26110083455
https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/26110083455

Comments of Erin Finegold ET Docket No. 13-84, DA 26-997 Remand Issue: Testing Procedures for Cell Phones and Other Portable Devices I write in support of compliance testing that measures portable devices as they are carried and used. I am the founder and CEO of StingRay Shields Corporation, which develops patented passive RF technology, including Shield Antenna. I request no endorsement of any product and submit no proprietary information. This comment rests on the Commission’s own record. The question on remand is narrow. The court did not resolve the scientific debate and did not find the Commission’s procedures technically invalid. It held that the Commission had not reasonably explained its decision to retain them. Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021), slip op. at 19–20, 31. A reasoned explanation must address three points. First, the Commission cannot merely repeat its safety-margin rationale without curing the explanatory deficiency identified by the court. In paragraph 14 of FCC 19-126 the Commission gave four reasons for declining zero-spacing body testing: head testing with no separation, maximum-power testing, actual test distances that tended to be less than 2.5 centimeters (with a maximum of 1 centimeter for hotspot testing), and the “large safety margin” in the limits. The court held that the safety-margin explanation depended on an inadequately explained premise: that RF exposure below the existing limits does not cause harmful non-cancer effects. The court concluded that this explanatory defect also undermined the justification for retaining the testing procedures, noting that footnote 49 of the order linked challenges to testing with challenges to the exposure limits. On remand the Commission should state whether the first three reasons independently justify retaining the procedures, and on what record basis. Second, the Commission should separate two questions it merged in 2019: whether a certified device stays within the numerical limits in ordinary body-contact use, and whether those limits protect health. The first is a measurement question. The Commission should explain, with record support, whether a device certified at the distances described in paragraph 14 can exceed the applicable SAR limit at zero spacing and, if it can, why the procedure remains adequate. Third, footnote 47 relies on proximity sensors that reduce power near the body and on manufacturers’ antenna design changes. The Commission should identify the certification procedures that apply to those features, explain how they are verified, and describe how test configuration, separation distance, and power-control behavior are documented so that results are reproducible. If the Commission cannot make these showings on the record, it should revise the procedures to test devices in the configurations in which they are used. The Commission’s own footnote recognizes that design, including antenna design, affects exposure. A procedure that measures the device as sold would allow any design remedy to be judged on demonstrated performance in that device rather than on assumed benefit. The Commission should answer the deficiency the court identified directly rather than restate its 2019 assurances. References: FCC Seeks Comment on RF Exposure Issues Subject to D.C. Circuit Remand in Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, Public Notice, DA 26-997, ET Docket No. 13-84 (OET rel. Sept. 17, 2026), 91 FR 60128 (Sept. 22, 2026). Resolution of Notice of Inquiry, Second Report and Order, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 19-126, 34 FCC Rcd 11687, ¶ 14 and nn.46–49 (2019). Environmental Health Trust v. FCC, 9 F.4th 893 (D.C. Cir. 2021), No. 20-1025 (consolidated with No. 20-1138), slip op. at 19–20, 30–31.