Comments Divided on Need for New FCC RF Rules
ARRL asked the FCC to exercise caution in adopting new RF rules. The FCC logged more than 120 comments in docket 19-226 in the last two days, many from those concerned about the health effects of RF exposure. Others questioned the need for further regulation (see 2006170032). The comments respond to a December NPRM and were due Wednesday (see 1912040036).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
ARRL’s principal "concern with the Commission’s proposals for below 10 MHz and above 6 GHz is that there be clear and practical means for radio amateurs to determine compliance of their stations,” the group for amateur radio operators said. “Any measures adopted should be straight-forward and accessible to the radio amateur operators using the bands at issue by applying MPE [maximum permissible exposure] levels for station evaluations.”
Momentum Dynamics doesn't believe there's "a demonstrated health or safety reason that justifies extension of new regulation,” said the wireless charging company. “Observable biological responses to electric and magnetic fields at frequencies below 100 kHz occur at field intensities only well in excess of those experienced around our systems.” Neither Part 15 nor Part 18 of FCC rules were designed to address wireless power transfer (WPT), said Energous. That “has created a substantial amount of regulatory uncertainty regarding their application in the WPT context,” said that wireless charging company. “This is especially true with respect to … devices intended to transfer power over a distance.”
Boston asked the FCC to take a broader look at RF regulations, especially for small cells. “Boston is one of the country’s most densely populated cities with an abundance of streetscapes with narrow sidewalks and little or no dwelling setbacks” and small cells are often located within 20 feet of living space, the city said: “Research has revealed that there may be concerns with the possible health effects of low-level multiple source exposure arising from the huge diffusion of communication technologies such as mobile communications, wireless data transfer such as Wi-Fi, Wi-Max, Bluetooth, and ZigBee and the wireless networks to which those devices connect.”
The FCC “is mandated to protect citizens from the known hazards of microwave radiation exposure while ensuring a reliable communications network of services,” Consumers for Safe Cell Phones commented: “Nowhere is it stated that the FCC’s function is to facilitate the telecom industry’s profit-making potential. … There is no way to justify the risk to public health from continuous, ever-increasing exposure to higher and more powerful frequencies of pulsed, microwave radiation in close proximity to people’s homes, schools and public spaces.”
CompTIA sought FCC rule harmonization, especially with those from IEEE and International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP). “The international standards have been universally acknowledged to protect the public from RF exposure health risks, and the Commission should follow that approach,” the group said. The NPRM proposes a time-averaging table of its own for testing, CompTIA noted: “Instead adhere to the recent IEEE and ICNIRP time-averaging limits.”
The mmWave Coalition said the NPRM rightly proposes extending the upper limit of applicable quantitative RF safety limits from the present 100 to 300 GHz or higher. “We have advocated this to the Commission previously and are very supportive of this proposal," the group said.