Opinion ID: 767846
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other Expert Recommendations

Text: 27 Petitioners argue that the Commission arbitrarily ignored or failed to follow expert recommendations that would tighten the standard. Specifically they fault the FCC for (1) adopting a two-tiered MPE level system allowing for higher exposure in occupational/controlled situations than in general population/uncontrolled situations despite expressions of concern with these definitions by EPA, NIOSH and OSHA; (2) refusing to adopt ANSI's recommendations on induced and contact currents; (3) ignoring the FDA's request that the FCC consider interference with medical devices; and (4) rejecting NISOH's objection to undocumented self-certification of compliance by license applicants. We disagree. 28 The record shows that the FCC did not ignore any of these substantial comments, but instead provided a reasoned response to each. The FCC found that applying the general-population limits to all situations would impose significant and unnecessary economic and technical burdens for which adequate justification has not been presented. The FCC elected instead to clarify the differentiation between occupational and general population circumstances. It was not arbitrary and capricious to do so. 29 With respect to induced contact currents, the FCC concluded that [b]ecause of the many possible types and configurations of metallic objects that may be near a transmitter, it would be impracticable to demonstrate compliance. And in view of the continuing questions and difficulties relating to evaluation of induced and contact currents, especially with regard to measurements . . . . we see no practical way to require compliance with any limits suggested by the parties. However, the FCC recognize[d] the desirability for limits to be adopted in the future, and promised to monitor the issues raised . . . [and] revisit this issue as measuring technology improves. An agency is permitted to consider costs and benefits as well as enforcement issues when establishing rules and regulations. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n, 463 U.S. at 54. The FCC reached a reasoned conclusion to a difficult problem, and was not arbitrary or capricious. 30 The FCC also did not ignore the FDA's request for rules dealing with interference with medical devices. The object of the rulemaking was to address biological effects of RF radiation. The FDA acknowledged that interference with medical devices was outside the scope of current rulemaking by encourag[ing] the FCC to continue to work with [the FDA] to address separately this issue. The FCC was justified in limiting its current rules in this way because agencies . . . need not deal in one fell swoop with the entire breadth of a novel development; instead, reform may take place one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the regulatory mind. National Ass'n of Broadcasters v. FCC, 740 F.2d 1190, 1207 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (quotation marks, citation and alteration omitted). 31 As for NIOSH's objections to undocumented self-certification of compliance, it was entirely within the FCC's discretion not to require operators to submit the type of information that would be provided in an EA. Cf. Black Citizens for a Fair Media v. FCC, 719 F.2d 407, 411-12 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (permitting the FCC discretion to determine what information to request in renewal applications for a broadcast license). Ample sanctions exist for false statements . . . and licensees are well aware of their duty . . . to be scrupulous in providing complete and meaningful information. Bilingual Bicultural Coalition on Mass Media, Inc. v. FCC, 595 F.2d 621, 635 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (quotation marks and citation omitted). The FCC's conclusion that its existing rules concerning licensee certification have worked adequately in the past and should be continued was therefore not arbitrary and capricious.