[Contents] [Library] [Reprint policy] [Disasters]
Distributed by the Virtual Publishing Company.

B. Amateur Radio

On August 1, the FCC released new guidelines concerning RF emissions and safety that apply to nearly all transmitters in nearly all radio services. Below is the text of the FCC Report and Order detailing the comments received concerning RF exposure guidelines, and the decision that the Commission has reached concerning how Amateur Radio stations will have to abide by these RF exposure rules.

The new rules will require self certification of many Amateur installations to ensure that they comply with the new rules. The good news in this new regulatory burden is that the Federal government will apparently pre-empt local regulations that attempt to specify RF emissions standards. According Michele C. Farquhar, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC, in an August 2, 1996 speech to the "Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments",

"In the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Congress recognized the importance of local considerations about the placement of towers, and expressly acknowledged the jurisdiction of local zoning authorities. Congress also recognized, however, that the zoning process is yet another potential staging ground for competitive battles, and established certain procedural and substantive rights for parties seeking to place wireless antennas, to ensure they will be dealt with in a fair manner. Congress also clarified that, state and local governments may not deny the placement of a wireless antenna based on the environmental effects of radio-frequency (RF) emissions, to the extent that the facilities comply with our national rules governing RF emissions." [emphasis added by Ham Radio Online].

Text of Report and Order Where It Concerns Amateur Radio

Amateur stations present an unusual case with respect to compliance with RF exposure guidelines. First, over 700,000 amateur stations in the United States are authorized by our rules to transmit from any place where the Commission regulates the service, as well as on the high seas. The Commission does not pre-approve individual amateur station transmitting facilities and no additional application is made for permission to relocate an amateur station or to add additional stations at the same or other locations. Second, the granting of a license is solely conditional upon the applicant passing an examination demonstrating that the examinee possesses the operational and technical qualifications required to perform properly the duties of an amateur operator under our rules. Third, amateur stations vary greatly. Amateur stations are located in dwellings, in air, surface and space craft, and carried on the person. Many of these stations transmit from residential or other areas where individuals may be in close proximity to an RF radiator. In addition, amateur station transmissions are made intermittently and may involve as many as 1,300 different emission types -- each with a distinctive on-off duty cycle. Finally, most amateur stations engage only in two-way communications. Thus, even when in operation, the station is usually transmitting but half of the time. There are many variables, therefore, to be considered in determining whether an amateur station complies with guidelines for environmental RF radiation.

Measurements made during a Commission/EPA study of several typical amateur stations in 1990 indicated that there may be some situations where excessive exposures could occur. Further, among amateur operators themselves there appears to be varying degrees of knowledge concerning the potential hazards of RF radiation. At least one prominent amateur radio publication has a comprehensive section dealing with potential RF hazards at amateur stations.

Comments on continuing to exempt amateur stations from demonstrating compliance are divided. The ARRL opposes inclusion, and claims that most amateur operators adopt the philosophy of prudent avoidance, that is, they avoid unnecessary exposure to electromagnetic radiation as a commonsense response to potential but not yet proven health hazards. The ARRL also states that its publications, which include sections on RF safety, urge amateur operators to practice prudent avoidance wherever possible and are sufficient to keep the amateur community informed of the hazards of RF radiation. The ARRL and the ARRL Bio-Effects Committee support "prudent avoidance" and state that most amateur operators do not possess the requisite equipment, technical skills, and/or financial resources to conduct an environmental analysis if the categorical exclusion for Part 97 were eliminated.

The ARRL argues that amateur stations, because of their intermittent operation, low duty cycles, and relatively low power levels, rarely exceed the 1992 ANSI/IEEE standard. Further, the ARRL suggests that the risk of exceeding those levels would only be relevant for a licensee and his or her family. The ARRL maintains that in this experimental service it is better to rely on education and testing of licensees than on submission of a complex environmental assessment which would not be valid for long in most cases since much amateur station transmitting equipment, especially antennas, is constructed and designed by the licensee and often changes. Therefore, the ARRL argues that amateur service licensees should not be subjected to routine environmental processing.

The ARRL states that if the Commission applied these rules to the amateur radio service, it then must facilitate the installation of amateur station antennas in configurations that will permit compliance with the RF exposure guidelines by issuing a more comprehensive preemption statement with respect to amateur station antennas than now exists, and must completely preempt the judicial enforcement of restrictive covenants which result in amateurs installing station antennas indoors or at locations on a horizontal plane with human occupants of residences. Indeed, the ARRL continues, such an order is overdue anyway; but the combination of adoption of a strict RF exposure standard and continuation of a hands-off attitude with respect to antenna covenants is tantamount to a license revocation, as it would preclude the operation of any amateur station subject to both restrictions.

The ARRL Bio-Effects Committee claims that amateur operators normally would be exempted from environmental review requirements, since most engage in operations that would not cause the ANSI/IEEE guidelines to be exceeded. However, it notes, a 100 watt VHF "vehicular installation" may produce higher fields inside the vehicle than the ANSI/IEEE standard would allow. Furthermore, handheld transceivers, facilities employing indoor antennas, and facilities engaging in specialized activities such as "moonbounce" communication, may produce significant localized fields near the antenna.

Further, the ARRL Bio-Effects Committee notes that a comprehensive environmental review would be too burdensome both for the amateur operators and the Commission staff. It therefore recommends that a tabular chart showing the calculated field intensities at various distances from antennas having directive patterns, driven by transmitters of various power output levels common in the amateur service be added to Part 97. The ARRL Bio-Effects Committee also recommends inserting questions about electromagnetic radiation safety in each amateur operator license examination and requiring certification on the license application that the applicant has read the Commission guidelines, understands them, and agrees to comply. Under this scheme, the ARRL Bio-Effects Committee argues, amateur operators would follow the policy of "prudent avoidance" that the ARRL publications now advocate.

Professor Wayne Overbeck, filing comments as an individual, believes that few amateur operators are aware of the electromagnetic radiation levels present near their own amateur stations and that rather than being excluded from our requirements, the amateur service should be subject to the standard for "uncontrolled environments" through language added to Part 97. Professor Overbeck points out that vast numbers of amateurs are neither members of the ARRL nor subscribers to any amateur service magazines and consequently these educational sources are not sufficient to ensure adherence to our guidelines. Because actual measurements would be financially prohibitive for most amateur operators, Professor Overbeck recommends that we promulgate a rule requiring amateur operators to adopt operating and antenna-placement practices calculated to meet the exposure limits and that they be required to certify on their application forms that they have read and will adhere to the guidelines for antenna placement. Finally, Professor Overbeck suggests that we promulgate an amateur service version of OST Bulletin No. 65 that would include charts and tables showing required separation distances between antennas and inhabited areas for various power levels. He also suggests that amateurs be tested on this topic as part of operator license examinations.

Decision. The Commission expects all its licensees to comply with the RF guidelines specified in our rules, or, if not, to file an Environmental Assessment for review under our NEPA procedures. After a thorough review of the comments and the results of an FCC/EPA measurement study, we conclude that, although it appears to be relatively small, there is a potential for amateur stations to cause exposures to RF radiation in excess of these guidelines. Amateur stations can transmit with up to 1500 watts peak envelope power on frequencies in specified bands from 1,800 kHz to over 300 GHz. Certain of the emission types permitted have high duty cycles, for example frequency or phase shifted digital signals. Amateur stations are not subject generally to restrictions on antenna gain, antenna placement and other relevant exposure variables. Even though situations where exposures are excessive may be relatively uncommon and even though most amateur stations transmit for short periods of time at power levels considerably lower than the maximum allowed, the possibility of human exposure to RF radiation in excess of the guidelines cannot be disregarded. Therefore, a blanket exemption for all amateur stations does not appear to be justified, and we will apply our new guidelines to amateur stations. We will rely upon amateur licensees to demonstrate their knowledge of our guidelines through examinations. We will also rely on amateur licensees to evaluate their own stations if they transmit using more than 50 watts of output power. Applicants for new licenses and renewals also will be required to demonstrate that they have read and that they understand our applicable rules regarding RF exposure.

We find it to be the duty of the licensee of an amateur station to prevent the station from transmitting from any place where the operation of the station could cause human exposure to levels of RF radiation that are in excess of the limits we are adopting. We concur with the ARRL that amateur operators should follow a policy of prudent avoidance of excessive RF exposure. We will continue to rely upon amateur operators, in constructing and operating their stations, to take steps to ensure that their stations comply with the MPE limits for both occupational/controlled and general public/uncontrolled environments. In this regard, we recognize and agree with the ARRL's position that the occupational/controlled limits generally can be considered adequate for situations involving amateur stations considering the most commonly used power levels, intermittent operation and frequencies involved. We recognize that operation in the amateur radio service presents certain unique conditions. Nonetheless, we are concerned that amateur radio operations are likely to be located in residential neighborhoods and may expose persons to RF fields in excess of the MPE guidelines. We will consider amateur radio operators and members of their immediate household to be in a "controlled environment" and will apply the occupational/controlled MPE limits to those situations. Neighbors who are not members of an amateur operator's household, are considered to be members of the general public, however, since they cannot reasonably be expected to excercise control over their exposure. In those cases general population/uncontrolled exposure MPE limits will apply.

We believe that the burden for action to assure compliance with RF exposure limits should fall on the relatively few licensees who operate stations that can potentially cause individuals, knowingly or unknowingly, to be exposed to RF energy in excess of these guidelines. We want the licensees of such stations to provide adequately for RF safety. We do not believe, however, that a detailed EA or other routine environmental filing is practical or necessary. To make the complex determination of possible excessive exposure as simple as possible, we are specifying a threshold limit for transmitter power that will apply regardless of frequency used. Below 50 watts transmitter power, the licensee will not be required to take any action, unless requested by Commission staff pursuant to Section 1.1307(c) or 1.1307(d) of our rules. Above this power threshold, the licensee must perform a routine evaluation to predict if the RF radiation could be in excess of that allowed by the criteria listed in ¤ 1.1310. If so, the licensee must take action to prevent such an occurrence. The action could be in the form of altering operating patterns, relocating the antenna, revising the station's technical parameters such as frequency, power or emission type or combinations of these and other remedies. To assist with routine evaluation of exposure levels in accordance with the guidelines, we encourage the amateur community to develop and disseminate information in the form of tables, charts and computer analytical tools that relate such variables as operating patterns, emission types, frequencies, power and distance from antennas. We also intend to provide straightforward methods for amateur operators to determine potential exposure levels. This information could be included in our updated version of OST Bulletin No. 65, or we may follow the suggestion to develop a separate bulletin tailored for the amateur service community. As a result of the adoption of a transition period, which was discussed earlier, the new guidelines will apply to amateur stations beginning January 1, 1997. This should provide sufficient time for the amateur community and the Commission staff to prepare the necessary information to help amateur operators comply with these requirements.

As suggested by the ARRL, the ARRL Bio-Effects Committee and Professor Overbeck, we are amending our rules to require the operator license examination question pools to include questions concerning RF safety at amateur stations. We are requiring an additional five questions on RF safety within each of three written examination elements. We also are adopting ARRL's proposal that amateur operators should be required to certify, as part of their license application process, that they have read and understand our bulletins and the relevant FCC rules. We will rely on our Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to develop suitable methods for obtaining this certification.

Back to table of contents