FR 2024-29313

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has released a document detailing updates to the rules governing the 24 GHz frequency band in the United States. This initiative aligns with international standards set by the World Radiocommunication Conference in 2019 (WRC-19). The main objective is to protect sensitive instruments on weather and climate-monitoring satellites from harmful emissions produced by mobile devices operating in this frequency range.

Overview of the Document

The new rules aim to align the U.S. with international standards to protect the passive 23.6-24.0 GHz band, a critical spectrum for scientific observation. These regulations will roll out in two phases, with increasingly stringent limits set to be enforced by September 2027. This decision fosters international cooperation and is expected to facilitate the growth of advanced wireless services while safeguarding essential scientific endeavors.

Significant Issues and Concerns

There are several notable issues in the document. First, the language used is highly technical, potentially baffling to individuals without expertise in radiocommunications or engineering. This complexity might obscure understanding for many stakeholders trying to navigate the new requirements.

The proposal to permit both Total Radiated Power (TRP) and maximum conductive output power measurements introduces the possibility of differing interpretations about compliance. This could lead to regulatory grey areas and enforcement challenges, particularly given the technical nature of these measurements.

Additionally, the document does not thoroughly outline the economic impacts, particularly on smaller businesses that may find it difficult to comply with the new standards due to potential costs and logistical burdens. There is concern that the financial implications on small entities were not fully considered or explained adequately.

Another area of concern is the timeline for reassessment or research into the effectiveness of the Resolution 750 limits. The absence of a specific plan for follow-up evaluations leaves potential issues unaddressed, risking prolonged periods before action can be taken if problems arise.

Impact on the Public

Overall, the impact on the public is varied. For most individuals, especially consumers of wireless services, the changes might not be immediately noticeable but could influence the types of technologies and services that are developed over time. The alignment with international standards may enhance the availability and reliability of wireless communication, potentially leading to broader access to advanced mobile networks in the future.

For those within the scientific community, particularly in weather forecasting and climatology, the protection offered to satellite sensors will be invaluable. More accurate data collection can improve meteorological predictions, benefitting society through better preparedness for weather events.

Impact on Specific Stakeholders

For industry stakeholders, particularly mobile operators and equipment manufacturers, the new rules present opportunities and challenges. On the positive side, the international consistency might simplify equipment design, encouraging innovations that can be marketed globally. However, achieving compliance, especially with the forthcoming Phase 2 limits, could require significant investment in new technologies and adjustments in manufacturing processes.

Small businesses may face the brunt of these changes, as ensuring compliance could be costly and resource-intensive. Without a clear picture of the costs involved, these smaller entities might struggle to navigate the transition effectively, potentially stunting growth or leading to financial hardships.

Overall, while the intentions of the FCC's new rule are aligned with global standards and promise several long-term benefits, the path forward is laden with potential complexities and hurdles, especially for smaller players in the telecommunications field. It would be prudent for stakeholders to seek guidance to ensure a seamless transition as these new regulations come into play.

The document "Modifying Emissions Limits for the 24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz Bands" presents several references to financial data. These financial references, however, are not directly related to spending or appropriations in the traditional sense of government budgets or allocations. Instead, they provide context about the size and impact of small entities potentially affected by the rule changes discussed in the document.

Financial Benchmarks and Standards

The document references the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)'s benchmark for small exempt organizations, which is a revenue of $50,000 or less. This benchmark is used to delineate electronic filing requirements for these organizations. In tax year 2022, there were approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less. This provides insight into the potential scale of entities that might fall under the purview of the discussed rules.

Similarly, the document describes the Small Business Administration (SBA) standards, which define a small business in different sectors. For example, a business in the satellite telecommunications industry qualifies as small if it has annual receipts of $44 million or less, while for other telecommunications, the threshold is $40 million or less. These definitions are crucial in understanding which businesses might experience financial impacts due to the regulatory changes.

Relation to Identified Issues

These financial standards are tied to the broader context of how such regulatory changes might impact small businesses. While the document provides these definitional benchmarks, it lacks a clear analysis of the specific financial burden the new rules may impose on small entities. This aligns with the issue of the document's lack of clarity regarding compliance costs, especially for small businesses, and how these businesses will financially cope with the new emissions limits.

Furthermore, the document mentions that 242 firms in the satellite telecommunications industry and 1,039 firms in the "All Other Telecommunications" category had revenues of less than $25 million in 2017. This data suggests that many firms may qualify as small businesses under the SBA's size standards. However, it does not provide an assessment of how many of these small businesses might be directly affected by the rule changes or what financial impact these entities might face.

Conclusion

While the document identifies standard benchmarks for small businesses, it falls short of detailing the financial implications of compliance with new regulations. Without case studies or impact assessments, stakeholders are left without a clear picture of the economic impact on small entities. This lack of specificity contributes to the criticism noted in the identified issues regarding the potential economic burden and regulatory uncertainty for smaller businesses within the affected industries.

Overall, the financial references serve mainly as a background framework regarding potential entities impacted, without delving into specific budgetary or financial allocations. There is a need for more comprehensive financial analysis to understand the true magnitude of the regulatory changes imposed.