that operate inductively, ‘local’” may 
imply that the separation distance between the primary (TU) and secondary (RU) WPT devices should not 
be greater than 50 centimeters (cm).”383  Based on CISPR’s proposal, should we use 50 cm as the 
maximum distance for wireless power transfer devices that operate “locally” (excluding wireless power 
transfer at-a-distance devices, as discussed below) under Part 18?
143.Wireless power transfer at-a-distance.  We seek comment on a suitable definition and 
operating parameters for wireless power transfer devices that provide charging of receiving units located 
at a distance from the power transfer unit (i.e., 50 cm or greater), with future developments intended at 
distances suitable for room-size operation, and while the RU is in motion.384  This would cover wireless 
power transfer devices that do not meet the definition of a locally operated wireless power transfer device, 
i.e., within a proposed maximum distance between the transmitting and receiving unit(s) as discussed 
above.  Should we consider the size and coherence of the electromagnetic field created, rather than its 
distance from the transmitting unit?  The challenge with these types of wireless power transfer devices is 
that charging at a distance can create an RF field distribution in three dimensions with an undefined or 
varying beam shape depending on the design.  Moreover, the location of maximum RF exposure will be 
an area where various beams intersect, and the direction/location and intensity of the beams can change 
with the location of the target receiving unit(s).  Instead―or in addition―should the size and/shape of the 
maximum field determine whether the energy is used in reference to the distance between the transmitting 
unit and any receiving unit(s)?  What parameters should be used for such a consideration?
144. We further seek comment on what factors we should consider to ensure that the RF beam 
from the transmitting unit is closely concentrated at the receiving unit, such that RF energy along the 
to 10 meters (30 feet) between the transmitting and the receiving units.  In addition, so-called “wireless power 
transmission” has been under consideration in ITU-R since the 1997 initiation of their ongoing Communication 
Study Group 1, ITU-R 210 3/1, http://www.itu.int/pub/R-QUE-SG01.210.
382 CISPR (Comité International Spécial des Perturbations Radioélectriques in French, International Special 
Committee on Radio Interference in English)  is a standards setting body that is part of the International 
Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), which established international standards to control electromagnetic 
interference in electrical and electronic devices.
383 See CIS/B/710/CD, Committee Draft, “Amendment 3 Fragment 1 to CISPR 11 Ed. 6: Industrial, scientific and 
medical equipment - Radio-frequency disturbance characteristics - Limits and methods of measurement - 
Requirements for air-gap wireless power transfer (WPT),” (August 2018); ); CIS/B/717/CC, “Compilation of 
Comments on CIS/B/710/CD,” (October 2018).
384 See e.g., Office of Engineering and Technology Seeks Comment on Auspion USA, Inc. Request for Waiver of 
ISM “Local Use” Requirement in Parts 2 and 18 for a 24 GHz Wireless Power Transfer Device Over Distance, DA 
19-211 (OET Mar. 26, 2019). GuRu (formerly Auspion) requests to operate a wireless charging system using the 
24 GHz ISM band to charge receiving devices located at distances greater than 3 feet (1 meter) from the charging 
unit. GuRu is effectively requesting the Commission to waive the “local” definition to allow ISM devices that 
“…employ phased arrays [antennas] to focus the energy within a small volume of space at a defined location within 
a relatively short distance (approximately a few meters [more than 1 meter])” to operate under Part 18 ISM 
definition. Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
68path(s) does not exceed our limits for RF exposure to potential human bodies or create potential for 
harmful interference to other services.  How should we evaluate compliance of wireless power transfer at-
a-distance devices with potential movements of humans in the RF field and the potential for very close 
proximity of the receiving unit to humans?385  We believe that these devices should comply with our rules 
under all operating conditions, including movements of people around and in the field.  Should we 
propose to establish frequency bands and power limits specifically for wireless power transfer at-a-
distance devices either under Part 15 or Part 18 of our rules, including operation in designated ISM bands 
(instead of allowing unlimited power in these bands, as Part 18 currently permits)?386  If we do establish 
power limits, what should be the basis for such limits and should there be any consideration for potential 
harmful interference to other non-part 18 devices given the popularity of these frequency bands for 
consumer devices?387  With respect to the potential for harmful interference from wireless power transfer 
devices to active medical devices that may be worn or implanted (e.g., body worn insulin pumps, 
implantable cardiac pacemakers, implantable deep brain stimulators (DBS), spinal cord stimulators), what 
mitigation techniques should be required?388
145. Finally, we seek input on the following issues:389 Under what category of spectrum use 
should we consider wireless power transfer, e.g., either ISM under Part 18, Part 15, or new rule part?  
What radio frequency bands are most suitable for wireless power transfer?390  What steps are required to 
ensure that radiocommunication services, including the radio astronomy service, as well as active medical 
devices, as indicated above, are protected from wireless power transfer operations?
146.Certification.  Under Part 18, wireless power transfer equipment is currently authorized 
pursuant to the Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity (SDoC)391 rules (formerly the Declaration of 
Conformity rules), with the option to use the Certification392 rules.393    
147. Because of the continuing evolution of wireless power transfer technology, and the 
potential use at higher power and in closer proximity to humans, we propose to require wireless power 
(Continued from previous page)  
385 We expect that there may be devices intended to charge a cellphone while in a pocket, and as the owner moves 
around in a room.  
386 CISPR 28:1997, Technical Report, Industrial, scientific and medical equipment (ISM) – Guidelines for emission 
levels within the bands designated by the ITU, (1997).
387 For example, Wi-Fi devices operate under 47 CFR § 15.247 in the 2400–2483.5 GHz band, which is also an ISM 
band.
388 See Letter from Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., J.D., Director, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug 
Administration, Department of Health and Human Services, to Julius Knapp, FCC, (dated April 24, 2019) (FDA 
Letter) at 2 (suggesting that “the most effective mitigation against EMI to active medical devices from the emissions 
of WPT devices is to reduce the WPT emissions and thus medical device exposure.  The methods to reduce 
exposure should include limits on the WPT output power, designing the WPT with safety interlocks (i.e., designing 
the WPT source so that it can detect the presence of humans or animals and shut off or greatly reduce power output), 
creating exclusion zones, and recommending separation distances between the WPT emitter and any active medical 
devices.”)
389 These issues are also being considered in the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) Radio 
Communication Study Group 1, ITU-R 210 3/1, http://www.itu.int/pub/R-QUE-SG01.210. 
390 We note that Toyota Motor North America, Inc., Ford Motor Company, BMW of North America LLC, and 
Nissan North America, Inc. (Toyota et al.) has submitted a joint Petition for Rule Making, requesting to operate 
WPT charging for light-duty electric vehicles in the 79-90 kHz frequency band, at emission limits higher than what 
Part 18 is allowing in this band.  See Toyota et al., Petition for Rule Making for Amendment of the Commission’s 
Rules to Allow Next-Generation Wireless Charging Technology for Electric Vehicles Under Part 18 (filed Sept. 5, 
2018), RM-11815, https://www.fcc.gov/edocs/search-results?t=advanced&dockets=11815.  We note that the 
petition received several supporting comments; with one opposition from ARRL (stating that “the precise subject of 
this Petition is in the early stages of international study and evaluation, and the soonest that the subject will be 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
69transfer equipment for both consumer and non-consumer applications to be subject to our Certification 
rules.394  Certification will allow the Commission to ensure that the devices comply with our RF exposure 
rules which may be achieved by determining whether either an RF exposure exemption applies or a 
routine RF exposure evaluation is required.395  The FCC Laboratory presently provides guidance that 
requires applicants for authorization of wireless power transfer devices to consult with the FCC 
Laboratory on measurement procedures prior to equipment authorization, but exempts certain low-power 
wireless power transfer devices from this requirement.396  These low-power wireless power transfer 
devices include those that operate on frequencies below 1 MHz, at power levels less than 15 watts, only in 
mobile device exposure condition (> 20 cm from the body), and only use single primary and secondary 
coils in close proximity.  We seek comment on whether we should adopt a rule to exempt such low-power 
wireless power transfer devices from requiring certification and instead allow them to continue to be 
authorized using our SDoC procedure.  In addition, are there other criteria we should consider when 
exempting wireless power transfer devices from the certification requirement, if so, what are they and 
why?
VI. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
148. Lastly, in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, we address a petition for 
reconsideration (Petition) filed by the American Association for Justice (AAJ).397  AAJ seeks 
reconsideration of a portion of the Commission’s 2013 RF Order and Notice relating to the classification 
of the pinnae (outer ears) as extremities for purposes of testing compliance with our RF emission limits 
for human exposure.398 In the 2013 RF Order and Notice, the Commission adopted rules classifying the 
pinnae in the same manner as other bodily extremities399 for purposes of evaluating localized specific 
absorption rates (SAR).400  On July 1, 2013, AAJ submitted its Petition objecting to this change.  
Oppositions to the Petition were filed by four parties.401
149. Pursuant to the Commission’s rules, any interested person may petition for 
(Continued from previous page)  
addressed internationally on any comprehensive level is at the 2019 World Radiocommunication Conference 
(“WRC-19”)”.  
391 Supplier’s Declaration of Conformity (SDoC) is a procedure that requires the party responsible for compliance 
ensure that the equipment complies with the appropriate technical standards.  See 47 CFR § 2.906.  The responsible 
party, who must be located in the United States, is not required to file an equipment authorization application with 
the Commission or a Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB).   See 47 CFR § 2.909.  Equipment authorized 
under the SDoC procedure is not listed in a Commission database.  However, the responsible party or any other 
party marketing the equipment must provide a test report and other information demonstrating compliance with the 
rules upon request by the Commission.   See 47 CFR § 2.938.  The responsible party has the option to use the 
certification procedure in place of the SDoC procedure.   See 47 CFR § 2.906(c).
392 Certification is the most rigorous approval process for RF devices that have the greatest potential to cause 
harmful interference to radio services.  It is an equipment authorization issued by an FCC-recognized TCB based on 
an evaluation of the supporting documentation and test data submitted by the responsible party (e.g., the 
manufacturer or importer) to the TCB.   See 47 CFR § 2.907.  Testing is performed by an FCC-recognized 
accredited testing laboratory.   See 47 CFR § 2.948.  Information including the technical parameters and descriptive 
information for all certified equipment is posted on a Commission-maintained public database.  In addition, 
equipment subject to approval using the SDoC procedure can optionally use the Certification procedure.   See 47 
CFR § 2.906(c).
393 See 47 CFR § 18.203.  
394 See 47 CFR pt. 2, Subpart J.
395 See 47 CFR §§ 2.1091 & 2.1093.  The Commission maintains a database of all RF equipment certified by the 
Commission and TCBs.  This database allows the Commission to verify that a device is approved without having to 
contact the TCB or the manufacturer to obtain the records demonstrating compliance with the FCC requirements.  
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
70reconsideration of a final action in a rulemaking proceeding.402  Reconsideration may be denied where a 
petitioner fails to present facts and arguments unconsidered by the Commission403 or in an action by a 
Bureau or Office where the petitioner fails to identify a material error or omission in the original order, 
raises additional facts or arguments not known or not existing until after the petitioner’s last opportunity 
to respond, or relies on arguments that have been fully considered and rejected by the Commission within 
the same proceeding.404  As discussed below, the AAJ petition for reconsideration does not raise new facts 
or arguments, nor does it demonstrate any errors or omissions in the Commission’s previous decision.405 
Furthermore, while the relevant docket, ET No. 03-137, had been open since 2003, AAJ presented its 
petition and accompanying arguments following the adoption of the 2013 RF Order and Notice.  In its 
petition for reconsideration, AAJ did not present facts and arguments that it could not have presented 
much earlier by exercise of ordinary diligence.  Since AAJ’s petition for reconsideration does not meet 
the regulatory requirements for being granted, we dismiss and, in the alternative, deny it.  
150. AAJ argues that treating the pinnae as extremities is likely to lead to greater exposure to 
the head, which it contends is a health risk.406  It devotes much of its Petition to discussing potential 
health risks to children and adults, arguing that there is a nexus between RF exposure to the pinnae and 
adverse health effects due to its proximity to the brain.407  The Petition also includes general statements 
concerning the increasing use of cell phones, challenges Commission reliance on data from “an 
organization populated by industry insiders” [the IEEE], and exhorts the Commission to review recent RF 
cancer epidemiology.408  It specifically argues that the Commission should “re-examine the standards 
limiting radiofrequency (RF) energy emitted by cell phones [and] … ameliorate uncertainty surrounding 
human exposure to RF radiation.”409  The AAJ concludes its Petition by urging the FCC to commit to a 
more robust exploration into the area of health and RF exposure.410  
151. We agree that examining the continued propriety of our RF exposure standards has been 
appropriate; indeed, such an examination was undertaken and was underway even as AAJ filed its 
petition.411  However, the 2013 RF Order and Notice discussed in detail how the pinnae have similar 
(Continued from previous page)  
The database also provides a single publicly available source of information that parties can use to verify approvals 
and obtain copies of applications for and grants of certification.  See http://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/.
396 KDB Publication 680106. 
397 Petition of the American Association for Justice for Reconsideration of Pinna Classification, ET Docket No. 03-
137 (filed on July 1, 2013), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/6017456259/document/7520927003 (Petition).
398 Id. at 2. 
399 “Extremities” is a non-technical term that is only used to collectively identify certain body parts distinguished 
from the whole body for purposes of allowable peak spatial-average SAR limits. In addition to the pinnae, hands, 
wrists, feet, and ankles are considered “extremities.” 47 CFR § 1.1310(b). 
400 See Order, Section III.A.3., Pinna (Outer Ear) Classification as an Extremity, 28 FCC Rcd 3514-3517, para. 42-
50 (2013).
401 Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration from James Edwin Whedbee, ET Docket No. 03-137, at 4 (filed July 
1, 2013), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/6017456364/document/7520927134; Opposition to Petition for 
Reconsideration from CTIA – The Wireless Association, ET Docket No. 03-137, at 3 (filed September 11, 2013) 
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/6017466697/document/7520942994; Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration 
from Telecommunications Industry Association, ET Docket No. 03-137, at 2 (filed September 11, 2013) 
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/6017466679/document/7520942974; Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration 
from Mobile Manufacturers Forum, ET Docket No. 03-137, at 3 (filed September 10, 2013) 
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/6017466542/document/7520942819.  Inasmuch as our rejection of the Petition is 
consistent with the position of these opposition pleadings, we forego any further discussion of them here.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
71anatomical tissue compositions and thermal tolerances to other extremities and why these similarities 
warranted the pinnae’s classification as extremities,412 and AAJ has not substantively disputed this 
reasoning. 
152. AAJ’s Petition contains no new information or arguments that specifically address the 
effects of RF exposure on the pinnae themselves and otherwise relies on arguments that have been fully 
considered and rejected.  While the AAJ suggests that the pinnae are fundamentally different from other 
extremities due to its proximity to the brain, the AAJ has not demonstrated scientifically or quantitatively 
why that proximity is material for SAR limits that are based solely on localized thermal effects.  
Moreover, AAJ’s arguments about the pinnae’s proximity to the brain were addressed in the 2013 RF 
Order and Notice.413  Classifying the pinnae as extremities did not change the fact that for the head, SAR 
limits were retained at the more stringent 1.6 W/kg, averaged over any one-gram cube of tissue.414  
Additionally, as we stated in our decision, before the pinnae’s classification as extremities, standard 
evaluation procedures for SAR compliance did not measure or calculate RF exposure in the pinnae, but 
measured RF exposure within a test mannequin head.415 The 2013 RF Order and Notice noted that the 
pinnae classification “has no practical effect on human exposure,” and 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[e].”416  Furthermore, the AAJ does not offer the Commission previously unpresented 
arguments when it cites alternative concerns related to pinnae classification, brain proximity, and human 
safety.  The 2013 RF Order and Notice took note of a number of comments concerning possible “non-
thermal” biological effects of RF and the brain, but rationally excluded considering these “non-thermal” 
effects when classifying the pinnae as extremities for SAR compliance, limiting the decision to the 
consideration of tissue composition and thermal properties only within the pinnae themselves, alongside 
the support of expert determinations of the FDA and of the IEEE, while deferring such other “non-
thermal” considerations raised for consideration in our Inquiry.417  In terminating our Inquiry, we have 
rigorously analyzed our existing RF exposure framework and have dismissed the notion that the existing 
402 47 CFR § 1.429(a); see 47 U.S.C. § 405(a) (stating that “[a]fter an order, decision, report, or action has been 
made or taken in any proceeding by the Commission . . ., any party thereto, or any other person aggrieved or whose 
interests are adversely affected thereby, may petition for reconsideration”).
403 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(b).
404 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.429(l).
405 Moreover, AAJ, couches its argument in terms of the “consideration of costs” standard of review set forth in 
Chamber of Commerce v. SEC, 412 F.3d 133, 142-43 (D.C. Cir. 2005), and argues that cost-benefit analysis 
indicates that the FCC does not possess the adequate authority to promulgate its Order and the proposed 
reclassification of the pinnae.  This case is irrelevant to our consideration.  The “consideration of costs” standard (1) 
is based on the specific statutory language of the Investment Company Act of 1940, which regulates funds that 
engage primarily in investing, reinvesting, and trading in securities; and (2) applies only to rulemaking actions by 
the SEC.  See 15 U.S.C. § 80a-2(c).
406 Petition at 2.
407 Petition at 4.
408 Petition at 2.
409 Petition at 1.
410 Petition at 8.
411 See RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3570, para. 205.
412 See id. at 3515, para. 48. Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
72framework should be altered on account of any “non-thermal” effects.418
153. The AAJ offers no persuasive evidence that the Commission’s analysis is flawed.  AAJ 
argues that analysis the Commission relied on from the IEEE analysis on pinnae classification is outdated 
merely because the C95.1 standard was adopted in 2006.  It correctly states “mobile phone and wireless 
technology have undergone substantial changes” in the past decade.419  Nowhere, however, does AAJ 
quantitatively specify how particular technological changes should affect SAR classifications for the 
pinnae.  As recognized in the 2013 RF Order and Notice, the IEEE developed the only substantial record 
on the subject, and while AAJ claims (without substantiation) that IEEE is biased,420 that record has the 
current support of federal health and safety agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 
Center for Devices and Radiological Health.421  While AAJ relies on studies and other information from 
the IARC and the National Cancer Institute, among others, the Commission recognizes that it is not a 
health and safety agency, and necessarily gives considerable weight to the expertise of agencies and 
groups, like the FDA and IEEE, who can interpret the biological research necessary to assess the health 
impact of RF emissions and determine what exposure levels can be considered safe for humans.  Based on 
the record and the views of these expert agencies and groups, we find no merit in AAJ’s petition.
154. To conclude, both the Petition’s contents and the timeliness of its arguments do not 
warrant a grant.  Accordingly, we dismiss and alternatively deny the petition for reconsideration.
VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
155.Paperwork Reduction Analysis.  This Second Report and Order contains new 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 
information collection requirements contained in this proceeding.  In addition, we note that pursuant to 
the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002 (SBPRA), 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.
156. With regard to the Second Report and Order, we have assessed the effects of various 
changes and clarifications, and consistent with the previous review of how our proposals might impose 
413 AAJ’s petition relied on arguments that have been fully considered and rejected by the Commission within the 
same proceeding, rendering the petition procedurally defective and appropriate for dismissal.  See 47 C.F.R. § 
1.429(l)(3).
414 See RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd at 3514, para. 44.
415 Id. at 3516, para. 49. 
416 Id.
417 Id. at 3515, para 46 & n.84, citing EMR Network comments, ET Docket No. 03-137, at 3-4, EMR Network reply 
comments at 1-2. 
418 See Termination of Notice of Inquiry, supra para. 10.
419 Petition at 4. 
420 AAJ did not present evidence that IEEE is biased.   We reject this assertion and note that the IEEE (1) is the 
world's largest association of technical professionals; (2) has a diverse membership of 423,000 members in over 160 
countries around the world, with members from a wide range of disciplines, and balanced representation from the 
medical, scientific, engineering, industrial, governmental, and other communities; (3) is composed of leading 
experts in the field of RF emissions with the roots of the organization having originally formed out of the Institute of 
Radio Engineers; and (4) follows an open consensus process.  
421 See RF Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd. at 3514, para. 45 (2013).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
73information collection burdens on small business concerns, we anticipate no adverse impacts on small 
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
157. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking also contains proposed information collection 
requirements.  The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the 
general public and OMB to comment on the 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.
158.Congressional Review Act.  The Commission will send a copy of this Second Report and 
Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 
see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
159.Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.  As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 
1980, as amended (RFA),422 the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 
(IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities of the 
proposals addressed in this NPRM.  The IRFA is set forth in Appendix C.  Written public comments are 
requested on the IRFA.  Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the 
deadlines for comments on the NPRM.  The Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, 
Reference Information Center, will send a copy of the NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).423  In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or 
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.424
160.Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that 
an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency 
certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.”  According, we have prepared Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis concerning 
the possible impact of the Second Report and Order on small entities.  The Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis is set forth in Appendix D. 
161.Ex Parte Presentations.  All requests for meetings with Commission staff regarding these 
Dockets should be via email to Martin.Doczkat@FCC.Gov.  Those who lack Internet access may direct 
their requests by phone to 202-418-2470. 
162.This proceeding shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in 
accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.425  Persons making ex parte presentations must file a 
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 
422 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.
423 See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
424 See id.
425 47 CFR §§ 1.1200 et seq.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
74found) 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.
163.Comment Filing Procedures.  Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419, 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://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Paper Filers.  Parties who file by paper must include an original and four copies of each 
filing.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this 
proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking 
number.
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 Street, 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 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 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 
12th Street, SW, Washington DC 20554.
Persons with Disabilities.  To request materials in accessible formats for persons with 
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to 
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
164.Further Information.  For further information about this Notice, please contact 202-418-
2470.
VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES
165. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, that pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 302, 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, 302a, 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 Second Report and Order and Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking IS HEREBY ADOPTED.
166. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s rules ARE AMENDED as set forth 
in Appendix A.  These rule revisions in this Second Report and Order will become effective [60 days 
after date of publication Federal Register], except for Sections 2.1091 and 2.1093 of the rules, which Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
75contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 
104-13, and will become effective after Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and approval, 
on the effective date specified in a notice that the Commission will publish in the Federal Register 
announcing such approval and effective date.
167. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 405, and Section 1.429 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.429, this 
Memorandum Opinion and Order IS HEREBY ADOPTED and the Petition for Reconsideration filed by 
AAJ IS DISMISSED AND ALTERNATIVELY DENIED.  
168. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to authority contained in contained in 
Sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 154(j) 
and Section 1.430 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR Section 1.430, the Inquiry, ET Docket No. 13-84 
IS TERMINATED.
169. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to authority contained in contained in 
Sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 154(j) 
and Section 1.430 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR Section 1.430, ET Docket No. 03-137 IS 
TERMINATED.
170. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center SHALL SEND a copy of the Second Report and Order, 
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, the Memorandum Opinion and Order, and the Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
SecretaryFederal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
76APPENDIX A
Final Rules
The Federal Communications Commission amends title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1, 2, 
15, 18, 22, 24, 25, 27, 73, 90, 95, 97, and 101 as follows:
PART 1 – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: [INSERT CURRENT AUTHORITY CITATION].
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 (EA) must be prepared.
*  *  *  *  *
(b)(1) With respect to the limits on human exposure to RF provided in Section 1.1310 of this chapter, 
applicants to the Commission for the grant or modification of construction permits, licenses or renewals 
thereof, temporary authorities, equipment authorizations, or any other authorizations for radiofrequency 
sources must either: (i) determine that they qualify for an exemption pursuant to Section 1.1307(b)(3); (ii) 
prepare an evaluation of the human exposure to RF radiation pursuant to Section 1.1310 and include in the 
application a statement confirming compliance with the limits in Section 1.1310; or (iii) prepare an 
Environmental Assessment if those RF sources would cause human exposure to levels of RF radiation in 
excess of the limits in Section 1.1310.  Compliance with these limits for fixed RF source(s) may be 
accomplished by use of mitigation actions, as provided in Section 1.1307(b)(4).  Upon request by the 
Commission, the party seeking or holding such authorization must submit technical information showing the 
basis for such compliance, either by exemption or evaluation.  Notwithstanding the preceding requirements, 
in the event that RF sources cause human exposure to levels of RF radiation in excess of the limits in Section 
1.1310 of this chapter, such RF exposure exemptions and evaluations 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.
(2)  Definitions.  For the purposes of this Section, the following definitions shall apply.
Available maximum time-averaged power for an RF source is the maximum available RF power (into 
a matched load) as averaged over a time-averaging period;
Category One is any spatial region that is compliant with the general population exposure limit with 
continuous exposure or source-based time-averaged exposure;
Category Two is any spatial region where the general population exposure limit is exceeded but that 
is compliant with the occupational exposure limit with continuous exposure;
Category Three is any spatial region where the occupational exposure limit is exceeded but by no 
more than ten times the limit;
Category Four is any spatial region where the exposure is more than ten times the occupational 
exposure limit or where there is a possibility for serious injury on contact.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
77Continuous exposure refers to the maximum time-averaged exposure at a given location for an RF source 
and assumes that exposure may take place indefinitely.  The exposure limits in Section 1.1310 of this chapter 
are used to establish the spatial regions where mitigation measures are necessary assuming continuous 
exposure as prescribed in Section 1.1307(b)(4) of this chapter. 
Effective Radiated Power (ERP) is the product of the maximum antenna gain which is the largest far-
field power gain relative to a dipole in any direction for each transverse polarization component, and the 
maximum delivered time-averaged power which is the largest net power delivered or supplied to an 
antenna as averaged over a time-averaging period; ERP is summed over two polarizations when present;
Exemption for (an) RF source(s) is solely from the obligation to perform a routine environmental 
evaluation to demonstrate compliance with the RF exposure limits in Section 1.1310 of this chapter; it is 
not exemption from the equipment authorization procedures described in Part 2 of this chapter, not 
exemption from general obligations of compliance with the RF exposure limits in Section 1.1310 of this 
chapter, and not exemption from determination of whether there is no significant effect on the quality of 
the human environment under Section 1.1306 of this chapter.
Fixed RF source is one that is physically secured at one location, even temporarily, and is not able to 
be easily moved to another location while radiating;
Mobile device is as defined in Section 2.1091(b) of this chapter;
Plane-wave equivalent power density is the square of the root-mean-square (rms) electric field 
strength divided by the impedance of free space (377 ohms).
Portable device is as defined in Section 2.1093(b) of this chapter;
Positive access control is mitigation by proactive preclusion of unauthorized access to the region 
surrounding an RF source where the continuous exposure limit for the general population is exceeded.  
Examples of such controls include locked doors, ladder cages, or effective fences, as well as enforced 
prohibition of public access to external surfaces of buildings.  However, it does not include natural 
barriers or other access restrictions that did not require any action on the part of the licensee or property 
management.
Radiating structure is an unshielded RF current-carrying conductor that generates an RF reactive near 
electric or magnetic field and/or radiates an RF electromagnetic wave.  It is the component of an RF 
source that transmits, generates, or reradiates an RF fields, such as an antenna, aperture, coil, or plate.
RF source is Commission-regulated equipment that transmits or generates RF fields or waves, 
whether intentionally or unintentionally, via one or more radiating structure(s).  Multiple RF sources 
may exist in a single device.
Separation distance (variable R in Table 1) is the minimum distance in any direction from any part of 
a radiating structure and any part of the body of a nearby person;
Source-based time averaging is an average of instantaneous exposure over a time-averaging period 
that is based on an inherent property or duty-cycle of a device to ensure compliance with the continuous 
exposure limits;
Time-averaging period is a time period not to exceed 30 minutes for fixed RF sources or a time 
period inherent from device transmission characteristics not to exceed 30 minutes for mobile and portable 
RF sources;Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
78Transient individual is an untrained person in a location where occupational/controlled limits apply, 
and he or she must be made aware of the potential for exposure and be supervised by trained personnel 
pursuant to Section 1.1307(b)(4) of this chapter where use of time averaging is required to ensure 
compliance with the general population exposure limits in Section 1.1310 of this chapter.
(3) Determination of exemption.
(i) For single RF sources (i.e., any single fixed RF source, mobile device, or portable device, as defined 
in Section 1.1307(b)(2) of this chapter):  A single RF source is exempt if: 
(A) the available maximum time-averaged power is no more than 1 mW, regardless of separation 
distance. This exemption may not be used in conjunction with other exemption criteria other than those in 
Section 1.1307(b)(3)(ii)(A).  Medical implant devices may only use this exemption and that in Section 
1.1307(b)(3)(ii)(A);
(B) or the available maximum time-averaged power or effective radiated power (ERP), whichever is 
greater, is less than or equal to the threshold P th (mW) described in the following formula.  This method shall 
only be used at separation distances (cm) from 0.5 centimeters to 40 centimeters and at frequencies from 0.3 
GHz to 6 GHz (inclusive).  P th is given by:
Pth (mW)={ERP 20 cm(d20 cm)xd≤20 cm
ERP 20 cm 20 cm<d≤40 cm
Where
x=-log10(60
ERP 20 cm f) and f is in GHz;
and
ERP 20 cm (mW)={2040f 0.3 GHz ≤f<1.5 GHz
3060 1.5 GHz ≤f≤6 GHz
d = the separation distance (cm);
(C) or using Table 1 and the minimum separation distance (R in meters) from the body of a nearby 
person for the frequency (f in MHz) at which the source operates, the ERP (watts) is no more than the 
calculated value prescribed for that frequency.  For the exemption in Table 1 to apply, R must be at least 
λ/2π, where λ is the free-space operating wavelength in meters.  If the ERP of a single RF source is not 
easily obtained, then the available maximum time-averaged power may be used in lieu of ERP if the 
physical dimensions of the radiating structure(s) do not exceed the electrical length of λ/4 or if the antenna 
gain is less than that of a half-wave dipole (1.64 linear value).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
79Table 1—Single RF Sources Subject to Routine Environmental Evaluation
RF Source Frequency Threshold ERP
(MHz) (watts)
0.3 – 1.34 1,920 R²
1.34 – 30 3,450 R²/f²
30 – 300 3.83 R²
300 – 1,500 0.0128 R²f
1,500 – 100,000 19.2R²
(ii) For multiple RF sources.  Multiple RF sources are exempt if:
(A) the available maximum time-averaged power of each source is no more than 1 mW and there is a 
separation distance of two centimeters between any portion of a radiating structure operating and the 
nearest portion of any other radiating structure in the same device, except if the sum of multiple sources is 
less than 1 mW during the time-averaging period, in which case they may be treated as a single source 
(separation is not required).  This exemption may not be used in conjunction with other exemption criteria 
other than those is Section 1.1307(b)(3)(i)(A).  Medical implant devices may only use this exemption and 
that in Section 1.1307(b)(3)(i)(A).
(B) in the case of fixed RF sources operating in the same time-averaging period, or of multiple mobile 
or portable RF sources within a device operating in the same time averaging period, if the sum of the 
fractional contributions to the applicable thresholds is less than or equal to 1 as indicated in the following 
equation.
a
∑
i=1Pi
Pth, i+b
∑
j=1ERP j
ERP th, j+c
∑
k=1Evaluated k
Exposure Limit k≤1
Where
a= number of fixed, mobile, or portable RF sources claiming exemption using paragraph (b)(3)(i)(B) 
of this section for P th, including existing exempt transmitters and those being added. 
b= number of fixed, mobile, or portable RF sources claiming exemption using paragraph (b)(3)(i)(C) 
of this section for Threshold ERP, including existing exempt transmitters and those being added.
c= number of existing fixed, mobile, or portable RF sources with known evaluation for the specified 
minimum distance including existing evaluated transmitters.
Pi = the available maximum time-averaged power or the ERP, whichever is greater, for fixed, mobile, 
or portable RF source i at a distance between 0.5 cm and 40 cm (inclusive). 
Pth,i = the exemption threshold power (P th) according to paragraph (b)(3)(i)(B) of this section for 
fixed, mobile, or portable RF source i.
ERP j= the ERP of fixed, mobile, or portable RF source j.
ERP th,j= exemption threshold ERP for fixed, mobile, or portable RF source j, at a distance of at least λ/2π 
according to the applicable formula of paragraph (b)(3)(i)(C) of this section.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
80Evaluated k = the maximum reported SAR or MPE of fixed, mobile, or portable RF source k either in the 
device or at the transmitter site from an existing evaluation at the location of exposure.
Exposure Limit k   = either the general population/uncontrolled maximum permissible exposure (MPE) or 
specific absorption rate (SAR) limit for each fixed, mobile, or portable RF source k, as applicable 
from Section 1.1310 of this chapter.
(4) Mitigation.  (i) As provided in the following paragraphs, specific mitigation actions are required 
for fixed RF sources to the extent necessary 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.  
(ii) Category One – INFORMATION: No mitigation actions are required when the RF source does 
not cause continuous or source-based time-averaged exposure in excess of the general population limit in 
Section 1.1310 of this chapter.  Optionally a green “INFORMATION” sign may offer information to 
those persons who might be approaching RF sources.  This optional sign, when used, must include at least 
the following information: appropriate signal word “INFORMATION” and associated color (green), an 
explanation of the safety precautions to be observed when closer to the antenna than the information sign, 
a reminder to obey all postings and boundaries (if higher categories are nearby), up-to-date licensee (or 
operator) contact information (if higher categories are nearby), and a place to get additional information 
(such as a website, if no higher categories are nearby).
(iii) Category Two – NOTICE: Mitigation actions are required in the form of signs and positive 
access control surrounding the boundary where the continuous exposure limit is exceeded for the general 
population, with the appropriate signal word “NOTICE” and associated color (blue) on the signs.  Signs 
must contain the components discussed in paragraph (b)(4)(vi) of this section.  Under certain controlled 
conditions, such as on a rooftop with limited access, a sign attached directly to the surface of an antenna 
will be considered sufficient if the sign specifies a minimum approach distance and is readable at this 
separation distance and at locations required for compliance with the general population exposure limit in 
Section 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 occupational personnel upon entering 
any of these areas.  Use of time averaging is required for transient individuals to ensure compliance with 
the general population exposure limit.
(iv) Category Three – CAUTION: 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 required (in addition to the positive access control established for Category Two) 
surrounding the area in which the exposure limit for occupational personnel in a controlled environment 
is exceeded by no more than a factor of ten.  Signs must contain the components discussed in paragraph 
(b)(4)(vi) 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.  Under certain controlled conditions, such as on a rooftop with limited access, a sign may be 
attached directly to the surface of an antenna within a controlled environment if it specifies the minimum 
approach distance and is readable at this distance and at locations required for compliance with the 
occupational exposure limit in Section 1.1310 of this chapter.  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 boundary where the occupational exposure limit is exceeded.  Additionally, 
appropriate training is required for any occupational personnel with access to the controlled area where 
the general population exposure limit is exceeded, and transient individuals must be supervised by trained 
personnel upon entering any of these areas.  Use of time averaging is required for transient individuals to 
ensure compliance with the general population exposure limit.  Further mitigation by reducing exposure 
time in accord with six-minute time averaging is required for occupational personnel in the area in which Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
81the 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.  If such procedures or power reduction, and therefore Category 
reduction, are not feasible, then lockout/tagout procedures in 29 CFR Section 1910.147 must be followed.
(v) Category Four – WARNING/DANGER: Where the occupational limit could be exceeded by a 
factor of more than ten, “WARNING” signs with the associated color (orange), controls, or indicators 
(e.g., chains, railings, contrasting paint, diagrams) are required (in addition to the positive access control 
established for Category Two) surrounding the area in which the occupational exposure limit in a 
controlled environment is exceeded by more than a factor of ten  Signs must contain the components 
discussed in paragraph (b)(4)(vi) of this section.  “DANGER” signs with the associated color (red) are 
required where immediate and serious injury will occur on contact, in addition to positive access control, 
regardless of mitigation actions taken in Categories Two or Three.  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.  No access is permitted without Category reduction.  If 
power reduction, and therefore Category reduction, is not feasible, then lockout/tagout procedures in 29 
CFR Section 1910.147 must be followed.
(vi) RF exposure advisory signs must be viewable and readable from the boundary where the 
applicable exposure limits are exceeded, pursuant to 29 CFR Section 1910.145, and include at least the 
following five components:
(A) Appropriate signal word, associated color {i.e., “DANGER” (red), “WARNING” (orange), 
“CAUTION,” (yellow) “NOTICE” (blue)};
(B) RF energy advisory symbol);
(C) An explanation of the RF source;
(D) Behavior necessary to comply with the exposure limits; and
(E) Up-to-date contact information.
(5)(i) In general, when the exposure limits specified in Section 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 (EA) as specified in Section 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 proportional to power.  However, a licensee demonstrating that its 
facility was not the most recently modified or newly-constructed facility at the site establishes a 
rebuttable presumption that such licensee should not be liable in an enforcement proceeding relating to 
the period of non-compliance.  Field strengths must be squared to be proportional to SAR or power 
density.  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 Section 1.1307(b)(1) 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 Section 1.1310 might be exceeded.  Applicants and 
licensees are required to share technical information necessary to ensure joint compliance with the 
exposure limits, including informing other licensees at a site in question of evaluations indicating possible 
non-compliance with the exposure limits.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
82(ii) Applicants for proposed RF sources that would cause non-compliance with the limits specified in 
Section 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.
(iii) Renewal applicants whose RF sources would cause non-compliance with the limits specified in 
Section 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 revised 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 Section 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 independent assessment and, if appropriate, enforcement.  Numerical computation 
of SAR 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 FCC-accepted numerical computation 
standards or available FCC procedures for the specific computational method.
(2) For operations 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)(1) 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 Section 1.1307(b), except for portable devices as defined in Section 2.1093 as these 
evaluations shall be performed according to the SAR provisions in Section 2.1093 of this chapter.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
83(3) At operating frequencies above 6 GHz, the MPE limits listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e)(1) of this 
section shall be used in all cases to evaluate the environmental impact of human exposure to RF radiation 
as specified in Section 1.1307(b).
(4) Both the MPE limits listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e)(1) 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 a period not more than the specified averaging time in Table 1 is less than (or 
equal to) 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 recent 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: 
https://www.fcc.gov/general/oet-bulletins-line, and in the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) 
Laboratory Division Knowledge Database (KDB) ( https://www.fcc.gov/kdb). 
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. 
(e)(1) Table 1 sets forth limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) to radiofrequency 
electromagnetic fields.
Table 1—Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)
Frequency range
(MHz)Electric field strength
(V/m)Magnetic field strength
(A/m)Power density
(mW/cm2)Averaging time
(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 < 6Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
84(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
(2) 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.  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.  In situations when an 
untrained person is transient through a location where occupational/controlled limits apply, he or she must 
be made aware of the potential for exposure and be supervised by trained personnel pursuant to Section 
1.1307(b)(2) of this chapter where use of time averaging is required to ensure compliance with the 
general population exposure limit.  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.
(3) 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.
*  *  *  *  * 
§ 1.4000 [Amended]
4. In Section 1.4000, remove and reserve paragraph (c).
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: [INSERT CURRENT AUTHORITY CITATION].
6. Section 2.1033 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
*  *  *  *  *
(f) Radio frequency devices operating under the provisions of this part are subject to the radio 
frequency radiation exposure requirements specified in Sections 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of 
this chapter, as appropriate.  Applications for equipment authorization of RF sources under this section 
must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements.  Technical information 
showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
85*  *  *  *  *
7.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, the definitions in Section 1.1307(b)(2) of this chapter shall apply.  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 RF source'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)(1) Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in Section 1.1310 of this chapter, and 
preparation of an EA if the limits are exceeded, is necessary for mobile devices with single RF sources 
having either more than an available maximum time-averaged power of 1 mW or more than the ERP 
listed in Table 1 of Section 1.1307(b)(3)(i)(C), whichever is greater.  For mobile devices not exempt by 
Section 1.1307(b)(3)(i)(C) at distances from 20 centimeters to 40 centimeters and frequencies from 0.3 
GHz to 6 GHz, evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in Section 1.1310 of this chapter is 
necessary if the ERP of the device is greater than ERP 20cm in the formula below.  If the ERP of a single 
RF source at distances from 20 centimeters to 40 centimeters and frequencies from 0.3 GHz 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 following formula only if the physical dimensions of the 
radiating structure(s) do not exceed the electrical length of λ/4 or if the antenna gain is less than that of a 
half-wave dipole (1.64 linear value).
Pth(mW)=ERP 20 cm (mW)={2040f 0.3 GHz ≤f<1.5 GHz
3060 1.5 GHz ≤f≤6 GHz
(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 Section 1.1307(b)(3)(ii)(B) of this 
chapter is applied to determine the exemption ratio and the result is greater than 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 Sections 1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) of this 
chapter.
(d)(1) Applications for equipment authorization of mobile RF sources subject to routine 
environmental evaluation must contain a statement confirming compliance with the limits specified in 
Section 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.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
86(2)(i) For purposes of analyzing mobile transmitting devices under the occupational/controlled criteria 
specified in Section 1.1310 of this chapter, time averaging provisions of the limits may be used in 
conjunction with the maximum duty factor to determine maximum time-averaged exposure levels under 
normal operating conditions.
(ii) 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 Section 1.1310 of this chapter.  However, “source-based” time averaging 
based on an inherent property of the RF source is allowed over a time period not to exceed 30 minutes.  
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.
*  *  *  *  *
8. Section 2.1093 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) to read as follows: 
§ 2.1093   Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: portable devices. 
*  *  *  *  *
(b) For purposes of this section, the definitions in Section 1.1307(b)(2) of this chapter shall apply.  A 
portable 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 the RF source's radiating structure(s) is/are within 20 centimeters of 
the body of the user.
(c)(1) Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in Section 1.1310 of this chapter, and 
preparation of an EA if the limits are exceeded, is necessary for portable devices having single RF sources 
with more than an available maximum time-averaged power of 1 mW, more than the ERP listed in Table 
1 of Section 1.1307(b)(3)(i)(C), or more than the P th in the following formula, whichever is greater.  The 
following formula shall only be used in conjunction with portable devices not exempt by Section 
1.1307(b)(3)(i)(C) at distances from 0.5 centimeters to 20 centimeters and frequencies from 0.3 GHz to 6 
GHz.  
Pth (mW)={ERP 20 cm(d20 cm)xd≤20 cm
ERP 20 cm 20 cm<d≤40 cm
Where
x=-log10(60
ERP 20 cm f) and f is in GHz;
ERP 20 cm (mW)={2040f 0.3 GHz ≤f<1.5 GHz
3060 1.5 GHz ≤f≤6 GHz
d = the minimum separation distance (cm) in any direction from any part of the device antenna(s) or 
radiating structure(s) to the body of the device user.
(2) For multiple mobile or portable RF sources within a device operating in the same time averaging 
period, evaluation is required if the formula in Section 1.1307(b)(3)(ii)(B) of this chapter is applied to 
determine the exemption ratio and the result is greater than 1.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
87(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 Sections 1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) 
of this chapter.
(d)(1) Applications for equipment authorization of portable RF sources subject to routine 
environmental evaluation must contain a statement confirming compliance with the limits specified in 
Section 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.  The SAR limits specified in Sections 
1.1310(a) through (c) of this chapter shall be used for evaluation of portable devices transmitting in the 
frequency range from 100 kHz to 6 GHz.  Portable devices that transmit at frequencies above 6 GHz shall 
be evaluated in terms of the MPE limits specified in Table 1 of Section 1.1310(e)(1) of this chapter.  A 
minimum separation distance applicable to the operating configurations and exposure conditions of the 
device shall be used for the evaluation. 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.
(2) 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 FCC-accepted 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 RF emissions, and is not binding on the Commission or any 
interested party.
(3) For purposes of analyzing portable RF sources under the occupational/controlled SAR criteria 
specified in Section 1.1310 of this chapter, time averaging provisions of the limits may be used in 
conjunction with the maximum duty factor to determine maximum time-averaged exposure levels under 
normal operating conditions.
(4) 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 by 
consumers, such as cellular telephones, that are considered to operate in general population/uncontrolled 
environments as defined in Section 1.1310 of this chapter.  However, “source-based” time averaging 
based on an inherent property of the RF source is allowed over a time period not to exceed 30 minutes.  
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.
(5) 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 users with information on how to use the device 
and to ensure users are fully aware of and able to exercise control over their exposure to satisfy 
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 mitigating and limiting RF exposure should also Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
88be 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.
(6) General population/uncontrolled exposure limits defined in Section 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 Section 1.1310 of this chapter.
PART 15 – RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
9. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: [INSERT CURRENT AUTHORITY CITATION].
10. Section 15.212 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(viii) to read as follows:
§ 15.212   Modular transmitters.
(a) *  *  *
(viii) Radio frequency devices operating under the provisions of this part are subject to the radio 
frequency radiation exposure requirements specified in Sections 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of 
this chapter, as appropriate.  Applications for equipment authorization of modular transmitters under this 
section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements.  The modular 
transmitter must comply with any applicable RF exposure requirements in its final configuration.  
Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon 
request.
*  *  *  *  *
11. Section 15.247 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:
§ 15.247   Operation within the bands 902-928 MHz, 2400-2483.5 MHz, and 5725-5850 MHz.
*  *  *  *  *
(i) Radio frequency devices operating under the provisions of this part are subject to the radio 
frequency radiation exposure requirements specified in Sections 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of 
this chapter, as appropriate.  Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices 
operating under this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements.  
Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon 
request.
*  *  *  *  *
12. Section 15.255 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 15.255   Operation within the band 57-71 GHz.
*  *  *  *  *Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
89(g) Radio frequency devices operating under the provisions of this part are subject to the radio 
frequency radiation exposure requirements specified in Sections 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of 
this chapter, as appropriate.  Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices 
operating under this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements.  
Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon 
request.
*  *  *  *  *
13. Section 15.257 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 15.257   Operation within the band 92-95 GHz.
*  *  *  *  *
(g) Radio frequency devices operating under the provisions of this part are subject to the radio 
frequency radiation exposure requirements specified in Sections 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of 
this chapter, as appropriate.  Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices 
operating under this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements.  
Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon 
request.
*  *  *  *  *
14. Section 15.319 is amended by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:
§ 15.319   General technical requirements.
*  *  *  *  *
(i) Radio frequency devices operating under the provisions of this part are subject to the radio 
frequency radiation exposure requirements specified in Sections 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of 
this chapter, as appropriate.  All equipment shall be considered to operate in a “general 
population/uncontrolled” environment.  Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable 
devices operating under this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these 
requirements.  Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the 
Commission upon request.
*  *  *  *  *
15. Section 15.407 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§ 15.407   General technical requirements.
*  *  *  *  *
(f) Radio frequency devices operating under the provisions of this part are subject to the radio 
frequency radiation exposure requirements specified in Sections 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of 
this chapter, as appropriate.  All equipment shall be considered to operate in a “general 
population/uncontrolled” environment.  Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable 
devices operating under this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these 
requirements.  Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the 
Commission upon request.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
90*  *  *  *  *
16. Section 15.709 is amended by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:
§ 15.709   General technical requirements.
*  *  *  *  *
(h)  Compliance with radio frequency exposure requirements.  White space devices shall ensure 
compliance with the Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements in Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091 
and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.  Applications for equipment authorization of RF sources under 
this section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements.  Technical 
information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
PART 18 - INDUSTRIAL, SCIENTIFIC AND MEDICAL EQUIPMENT 
17. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:
Authority: [INSERT CURRENT AUTHORITY CITATION].
18. Section 18.313 is added to read as follows:
§ 18.313   Radio frequency exposure requirements.
Radio frequency devices operating under the provisions of this part are subject to the radio frequency 
radiation exposure requirements specified in Sections 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this 
chapter, as appropriate.  
PART 22 – PUBLIC MOBILE SERVICES
19. The authority citation for part 22 continues to read as follows:
Authority: [INSERT CURRENT AUTHORITY CITATION].
20. Section 22.379 is added to read as follows:
§ 22.379   RF exposure.
Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency 
exposure requirements in Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.  
Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices operating under this section must 
contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements.  Technical information showing the 
basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
PART 24 – PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
21. The authority citation for part 24 continues to read as follows:
Authority: [INSERT CURRENT AUTHORITY CITATION].
§ 24.51 [Amended]
22. In Section 24.51, remove and reserve paragraph (c).
23. Section 24.52 is revised to read as follows:Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
91§ 24.52   RF exposure.
Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency 
exposure requirements in Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.  
Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices operating under this section must 
contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements.  Technical information showing the 
basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
PART 25 – SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
24. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: [INSERT CURRENT AUTHORITY CITATION].
25. Section 25.115 is amended by reserving paragraphs (l) through (o) and by adding a new 
paragraph (p) to read as follows:
§ 25.115   Application for earth station authorizations.
*  *  *  *  *
(p) The licensee and grantees shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency 
exposure requirements in Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.  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 Section 1.1310 of this chapter.  See Section 
1.1307(b)(5)(ii).
26. Section 25.117 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 25.117   Modification of station license.
*  *  *  *  *
(g) The licensee and grantees shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency 
exposure requirements in Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.  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 Section 1.1310 of this chapter.  See Section 
1.1307(b)(5)(iii).
27. Section 25.129 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 25.129   Equipment authorization for portable earth-station transceivers.
*  *  *  *  *
(c) In addition to the information required by Section 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 Sections 
25.138, 25.202(f), 25.204, 25.209, and 25.216, must demonstrate compliance with the labeling 
requirement in Section 25.285(b), and shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency 
exposure requirements in Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.  An 
Environmental Assessment may be required if RF radiation from the proposed facilities would, in Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
92combination with radiation from other sources, cause RF power density or field strength in an accessible 
area to exceed the applicable limits specified in Section 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.  Technical information showing the basis for 
this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
* * * * * * 
28. Section 25.149 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(3) to read as follows:
§ 25.149   Application requirements for ancillary terrestrial components in Mobile-Satellite Service 
networks operating in the 1.5./1.6 GHz and 1.6/2.4 GHz Mobile-Satellite Service.
*  *  *  *  *
(c) *  *  *
(3) Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency 
exposure requirements in Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.  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 Section 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.  Technical information showing the basis for 
this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
*  *  *  *  *
29. Section 25.271 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 25.271   Control of transmitting stations.
*  *  *  *  *
(g) All applicants shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency exposure 
requirements in Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.  Applicants with 
terminals that will exceed the guidelines in Section 1.1310 of this chapter for radio frequency radiation 
exposure shall provide a plan for mitigation of radiation exposure to the extent required to meet those 
guidelines.  Licensees of transmitting earth stations are prohibited from using remote earth stations in 
their networks that are not designed to stop transmission when synchronization to signals from the target 
satellite fails.
*  *  *  *  *
PART 27 – MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
30. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: [INSERT CURRENT AUTHORITY CITATION].
31. Section 27.52 is revised to read as follows:Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
93§ 27.52   RF exposure.
Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency 
exposure requirements in Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.  
Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices operating under this section must 
contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements.  Technical information showing the 
basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
PART 73 – RADIO BROADCAST SERVICES
32. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: [INSERT CURRENT AUTHORITY CITATION].
33. Section 73.404 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(10) to read as follows:
§73.404   Interim hybrid IBOC DAB operation.
*  *  *  *  *
(e) * * *
(10)  Licensees and permittees shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency 
exposure requirements in Section 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 Section 1.1310 of this chapter.
PART 90 – PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES
34. The authority citation for part 90 continues to read as follows:
Authority: [INSERT CURRENT AUTHORITY CITATION].
35. Section 90.223 is added to read as follows:
§ 90.223   RF exposure.
Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency 
exposure requirements in Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.  
Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices operating under this section must 
contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements.  Technical information showing the 
basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
§ 90.1217 [Removed]
36. Section 90.1217 is removed.
PART 95 – PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES
37. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:
Authority: [INSERT CURRENT AUTHORITY CITATION].Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
9438. Section 95.1125 is revised to read as follows:  
§ 95.2385   WMTS RF exposure evaluation.
Mobile and portable devices as defined in Sections 2.1091(b) and 2.1093(b) of this chapter operating 
in the WMTS are subject to radio frequency radiation exposure requirements as specified in Sections 
1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.  Applications for equipment authorization 
of WMTS devices must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements. Technical 
information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
39. Section 95.2585 is revised to read as follows: 
§ 95.2585   MedRadio RF exposure evaluation. 
A MedRadio medical implant device or medical body-worn transmitter is subject to the 
radiofrequency radiation exposure requirements specified in Sections 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 Section 2.1093(d)(1) of this chapter.
PART 97 – AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE
40. The authority citation for part 97 continues to read as follows:
Authority: [INSERT CURRENT AUTHORITY CITATION].
41. Section 97.13 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows:
§ 97.13   Restrictions on station location.
*  *  *  *  *
(c) *  *  *
(1) The licensee shall ensure compliance with the Commission's radio frequency exposure 
requirements in Sections 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 Section 1.1310, provided appropriate training and information has been accessed by the 
amateur licensee and members of his/her household.  RF exposure of 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.
*  *  *  *  * 
PART 101 – FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICE
42. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows:
Authority: [INSERT CURRENT AUTHORITY CITATION].Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
9543. Section 101.1425 is revised 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 Section 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 Section 1.1310 of this chapter.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
96APPENDIX B
Proposed Rules
For the reasons set forth above, Parts 1, 2, and 18 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: [INSERT CURRENT AUTHORITY CITATION].
2. Section 1.1307 is amended by adding a definition to 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) *  *  *
Device-based time averaging is where the instantaneous transmit power and duration of each 
transmission burst is managed by the device over some specified time-averaging period to ensure 
compliance with the RF exposure limits.
*  *  *  *  *
3. Section 1.1310 is amended to read as follows:  
§ 1.1310   Radiofrequency radiation exposure limits.
(a) Between 3 kHz and 10 MHz (inclusive), internal electric field limits as set forth in paragraph (f) of 
this section shall be used to evaluate the environmental impact of human exposure to RF radiation as 
specified in Section 1.1307(b).  Specific absorption rate (SAR) shall be used to evaluate the environmental 
impact of human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation as specified in Section 1.1307(b) within the 
frequency range of 100 kHz to 6 GHz (inclusive).  Power density (PD) shall be used to evaluate the 
environmental impact of human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) radiation as specified in Section 
1.1307(b) for the frequency range above 6 GHz.
(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).  The PD limits for occupational/controlled exposure are 5 mW/cm2, as 
averaged over the whole body, and a peak spatial-average PD of 20 mW/cm2, averaged over any 1 cm2.  
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).  The PD limits Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
97for general population/uncontrolled exposure are 1 mW/cm2, as averaged over the whole body, and a peak 
spatial-average PD of 4 mW/cm2, averaged over any 1 cm2.  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 and/or PD limits in this section must demonstrate 
compliance with both the whole-body and peak spatial-average limits.  Evaluation with respect to both the 
SAR and PD limits in this section and in Section 2.1093 of this chapter, as well as the internal electric field 
limits in this section where applicable, shall be done using technically supported measurement or 
computational methods and exposure conditions in advance of authorization (licensing or equipment 
certification) and in a manner that facilitates independent assessment and, if appropriate, enforcement.  
Numerical computation of SAR 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 FCC-accepted 
numerical computation standards or available FCC procedures for the specific computational method.
(2) The limits for maximum permissible exposure (MPE) listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section, 
which have been derived from whole-body SAR limits, may be used instead of whole-body SAR and/or PD 
limits as set forth in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section to evaluate the environmental impact of human 
exposure to RF radiation as specified in Section 1.1307(b), except for portable devices as defined in Section 
2.1093 as these evaluations shall be performed according to the SAR and/or PD provisions, and internal 
electric field provisions where applicable, in Section 2.1093 of this chapter.
(3) The MPE limits listed in Table 1 of paragraph (e) of this section, the SAR and/or PD limits as set 
forth in paragraph (a) through (c) of this section and in Section 2.1093 of this chapter, and the internal 
electric field limits listed in Table 2 of paragraph (f) of this section are for continuous exposure, that is, for 
indefinite time periods.  Except for internal electric field, as described in (f) of this section, exposure levels 
higher than the limits are permitted for shorter exposure times, as long as the average exposure over a 
period not to exceed the specified averaging time in Table 1 or source-based time averaging requirement of 
Sections 2.1091(d)(2) and 2.1093(d)(5) for general population exposure 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,” and in supplements to Bulletin 65, all 
available at the FCC's Internet Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/rfsafety and in the Office of Engineering and 
Technology (OET) Laboratory Division Knowledge Database (KDB) ( https://www.fcc.gov/kdb).  
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.  Internal 
electric field limits in Table 2 of paragraph (f) of this section are generally based on guidelines recommended 
by the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) in “ICNIRP Guidelines for 
Limiting Human Exposure to Time-Varying Electric and Magnetic Fields (1 Hz to 100 kHz),” Published in 
Volume 99, Issue 6, Pages 818-836, copyright 2010 by the Health Physics Society and available at 
http://www.icnirp.org.  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 Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
98density 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.  Peak spatial-average PD limits of 4 mW/cm2 for general 
population/uncontrolled exposure and 20 mW/cm2 for occupational/controlled exposure in the frequency 
range from 6 GHz to 300 GHz are generally based on criteria recommended at 6 GHz by the ANSI in 
Section 4.4 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, and on thermal perception 
thresholds at frequencies above 6 GHz. 
(e)(1) Table 1 sets forth limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) to radiofrequency 
electromagnetic fields.
Table 1—Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)
Frequency range
(MHz)Electric field strength
(V/m)Magnetic field strength
(A/m)Power density
(mW/cm2)Averaging time
(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/f26
30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6
300-1,500 f/300 6
1,500-3,000,000 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/f230
30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30
300-1,500 f/1500 30
1,500-3,000,000 1.0 30
f = frequency in MHz * = Plane-wave equivalent power density, electric and magnetic 
field strengths are root-mean-square (rms)
(2) *  *  *
(3) *  *  *
(3) *  *  *
(4) *  *  *
(f) Internal electric field shall be used to evaluate the environmental impact of human exposure to 
radiofrequency (RF) radiation as specified in Section 1.1307(b) within the frequency range of 3 kHz to 10 
MHz (inclusive).  Internal electric fields shall be determined as a vector average in a contiguous tissue 
volume of 2 × 2 × 2 cubic millimeters.  Internal electric fields induced by electric or magnetic fields including 
transient or very short-term peak fields shall be regarded as instantaneous values not to be time-averaged.
Table 2—Limits for Internal Electric Field
Frequency range (MHz) Internal electric field strength (rms) (V/m)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
99(A) Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure
0.003-10 270f
(B) Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure
0.003-10 135f
f = frequency in MHz 
PART 2 – FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL 
RULES AND REGULATIONS 
4. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: [INSERT CURRENT AUTHORITY CITATION].
5.Section 2.1091 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: 
§ 2.1091   Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation:  mobile devices.
*  *  *  *  *
(d)(1) Applications for equipment authorization of mobile RF sources subject to routine 
environmental evaluation must contain a statement confirming compliance with the limits specified in 
Section 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.
(2) For purposes of analyzing mobile transmitting devices under the occupational/controlled criteria 
specified in Section 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.
(3) 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 Section 1.1310 of this chapter.  However, either “source-based” time 
averaging, based on an inherent property of the RF source, or “device-based” time averaging based on an 
inherent capability of the device in direct control of the RF source, is allowed.
(4) *  *  *
(5) *  *  *
*  *  *  *  *
6. Section 2.1093 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as follows: 
§ 2.1093   Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: portable devices. 
*  *  *  *  *
(d)(1) Applications for equipment authorization of portable RF sources subject to routine 
environmental evaluation must contain a statement confirming compliance with the limits specified in 
Section 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 Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
100power 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.
(2) 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 FCC-accepted numerical computation standards or available FCC 
procedures for the specific computational method.  Guidance regarding SAR, PD, internal electric field, 
and MPE measurement techniques, where applicable, 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 RF 
emissions, and is not binding on the Commission or any interested party.
(3) For purposes of analyzing portable RF sources under the occupational/controlled SAR criteria 
specified in Section 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.
(4) The time averaging provisions for occupational/controlled SAR/PD criteria, based on maximum 
duty factor, may not be used in determining typical exposure levels for portable devices intended for use 
by consumers, such as cellular telephones, that are considered to operate in general 
population/uncontrolled environments as defined in Section 1.1310 of this chapter.  However, either 
“source-based” time averaging, based on an inherent property of the RF source, or “device-based” time 
averaging based on an inherent capability of the device in direct control of the RF source, is allowed, as 
described in paragraph (d)(6) of this section.
(5) 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.
(6) General population/uncontrolled exposure limits defined in Section 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 Section 1.1310 of this chapter.
(7) “Device-based” time averaging, based on an inherent capability of the device in direct control of 
the RF source(s) within a device, is permitted if the protocols established to track the instantaneous 
transmit power over a time averaging period not to exceed the values listed in Table 1 for the specific 
operating frequencies of each transmitter have been validated against available FCC procedures for the 
“device-based” time averaging method to be used by the device.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
101Table 1 –Maximum Averaging Times for Device-Based Time Averaging
Frequency (GHz): < 2.9 2.9-7.125 7.125-10.5 10.5-15.4 15.4-24 24-37 37-53 53-95 > 95
Time (seconds): 100 49 27 14 7 4 3 2 1
*  *  *  *  *
PART 18 – INDUSTRIAL, SCIENTIFIC, AND MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
7. The authority citation for part 18 continues to read as follows:
Authority: [INSERT CURRENT AUTHORITY CITATION].
8. Section 18.107 is amended by adding paragraph (k) to read as follows:
§ 18.107   Definitions.
* * * * *
(k) Wireless power transfer (WPT) equipment. A category of ISM equipment which generates and 
emits RF energy for local use by inductive, capacitive or radiative coupling, for transfer of 
electromagnetic energy between a power transfer unit (TU) and receiving unit(s) (RU) of a WPT system.
* * * * *
9. Section 18.123 is added to read as follows:
§ 18.123   Transition Provisions for Wireless Power Transfer Equipment.
All wireless power transfer equipment that are manufactured, imported, marketed or installed on or 
after [6 months after the effective date of final rules] shall comply with all the provisions for wireless 
power transfer devices of this part.
*  *  *  *  *
10. Section 18.203 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 18.203   Equipment authorization.
* * * * *
(d) Wireless power transfer equipment shall be authorized under the Certification procedure prior to 
use or marketing, in accordance with the relevant sections of part 2, subpart J of this chapter.
* * * * *
11. Section 18.207 is amended by adding new paragraph (e)(6) to read as follows:
§ 18.207   Technical report.
* * * * *
(e) * * * 
(6) For wireless power transfer equipment, a statement confirming compliance for radio frequency Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
102radiation exposure in accordance with the requirements in 47 CFR. Sections 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, 
and 2.1093, as appropriate.  Applications for equipment authorization of RF sources operating under this 
section must contain a statement confirming compliance with these requirements.  Technical information 
showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
* * * * *Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
103APPENDIX C
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 a substantial 
number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(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 this Notice.  The Commission will 
send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA).2  In addition, the 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.5  One of several environmental factors addressed by these requirements is human exposure to 
radiofrequency (RF) energy emitted by FCC-regulated transmitters, facilities, and devices.6
The Notice proposes to amend Parts 1, 2, and 18 of our rules relating to the compliance of FCC-regulated 
transmitters, facilities, and devices with the guidelines for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy.  
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.  The Notice seeks to develop a 
record that will enable the Commission to meet the challenges presented by evolving technological 
advances not resolved in the previous RF exposure proceedings.  The Notice seeks comment on 
expanding the range of frequencies for which the RF exposure limits apply; on applying localized 
exposure limits above 6 GHz in parallel to the localized exposure limits already established below 6 GHz; 
on specifying the conditions under which and the methods by which the limits are averaged, in both time 
and area, during evaluation for compliance with the rules; and on addressing new issues raised by 
Wireless Power Transfer devices.  
B. Legal Basis
The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 203, 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, 302a, 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.
 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. §§ 4321-35. 
5 See 47 CFR pt. 1, subpt. I.
6 See 47 CFR § 1.1310; 2013 Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 3498, 3505-32, paras. 14-107 (2013).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
104C. 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.7  The RFA generally 
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small 
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”8  In addition, the term “small business” has the 
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.9  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.10
Small Businesses. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 29.6 million small businesses, 
according to the SBA.11  
Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions, over 
time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein.12  First, while there 
are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, 
according to data from the SBA’s Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent 
business having fewer than 500 employees.13  These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all 
businesses in the United States which translates to 28.8 million businesses.14  
Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit 
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”15  Nationwide, as 
of Aug 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small organizations based on registration and tax data 
filed by nonprofits with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).16
7 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).
8 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
9 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.”
10 15 U.S.C. § 632.
11  See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” http://web.sba.gov/faqs  (accessed Jan. 2009).
12 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)-(6).
13 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions, Question 1 – What is a small business?” 
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf (June 2016)
14 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions, Question 2- How many small business are there in 
the U.S.?”, https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf (June 2016).
15 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
16 Data from the Urban Institute, National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS) reporting on nonprofit 
organizations registered with the IRS was used to estimate the number of small organizations.  Reports generated 
using the NCCS online database indicated that as of August 2016 there were 356,494 registered nonprofits with total 
revenues of less than $100,000.   Of this number 326,897 entities filed tax returns with 65,113 registered nonprofits 
reporting total revenues of $50,000 or less on the IRS Form 990-N for Small Exempt Organizations and 261,784 
nonprofits reporting total revenues of $100,000 or less on some other version of the IRS Form 990 within 24 months 
of the August 2016 data release date.  See http://nccsweb.urban.org/tablewiz/bmf.php where the report showing this 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
105Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as 
“governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a 
population of less than fifty thousand.”17  U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2012 Census of 
Governments18 indicates that there were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general 
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States.19  Of this number there were 
37, 132 General purpose governments (county20, municipal and town or township21) with populations of 
less than 50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school districts22 and special 
districts23) with populations of less than 50,000.  The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of 
governments in the local government category shows that the majority of these governments have 
populations of less than 50,000.24 Based on this data we estimate that at least 49,316 local government 
jurisdictions fall in the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”25
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 
(Continued from previous page)  
data can be generated by selecting the following data fields: Show: “Registered Nonprofit Organizations”; By: 
“Total Revenue Level (years 1995, Aug to 2016, Aug)”; and For: “2016, Aug” then selecting “Show Results”.
17 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
18 See 13 U.S.C. § 161. The Census of Government is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for years 
ending with “2” and “7”. See also Program Description Census of Government 
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?lang=en&type=program&id=program.en.CO
G#.
19 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, Local Governments by Type and State: 2012 - United 
States-States. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG02.US01. Local governmental 
jurisdictions are classified in two categories - General purpose governments (county, municipal and town or 
township) and Special purpose governments (special districts and independent school districts).   
20 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, County Governments by Population-Size Group and 
State: 2012 - United States-States. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG06.US01.  There 
were 2,114 county governments with populations less than 50,000. 
21 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, Subcounty General-Purpose Governments by Population-
Size Group and State: 2012 - United States – States. 
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG07.US01. There were 18,811 municipal and 16,207 
town and township governments with populations less than 50,000. 
22 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, Elementary and Secondary School Systems by 
Enrollment-Size Group and State: 2012 - United States-States. 
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG11.US01. There were 12,184 independent school 
districts with enrollment populations less than 50,000.
23 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, Special District Governments by Function and State: 
2012 - United States-States. https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG09.US01.  The U.S. 
Census Bureau data did not provide a population breakout for special district governments.
24 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments, County Governments by Population-Size Group and 
State: 2012 - United States-States - https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG06.US01;   
Subcounty General-Purpose Governments by Population-Size Group and State: 2012 - United States–States - 
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG07.US01; and Elementary and Secondary School 
Systems by Enrollment-Size Group and State: 2012 - United States-States. 
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/COG/2012/ORG11.US01. While U.S. Census Bureau data did not 
provide a population breakout for special district governments, if the population of less than 50,000 for this category 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
106percent 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.26  The second has a size standard of $25 million or less in annual receipts.27
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.”28  Census Bureau data for 2007 show that 512 Satellite 
Telecommunications firms that operated for that entire year.29  Of this total, 464 firms had annual receipts 
of under $10 million, and 18 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.30  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.”31  For this 
category, Census Bureau data for 2007 shows that there were a total of 2,383 firms that operated for the 
(Continued from previous page)  
of local government is consistent with the other types of local governments the majority of the 38, 266 special 
district governments have populations of less than 50,000.
25 Id.
26 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517410.
27 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517919.
28 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, 517410 Satellite Telecommunications. 
29 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-
_lang=en. 
30 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-
_lang=en.
31  http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517919&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
107entire year.32  Of this total, 2,347 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million and 12 firms had annual 
receipts of $25 million to $49, 999,999.33  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.34 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.35  Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to 
be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.36  For this category, census data for 2007 show that there 
were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.37  Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or 
32  http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-
_lang=en.
33http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-
_lang=en.
34  http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search
35 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
36 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.  The now-superseded, pre-2007 CFR citations were 13 CFR § 121.201, 
NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).
37 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).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
108fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or more.38 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.39
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). 40 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.41 For 
this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.42  
Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 
employees or more.43 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.44
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.45  
A small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross 
38 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 “1000 employees or more.”
39See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
40  U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except 
Satellite)”; http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517210.HTM#N517210.
41 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except 
Satellite)”
42 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).
43 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 “1000 employees or more.”
44See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
45 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).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
109revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.46  The SBA has approved this 
definition.47  An initial auction of Metropolitan Economic Area (“MEA”) licenses was conducted in the 
year 2000.  Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were sold.48  Fifty-seven companies claiming small 
business status won 440 licenses.49  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.50  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. 51 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.52  The SBA approved these definitions.53  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.54  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 
standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).55  Under the SBA small business 
46 Paging Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 2811, ¶ 179.
47 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”).
48 See “929 and 931 MHz Paging Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 4858 (WTB 2000).
49 See id.
50 See “Lower and Upper Paging Band Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21821 (WTB 2002).
51 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.
52 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).
53 See Alvarez Letter 1998.
54 47 CFR § 2.106; see generally 47 CFR §§ 27.1–.70.
55 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
110size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.56 Census data for 2007 shows that 
there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.57  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.58  Of these, an estimated 222 
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 212 have more than 1,500 employees.59  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.60  Of 
these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.61  
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.62  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.63  These small 
business size standards, in the context of broadband PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA.64  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.65  On April 
15, 1999, the Commission completed the re-auction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction 
No. 22.66  Of the 57 winning bidders in that auction, 48 claimed small business status and won 277 
licenses.
56 Id.
57 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.
58 Trends in Telephone Service, at Tbl. 5.3.
59 Id.
60 See Trends in Telephone Service, at Tbl. 5.3.
61 See id.
62 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 CFR § 24.720(b).
63 See PCS Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 7852 ¶ 60.
64 See Alvarez Letter 1998.
65 See Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, Public Notice, Doc. No. 89838 (rel. Jan. 14, 1997).
66 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 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
111On 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.67  
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.68  On May 21, 2007, the 
Commission completed an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71.69  Of the 
14 winning bidders in that auction, six claimed small business status and won 18 licenses.70  On August 
20, 2008, the Commission completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS licenses 
in Auction No. 78.71  Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband PCS licenses in that auction, six 
claimed small business status and won 14 licenses.72
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 66.73  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.74  In 2006, the Commission conducted its first auction of AWS-1 licenses.75  In that initial AWS-
1 auction, 31 winning bidders identified themselves as very small businesses won 142 licenses.76  
Twenty-six of the winning bidders identified themselves as small businesses and won 73 licenses.77  In a 
subsequent 2008 auction, the Commission offered 35 AWS-1 licenses.78  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.79  
(Continued from previous page)  
Communications Services (PCS) Licensees, WT Docket No. 97-82, Fourth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15743, 
15768 ¶ 46 (1998).
67 See C and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 
2339 (2001).
68 See Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 58, Public Notice, 20 
FCC Rcd 3703 (2005).
69 See Auction of Broadband PCS Spectrum Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 71, 
Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 9247 (2007).
70 Id.
71 See Auction of AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 78, Public 
Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 12749 (WTB 2008).
72 Id.
73 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”);
74 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).
75 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”).
76 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”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
112Narrowband 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.80  Through 
these auctions, the Commission awarded a total of 41 licenses, 11 of which were obtained by four small 
businesses.81  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.82  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.83  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.84  The SBA has approved these small business 
size standards.85  A third auction of Narrowband PCS licenses was conducted in 2001.  In that auction, 
five bidders won 317 (Metropolitan Trading Areas and nationwide) licenses.86  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.87  The Commission defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and 
controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three 
years.88  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.89  
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 
(Continued from previous page)  
77 See id.
78 See AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Procedures Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 7499.  Auction 78 also included an 
auction of broadband PCS licenses.
79 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).
80 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).
81 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).
82  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”).
83  Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 10476, para. 40.
84  Id.
85  See Alvarez Letter 1998.
86  See “Narrowband PCS Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 18663 (WTB 2001).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
113more than $3 million for the preceding three years.90  The SBA approved these small size standards.91  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. 92  A second auction 
commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and included 256 licenses.93  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.94  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.95  An auction of A, B and E block licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band was held in 
2008.96  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.
Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses.  In the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the Commission revised its 
rules regarding Upper 700 MHz licenses.97  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 
(Continued from previous page)  
87  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”).
88  See Channels 52-59 Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1087-88, ¶ 172.
89  See id.
90  See id, 17 FCC Rcd at 1088, ¶ 173.
91  See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, WTB, FCC (Aug. 10, 1999) 
(“Alvarez Letter 1999”).
92  See “Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 17272 (WTB 2002).
93 See Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes, Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 11873 (WTB 2003).
94  See id.
95 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”). Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
114Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block, and one nationwide license in the D Block.98  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.99  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.100  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.101  SBA approval of these definitions is not required.102  An auction of these 
licenses was conducted in 2000.103  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.104
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.105  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.106  The SBA has approved these small business size standards for 
both the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR Service.107  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 
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 
(Continued from previous page)  
96 See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 4572 (WTB 2008).
97 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289.
98 See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 4572 (WTB 2008).
99  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”).
100  See 700 MHz Guard Band Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 5343, para. 108. 
101  See id.
102   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).
103  See “700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes:  Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 18026 
(2000).
104 See “700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 4590 
(WTB 2001).
105 47 CFR §§ 90.810, 90.814(b), 90.912.
106  47 CFR §§ 90.810, 90.814(b), 90.912.
107  See Alvarez Letter 1999.  Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
115licenses.108  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.109  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.110
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.111  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.112  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.113  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.114  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 
there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.115  Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, 
108 See 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced,” 
Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 3921 (WTB 2004).
109 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).
110 See “Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).
111 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).
112 See, “800 MHz SMR Service Lower 80 Channels Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice, 
16 FCC Rcd 1736 (2000).
113 See generally 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
114 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210 (2007 NAICS).  The now-superseded, pre-2007 CFR citations were 13 
CFR § 121.201, NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).
115 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.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
116and 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.116  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.117  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.118  The SBA has approved these small size 
standards.119  Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced on and closed in 1998.120  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.121  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.122  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.123  In 2007, the Commission conducted a fourth auction of the 220 MHz licenses, designated as 
Auction 72.124  Auction 72, which offered 94 Phase II 220 MHz Service licenses, concluded in 2007.125  
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.
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 
116 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).
117 Id. at 11068 ¶ 291.
118 Id.
119 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).
120 See generally 220 MHz Service Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 605 (WTB 1998).
121 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).
122 See Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (WTB 1999).
123 See Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes, Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).
124 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).
125 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).  Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
117Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  This definition provides that a small entity is any such 
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.126  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.127
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,128 private-operational fixed,129 
and broadcast auxiliary radio services.130  They also include the Local Multipoint Distribution Service 
(LMDS),131 the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS),132 and the 24 GHz Service,133 where 
licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier status.134  At present, there are 
approximately 36,708 common carrier fixed licensees and 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees and 
broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services.  There are approximately 135 LMDS 
licensees, three DEMS licensees, and three 24 GHz licensees.  The Commission has not yet defined a 
small business with respect to microwave services.  The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless 
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) and the appropriate size standard for this category under 
SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.135  For this industry, U.S. 
Census data for 2012 shows that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.136  Of this total, 
955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or 
more.137 Thus under this SBA category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that a 
majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.
126 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
127 See generally 13 CFR § 121.201.
128 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subparts C and I.
129 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subparts C and H.
130 Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47 of the Commission’s Rules.  See 47 CFR 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.
131 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart L.
132 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart G.
133 See id.
134 See 47 CFR §§ 101.533, 101.1017.
135 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
136 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject 
Series, “Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210” (rel. Jan. 8, 
2016).  https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210.
137 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 “1000 employees or more.”Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
118The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 
employees, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed 
microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA’s small 
business size standard.  Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are up to 36,708 common 
carrier fixed licensees and up to 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio 
licensees in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies 
adopted herein.  We note, however, that the common carrier microwave fixed licensee category does 
includes some large entities.  
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.138  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.139  The SBA has approved these small 
business size standards.140  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.141  
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.142 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.143 The SBA has 
approved these small business size standards in the context of LMDS auctions.144 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”).145  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 
138  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).
139  Id.
140  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).
141 See 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”).
142 See LMDS Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12689-90, para. 348.
143 See id.
144 See Alvarez to Phythyon Letter 1998.
145  See “Interactive Video and Data Service (IVDS) Applications Accepted for Filing,” Public Notice, 9 FCC Rcd 
6227 (1994).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
119with 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.146  
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, 
has average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.147  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.148  The SBA has approved these definitions.149   
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.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 $3 million.151  These 
definitions have been approved by the SBA.152  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.153  A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service 
is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (“BETRS”).154  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.155  Census 
data for 2007 shows that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.156  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.
146  Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding, Fourth Report and Order, 9 
FCC Rcd 2330 (1994).
147 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).
148 Id.
149 See Alvarez to Phythyon Letter 1998.
150 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 CFR § 90.1103.
151  Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Systems Second Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 15192, para. 20; see also 47 
CFR § 90.1103.
152 See Alvarez Letter 1998.
153 The service is defined in section 22.99 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR § 22.99.
154 BETRS is defined in sections 22.757 and 22.759 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR §§ 22.757 and 22.759.
155 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
156 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.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
120Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.157  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.158  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 
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.159  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.160  These definitions were approved by the SBA.161  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.162 Census data for 
2007 shows that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.163  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.164  
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.165  Under that SBA small business size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.166  Census data for 2007 shows that there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.167  Of those 
157 The service is defined in § 22.99 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR § 22.99.
158 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS codes 517210.
159 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).
160 Id.
161 See Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, SBA, to Gary D. Michaels, Deputy Chief, Auctions and 
Spectrum Access Division, WTB, FCC (Sept. 19, 2005).
162 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
163 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.
164 This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the Commission’s Rules.  See 47 CFR §§ 22.1001-22.1037.
165 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
166 Id. Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
1211,383, 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.
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.168  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.169  The SBA has approved these definitions.170  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.171  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.172  
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 2007.173  
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, 
(Continued from previous page)  
167 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.
168 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 
11956, 12008, ¶ 123 (2000).
169 Id.
170See Alvarez Letter 1999.
171 See “Multiple Address Systems Spectrum Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21011 (2001).
172 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
173 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”).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
122has had average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.174  
Neither of the two winning bidders claimed small business status.175
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.176   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.177  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, Teligent178 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.179  
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.180  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.181  The SBA has 
approved these small business size standards.182  In a 2004 auction of 24 GHz licenses, three winning 
bidders won seven licenses.183  Two of the winning bidders were very small businesses that won five 
licenses.
Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service.  Broadband Radio Service systems, 
174 Auction No. 69 Closing PN, Attachment C.
175 See Auction No. 69 Closing PN.
176 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
177 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.
178 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.
179 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 CFR § 101.538(a)(3).
18024 GHz Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16967 ¶ 77 ; see also 47 CFR § 101.538(a)(2).
181 24 GHz Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16967 ¶ 77; see also 47 CFR § 101.538(a)(1).
182 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).
183 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).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
123previously 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 
the Instructional Television Fixed Service (“ITFS”).184  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.185  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.186  
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.187  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.188  Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 licenses.189  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.190  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; 
184 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).
185 47 CFR § 21.961(b)(1).
186 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.
187 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).
188 Id. at 8296.
189 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).
190 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.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
124that 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.  
Transmission facilities may be based on a single technology or a combination of technologies.”191  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.192  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.193  Of this total, 939 firms employed 999 or fewer employees, and 16 firms 
employed 1,000 employees or more.194  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.”195  The SBA has created 
the following small business size standard for Television Broadcasting firms:  those having $14 million or 
less in annual receipts.196  The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television 
stations to be 1,387.197  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.198  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) affiliations199 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) 
191 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, 517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers, (partial definition), 
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.
192 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
193  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).
194  Id.  
195  U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “515120 Television Broadcasting” (partial definition); 
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND515120.HTM#N515120.
196  13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 515120 (updated for inflation in 2010).
197  See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2011,” dated January 6, 2012; 
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-311837A1.pdf.  
198  We recognize that BIA’s estimate differs slightly from the FCC total given.
199  “[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 CFR § 21.103(a)(1).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
125television stations to be 396.200   These stations are non-profit, and therefore considered to be small 
entities.201
In addition, there are also 2,528 low power television stations, including Class A stations (LPTV).202   
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.”203  The SBA has established a small business size 
standard for this category, which is:  such firms having $7 million or less in annual receipts.204  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.205  In addition, to be determined to be a “small business,” 
the entity may not be dominant in its field of operation.206  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.207
The Commission estimates that there are approximately 6,099 FM translators and boosters.208  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 
200  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. 
201  See generally 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4), (6).
202 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.
203  U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “515112 Radio Stations”; 
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND515112.HTM#N515112. 
204  13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 515112 (updated for inflation in 2010).
205  “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 CFR § 121.103(a)(1) (an SBA regulation).
206 13 CFR § 121.102(b) (an SBA regulation).
207 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS codes 515112 and 515120.  
208 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.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
126some 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. 209
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.210  These definitions were 
approved by the SBA.211  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.212  
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.213
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.214  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”).215  There are a variety of methods used to license the spectrum in these 
209 See 15 U.S.C. § 632.
210 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).  
211 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).
212 See “Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 1834 
(2004). 
213 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).
214 47 CFR part 90.
215 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 generally 47 CFR part 
95.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
127rule 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.216  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.217  There are a total of 
approximately 127,540 licensees in these services.  Governmental entities218 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.219
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.220  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 1,000.221 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.222  Of these, an estimated 211 have 
1,500 or fewer employees and two have more than 1,500 employees.223  Consequently, the Commission 
216 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517210.
217 With the exception of the special emergency service, these services are governed by subpart B of part 90 of the 
Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR §§ 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.  47 CFR §§ 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.  47 CFR §§ 90.33-90.55.
218 47 CFR § 1.1162.
219 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
220 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
221 http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=800&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-
_lang=en. 
222 See Trends in Telephone Service, at Tbl. 5.3.  
223 Id.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
128estimates that the majority of IMTS resellers are small entities that may be affected by our proposed 
actions.
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 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, specifically small business, 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 such 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 such small entities.”224  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 RF exposure routine 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.
224 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
129APPENDIX D
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 an Initial Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (FNPRM) 
in ET Docket 03-137.2  The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the FNPRM, 
including comment on the IRFA.  This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the 
RFA.3
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.5  One of several environmental factors addressed by these requirements is human exposure to 
radiofrequency (RF) energy emitted by FCC-regulated transmitters, facilities, and devices.6
The Second 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 2013.  Specifically, we are making certain revisions in the rules that 
we believe will result in more efficient, practical, and consistent application of compliance procedures in 
three parts.  First, the Second Report and Order addresses the exemptions from the RF exposure routine 
evaluation requirement, identifying broad criteria that apply to single and multiple RF sources based on 
power, distance, and frequency, irrespective of service classifications.  The Office of Engineering and 
Technology (OET),7 will offer more detailed case-specific guidance as needed through the Knowledge 
Database (KDB), as well as through technical bulletins and supplements, such as OET Bulletin 65.8  
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 Proposed Changes in the Commission's Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic 
Fields, ET Docket No. 03-137, First Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Notice of 
Inquiry, 28 FCC Rcd 3498, 3533-69, paras. 108-204 (2013) (2013 RF Order and Notice).
3 See 5 U.S.C. § 604.
4 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-35. 
5 See 47 CFR pt. 1, subpt. I.
6 See, e.g., 47 CFR § 1.1310; 2013 Order and Notice, 28 FCC Rcd 3498, 3505-32, paras. 14-107 (2013).
7 OET has developed a substantial body of guidance that is available via public notices, frequently asked questions 
(FAQ’s), and specific process guidance all of which is compiled in our online Knowledge Database (KDB).  See 
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/.  Equipment authorization topics that relate to new services and devices authorized by 
the Commission are often addressed in the KDB.  This includes, for example, simple answers to questions, guidance 
on how to file for authorization of new types of devices, and guidance on how to conduct compliance testing.  The 
staff guidance provided in the KDB is intended to assist the public in following Commission requirements and is 
non-binding.
8 FCC Office of Engineering and Technology, Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to 
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields, OET Bulletin 65, Edition 97-01 (1997) (OET Bulletin 65).  OET 
Bulletin 65 provides guidance in determining whether proposed or existing transmitting facilities or operations 
comply with FCC rules limiting human exposure to RF energy.  Id. at 1.  Supplements A and B to OET Bulletin 65 
provide specialized guidance for specific services – broadcasting and amateur radio, respectively – in their 
compliance determinations.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
130Second, the Second Report and Order clarifies the calculation or measurement methodologies that should 
be used, in cases where no exemption applies, to determine potential RF exposure levels in the RF 
exposure evaluation process.  The third and final section of the Second Report and Order addresses post-
evaluation mitigation procedures, like access, signage, and training, to ensure that persons – both the 
general public and trained personnel – are not exposed to RF emissions in excess of our established 
exposure limits.  The new rules clarify the obligations of licensees to provide safety training to workers 
and to supervise any members of the general public (including untrained workers) who are permitted to 
enter a restricted area.
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, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to 
respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration 
(SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those 
comments.9  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 rules adopted herein.10  The RFA generally defines the term 
“small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and 
“small governmental jurisdiction.”11  In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the 
term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.12  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.13
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.14  First, nationwide, there are a total of 
approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the SBA.15  In addition, a “small organization” 
9 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).
10 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).
11 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
12 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.”
13 15 U.S.C. § 632.
14 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)–(6).
15 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” web.sba.gov/faqs (last visited May 6,2011;  figures 
are from 2009).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
131is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant 
in its field.”16  Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately 1,621,315 small organizations.17  
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.”18  
Census Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental jurisdictions in the 
United States.19  We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88, 506 entities may qualify as “small 
governmental jurisdictions.”20  Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.
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.  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.21  The second has a size standard of $25 million or less in annual receipts.22
16 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
17 INDEPENDENT SECTOR, THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC & DESK REFERENCE (2010).
18 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
19 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES: 2011, Table 427 (2007) 
20The 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.  20 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
21 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517410.
22 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517919.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
132The 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.”23  Census Bureau data for 2007 show that 512 Satellite 
Telecommunications firms that operated for that entire year.24  Of this total, 464 firms had annual receipts 
of under $10 million, and 18 firms had receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.25  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.”26  For this 
category, Census Bureau data for 2007 shows that there were a total of 2,383 firms that operated for the 
entire year.27  Of this total, 2,347 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million and 12 firms had annual 
receipts of $25 million to $49, 999,999.28  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 
or collect annual revenue information, and are unable to estimate the number of the earth stations that 
would constitute small businesses 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 or collect annual revenue information, and are unable to estimate the number of fixed small 
satellite transmit/receive earth stations that would constitute small businesses 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 or collect annual revenue 
information, and are unable to estimate the number of VSAT systems that would constitute small 
23 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, 517410 Satellite Telecommunications. 
24 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-
_lang=en. 
25 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-
_lang=en.
26  http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517919&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.
27  http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-
_lang=en.
28http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-_skip=900&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ4&-
_lang=en.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
133businesses 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 or collect annual revenue 
information, and are unable to estimate the number of mobile satellite earth stations that would constitute 
small businesses 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.29 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.30  Under the present and prior categories, the SBA has deemed a wireless business to 
be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.31  For this category, census data for 2007 show that there 
were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.32  Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or 
fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 employees or more.33 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.34
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). 35 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 
29  http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search.
30 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
31 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.  The now-superseded, pre-2007 CFR citations were 13 CFR § 121.201, 
NAICS codes 517211 and 517212 (referring to the 2002 NAICS).
32 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).
33 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 “1000 employees or more.”
34See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
35  U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except 
Satellite)”; http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517210.HTM#N517210.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
134SBA has deemed a paging service in this category to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.36 For 
this category, census data for 2007 show that there were 1,383 firms that operated for the entire year.37  
Of this total, 1,368 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 15 had employment of 1000 
employees or more.38 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.39
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.40  
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.41  The SBA has approved this 
definition.42  An initial auction of Metropolitan Economic Area (“MEA”) licenses was conducted in the 
year 2000.  Of the 2,499 licenses auctioned, 985 were sold.43  Fifty-seven companies claiming small 
business status won 440 licenses.44  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.45  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. 46 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 
36 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Categories (Except 
Satellite)”
37 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).
38 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 “1000 employees or more.”
39See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-
ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
40 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).
41 Paging Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 2811, ¶ 179.
42 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”).
43 See “929 and 931 MHz Paging Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 4858 (WTB 2000).
44 See id.
45 See “Lower and Upper Paging Band Auction Closes,” Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21821 (WTB 2002).
46 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 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
135$15 million for each of the three preceding years.47  The SBA approved these definitions.48  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.49  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 
standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).50  Under the SBA small business 
size standard, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.51  Census data for 2007 shows that 
there were 1,383 firms that operated that year.52  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.53  Of these, an estimated 222 
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 212 have more than 1,500 employees.54  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.55  Of 
these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than 1,500 employees.56  
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. 
(Continued from previous page)  
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.
47 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).
48 See Alvarez Letter 1998.
49 47 CFR § 2.106; see generally 47 CFR §§ 27.1–.70.
50 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517312.
51 Id.
52 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.
53 Trends in Telephone Service, at Tbl. 5.3.
54 Id.
55 See Trends in Telephone Service, at Tbl. 5.3.
56 See id.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
136Broadband 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.57  
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.58  These small business size standards, in the context of broadband 
PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA.59  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.60  On April 15, 1999, the Commission completed the re-auction of 347 
C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 22.61  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.62  
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.63  On May 21, 2007, the 
Commission completed an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71.64  Of the 
14 winning bidders in that auction, six claimed small business status and won 18 licenses.65  On August 
20, 2008, the Commission completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS licenses 
in Auction No. 78.66  Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband PCS licenses in that auction, six 
claimed small business status and won 14 licenses.67
57 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, paras. 57–60 
(1996) (“PCS Report and Order”); see also 47 CFR § 24.720(b).
58 See PCS Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 7852, para. 60.
59 See Alvarez Letter 1998.
60 See Broadband PCS, D, E and F Block Auction Closes, Public Notice, Doc. No. 89838 (Jan. 14, 1997).
61 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, para. 46 (1998).
62 See C and F Block Broadband PCS Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 
2339 (2001).
63 See Broadband PCS Spectrum Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 58, Public Notice, 20 
FCC Rcd 3703 (2005).
64 See Auction of Broadband PCS Spectrum Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction No. 71, 
Public Notice, 22 FCC Rcd 9247 (2007).
65 Id.
66 See Auction of AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 78, Public 
Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 12749 (WTB 2008).
67 Id.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
137Advanced 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 66.68  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.69  In 2006, the Commission conducted its first auction of AWS-1 licenses.70  In that initial AWS-
1 auction, 31 winning bidders identified themselves as very small businesses won 142 licenses.71  
Twenty-six of the winning bidders identified themselves as small businesses and won 73 licenses.72  In a 
subsequent 2008 auction, the Commission offered 35 AWS-1 licenses.73  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.74  
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.75  Through 
these auctions, the Commission awarded a total of 41 licenses, 11 of which were obtained by four small 
businesses.76  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.77  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.78  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.79  The SBA has approved these small business 
size standards.80  A third auction of Narrowband PCS licenses was conducted in 2001.  In that auction, 
five bidders won 317 (Metropolitan Trading Areas and nationwide) licenses.81  Three of the winning 
68 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);
69 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).
70 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).
71 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”).
72 See id.
73 See AWS-1 and Broadband PCS Procedures Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 7499.  Auction 78 also included an 
auction of broadband PCS licenses.
74 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).
75 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).
76 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 (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 (Nov. 
9, 1994).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
138bidders 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.82  The Commission defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and 
controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three 
years.83  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.84  
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.85  The SBA approved these small size standards.86  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. 87  A second auction 
commenced on May 28, 2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and included 256 licenses.88  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.89  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.90  An auction of A, B and E block licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band was held in 
(Continued from previous page)  
77  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).
78  Narrowband PCS Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 10476, para. 40.
79  Id.
80  See Alvarez Letter 1998.
81  See Narrowband PCS Auction Closes, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 18663 (WTB 2001).
82  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”).
83  See Channels 52-59 Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 1087-88, para. 172.
84  See id.
85  See id. at 1088, para. 173.
86  See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, WTB, FCC (Aug. 10, 1999) 
(“Alvarez Letter 1999”).
87  See Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes, Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 17272 (WTB 2002).
88 See Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes, Public Notice, 18 FCC Rcd 11873 (WTB 2003).
89  See id.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
1392008.91  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.
Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses.  In the 700 MHz Second Report and Order, the Commission revised its 
rules regarding Upper 700 MHz licenses.92  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.93  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.94  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.95  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.96  SBA approval of these definitions is not required.97  An auction of these 
licenses was conducted in 2000.98  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 
(Continued from previous page)  
90 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). 
91 See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 4572 (WTB 2008).
92 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289.
93 See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 4572 (WTB 2008).
94  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).
95  See 700 MHz Guard Band Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 5343, para. 108. 
96  See id.
97   See id. at5343, 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).
98  See 700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes:  Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 18026 
(2000).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
140Guard 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.99
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.100  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.101  The SBA has approved these small business size standards for 
both the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR Service.102  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 
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.103  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.104  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.105
The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR geographic area 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.106  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.107  
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 service 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 1,500 or fewer 
99 See 700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 4590 
(WTB 2001).
100 47 CFR §§ 90.810, 90.814(b), 90.912(b).
101  47 CFR §§ 90.810, 90.814(b), 90.912(b).
102  See Alvarez Letter 1999.  
103 See 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced, Public 
Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 3921 (WTB 2004).
104 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).
105 See Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes, Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).
106 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).
107 See 800 MHz SMR Service Lower 80 Channels Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 16 
FCC Rcd 1736 (2000).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
141employees, which is the SBA-determined size standard.108  We assume, for purposes of this analysis, that 
all of the remaining 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 to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  Under this category, 
the SBA deems a wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.109  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.110  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.111  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.112  The SBA has approved these small business size 
standards.113  Auctions of Phase II licenses commenced and closed in 1998.114  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.115  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.116  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.117  In 2007, the Commission conducted a fourth auction of the 220 MHz licenses, designated as 
108 See generally 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517312.
109 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517312.
110 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 and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 
10943, 11068-70, paras. 291-95 (1997).
111 Id. at 11068, para. 291.
112 Id.
113 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).
114 See generally 220 MHz Service Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 605 (WTB 1998).
115 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).
116 See Phase II 220 MHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 11218 (WTB 1999).
117 See Multi-Radio Service Auction Closes, Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 1446 (WTB 2002).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
142Auction 72.118  Auction 72, which offered 94 Phase II 220 MHz Service licenses, concluded in 2007.119  
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.
Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR).  Private land mobile radio systems serve an essential role in a vast 
range of industrial, business, land transportation, and public safety activities.  Companies of all sizes 
operating in all U.S. business categories use these radios.  Because of the vast array of PLMR users, the 
Commission has not developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to PLMR users.   
The closest applicable SBA category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which 
encompasses business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications.120  The appropriate size 
standard for this category under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.121  For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that 
operated for the entire year.122  Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 
had employment of 1000 employees or more.123  Thus, under this category and the associated size 
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of PLMR Licensees are small entities.  
According to the Commission’s records, a total of approximately 400,622 licenses comprise PLMR 
users.124  Of this number there are a total of approximately 3,174 PLMR licenses in the 4.9 GHz band;125  
29,187 PLMR licenses in the 800 MHz band;126  and 3,374 licenses in the frequencies range 173.225 MHz 
to 173.375 MHz.127  The Commission does not require PLMR licensees to disclose information about 
number of employees, and does not have information that could be used to determine how many PLMR 
licensees constitute small entities under this definition.  The Commission, however, believes that a 
substantial number of PLMR licensees may be small entities despite the lack of specific information.
118 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).
119 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).  
120 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517210 Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (Except 
Satellite),” see 
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?lang=en&type=ib&id=ib.en./ECN/NAICS2012.
517210.
121 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517312.
122 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject 
Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210. 
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210.
123 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 “1000 employees or more.”
124 This figure was derived from Commission licensing records as of September 19, 2016.  Licensing numbers 
change on a daily basis.  This does not indicate the number of licensees, as licensees may hold multiple licenses. 
There is no information currently available about the number of PLMR licensees that have fewer than 1,500 
employees.
125 Based on an FCC Universal Licensing System search of January 26, 2018.  Search parameters: Radio Service = 
PA – Public Safety 4940-4990 MHz Band; Authorization Type = Regular; Status = Active.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
143Fixed Microwave Services.  Microwave services include common carrier,128 private-operational fixed,129 
and broadcast auxiliary radio services.130  They also include the Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
Service,131 Millimeter Wave Service,132 Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS),133 the Digital 
Electronic Message Service (DEMS),134 and the 24 GHz Service,135 where licensees can choose between 
common carrier and non-common carrier status.136  At present, there are approximately 66,680 common 
carrier fixed licensees, 69,360 private and public safety operational-fixed licensees, 20,150 broadcast 
auxiliary radio licensees, 411 LMDS licenses, 33 24 GHz DEMS licenses, 777 39 GHz licenses, and five 
24 GHz licenses, and 467 Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services.137  The Commission has 
not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave services.  The closest applicable SBA 
category is Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) and the appropriate size standard for 
this category under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.138  For 
this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire 
year.139  Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 
1000 employees or more.140 Thus, under this SBA category and the associated size standard, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.
The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have more than 1,500 
employees, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number of fixed 
microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA’s small 
business size standard.  Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are up to 36,708 common 
carrier fixed licensees and up to 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio 
licensees in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by the rules and policies 
adopted herein.  We note, however, that the common carrier microwave fixed licensee category does 
include some large entities.  
(Continued from previous page)  
126 Based on an FCC Universal Licensing System search of May 15, 2017.  Search parameters: Radio Service = GB, 
GE, GF, GJ, GM, GO, GP, YB, YE, YF, YJ, YM, YO, YP, YX; Authorization Type = Regular; Status = Active.
127 This figure was derived from Commission licensing records as of August 16, 2013.  Licensing numbers change 
daily.  We do not expect this number to be significantly smaller today.  This does not indicate the number of 
licensees, as licensees may hold multiple licenses.  There is no information currently available about the number of 
licensees that have fewer than 1,500 employees.
128 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subparts C and I.
129 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subparts C and H.  Persons eligible under parts 80 and 90 of the Commission’s rules can 
use Private-Operational Fixed Microwave Services.  See 47 CFR pts. 80, 90.  Stations in this service are called 
operational-fixed to distinguish them from common carrier and public fixed stations.  Only the licensee may use the 
operational-fixed station and only for communications related to the licensee’s commercial, industrial, or safety 
operations.
130 See 47 CFR pts. 74, 78 (governing Auxiliary Microwave Service).  Available to licensees of broadcast stations, 
cable operators, and to broadcast and cable network entities, 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 and CARS pickup, which relay signals from a remote 
location back to the studio.
131 See 47 CFR Part 30.
132 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart Q.
133 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart L.
134 See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart G.
135 See id.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
14439 GHz Service.  The Commission created a special small business size standard for 39 GHz licenses—
an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the three previous calendar years.141  An 
additional size standard for “very small business” is:  an entity that, together with affiliates, has average 
gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three calendar years.142  The SBA has 
approved these small business size standards.143  The auction of the 2,173 39 GHz licenses began on April 
12, 2000, and closed on May 8, 2000.  The 18 bidders who claimed small business status won 849 
licenses.  Consequently, the Commission estimates that 18 or fewer 39 GHz licensees are small entities 
that may be affected by rules adopted pursuant to the Second Report and Order.
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.144  
The Commission established a small business size standard for LMDS licenses as an entity that, together 
with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues of less than $40 million in the 
three previous years.145  An additional small business size standard for “very small business” was added 
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.146  The SBA has approved these small business size 
standards in the context of LMDS auctions.147  There were 93 winning bidders that qualified as small 
entities in the LMDS auctions.  A total of 93 small and very small businesses won approximately 277 A 
Block licenses and 387 B Block licenses.  In 1999, the Commission re-auctioned 161 licenses and there 
were 32 small and very small businesses that won 119 licenses.
218-219 MHz Service.  The first auction of 218-219 MHz spectrum resulted in 170 entities winning 
licenses for 594 Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) licenses.  Of the 594 licenses, 557 were won by 
entities qualifying as a small business.  For that auction, the small business size standard was 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 
(Continued from previous page)  
136 See 47 CFR §§ 101.533, 101.1017.
137 These statistics are based on a review of the Universal Licensing System on September 22, 2015.
138 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517312.
139 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject 
Series, “Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210” (rel. Jan. 8, 
2016).  https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210.
140 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 “1000 employees or more.”
141 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, PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 18600, 18661–64, paras. 149–51 (1997).
142 See id.
143 See Letter to Kathleen O’Brien Ham, Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Feb. 
4, 1998).
144 See 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”).
145 See LMDS Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12689-90, para. 348.
146 See id.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
145two years.148  In the 218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, we 
established a small business size standard for 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 to exceed $15 million for the preceding three years.149  A “very small business” is 
defined 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 to exceed $3 million for the preceding three 
years.150  These size standards will be used in future auctions of 218-219 MHz spectrum.
Location and Monitoring Service (LMS).  LMS systems use non-voice radio techniques to determine 
the location and status of mobile radio units.  For purposes of auctioning 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 to exceed $15 million.151  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 to exceed $3 million.152  These definitions have been 
approved by the SBA.153  An auction for LMS licenses commenced on February 23, 1999, and closed on 
March 5, 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.154  A significant subset of the Rural Radiotelephone Service 
is the Basic Exchange Telephone Radio System (BETRS).155  The closest applicable SBA size standard is 
for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), which is an entity employing no more than 
1,500 persons.156  For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that 
operated for the entire year.157  Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 
had employment of 1000 employees or more.158  Thus, under this category and the associated size 
standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of Rural Radiotelephone Services firm are small 
(Continued from previous page)  
147 See Letter to D. Phythyon, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 
from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA (Jan. 6, 1998) (Alvarez to Phythyon Letter 1998).
148 See generally Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding, PP Docket 
No. 93-253, Fourth Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2330 (1994).
149 See generally Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 
MHz Service, WT Docket No. 98-169, Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 1497 
(1999) (218-219 MHz Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order).
150 See id.
151 Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Adopt Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring 
Systems, PR Docket No. 93-61, Second Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 15182, 15192, para. 20 (1998); see also 47 
CFR § 90.1103. 
152 Id.
153 See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration to Thomas J. Sugrue, Chief, 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Feb. 22, 1999).  
154 The service is defined in 47 CFR § 22.99.
155 BETRS is defined in 47 CFR §§ 22.757 and 22.759.
156 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517312.
157 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject 
Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210.  
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210. 
158 Id.  Available census data does 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 “1000 employees or more.”Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
146entities.  There are approximately 1,000 licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, and the 
Commission estimates that there are 1,000 or fewer small entity licensees in the Rural Radiotelephone 
Service that may be affected by the rules and policies adopted pursuant to the Second Report and Order.
Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service.  The Commission has previously used the SBA’s small business 
size standard applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), which is an entity 
employing no more than 1,500 persons.159  For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there 
were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.  Of this total, 955 firms had fewer than 1,000 employees 
and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.160   There are approximately 100 licensees in the 
Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service, and 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.161  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.162  These definitions were approved by the SBA.163  In May 2006, the Commission 
completed an auction of nationwide commercial Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service licenses in the 800 
MHz band (Auction No. 65).  On June 2, 2006, 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.164  U.S. Census 
Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.165  Of this total, 955 
firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.166  
Most applicants for recreational licenses are individuals.  Approximately 581,000 ship station licensees 
and 131,000 aircraft station licensees operate domestically and are not subject to the radio carriage 
159 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517312.
160 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 “1000 employees or more.”
161 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, Order on Reconsideration and Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 19663, 
paras. 28-42 (2005).
162 Id.
163 See Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, SBA, to Gary D. Michaels, Deputy Chief, Auctions and 
Spectrum Access Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (filed 
Sept. 19, 2005).
164 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517312.  
165 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject 
Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210 (Jan. 8, 2016).  
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210.  
166 Id.  Available census data does 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 “1000 employees or more.”Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
147requirements of any statute or treaty.  For purposes of our evaluations in this analysis, we estimate that 
there are up to approximately 712,000 licensees that are small businesses (or individuals) under the SBA 
standard.  In addition, between December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an 
auction of 42 VHF Public Coast licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500 MHz (ship transmit) and 161.775-
162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands.  For purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a “small” 
business as an entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for 
the preceding three years not to exceed $15 million dollars.167  In addition, a “very small” business is one 
that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average gross revenues for the preceding three 
years not to exceed $3 million dollars.168  There are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine Coast 
Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them qualify as “small” businesses under the 
above special small business size standards.
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.169  
The closest applicable SBA size standard is for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), 
which is an entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.170  U.S. Census Bureau data in this industry for 
2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.171  Of this total, 955 firms had 
employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.172  Thus, 
under this SBA category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of Offshore 
Radiotelephone Service firms can be considered small.  There are presently approximately 55 licensees in 
this service.  However, 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).
Multiple Address Systems.  Entities using Multiple Address Systems (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.  With respect to the first category, Profit-based Spectrum use, the size standards 
established by the Commission define “small entity” for MAS licensees as an entity that has average 
annual gross revenues of less than $15 million over the three previous calendar years.173  A “Very small 
business” is defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average annual gross revenues of not 
more than $3 million over the preceding three calendar years.174  The SBA has approved these 
definitions.175  The majority of MAS operators are licensed in bands where the Commission has 
167 See generally Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Maritime Communications, PR Docket No. 92-
257, Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19853, 19884–88, paras. 64–73 
(1998).
168 See id.
169 This service is governed by Subpart I of Part 22 of the Commission’s Rules.  See 47 CFR §§ 22.1001-22.1037.
170 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517312. 
171 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject 
Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210 (Jan. 8, 2016).  
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~5172100.   
172 Id.  Available census data does 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 “1000 employees or more.”
173 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, Report and Order, 15 FCC 
Rcd 11956, 12008, para. 123 (2000).
174 Id.
175 See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, Small Business Administration, to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (June 4, 1999). Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
148implemented a geographic area licensing approach that requires the use of competitive bidding 
procedures to resolve mutually exclusive applications.  
The Commission’s licensing database indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, there were a total of 11,653 
site-based MAS station authorizations.  Of these, 58 authorizations were associated with common carrier 
service.  In addition, the Commission’s licensing database indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, there were 
a total of 3,330 Economic Area market area MAS authorizations.  The Commission’s licensing database 
also indicates that, as of April 16, 2010, of the 11,653 total MAS station authorizations, 10,773 
authorizations were for private radio service.  In 2001, an auction for 5,104 MAS licenses in 176 EAs was 
conducted.176  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 the second category, Internal Private Spectrum use consists of entities that use, or seek to 
use, MAS spectrum to accommodate their own internal communications needs, 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 definition developed by the SBA would be more 
appropriate than the Commission’s definition.  The closest applicable definition of a small entity is the 
“Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite)” definition under the SBA rules.177  The 
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer 
employees.178  For this category, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated 
for the entire year.179  Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had 
employment of 1000 employees or more.180  Thus, under this category and the associated small business 
size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of firms that may be affected by our action can 
be considered small. 
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 2007.181  
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.182  
Neither of the two winning bidders claimed small business status.183
176 See Multiple Address Systems Spectrum Auction Closes, Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd 21011 (2001).
177 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312.
178 Id.
179 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject 
Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210.  
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210 . 
180 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 “1000 employees or more.”
181 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).
182 Auction No. 69 Closing PN, Attachment C.
183 See Auction No. 69 Closing PN.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
149Incumbent 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.184  To gauge small 
business prevalence for these cable services we must, however, use the most current census data.  For this 
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire 
year.185  Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 
1000 employees or more.186  Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the 
majority of firms can be considered small.  The Commission notes that the U.S. Census Bureau’s use of 
the classification “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, Teligent187 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.188  
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.189  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.190  The SBA has 
approved these small business size standards.191  In a 2004 auction of 24 GHz licenses, three winning 
bidders won seven licenses.192  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 
184 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517312.
185 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject 
Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210.  
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210. 
186 Id.  Available census data does 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 “1000 employees or more.”
187 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.
188 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 CFR § 101.538(a)(3).
189 24 GHz Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16967 ¶ 77; see also 47 CFR § 101.538(a)(2).
190 24 GHz Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16967 ¶ 77; see also 47 CFR § 101.538(a)(1).
191 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).
192 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).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
150and 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 the 
Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS)).193  
BRS - 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 calendar years.194  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 86 incumbent 
BRS licensees that are considered small entities (18 incumbent BRS licensees do not meet the small 
business size standard).195  After adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of 
incumbent licensees not already counted, there are currently approximately 133 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.196  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) received 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) received 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) 
received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid.197  Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61 
licenses.198  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.
EBS - Educational Broadband Service has been included within the broad economic census category and 
SBA size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers since 2007.  Wired Telecommunications 
Carriers are comprised of 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.  Transmission facilities may be based 
193 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, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9593, para. 7 (1995).
194 47 CFR § 21.961(b)(1).
195 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.
196 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).
197 Id. at 8296, para. 73.
198 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).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
151on a single technology or a combination of technologies.”199  The SBA’s small business size standard for 
this category is all such firms having 1,500 or fewer employees.200  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 
show that there were 3,117 firms that operated that year.201  Of this total, 3,083 operated with fewer than 
1,000 employees.202  Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be 
considered small.  In addition to Census data, the Commission’s Universal Licensing System indicates 
that as of October 2014, there are 2,206 active EBS licenses.  The Commission estimates that of these 
2,206 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational institutions and school districts, which are 
by statute defined as small businesses.203
Television Broadcasting.  This Economic Census category “comprises establishments primarily engaged 
in broadcasting images together with sound.”204  These establishments operate television broadcast studios 
and facilities for the programming and transmission of programs to the public.205  These establishments 
also produce or transmit visual programming to affiliated broadcast television stations, which in turn 
broadcast the programs to the public on a predetermined schedule.  Programming may originate in their 
own studio, from an affiliated network, or from external sources.  The SBA has created the following 
small business size standard for such businesses: those having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.206  
The 2012 Economic Census reports that 751 firms in this category operated in that year.207  Of that 
number, 656 had annual receipts of $25,000,000 or less, 25 had annual receipts between $25,000,000 and 
$49,999,999 and 70 had annual receipts of $50,000,000 or more.208  Based on this data we therefore 
estimate that the majority of commercial television broadcasters are small entities under the applicable 
SBA size standard.
The Commission has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to be 1,387.209  Of 
this total, 1,258 stations (or about 91 percent) had revenues of $38.5 million or less, according to 
Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc. Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) on 
199 U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, “517311 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” (partial 
definition), http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517311&search=2017.
200 See, 13 CFR § 121.201. The Wired Telecommunications Carrier category formerly used the NAICS code of 
517110. As of 2017 the U.S. Census Bureau definition shows the NAICs code as 517311 for Wired 
Telecommunications Carriers.  See, https://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517311&search=2017. 
201 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ5, Information: 
Subject Series - Estab & Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms: 2012 (517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers). 
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517110.
202 Id.
203 The term “small entity” within SBREFA applies to small organizations (non-profits) 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).
204 U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 NAICS Definitions, “515120 Television Broadcasting,” https://www.census.gov/cgi-
bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?input=515120&search=2017+NAICS+Search&search=2017. 
205 Id.
206 13 CFR § 121.201; 2012 NAICS code 515120. 
207 U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series - Establishment and Firm Size: 
Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012 (515120 Television Broadcasting). 
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~515120.
208 Id. 
209 Broadcast Station Totals as of December 31, 2017, Press Release (MB Jan. 5, 2018), 
http://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-3485706998A1.pdf.     Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
152November 16, 2017, and therefore these licensees qualify as small entities under the SBA definition.  In 
addition, the Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial educational television 
stations to be 395.210  Notwithstanding, the Commission does not compile and otherwise does not have 
access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that would permit it to determine how many such 
stations would qualify as small entities.  There are also 2,367 low power television stations, including 
Class A stations (LPTV) and 3,750 TV translator stations.211  Given the nature of these services, we will 
presume that all of these entities qualify as small entities under the above SBA small business size 
standard.
We note, however, that in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as “small” under the above 
definition, business (control) affiliations212 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, another element of 
the definition of “small business” requires that an 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 
broadcast 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.  Also, as noted above, an additional element of the 
definition of “small business” is that the entity must be independently owned and operated.  The 
Commission notes that it is difficult at times to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and its 
estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive to this extent.
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.”213  The SBA has established a small business size 
standard for this category, which is:  such firms having $7 million or less in annual receipts.214  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.215  In addition, to be determined to be a “small business,” 
the entity may not be dominant in its field of operation.216  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 
210 Id.
211 Id.
212 “[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 the power to control both.” 13 CFR § 21.103(a)(1).
213  U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “515112 Radio Stations”; 
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND515112.HTM#N515112. 
214  13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 515112 (updated for inflation in 2010).
215  “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 CFR § 121.103(a)(1) (an SBA regulation).
216 13 CFR § 121.102(b) (an SBA regulation).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
153variety 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).  Neither the SBA nor the Commission has developed a size standard applicable to broadcast 
auxiliary licensees.  The closest applicable SBA category and small business size standard falls under 
Radio Stations and Television Broadcasting.217  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 2,849 radio 
station firms operated during that year.218  Of that number, 2,806 firms operated with annual receipts of 
less than $25 million per year, 17 with annual receipts between $25 million and $49,999,999 million, and 
26 with annual receipts of $50 million or more.219   For Television Broadcasting the SBA small business 
size standard is such businesses having $38.5 million or less in annual receipts.220  U.S. Census Bureau 
data show that 751 firms in this category operated in that year.221  Of that number, 656 had annual receipts 
of $25,000,000 or less, 25 had annual receipts between $25,000,000 and $49,999,999, and 70 had annual 
receipts of $50,000,000 or more.222  Accordingly, based on the U.S. Census Bureau data for Radio 
Stations and Television Broadcasting, the Commission estimates that the majority of Auxiliary, Special 
Broadcast and Other Program Distribution Services firms are small.
The Commission estimates that there are approximately 7,604 FM translators and boosters.223  The 
Commission does not collect financial information on broadcast facilities, 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 a 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. 224
Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS).  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 defined 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.225  These 
217 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS codes 515112 and 515120.  
218 U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series – Establishment and Firm Size: 
Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012 NAICS Code 515112, 
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~515112. 
219 Id.
220 13 CFR § 121.201; 2012 NAICS code 515120. 
221 U.S. Census Bureau, Table No. EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject Series - Establishment and Firm Size: 
Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012 (515120 Television Broadcasting). 
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~515120.
222 Id. 
223 See FCC News Release, “Broadcast Station Totals as of March 31, 2018,” dated April 9, 2018; 
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-350110A1.pdf.
224 See 15 U.S.C. § 632.
225 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 
(continued….)Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
154definitions were approved by the SBA.226  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.227  Eight of the ten winning bidders claimed small business status and won 144 of the licenses.  
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.228
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.  
Personal radio services include services operating in spectrum licensed under Part 95 of our rules.229  
These services include Citizen 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.230  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.  All such entities in 
this category are wireless, therefore we apply the definition of Wireless Telecommunications Carriers 
(except Satellite), pursuant to which the SBA’s small entity size standard is defined as those entities 
employing 1,500 or fewer persons.231  For this industry, U.S. Census data for 2012 show that there were 
967 firms that operated for the entire year.232  Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.233  Thus, under this category and the 
associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of firms can be considered small.  
We note, however, that many of the licensees in this category are individuals and not small entities.  In 
(Continued from previous page)  
Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the 12.2–12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite Licensees 
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, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report 
and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614, 9711, para. 252 (2002).  
226 See Letter from Hector V. Barreto, Administrator, U.S. Small Business Administration, to Margaret W. Wiener, 
Chief, Auctions and Industry Analysis Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Feb. 13, 2002).
227 See Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Spectrum Auction Closes; Winning Bidders Announced, 
Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 1834 (2004). 
228 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).
229 47 CFR pt. 95.
230 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 generally 47 CFR 
Part 95.
231 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 517312.
232 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject 
Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210 (Jan. 8, 2016).  
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210.
233 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 “1000 employees or more.”Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
155addition, 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 that may be affected by our actions in this proceeding.
Public Safety Radio Licensees.  As a general matter, Public Safety Radio Pool licensees include police, 
fire, local government, forestry conservation, highway maintenance, and emergency medical services.234  
Because of the vast array of public safety licensees, the Commission has not developed a small business 
size standard specifically applicable to public safety licensees.  The closest applicable SBA category is 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) which encompasses business entities engaged in 
radiotelephone communications.  The appropriate size standard for this category under SBA rules is that 
such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.235  For this industry, U.S. Census data for 
2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.236  Of this total, 955 firms had 
employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.237  Thus, 
under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of firms 
can be considered small.  With respect to local governments, in particular, since many governmental 
entities comprise the licensees for these services, we include under public safety services the number of 
government entities affected.  According to Commission records, there are a total of approximately 
133,870 licenses within these services.238  There are 3,121 licenses in the 4.9 GHz band, based on an FCC 
Universal Licensing System search of March 29, 2017.239  We estimate that fewer than 2,442 public safety 
radio licensees hold these licenses because certain entities may have multiple licenses.
IMTS Resale Carriers. Neither the SBA nor the Commission has developed a size standard specifically 
applicable to IMTS Resale Carriers.  Providers of IMTS resale services are common carriers that purchase 
IMTS from other carriers and resell it to their own customers.  The closest applicable SBA category and 
size standard is for Telecommunications Resellers.240  Under that size standard, such a business is small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees.241  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that 1,341 firms provided 
234 See subparts A and B of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR §§ 90.1-90.22.  Police licensees serve state, 
county, and municipal enforcement through telephony (voice), telegraphy (code), and teletype and facsimile (printed 
material).  Fire licensees are comprised of private volunteer or professional fire companies, as well as units under 
governmental control.  Public Safety Radio Pool licensees also include state, county, or municipal entities that use 
radio for official purposes.  State departments of conservation and private forest organizations comprise forestry 
service licensees that set up communications networks among fire lookout towers and ground crews.  State and local 
governments are highway maintenance licensees that provide emergency and routine communications to aid other 
public safety services to keep main roads safe for vehicular traffic.  Emergency medical licensees use these channels 
for emergency medical service communications related to the delivery of emergency medical treatment.  Additional 
licensees include medical services, rescue organizations, veterinarians, persons with disabilities, disaster relief 
organizations, school buses, beach patrols, establishments in isolated areas, communications standby facilities, and 
emergency repair of public communications facilities.
235 See 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517312.
236 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject 
Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210 (Jan. 8, 2016).  
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210.
237 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 “1000 employees or more.”
238 This figure was derived from Commission licensing records as of June 27, 2008.  Licensing numbers change on a 
daily basis.  We do not expect this number to be significantly smaller today.  This does not indicate the number of 
licensees, as licensees may hold multiple licenses.  There is no information currently available about the number of 
public safety licensees that have less than 1,500 employees.
239 Based on an FCC Universal Licensing System search of March 29, 2017.  Search parameters: Radio Service = PA 
– Public Safety 4940-4990 MHz Band; Authorization Type = Regular; Status = Active.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
156resale services during that year.242  Of that number, all operated with fewer than 1000 employees.243  
Thus, under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of IMTS resellers 
can be considered small entities.
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.  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.
Wireless Carriers and Service Providers.  Neither the SBA nor the Commission has developed a size 
standard specifically applicable to Wireless Carriers and Service Providers.  The closest applicable SBA 
category and size standard is for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), which is an 
entity employing no more than 1,500 persons.244  For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 
show that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.245  Of this total, 955 firms had 
employment of 999 or fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more.246  Thus 
under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of 
Wireless Carriers and Service Providers are small entities.  
According to internally developed Commission data for all classes of Wireless Service Providers, there 
are 970 carriers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless services.247 Of this total, an 
estimated 815 have 1,500 or fewer employees, and 155 have more than 1,500 employees.248  Thus, using 
available data, we estimate that the majority of Wireless Carriers and Service Providers can be considered 
small.
(Continued from previous page)  
240 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517911.
241 Id.
242 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table No. EC1251SSSZ5, Information: 
Subject Series - Estab & Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms: 2012 (517911 Telecommunications Resellers), 
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517911.  
243  Id.
244 13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS codes 517210.
245 U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject 
Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210.  
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210. 
246 Id.  Available census data does 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 “1000 employees or more.”
247 See Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, Industry Analysis and Technology 
Division, Trends in Telephone Service at Table 5.3 (Sept. 2010) (Trends in Telephone Service), 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-301823A1.pdf.
248 See id.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
157E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities
The amendments being made in this Second Report and 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.  
F. 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 developing 
its 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 and reporting 
requirements under the rule for such 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 such small entities.”249
Report to Congress:  The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order, including this 
FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.250  In addition, the 
Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy of the SBA.  A copy of the Second Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) 
will also be published in the Federal Register.251
249 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).
250 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).    
251 See 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
158APPENDIX E
List of Commenters to 
2013 RF Order and Further Notice1
COMMENTS
(1) American Radio Relay League (ARRL)
(2) B. Blake Levitt & Henry C. Lai (Levitt/Lai)
(3) Benjamin Walters on Behalf of City of Portland (Portland)
(4) Blooston, Mordkofsky, Dickens, Duffy & Prendergast for Part 90 licensees (Private Users)
(5) Cardiac Rhythm Management Device Committee of the AAMI (AAMI-CRMD)
(6) Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C. (CDE)
(7) Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)
(8) Consumers for Safe Cell Phones (CSCP)
(9) CTIA – The Wireless Association (CTIA)
(10) David Hubert (Hubert)
(11) EMF Safety Network
(12) Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition, Inc. (FWCC)
(13) Hammett & Edison (H&E)
(14) International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
(15) International Committee on Electromagnetic Safety of the IEEE (IEEE-ICES)
(16) James Edwin Whedbee (Whedbee)
(17) Mark Douglas on Behalf of IT’IS Foundation (IT’IS Foundation)
(18) Marv Wessel on Behalf of Global RF Solutions (Wessel)
(19) Medtronic, Inc. (Medtronic)
(20) Mobile Manufacturers Forum (MMF)
(21) Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Motorola)
(22) National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
(23) Nickolaus E. Leggett (Leggett)
(24) Nokia Corporation (Nokia)
(25) PCIA – The Wireless Infrastructure Association and The HetNet Forum (PCIA)
(26) RF Check, Inc. (RF Check)
(27) Richard A. Tell (Tell)
(28) Robert Johnson on Behalf of Narda-East (Narda)
(29) Site Safe, Inc. (SiteSafe)
(30) Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
(31) The EMRadiation Policy Institute (EMRPI)
(32) Utilities Telecom Council (UTC)
(33) Verizon and Verizon Wireless (Verizon)
(34) Wi-Fi Alliance
REPLY COMMENTS
(1) Alarm Industry Communications Committee (AICC)
(2) AT&T Services Inc. (AT&T)
(3) City of Boston, Massachusetts and City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Boston & Philadelphia)
1 Five-hundred sixty-four commenters responded to the request for comment in Notice of Inquiry that accompanied 
the Report and Order and Further Notice, the bulk of which were brief comments or submissions of redundantly 
filed studies, reports and other publications reviewed in the Inquiry.Federal Communications Commission FCC 19-126
159(4) CTIA – The Wireless Association (CTIA)
(5) Hammett & Edison (H&E)
(6) PCIA – The Wireless Infrastructure Association and The HetNet Forum (PCIA)
(7) Qualcomm Incorporated (Qualcomm)
(8) Site Safe, Inc. (SiteSafe)
(9) The EMRadiation Policy Institute (EMRPI)
(10) Utilities Telecom Council (UTC)
(11) Verizon and Verizon Wireless (Verizon)
(12) Wi-Fi Alliance
EX PARTE & LATE-FILED COMMENTS
(1) CTIA-The Wireless Association (CTIA)
(2) Hewlett-Packard Company (HP)
(3) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
(4) RF Check, Inc. (RF Check)
(5) Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
(6) Verizon and Verizon Wireless (Verizon)