Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 1200 Seventeenth Street NW | Washington, DC 20036-3006 | tel 202.663.8000 | fax 202.663.8007 Glenn S. Richards tel: 202.663.8215 glenn.richards@pillsburylaw.com July 13, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING (ECFS) Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12 th Street, SW Washington, DC 20554 Re: Ex Parte Presentation ET Docket No. 19-226 Dear Ms. Dortch: On July 9, 2020, representatives of Sensormatic Electronics, LLC (“Sensormatic”) met by phone with staff of the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology to discuss Sensormatic’s position in the above-referenced proceeding. A complete list of attendees is attached as Exhibit 1. During the meeting, Sensormatic, consistent with its comments in this proceeding, provided background on the company and its electronic anti-theft technology; discussed why new RF exposure limits for frequencies below 100 kHz are unnecessary; recommended that if limits are adopted, the FCC should adopt IEEE Std C95.-2019 rather than the more stringent ICNIRP limits, which would have a detrimental effect on Sensormatic and retailers that require larger width openings; described how this same issue was addressed in Canada; described its commitment to medical implant patient safety; and recommended that if limits are adopted the FCC should grandfather installed devices and existing inventory, and not make the new rules effective for three years. Attached as Exhibit 2 is the handout provided for the meeting. Please feel free to contact the undersigned if you have any questions. Very truly yours, Glenn S. Richards Counsel for Sensormatic Attachment cc: See Exhibit 1 (via email) www.pillsburylaw.com 4849-4774-5986.v1
Exhibit 1 Attendees FCC Office of Engineering and Technology Martin Doczkat Ira Keltz Kevin Graf Steven Bartholomew Chrys Chrysanthou For Sensormatic Electronics, LLC Ian Brooker Jose Hernandez Lee Finney Craig Sharman Olin Giles, Consultant to Sensormatic Rob Kavet, Consultant to Sensormatic Glenn Richards, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP Kenneth Taber, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP David Redl, Salt Point Strategies www.pillsburylaw.com 4849-4774-5986.v1
If you can read this Click If you can read this Click on the icon to choose a on the icon to choose a picture or picture or Reset the slide . Reset the slide . To Reset: Right click on the slide To Reset: Right click on the slide thumbnail and select ‘reset slide’ or thumbnail and select ‘reset slide’ or choose the ‘Reset’ button on the choose the ‘Reset’ button on the ‘Home’ ribbon ‘Home’ ribbon (next to the font choice box) (next to the font choice box) Sensormatic Presentation to the Federal Communications Commission ET Docket 19-226 (NPRM) 7/9/20
Our Purpose for this Ex-Parte Meeting 1) We recommend against extending the RF exposure limits below 100 kHz. This extension would not advance public health. 2) If regulation is deemed necessary, we recommend IEEE Std C95.1-2019. 3) The proposed ICNIRP 2010 Guidelines have serious flaws. 4) Canada’s Safety Code 6 addresses at least some of ICNIRP flaws. 5) Impact on “brick and mortar” retailers from any new regulation could be severe. 6) Grandfathering is essential. 2
EAS Products Protect the World’s Leading Retailers � Source-Tagging eco-system. � Thousands of manufacturers incorporate the tags in their products. EAS Deters Theft … Which costs U.S. Consumers $50.6 Billion/Year Average Cost per Family ….$506/Year 3
EAS Systems - How Sensormatic Ultramax Works � The transmitter signal is a series of 58 kHz pulses 1.6 ms @ 10% duty cycle. � Acousto-Magnetic Tag resonates like a tuning fork, Distance, d rings down after each pulse. � Typical time of exposure in the system: a few seconds. Resonant � The retailer’s operation determines the system width EMF Retransmission Transmission and thus the required EMF field level. H rec ∝ 1/d 3 H trans � “Big Box” stores often require nine-foot openings for large items, like pallets of lumber. � Department stores also need wide entrance protection. Over One Million Systems Installed Globally ……Billions and Billions of Safe Passages 4
EAS Systems - Part of the Environment For Decades � EAS systems are everywhere… � A well known part of the environment for decades. � Comply with the FCC’s intentional radiator rules, 47 CFR 15.209. � Comply with the IEEE Std C95.1-2019 limits. � EAS EMF levels unchanged for decades (with no plans to increase levels). � Zero reports of Peripheral Nerve Stimulation (PNS) from the public passing through the systems. � Zero reports of exposure injury to the public in the scientific literature. Regulations should solve problems, not create them 5
Background on FCC ET Docket 19-226 � In 2013, the FCC initiated a proceeding to consider establishing human exposure limits on transmitters operating at frequencies below 100 kHz. � The FCC asked whether it should adopt the then-available ICNIRP or IEEE limits. � Most commenters didn’t address the adoption of either standard with respect to the low frequency range. � Sensormatic supported IEEE Std C95.1-2005. � Sensormatic filed comments, reply comments, plus two ex-parte meetings. 6
Background on FCC ET Docket 19-226 Now: Fast Forward Seven Years � ET Docket 19-226 NPRM proposes extending the frequency range below 100 kHz and adopting the ICNIRP 2010 Basic Restrictions (BRs) for internal electric field (E i ), rather than the more recent IEEE Std C95.1-2019. � Adoption of the ICNIRP BRs would be detrimental for Sensormatic, the rest of the low frequency EAS Industry, and the extensive “Brick and Mortar” retailer customer base. FCC’s NPRM Selecting ICNIRP 2010 Surprised Sensormatic 7
Sensormatic’s Recommendation… As One of the Largest ≤ 100 kHz Users � Do not extend the regulated frequency range below 100 kHz. � No advancement of public health. � PNS is the only known bioeffect in this low frequency range. � PNS is a threshold effect, transient and completely reversible, With no long-term residual effects. � The FCC has never regulated, or imposed limits, because of the PNS bioeffect. � OET’s own RF safety FAQ only recognizes tissue heating above 100 kHz as an adverse health concern, and current rules protect against it above 300 kHz. ICNIRP 2010’s Many Flaws Should Preclude Selection 8
IEEE vs ICNIRP ….. Essentially the Same at High Frequencies ….. Very Different at Low Frequencies Acousto Magnetic 900 A/m 163 A/m 21 A/m 58 � ICNIRP RLs are 8X below IEEE ERL levels: yields >50% reduction in EAS system exit width. � ICNIRP BRs are 1.75X below IEEE DRL levels: yields ~20% reduction in system exit width. � ICNIRP lacks alignment between its BRs and RLs ICNIRP BRs : A Significant Impact on System Exit Width ICNIRP RLs : Far More Impact 9
EAS Products vs IEEE Std C95.1-2019 and ICNIRP 2010 � No products meet the ICNIRP Reference Levels � Several Meet the ICNIRP BRs… But Wider Exit Systems suffer a 20% width reduction All Products Comply with IEEE Std C95.1-2019 ERLs (MPEs) 10
ICNIRP 2010 Flaws � Not an open, consensus-based, process. � A small group: 14 Commission members from government & academia….. by invitation only. � Dominated by Europe: 8 European members ( ≈ 60%), only one from the U.S., an optical engineer. � ICNIRP 2010 was intended as a “fix” for ICNIRP 1998 below 100 kHz. � Driven by European politics: emitters could not meet ICNIRP1998 (32X below IEEE), a major issue. � ICNIRP 2010 needed further fixes before could be adopted in the EU “Worker Exposure Directive”. � ICNIRP 2010 RLs 8X below IEEE Reference Levels….. still a problem and unrealistic . � No relaxation for limbs: a serious omission. � Manufacturers forced to assess compliance to ICNIRP 2010 Basic Restrictions using costly FDTD modelling. � Arbitrary dosimetry assumptions lead to unjustified safety factors . Self-Critical Article by ICNIRP in Health Physics (Vol 118, May 2020) 11
Technical Concerns w/ICNIRP vs ICES/IEEE Factor ICNIRP IEEE Applies peak in situ PNS Consistent in application of 1) Threshold parameter threshold as RMS . peak and RMS quantities. 2) Criterion response Perception presumed. Pain explicitly stated. Does not compare pain & Assigns multiplier of 1.45 3) Pain multiplier perception medians. based on literature. 4) Consistency of Perception(?) for PNS, but Consistent pain criteria. sensory criteria pain for contact current. Extra ad hoc reduction Safety factors based on 5) Safety factors factor due to studies of electrostimulation. “dosimetric uncertainty.” 6) Correspondence of RL & BR do not Exposure ( ERL ) & dose exposure & dose limits dosimetrically correspond. limits ( DRL ) correspond. 7) Limbs No exceptions. Relaxed exposure limits. 12
“Dosimetric Uncertainty” ■ Suggested in ICNIRP, 2010 as an unbounded uncertainty. ■ Led to overly conservative RL >3 kHz. ■ In fact, dosimetric uncertainty is bounded by the variability ( σ ) of the external field at sensory threshold ( B Thresh ). ■ This variability can guide the values for safety factors, but need data. Dose 0.5 Exposure Response Fortunately, we have % Responding (PNS) 0.4 empirical PNS threshold 0.3 σ data from human 0.2 subjects. 0.1 0 Log e B Thresh -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 13
Recommend
More recommend
