Source: https://scientists4wiredtech.com/2020-reassessment-of-fcc-rf-emr-exposure-limits/
Timestamp: 2020-06-01 20:00:47
Document Index: 489539587

Matched Legal Cases: ['§\u20091', '§\u20092', 'arts 1', '§\u20092', '§\u20091', '§\u200924', 'arts 1', 'arts 1', '§\u20092', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20092', '§\u20092', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20092', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u200915', '§\u200915', '§\u200915', '§\u200915', '§\u200915', '§\u200915', '§\u200915', '§\u20091', '§\u200918', '§\u200922', '§\u20091', '§\u200924', '§\u200924', '§\u200925', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u200925', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u200925', '§\u20092', '§\u200925', '§\u200925', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u200925', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u200925', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u200927', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u200990', '§\u200990', 'art 95', '§\u200995', '§\u200995', '§\u200997', '§\u20091', '§\u20091', '§\u2009101', '§\u20091', '§\u20091']

2020 Reassessment of FCC RF-EMR Exposure Limits – Scientists for Wired Technology
(RF-EMR = pulsed, data-modulated, Radio-frequency Electromagnetic Microwave Radiation)
Link to Federal Register Printing — Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields and Reassessment of FCC Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies
A Rule by the Federal Communications Commission on 04/01/2020 — about 18,675 words or just 20% of the 93,275 words from the Dec 4, 2019 FCC Order 19-126. Hint: go back and read all of the footnotes that have been excluded from this Federal Register printing,)
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) amends its rules related to the two methods that may be used for determining and achieving compliance with the Commission’s existing limits on human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields:
Exemption — consideration of whether a particular device or deployment is so clearly compliant, based on criteria in the Commission’s rules, that it qualifies as exempt from the requirement to undertake a more thorough RF exposure analysis—and
Evaluation — a more specific examination of an individual Start Printed Page 18132site or device, which considers factors beyond those utilized for exemption and may be performed with a variety of computational and/or measurement methodologies.
It also amends the rules related to an increasingly important part of demonstrating and maintaining RF exposure compliance:
Mitigation — the restriction from or limitation of RF exposure in controlled areas to keep RF exposure within the Commission’s established limits by, for example, using signs or barriers.
The amended rules are intended to provide more efficient, practical, and consistent RF exposure evaluation procedures and mitigation measures to help ensure compliance with the existing RF exposure limits. The amended rules replace the various inconsistent service-specific criteria for exempting parties from performing an evaluation to demonstrate compliance with the RF exposure limits with new, streamlined criteria.
The amended rules also allow the use of any valid computational method to determine potential RF exposure levels, remove the minimum evaluation distance requirement for frequencies above 6 GHz, and establish post-evaluation RF exposure mitigation procedures (e.g., signage), to help ensure that persons are not exposed to RF emissions in excess of the existing limits. The Commission also affirms its prior decision to classify the pinna (outer ear) as an extremity in RF exposure compliance testing, finds no appropriate basis for and thus declines to propose amendments to existing RF exposure limits at this time, and terminates the inquiry in which it sought comment on the Commission’s existing guidelines for limiting RF exposure to humans.
Martin Doczkat, email: martin.doczkat@fcc.gov; the Commission’s RF Safety Program, rfsafety@fcc.gov; or call the Office of Engineering and Technology at (202) 418-2470.
This is a summary of the Commission’s Second Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Termination of Notice of Inquiry, ET Docket No. 03-137, ET Docket No. 13-84, FCC 19-126, adopted November 27, 2019 and released December 4, 2019. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554, or by downloading the text from the Commission’s website at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs/daily-digest/2019/12/05 — FCC-19-126A1.docx & FCC-19-126A1.pdf. Alternative formats are available for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format) by sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or calling the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
1. On March 27, 2013, the Commission adopted a First Report and Order (First RF Report and Order), Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2013 RF Further Notice), and Notice of Inquiry (2013 RF Inquiry) in this proceeding, 78 FR 33654, June 4, 2013.
In the 2019 Second Report and Order, the Commission simplified the regulatory framework for determining compliance with the Commission’s existing RF exposure limits by providing more efficient, practical, and consistent RF exposure exemption criteria, evaluation procedures, and mitigation measures to help ensure compliance with the RF exposure limits.
In the 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission affirmed its decision in the First RF Report and Order to classify in its rules the pinna (outer ear) as an extremity for RF exposure compliance testing.
In the 2019 Termination of Notice of Inquiry, the Commission terminated the 2013 RF Inquiry that sought comment on the efficacy and propriety of the Commission’s existing guidelines and policies for limiting RF exposure to humans, finding no appropriate basis for and thus declining to propose amendments to existing limits at this time.
The following are the major actions that the Commission took in the 2019 Second Report and Order to simplify the Commission’s RF exposure evaluation procedures and mitigation measures and apply them consistently:
Added to § 1.1307(b) of the Commission’s rules a set of technical definitions related to output power, separation distance, RF exposure scenarios and sources, and categories for specifying RF safety program actions that reflect potential RF exposure scenarios.
Removed from § 2.1093(d) of the Commission’s rules the 5-cm minimum separation specification for measurements and calculations used to demonstrate RF exposure compliance for devices that operate above 6 GHz.
Established more specific post-evaluation RF exposure mitigation measures that include access control, signage, and training requirements for transmitter sites where RF exposure limits may be exceeded to help ensure that persons are not exposed to RF emissions that exceed the Commission’s established RF exposure limits.
2. In the 2019 Second Report and Order, the Commission amended parts 1, 2, 15, 18, 22, 24, 25, 27, 73, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of its rules to simplify the procedures for determining compliance with the Commission’s existing RF exposure limits to help ensure consistent compliance with those limits. These actions are described in greater detail below.
3. As proposed in the 2013 RF Further Notice and supported in the record, the Commission revised the various service-specific criteria for exemption (formerly termed exclusion) from performing an RF exposure evaluation, to set forth a single, generally-applicable set of formulas based on power, separation distance, and frequency of fixed, mobile, and portable transmitters that are applicable to both single and multiple sources of RF emissions, and adopted a set of technical definitions related to output power and separation distance. The Commission adopted three broad classes of RF exemptions:
(1) For extremely low-power devices that transmit at no more than 1 mW;
(2) for somewhat higher-power devices with transmitting antennas that normally operate within 0.5 cm to 40 cm of the human body in the frequency range between 300 MHz and 6 GHz, a formula based primarily on the localized specific absorption rate (SAR) limits; and
(3) for all other transmitters, based on a set of formulas for maximum permissible exposure (MPE) limits. The new exemption criteria apply to all of the Commission’s rules authorizing RF sources.
Under the new rules, every applicant for equipment authorization and every licensee prior to deployment or commencement of operations may determine whether the device or transmitter falls under one of the classes of exemptions.
If the device or transmitter falls under one of these classes of exemption, no additional action is necessary. If not, the applicant or licensee will have to perform a routine evaluation to determine compliance with the existing RF exposure limits. The Commission reasoned that this new process would not impose any significant burdens on impacted parties since the underlying exposure rules and parties’ obligations under the rules remain the same; the new rules only modify the process used to demonstrate compliance.
Exemption Criteria—Single RF Source.
5. A single RF source will be exempt from RF exposure evaluation under any one of three circumstances:
(1) The RF source transmits at no more than 1 mW time-averaged available (matched conducted) power;
(2) the RF source is normally separated between 0.5 and 40 cm from the human body, in the frequency range between 300 MHz and 6 GHz, and transmits at no more than the average power threshold result from the formula the Commission adopted based on the localized SAR limits; or,
(3) for all other fixed, mobile, and portable transmitters, the RF source transmits at no more than the average power threshold result from the set of formulas the Commission adopted based on the MPE limits at separation distances from any part of the radiating structure of at least λ/2π (RF signal free-space wavelength divided by 2π) in all service categories.
6. 1-mW Blanket Exemption. For extremely low-power fixed, mobile, and portable RF sources, the Commission adopted a blanket RF exposure evaluation exemption for a single transmitter operating with up to 1 mW of time-averaged available (matched conducted) power, irrespective of the separation distance from the human body.
The 1-mW exemption is independent of service type and covers the full frequency range from 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. The 1-mW blanket exemption applies for any separation distance, including distances of less than 0.5 cm and where there is no separation, e.g., medical implant devices.
7. SAR-Based Exemption. For fixed, mobile, and portable RF sources near a human body, where the separation distance is normally between 0.5 and 40 cm and may be less than λ/2π, the Commission adopted the new RF exposure evaluation exemption formula shown here for time-averaged power thresholds (specified in mW) for exemption of single portable, mobile, and fixed RF sources at** 0.3-6 GHz**. A source is exempt if each of the maximum time-averaged available (matched conducted) power and effective radiated power (ERP) is no more than:
8. The formula provides, as a function of separation distance and frequency, a threshold power below which a single RF source is exempt from further RF exposure evaluation.
It applies to fixed, mobile, and portable RF sources in any service at a separation distance between 0.5 cm and 40 cm from the body, and is applicable in the frequency range from 300 MHz through 6 GHz.
The SAR-based thresholds are derived based on the frequency, power, and separation distance of the RF source. The formula defines the thresholds in general for either available maximum time-averaged power or maximum time-averaged ERP — whichever is greater.
10. 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, the available maximum time-averaged power generated by the device may be used in place of the maximum time-averaged ERP, in situations where that ERP 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, Pth, is defined in terms of maximum time-averaged power and in accordance with the source-based time-averaging requirements described in § 2.1093(d)(5) of the rules. Time-averaged power measurements are necessary to determine if the maximum output of a transmitting antenna (ERP) or matched conducted transmitter power is above the proposed threshold for exemption from routine SAR evaluation. The Commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) will publish in its Knowledge Database (KDB) the power measurement and SAR test procedures necessary to demonstrate compliance with the RF exposure limits.
11. While commenters supported the basic idea of a uniform formula for an SAR exemption, several commenters disagreed with the proposed formula, contending it was overly conservative and inconsistent with the operation of current devices. Instead, parties supported use of the International Electrotechnical Commission’s (IEC’s) standard IEC 62479 (2010), which provides alternative recommendations for exemption of low-power devices based on SAR. For several reasons, the Commission was not persuaded that the IEC standard was appropriate. Even though the IEC’s standard uses dipoles and flat phantoms as a starting point for modeling, and is applicable to the same frequency range as the SAR exemption formula (300 MHz-6 GHz), the Commission determined that the IEC standard departs significantly regarding the applicable range of separation distances and use of bandwidth, with an increased complexity in the resulting formulas. In addition, the IEC model does not directly incorporate antenna directivity and states that it may not apply to devices with highly directive antennas. To maintain simplicity, the Commission limited the exemptions to those based solely on the relationship of power (both available or matched power and ERP), separation distance, and frequency, without other inputs—such as antenna pattern or bandwidth—that would effectively render an exemption determination as complex as an evaluation. It concluded that additional complexity in the exemptions from additional inputs would result in regulations that were of little or no practical utility as a simple exemption protocol; additional factors could be considered as needed or appropriate in a more thorough evaluation to demonstrate compliance. The Commission also declined to extend the SAR-based exemption formula from 0.5 cm to 0 cm because there is no modeling data that validates such an extension.
12. MPE-Based Exemption. To support an exemption from further evaluation for frequencies from 300 kHz through 100 GHz, the Commission also adopted general frequency and separation-distance dependent MPE-based ERP thresholds as shown below in Table 2.
Table 2. The values in Table 2 apply to any single RF source
(i.e. fixed, mobile, and portable transmitters) and specify
power and separation distance criteria
for each of the five frequency ranges used for the MPE limits.
1.34-30 3,450 R2 /f2
15. The Commission declined to adopt commenters’ suggestions to adjust the formulas to more readily exempt transmitters mounted on dedicated, access-controlled wireless support structures in the frequency range 300 MHz to 3 GHz because simply being building-mounted does not preclude persons from having access to the area near an antenna, particularly when mounted low to the ground or in other accessible locations. The actual distance from potential human presence should be taken into consideration. The Commission rejected a commenter’s proposal to relax the standard for transmitters located on structures where access can be more readily controlled since spaces adjacent to such a structure may be readily accessible, rendering the transmitter appropriate for an evaluation. It also rejected a commenter’s proposal to add a modified exemption formula that would apply between 400 MHz and 3 GHz because it found that the formula was based on Start Printed Page 18135inappropriate assumptions and could not ensure compliance with the Commission’s RF exposure limits.
c* equals the number of existing fixed, mobile, or portable RF sources with known evaluation for the specified minimum distance.
19. 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 formula above for either time-averaged power thresholds (mW) for exemption of single portable, mobile and fixed RF sources, 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 1 (i.e., 100 percent), the cumulative contributions do not exceed the permissible limit and a location at a site or the device (i.e., all transmitters within the device) are exempt from routine evaluation. 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 (e.g., 20 cm for mobile RF sources). 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 the Commission’s permissive change authorization procedures for portable or mobile devices, a new calculation must be made including the additional transmitter.
20. In response to a commenter’s suggestion that the Commission incorporate further technical definitions in its rules for terms used in the summation formula beyond those proposed in the 2013 RF Further Notice, the Commission added definitions of “available maximum time-averaged power,” “effective radiated power (ERP),” and “time-averaging period” to its rules. However, because the Commission’s exemptions do not rely on delivered power but available power, it declined to adopt a definition for “delivered maximum time-averaged power.” The Commission clarified that the delivered maximum time-averaged power would be the largest net power delivered or supplied to an antenna, as averaged over a time period not to Start Printed Page 18136exceed 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).
23. Although commenters raised concerns about the impact of cumulative RF exposure, the Commission found that consideration of the typical spatial separation between RF sources diminishes the practical relevance of multiple spatially uncorrelated transmitters. Since exposure from fixed RF sources diminishes rapidly with distance and signal losses due to non-line-of-sight conditions, the Commission expects that exposure from portable or mobile devices near a person’s body would generally be overwhelmingly more significant. The exposure from each portable or mobile device near a person will generally be highly localized and involve low total power absorption. The Commission expects that the locations of maximum SAR in the body from these portable and mobile RF sources are highly unlikely to overlap, and also that total power absorption will not result in significant contribution 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, the Commission concluded that it is very highly unlikely the localized or whole-body SAR limits would be exceeded. The Commission concluded that the summation of potential exposure due to spatially uncorrelated sources should not be routinely required and is consistent with all known compliance activities to date.
24. Where an exemption cannot be invoked, a routine environmental evaluation—described in the Commission’s rules as a “determination of compliance”—must be performed for fixed transmission sites where the exemptions are not met to ensure that the RF exposure limits are not exceeded in places that are accessible to humans. In most 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 available information that it must be less than the Commission’s limits. In other cases, the evaluation may require more precision regarding transmitter power and antenna distance from human-accessible spaces and, potentially, may be the basis for determining necessary measures to deter humans from entering otherwise accessible locations (i.e., mitigation).
26. Consistency of Usage of Any Valid Method for SAR Computation. As proposed in the 2013 RF Further Notice and supported in the record, the Commission modified the language in §§ 1.1307(b)(2)(iv) and 95.1221 of the rules by removing references to the finite difference time domain (FDTD) method for SAR computation and allowed any valid computational method supported by adequate documentation and consistent results to be used. In response to commenters’ suggestion for increased reliance on field measurements for fixed sites rather than computation because of concerns that SAR computation would underestimate exposure, the Commission noted that computational methods for transmitter facilities tend to be more restrictive than measurements since they use maximum power and other conservative assumptions. Since such methods provide a simpler, less burdensome means of demonstrating compliance, the Commission decided that computational methods will be permitted where they can be successfully invoked. In response to a commenter’s suggestion that software developers be given guidance about the requirements for valid computational software, the Commission directed the Commission’s OET to provide guidance on acceptable methods of computation via the KDB.
28. Technical Evaluation References in Rules. As proposed in the 2013 RF Further Notice, the Commission removed the reference to IEEE Standard C95.3-1991 from § 24.51(c) of its rules as a possible SAR evaluation reference, instead relying on publications in the KDB for providing guidance on technical evaluation procedures and standards. The Commission also determined that the FCC Laboratory’s current process of issuing draft versions of KDB guidance documents, engaging manufacturers and other affected entities early in the revision process, and providing flexibility and harmony with existing standards effectively address the commenters’ concerns about the process and transparency of developing KDB documents. Regarding OET Bulletins 56 and 65, the Commission decided to eliminate Bulletin 56 in deference to more current material on the same subject on the Commission’s website, and that Commission staff will maintain and update OET Bulletin 65 as a standalone document available for download.
32. Despite a commenter’s concern about the use of the term “general population” in conjunction with “controlled,” the Commission was not convinced by the concern over how the terminology should be applied, or that it was potentially introducing a third exposure category. The Commission noted that 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). The environment in which these exposures occur defines whether the exposure is in a controlled or uncontrolled setting. Because the Commission also adopted requirements for implementing RF safety programs at fixed sites, the only situation where transient exposure would be relevant would be in a controlled setting.
33. Despite commenters’ arguments that the Commission’s requirements for transient individuals to be supervised regarding RF exposure areas are unnecessary and burdensome and ultimately would not be practical or effective, the Commission maintained that the supervision requirement is reasonable since a new employee would be made aware of areas where exposure could exceed the limits as part of his/her supervised orientation. The Commission agreed with commenters that third-party workers who perform tasks near RF sources should be trained and not considered transient. It also agreed that transient provisions are not to be used with any regularity and would not apply to persons (e.g., tree trimmers, window washers, etc.) expected to be in locations for extended periods where the general population RF limits are exceeded, nor to persons who traverse such areas on a regular basis. All such persons must receive appropriate training.
34. Signage and Access Control. To the extent that required signs are used to warn workers so they are protected from RF exposure levels that exceeds the Commission’s limits, the Commission decided that the following information must be included in such signs:
36. Category One applies to locations where the operational characteristics of RF sources would not cause the exposure limit for the general population to be exceeded even with continuous or with source-based time-averaged exposure. Category One signs are optional and will show a green “INFORMATION” heading and may be used to offer information to the public Start Printed Page 18138that a transmitting RF source is nearby but that it is compliant with the Commission’s RF exposure limits regardless of duration or usage. Category One signs could include the following:
39. 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, such as a severe burn, permanent tissue damage, or shock. Where the occupational limit could be exceeded by a more than factor of ten, “WARNING” signs in orange color are required. “DANGER” signs in red color are required where immediate and serious injury will occur on contact, in addition to positive access control. For example, “DANGER” signs are required at the base of AM broadcast towers where serious injuries due to contact burns may occur. If a power reduction would not sufficiently protect against the relevant exposure limit in the event of human presence, lockout/tagout procedures must be followed to ensure human safety. To aid in protecting individuals from potentially serious and immediate harm, Category Four signs can be useful in indicating the most hazardous locations, even though Category Three signs already indicate an area surpassing the occupational exposure limit for continuous exposure. In Category Four locations, it is infeasible for any mitigation measures (e.g., time-averaging, personal protective equipment) other than power reduction to bring exposure levels within the Commission’s occupational limits. See Figure 1 below for a visual description of these categories.
40. Determination of the appropriate category designation must not be based on the exemptions from routine RF evaluation, but instead must be based on a specific site evaluation, consistent with the Commission’s existing recommendations and rules for routine evaluation of compliance by measurement or computation as specified in OET Bulletin 65. Such methods as spatial averaging of plane-wave equivalent power-density, source-based time averaging, and SAR determinations may be used where appropriate to determine compliance with an applicable limit or classification of the environment into one of the categories. In contrast to IEEE’s reference to “action levels,” the general population exposure limit for uncontrolled environments is a definite legal limit enforced by the Commission.
41. Establishment of a controlled environment where this limit is exceeded (i.e., a Category Two, Three, or Four environment) would generally require some type of positive access control. These include locked doors, ladder cages, or effective fences, as well as enforced prohibition of public access to external surfaces of buildings, or generally, active preclusion of unauthorized access. It does not include natural barriers that tend to limit access but may not be always effective or other access restrictions that do not require any action on the part of the licensee or property management. Members of the general public (which can include children and vision-impaired persons) should not be expected to be aware of or act on posted exposure conditions only. Barriers and/or markings are required to complement signs to ensure compliance with the Commission’s RF exposure limits. In response to commenters’ concerns about the risk of RF overexposure to unaware workers and that signs should not be a catchall compliance measure, the Commission observed that an appropriately trained worker will be able to interpret the signs to appropriately control his/her exposure, and emphasized that untrained workers should not have access to controlled locations without supervision.
42. The Commission required that signs have an up-to-date point of contact, but declined to require 24/7 monitoring. Instead, it directed the OET to update OET Bulletin 65 to specify that the contact point be continuously monitored during normal business hours, but did not specify a response time. In response to commenters’ concerns regarding sign content and readability and the feasibility of implementing access controls, the Commission required that signs be legible and readily viewable and readable (as specified by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the former National Bureau of Standards) from the boundary (and as necessary, on the approach to this boundary) where the applicable RF exposure limits are exceeded, and that controls or indicators be placed at compliance boundaries; it declined to adopt a site safety plan or a setback of Start Printed Page 181401500 feet from all cell towers as required components. The Commission also concluded that parties responsible for the placement of signs should consider the potential implications of over-signage (e.g., undue alarm, confusion, and disregard of meaningful postings) and indicated that it will consider compliance with these rules on a case-by-case basis.
44. Responsibility for Mitigation Measures. Despite comments requesting limitations on a licensee’s responsibility for RF exposure mitigation measures, the Commission declined to adopt safe harbors (e.g., category-appropriate signage, access controls, indicative or physical barriers, RF safety training, information about RF exposure risks in accessible areas, and 24/7 contact information) from actions and events at a restricted area beyond the licensee’s control.
46. The Commission rejected a commenter’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 appropriate. While section 332(c)(7)(B)(iv) of the Act permits State and local governments, when making decisions on the “placement, construction, and modification” 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.
47. To allow licensees and manufacturers time to complete the required RF exposure evaluations or determine whether they are exempt from evaluation, as well as allow an orderly transition for the Commission’s licensing Bureaus and equipment authorization program to incorporate the new exemption criteria into their equipment certification policies and procedures, the Commission set a timetable for conducting the reevaluation, under the new rules, of antenna locations that were previously exempt from evaluation. As a commenter requested, the Commission allowed two years from the effective date of the new rules to complete the evaluations and comply with the more specific RF exposure mitigation requirements adopted in the 2019 Second Report and Order, as necessary.
49. In the 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission dismissed and alternatively denied a petition for reconsideration of its decision in the 2013 First RF Report and Order to classify the pinna (outer ear) as an extremity in RF exposure testing. The Commission found that the petition contained no new information that specifically addressed the effects of RF exposure on the pinnae themselves and otherwise relied on arguments that have been fully considered and rejected. Furthermore, the Commission found that the petition did not raise any new arguments when it cited alternative concerns related to pinnae classification, brain proximity, and human safety; offered no persuasive evidence that the Commission’s analysis was flawed; and that it did not demonstrate any errors or omissions in the Commission’s previous decision. For these reasons, the Commission dismissed and alternatively denied the petition for reconsideration.
50. In the 2019 Termination of Notice of Inquiry, the Commission terminated the Notice of Inquiry proceeding in ET Docket No. 13-84 that it initiated in 2013 to review its existing RF exposure standards and certain related policies without making any changes to the Commission’s RF rules. While some commenters suggested that the Commission should revise it RF exposure standards to be consistent with other international standards, the Commission declined to make any changes that would effectively relax its current standards, concluding that the best available evidence, including consideration of the opinions provided by expert U.S. federal health agencies, supports maintaining the Commission’s existing RF exposure standards.. The Commission also determined that commenters suggesting alternatives that would tighten the FCC’s existing RF exposure standards did not offer a sufficient scientific basis as to how their proposed reductions were derived, why the proposed reductions specified the appropriate amount, or how their proposed alternative reductions may impact the viability or performance of wireless services and devices.
56. It is further ordered that parts 1, 2, 15, 18, 22, 24, 25, 27, 73, 90, 95, 97, and 101 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR parts 1, 2, 15, 18, 22, 24, 25, 27, 73, 90, 95, 97 and 101, are amended, effective June 1, 2020, except for §§ 2.1091 and 2.1093 of the Commission’s rules, which contain new or modified information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act and will become effective after the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.
57. It is further ordered that pursuant to section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 405, and § 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 the American Association for Justice is dismissed and alternatively denied.
58. It is further ordered that pursuant to authority contained in sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and § 1.430 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.430, the Notice of Inquiry in ET Docket No. 13-84 is terminated.
59. It is further ordered that pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i) and 4(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), and § 1.430 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.430, ET Docket No. 03-137 in terminated.
60. 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, and the Memorandum Opinion and Order, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, unless otherwise noted.
[§ 1.1307](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 1.1307)
(1) Requirements. (i) With respect to the limits on human exposure to RF provided in § 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) As provided in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii) through (vi) of this section, 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.
(5) Responsibility for compliance.
(i) In general, when the exposure limits specified in § 1.1310 of this part are Start Printed Page 18145exceeded 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 § 1.1311 of this part 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 paragraph (b)(1) of this section and, where feasible, should encourage co-location of RF sources and common solutions for controlling access to areas where the RF exposure limits contained in § 1.1310 of this part 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.
(ii) Applicants for proposed RF sources that would cause non-compliance with the limits specified in § 1.1310 at an accessible area previously in compliance must submit an EA if emissions from the applicant’s RF source would produce, at the area in question, levels that exceed 5% of the applicable exposure limit. Field strengths must be squared if necessary to be proportional to SAR or power density.
(iii) Renewal applicants whose RF sources would cause non-compliance with the limits specified in § 1.1310 at an accessible area previously in compliance must submit an EA if emissions from the applicant’s RF source would produce, at the area in question, levels that exceed 5% of the applicable exposure limit. Field strengths must be squared if necessary to be proportional to SAR or power density.
[§ 1.1310](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 1.1310)
(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.
(4) Both the MPE limits listed in Table 1 in paragraph (e)(1) of this section and the SAR limits as set forth in paragraphs (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 in paragraph (e)(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 website: 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).
(1) Table 1 to § 1.1310(e)(1) sets forth limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields.
[§ 1.4000](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 1.4000)
[§ 2.1033](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 2.1033)
[§ 2.1091](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 2.1091)
(b) For purposes of this section, the definitions in § 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 Start Printed Page 18147associated with a personal desktop computer, are considered to be mobile devices if they meet the 20-centimeter separation requirement.
(1) Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in § 1.1310 of this chapter, and preparation of an EA if the limits are exceeded, is necessary for mobile devices with single RF sources having either more than an available maximum time-averaged power of 1 mW or more than the ERP listed in Table 1 to § 1.1307(b)(3)(i)(C), whichever is greater. For mobile devices not exempt by § 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 § 1.1310 of this chapter is necessary if the ERP of the device is greater than ERP20cm in the formula below. If the ERP of a single RF source at distances from 20 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).
(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 § 1.1307(b)(3)(ii)(B) of this chapter is applied to determine the exemption ratio and the result is greater than
(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 § 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.
(i) For purposes of analyzing mobile transmitting devices under the occupational/controlled criteria specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter, time averaging provisions of the limits may be used in conjunction with the maximum duty factor to determine maximum time-averaged exposure levels under normal operating conditions.
[§ 2.1093](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 2.1093)
(b) For purposes of this section, the definitions in § 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.
(1) Evaluation of compliance with the exposure limits in § 1.1310 of this chapter, and preparation of an EA if the limits are exceeded, is necessary for portable devices having single RF sources with more than an available maximum time-averaged power of 1 mW, more than the ERP listed in Table 1 to § 1.1307(b)(3)(i)(C), or more than the Pth in the following formula, whichever is greater. The following formula shall only be used in conjunction with portable devices not exempt by § 1.1307(b)(3)(i)(C) at distances from 0.5 centimeters to 20 centimeters and frequencies from 0.3 GHz to 6 GHz.
(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 § 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 § 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 to § 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.
(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 Start Printed Page 18149the 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 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.
[§ 15.212](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 15.212)
[§ 15.247](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 15.247)
[§ 15.255](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 15.255)
[§ 15.257](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 15.257)
[§ 15.319](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 15.319)
[§ 15.407](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 15.407)
[§ 15.709](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 15.709)
(h) Compliance with radio frequency exposure requirements. White space devices shall ensure compliance with the Commission’s radio frequency exposure requirements in §§ 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.
[§ 18.313](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 18.313)
[§ 22.379](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 22.379)
Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the Commission’s radio frequency exposure requirements 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. Technical information showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
Athority:47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 309 and 332.
[§ 24.51](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 24.51)
[§ 24.52](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 24.52)
[§ 25.115](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 25.115)
(p) The licensee and grantees shall ensure compliance with the Commission’s radio frequency exposure requirements in §§ 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 § 1.1310 of this chapter. See § 1.1307(b)(5)(ii).
[§ 25.117](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 25.117)
(g) The licensee and grantees shall ensure compliance with the Commission’s radio frequency exposure requirements in §§ 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 § 1.1310 of this chapter. See § 1.1307(b)(5)(iii).
[§ 25.129](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 25.129)
(c) In addition to the information required by § 2.1033(c) of this chapter, applicants for certification required by this section shall submit any additional equipment test data necessary to demonstrate compliance with pertinent standards for transmitter performance prescribed in §§ 25.138, 25.202(f), 25.204, 25.209, and 25.216, must demonstrate compliance with the labeling requirement in § 25.285(b), and shall ensure compliance with the Commission’s radio frequency exposure requirements in §§ 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 § 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.
[§ 25.149](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 25.149)
(3) Licensees and manufacturers shall ensure compliance with the Commission’s radio frequency exposure requirements in §§ 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 § 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.
[§ 25.271](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 25.271)
(g) All applicants shall ensure compliance with the Commission’s radio frequency exposure requirements in §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate. Applicants with terminals that will exceed the guidelines in § 1.1310 of this chapter for Start Printed Page 18151radio 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.
[§ 27.52](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 27.52)
(10) Licensees and permittees shall ensure compliance with the Commission’s radio frequency exposure requirements in § 1.1307(b) of this chapter. An Environmental Assessment may be required if RF radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with radiation from other sources, cause RF power density or field strength in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter.
[§ 90.223](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 90.223)
[§ 90.1217](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 90.1217)
\37. The authority citation for part 95 continues to read as follows:
[§ 95.2385](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 95.2385)
[§ 95.2585](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 95.2585)
[§ 97.13](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 97.13)
(1) The licensee shall ensure compliance with the Commission’s radio frequency exposure requirements in §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, where applicable. In lieu of evaluation with the general population/uncontrolled exposure limits, amateur licensees may evaluate their operation with respect to members of his or her immediate household using the occupational/controlled exposure limits in § 1.1310, provided appropriate training and information has been 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.
[§ 101.1425](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/04/01/2020-02745/human-exposure-to-radiofrequency-electromagnetic-fields-and-reassessment-of-fcc-radiofrequency#sectno-citation- 101.1425)
MVDDS stations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz frequency band shall ensure compliance with the Commission’s radio frequency exposure requirements in § 1.1307(b) of this chapter. An Environmental Assessment may be required if RF radiation from the proposed facilities would, in combination with radiation from other sources, cause RF power density or field strength in an accessible area to exceed the applicable limits specified in § 1.1310 of this chapter.