WASHINGTON-After months of delay, oral arguments are set for the week of Nov. 30 on legal challenges to radio-frequency radiation exposure guidelines adopted by the Federal Communications Commission in late 1996.
The outcome of the litigation has enormous implications for the wireless telecom industry, which is struggling to bring mobile phone, paging, dispatch and wireless local loop networks into compliance with new RF safety guidelines.
A remand or repeal of the FCC RF standard would throw a wrench into legal and business affairs of wireless carriers.
Though the new RF standard is stricter than the previous one, the appellants-environmentalists, organized labor and electrically sensitive individuals-argue the guidelines still do not protect consumers adequately. In addition, the groups claim the 1996 RF standard conflicts with laws governing disabled citizens, the environment and state rights.
The FCC, supported by wireless carriers and equipment manufacturers, says the 1996 RF standard included input from the Food and Drug Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
The 1996 FCC ruling incorporated elements of the RF standard adopted by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and American National Standards Institute in 1992 and RF guidelines issued by the National Council on Radiation in 1986.
“We think it’s high time that this get into the courtroom,” said Libby Kelley, executive director of the San Francisco-based Ad Hoc Association of Parties Concerned About the FCC’s Radio Frequency Health and Safety Rules.
Originally, oral argument was scheduled in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for early August in New York City. The FCC sought and received a couple extensions of the date for oral argument.
Recently, the FCC won a delay after convincing the court the commission lawyer who will argue the case-Joel Marcus-could not argue the case in September because of previous personal and business obligations. Why the court did not schedule the case in October is unclear.
The RF health controversy was sparked by a Florida man who claimed in a lawsuit five years ago that his wife’s fatal brain cancer was caused by her cellular phone. The court ruled against H. David Reynard in that case and no court to date has found any carrier or manufacturer liable for damages in the handful of health-related lawsuits.
A $25 million research program, underwritten by cellular carriers and manufacturers and administered by Wireless Technology Research has not produced any biological test results after five years.
At the same time, Motorola Inc. says RF animal and cell culture research has not produced any positive results.
Still, the absence of fresh data from WTR-which bills itself as independent of industry influence-has contributed to uncertainty in the public about the safety of mobile phones.
Given that, Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) fought for and won support for an amendment to E911/federal-land antenna-siting legislation that would earmark $10 million spanning five years for federal RF research on animals.
But because of controversy surrounding the Senate E911 bill, the legislation was shelved for the year.
The World Health Organization and individual countries, meanwhile, are probing whether mobile phones contribute to cancer or other illnesses.
