documents and links to other Web sites will open in a new
browser window. SImply close the new window when done to remain
on this page.
- On April 11, 2003, Senators
Leahy and Jeffords wrote a second letter to the FCC inquiring
about the Application for Review of The EMR Network's Petition
for Inquiry about the current radiofrequency radiation human
exposure guidelines. As noted in the Senators' letter, the
Application for Review was filed fifteen months ago. The Senators'
letter was presented personally to FCC Commissioner Copps
at a public forum on media ownership held at St. Michael's
College in Burlington, Vermont on April 14, 2003.
8/9/02 - In a letter of January 31, 2002,
The EMR Network sought responses from the member agencies
of the federal Radiofrequency Interagency Work Group (RFIAWG)
to the December 11, 2001, Federal Communications Commission's
(FCC) staff-level dismissal of The Network's Petition for
Inquiry into the FCC's rules on the Environmental Effects
of RF Radiation. The letter asked for each agency's position
on the adequacy of the current FCC RF exposure guidelines.
See the table below for all related documents.
The EMR Network
sent a letter to
the agency head of each of the RFIAWG members on
January 31, 2002. The letter addressed to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Whitman is posted
here. The letter asked each agency for its position
on FCC's assertion in dismissing The Network's Petition
to revise or update RF safety limits based on research
in that field or on other factors are appropriate,
that determination should be made by these [EPA, FDA]
or other federal agencies with primary expertise in
and responsibility for ensuring public health and
safety, and should not be made in the first instance
by the FCC.
None of the RFIAWG
agency responses proposes to take the initiatives suggested
by the FCC's letter of dismissal.
The response of
EPA is key because it has responsibilities under Section
309 of The Clean Air Act for the environmental effects
of RF radiation. EPA's letter came for Norbert Hankin,
Center for Science and Risk Assessment, Radiation Protection
Division and Chairman of RFIAWG. It states that:
exposure guideline is considered protective of effects
arising from a thermal mechanism but not from all
possible mechanisms. Therefore, the generalization
by many that the guidelines protect human beings from
harm by any or all mechanisms is not justified.
The letters from
the agencies that responded are posted here: (The links
below are all pdf files that will open in a new browser
There has been
no response from:
- Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) that has responsibility for mobile
phone hand set radiation
- National Telecommunications
Information Agency (NTIA)
The EMR Network
forwarded these responses to the FCC in a letter
dated July 25, 2002.
Patrick Leahy(VT-D) and James Jeffords (VT-I) and
Bernard Sanders (VT-I) have written letters to the
FCC asking when a response to The EMR Network's Application
for Review of the December 11, 2001 dismissal can be
2/1/02 - On December 11, 2001, Bruce A. Franca,
Acting Bureau Chief of the FCC's Office of Engineering and
Technology, dismissed, without legally sufficient reasons,
a Petition for Inquiry of the EMR Network concerning whether
to revise the U.S. radio frequency radiation ("RFR")
human exposure rules. On January 10, 2002, the EMR Network
filed an appeal asserting that on review, the full Commission
should reverse the action and open the inquiry. Here is the
full text of that appeal
as it was filed.
the December 11, 2001, letter in which Acting Chief of the
FCC's Office of Engineering & Technology Bruce
A. Franca dismissed the September 25, 2001, Petition for
Inquiry filed by the EMR Network.
- EMR NETWORK FILES PETITION TO FCC REQUESTING REEXAMINATION
of RULES FOR RADIOFREQUENCY EXPOSURE
On September 25, 2001, the EMR Network filed with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) a Petition
requesting that the FCC issue a Notice of Inquiry designed
to gather information and opinion about the need to revise
the regulations in Parts 1 and 2 of the FCC's Rules concerning
the environmental effects of radiofrequency radiation ("RFR").
A - Letter of June 17, 1999,. from the U.S. federal Radiofrequency
Interagency Work Group to Richard Tell, Chairman of IEEE's
SCC28 Subcommittee 4 Risk Assessment Work Group, outlining
RF guidelines issues.
Group Member List for Exhibit A above.
B - Letter of February 11, 2001, from Dr. Henry C. Lai,
Ph.D., Research Professor in the Department of Bioengineering
at the University of Washington to the Committee on Natural
Resources, Vermont House of Representatives.
C - FY 1990-2000 EPA Budget Summary.
D - Chart prepared by Alasdair Philips, Technical Director,
Powerwatch, June200, "Comparing Standards for general
public RF exposure levels."