Notice2026-19364
FCC Seeks Comment on RF Exposure Issues Subject to D.C. Circuit Remand in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC
Primary source
Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.
Published
September 22, 2026
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) seeks comment on certain RF exposure issues that were remanded to the FCC for further consideration by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 91 Issue 182 (Tuesday, September 22, 2026)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 22, 2026)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60128-60131]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2026-19364]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[ET Docket No. 13-84; DA 26-997; FR ID 368752]
FCC Seeks Comment on RF Exposure Issues Subject to D.C. Circuit
Remand in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Office of Engineering and Technology
(OET) seeks comment on certain RF exposure issues that were remanded to
the FCC for further consideration by the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit in Environmental Health Trust v.
FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
DATES: Comments are due October 22, 2026.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the Public Notice
may be directed to the FCC's RF Safety Program at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#95e7f3e6f4f3f0e1ecd5f3f6f6bbf2fae3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4c6d2c7d5d2d1c0cdf4d2d7d79ad3dbc2">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
document (Public Notice), DA 26-997, in ET Docket No. 13-84, released
on September 17, 2026. The full text of this document is available for
public inspection and can be downloaded at: <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-997A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-997A1.pdf</a> or by using the search function for
ET Docket No. 13-84 on the Commission's ECFS web page at <a href="http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
Synopsis
Since the birth of the American wireless industry, the Federal
Communications Commission has been entrusted to develop spectrum
policies that bring economic prosperity, unleash innovation and
investment, and promote national security as well as safety of life.
Spectrum-based connectivity enabled by Commission policies has brought
billions of dollars for the U.S. Treasury, created millions of jobs,
served as an essential platform for U.S. tech innovation, bolstered
America's geopolitical leadership, and driven down prices for
consumers. Looking ahead, the U.S. government has determined that
leading the world in 5G and 6G will require the Commission to auction
large amounts of licensed spectrum and enable large swaths of
unlicensed and satellite spectrum for next-generation services.
The Communications Act establishes the Commission's primacy over
commercial spectrum policymaking, and the Working Families and Tax Cut
Act, signed by President Trump in July 2025, directed the Commission to
repurpose and auction 800 megahertz of spectrum, including 500
megahertz of federal spectrum for ``full-power commercial licensed use
cases[.]'' Along the way, courts have repeatedly affirmed that when the
Commission ``foster[s] innovative methods of exploiting the spectrum''
in its role ``as a policymaker,'' it is ``accorded the
[[Page 60129]]
greatest deference by a reviewing court.''
As an essential component of this policymaking function, Congress
entrusted the Commission in 1996 to adopt rules regarding human
exposure to RF energy emitted by Commission-regulated transmitters and
facilities. The Commission's RF exposure rules are continuously
evaluated and based on gold-standard research from entities with
specialized expertise in health and safety issues, including the
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), a
congressionally chartered organization, as well as guidelines
promulgated by the American National Standards Institute and the
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE),
internationally recognized standard-setting organizations. Courts have
consistently upheld the reasonableness of the Commission's RF human-
safety requirements when challenged in 2000, 2004, and 2021.
Most recently, the Commission terminated a nearly six-year inquiry
in December 2019, which had sought comment on whether the agency's RF
safety rules should be reevaluated. Upon consideration of nearly 1,000
submissions, the Commission ``conclude[d] that the best available
evidence . . . supports maintaining [its] current RF exposure
standards.'' The D.C. Circuit's 2021 decision in Environmental Health
Trust v. FCC upheld the majority of the Commission's findings,
including its determination that RF exposure at levels below the
current limits does not cause cancer. The panel also rejected arguments
that the Commission had violated the Administrative Procedure Act by
``fail[ing] to respond to various `additional legal considerations'''
and that it had violated NEPA by failing to conduct an environmental
review regarding its decision to terminate the Notice of Inquiry.
The panel maintained the legal force of the Commission's RF safety
rules, which remain effective today and have allowed Americans to
benefit from world-leading networks. At the same time, the panel
remanded for the Commission ``to provide a reasoned explanation for its
determination that its guidelines adequately protect against harmful
effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation unrelated to cancer.''
The panel specifically directed the Commission to address three
targeted issues: (1) ``its decision to retain its testing procedures
for determining whether cell phones and other portable electronic
devices comply with its guidelines''; (2) ``the impacts of RF radiation
on children, the health implications of long-term exposure to RF
radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other technological
developments that have occurred since the Commission last updated its
guidelines''; and (3) ``the impacts of RF radiation on the
environment.'' Importantly, the panel did not vacate the 2019
decision--it merely directed the Commission to provide further
explanation to justify its findings as to these specific issues.
By this Public Notice, the Commission seeks to refresh the record
on these targeted issues to discharge its obligations in response to
the Court's remand in Environmental Health Trust. In all cases, the
Commission found in 2019 that the nearly six-year record failed to
justify a change to the Commission's rules. The Commission seeks
comment on that finding. The Commission emphasizes that, in light of
the limited scope of the court's remand, the Commission does not seek
comment here on any other aspects of the 2019 decision that were upheld
in Environmental Health Trust or portions of the record that were not
properly before the court.
The panel's opinion in Environmental Health Trust took ``no
position in the scientific debate regarding the health and
environmental effects of RF radiation.'' Rather, it pointed to
submissions and studies in the record that the Commission did not
address in consideration of the specific issues identified above. The
panel did not endorse those submissions, whereas the dissent
specifically determined that many of them were insufficient to warrant
the Commission's explicit analysis. The panel did, however, acknowledge
``that there may be good reasons'' why those submissions ``do not
warrant changes to the Commission's guidelines.'' The panel further
noted that ``if those six sources fairly represented the credible
record evidence seeking a change in Commission policy,'' then the
criticisms of those sources in the dissenting opinion ``would have
sufficed'' as reasoned decision-making. The Commission seeks comment on
the submissions specifically cited and discussed in the Environmental
Health Trust opinion. Are they representative of record evidence
seeking a change in the Commission's rules? Do they demonstrate
sufficient indicia of quality, reliability, or rigor to justify a
change in the Commission's rules?
The panel's remand--both as to the Commission's decision to
maintain its existing testing procedures, and the Commission's
determination that its RF exposure limits did not pose adverse health
effects to children--flowed from the Commission's purported failure to
provide sufficient justification for its finding that ``exposure to RF
radiation at levels below its current limits does not cause negative
health effects unrelated to cancer.'' In so finding, the panel pointed
largely to five articles that the Commission did not discuss regarding
the putative non-cancerous effects of RF exposure below the prescribed
levels.
The Commission seeks comment on whether ``the five articles on
which the majority opinion relie[d] . . . do not challenge a
fundamental premise of the Commission's order'' and asks the same
question as to any record information that the panel identified in
arriving at its holding.
<bullet> One such article, the dissenting opinion noted, purported
to present evidence of non-cancerous ``oxidative effects'' but conceded
that it ``[did] not provide conclusive evidence of causal effects and
should be interpreted with caution until confirmed in other
population.''
<bullet> Another meta-analysis, the dissent observed, summarized
the results of human studies on the behavioral effects of RF radiation
and identified ``31 studies that showed no significant behavioral
effects compared to 20 studies that showed behavioral effects,''
including ``four [that] found behavioral improvements, not negative
health effects.''
<bullet> Yet another, according to the dissent, failed to ``address
the critical issue--whether RF radiation below the Commission's current
limits can cause negative health effects'' because it examined the
International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection's
(ICNIRP) recommended RF exposure limit, which ``is significantly higher
than the Commission's current limit--0.08 W/kg averaged over the whole
body and a peak spatial-average of 1.6 W/kg over any 1 gram of
tissue.''
<bullet> And yet another, the dissent noted, acknowledged that
``the health effects of [exposure to radiofrequency electromagnetic
fields (RF-EMFs)] are still unknown . . . [and] to date studies
addressing this topic have produced inconsistent results.''
<bullet> Still another, according to the dissent, ``found decreases
in figural memory'' but acknowledged that ``some experimental and
epidemiological studies on RF-EMF found improvements in working memory
performance.''
<bullet> And a final study, the dissenting opinion remarked, was
``hardly worth discussing because the self-published
[[Page 60130]]
report has been widely discredited as a biased review of the science.''
The Commission seeks comment on the foregoing discussion regarding
the credibility and probative value of these studies.
With respect to environmental considerations, the panel faulted the
Commission for not discussing a 2014 letter from the Department of
Interior on the impact of communications towers to migratory birds. As
the dissent noted, the Department of Interior's letter found that ``no
independent, third-party field studies have been conducted in North
America on impacts of tower electromagnetic radiation on migratory
birds.'' The Commission seeks comment on the probative value of the
Department of Interior's letter.
Beyond the submissions discussed in Environmental Health Trust, the
Commission seeks comment on whether other record evidence properly
before the court--namely, submissions filed after our 2013 Notice of
Inquiry and before our 2019 decision to terminate the Notice of
Inquiry--warrants the Commission revisiting its RF exposure rules on
the specific issues subject to remand identified above. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether record evidence affirmatively supports
our rules or casts doubt on the reliability of submissions to the
contrary.
As with our prior efforts, the Commission intends to give
particular weight to submissions that reflect specialized experience in
health and safety issues on RF exposure. In prioritizing the quality of
submissions over their quantity, the Commission does not anticipate
affording such scientific weight to meta-analyses that simply compile
studies marked by wide ranges in scientific rigor and differing and
sometimes contradictory conclusions. Nor does the Commission anticipate
affording such weight to unverifiable or repetitive testimonial
submissions that purport to assert the existence or absence of adverse
health effects. Probative value will be accorded to parties who have
demonstrated a capacity to interpret the biological research necessary
to assess the health impact of RF emissions and determine what exposure
levels are considered safe for humans, and who can do so with
sufficient detail and persuasiveness to overcome the failings that the
court identified when the Commission last attempted to rely on the
expertise of expert agencies.
For instance, on potential environmental impact from RF, the
Commission encourages input from science-based standard-setting
organizations and other interested parties and request that commenters
describe their relevant qualifications and subject-matter expertise,
and provide sufficient supporting information so that the Commission
may evaluate the methodological rigor underpinning their views and
claims. The Commission notes the work of the Australian Radiation
Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA), who ``finds good
quality studies show no effect from radio waves on plants and
animals,'' and the ongoing work of the ICNIRP Project Group on
Environmental EMF Protection tasked to ``draft a statement on
environmental effects of EMFs on the basis of qualitatively reliable
scientific papers.'' The Commission also invites comment on our testing
procedures for determining whether cell phones and other portable
electronic devices comply with our guidelines. As stated in Commission
rules, guidance regarding applicable measurement techniques for the
evaluation of compliance for portable devices can be found in the
Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) Laboratory Division
Knowledge Database (KDB).
In particular, the Commission asks that parties addressing the its
past findings that ``[t]he weight of scientific evidence has not linked
cell phones with any health problems,'' that ``the current safety
limits for cell phones are acceptable for protecting the public
health,'' that the ``totality of the available scientific evidence
continues to not support adverse health effects in humans caused by
exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure
limits,'' and that ``no changes to the current standards are warranted
at this time,'' clearly articulate the factual bases for their
positions. Commenters who choose to address the body of scientific
studies regarding the issues on remand, including the alleged existence
of adverse effects to humans from low-level RF exposure, potential
impacts on children, and potential health implications of long-term
exposure to RF radiation, the ubiquity of wireless devices, and other
technological developments that have occurred since the Commission last
updated its guidelines, should clearly describe their specialized
experience and subject-matter expertise that makes them well qualified
to address such matters.
As the Commission considers how much weight to give to submissions
or studies that purport to cast doubt on our RF exposure rules on the
issues encompassed by the court's remand, the Commission seeks comment
on their methodological rigor. What is the scope of such studies, do
they properly bear on the remanded issues, and do they come with any
acknowledged caveats? Does the record provide evidence that such
studies have been replicated? Do such studies provide longitudinal
evidence of non-cancerous adverse health effects or environmental
harms? Does the record contain epidemiologic evidence that considers
the ubiquitous saturation of cell phones in the American population
over time? Do any such studies establish a demonstrated biological
mechanism or marker through which such adverse effects are known to
occur? If they purport to establish proxies such as oxidative effects,
to what extent do those proxies establish adverse health effects? If
they purport to show adverse health effects on humans, do they properly
distinguish correlation from causation? If they purport to be based on
literature review, are the reviews based on weight of scientific
evidence? Are they based on self-reported data? Do they measure RF
exposure through properly calibrated instruments and accepted
scientific methods? Is dosimetry properly controlled, evaluated and
documented? Are multiple exposure levels studied to establish a dose-
response relationship, and do they substantiate an adverse health
effect in humans at exposure levels below Commission limits? Do they
control for confounding factors? Are proper controls and blinding
procedures implemented in the study design? Are they based on
representative sample sets? Are statistical analyses properly performed
and sample sets of sufficient size to support conclusions? If they are
based on experiments or testing in controlled environments, do those
environments credibly resemble realistic deployment scenarios in the
United States? If such studies are based on animal-based experiments,
to what extent do they properly establish adverse health effects on
humans?
While the scope of issues the Commission invites comment on is
narrowly confined to record evidence that was properly before the court
in Environmental Health Trust, the Commission invites the broadest
range of commenters to participate, including local, state, federal,
and international health and safety agencies, science-based standard-
setting organizations that are active in this area, and other
interested parties. These include, but are not limited to, NCRP, IEEE,
the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection
(ICNIRP), and parties directly engaged with other competent bodies that
are involved in
[[Page 60131]]
this area. These entities have published standards, articles, or
information related to RF exposure that may assist in responding to the
court's remand.
Procedural Matters
Interested parties may file comments on or before the dates
indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed
using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the
internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an
original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal
Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission. Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper
filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building. Commercial courier deliveries
(any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. Filings sent by U.S.
Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail
Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83e5e0e0b6b3b7c3e5e0e0ade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="05636666303531456366662b626a73">[email protected]</span></a> or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding this Notice initiates shall be
treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the
Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must
file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any
oral presentation within two business days after the presentation
(unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex
parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto,
must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available
for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g.,
.docx, .xml, .pptx, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Federal Communications Commission.
Ira Keltz,
Deputy Bureau Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology.
[FR Doc. 2026-19364 Filed 9-21-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>Indexed from Federal Register on September 22, 2026.
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.