The FCC is considering rules that would reduce permitting barriers for new and upgraded wireless infrastructure as the United States expands 5G and AI-related connectivity, while health advocates are pressing the agency to revisit decades-old radiofrequency exposure standards.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A Federal Communications Commission effort to accelerate construction and upgrades of wireless infrastructure is reopening a long-running debate over whether federal radiofrequency exposure standards have kept pace with the rapid expansion of cell towers, 5G networks and other wireless technology.
FCC Chairman Brendan Carr launched the agency’s broader Build America Agenda in July 2025 with the stated goal of speeding construction of modern communications networks. The commission followed in September 2025 with a formal proposal, “Build America: Eliminating Barriers to Wireless Deployments,” seeking changes intended to reduce state and local permitting delays, fees and other restrictions affecting towers and wireless facilities.
The proposal is not yet a final rule. The federal government’s current regulatory agenda continues to list the wireless proceeding at the proposed-rule stage, with final action targeted for later in 2026.
Carr and supporters of the initiative argue that faster infrastructure deployment is necessary to expand broadband availability, improve network capacity and keep the United States competitive in 5G and emerging technologies.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has backed the FCC’s wireless deployment initiative, arguing that more predictable permitting rules would encourage private investment, improve network resiliency and help support advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence.
The Chamber said permitting reform is necessary for Americans to receive the benefits of the modern digital economy and argued that wireless connectivity will be important to the development and adoption of AI. It urged the FCC to address local permitting delays, inconsistent requirements and other regulatory barriers that it says can slow network construction.
The FCC’s proposal would examine, among other issues, how federal time limits apply to local permitting, what fees governments may impose, aesthetic requirements affecting wireless facilities and whether existing rules should be expanded to streamline modifications of towers and base stations.
But the push for faster construction comes as health advocates are challenging whether the federal standards governing public exposure to radiofrequency radiation are sufficiently current.
Theodora Scarato, who leads the Wireless and EMF Program at Environmental Health Sciences, argues that expanding wireless infrastructure should not move ahead independently of a comprehensive review of those standards.
“Right now, the FCC is fast tracking cell towers, even though the regulations that we have are completely out of date. We allow among the highest levels of radiation compared to many other countries, and we haven’t even reviewed those regulations in years properly with a full review of the science,” Scarato says.
“The U.S. government allows levels that are 10 to 100 times more than many other countries. They are set far too high to protect against biological effects, according to hundreds of scientists.”
Scarato and other critics point to studies that they say raise concerns about possible biological effects associated with long-term radiofrequency exposure, including effects involving the immune and reproductive systems, genetic material, sleep and other physiological processes.
Those assertions remain disputed within the scientific and regulatory communities.
The National Cancer Institute says radiofrequency energy used by wireless communications is nonionizing radiation, meaning it does not contain enough energy to damage DNA through the mechanism associated with ionizing radiation such as X-rays. NCI says the evidence to date suggests cell-phone use does not cause brain or other cancers in humans and that no other dangerous health effects from radiofrequency radiation have been clearly established in people.
The Food and Drug Administration similarly says the weight of scientific evidence has not linked radiofrequency radiation from cell phones with health problems.
The scientific and regulatory question, however, is not entirely closed.
The FCC’s exposure standards became the subject of a major federal court ruling in 2021 after the commission decided in 2019 to retain limits substantially based on standards established in the 1990s.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the FCC had adequately explained its conclusion regarding cancer risk but had failed to provide a sufficient explanation for dismissing evidence concerning possible non-cancer effects from exposure below existing limits. The court also faulted the agency for failing to adequately address evidence concerning environmental effects.
The court sent those portions of the matter back to the FCC for further consideration.
That issue has returned to the forefront at almost the same time the agency is considering its faster wireless-deployment rules.
On Sept. 22, the FCC formally requested new public comment on radiofrequency exposure questions arising from the D.C. Circuit’s 2021 decision. The agency said it is seeking additional information to address issues the court ordered it to reconsider, with comments due Oct. 22.
The parallel proceedings place the FCC in the position of simultaneously considering how to accelerate wireless infrastructure deployment and how to respond to a federal court’s demand for additional examination of aspects of its RF safety analysis.
Wireless signals are one form of electromagnetic field, or EMF. Cell towers, smartphones, Wi-Fi equipment and other wireless devices transmit information through radiofrequency electromagnetic energy. Electrical wiring and appliances can generate electromagnetic fields at much lower frequencies.
Radiofrequency radiation is different from ionizing radiation. The frequencies used for cellular communications, including 5G, are in the nonionizing portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Exposure also varies considerably depending on the source, power level and distance.
A mobile phone placed directly against the body can create a different exposure pattern from a cellular antenna located hundreds of feet away. Radiofrequency exposure generally falls rapidly as distance from a source increases.
That distinction is important because research involving cell-phone users does not automatically establish the health effects of living near a cellular base station, and studies involving towers do not necessarily describe exposure from a phone held against the head.
Scarato maintains that greater precaution is warranted even while scientific disagreements continue.
“There’s a lot that people can do,” she says. “Night time is the best time to reduce exposure. Have wireless devices off, don’t sleep with that cell phone near your body.
“We can use hardwired connections more often. Not everything has to be wireless. And also, there’s a lot of research being done on safer, lower-emitting technologies. But that needs to be supported and promoted and prioritized, which I believe will happen when the people, the consumers, ask for it.”
Federal health agencies also acknowledge that people who remain concerned about exposure can take simple steps to reduce it.
The National Cancer Institute notes that increasing distance between a cell phone and the body substantially reduces exposure and identifies options including speaker mode, headphones or earbuds and reducing the length of calls.
Those precautions differ from a finding that ordinary wireless exposure is known to cause illness. Federal health agencies currently say the overall human evidence has not established such a connection at permitted exposure levels.
The regulatory debate therefore involves two separate questions: whether wireless infrastructure should be easier and faster to build, and whether the exposure standards governing that infrastructure should undergo a more extensive scientific reassessment.
For Carr, the infrastructure issue is part of a larger effort to increase U.S. telecommunications investment and expand network capacity.
When he announced the Build America Agenda in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, in July 2025, Carr said he wanted to make it easier for tower crews and telecommunications workers to construct new networks and modernize existing infrastructure.
The specific wireless rulemaking adopted several months later proposes changes affecting large cell towers as well as smaller wireless facilities and upgrades to existing infrastructure. The FCC said local permitting delays, high fees and other requirements can effectively prevent or slow deployment of 5G service.
Wireless-industry supporters say denser and more capable networks will be necessary as consumers and businesses transmit increasing amounts of data and as AI applications become more integrated into phones, vehicles, manufacturing, health care and other connected systems.
AI itself generally operates in data centers and cloud-computing infrastructure rather than on cell towers. Wireless networks, however, provide the connectivity through which many AI-powered devices and applications exchange information with those computing systems.
The Chamber has explicitly connected faster broadband deployment with U.S. competitiveness in artificial intelligence, arguing that communications infrastructure is necessary for people and businesses to make use of advanced AI technology.
Local governments have raised a different set of concerns about the FCC proposal, including how far the federal government should go in overriding or restricting municipal authority over zoning, permitting, fees and the placement of wireless infrastructure.
More than 20 cities and other local-government entities sought additional time earlier this year to respond to the proceeding, telling the FCC that the issues were complex and the record was likely to be extensive. The agency denied the request.
The health debate now adds another dimension.
Although the current wireless-deployment rulemaking principally concerns permitting and infrastructure rather than rewriting radiation standards, the FCC’s separate RF proceeding ensures that questions about exposure limits will remain before the commission as it considers how rapidly the nation’s wireless network should expand.
For consumers, the result is likely to be continued growth in wireless infrastructure regardless of the final form of the Build America rule.
The unresolved question is whether the FCC will ultimately change the safety framework governing that expansion.
The agency’s new request for comments on RF exposure gives scientists, health organizations, the wireless industry and members of the public another opportunity to make that case before regulators — even as a separate FCC proceeding moves toward making towers and other wireless facilities easier to deploy.
Original article
Comments