The FCC upheld a decision by its Office of Engineering & Technolo...

backed OET’s decision to reject the petition by the EMR Network. The guidelines were created in 1985 to regulate the amount of RF radiation to which humans may be exposed by transmitters regulated by the FCC, including cellphones. The existing guidelines were finalized in 1997, relying in part on recommendations of federal agencies and groups with expertise in health areas and standards-setting. EMR had argued that the FCC’s RF exposure guidelines didn’t take into account nonthermal effects and the impact of long- term low-level exposure. OET rejected the petition, saying the FCC historically had turned to agencies with primary expertise for ensuring health and safety, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). OET said the existing exposure guidelines were based on criteria set by the National Council on Radiation Protection & Measurements and the IEEE and took into account the advice of agencies such as EPA and the FDA. EMR said the FCC couldn’t defer responsibility for its rules to other expert agencies, contending that current research on RF bioeffects on humans was largely the domain of private entities and as a result lacked credibility. The Commission said OET’s action didn’t run against existing laws or regulations. “OET’s fundamental premise -- our reliance on the expertise of health and safety agencies in this area -- is our sound guiding principle and EMR has failed to advance any argument that persuades us otherwise,” the order issued last week said. The FCC said it had “carefully and assiduously” developed RF guidelines based on the best available science, as interpreted by relevant expert agencies. “When there is an appropriate indication by such agencies, or other expert sources, whether self-initiated or in response to outside petition or activities, we could consider the need for an investigative effort in support of possible exposure rules revisions,” it said. The Commission also said the 2nd U.S. Appeals Court, N.Y., had upheld its RF exposure guidelines in a 2001 ruling. The court had pointed out the FCC had tools in place for taking into account changes in scientific information in thsy area. In a separate statement, FCC Comr. Copps stressed that the order reaffirmed the Commission’s commitment “to monitor developments related to the biological effects of RF energy. Should additional scientific evidence emerge, concerned parties should bring such evidence to our attention… Evidence of this type could mean that the Commission would have a ‘basis for opening a rulemaking or fact-finding proceeding.'”