WASHINGTON-Hardcore opponents of the new hybrid radiofrequency radiation standard, believing federal regulators will reject calls to repeal it, are already considering putting a consortium together to challenge the safety guideline in court.
By registering their grievances with the Federal Communications Commission, despite uncertain prospects for success, parties retain legal standing to appeal the FCC’s Aug. 1 ruling.
The core of such a lawsuit, according to a source, would likely include some or all of Electromagnetic Energy Alliance’s board members-AT&T Corp., Lucent Technologies Inc., Raytheon Co., General Electric Co. and the National Association of Broadcasters-which voted to seek FCC review of the hybrid RF guideline over the objections of Motorola Inc., Ericsson Inc. and Nokia Corp.
The Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association, early on the harshest and loudest critic of a hybrid approach before relenting, opposed the EEA filing and continues to remain silent on the issue even as others-like AT&T, Ameritech Mobile Communications Inc., U S West Inc., the Personal Communications Industry Association, the American Mobile Telecommunications Association and the Department of Defense-raise numerous concerns ranging from compliance requirements and legal liability to the adoption of the hybrid standard instead of the 1992 IEEE-ANSI standard originally proposed by the FCC in 1993.
“Despite the delayed transition to the new regulatory scheme,” said PCIA, “carriers are already wrestling with the task of developing procedures that will allow them to make the appropriate statement of compliance in future applications.”New guidelines take effect Jan. 1.
Ameritech Mobile also complained about provisions being vague.
Others, like EEA, want broader pre-emption of state and local regulation of transmission facilities and the RF hybrid guideline overturned. The new telecom law prevents zoning boards from blocking antenna sites for mobile communications that comply with RF safety guidelines.
“Besides adopting a standard based on something other than the newest and most advanced available research, the commission’s hybrid approach of adopting [National Council on Radiation Protection and Management] exposure guidelines, rather than ANSI/IEEE, results in the loss of the rationale underlying the standard itself,” stated the EEA.
EEA predicts regulated industries will find it hard to adhere to the hybrid guideline because “there is a lack of technical clarity, definitions, and prescribed acceptable techniques for such factors as spatial measuring and transiency.”
Robert Cleveland, the official in the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology who authored the hybrid standard, said any shortcomings can be addressed in a supplemental bulletin with industry input.
U S West and the Pentagon also have petitioned the FCC to replace the hybrid guideline with the 1992 IEEE-ANSI standard.
The new hybrid RF standard, which combines exposure limits recommended by the NCRP in 1982 and by the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers-American National Standards Institute in 1992, makes for stricter RF guidelines than those now governing the wireless telecommunications industry.
NCRP and ’92 IEEE-ANSI guidelines are quite similar up through 1.5 GHz, where NCRP begins to get tougher.
While the hybrid had mixed backing from federal health and safety agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency, most of industry preferred the 1992 IEEE-ANSI standard. So initially did three of the four FCC commissioners, Chairman Reed Hundt excluded, until CTIA withdrew opposition to the hybrid in exchange for the commission’s promise that existing wireless equipment would be declared safe. Some observers suggested the FCC mistakenly interpreted CTIA’s retreat as speaking for the entire telecommunications industry.
The wireless industry, according to sources, was also assured that EPA would take a low profile on RF issues once the hybrid standard was approved. But the deal CTIA, AT&T, Motorola and others agreed to appears to have soured.
EPA, which denies promising to censor itself, recently stated that the new RF safety standard does not address potential health risks from chronic low-level exposure. That view, which EPA has consistently held to, frightens the wireless industry because it introduces an element of uncertainty into the issue of whether long-term exposure to low-level RF radiation from pocket phones can cause brain cancer and other health problems as claimed in various lawsuits.
To date, no court has ruled in favor of a defendant making such claims. The federal government, while concerned and anxious for new research to shed more light on the issue-does not believe the threat is serious enough to shut the industry down. At the same time, the Food and Drug Administration appears to be growing impatient with the lack of progress in the five-year, $25 million research program funded by the wireless industry and administered by Wireless Technology Research L.L.C. head Dr. George Carlo.
In addition to funding and administrative problems, researchers are hesitant to go forward unless the industry indemnifies those named in RF lawsuits.
The Pentagon said the FCC did not solicit public comment once the agency decided to abandon the ’92 IEEE-ANSI proposal, suggesting the hybrid RF standard is not supported by good science and may violate the National Technology Transfer Act of 1995.
In addition, the Department of Defense said the FCC ruling conflicts with the ’92 IEEE/ANSI international standard.
“In the end, it appears the commission made a decision to ignore science in favor of some type of other accommodation,” said U S West, alluding possibly to a widely-held belief that political considerations of Hundt and EPA chief Carol Browner-both closely tied to Vice President Gore-drove the RF rulemaking.
