47960 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Source of flooding and location

# Depth in

feet above

ground.

*Elevation

in feet

(NGVD)

———

Robeson (township), Berks

County (FEMA Docket No.

7122)

Allegheny Creek:

At the confluence with

Schuylkill River .................. *175

At downstream side of

Schuylkill Canal ................. *175

Seidel Creek:

At confluence with Schuylkill

River .................................. *173

Approximately 80 feet downstream of State Route 724 *173

Schuylkill River:

Approximately 3,300 feet upstream of State Route 82 .. *166

Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of confluence of

Trout Run ........................... *177

Maps available for inspection

at the Robeson Township

Municipal Building, Route

724, Birdsboro, Pennsylvania.

———

Spring (township), Berks

County (FEMA Docket No.

7172)

Tributary No. 2 to Lauers Run:

Approximately 1,550 feet upstream of Logan Avenue ... *291

Approximately 1,650 feet upstream of Logan Avenue ... *292

Maps available for inspection

at the Spring Township Municipal Building, 2800

Shillington Road, Sinking

Spring, Pennsylvania.

———

Tilden (township), Berks

County (FEMA Docket No.

7172)

Schuylkill River:

Approximately 1,000 feet

downstream of confluence

of Mill Creek No. 4 ............ *326

At upstream county boundary *433

Maps available for inspection

at the Tilden Township Office, 772 Hex Highway, Hamburg, Pennsylvania.

———

Berks (township), Berks

County (FEMA Docket No.

7172)

Sixpenny Creek:

At confluence with Schuylkill

River .................................. *157

Approximately 400 feet upstream of CONRAIL .......... *159

Schuylkill River:

At downstream county

boundary ............................ *148

Approximately 1,200 feet

downstream of confluence

of Hay Creek ..................... *161

Maps available for inspection

at the Union Township Municipal Building, 177 Center

Road, Douglassville, Pennsylvania.

Source of flooding and location

# Depth in

feet above

ground.

*Elevation

in feet

(NGVD)

———

Washington (township),

Berks County (FEMA

Docket No. 7172)

West Branch Perkiomen Creek:

At a point approximately 0.7

mile downstream of Airport

Road .................................. *589

At a point approximately 0.5

mile downstream of Airport

Road .................................. *592

Maps available for inspection

at the Washington Township

Municipal Building, 128 Barto

Road, Barto, Pennsylvania.

———

West Reading (borough),

Berks County (FEMA

Docket No. 7172)

Schuylkill River:

Approximately 1,550 feet

downstream of Penn Avenue ..................................... *209

Approximately 1,200 feet upstream of Buttonwood

Street ................................. *212

Wyomissing Creek:

Approximately 150 feet upstream of CONRAIL .......... *208

Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of Museum Road ... *223

Maps available for inspection

at the West Reading Borough

Hall, 500 Chestnut Street,

West Reading, Pennsylvania.

———

Windsor (township), Berks

County (FEMA Docket No.

7172)

Schuylkill River:

Approximately 3,900 feet

downstream of confluence

of Kaercher Creek ............. * 338

Approximately 3,550 feet upstream of Kernsville Dam .. * 392

Maiden Creek:

Approximately 1 mile upstream of State Route 143 * 334

At Township Route 745 ........ * 345

Maps available for inspection

at the Windsor Township

Building, 862 Haas Road,

Hamburg, Pennsylvania.

———

Womelsdorf (borough),

Berks County (FEMA

Docket No. 7195)

Tulpehocken Creek:

Approximately 150 feet

downstream of U.S. 422

bridge ................................. * 359

Approximately 1,500 feet upstream of U.S. 422 bridge * 361

Maps available for inspection

at the Womelsdorf Borough

Hall, 101 West High Street,

Womelsdorf, Pennsylvania.

VIRGINIA

Pulaski County (unincorporated Areas) (FEMA

Docket No. 7211)

Claytor Lake/New River:

Source of flooding and location

# Depth in

feet above

ground.

*Elevation

in feet

(NGVD)

At downstream county

boundary ............................ * 1,666

Approximately 6.8 miles upstream of confluence of

Sloan Branch ..................... * 1,868

Little River:

At confluence with New River * 1,759

At upstream county boundary * 1,836

Peak Creek: * 1,836

Approximately 0.6 mile downstream of the confluence of

Thorne Springs Branch ..... * 1,865

At Town of Pulaski upstream

corporate limit .................... * 1,887

Maps available for inspection

at the Pulaski County Administration Building, 143 Third

Street NW, Suite 1, Pulaski,

Virginia.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No.

83.100, ‘‘Flood Insurance.’’)

Dated: September 4, 1997.

Michael J. Armstrong,

Associate Director for Mitigation.

[FR Doc. 97–24208 Filed 9–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6718–04–P

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 26 and 97

[ET Docket No. 93–62; FCC 97–303]

Guidelines for Evaluating the

Environmental Effects of

Radiofrequency Radiation

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This Second Memorandum

Opinion and Order amends the

Commission’s rules to refine and clarify

the decisions adopted in the Report and

Order, regarding the use of new

guidelines and methods in the

evaluation of the environmental effects

of RF electromagnetic fields or

emissions produced by FCC-regulated

transmitters. The Commission believes

its decisions provide a proper balance

between the need to protect the public

and workers from exposure to

potentially harmful RF electromagnetic

fields and the requirement that industry

be allowed to provide

telecommunications services to the

public in the most efficient and

practical manner possible.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert F. Cleveland, Office of

Engineering and Technology, Federal
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 47961

Communications Commission, (202)

418–2464.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Second

Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET

Docket 93–62, FCC 97–303, adopted

August 25, 1997, and released August

25, 1997. The full text of this

Commission decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C., and also may be

purchased from the Commission’s

duplication contractor, International

Transcription Service, (202) 857–3800,

2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140,

Washington, D.C. 20037.

Summary of the Memorandum Opinion

and Order

1. In this Second Memorandum

Opinion and Order, we are amending

our rules to refine and clarify the

decisions adopted August 1, 1996, in

the Report and Order, 61 FR 41006,

August 7, 1996, regarding the use of

new guidelines and methods in the

evaluation of the environmental effects

of RF electromagnetic fields or

emissions produced by FCC-regulated

transmitters. This Second Memorandum

Opinion and Order responds to

petitions for reconsideration and/or

clarification filed in this proceeding. In

reaching our decisions, we have

considered carefully the petitions and

comments that were received in this

proceeding. We believe our decisions

provide a proper balance between the

need to protect the public and workers

from exposure to potentially harmful RF

electromagnetic fields and the

requirement that industry be allowed to

provide telecommunications services to

the public in the most efficient and

practical manner possible. Specifically,

we are: (1) Affirming the RF exposure

limits that were previously adopted; (2)

modifying in a few areas our policy that

categorically excludes certain

transmitters from routine environmental

evaluation; and (3) revising and

clarifying our guidelines regarding RF

emissions involving multiple

transmitter facilities. We are also

adopting a number of minor changes

and clarifications.

2. In the Report and Order, the

Commission adopted limits for

Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)

and localized, partial-body exposure of

humans based on criteria published by

the National Council on Radiation

Protection and Measurements (NCRP)

and by the American National

Standards Institute/Institute of

Electrical and Electronics Engineers,

Inc. (ANSI/IEEE). The Report and Order

also modified the Commission’s policy

on categorical exclusions that exempts

many radio services and transmitters

from routine environmental evaluation

for RF exposure. In accordance with

Section 704 of the Telecommunications

Act of 1996, the Report and Order

followed Congressional direction with

respect to completion of the docket in

this proceeding. The new rules became

effective immediately; however, a

transition period (originally to January

1, 1997) was provided for

implementation of the new

requirements for transmitters other than

portable and mobile devices.

3. A First Memorandum Opinion and

Order, adopted on December 23, 1996,

62 FR 3232, January 22, 1997, addressed

comments in those petitions requesting

extension of the transition provisions of

the Report and Order and extended the

transition period to September 1, 1997

(January 1, 1998 for amateur stations).

This Second Memorandum Opinion and

Order addresses the other issues raised

in the petitions, including whether we

should: (1) Reconsider the RF exposure

limits originally adopted; (2) reconsider

our policy on categorical exclusion of

certain transmitters from routine

evaluation for compliance with our

guidelines; (3) modify our policy with

respect to evaluation of RF exposure at

multiple transmitter sites; (4) revise our

policy with respect to routine

evaluation for SMR transmitters; and (5)

broaden our authority to preempt state

and local regulations concerning RF

exposure.

4. Some petitioners ask that we

reconsider our previous decision not to

adopt ANSI/IEEE C95.1–1992 in its

entirety. Several other petitioners claim

that the limits we adopted were not

protective enough. The staff believes

that no new and compelling

justifications have been provided that

would warrant a modification of the

limits adopted in the Report and Order.

Those limits were crafted to address

concerns about ANSI/IEEE C95.1–1992

that had been raised by several agencies

of the Federal Government with

responsibility for health and safety.

Furthermore, all of these agencies have

written letters to the Commission

supporting our new guidelines. We

believe that the limits adopted in the

Report and Order provide a proper

balance between the need to protect the

public and workers from exposure to

excessive RF electromagnetic fields and

the need to allow communications

services to readily address growing

marketplace demands.

5. The Commission’s environmental

rules identify particular categories of

existing or proposed transmitters or

facilities for which licensees and

applicants are required to conduct

routine environmental evaluations to

determine whether these transmitters or

facilities comply with our RF

guidelines. Other transmitting facilities

are categorically excluded from these

rules because we have judged them to

offer little potential for causing

exposures in excess of the applicable

guidelines. In the Report and Order, we

revised our rules related to this policy

of categorical exclusion based on our

own calculations and analyses of the

implications of the new limits, along

with information and data acquired

during the proceeding. Whereas

previously we had categorically

excluded entire service categories, such

as paging and cellular transmitters, the

Report and Order concluded that some

transmitting facilities, regardless of

service, may offer the potential for

causing exposures in excess of MPE

limits.

6. Several petitioners ask that we

return to our earlier policy of categorical

exclusion for entire services. However,

these petitioners present no new

evidence that would lead us to change

our basic premise for categorical

exclusion. We continue to believe that

it is desirable and appropriate to

categorically exclude from routine

environmental evaluation only those

transmitting facilities that offer little or

no potential for exposure in excess of

our limits. However, some transmitting

facilities, regardless of service, offer the

potential for causing exposures in

excess of MPE limits because of such

factors as their relatively high operating

power, location or relative accessibility,

and these facilities should not be

categorically excluded from routine

evaluation.

7. Except in a few limited areas, we

do not believe it is appropriate to

modify the categorical exclusion

policies adopted in the Report and

Order. We are modifying our policy

related to unlicensed millimeter-wave

devices that do not meet the definition

of a portable device and unlicensed and

licensed PCS and other mobile devices

operating above 1.5 GHz. Secondly, we

are revising the 50-watt threshold for

routine evaluation of amateur radio

stations so that it reflects the manner in

which the RF exposure limits change in

the different amateur frequency bands.

We are also revising categorical

exclusions currently based on the height

of the antenna radiation center above

ground so that they are based on the

height of the lowest portion of the

antenna above ground. In addition to

these areas, we are revising our policy
47962 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

on categorical exclusions for SMR

transmitters so that all SMR operations

are covered, and we are changing our

definition of ‘‘rooftop’’ so that antennas

that are mounted on the sides of

buildings or otherwise don’t fit the

previous definition will be considered,

if appropriate.

8. Several petitioners argue that our

policy regarding evaluation at sites with

multiple FCC-regulated transmitters is

overly burdensome. Our rules state that

when the RF exposure limits are

exceeded in an accessible area due to

the RF fields of multiple fixed

transmitters, actions necessary to bring

the area into compliance are the shared

responsibility of all licensees whose

transmitters produce power densities in

excess of 1% of the exposure limit

applicable to their transmitter. After

considering the various arguments, we

conclude that the 1% level should be

changed. We concur that a 1% level is

difficult to measure or calculate. We

believe that a 5% threshold represents

a more reasonable and supportable

compromise, by offering relief to

relatively low-powered site occupants

who do not contribute significantly to

areas of non-compliance and, at the

same time, by providing for the

appropriate allocation of responsibility

among major site emitters.

9. Some petitioners request that the

Commission broaden its preemptive

authority beyond the category of

‘‘personal wireless services’’ authorized

in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Based upon the current record in this

proceeding, we find that there is

insufficient evidence at this time to

warrant our preempting state and local

actions that are based on concerns over

RF emissions for services other than

those defined by Congress as ‘‘personal

wireless services.’’ However, additional

issues concerning preemption of state

and local regulations involving

advanced television facilities have been

raised in a Petition for Further

Rulemaking filed by the National

Association of Broadcasters which will

be considered in a separate proceeding.

10. Several additional petitions were

received in response to our earlier First

Memorandum Opinion and Order

extending the transition period for fixed

stations and transmitters. Some

petitioners request that we end the

transition period immediately because

of the potential for large scale exposure

of the public to harmful RF emissions.

Others argue that additional time is

needed to consider the Commission’s

response to earlier petitions relating to

OET Bulletin 65 on RF compliance. This

bulletin will be released simultaneously

with this Order. In order to provide

applicants and licensees with sufficient

time to review the final version of the

bulletin, we will extend the initial

transition period to October 15, 1997.

The transition period for the Amateur

Radio Service, only, will remain the

same, and will end on January 1, 1998.

11. Finally, we are revising our rules

to require that existing sites and

transmitters come into compliance with

the new guidelines as of a date certain.

Accordingly, we will require all existing

facilities, operations and devices to

comply with the new FCC RF guidelines

no later than September 1, 2000.

Revised Final Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis

Second Memorandum Opinion and

Order

12. As required by section 603 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C.

§ 603 (RFA), an Initial Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was

incorporated in the Notice of Proposed

Rule Making (NPRM) in ET Docket 93–

62. The Commission sought written

public comments on the proposals in

the NPRM, including on the IRFA. In

the Report and Order in this proceeding,

the Commission adopted a Final

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA).

Petitions for reconsideration were filed

in response to the Report and Order by

seventeen parties. Several technical and

legal issues have been raised in the

petitions and subsequent comments. In

addition, several petitions have raised

questions about the original FRFA. The

First Memorandum Opinion and Order

in this proceeding, and the associated

FRFA, addressed those petitions and

comments requesting extension of the

transition period specified in the Report

and Order as well as the comments that

were made on the original FRFA

contained in the Report and Order. This

Second Memorandum Opinion and

Order, including this FRFA, addresses

the other issues raised in the petitions.

The FRFA conforms to the RFA, as

amended by the Contract With America

Advancement Act of 1996 (CWAAA),

Public Law 104–121, 110 Stat. 847

(1996).

I. Need for and Purpose of This Action

13. The National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires

agencies of the Federal Government to

evaluate the effects of their actions on

the quality of the human environment.

To meet its responsibilities under

NEPA, the Commission has adopted

revised radiofrequency (RF) exposure

guidelines for purposes of evaluating

potential environmental effects of RF

electromagnetic fields produced by

FCC-regulated facilities. The new

guidelines reflect more recent scientific

studies of the biological effects of RF

electromagnetic fields. Use of these new

guidelines will ensure that the public

and workers receive adequate protection

from exposure to potentially harmful RF

electromagnetic fields. This Second

Memorandum Opinion and Order

addresses a number of concerns that

were raised in petitions and comments

received in response to the Report and

Order.

II. Summary of Issues Raised by the

Public Comments in Response to the

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IFRA)

14. No comments were filed in direct

response to the IRFA. In general

comments on the NPRM, however, some

commenters raised issues that might

affect small entities. These issues were

discussed in the FRFA contained in the

Report and Order in this proceeding.

III. Summary of Issues Raised

Regarding the Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) by the

Petitions, Motions, and Comments in

Response to the Report and Order

15. The American Radio Relay

League, Inc., Paging Network, Inc., and

the Personal Communications Industry

Association raised concerns in their

petitions, motions and comments

regarding the FRFA that was associated

with the Report and Order. Those

concerns were addressed in the revised

FRFA contained in the First

Memorandum Opinion and Order in

this proceeding.

IV. Description and Estimate of the

Small Entities Subject to the Rules

16. The rules being adopted in this

Second Memorandum Opinion and

Order apply to twelve industry

categories and services. All but one of

these industry categories and services

was described in the FRFA

accompanying the First Memorandum

Opinion and Order in this proceeding.

The RFA generally defines the term

‘‘small business’’ as having the same

meaning as the term ‘‘small business

concern’’ under the Small Business Act,

15 U.S.C. § 632. Based on that statutory

provision, we will consider a small

business concern 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 Small Business

Administration (SBA). The RFA

SBREFA provisions also apply to

nonprofit organizations and to

governmental organizations. Since the

Regulatory Flexibility Act amendments
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 47963

were not in effect until the record in this

proceeding was closed, the Commission

was unable to request information

regarding the number of small

businesses within each of these services

or the number of small businesses that

would be affected by this action. We

have, however, made estimates based on

our knowledge about applications that

have been submitted in the past. To the

extent that a government entity may be

a licensee or an applicant, the impact on

those entities is included in the

estimates for small businesses below.

17. Under the new rules adopted in

the Report and Order and in this Second

Memorandum Opinion and Order, many

radio services are categorically excluded

from having to determine compliance

with the new RF exposure limits. This

exclusion is based on a determination

that there is little potential for these

services causing exposures in excess of

the limits. Within the following services

that are not categorically excluded in

their entirety, many transmitting

facilities are categorically excluded

based on antenna location and power.

These categorical exclusions

significantly reduce the burden

associated with these rules, and may

reduce the impact of these rules on

small businesses. Furthermore, the

extension of the transition periods

contained in the First Memorandum

Opinion and Order will reduce the

impact on applicants, particularly small

businesses, by allowing them adequate

time to understand the new

requirements and ensure that their

facilities are in compliance with them in

a orderly and reasonable manner.

18. As noted above, descriptions and

estimates of all of the categories and

services for small entities subject to our

rules, except one, were previously given

in the FRFRA that accompanied the

First Memorandum Opinion and Order.

Therefore, that document should be

consulted for this information.

Information on the one additional

category not included in the earlier

FRFA, radiofrequency devices, is given

below. Minor edits were also made in

the section of the previous FRFA for

satellite communications services, and

the revised section is also given below.

A. Satellite Communications Services

19. The Commission has not

developed a definition of small entities

applicable to satellite communications

licensees. Therefore, the applicable

definition of small entity is the

definition under the Small Business

Administration (SBA) rules applicable

to Communications Services, Not

Elsewhere Classified. This definition

provides that a small entity is expressed

as one with $11.0 million or less in

annual receipts.

20. Because the Regulatory Flexibility

Act amendments were not in effect until

the comment period for this proceeding

was closed, the Commission was unable

to request information regarding the

number of licensees in the international

services discussed below that meet this

definition of a small business. Thus, we

are providing an estimate of licensees

that constitute a small business.

21. Fixed Satellite Earth Stations.

Fixed satellite earth stations include

international and domestic earth

stations operating in the 4/6 GHZ, 11/12/

14 GHZ and 20/30 GHZ bands. There are

approximately 4200 earth station

authorizations, a portion of which are

Fixed Satellite Earth Stations. Although

we were unable to request the revenue

information, we estimate that some of

the licensees of these earth stations

would constitute a small business under

the SBA definition.

22. Fixed Satellite Small Earth

Stations. Small transmit/receive earth

stations operate in the 4/6 GHZ

frequency bands with antennas that are

two meters or less in diameter. There

are 4200 earth station authorizations, a

portion of which are Fixed Satellite

Small Earth Stations. Although we were

unable to request the revenue

information, we estimate that some of

the fixed satellite small earth stations

would constitute a small business under

the SBA definition.

23. Fixed Satellite Very Small

Aperture Terminal (VSAT) Systems.

VSAT systems operate in the 12/14 GHZ

frequency bands. Although various size

small aperture antenna earth-stations

may be used, all stations of a particular

size must be technically identical.

Because these stations operate on a

primary basis, 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. The Commission has

processed 377 applications for fixed

satellite VSAT systems. At this time, we

are unable to make a precise estimate of

the number of small businesses that are

VSAT system licensees and could be

impacted by this action.

24. Mobile Satellite Earth Stations.

Mobile satellite earth stations are

intended to be used while in motion or

during halts at unspecified points.

These stations operate as part of a

network that includes a fixed hub

station or stations. The network may

provide a variety of land, maritime and

aeronautical voice and data services.

There are 8 mobile satellite licensees. At

this time, we are unable to make a

precise estimate of the number of small

businesses that are mobile satellite earth

station licensees and could be impacted

by this action.

25. Radio Determination Satellite

Earth Stations. A radio determination

satellite earth station is used in

conjunction with a radio determination

satellite service (rdss) system for the

purpose of providing position location

information. These stations operate as

part of a network that includes a fixed

hub station or stations and operate in

the frequency bands (1610–1626.5 MHZ

and 2483.5–2500 MHZ) allocated to

rdss. At this time, we are unable to

make a precise estimate of the number

of small businesses that are radio

determination satellite earth station

licensees and could be impacted by the

forfeiture guidelines.

26. It should be noted that in most of

the satellite areas discussed above, the

Commission issues one license to an

entity but generally issues blanket

license authority for thousands or even

hundreds of thousands of earth stations

or hand held transceivers. Overall, the

Commission receives about 600

applications for satellite facilities per

year. All applicants for satellite earth

stations (except for receive-only

stations) must make a determination of

compliance with the RF exposure limits,

based on calculations or measurements.

B. Radiofrequency Devices

27. The radiofrequency devices

affected by this rulemaking are low

power, unlicensed transmitters that will

be used to provide, on millimeter wave

frequencies, a variety of services,

including vehicle collision avoidance

and high data rate/short range wireless

data communications. Unlicensed

personal communications service (PCS)

transmitters are also radiofrequency

devices. Radiofrequency devices are

subject to compliance with the new RF

radiation requirements at the time of

equipment authorization. Therefore, it

will be the equipment manufacturers

and importers who will be affected by

this action.

28. We expect most of the firms that

would be interested in producing

millimeter wave and unlicensed PCS

devices will be large businesses. We

note that Ford Motor and Hewlett

Packard have expressed interest in

millimeter wave devices and filed

comments in this proceeding. In

addition, Motorola and Ericsson, both

large equipment manufacturers, have

expressed interest in manufacturing

unlicensed PCS devices. Nevertheless, it

is conceivable that small businesses will

also want to manufacture these devices.
47964 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

29. The Commission has not

developed a definition of small entities

applicable to radiofrequency devices.

Therefore, the applicable definition of

small entity is the definition under the

SBA applicable to the ‘‘Communications

Services, Not Elsewhere’’ category. A

small millimeter wave device or

unlicensed PCS entity under this

definition is one with less than $11.0

million in annual receipts.

30. The Commission has not yet

authorized any millimeter wave devices,

and has authorized fewer than fifteen

unlicensed PCS devices. Both these

services are new, so we really don’t

know how many applications for

equipment authorization we may

receive, nor how many small

manufacturers may be interested in

producing these products. Since the

Regulatory Flexibility Act amendments

were not in effect until the record in this

proceeding was closed, the Commission

was unable to request information

regarding the number of small

businesses in this category. The Census

Bureau estimates indicate that of the

848 firms in the ‘‘Communications

Services, Not Elsewhere’’ category, 775

are small businesses. Based on this

information, as well as our past

experience in granting equipment

authorization for other types of

radiofrequency devices, we estimate

that 50 percent of the applications for

millimeter wave and unlicensed PCS

devices will be from small businesses.

31. The Commission anticipates that

approximately 30 applications will be

filed annually for devices that operate in

the millimeter band and unlicensed PCS

spectrum. An initial determination of

compliance with our new RF guidelines

will be required for: (1) Applications for

unlicensed PCS devices that do not

meet our definition for a portable device

contained in 47 CFR § 2.1093(b) and

that operate with 1.5 watts effective

radiated power (ERP) or more; (2)

applications for portable unlicensed

PCS devices; (3) applications for

unlicensed millimeter wave devices that

do not meet our definition for a portable

device and that operate with 3 watts

ERP or more; and (4) applications for

portable unlicensed millimeter wave

devices. We anticipate that 20 of the 30

applications filed will meet these

requirements and need to undergo an

initial determination of compliance. Of

these devices, ten will require specific

absorption rate (SAR) modeling or

measurement, which adds cost to the

authorization process.

V. Summary of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance

Requirements

32. No new reporting, recordkeeping,

or other compliance requirements are

contained in this Second Memorandum

Opinion and Order.

VI. Steps Taken to Minimize the

Economic Impact on Small Entities

33. We have made every effort to

devise ways to minimize the impact of

the new RF exposure requirements on

small entities, while protecting the

health and safety of the public. We have

incorporated substantial flexibility in

the procedures to make compliance as

minimally burdensome as possible.

In particular, we took the following

steps in the Report and Order to ease

the impact on small businesses:

a. We created categorical exclusions

that require only those transmitters that

appear to have the highest potential to

create a significant environmental effect

to perform an environmental evaluation.

b. We indicated that we would revise

OST Bulletin No. 65 in the near future

to provide guidance for determining

compliance with FCC-specified RF

limits. This should be of particular

assistance to small businesses since it

will provide straightforward

information that should allow a quick

understanding of the requirements and

a quick assessment of the potential for

compliance problems without the need

for an expensive consultant or

measurement.

c. We allowed various methods for

ensuring compliance with RF limits

such as fencing, warning signs, labels,

and markings, locked doors in roof-top

areas, and the use of personal monitors

and RF protective clothing in an

occupational environment.

d. We rejected our initial proposal to

adopt induced and contact currents

limits due to the lack of reliable

equipment available.

e. We specified a variety of acceptable

testing methods and procedures that

may be used to determine compliance.

This will allow each small business to

choose a procedure that best meets its

needs in the manner that is least

burdensome to it.

f. We have always allowed multiple

transmitter sites, i.e., antenna farms, to

pool their resources and have only one

study done for the entire site. This is

very common at sites that have multiple

entities such as TV, FM, paging,

cellular, etc. In most circumstances,

rather than each licensee hiring a

separate consultant and submitting a

study showing their compliance with

the guidelines, one consulting radio

technician or radio engineer can be

hired by the group of licensees. The

consultant surveys the entire site for

compliance and gives his

recommendations and findings to each

of the licensees at the site. The licensees

can then use the findings to show their

compliance with the guidelines. In this

way the cost of compliance is

minimized as no one licensee has to pay

the entire consulting fee, rather just a

portion of it.

34. In this First Memorandum

Opinion and Order, we took the

following additional steps to reduce the

burden on small businesses and

organizations:

a. We extended the transition period

for station applicants to come into

compliance with the new requirements.

This will give licensees, and applicants

for new stations many of which may be

small businesses, more time to learn the

nature of the new requirements, make

studies to determine whether they

comply, and take steps to come into

compliance if necessary.

b. We decided to permit the required

changes in the ARS examinations to be

made as the examinations are being

routinely revised. This ensures that a

minimal burden is put on the small

organizations acting as VECs.

35. In this Second Memorandum

Opinion and Order, we have taken these

additional steps to reduce the burden on

small businesses and organizations:

a. We categorically excluded from

routine environmental evaluation

certain non-portable, unlicensed

millimeter wave and PCS devices. This

eliminates the need for these devices to

undergo detailed evaluation before the

devices undergo equipment

authorization.

b. We increased the responsibility

threshold, above which licensees at

multiple transmitter locations must

share responsibility for addressing RF

exposure non-compliance problems,

from 1% to 5%. We believe that a 5%

responsibility threshold will offer relief

to relatively low-powered site occupants

who do not contribute significantly to

the non-compliance and, at the same

time, provide for the appropriate

allocation of responsibility among major

site emitters. Similarly, we are raising

the filing thresholds, above which

applicants must file an EA if emissions

from the applicant’s transmitter or

facility would result in a field strength

or power density in excess of our limits,

from 1% to 5%. Report to Congress: The

Commission shall send a copy of this

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,

along with this Report and Order, in a

report to Congress pursuant to the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 47965

Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C.

§ 801(a)(1)(A). A copy of this FRFA will

also be published in the Federal

Register.

(c) Before causing or allowing an

amateur station to transmit from any

place where the operation of the station

could cause human exposure to RF

electromagnetic field levels in excess of

those allowed under § 1.1310 of this

chapter, the licensee is required to take

certain actions.

(1) The licensee must perform the

routine RF environmental evaluation

prescribed by § 1.1307(b) of this chapter,

if the transmitter PEP exceeds the

following limits:

List of Subjects

47 CFR Part 1

Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

47 CFR Part 2

Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

47 CFR Part 26

Radio.

47 CFR Part 97

Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Rule Changes

Title 47 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, parts 1, 2, 26 and 97, are

amended as follows:

PART 1—PRACTICE AND

PROCEDURE

1. The authority citation for part 1

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 303 and

309(j), unless otherwise noted, and Section

704 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

2. Section 1.1307 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(3)

and (b)(4) introductory text and by

adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as

follows:

§ 1.1307 Actions that may have a

significant environmental effect, for which

Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be

prepared.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) The appropriate exposure limits in

§ 1.1310 and § 2.1093 of this chapter are

generally applicable to all facilities,

operations and transmitters regulated by

the Commission. However, a

determination of compliance with the

exposure limits in § 1.1310 or § 2.1093

of this chapter (routine environmental

evaluation), and preparation of an EA if

the limits are exceeded, is necessary

only for facilities, operations and

transmitters that fall into the categories

listed in table 1, or those specified in

paragraph (b)(2) of this section. All

other facilities, operations and

transmitters are categorically excluded

from making such studies or preparing

an EA, except as indicated in

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.

For purposes of table 1, ‘‘buildingmounted antennas’’ means antennas

mounted in or on a building structure

that is occupied as a workplace or

residence. The term ‘‘power’’ in column

2 of table 1 refers to total operating

power of the transmitting operation in

question in terms of effective radiated

power (ERP), equivalent isotropically

radiated power (EIRP), or peak envelope

power (PEP), as defined in § 2.1 of this

chapter. For the case of the Cellular

Radiotelephone Service, subpart H of

part 22 of this chapter; the Personal

Communications Service, part 24 of this

chapter and the Specialized Mobile

Radio Service, part 90 of this chapter,

the phrase ‘‘total power of all channels’’

in column 2 of table 1 means the sum

of the ERP or EIRP of all co-located

simultaneously operating transmitters

owned and operated by a single

licensee. When applying the criteria of

table 1, radiation in all directions

should be considered. For the case of

transmitting facilities using sectorized

transmitting antennas, applicants and

licensees should apply the criteria to all

transmitting channels in a given sector,

noting that for a highly directional

antenna there is relatively little

contribution to ERP or EIRP summation

for other directions.

TABLE 1.—TRANSMITTERS, FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS SUBJECT TO ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

Service (title 47 CFR rule part) Evaluation required if

Experimental Radio Services (part 5) ................. Power > 100 W ERP (164 W EIRP).

Multipoint Distribution Service (subpart K of part

21).

Non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m

and power > 1640 W EIRP.

Building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W EIRP.

Paging and Radiotelephone Service (subpart E

of part 22).

Non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m

and power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).

Building-mounted antennas: power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).

Cellular Radiotelephone Service (subpart H of

part 22).

Non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m

and total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).

Building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).

Personal Communications Services (part 24) .... (1) Narrowband PCS (subpart D): non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level

to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W

EIRP).

Building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).

(2) Broadband PCS (subpart E): non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to

lowest point of antenna < 10 m and total power of all channels > 2000 W ERP (3280 W

EIRP).

Building-mounted antennas: total power of all channels > 2000 W ERP (3280 W EIRP).

Satellite Communications (part 25) .................... All included.

General Wireless Communications Service (part

26).

Total power of all channels > 1640 W EIRP.

Wireless Communications Service (part 27) ...... Total power of all channels > 1640 W EIRP.

Radio Broadcast Services (part 73) ................... All included.

Experimental, auxiliary, and special broadcast

and other program distributional services (part

74).

Subparts A, G, L: power > 100 W ERP.

Subpart I: non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m and power > 1640 W EIRP.

Building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W EIRP.

Stations in the Maritime Services (part 80) ........ Ship earth stations only.
47966 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.—TRANSMITTERS, FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS SUBJECT TO ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION—Continued

Service (title 47 CFR rule part) Evaluation required if

Private Land Mobile Radio Services Paging Operations (part 90).Non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m

and power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).

Building-mounted antennas: power > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).

Private Land Mobile Radio Services Specialized

Mobile Radio (part 90).

Non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m

and total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).

Building-mounted antennas:

Total power of all channels > 1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).

Amateur Radio Service (part 97) ........................ Transmitter output power > levels specified in § 97.13(c)(1) of this chapter.

Local Multipoint Distribution Service (subpart L

of part 101).

Non-building-mounted antennas: height above ground level to lowest point of antenna < 10 m

and power > 1640 W EIRP.

Building-mounted antennas: power > 1640 W EIRP.

LMDS licensees are required to attach a label to subscriber transceiver antennas that:

(1) provides adequate notice regarding potential radiofrequency safety hazards, e.g., information regarding the safe minimum separation distance required between users and transceiver antennas; and

(2) references the applicable FCC-adopted limits for radiofrequency exposure specified in

§ 1.1310 of this chapter.

(2) Mobile and portable transmitting

devices that operate in the Cellular

Radiotelephone Service, the Personal

Communications Services (PCS), the

Satellite Communications Services, the

General Wireless Communications

Service, the Wireless Communications

Service, the Maritime Services (ship

earth stations only) and the Specialized

Mobile Radio Service authorized under

subpart H of parts 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 80,

and 90 of this chapter are subject to

routine environmental evaluation for RF

exposure prior to equipment

authorization or use, as specified in

§§ 2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter.

Unlicensed PCS, unlicensed NII and

millimeter wave devices are also subject

to routine environmental evaluation for

RF exposure prior to equipment

authorization or use, as specified in

§§ 15.253(f), 15.255(g), and 15.319(i)

and 15.407(f) of this chapter. All other

mobile, portable, and unlicensed

transmitting devices are categorically

excluded from routine environmental

evaluation for RF exposure under

§§ 2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter

except as specified in paragraphs (c) and

(d) of this section.

(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. Owners of transmitter sites

are expected to allow applicants and

licensees to take reasonable steps to

comply with the requirements

contained in § 1.1307(b) and, where

feasible, should encourage co-location

of transmitters and common solutions

for controlling access to areas where the

RF exposure limits contained in

§ 1.1310 might be exceeded.

(i) Applicants for proposed (not

otherwise excluded) transmitters,

facilities or modifications that would

cause non-compliance with the limits

specified in § 1.1310 at an accessible

area previously in compliance must

submit an EA if emissions from the

applicant’s transmitter or facility would

result, at the area in question, in a

power density that exceeds 5% of the

power density exposure limit applicable

to that transmitter or facility or in a field

strength that, when squared, exceeds

5% of the square of the electric or

magnetic field strength limit applicable

to that transmitter or facility.

(ii) Renewal applicants whose (not

otherwise excluded) transmitters or

facilities contribute to the field strength

or power density at an accessible area

not in compliance with the limits

specified in § 1.1310 must submit an EA

if emissions from the applicant’s

transmitter or facility results, at the area

in question, in a power density that

exceeds 5% of the power density

exposure limit applicable to that

transmitter or facility or in a field

strength that, when squared, exceeds

5% of the square of the electric or

magnetic field strength limit applicable

to that transmitter of facility.

(4) Transition Provisions. For

applications filed with the Commission

prior to October 15, 1997, (or January 1,

1998, for the Amateur Radio Service

only), Commission actions granting

construction permits, licenses to

transmit or renewals thereof, equipment

authorizations, or modifications in

existing facilities require the

preparation of an Environmental

Assessment if the particular facility,

operation or transmitter would cause

human exposure to levels of

radiofrequency radiation that are in

excess of the requirements contained in

paragraphs (b)(4)(i) through (b)(4)(iii) of

this section. These transition provisions

do not apply to applications for

equipment authorization or use of

mobile, portable and unlicensed devices

specified in paragraph (b)(2) of this

section.

* * * * *

(5) Existing transmitting facilities,

devices and operations: All existing

transmitting facilities, operations and

devices regulated by the Commission

must be in compliance with the

requirements of paragraphs (b)(1)

through (b)(3) of this section by

September 1, 2000, or, if not in

compliance, file an Environmental

Assessment as specified in § 1.1311.

* * * * *

PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS

AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 2

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Sec. 4, 302, 303 and 307 of the

Communications Act of 1934, as amended,

47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303 and 307,

unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 2.1091 is amended by

revising the section heading, paragraphs

(b), (c) and (d)(3) and adding new

paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:

§ 2.1091 Radiofrequency radiation

exposure evaluation: mobile devices.

* * * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 47967

(b) For purposes of this section, a

mobile device is defined as a

transmitting device designed to be used

in other than fixed locations and to

generally be used in such a way that a

separation distance of at least 20

centimeters is normally maintained

between the transmitter’s radiating

structure(s) and the body of the user or

nearby persons. In this context, the term

‘‘fixed location’’ means that the device

is physically secured at one location

and is not able to be easily moved to

another location. Transmitting devices

designed to be used by consumers or

workers that can be easily re-located,

such as wireless devices associated with

a personal computer, are considered to

be mobile devices if they meet the 20

centimeter separation requirement.

(c) Mobile devices that operate in the

Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the

Personal Communications Services, the

Satellite Communications Services, the

General Wireless Communications

Service, the Wireless Communications

Service, the Maritime Services and the

Specialized Mobile Radio Service

authorized under subpart H of part 22

of this chapter, part 24 of this chapter,

part 25 of this chapter, part 26 of this

chapter, part 27 of this chapter, part 80

of this chapter (ship earth stations

devices only) and part 90 of this chapter

are subject to routine environmental

evaluation for RF exposure prior to

equipment authorization or use if they

operate at frequencies of 1.5 GHz or

below and their effective radiated power

(ERP) is 1.5 watts or more, or if they

operate at frequencies above 1.5 GHz

and their ERP is 3 watts or more.

Unlicensed personal communications

service devices, unlicensed millimeter

wave devices and unlicensed NII

devices authorized under § 15.253,

§ 15.255, and subparts D and E of part

15 of this chapter are also subject to

routine environmental evaluation for RF

exposure prior to equipment

authorization or use if their ERP is 3

watts or more or if they meet the

definition of a portable device as

specified in § 2.1093 (b) requiring

evaluation under the provisions of that

section. All other mobile and

unlicensed transmitting devices are

categorically excluded from routine

environmental evaluation for RF

exposure prior to equipment

authorization or use, except as specified

in §§ 1.1307(c) and 1.1307(d) of this

chapter. Applications for equipment

authorization of mobile and unlicensed

transmitting devices subject to routine

environmental evaluation must contain

a statement confirming compliance with

the limits specified in paragraph (d) of

this section as part of their application.

Technical information showing the

basis for this statement must be

submitted to the Commission upon

request.

(d) * * *

(3) If appropriate, compliance with

exposure guidelines for devices in this

section can be accomplished by the use

of warning labels and by providing

users with information concerning

minimum separation distances from

transmitting structures and proper

installation of antennas.

(4) In some cases, e.g., modular or

desktop transmitters, the potential

conditions of use of a device may not

allow easy classification of that device

as either mobile or portable (also see

§ 2.1093). In such cases, applicants are

responsible for determining minimum

distances for compliance for the

intended use and installation of the

device based on evaluation of either

specific absorption rate (SAR), field

strength or power density, whichever is

most appropriate.

3. Section 2.1093 is amended by

revising paragraphs (b), (c) and (d)

introductory text to read as follows:

§ 2.1093 Radiofrequency radiation

exposure evaluation: portable devices.

* * * * *

(b) For purposes of this section, a

portable device is defined as a

transmitting device designed to be used

so that the radiating structure(s) of the

device is/are within 20 centimeters of

the body of the user.

(c) Portable devices that operate in the

Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the

Personal Communications Services, the

Satellite Communications services, the

General Wireless Communications

Service, the Wireless Communications

Service, the Maritime Services and the

Specialized Mobile Radio Service

authorized under subpart H of part 22

of this chapter, part 24 of this chapter,

part 25 of this chapter, part 26 of this

chapter, part 27 of this chapter, part 80

of this chapter (ship earth station

devices only), part 90 of this chapter,

and portable unlicensed personal

communication service, unlicensed NII

devices and millimeter wave devices

authorized under § 15.253, § 15.255 or

subparts D and E of part 15 of this

chapter are subject to routine

environmental evaluation for RF

exposure prior to equipment

authorization or use. All other portable

transmitting devices are categorically

excluded from routine environmental

evaluation for RF exposure prior to

equipment authorization or use, except

as specified in §§ 1.1307(c) and

1.1307(d) of this chapter. Applications

for equipment authorization of portable

transmitting devices subject to routine

environmental evaluation must contain

a statement confirming compliance with

the limits specified in paragraph (d) of

this section as part of their application.

Technical information showing the

basis for this statement must be

submitted to the Commission upon

request.

(d) The limits to be used for

evaluation are based generally on

criteria published by the American

National Standards Institute (ANSI) for

localized specific absorption rate

(‘‘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 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 NCRP, 1986, Bethesda,

Maryland 20814. SAR is a measure of

the rate of energy absorption due to

exposure to an RF transmitting source.

SAR values have been related to

threshold levels for potential biological

hazards. The criteria to be used are

specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2)

of this section and shall apply for

portable devices transmitting in the

frequency range from 100 kHz to 6 GHz.

Portable devices that transmit at

frequencies above 6 GHz are to be

evaluated in terms of the MPE limits

specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter.

Measurements and calculations to

demonstrate compliance with MPE field

strength or power density limits for

devices operating above 6 GHz should

be made at a minimum distance of 5 cm

from the radiating source.

* * * * *

PART 26—GENERAL WIRELESS

COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE

1. The authority citation for part 26

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as

amended; 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303. Interpret or

apply 48 Stat. 1064–1068, 1081–1105, as

amended; 47 U.S.C. §§ 151–155, 301–609,

unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 26.51 is amended by

removing paragraph (d).

3. Section 26.52 is revised to read as

follows:
47968 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 177 / Friday, September 12, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

§ 26.52 RF safety.

Licensees and manufacturers are

subject to the radiofrequency radiation

exposure requirements specified in

§ 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 for both fundamental

emissions and unwanted emissions.

Technical information showing the

basis for this statement must be

submitted to the Commission upon

request.

PART 97—AMATEUR RADIO SERVICE

1. The authority citation for part 97

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as

amended; 47 U.S.C. §§ 154, 303. Interpret or

apply 48 Stat. 1064–1068, 1081–1105, as

amended; 47 U.S.C. §§ 151–155, 301–609,

unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 97.13 is amended by

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 97.13 Restrictions on station location.

* * * * *

Wavelength band

Transmitter power

(watts)

MF

160 m .......................................... 500

HF

80 m ............................................ 500

75 m ............................................ 500

40 m ............................................ 500

30 m ............................................ 425

20 m ............................................ 225

17 m ............................................ 125

15 m ............................................ 100

12 m ............................................ 75

10 m ............................................ 50

VHF (all bands) ........................... 50

UHF

70 cm .......................................... 70

33 cm .......................................... 150

23 cm .......................................... 200

13 cm .......................................... 250

Wavelength band

Transmitter power

(watts)

SHF (all bands) ........................... 250

EHF (all bands) ........................... 250

(2) If the routine environmental

evaluation indicates that the RF

electromagnetic fields could exceed the

limits contained in § 1.1310 of this

chapter in accessible areas, the licensee

must take action to prevent human

exposure to such RF electromagnetic

fields. Further information on

evaluating compliance with these limits

can be found in the FCC’s OET Bulletin

65, ‘‘Evaluating Compliance with FCCSpecified Guidelines for Human

Exposure to Radio Frequency

Electromagnetic Fields.’’

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–24165 Filed 9–11–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P