JOINT SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONERS SUSAN NESS AND
HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH
| Re: | Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission's Rules Regarding Spread Spectrum Devices, FCC 00-312 (rel. August 31, 2000). |
By this Order, the Commission amends Part 15 of its rules in a manner that will permit frequency hopping spread spectrum devices in the 2.4 GHz band to provide higher data speeds. These amendments should pave the way for manufacturers of these devices to bring new services to consumers and compete in the marketplace for distribution of wireless computer local area networks and cable modems. We are concerned about the effect these changes will have on spread spectrum devices already in the hands of consumers. Nonetheless, we recognize that the FCC engineering staff has worked hard for more than a year to assess the interference claims of the parties and adjust the proposed amendments in an attempt to balance the benefits of the new spread spectrum devices against the potential for interference to existing devices. Unlicensed and unprotected operations under Part 15 are a valuable laboratory for experimentation and innovation; today's order is another step in providing more valuable services to American consumers in this band.
We also write separately to express our concern that Commission's initial regulatory flexibility analysis ("IRFA") in this proceeding was disturbingly cursory. The Small Business Administration and the Committees on Small Business of both the Senate and House of Representatives expressed their concern over the lack of specificity in our initial statement. The Regulatory Flexibility Act, including Section 603, creates important mandates that the Commission assess and explore the impact of our regulations on small businesses. The IRFI itself is designed to not only require the Commission to look at these issues thoughtfully, but also to allow outside parties to comment fully on these issues. In this regard, we note more than 100 interested parties commented in this proceeding and that there has been substantial public interest in the docket. (1) Nonetheless, small businesses represent a creative and booming sector of our economy and we have an obligation to ensure that their regulatory burden is no more heavy than necessary to achieve the goals of the Act. Thus, going forward, we believe the Commission should recommit itself to a close examination of the issues raised by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We have a statutory obligation to do so and the small business community deserves nothing less.
1 The Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration has indicated that it would not "delay the issuance of final rules while the Commission issues a revised IRFA." Letter from Jere W. Glover, Chief Counsel for Advocacy, February 29, 2000. Instead, since "small business has in fact participated in the rulemaking process and the modified rules will have a beneficial impact on small business, the Commission should rectify its inadequate IRFA by conducting the proper regulatory flexibility analysis in conjunction with the formulation of its final rules." While the staff has made every effort to deal thoroughly with the issues in its Final Regulatory Flexibility Act ("FRFA") in this proceeding, it is far from clear to me that an inadequate IRFA can be cured by the issuance of a thorough and proper FRFA. MS - in light of heir new letter it seems hard to say this . .