FCIC serves America's agricultural producers through effective, market-based risk management tools to strengthen the economic stability of agricultural producers and rural communities. FCIC is committed to increasing the availability and effectiveness of Federal crop insurance as a risk management tool. Approved Insurance Providers (AIPs) sell and service Federal crop insurance policies in every state through a public-private partnership. FCIC reinsures the AIPs who share the risks associated with catastrophic losses due to major weather events. FCIC's vision is to secure the future of agriculture by providing world class risk management tools to rural America.

Federal crop insurance policies typically consist of the Basic Provisions, the Crop Provisions, the Special Provisions, the Commodity Exchange Price Provisions, if applicable, other applicable endorsements or options, the actuarial documents for the insured agricultural commodity, the Catastrophic Risk Protection Endorsement, if applicable, and the applicable regulations published in 7 CFR chapter IV. Throughout this rule, the terms “Crop Provisions,” “Special Provisions,” and “policy” are used as defined in the Common Crop Insurance Policy (CCIP) Basic Provisions in 7 CFR 457.8. Additional information and definitions related to Federal crop insurance policies are in 7 CFR 457.8.

FCIC amends the Common Crop Insurance Regulations by revising 7 CFR 457.101 Small Grains Crop Insurance Provisions, 7 CFR 457.139 Fresh Market Tomato (Dollar Plan) Crop Insurance Provisions, 7 CFR 457.154 Processing Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions, and 7 CFR 457.171 Cabbage Crop Insurance Provisions. In addition, this final rule will make corrections to references, missing words, grammatical and spelling errors, repetitive parenthetical titles, and inadvertently missing text that was identified in the Cabbage Crop Insurance Provisions and the Fresh Market Tomato (Dollar Plan) Crop Insurance Provisions. The changes will be effective for the 2023 and succeeding crop years for crops with a contract change date on or after November 30, 2022, and for the 2024 and succeeding crop years with a contract change date on or after June 30, 2023.

The changes to 7 CFR 457.101 Small Grains Crop Insurance Provisions are:

The Small Grains Crop Provisions currently offers actual production history (APH) coverage for buckwheat, flax, oats, and rye; and offers yield protection (YP), revenue protection (RP), and revenue protection with harvest price exclusion (RP-HPE) for barley and wheat. In this final rule, FCIC is expanding RP and RP-HPE for oats and rye, matching available coverage for barley and wheat.

The current APH coverage will be converted to YP. For producers who wish to maintain yield coverage, the only difference in coverage will be the price guarantee will match the projected price offered for revenue protection (established approximately 2 weeks prior to the sales closing date), instead of a price election established by the Risk Management Agency (RMA) (established prior to the contract change date).

With the availability of revenue protection for oats and rye, the terms “price election” and “production guarantee” are no longer applicable. Instead, the terms “projected price,” “yield protection guarantee,” and “revenue protection guarantee” are applicable. These changes appear in the following sections of the Small Grains Crop Insurance Provisions to expand revenue coverage to oats and rye: paragraph 3 (a) and (b), paragraph 9 (c), and paragraphs 11 (b) and (c).

In Section 3, FCIC is revising paragraph (a) to remove the references to oats and rye. Prior to this rule, the provision stated that revenue protection is not available for oats, rye, flax, or buckwheat. FCIC is removing oats and rye from the list of crops because revenue coverage will now be available for oats and rye. FCIC is also revising paragraph (b) to add references to oats and rye. Prior to this rule, the provisions stated that revenue protection is available for barley and wheat. FCIC is adding oats and rye to the list of crops in the two places where the list occurs.

In Section 9, FCIC is revising paragraph (c)(2)(i) to remove the reference to oats and revise paragraph (c)(2)(ii) to add a reference to oats. When a crop does not have yield or revenue protection available, the price used for determining coverage and any indemnity payments, including replanting payments, is called the price election. For crops for which yield and revenue protection are available, this price is called the projected price. In paragraph (c)(2)(i), prior to this rule, the provision stated that the replanting payment for oats will be determined by using the price election. This rule changes the regulation to make revenue and yield protection plans of insurance available for oats; therefore, the price used will be the projected price. Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) contains provisions applicable to the projected price. FCIC is revising paragraph (c)(2)(ii) to include oats, as the projected price will now be used. There are no changes in this section regarding rye because replanting payments are not available for rye.

In Section 11, FCIC is revising paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (ii) and (iii). Paragraphs (b)(1)(i), (ii), and (iii) refer to “yield protection guarantee,” “production guarantee,” and “revenue protection guarantee,” respectively. For crops for which yield and revenue protection are available, the applicable terms are yield protection guarantee and revenue protection guarantee. For crops for which yield and revenue protection are not available, the applicable term is production guarantee. Therefore, this rule is removing the references to oats and rye in paragraph (b)(1)(ii), which address production guarantee, and adds them to paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (iii), which address yield protection guarantee and revenue protection guarantee.

FCIC is also revising paragraph (b)(3)(i) to add references to oats and rye and revising paragraph (b)(3)(ii) to remove the references to oats and rye. This change is consistent with the change discussed above for section 9 paragraph (c)(2). Paragraph (b)(3)(i) refers to computations using the projected price; paragraph (b)(3)(ii) refers to computations using the price election. Oats and rye are being removed from paragraph (b)(3)(ii) and added to paragraph (b)(3)(i) to align with the proper terms for crops for which revenue protection is available.

FCIC is also revising paragraph (c)(1)(i) to remove the reference to oats and rye in one place and add the reference in two places. Paragraph (c)(1)(i) contains provisions that explain what appraised production includes. Prior to this rule, oats and rye were included in a list of crops with buckwheat and flax. Those four crops have similar coverage and use the same crop insurance terminology under the Small Grains Crop Provisions. This rule removes oats and rye from the list of crops containing buckwheat and flax and adds them to the list of crops containing barley and wheat in two places because allowing revenue coverage for oats and rye make coverage and crop insurance terminology for those two crops consistent with coverage and terminology for barley and wheat.

FCIC is adding the word “an” to make the sentence in section 2 paragraph (a)(3) grammatically correct.

FCIC is revising the sub-heading for section 3 to “Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices” by removing the phrase “for Determining Indemnities” at the end. Removing this phrase will align the sub-heading to match the corresponding section in the CCIP Basic Provisions. It also helps clarify that price is not exclusively used to determine indemnities; it is also used to establish the guarantee and determine the premium due for the producer.

FCIC is correcting the location of premium rates from “actuarial table” to “actuarial documents” in section 6 paragraph (d). The practical meaning is the same. However, the CCIP Basic Provisions defines “actuarial documents” so that is the correct term to refer to the location of the premium rates information.

FCIC is updating prices in the settlement of claim example, so the prices are more reflective of current values and potential indemnities. FCIC is also adding “not applicable” next to any steps that do not apply to the example. Specifically, steps 2 and 4 in the example are to sum the results of the prior step for each type. The example is for a single type and summing the results is not an applicable step in the calculation.

The changes to 7 CFR 457.154 Processing Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions are:

In response to feedback from producers and processors, FCIC is revising the end of insurance date for Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin from September 20 to September 30. The end of insurance date is already September 30 in Iowa where the producers use the same processors for their crop. The processors coordinate the timing of harvest in advance to maximize operational and storage capabilities at the processing plant. The typical harvest period ends around September 30 and producers are currently left without insurance coverage after September 20. Claims for losses are not expected to increase significantly because the main cause of loss leading up to harvest is freeze or frost and the average first hard freeze dates for these states are between October 3 to October 12, after the revised end of insurance date. This rule will also move the end of insurance period date to the Special Provisions, ensuring RMA can timely adjust the end of insurance period date if another change is needed in the future.

Other minor changes to 7 CFR 457.154 Processing Sweet Corn Crop Insurance Provisions include:

FCIC is removing the introductory sentence explaining the order of priority of policy provisions because it is duplicative of the same order of priority included in the CCIP Basic Provisions.

FCIC is revising the definition of “good farming practice” to clarify the definition for “good farming practice” is in addition to the definition in the CCIP Basic Provisions, because cultural practices required by the sweet corn processor contract are also considered good farming practices for the crop.

FCIC is revising the definition of “practical to replant” to clarify that the definition is in addition to the definition in the CCIP Basic Provisions, because the processor must also agree to accept the production in order for the crop to be considered practical to replant.

FCIC is revising the definition of “processor contract” to replace the term “written agreement” with “written contract.” The term “written agreement” has a specific defined meaning in the CCIP Basic Provisions that does not apply to a processor contract. This change should help avoid confusion with the definition of a “written agreement.”

FCIC is revising the sub-heading for section 3 to “Insurance Guarantees, Coverage Levels, and Prices” by removing the phrase “for Determining Indemnities” at the end. Removing this phrase will align the sub-heading to match the corresponding section in the CCIP Basic Provisions. It also helps clarify that price is not exclusively used to determine indemnities; it is also used to establish the guarantee and determine the premium due for the producer.

FCIC is updating prices and yields in settlement of claim examples, so they are more reflective of current values and potential indemnities. FCIC is also adding “not applicable” next to any steps that do not apply to the example. Specifically, steps 3 and 5 in the first example are to sum the results of the prior step for each type. The example is for a single type and summing the results is not an applicable step in the calculation.

FCIC is removing the phrase “the provisions of” or the “provisions contained in” each time they occur to be consistent when referring to the CCIP Basic Provisions.

FCIC is removing the phrase “the requirements of” in section 3 to be consistent when referring to the CCIP Basic Provisions.

FCIC is replacing “FSA farm serial number” with “FSA farm number,” because “FSA farm serial number” is no longer used. A similar change was already implemented in the CCIP Basic Provisions in 2017 when the definition was changed to remove the word “serial.”

The technical edits and corrections to 7 CFR 457.139 Fresh Market Tomato (Dollar Plan) Crop Insurance Provisions are:

FCIC is revising section 11 paragraph (b) to clarify that FCIC will not insure the crop due to an excluded cause of loss for any damage, not just production losses. Production loss is not defined in the CCIP Basic Provisions and could be interpreted as having losses associated with a producer's actual production history only. Damage is defined in the CCIP Basic Provisions as injury, deterioration, or loss of production of the insured crop due to insured or uninsured causes.

FCIC is removing the phrase “the provisions of” each time they occur to be consistent when referring to the CCIP Basic Provisions.

The technical edits and corrections to 7 CFR 457.171 Cabbage Crop Insurance Provisions are:

FCIC is revising the definition of “crop year” to remove the capitalization of “year” so that it matches the definition in CCIP Basic Provisions.

The Administrative Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 553) provides that the notice and comment and 30-day delay in the effective date provisions do not apply when the rule involves specified actions, including matters relating to contracts. This rule governs contracts for crop insurance policies and therefore falls within that exemption. Although not required by APA or any other law, FCIC has chosen to request comments on this rule.

This rule is exempt from the regulatory analysis requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.

For major rules, the Congressional Review Act requires a delay the effective date of 60 days after publication to allow for Congressional review. This rule is not a major rule under the Congressional Review Act, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Therefore, this final rule is effective on the date of publication in the Federal Register .

Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The requirements in Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 for the analysis of costs and benefits apply to rules that are determined to be significant.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) designated this rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866. Therefore, OMB has not reviewed this rule and analysis of the costs and benefits is not required under either Executive Order 12866 or Executive Order 13563.

Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, requires each agency to write all rules in plain language. In addition to your substantive comments on this rule, we invite your comments on how to make the rule easier to understand. For example:

• Are the requirements in the rule clearly stated? Are the scope and intent of the rule clear?

• Does the rule contain technical language or jargon that is not clear?

• Is the material logically organized?

• Would changing the grouping or order of sections or adding headings make the rule easier to understand?

• Could we improve clarity by adding tables, lists, or diagrams?

• Would more, but shorter, sections be better? Are there specific sections that are too long or confusing?

• What else could we do to make the rule easier to understand?

In general, the environmental impacts of rules are to be considered in a manner consistent with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) and the regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). FCIC conducts programs and activities that have been determined to have no individual or cumulative effect on the human environment. As specified in 7 CFR 1b.4, FCIC is categorically excluded from the preparation of an Environmental Analysis or Environmental Impact Statement unless the FCIC Manager (agency head) determines that an action may have a significant environmental effect. The FCIC Manager has determined this rule will not have a significant environmental effect. Therefore, FCIC will not prepare an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement for this action and this rule serves as documentation of the programmatic environmental compliance decision.

This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform.” This rule will not preempt State or local laws, regulations, or policies unless they represent an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. Before any judicial actions may be brought regarding the provisions of this rule, the administrative appeal provisions of 7 CFR part 11 are to be exhausted.

This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” Executive Order 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with Tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have Tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.

RMA has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian Tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have Tribal implications that require Tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. The regulation changes do not have Tribal implications that preempt Tribal law and are not expected have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes. If a Tribe requests consultation, RMA will work with the USDA Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications identified in this rule are not expressly mandated by Congress.

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, Pub. L. 104-4) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions of State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost benefits analysis, for proposed and final rules with Federal mandates that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year for State, local or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector. UMRA generally requires agencies to consider alternatives and adopt the more cost effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. This rule contains no Federal mandates, as defined in Title II of UMRA, for State, local, and Tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of UMRA.

The title and number of the Federal Domestic Assistance Program listed in the Assistance Listing to which this rule applies is No. 10.450—Crop Insurance.

The purpose of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35, subchapter I), among other things, are to minimize the paperwork burden on individuals, and to require Federal agencies to request and receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) prior to collecting information from ten or more persons. This rule does not change the information collection approved by OMB under control numbers 0563-0053.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family or parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 or (844) 433-2774 (toll-free nationwide). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at https://www.usda.gov/oascr/how-to-file-a-program-discrimination-complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by mail to: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or email: OAC@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

For the reasons discussed above, FCIC amends 7 CFR part 457 as follows:

The Bureau is amending Appendix O to Regulation V, which implements the FCRA, to establish the maximum allowable charge for disclosures by a consumer reporting agency to a consumer for 2023. The maximum allowable charge will be $14.50 for 2023.

Under section 609 of the FCRA, a consumer reporting agency must, upon a consumer's request, disclose to the consumer information in the consumer's file. 1 Section 612(a) of the FCRA gives consumers the right to a free file disclosure upon request once every 12 months from the nationwide consumer reporting agencies and nationwide specialty consumer reporting agencies. 2 Section 612 of the FCRA also gives consumers the right to a free file disclosure under certain other, specified circumstances. 3 Where the consumer is not entitled to a free file disclosure, section 612(f)(1)(A) of the FCRA provides that a consumer reporting agency may impose a reasonable charge on a consumer for making a file disclosure. Section 612(f)(1)(A) of the FCRA provides that the charge for such a disclosure shall not exceed $8.00 and shall be indicated to the consumer before making the file disclosure. 4

Section 612(f)(2) of the FCRA also states that the $8.00 maximum amount shall increase on January 1 of each year, based proportionally on changes in the Consumer Price Index, with fractional changes rounded to the nearest fifty cents. 5 Such increases are based on the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), which is the most general Consumer Price Index and covers all urban consumers and all items.

For 2023, the ceiling on allowable charges under section 612(f) of the FCRA will be $14.50, an increase of one dollar from 2022. The Bureau is using the $8.00 amount set forth in section 612(f)(1)(A)(i) of the FCRA as the baseline for its calculation of the increase in the ceiling on reasonable charges for certain disclosures made under section 609 of the FCRA. Since the effective date of section 612(a) was September 30, 1997, the Bureau calculated the proportional increase in the CPI-U from September 1997 to September 2022. The Bureau then determined what modification, if any, from the original base of $8.00 should be made effective for 2023, given the requirement that fractional changes be rounded to the nearest fifty cents.

Between September 1997 and September 2022, the CPI-U increased by 84.124 percent from an index value of 161.2 in September 1997 to a value of 296.808 in September 2022. An increase of 84.124 percent in the $8.00 base figure would lead to a figure of $14.73. However, because the statute directs that the resulting figure be rounded to the nearest $0.50, the maximum allowable charge is $14.50. The Bureau therefore determines that the maximum allowable charge for the year 2023 will increase to $14.50.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), notice and opportunity for public comment are not required if the Bureau finds that notice and public comment are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest. 6 Pursuant to this final rule, in Regulation V, Appendix O is amended to update the maximum allowable charge for 2023 under section 612(f). The amendments in this final rule are technical and non-discretionary, as they merely apply the method previously established in Regulation V for determining adjustments to the thresholds. For these reasons, the Bureau has determined that publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking and providing opportunity for public comment are unnecessary. The amendments therefore are adopted in final form.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) does not apply to a rulemaking where a general notice of proposed rulemaking is not required. 7 As noted previously, the Bureau has determined that it is unnecessary to publish a general notice of proposed rulemaking for this final rule. Accordingly, the RFA's requirement relating to an initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis do not apply.

The information collections contained in Regulation V, which implements the FCRA, are approved by Office of Management and Budget under Control number 3170-0002. The current approval for this control number expires on November 30, 2023. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 8 the Bureau reviewed this final rule. The Bureau has determined that this rule does not create any new information collections or substantially revise any existing collections.

Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq. ), the Bureau will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to the rule taking effect. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has designated this rule as not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

Senior Advisor Brian Shearer, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to sign this document electronically to Grace Feola, Bureau Federal Register Liaison, for purposes of publication in the Federal Register .

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Bureau amends Regulation V, 12 CFR part 1022, as set forth below:

The substance of these special conditions has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. Therefore, the FAA finds, pursuant to § 11.38(b), that new comments are unlikely, and notice and comment prior to this publication are unnecessary.

The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the comments received.

On August 26, 2021, Airbus applied for a change to Type Certificate No. A58NM for the installation of a digital system that contains a wireless and hardwired network with hosted application functionality that allows access, from sources internal to the airplane, to the airplane's internal electronic components. The Model A380-800 series are transport category airplanes and are powered by four engines. The maximum passenger seating capacity is 868 and maximum takeoff weight is 1,234,600 to 1,265,000 pounds, depending on the specific variant.

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Airbus must show that the Model A380-800 series airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A58NM or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Airbus Model A380-800 series airplanes, because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Airbus Model A380-800 series airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

The Airbus Model A380-800 series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature, which is the installation of a digital system that contains a wireless and hardwired network with hosted application functionality that allows access, from sources internal to the airplane, to the airplane's internal electronic components.

The Airbus Model A380-800 series airplane electronic system architecture and network configuration change is novel or unusual for commercial transport airplanes because it is composed of several connected wireless and hardwired networks. This proposed system and network architecture is used for a diverse set of airplane functions, including:

• Flight-safety related control and navigation systems;

• Airline business and administrative support; and

• Passenger entertainment.

The airplane's control domain and airline information-services domain of these networks perform functions required for the safe operation and maintenance of the airplane. Previously, these domains had very limited connectivity with other network sources. This network architecture creates a potential for unauthorized persons to access the aircraft control domain and airline information services domain from sources internal to the airplane, and presents security vulnerabilities related to the introduction of computer viruses and worms, user errors, and intentional sabotage of airplane electronic assets (networks, systems, and databases) critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane.

The existing FAA regulations did not anticipate these networked airplane-system architectures. Furthermore, these regulations and the current guidance material do not address potential security vulnerabilities, which could be exploited by unauthorized access to airplane networks, data buses, and servers. Therefore, these special conditions ensure that the security ( i.e., confidentiality, integrity, and availability) of airplane systems will not be compromised by unauthorized hardwired or wireless electronic connections from within the airplane. These special conditions also require the applicant to provide appropriate instructions to the operator to maintain all electronic-system safeguards that have been implemented as part of the original network design so that this feature does not allow or reintroduce security threats.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Airbus Model A380-800 series airplanes. Should Airbus apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Airbus A380-800 series airplanes for airplane electronic-system internal access.

1. The applicant must ensure that the design provides isolation from, or airplane electronic-system security protection against, access by unauthorized sources internal to the airplane. The design must prevent inadvertent and malicious changes to, and all adverse impacts upon, airplane equipment, systems, networks, and other assets required for safe flight and operations.

2. The applicant must establish appropriate procedures to allow the operator to ensure that continued airworthiness of the airplane is maintained, including all post-type-certification modifications that may have an impact on the approved electronic-system security safeguards.

The substance of these special conditions has been published in the Federal Register for public comment in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. Therefore, the FAA finds, pursuant to § 11.38(b), that new comments are unlikely, and notice and comment prior to this publication are unnecessary.

The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.

The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the comments received.

On August 26, 2021, Airbus applied for a change to Type Certificate No. A58NM for the installation of a digital systems architecture that will allow increased connectivity to and access from external network sources, ( e.g., operator networks, wireless devices, internet connectivity, service provider satelittle communications, electronic flight bags, etc.) to the airplane's previously isolated electronic assets (networks, systems, databases). The Model A380-800 series are transport category airplanes and are powered by four engines. The maximum passenger seating capacity is 868 and maximum takeoff weight is 1,234,600 to 1,265,000 pounds, depending on the specific variant.

Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Airbus must show that the Model A380-800 series airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. A58NM or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.

If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( e.g., 14 CFR part 25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Airbus Model A380-800 series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.

Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.

In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Airbus Model A380-800 series airplanes must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.

The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.

The Airbus Model A380-800 series airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:

The installation of electronic network system architecture that allows increased connectivity to and access from external sources ( e.g., operator networks, wireless devices, internet connectivity, service provider satellite communications, electronic flight bags, etc.) to the airplane's previously isolated electronic assets (networks, systems and databases).

The Airbus Model A380-800 series airplane electronic system architecture and network configuration is novel and unusual for commercial transport airplanes because it may allow increased connectivity to and access from external network sources, airline operations, and maintenance networks, to the airplane control domain and airline information services domain. The airplane's control domain and airline information-services domain perform functions required for the safe operation and maintenance of the airplane. Previously, these domains had very limited connectivity with external network sources. This data network and design integration creates a potential for unauthorized persons to access the aircraft-control domain and airline information-services domain, and presents security vulnerabilities related to the introduction of computer viruses and worms, user errors, and intentional sabotage of airplane electronic assets (networks, systems, and databases) critical to the safety and maintenance of the airplane.

The existing FAA regulations did not anticipate these networked airplane-system architectures. Furthermore, these regulations and the current guidance material do not address potential security vulnerabilities, which could be exploited by unauthorized access to airplane networks, data buses, and servers. Therefore, these special conditions ensure that the security ( i.e., confidentiality, integrity, and availability) of airplane systems is not compromised by unauthorized wired or wireless electronic connections. This includes ensuring that the security of the airplane's systems is not compromised during maintenance of the airplane's electronic systems. These special conditions also require the applicant to provide appropriate instructions to the operator to maintain all electronic-system safeguards that have been implemented as part of the original network design so that this feature does not allow or introduce security threats.

These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.

As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to Airbus Model A380-800 series airplanes. Should Airbus apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.

This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model series of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability.

The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2021-0242, dated November 8, 2021 (EASA AD 2021-0242) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -215, -216, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. Model A320-215 airplanes are not certificated by the FAA and are not included on the U.S. type certificate data sheet; this AD therefore does not include those airplanes in the applicability.

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2018-03-12, Amendment 39-19185 (83 FR 5906, February 12, 2018) (AD 2018-03-12). AD 2018-03-12 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, and -133 airplanes; Model A320-211, -212, -214, -231, -232, and -233 airplanes; and Model A321-111, -112, -131, -211, -212, -213, -231, and -232 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2022 (87 FR 27032). The NPRM was prompted by reports of fatigue damage in the structure for the door stop fittings on certain fuselage frames, and new analysis by the manufacturer, which resulted in optimized compliance times for the inspections. The NPRM proposed to continue to require repetitive rototest inspections for cracking of the fastener holes in certain door stop fittings at revised compliance times, and corrective actions if necessary, as specified in EASA AD 2021-0242.

The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracking at the door stop fitting holes of fuselage frame (FR) 66 and FR68 which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane. See the MCAI for additional background information.

The FAA received comments from one commenter, Delta Air Lines, Inc. (DAL). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

DAL requested that the language in paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD be revised to clearly state that the manufacturer must be contacted only “when cracking exceeds the limits from the applicable SRM [structural repair manual]” as opposed to “if any crack is found during any inspection” as stated in the NPRM. DAL pointed out that paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2021-0242 establishes requirements if a crack is detected and identified within the limit defined in the applicable SRM, and paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0242 establishes corrective action requirements when cracking exceeds the limits from the applicable SRM. DAL emphasized that paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed rule does not make that distinction and that the exception specifies that any cracking found must be repaired before further flight. Because of this omission and the use of the verbiage “if any crack is found during any inspection,” DAL reasoned that paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD indicates that it applies to all instances of cracking, regardless of whether it exceeds SRM limits. DAL suggested that the exception paragraph would drive operators to obtain the specified level of approval for all crack findings from the required inspections, even if there are SRM approved repairs that are addressed by paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2021-0242.

The FAA agrees to clarify. Paragraph (h)(3) of this AD is included to ensure that any cracks are repaired before further flight, and applies only to the cracks specified in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0242 ( i.e., those found during the rototest inspections and exceeding the applicable SRM limit). Paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0242 specifies to contact Airbus for instructions before further fight, but does not specify that the repair must be done before further flight. Since FAA policy does not allow flights with known cracks, an exception is needed to clarify the compliance time. The FAA notes that paragraph (2) of EASA AD 2021-0242 specifies accomplishing repair and corrective actions before further flight, so a similar exception is not needed for that action. However, the FAA agrees that clarification related to which cracks the language in paragraph (h)(3) of this AD applies to would be helpful. Therefore, the FAA has revised paragraph (h)(3) of this AD to specify that the actions are required only for cracks that exceed the applicable SRM limits.

DAL requested that the FAA include an additional exception to the proposed AD that clarifies the “contact Airbus” language in paragraphs (5.2) and (6) of EASA AD 2021-0242. DAL noted that paragraphs (5.2) and (6) of EASA AD 2021-0242 require contacting Airbus, and reasoned that an exception similar to that in paragraph (h)(3) of the proposed AD would be needed. DAL pointed out that the language used in paragraphs (5.2) and (6) of EASA AD 2021-0242 is related to providing credit for actions that have been accomplished, rather than providing a corrective action like in paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2021-0242, so different language would be needed. DAL provided suggested wording, and stated that its proposed exception would ensure that the same actions are mandated at all instances where EASA AD 2021-0242 requires contacting the manufacturer.

The FAA agrees to clarify. Paragraph (j)(2) of this AD already specifies what actions to take in instances where the EASA AD or related service information specifies to contact the manufacturer. As explained previously, paragraph (h)(3) of this AD is needed to clarify the compliance time for crack repair, rather than simply clarifying who to contact for instructions. Therefore, an additional exception is not needed and this AD has not been changed regarding this issue.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2021-0242 specifies procedures for rototest inspections for cracking of the fastener holes in the airframe structure for the door stop fittings installation in FR66 and FR68, and corrective actions. Corrective actions include repair or modification of fastener holes at door stop locations. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,084 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Bombardier, Inc., Model BD-700-2A12 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2022 (87 FR 53421). The NPRM was prompted by AD CF-2022-07, dated March 1, 2022, issued by Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states the flightcrew and passenger oxygen system's refill and capillary lines may have been contaminated by sealant and cotton fibers. Any contamination is expected to collect in the OCRA filters, which may cause a blockage of the oxygen system components and result in a reduction of oxygen flow, reduce the total amount of available oxygen, or create a fire hazard. See the MCAI for additional background information.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require accomplishing the actions specified in the Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-35-7502, Basic Issue, dated January 26, 2022. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1065.

The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the cost to the public.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

The FAA reviewed Bombardier Service Bulletin 700-35-7502, Basic Issue, dated January 26, 2022. This service information describes procedures for an inspection to determine the serial numbers of the oxygen cylinders installed and replacement of each affected OCRA with a new or reworked OCRA.

This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD would affect 16 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Background

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2020-21-11, Amendment 39-21284 (85 FR 65674, October 16, 2020) (AD 2020-21-11). AD 2020-21-11 applied to certain Airbus SAS Model A318 series airplanes; Model A319-111, -112, -113, -114, -115, -131, -132, -133, -151N, and -153N airplanes; and Model A320 and A321 series airplanes. AD 2020-21-11 required revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA issued AD 2020-21-11 to address the failure of certain life-limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on September 2, 2022 (87 FR 54183). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0082, dated May 10, 2022, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2022-0082) (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been developed.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1066.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2020-21-11 and require revising the existing maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate additional new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0082. The FAA is issuing this AD to address failure of certain life-limited parts, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane

The FAA received comments from an individual and the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), who supported the NPRM without change.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2022-0082 describes new or more restrictive airworthiness limitations for airplane structures and safe life limits.

This AD also requires EASA AD 2020-0080, dated April 1, 2020, which the Director of the Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of November 20, 2020 (85 FR 65674, October 16, 2020).

This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 1,857 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the retained actions from AD 2020-21-11 to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

The FAA has determined that revising the existing maintenance or inspection program takes an average of 90 work-hours per operator, although the agency recognizes that this number may vary from operator to operator. Since operators incorporate maintenance or inspection program changes for their affected fleet(s), the FAA has determined that a per-operator estimate is more accurate than a per-airplane estimate.

The FAA estimates the total cost per operator for the new actions to be $7,650 (90 work-hours × $85 per work-hour).

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus SAS Model A350-1041 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 29, 2022 (87 FR 52705). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0040, dated March 8, 2022, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2022-0040) (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that rejected take-offs after transient engine N1 shaft speed exceedance have been reported. The MCAI adds that the combining spill valve (CSV) of the engine HMU was slow to close due to piston wear. A worn CSV piston does not move fully and freely over its operating range, and when it moves to the fully closed position, an excess of fuel is sent to the fuel nozzles, which eventually results in an N1 transient shaft overspeed. A stuck CSV piston could significantly reduce engine thrust, and if combined with a loss of the second engine, could possibly result in reduced control of the airplane.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing certain HMUs with serviceable HMUs before reaching a reduced life limit, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0040. The NPRM also proposed to limit the installation of affected parts under certain conditions. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1064.

The FAA received comments from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2022-0040 specifies procedures for replacing each HMU having part number G5020HMU02 with a serviceable HMU before reaching a reduced life limit. EASA AD 2022-0040 also limits the installation of affected parts under certain conditions. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 29 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2021-14-08, Amendment 39-21635 (86 FR 34933, July 1, 2021) (AD 2021-14-08). AD 2021-14-08 applied to all Airbus SAS Model A319-151N, A319-153N, A319-171N, A320-251N, A320-252N, A320-253N, A320-271N, A320-272N, A320-273N, A321-251N, A321-251NX, A321-252N, A321-252NX, A321-253N, A321-253NX, A321-271N, A321-271NX, A321-272N, and A321-272NX airplanes. AD 2021-14-08 required revising the existing AFM to include a procedure to reinforce the airspeed check during the take-off phase and provide instructions to abort take-off in certain cases. The FAA issued AD 2021-14-08 to address airspeed discrepancies, which could lead to an unstable flight path after take-off, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 23, 2022 (87 FR 51617). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2022-0028, dated February 22, 2022, issued by EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union (EASA AD 2022-0028) (referred to after this as the MCAI). The MCAI states that an increasing number of operational disruptions due to airspeed discrepancies were reported, which may affect the airplane's response, particularly during the rotation phase. The MCAI states that this condition, if not addressed, could lead to an unstable flight path after take-off, possibly resulting in reduced control of the airplane.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2022-1060.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to continue to require the actions in AD 2021-14-08 and to require replacing each affected ELAC and removing the AFM revision required by AD 2021-14-08, as specified in EASA AD 2022-0028. The NPRM also proposed to prohibit the installation of affected parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.

This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered the comment received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on this product. Except for minor editorial changes, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.

EASA AD 2022-0028 specifies procedures for, among other actions, revising the AFM to include a procedure to reinforce the airspeed check during the take-off phase and provide instructions to abort take-off in certain cases ( e.g., an unreliable airspeed situation or certain airspeed differences); replacing each affected ELAC with a serviceable ELAC (one with the updated ELAC software standard); and removing the AFM revision required by AD 2021-14-08. EASA AD 2022-0028 also prohibits installation of affected ELACs. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 204 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and

(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, but refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers of aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP contained on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections, and specifies the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for Part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.

The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.

Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.

The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the Federal Register expensive and impractical. Further, airmen do not use the regulatory text of the SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums or ODPs, but instead refer to their graphic depiction on charts printed by publishers or aeronautical materials. Thus, the advantages of incorporation by reference are realized and publication of the complete description of each SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP listed on FAA form documents is unnecessary. This amendment provides the affected CFR sections and specifies the typed of SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs with their applicable effective dates. This amendment also identifies the airport and its location, the procedure, and the amendment number.

The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the ADDRESSES section.

The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for Part 97 of this final rule.

This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.

The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.

Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.

The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 97 (14 CFR part 97) is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:

In the Federal Register of March 18, 2020, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) issued a final rule establishing new cigarette health warnings for cigarette packages and advertisements. The final rule implements a provision of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111-31) that requires FDA to issue regulations requiring color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking to accompany new textual warning label statements. The Tobacco Control Act amends the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act of 1965 (Pub. L. 89-92) to require each cigarette package and advertisement to bear one of the new required warnings. The final rule specifies the 11 new textual warning label statements and accompanying color graphics. Pursuant to section 201(b) of the Tobacco Control Act, the rule was published with an effective date of June 18, 2021, 15 months after the date of publication of the final rule.

On April 3, 2020, the final rule was challenged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. 1 On May 8, 2020, the court granted a joint motion to govern proceedings in that case and postpone the effective date of the final rule by 120 days. 2 On December 2, 2020, the court granted a new motion by the plaintiffs to postpone the effective date of the final rule by an additional 90 days. 3 On March 2, 2021, the court granted another motion by the plaintiffs to postpone the effective date of the final rule by an additional 90 days. 4 On May 21, 2021, the court granted another motion by the plaintiffs to postpone the effective date of the final rule by an additional 90 days. 5 On August 18, 2021, the court issued an order to postpone the effective date of the final rule by an additional 90 days. 6 On November 12, 2021, the court issued another order to postpone the effective date of the final rule by an additional 90 days. 7 On February 10, 2022, the court issued another order to postpone the effective date of the final rule by an additional 90 days. 8 On May 10, 2022, the court issued another order to postpone the effective date of the final rule by an additional 90 days. 9 On August 10, 2022, the court granted a motion by the plaintiffs to postpone the effective date of the final rule by an additional 90 days. 10 On November 7, 2022, the court issued another order to postpone the effective date of the final rule by an additional 31 days. 11 The court ordered that the new effective date of the final rule is November 6, 2023. Pursuant to the court order, any obligation to comply with a deadline tied to the effective date is similarly postponed, and those obligations and deadlines are now tied to the postponed effective date.

To the extent that 5 U.S.C. 553 applies to this action, the Agency's implementation of this action without opportunity for public comment, effective immediately upon publication today in the Federal Register , is based on the good cause exception in 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). Seeking public comment is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. The 31-day postponement of the effective date, until November 6, 2023, is required by court order in accordance with the court's authority to postpone a rule's effective date pending judicial review (5 U.S.C. 705). Seeking prior public comment on this postponement would have been impracticable, as well as contrary to the public interest in the orderly issuance and implementation of regulations.

The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the Savannah Harbor Parade of Lights and Fireworks in 33 CFR 100.701, Table 1 to § 100.701, paragraph (d), Item 4, from 5 p.m. until 10 p.m., on November 26, 2022. This action is being taken to provide for the safety and security of navigable waterways during this one-day event. Our regulation for marine events within the Captain of the Port Savannah, § 100.701, specifies the location of the special local regulation for Savannah Harbor Boat Parade of Lights and Fireworks, which encompasses parts of the Savannah River from the Talmadge bridge to a line drawn at 146 degrees true from Dayboard 62, in Savannah, GA. Only event sponsored, designated participants and official patrol vessels will be allowed to enter the regulated area.

Spectator vessels may safely transit outside the regulated area, but may not anchor, block, loiter in, impede the transit of festival participants or official patrol vessels or enter the regulated area without approval from the Captain of the Port Savannah or a designated representative. The Coast Guard may be assisted by other Federal, State, or local law enforcement agencies in enforcing this regulation. In addition to this notice of enforcement in the Federal Register , the Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated area via Local Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Information Bulletins, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene designated representatives.

I. Table of Abbreviations CFR Code of Federal Regulations DHS Department of Homeland Security FR Federal Register NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking § Section U.S.C. United States Code II. Background Information and Regulatory History

The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard lacks sufficient time to provide for a comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule since this rule is needed by November 18, 2022. It would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is necessary to protect the safety of the public, and vessels transiting the waters of the Bahia de San Juan, PR during the planned movement and obstruction created by oversized cranes.

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . Delaying the effective date of this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to minimize the potential safety hazards associated with the restricted maneuverability and oversized cargo being carried by these vessels.

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port San Juan (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the movement and berthing of oversized cranes by barge on November 18, 2022, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 200-yard radius of the tug MICHELE FOSS and barge FOSS PREVAILING WIND. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the barge transits inbound from sea and while berthed alongside the wharf.

This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from November 18, 2022 through November 28, 2022. A moving and fixed temporary safety zone will be established for the the tug MICHELE FOSS and barge FOSS PREVAILING WIND while they are inside of the Bahia de San Juan and loaded with large cranes on deck. While the tug and barge are underway and laden with cranes, the temporary safety zone will cover all navigable waters of Bahia de San Juan within 200 yards of the tug MICHELE FOSS and barge FOSS PREVAILING WIND. The tug and barge are only expected to be underway for approximately one hour. There will be a fixed safety zone within 200 yards of the tug and barge, while they are moored, and discharging the cranes to Puerto Rico Ports Authority (PRPA) piers M, N and O. This safety zone may last until November 28, 2022, but it will not be enforced after the cranes have been removed from the barge. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the movement and obstruction hazard of two oversized cranes transiting inbound to PRPA piers M, N and O, through Bahia de San Juan's main navigational channels, and when they are moored to that facility. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location and scope of the safety zone. The zone is limited in size, location, and duration as it will cover all navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean and the Bahia de San Juan within 200 yards of the Tug (MICHELE FOSS) and Barge (FOSS PREVAILING WIND) while they are underway with cranes onboard, and while they are moored to the PRPA piers, and discharging their cargo. The zone is limited in scope as vessel traffic may be able to safely transit around this safety zone and vessels may seek permission from the COTP to enter the zone. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the regulated area may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.

Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Safety Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone, for the tug MICHELE FOSS and barge FOSS PREVAILING WIND, of which the moving zone is anticipated to last approximately one hour and the fixed zone, up to ten days, that will prohibit entry within 200 yards of the tug MICHELE FOSS and barge FOSS PREVAILING WIND. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or security of people, places, or vessels.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, FCC 22-63, adopted August 3, 2022, and released August 3, 2022. The full text of the Report and Order is available at https://www.fcc.gov/edocs/search-results?t=quick&fccdaNo=22-63. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an email to FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules adopted in the Order, which was incorporated in the Report and Order.

The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress ad the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

This document contains new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be invited to comment on the new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

In this final rule, the Commission permits use of the 17.3-17.7 GHz band by geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) space stations in the fixed-satellite service (FSS) in the space-to-Earth direction on a co-primary basis with incumbent services. We also permit limited GSO FSS (space-to-Earth) use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band on an unprotected basis with respect to fixed service operations. Permitting use of the 17.3- 17.8 GHz band to include FSS downlinks increases intensive and efficient use of the band and provides additional downlink capacity for high-throughput satellite communications. With appropriate technical safeguards established herein, including coordination requirements, this band can be shared in an efficient and effective manner without harmful interference while alleviating the growing need for additional Ka-band GSO FSS downlink spectrum to support communications to earth stations, and further streamline the licensing process of certain satellite systems. Permitting use of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band to include FSS downlinks will create a contiguous band for FSS (space-to-Earth) operations, enabling greater flexibility and efficiency for advanced satellite systems operations for the benefit of American consumer. In this final rule, we also define an extended Ka-band in our rules, i.e., the 17.3- 18.3 GHz (space-to-Earth), 18.8-19.4 GHz (space-to-Earth), 19.6-19.7 GHz (space-to-Earth), 27.5-28.35 GHz (Earth-to-space) and 28.6-29.1 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands to streamline licensing of FSS earth stations in a closely harmonized regulatory framework for all similar FSS uplink transmissions in the conventional and extended Ka-bands.

The Table of Frequency Allocations is comprised of the International Table and the United States Table of Frequency Allocations (U.S. Table). In the International Table, the 17.3-17.7 GHz band is allocated, in International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Region 2, to the fixed-satellite service (FSS) (Earth-to-space) and to the broadcasting-satellite service (BSS) on a co-primary basis, as well as to the radiolocation service on a secondary basis. In the U.S. Table, the 17.3-17.7 GHz band is allocated to the FSS (Earth-to-space) and to the BSS on a co-primary basis and to the radiolocation services on a secondary basis. The adjacent 17.7-17.8 GHz band is allocated internationally in ITU Region 2 to the fixed service, BSS, and FSS (in both the space-to-Earth and Earth-to-space directions) on a primary basis and to the mobile service on a secondary basis. The 17.7-17.8 GHz band is allocated to FSS (Earth-to-space) and to the fixed service on a co-primary basis in the U.S. Table. Historically, in the United States, the 17.3-17.8 GHz band has been used for FSS feeder uplinks that transmit programming to Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) service GSO space stations, in addition to terrestrial fixed service use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. DBS feeder link operations typically involve the use of large, high-gain antennas at a limited number of individually-licensed earth station locations. The DBS service satellites then downlink that video programming directly to consumers in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band.

In 2007, the Commission adopted rules for a new service that would use the 17.3-17.8 GHz band in the space-to-Earth direction to provide BSS. This service, known as the “17/24 GHz BSS,” provides service downlinks to customers in the same 17.3-17.8 GHz band that is used for feeder uplinks to DBS space stations, i.e., reverse band operation. Although the 17/24 GHz BSS may use the entire 17.3-17.8 GHz band internationally, it may only provide service in the United States in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band. DBS feeder link uplinks, by contrast, operate in the entire 17.3-17.8 GHz band in the United States. When the Commission adopted rules for the 17/24 GHz BSS, it also sought comment on rules to avoid interference between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS operations, both in-orbit (“space path” interference) and on the ground (“ground path” interference). The Commission adopted technical rules to address space path interference in 2011 that included a requirement that 17/24 GHz BSS space stations locate at least 0.2 degrees from a DBS space station. In 2017, the Commission adopted rules to address ground path interference.

On November 18, 2020, the Commission adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) (86 FR 7660 (Feb. 1, 2021)). In the 17 GHz FSS NPRM, the Commission proposed to revise its rules and permit GSO FSS (space-to-Earth) communications in the 17.3-17.7 GHz on a co-primary basis. The Commission also proposed to permit GSO FSS (space-to-Earth) communications in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band on an unprotected basis with respect to terrestrial fixed service operations in the band. This would join with current spectrum allocations to produce a contiguous band for non-Federal Government space-to-Earth FSS operations in the United States, from 17.3-20.2 GHz.

The Commission also proposed a number of technical rules to prevent harmful interference between stations sharing the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. In order to facilitate sharing of the band between BSS and FSS, the Commission proposed satellite spacing requirements, power-flux density (PFD) limits for transmitting (downlinking) FSS space stations, polarization and frequency re-use requirements, and space station antenna cross-polarization requirements. In order to mitigate space path interference in the band, 1 the Commission proposed to extend the “coordination trigger” applicable to DBS and BSS space stations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band to FSS space stations, to require PFD calculations in the band to consider aggregate PFD from all transmitting beams on the adjacent space station. The Commission also proposed a minimum orbital separation between FSS space stations of 0.5 degrees and amendment of the values for off-axis measurement angles, measurement frequency requirements, and a two-part process for submission of off-axis antenna gain data. In order to mitigate ground path interference, 2 the Commission proposed to maintain its current rules to “grandfather” upgrades and modifications to existing DBS earth station sites, modify the measurements and values used to establish DBS/FSS coordination zones in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, and permit blanket-licensed FSS receiving earth stations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. The Commission also proposed certain conforming modifications to the rules in order to effectuate the proposed” changes. Finally, the Commission proposed to define the term “extended Ka-band” to include all frequency bands in the Ka-band with allocations to the GSO FSS, apart from the currently-defined “conventional Ka-band,” and to apply the Commission's routine license application processing procedures to applications in the “extended Ka-band.”

The Ka-band  3 is used extensively by FSS operators to provide satellite-based broadband access services using high-throughput satellites. In these high throughput systems, end user terminals uplink to space stations on one set of frequencies, and the space station downlinks traffic to earth station terminals (and back into the internet backbone) using a separate set of frequencies. The satellites in these systems typically use spot-beam technology and high-order frequency re-use to significantly increase capacity and spectral efficiency. In this final rule, we permit FSS downlinks from geostationary satellites to operate in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band on a co-primary (co-equal) basis  4 with other primary services in that band by revising footnote US402 in the U.S. Table, and adopting a new footnote NG58. In addition, as discussed below, we make certain other changes to the U.S. Table to permit GSO FSS space-to-Earth operations in the adjacent 17.7-17.8 GHz band. We revise the existing primary FSS allocation in the U.S. Table to permit GSO space-to-Earth operations. We also permit authorization of FSS receiving earth stations in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band on an unprotected basis with respect to fixed service operations; such FSS receiving earth stations would operate on a co-primary basis, however, vis-à-vis primary satellite operations in the band.

The 17.3-17.7 GHz band is allocated in the U.S. Table to FSS (Earth-to-space), limited to feeder links for the BSS (DBS), and to the BSS (17/24 GHz BSS), on a co-primary basis. In the 17 GHz FSS NPRM, the Commission proposed to add a co-primary allocation in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band for FSS (space-to-Earth). Neither the International (Region 2) nor the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations currently permit FSS (space-to-Earth) operations in this band. In the 17 GHz FSS NPRM, the Commission proposed to modify the U.S. Table, revise footnote US402, and adopt a new footnote NG58 to permit co-primary operation of FSS downlink transmissions in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, while limiting FSS downlink operations to GSO satellite networks. To streamline the applicable restrictions to the 17.3-17.8 GHz band in the U.S. Table, the Commission further proposed to incorporate the use limits found in US271 and NG163 into the new footnote NG58 to remove footnotes US271 and NG163 from the Commission's rules. The Commission also proposed consequential modifications to the licensing information requirements contained in § 25.115(e).

A number of commenters support permitting FSS (space-to-Earth) operations in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band. These commenters argue that additional Ka-band FSS (space-to-Earth) spectrum is needed to expand the capacity to serve the public and to support faster, higher-capacity satellite broadband communications, in remote and underserved areas.

AT&T states that in order to protect the current operations and future expansion of BSS and DBS, the Commission must adopt technical rules to protect incumbents and make any new FSS (space-to-Earth) allocation secondary to BSS and DBS. CTIA-The Wireless Association (CTIA) notes that the Commission currently has a proceeding open to address allocations of spectrum in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band, which is a downlink band for DBS (Earth-to-space) uplinks in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. CTIA suggests that the Commission should consider allocations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band and the 17.3-17.8 GHz band in the same proceeding.

We find that it would serve the public interest to allocate the 17.3-17.7 GHz band to FSS (space-to-Earth). FSS downlinks in the 17 GHz band will be compatible with the incumbent services: feeder links for DBS networks and “reverse band” use for the downlink portion of 17/24 GHz BSS operations. The majority of commenters support the Commission's proposed changes to the U.S. Table. Hughes also notes that appropriate rules to prevent harmful interference have facilitated a convergence of BSS, FSS, and MSS in the 17/24 GHz band. Only CTIA opposes the allocation. AT&T states that the allocation should be conditioned to protect DBS and BSS services. We note that FSS (space-to-Earth) communications are technically similar to DBS/BSS communications, and we see no reason why the band, already successfully shared between DBS, BSS, and FSS (Earth-to-space), cannot be successfully shared with FSS (space-to-Earth) with the technical standards adopted herein to prevent harmful interference. We find that permitting use of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band to include FSS downlinks would increase intensive and efficient use of the band and provide additional downlink capacity for high-throughput satellite communications. Increasing space launch activity in the United States and decreasing satellite size and weight make more satellite-based communications feasible, and the record in this proceeding demonstrates a need to provide additional spectrum for FSS (space-to-Earth) capacity. In addition to providing greater bandwidth to FSS customers, this allocation will help to provide increased communications capability to unserved and underserved areas of the United States, assist in closing the digital divide, and ensure that this spectrum band is used and shared in the most efficient and effective manner.

For any new GSO FSS allocation in the 17 GHz Band, AT&T encourages the Commission to amend the U.S. Table “to reflect the secondary status of GSO FSS downlinks vis-à-vis the incumbent coprimary services.” Toward this end, AT&T proposes that we expressly require “GSO FSS downlinks to protect incumbent 17/24 GHz BSS services, while not requiring future 17/24 GHz BSS to protect GSO FSS systems.” We are not persuaded by these arguments. FSS (space-to-Earth) transmissions are similar to DBS/BSS transmissions, including the 17/24 GHz BSS downlinks to customers in the same band, and there is no evidence in the record of likely harmful interference among the services currently allocated in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band and FSS (space-to-Earth) if we were to add a primary FSS (space-to-Earth) allocation (GSO-only) in the band. We also are not persuaded that treating GSO FSS transmissions secondary to current and future 17/24 GHz BSS transmissions would be more appropriate here. In light of the technical rules adopted herein and the fact that GSO FSS (space-to-Earth) transmissions are similar to DBS/BSS transmissions, co-primary operations would ensure that all satellite services, including both current and future 17/24 GHz BSS, use scarce spectrum and orbital resources in the most efficient and effective manner, in the absence of any compelling harmful interference or undue burden concerns. Given the importance of FSS services and the need for additional FSS downlink spectrum, we find that it would serve the public interest to adopt a primary FSS downlink allocation in the band without AT&T's requested condition. Although there is not a Region 2 allocation specifying FSS in the downlink direction, we believe that the technical rules we adopt herein will prevent harmful interference and allow successful sharing of the band among all satellite operators, and to ensure that FSS (space-to-Earth) communications cause no more interference than, nor require more protection from interference than, BSS communications in the band.

We also reject CTIA's request to merge this proceeding with the 12 GHz NPRM (86 FR 13266 (March 8, 2021)). We do not agree with CTIA that band sharing in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band in the space-to-Earth direction is affected by possible band sharing in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. The technical and policy issues in these two proceedings are different, with varying complexities, and permitting GSO FSS (space-to-Earth) operations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band will not affect the allocation or performance of services in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band. In addition, there are no efficiencies to be gained by merging these two separate proceedings. Rather such an action would create delays, procedural complexities, and administrative inefficiencies.

The 17.7-17.8 GHz band is allocated in ITU Region 2 to the fixed service, FSS in both directions, and BSS on a primary basis, and to the mobile service on a secondary basis. In the United States, the band is allocated for the non-Federal fixed service and FSS (Earth-to-space) on a primary basis. In the 17 GHz FSS NPRM, the Commission proposed to add a space-to Earth direction (to the existing primary FSS allocation) in the U.S. Table, but also to add a footnote stipulating that earth stations receiving in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band are not entitled to protection from the fixed service. The Commission noted that allowing use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band by the FSS (space-to-Earth) would provide a contiguous band for FSS downlink operations at 17.3-18.3 GHz, along with the existing FSS use in the 18.3-18.8 GHz band, which would facilitate operational efficiencies and flexibility to avoid interference and to use this contiguous spectrum in the most effective and efficient manner.

Commenters who support the allocation of the 17.3-17.7 GHz band to FSS (space-to-Earth) generally support allocating the 17.7-17.8 GHz band as well. AT&T expresses concerns and states that FSS (space-to-Earth) should be allocated secondary status in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. CTIA opposes the allocation, stating that the allocation would hinder use of the band by future terrestrial services, and that SES did not request the use of the band for FSS (space-to-Earth) in its petition.

We find that adding a space-to Earth direction to the existing primary FSS allocation in the U.S. Table and a footnote stipulating that earth stations receiving in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band are not entitled to protection from the fixed service strikes the best balance between facilitating FSS (space-to-Earth) as well as continued operations of other users of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. The co-primary allocation allows FSS to use the band for space-to-Earth communications, while the addition of footnote NG58 to the U.S. Table ensures that interference environment is not significantly changed for the existing operations of the incumbent fixed services in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. We permit authorization of earth stations receiving transmissions from GSO FSS space stations in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band, strictly on an unprotected basis vis-a-vis the fixed service. 5 This approach is consistent with our goals to allocate increasingly scarce spectrum resources in the most efficient and effective manner possible. Allocating the 17.7-17.8 GHz band to the FSS (space-to-Earth) under the conditions adopted herein will provide a contiguous band for FSS downlink operations at 17.3-18.3 GHz, along with the existing FSS use in the 18.3-18.8 GHz band. This in turn would facilitate operational efficiencies and flexibility to avoid interference and to use this contiguous spectrum for next generation FSS services.

For these reasons, we adopt the proposed co-primary allocations for FSS (space-to-Earth) in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, subject to conditions adopted herein. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that appropriate technical limitations on FSS (space-to-Earth) use of the band will allow for successful band sharing and preserve the utility of the band for incumbent services.

In order to prevent harmful interference between services in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, the Commission proposed a number of technical rules. These rules were designed to allow FSS (space-to-Earth) communications flexibility in the band, while preserving the ability to both use and grow in the band for other services.

In the 17 GHz FSS NPRM, the Commission proposed various requirements intended to facilitate both intra-service operations between 17.3-17.8 GHz FSS space stations and inter-service operations between FSS and 17/24 GHz BSS space stations operating in the space-to-Earth direction. Most of these requirements are already applicable to 17/24 GHz BSS space stations transmitting in the band, and the Commission generally proposed to extend them to 17.3-17.8 GHz FSS space stations either directly or with some targeted modifications.

Required Longitudinal Separation between Downlinking Satellites. The Commission proposed to adopt a two-degree orbital spacing requirement  6 between transmitting FSS space stations and a four-degree separation requirement between FSS and 17/24 GHz BSS space stations. The Commission proposed to require an FSS applicant to make a different coordination showing depending upon the services of its adjacent space stations. To implement this approach, the Commission proposed amending §§ 25.140(a), (b), and (d) and 25.262 of our rules to require GSO FSS and 17/24 GHz BSS applicants seeking to operate in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band to demonstrate compliance with rules applicable to their service's particular orbital spacing requirements, while simultaneously accommodating adjacent space stations in other services. 7 While the Commission believed that this approach would use the orbital arc and associated spectrum resources most efficiently, the Commission also sought comment on other possible orbital spacing options, including the four-degree spacing regimen which we currently apply to 17/24 GHz BSS stations.

Most commenters support our proposed orbital spacing approach. AT&T offers a different option, arguing that given the currently proposed power flux density (PFD) levels, we may require two degrees of separation between FSS space stations, but should require six degrees (vs. four) between FSS and 17/24 GHz BSS stations. AT&T bases this choice of distance on its argument that the proposed spacing would increase the aggregate adjacent satellite interference by approximately 1.3 dB, thereby exceeding the standard 6% delta T/T coordination trigger. In the alternative, AT&T asserts that should we adopt our orbital spacing proposal, then we must reduce our proposed PFD levels, particularly in the northeast and west regions, by 2.5 dB.

The Satellite Companies counter that requiring FSS satellites to either locate at least six degrees from a 17/24 GHz BSS space station or reduce their PFD levels is unnecessary, as there is no reason to suppose that the 17/24 GHz BSS system would be affected any differently by downlinking FSS transmissions than it would be from a neighboring 17/24 GHz BSS station in the current four-degree spacing environment. The Satellite Companies note, however, that AT&T's concerns may arise instead from concern about potential aggregate interference that might arise if multiple satellites were positioned within six degrees on either side of a current 17/24 GHz BSS location—a situation which they point out is currently not possible. For this reason, the Satellite Companies argue that AT&T proposes an overly-broad solution to address an unlikely, hypothetical scenario. The Satellite Companies propose as an alternative that the Commission adopt language permitting the proposed two-degree separation between FSS space stations, and four degrees between FSS and 17/24 GHz BSS stations, with the added proviso that an applicant for an additional FSS satellite proposing to operate within six degrees of a 17/24 GHz BSS satellite must demonstrate that interference to the incumbent 17/24 GHz BSS receiver will not increase over levels expected in the four-degree spacing environment. Hughes similarly argues that six degrees of separation between FSS and 17/24 GHz satellites is unnecessary, citing the technical analysis provided with the SES-17 application and the Commission's approval of that application. As a remedy to concerns of aggregate interference, Hughes proposes that only one FSS space station be permitted within six degrees of a 17/24 GHz BSS satellite.

We adopt a two-degree orbital separation requirement between transmitting FSS space stations, while simultaneously requiring that FSS space stations locate at least four degrees from adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS space stations. We do not believe that transmissions from FSS space stations at PFD levels that are either the same or reduced relative to those now required from17/24 GHz BSS space stations in a four-degree environment will result in additional harmful interference to 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth stations as there is no reason to suppose that the 17/24 GHz BSS system would be affected any differently by downlinking FSS transmissions than it would be from a neighboring 17/24 GHz BSS station in the current four-degree spacing environment. Accordingly, we believe that six degrees of separation between 17/24 GHz BSS and FSS satellites is unwarranted and would result in an inefficient use of scarce orbital resources.

We find, however, that there is some increased potential for aggregate interference into 17/24 GHz BSS systems if two transmitting FSS space stations were to locate within six degrees on either side of such an incumbent operator. Although relatively unlikely in the immediate operating environment, it remains a possibility, should future 17/24 GHz BSS space stations choose to locate at different orbital positions where two or more existing, or licensed but not yet launched, FSS space stations are within six degrees on either side of the 17/24 GHz BSS space station location. To address this concern, we will require that where an FSS satellite is located within four degrees of a previously authorized or proposed 17/24 GHz BSS satellite, and an applicant seeks to deploy another FSS satellite between four and eight degrees from the same 17/24 GHz BSS satellite in the same direction of separation as the existing FSS satellite, the applicant must either coordinate its operations with the affected incumbent 17/24 GHz BSS system or provide a showing in its application to demonstrate that aggregate interference into the 17/24 GHz BSS incumbent system will not exceed that which would be expected in a four-degree spacing environment. Hughes' proposal, as worded, would allow the second FSS satellite to locate just beyond six degrees away ( e.g., 6.05°), an orbital separation unlikely to remedy AT&T's aggregate interference concerns. We adopt eight degrees rather than the six degrees proposed by Hughes because we believe this orbital separation accurately represents the maximum separation that would be applicable for two transmitting satellites (FSS or 17/24 GHz BSS) in a four-degree spacing environment so that our decision is consistent with the current rules governing17/24 GHz BSS space stations proposing to locate at separations of less than four degrees from one another. To implement these rule changes, we will update §§ 25.140(a), (b), and (d) and 25.262.

Downlink Power Limits. The Commission has typically employed downlink PFD limits for space stations transmissions to facilitate both inter-service and intra-service sharing. Although the Commission's current rules include PFD limits for 17/24 GHz BSS systems transmitting in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, the rules do not include PFD limits for FSS space stations in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band. To remedy this, the 17 GHz FSS NPRM proposed to apply regional PFD limits to 17.3-17.8 GHz FSS space station transmissions, to harmonize them with those now applicable to the 17/24 GHz BSS. The Commission proposed adopting specific regional limits as follows:

(1) In the region of the contiguous United States, located east of 100° West Longitude and including Alaska and Hawaii: −118 dBW/m 2 /MHz; and

(2) In the region of the contiguous United States, located west of 100° West Longitude: −121 dBW/m 2 /MHz.

Because the PFD limits contained in section 25.208 are generally angle-dependent and largely intended to facilitate sharing between space and terrestrial services, rather than amend this section to include these new regional PFD requirements, the 17 GHz FSS NPRM instead proposed to include them in § 25.140(a)(3), which contains rules to facilitate FSS intra-service operations in a two-degree orbital spacing environment. Further, to improve the organizational coherence of our part 25 rules, the 17GHz FSS NPRM also proposed to likewise move the regional PFD limits for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations now contained in § 25.208(w) to § 25.140(b)(3). As a consequence of this move, the 17 GHz FSS NPRM also proposed conforming updates to other paragraphs in § 25.140(b)(3) and to rule sections that currently refer to § 25.208(w) including §§ 25.114(d)(15)(i) and (ii), 25.140(b)(5), and 25.262(b)(1) and (2), (c), and (d).

Commenters generally support the Commission's proposals to apply regional PFD limits to transmitting FSS space stations. As discussed above, AT&T states that in conjunction with the proposed orbital spacing regimen, the proposed PFD limits would be too high in the northeast and west regions. As discussed herein, we are modifying the orbital spacing requirements, and these modifications should alleviate AT&T's concerns with respect to aggregate interference and the proposed regional PFD limits. Accordingly, we adopt the proposed modifications to § 25.140(a)(3) to include these regional PFD limits for transmitting FSS space stations to adequately facilitate both inter-service and intra-service sharing. In addition, no commenters object to the Commission's proposal to move the analogous regional PFD limits applicable to 17/24 GHz BSS systems in § 25.208(w) to § 25.140(b)(3) and we make this change to our rules along with the associated conforming modifications.

Some commenters question whether the PFD limits in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band are sufficient to protect incumbent fixed service operations, noting among other things that the (1) this PFD mask has not been studied by the Commission since 1983; (2) the internationally adopted PFD limits proposed herein assume that fixed service and FSS have equal status in the band, but the GSO FSS service in the 17 GHz band would be secondary to incumbent fixed operations (3) further detailed study is required to understand the full extent of the issue, but at minimum the Commission should take a similar protective measure to account for aggregate interference as it did in the C-band proceeding and reduce the PFD limit by 4 dB; and that (4) both the existing and proposed new § 25.140(b)(3) would permit a space station applicant to exceed the regional PFD to protect satellite operations, so long as the applicant coordinated with affected satellite operators, but without regard to the impact on terrestrial operations. As discussed above, with the modified orbital spacing requirements, the PFD limits we adopt herein should be sufficient to protect all incumbent services and alleviate aggregate interference concerns. We note that there is no evidence in the record that the current PFD mask applicable to these services need to be revised, nor has any evidence been introduced that terrestrial services have experienced any interference issues in either the 17.7-17.8 GHz band or adjacent 17.8-18.3 GHz band, despite the fact that satellite and terrestrial services have co-existed in this spectrum for years, using these PFD limits. We note that although FSS allocation will be primary in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band and subject to the adopted PFD limits to protect fixed services from harmful interference, earth stations operating in the FSS (space-to-Earth) in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band shall not claim protection from stations in the fixed service that operate in that band. We also clarify that although we allow an FSS space station to exceed the PFD limits pursuant to § 25.140(b)(3) vis-à-vis other space stations, our adopted PFD limits will continue to apply vis-à-vis fixed services in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band or adjacent 17.8-18.3 GHz band. 8

Polarization and Full Frequency Re-Use Requirements. The 17 GHz FSS NPRM proposed to amend § 25.210(f) of our rules to include 17.3-17.8 GHz in the list of specified frequencies in which FSS operators are required to employ state-of-the-art full frequency reuse, either through the use of orthogonal polarizations within the same beam and/or the use of spatially independent beams. Commenters support this proposal with no objections. Accordingly, we adopt this proposal.

Cross-Polarization Isolation Requirements. The 17 GHz FSS NPRM proposed not to extend the cross-polarization requirements contained in § 25.210(i) to FSS space station antennas transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. The Commission sought comment on whether these requirements might be obsolete in the current digital transmission environment and could be eliminated for 17/24 GHz BSS space station transmissions as well. The Satellite Companies and Hughes agree that cross-polarization requirements are not necessary for downlinking FSS space stations, and further agree that these requirements could be eliminated for 17/24 GHz BSS transmissions as well, as they have become obsolete in today's digital transmission environment. We received no other comments on this issue. Accordingly, we will not extend these requirements to FSS space stations downlinking in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, and we further eliminate the obsolete cross-polarization isolation requirement for 17/24 GHz space stations in § 25.210(i).

In the 17.3-17.8 GHz reverse-band sharing environment, receiving DBS space stations are vulnerable to space path interference  9 from nearby co-frequency 17/24 GHz BSS space station transmissions. 10 To mitigate space path interference into DBS receivers, the 17 GHz FSS NPRM proposed to apply to FSS space stations an approach similar to the one now applicable to 17/24 GHz BSS space stations. As discussed in detail below, we adopt these proposals. As discussed below, however, we are not increasing the minimum orbital separation distance between FSS and DBS space stations to 0.5 degrees. We also are not relaxing the angular measurement range over which FSS applicants are required to submit off-axis antenna gain data and associated PFD calculations. Rather, as discussed below, we extend the requirements contained in § 25.264(a) to FSS applicants. In addition, we amend § 25.264(a)(4) to require that measurements for both FSS and 17/24 GHz BSS transmitting antennas be made only at a single frequency in the middle of the band in which the applicant proposes to operate.

Off-Axis Power Flux Density Coordination Trigger. To avoid harmful levels of space path interference into DBS space station antennas from FSS transmissions, the 17 GHz FSS NPRM proposed modifications to § 25.264(a) through (i) of our rules to extend the current PFD coordination trigger of -117 dBW/m 2 /100 kHz to downlinking FSS space stations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. Recognizing that current space station design often employs multiple spot beams and may result in a cumulative interference level at the DBS receiver, the Commission also proposed to amend § 25.264(b)(1) and (2) and (e) to require that the PFD calculations at the DBS receiver from both 17/24 GHz BSS and FSS consider the aggregate power flux density from all 17.3-17.8 GHz transmitting beams on the adjacent space station.

All commenters supported our proposal to extend the current PFD coordination trigger to downlinking FSS space stations and felt that it was reasonable to require that the associated PFD calculations consider the aggregate power flux density value. We adopt these proposals and amend § 25.264(b)(1) and (2) accordingly.

Requirements for Antenna Off-Axis Gain, Angular Measurement Ranges, and Minimum Longitudinal Separation. The 17 GHz FSS NPRM proposed to amend § 25.264(g) of our rules to apply 0.5 degrees as the minimum orbital longitude separation  11 that transmitting FSS space stations must maintain relative to DBS space stations, and to amend § 25.264(a) to reflect the corresponding off-axis measurement angles, i.e., ±10 degrees in the X-Z plane and ±20 degrees in planes rotated about the Z axis. The Commission proposed to retain the current requirements for orbital inclination and eccentricity and proposed to amend § 25.264(h) to extend these values to FSS space stations. Further, the Commission tentatively concluded that this same change in the required minimum orbital separation value and corresponding antenna measurement angles could be extended to 17/24 GHz BSS space stations transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band and proposed to similarly amend § 25.264(a) and (g) with respect to 17/24 GHz BSS space stations.

The majority of commenters oppose our proposal to increase the minimum orbital separation distance between FSS and DBS space stations to 0.5 degrees. The Satellite Companies urge us to adopt the 0.2 degree minimum orbital separation requirement now applicable between 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS space stations, arguing that a reduction in the angular range over which measurements would be required does not justify blocking significant portions of the orbital arc near DBS locations, thereby impeding efficient use of orbital resources. They argue further that while waivers of these measurement angles may have proven problematic in the past, there is no evidence that these difficulties persist today. The Satellite Companies further state that allowing simulated measurement data would serve to alleviate obstacles associated with providing data responsive to § 25.264. Hughes argues that the 0.5 degree separation is overly restrictive, placing too great a burden on an already crowded orbital arc. Rather, Hughes proposes that to ensure the most efficient use of the orbital arc we should adopt a minimum orbital separation of 0.2 degrees between downlinking FSS space stations and the nearest DBS satellite. In contrast, AT&T supports our proposal to increase the minimum separation distance to 0.5 degrees. It notes that although our current rules permit separations as small as 0.2 degrees between 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS spacecraft, that no operator has sought to provide service from such proximity. AT&T further argues that the marginal increase in orbital separation distance will both reduce that angular measurement range over which data is required but will also improve overall on-orbit mission safety, including space path interference risks.

We will not adopt the proposal to require a minimum orbital separation of 0.5 degrees between downlinking FSS space stations and DBS satellites. The primary reason for the proposal of this value was to relieve FSS applicants from the angular range measurement requirements, which had proven problematic in the past for some applicants. In addition, the Commission believed it might enhance the acceptability of simulated data, thereby further relieving applicants from measured data requirements. The 0.2 degree value is the minimum longitudinal separation requirement currently applicable in our rules for17/24 GHz BSS operators (who also downlink in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band) relative to DBS satellites. In adopting that requirement, the Commission determined that taking into account an east/west stationkeeping tolerance of 0.05 degrees, a minimum 0.2 degree spacing between the assigned locations of 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS space stations was required to maintain a longitudinal separation of 0.1 degrees between 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS space stations at all times. No space stations in the DBS and BSS services have been placed so near each other, and FSS operators, for whose benefit the Commission proposed the 0.5 degree separation requirement in this proceeding, clearly prefer the flexibility associated with the narrower orbital spacing requirement of 0.2 degrees. Thus, we consider it to be sufficient to protect DBS receivers from space path interference when combined with the appropriate PFD coordination trigger, orbital constraints, and angular range measurement requirements for off-axis antenna gain. For this reason, we are not relaxing the angular measurement range over which FSS applicants are required to submit off-axis antenna gain data and associated PFD calculations. Rather, we extend the requirements contained in § 25.264(a) for 17/24 GHz BSS operators to FSS applicants. Specifically, measurements must be made over a range of ±30° from the X axis in the X-Z plane, and over a range of ±60° in planes rotated about the Z axis. All commenters addressing the angular measurement range issue supported our proposal to extend our current requirements for orbital inclination and eccentricity to FSS space stations. We amend § 25.264(h) accordingly.

Measurement Frequencies. Our current rules require 17/24 GHz BSS applicants to make off-axis angular measurements at a minimum of three measurement frequencies determined with respect to the entire portion of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band over which the space station is designed to transmit. In the 17 GHz FSS NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether this requirement should be revised.

Both the Satellite Companies and Hughes assert that, to simplify the information to be provided by both GSO FSS and 17/24 GHz BSS operators, we should update § 25.264(a)(4) and (5) to require submission of gain data based only on a single mid-band frequency, because gain values do not vary materially across the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. No other commenters addressed this question. We agree that the antenna gain typically varies little across the 17.3-17.8 GHz band and that multiple measurement frequencies often result in large amounts of repetitive information. Accordingly, we amend § 25.264(a)(4) to require that measurements for both FSS and 17/24 GHz BSS transmitting antennas be made only at a single frequency in the middle of the band in which the applicant proposes to operate. Recognizing however, that instances may arise when additional measurement data may be warranted ( e.g., when the aggregate PFD is near the coordination trigger value), we will also include a requirement that applicants must be prepared to provide additional measurement information at 5 MHz above, and 5 MHz below the band edge, upon request.

Measured vs. Simulated Off-Axis Antenna Gain Data. The 17 GHz FSS NPRM sought comment on whether the Commission should modify the two-part submission process to also accept simulated data in lieu of measured data to allow operators to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of § 25.264. Specifically, the Commission asked what requirements for simulated data would ensure accuracy of the required calculations. The 17 GHz FSS NPRM sought comment on specific software programs that should be required, input assumptions, conditions or other parameters that we should specify, or information that we should require applicants to include with their showing. The 17 GHz FSS NPRM also asked how the use of simulated data might affect the current two-part information submission process. The Commission recognized that accepting simulated gain and PFD data could obviate a need to reduce the angular ranges over which such measurements are made, while also recognizing that adoption of an increased orbital separation between space-to-Earth transmitting FSS or BSS and DBS space stations could alleviate concerns associated with relying upon simulated off-axis gain data.

Commenters offered differing opinions. Hughes encourages us to permit the use of simulated data, arguing that simulated antenna pattern data is routinely used in on-board satellite antenna design and testing. It explains that predicted patterns are compared with measured patterns in compact antenna test ranges with agreement well beyond 30 dB sidelobes, and that simulated patterns are often preferred over measured data when the test range accuracy is in question as is often the case with high frequency and large antennas. The Satellite Companies similarly advocate for the use of simulated data, asserting that permitting its use will address prior difficulties in supplying the information mandated by this rule while still providing the Commission and interested parties with the information needed to assess compliance with relevant requirements.

In contrast, AT&T encourages us to continue to require operators to submit actual, measured data and associated PFD calculations in satisfaction of § 25.264, and to extend these requirements to any new GSO FSS service in the 17 GHz band. It argues that measured data is invaluable in guarding against inaccuracies resulting from errors in software simulations, and that relying only on simulations may risk infidelities in the analysis or modelling to account for scattering effects or other interactions between the antenna and spacecraft structures. AT&T asserts that validation of first-stage results through submission of actual measured data will increase operator confidence in the predicted on-orbit performance. AT&T further argues that there is no evidence to support the GSO FSS operators' assertions that simulated data can provide “the information needed to assess compliance with relevant requirements.”

We modify our rules to require 17/24 GHz BSS and GSO FSS operators to submit measured off-axis antenna gain data as part of the information submission process, with certain exceptions allowing for simulated data. Specifically, we will permit the use of simulated data only in those instances where the 17/24 GHz BSS operator or GSO FSS operator's space station will be located at an orbital separation of at least one degree from a prior-filed or licensed U.S. DBS operator's space station. Apart from providing increased flexibility for all operators, a primary consideration in permitting GSO FSS use of the band is to ensure that incumbent systems are adequately protected from harmful interference. While permitting simulated data submission will certainly provide greater flexibility to 17/24 GHz BSS and GSO FSS applicants, the potential victim, ( i.e., the DBS operator) is not fully confident in its reliability. We believe however, that at orbital separations greater than one degree from a DBS space station, the potential for space path interference is negligible because of the attenuation of potentially interfering off-axis emissions. Thus, over the remaining portions of the orbital arc, we will permit applicants the option to rely upon simulated off-axis antenna gain rather than measured data to satisfy the requirements of § 25.264.

In addition, we sought comment on the use of simulated data while simultaneously proposing to require a minimum orbital separation of 0.5 degrees between DBS and transmitting GSO FSS space stations—a scenario in which the potential for space path interference would be greatly diminished. These rule changes were considered as a means to relieve applicants of some of the measurement requirements which in the past had proved difficult for 17/24 GHz operators. GSO FSS commenters, however, assert that there is no evidence that these difficulties exist today, and cite as an example the recently SES-17 application which included off-axis gain measurements made over the full required range. Accordingly, we believe that under this approach GSO FSS and 17/24 GHz BSS operators will be able to make the full range of necessary measurements when required by our rules but will have the added option to rely upon simulated data in some instances. Moreover, by first allowing use of simulated data in finite portions of the orbital arc, we may better assess and develop confidence in its reliability in a relatively low-risk scenario. We believe this approach represents the best compromise between our competing goals of providing operator flexibility and protecting incumbent services from harmful interference, and we amend § 25.264(c) accordingly.

Two-Part Data Submission Process. In the 1 7 GHz FSS NPRM, the Commission proposed to amend § 25.264(a) through (e) of our rules to extend the two-part data submission process requirements  12 to FSS applicants proposing space-to-Earth transmissions in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. The Commission also sought comment on whether we should retain, update, or modify any part of the process for 17/24 GHz BSS applicants. Finally, to correct an existing uncertainty regarding the timing of the PFD information submission, the Commission proposed to replace the phrase “within 60 days after completion of critical design review” in § 25.264(a)(6) and (b)(4) with a requirement to submit information “within two years after license grant” in these rule sections.

Commenters generally support the proposal to extend the two-part data submission process to FSS systems in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band and agree that redefining the deadline for first-phase (predicted) information to be provided “within two years after license grant” instead of linking it to the critical design review is appropriate. AT&T also supports extending the two-part data submission process to GSO FSS applicants but recommends that the deadline for the second (measured) data submission be moved forward from the current two months prior to launch, to six months prior to launch. It argues that this extension would afford DBS operators sufficient time to review the information and seek remediation when necessary without disrupting critical launch schedules.

We modify § 25.264(a) through (e) to extend the two-part data submission process to GSO FSS applicants in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. As part of this modification, we replace the phrase “within 60 days after completion of critical design review in § 25.264(a)(6) and (b)(4) with a phrase requiring submission of predicted data “within two years after license grant.” We are not adopting AT&T's recommendation that we move the deadline for submission for the second phase information from two to six months prior to launch because, based on our experience, we are not convinced that a full six months is required to evaluate the data presented at this stage. Moreover, operators who are concerned about delays to their launch schedules may always submit the measured data in advance of the two-month deadline. The two-month deadline was adopted by amending § 25.264(c) and (d) in the Part 25 Second Report and Order (R&O) (81 FR 55316 (Aug. 18, 2016)), moving it closer to the launch date to allow licensees to measure an antenna's off-axis gain after it has been integrated with the satellite bus. There is no supporting evidence in the record that this previously adopted timeline is no longer appropriate. Accordingly, we decline to modify the existing timeline and find that keeping the two-month prior to launch deadline for the second phase information submission would continue to serve the public interest.

To protect 17.3-17.8 GHz band receiving FSS earth stations from ground path interference arising from the Earth-to-space transmissions from nearby co-frequency DBS feeder link earth stations, the Commission proposed in the 17 GHz FSS NPRM to apply generally to receiving FSS earth stations the same coordination approach the Commission uses to facilitate operations between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations. Specifically, the Commission proposed to amend § 25.203 of our rules to apply the coordination approach contained in paragraph (m) to FSS earth stations in the entire 17.3-17.8 GHz band, although in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band such earth stations would not be entitled to protection from fixed service stations. The Commission sought comment on modifications to the parameters used with the ITU Radio Regulations Appendix 7 coordination methodology to account for differences between the receiving antennas employed in the two services.

Commenters supported our proposal to apply generally the same coordination approach contained in § 25.203(m) of our rules, and used to facilitate operations between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations, to coordination with receiving FSS earth stations. Accordingly, we modify this rule section to extend this approach to FSS earth station coordination, as discussed further below.

Upgrades and Modifications to Grandfathered DBS Facilities. The Commission proposed in the 17 GHz FSS NPRM proposed to retain the grandfathered status for existing DBS feeder link earth stations relative to FSS receiving earth stations, and to apply relative to the FSS the same criteria for permitting DBS operators to modify or add antennas to their existing networks that apply with respect to 17/24 GHz BSS. Commenters who addressed this issue all agreed with the proposed approach, although Hughes stresses that grandfathered status should apply only to existing and specific modifications to DBS earth stations. Hughes' comments are consistent with the Commission's proposal. Based on the record we adopt the Commission's proposal and retain the grandfathered status for existing DBS feeder link earth stations relative to FSS receiving earth stations, and apply relative to the FSS the same criteria for permitting DBS operators to modify or add antennas to their existing networks.

Coordination between DBS and FSS Receiving Earth Stations. The Commission's rules include a coordination methodology to permit licensing of new DBS feeder link earth stations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band while protecting co-frequency receiving 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band. This rule requires a DBS operator with a new or modified earth station to complete frequency coordination with existing and planned 17/24 GHz BSS receive earth stations within an established coordination zone around its proposed site using the methodology outlined in Appendix 7 of the ITU Radio Regulations. Recognizing that the specific parameter values to be used in determining this coordination zone were based upon some characteristics specific to BSS receiving earth stations, the Commission proposed in the 17 GHz FSS NPRM to modify § 25.203(m)(1) to include new values for use in determining the coordination zone for DBS feeder link earth stations relative to FSS earth stations. The Commission sought comment on this decision and, in particular, on what these values should be.

Commenters generally agree that the existing coordination methodology specified in § 25.203(m)(1) of our rules to facilitate coordination between DBS feeder uplink stations and 17/24 GHz BSS earth stations should be extended to FSS earth stations. FSS satellite operators also agree that some parameters in the table in this section need to be modified for use in calculating the coordination zone for use with FSS earth stations, as the current parameters are specific to 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth stations. To update § 25.203(m)(1), satellite operators also provide proposed FSS-specific parameters, which they state were calculated using ITU reference documents, although they are not specific as to which documents or methodology were used to derive these parameters.

In contrast, AT&T advocates that “to reduce the burden on incumbents” § 25.203(m) should be modified using the same parameters applicable to coordination with 17/24 GHz earth stations.

We adopt the proposal to extend the ITU Radio Regulations Appendix 7 coordination methodology currently in our rules to FSS earth stations, but with amended parameters. We do not agree with AT&T's assertion that performing this calculation with different parameters will be significantly burdensome to DBS operators. As noted in the 17 GHz FSS NPRM, the current parameters used in the coordination zone calculation were derived specifically with BSS receiving earth stations in mind and are not appropriate for coordination with FSS earth stations because of differences between FSS and BSS receiving earth stations, including in the abilities of the respective earth station antennas to reject unwanted or interfering signals. In fact, some parameters applicable to BSS receiving earth stations in the existing table have no function in calculations involving FSS receiving earth stations. AT&T's objection may rest with the need to make a different calculation depending upon the type of earth station with which coordination may be required, rather than with the actual proposed FSS-specific parameters themselves. We determine, however, that in order to yield an effective coordination outcome, to facilitate the most efficient and effective use of the spectrum, the receiving earth station interference parameters used in the underlying calculations must also be specific to FSS. Accordingly, we adopt the modified parameters specified above, filed in the record as FSS-specific parameters.

Section 25.203(m)(2) identifies specific information that DBS applicants proposing new feeder link earth station must provide to a third-party coordinator prior to licensing to resolve any potential interference issues with affected receiving earth stations. The Commission proposed in the 17 GHz FSS NPRM to apply this rule to coordination with FSS earth stations with no additional changes to the requested information. Commenters addressing this issue all support this approach, and we extend these information requirements to coordination with FSS receiving earth stations without changes.

Because receive-only earth stations are not required to apply for licenses nor to be registered with the Commission, the 17 GHz FSS NPRM sought comment on how to facilitate coordination with DBS operators and to ensure protection from DBS feeder link earth station ground path interference. The Commission proposed that interference protection be afforded to individual FSS receiving earth stations from DBS feeder link transmissions only if they have been licensed with the Commission, and to amend § 25.203(m)(3) of our rules to reflect this requirement. We further proposed, however, to allow blanket-licensed FSS earth stations on an unprotected basis in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band and proposed to amend § 25.115(e) to reflect this.

Commenters expressed differing opinions regarding the types of FSS earth stations that should be permitted to operate in the band, and the extent of protection that they should be afforded. Viasat urges the Commission to protect blanket-licensed earth stations in the band consistent with § 25.209(c), arguing that there is no reason to treat individually or blanket-licensed earth stations differently. Viasat argues that protecting such earth stations would pose no threat to incumbent services, would “facilitate the ability of operators to utilize the 17.3-17.8 GHz band to support user terminals,” and would encourage intensive use of the band. The Satellite Companies support our proposal to afford interference protection only to licensed FSS receiving earth stations, asserting that this approach will ensure that DBS feeder link operators have access to the information regarding the FSS earth station sites that require protection.

We adopt the proposals to extend interference protection only to individually-licensed FSS receiving earth stations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. We disagree with Viasat's assertion that we should extend interference protection to blanket-licensed earth stations. By definition, a blanket earth station license can encompass multiple stations that may be operated anywhere within a geographic area, and as such are not amenable to the reverse-band coordination process outlined in § 25.203(m) of our rules. While we agree with Viasat that blanket-licensed receive-only earth stations may pose no interference threat to incumbent operators, the lack of precise location coordinates precludes the ability to protect them from ground path interference from DBS feeder link earth stations through the coordination process. Although we are limiting interference protection to individually licensed earth stations, consistent with our approach in other frequency bands we will not further restrict such licenses by function ( e.g., gateways or feeder links).

Blanket-Licensed Earth Stations and Earth Stations in Motion (ESIMs). As mentioned above, the Commission also proposed to amend § 25.115(e) of the rules to facilitate blanket-licensed FSS earth stations other than ESIMs to operate on an unprotected basis in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. In addition, the Commission sought comment on whether operation of ESIMs in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band could increase FSS operators' flexibility to use the band more efficiently and what modifications to our rules might be required to permit operation of ESIMs while protecting incumbent services.

Commenters expressed differing opinions on these issues. AT&T believes that FSS downlink operations should be limited to individually-licensed, gateway-type earth stations, whose precise locations are known and whose typically large-diameter antennas facilitate coordination. AT&T does not support allowing blanket-licensed earth stations prior to the completion of ITU WRC-23 studies. AT&T argues that permitting a service that could receive interference on a regular basis could result in substandard service, contrary to the public interest. CTIA focuses its objections on the 17.7-17.8 GHz band, where it opposes allowing FSS receiving earth stations generally, and more specifically opposes blanket-licensed earth stations, arguing that it would unnecessarily hamper future increased terrestrial use. Specifically, CTIA asserts that it is difficult to get accurate information on the location of blanket-licensed earth stations, which could make reallocation of spectrum difficult in the future. CTIA also argues that, should the Commission wish to make the 17 GHz band available for increased terrestrial use in the future, giving priority to the fixed service via footnote would not address any future mobile service operations.

In contrast, the Satellite Companies support our proposal to allow blanket-licensed earth stations to operate on an unprotected basis in the band, and refer to other commenter's objections as “baseless” because any interference would affect only FSS providers. The Satellite Companies refute CTIA's argument that the Commission should restrict use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band segment today in case there is a future desire to introduce terrestrial mobile service in the band, claiming it directly conflicts with the Commission's commitments to meeting demand for additional satellite spectrum and promoting efficient use of the 17 GHz band. Hughes supports permitting GSO FSS downlink operations to earth stations, including blanket-licensed earth stations and ESIMs, provided they do not cause interference to incumbent services. Viasat claims that CTIA's objections are based upon ill-defined concerns that future mobile operations would be impeded, noting that no part of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band is allocated to the mobile service in the United States, nor has the Commission proposed such an allocation.

Commenters also express very differing opinions on operations of ESIMs in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. AT&T and CTIA oppose permitting ESIMs in the band, consistent with their rationale for opposing blanket licensed earth stations more generally. CTIA further argues that ESIM operation presents a coexistence challenge different from fixed FSS earth stations, and that such operations would be incompatible with any future mobile operations in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. It claims that comprehensive studies are needed to evaluate if spectrum could be shared without risking harmful interference to incumbent services, and it urges the Commission to prohibit ESIM operations in the band, both to protect critical incumbent uses and to preserve flexibility in the band for any future increased terrestrial use.

Hughes, The Satellite Companies, and Viasat all urge the Commission to permit ESIMs operations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. The Satellite Companies claim that there is no reason to limit FSS operators' flexibility, given that ESIMs pose no interference risk to incumbent services and place no constraints upon such services if they are not entitled to protection. Viasat similarly argues that permitting ESIM operations would pose no interference threat to incumbent services and would allow the band to be used more productively in the public interest. Hughes claims that ESIM receiving earth stations can be accommodated in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band without interference protections and argues that there is no need to limit FSS network flexibility in determining how to operate in the 17 GHz band, particularly as DBS site locations are well known and receiving ESIM stations pose no interference threat themselves to other users. Viasat rejects CTIA's assertion that ESIMs present a different coexistence challenge from other FSS receiving earth stations, or that they would further complicate an already complex sharing situation, as AT&T has argued. Viasat further argues that sharing studies are not needed as a prerequisite to allowing receiving ESIM operations. As with blanket-licensed earth stations generally, Viasat urges the Commission to extend full interference protection to ESIM earth stations.

We will adopt the proposals to facilitate authorization of blanket-licensed earth stations and ESIMs to operate in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band on an unprotected basis. As stated above, such (receiving) stations pose no interference threat to other services, nor will they place any undue coordination burden on incumbent operators if operating on an unprotected basis. AT&T states that a “service that could potentially be interfered into on a regular basis, resulting in a substandard service, would be contrary to the public interest.” Given the well-established locations of DBS feeder uplink and the ability to design satellite networks to avoid interfering signals and switch operations to other available frequencies, we believe that FSS earth station operators can avoid subjecting their operations to regular unwanted interference. Thus, we see no justification to prohibit blanket-licensed earth stations or ESIMs and limit FSS operators' flexibility in designing their networks, or a need to delay our decision as AT&T and CTIA suggest. We find that it would serve the public interest to allow blanket-licensed earth stations and ESIMs in the band, subject to conditions discussed herein, including that operations are on an unprotected basis, to increase FSS operators' flexibility to use the band more efficiently for provisioning of advanced satellite services for the benefit of American consumers.

We reject CTIA's concerns about future terrestrial use as speculative. There is no allocation of any part of the 17.3-17.8 GHz band to the mobile service in the United States, nor is there currently any plan, a proceeding or proposal before us to make such an allocation. Based on the record, allowing blanket-licensed earth stations or ESIMs in the band would be consistent with sound spectrum policy principles increasing efficient and effective use of the spectrum without causing harmful interreference to incumbent users today. With respect to any potential for harmful interference from FSS (space-to-Earth) operations to fixed service operations, we find that the risk is minimal, and the technical standards adopted herein to prevent harmful interference to other services, including the fixed service, are sufficient to protect those services irrespective of whether or not we permit blanket-licensed earth stations or ESIMs in the band. Accordingly, we modify our rules to facilitate authorization of blanket-licensed receiving earth stations as well as FSS ESIMs in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band on an unprotected basis. There is nothing in the record to demonstrate that receiving ESIM earth stations could pose interference threat to incumbent users in the band. Accordingly, we do not believe that completion of ITU sharing and feasibility studies for receiving ESIMs are needed before we allow receiving ESIMs in the band on an unprotected basis, as AT&T appears to suggest. Moreover, because ESIMs will not be afforded interference protection, they should not increase the coordination burden on incumbent users in the band either. As with other types of blanket-licensed earth stations however, ESIMs operations will only be allowed on an unprotected basis with respect to DBS feeder link operations as well as terrestrial operations in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. Accordingly, we amend § 25.202 and footnote NG527A to streamline authorization of receiving ESIM earth stations on an unprotected basis in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band.

The Commission proposed various conforming modifications to our rules that are required as a result of the changes proposed above. Specifically, the Commission proposed to modify the definition of a two-degree compliant space station in § 25.103 to include FSS satellites transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band. In addition, the Commission proposed to modify § 25.114 to identify 17.3-17.8 GHz space-to-Earth FSS applicants alongside information requirements applicable to such applications, specifically in § 25.114(d)(7), (15), and (18). Similarly, the 17 GHz FSS NPRM proposed to modify § 25.115(e) to identify the information required for receiving earth station applicants in this band. Finally, the Commission proposed to modify § 25.117(d)(2)(v) to permit 17.3-17.8 GHz FSS operators to modify certain restrictions that might be associated with their licenses according to the same procedures afforded to 17/24 GHz BSS operators. No commenters opposed these proposed conforming modifications, and we adopt them.

Radio Astronomy. The Commission sought comment on whether there was a need for any additional measures that the Commission should consider with respect to radio astronomy in the adjacent 17.2-17.3 GHz band. No commenter proposed any new rule or changes to our existing rules. The Satellite Companies stated that no new rules were necessary, noting that there were no concerns regarding adverse effects to radio astronomy from the17/24 GHz downlink transmissions already using the band which are functionally equivalent to FSS downlinks. Accordingly, we find that no rule change is necessary with respect to Radio Astronomy.

In the 17 GHz FSS NPRM, the Commission proposed adding a definition for the extended Ka-band in section 25.103. Specifically, the 17 GHz FSS NPRM proposed to define the extended Ka-band as 17.3-18.3 GHz (space-to-Earth), 18.8-19.4 GHz (space-to-Earth), 19.6-19.7 GHz (space-to-Earth), 27.5-28.35 GHz (Earth-to-space) and 28.6-29.1 GHz, (Earth-to-space). The Commission also proposed two approaches to facilitate routine licensing of extended Ka-band earth stations communicating with GSO FSS space stations to streamline and harmonize extended Ka-band earth station licensing with licensing in other FSS bands. The first proposal was to extend the routine license off-axis EIRP density limits for conventional Ka-band earth stations contained in § 25.218(i) to extended Ka-band earth stations. The second proposal was to extend an alternative approach to routine licensing now contained in § 25.212(e) to extended Ka-band earth stations. To implement this alternative approach the 17 GHz FSS NPRM proposed modifying § 25.212(e) and (h) to permit such applicants to similarly demonstrate compliance with the off-axis gain requirements in § 25.209(a) and (b) combined with an input power density limit of 3.5 dBW/MHz. In the 17 GHz FSS NPRM, the Commission also proposed modifications to § 25.209(a) and (b) to extend the Ka-band off-axis antenna gain requirements across the full 27.5-30 GHz band, and to reference these alternative routine license application processing requirements in §§ 25.115(g) and (k) and 25.220(a).

Most commenters supported these proposals, arguing that they would facilitate streamlined licensing of extended Ka-band FSS earth stations. We add a definition of extended Ka-band and adopt the rule changes proposed in the 17 GHz FSS NPRM to facilitate streamlined earth station licensing in the extended Ka-band similar to licensing in other FSS bands. CTIA argues, however, that the proposed rules lack clarity, and because the Commission has not adequately considered the downstream consequences or explained any impact on affected stakeholders, we should provide further explanation and opportunity for comment before adopting them. CTIA questions in particular what filing requirements in lieu of § 25.220 would apply, or whether these earth stations might be newly eligible for autogrant under § 25.115(a)(3).

We note that the uplink power levels in question are defined at the geostationary orbit and are intended to obviate the need for coordination between co-frequency GSO FSS space station operations in a two-degree spacing environment. Lacking any extended Ka-band uplink off-axis power limits in our current rules with which to demonstrate conformance—and which our rules currently define for GSO earth station applicants in most other FSS bands—extended Ka-band earth station applicants have no choice but to make the more burdensome off-axis EIRP density showings relative to the geostationary arc, as defined in § 25.115(g)(1).

Under our current rules, extended Ka-band transmitting earth station applications in bands shared with terrestrial services ( i.e., 27.5-28.35 GHz) must be filed on FCC Form 312, Main Form, and Schedule B. Filing requirements include any relevant information required by paragraphs (a)(5) through (10) or paragraph (g) or (j) of § 25.115. Although we are not changing this, we adopt the Commission's proposals in the 17 GHz NPRM to allow conforming extended Ka-band applicants to file in accordance with the requirements of § 25.115(g)(1), instead of paragraph (g)(2). CTIA erroneously suggests that extended Ka-band earth station applicants should comply with the requirements of § 25.220. This rule currently applies to the conventional Ka-band, but not the extended Ka-band. We also adopt the proposals in the 17 GHz FSS NPRM, to apply the process in § 25.220 if extended Ka-band applicants do not conform to the uplink off-axis power limits adopted herein. With regard to an autogrant procedure in § 25.115(a)(3), to be eligible, earth stations must meet the criteria specified in § 25.115(a)(2), which among other things list specific qualifying frequency bands. The extended Ka-band frequency ranges are not included in this list, nor has the Commission proposed any modification to add them. Accordingly, extended Ka-band applicants are not eligible for that procedure.

We believe that CTIA's concerns may stem from an erroneous assumption that the uplink power limits adopted herein and the associated routine processing would somehow permit FSS earth station applicants in the extended Ka-bands to bypass other existing Commission rules. In particular, in the 27.5-28.35 GHz extended Ka-band segment, transmitting FSS earth stations will be sharing the band with Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) stations, and the requirements of § 25.136(a) for FSS earth stations seeking to operate in this band include a requirement to coordinate, when warranted, in accordance with the procedures of §§ 25.136(a) and 101.103(d). 13 We make clear that as defined in our rules, routine licensing requires qualifying applications to be consistent with all Commission rules, and will continue to include all requirements contained in § 25.136(a) for earth station applicants in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band. Accordingly, we can envision no adverse effect on terrestrial Ka-band stakeholders with these rule changes. These rule changes will streamline and harmonize extended Ka-band earth station licensing with licensing in other FSS bands. Accordingly, we find that it would serve the public interest to adopt the conforming and streamlining changes proposed in the 17 GHz FSS NPRM.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), 14 an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Enable GSO Fixed-Satellite Service (Space-to-Earth) Operations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz Band, to Modernize Certain Rules Applicable to 17/24 GHz BSS Space Stations, and to Establish Off-Axis Uplink Power Limits for Extended Ka-Band FSS Operations, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (86 FR 7660 (Feb. 1, 2021)). The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. No comments were received on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 15

This final rule creates a new allocation for the fixed-satellite service (FSS) (space-to-Earth) in the 17.3-17.8 GHz frequency band, adopts technical rules for the use of this band by GSO FSS satellites and for sharing the band between satellites of different satellite services and stations in the terrestrial fixed service, and defines the “extended Ka-band” and adopts rules to harmonize extended Ka-band licensing with licensing in other FSS bands.

There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.

Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. 16 The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of, the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. 17 The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”  18 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. 19 A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA). 20 Below, we describe and estimate the number of small entities that may be affected by adoption of the final rules.

Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.”  21 Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business with $35 million or less in annual receipts as small. 22 U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. 23 Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. 24 Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 71 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. 25 Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 48 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 26 Consequently using the SBA's small business size standard, a little more than half of these providers can be considered small entities.

All Other Telecommunications. The “All Other Telecommunications” category is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. 27 This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. 28 Establishments providing internet services or voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. 29 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for “All Other Telecommunications”, which consists of all such firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less. 30 For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were 1,442 firms that operated for the entire year. 31 Of those firms, a total of 1,400 had annual receipts less than $25 million and 15 firms had annual receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999. 32 Thus, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms potentially affected by our action can be considered small.

This final rule adopts several rule changes that would affect compliance requirements for space station and earth station operators. For example, this final rule adopts rules for operations by space station FSS operators in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, including revisions to some existing technical requirements that would now apply to these FSS operations. This final rule also adopts changes that would affect earth station operator licensing. The Commission adopts changes to harmonize extended Ka-band earth station licensing with licensing in other FSS bands. In total, the actions in this final rule are designed to achieve the Commission's mandate to regulate in the public interest while imposing the lowest necessary burden on all affected parties, including small entities.

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities. 33

In this final rule, the Commission considered whether and how to apply various technical rules to enable GSO FSS operations to share the 17.3-17.8 GHz band with other services in an efficient and effective manner. This include consideration, for example, of power levels, orbital spacing, and other technical considerations, and what information the Commission may need to assess compliance with technical requirements, taking into consideration potential impact on the applicant or operator. As one example, the Commission declines to require submission of certain measured data six months before satellite launch, instead requiring the data submission only two months prior to launch. As another example, the Commission considered whether to streamline certain earth station application rules to enable more routine processing of applications for the extended Ka-band. Overall, the actions in this document will reduce burdens on the affected licensees, including small entities.

The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including the FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. 34 In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register . 35

Accordingly, It is ordered that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), the Report and Order is hereby adopted .

It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center will send a copy of the Report and Order, including the final and initial regulatory flexibility analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with Section 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 2 and 25 as follows:

This is a summary of the Report and Order, document FCC 22-49, adopted June 26, 2022, released June 30, 2022, in CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51, and 12-38. The Commission previously sought comment on these issues in Telecommunications Relay Services and Speech-to-Speech Services for Individuals with Hearing and Speech Disabilities, Structure and Practices of the Video Relay Service Program, Misuse of internet Protocol (IP) Relay Service, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ), CG Docket Nos. 03-123, 10-51, and 12-38, FCC 20-161, published at 86 FR 14859, March 19, 2021. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov, or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).

1. Background. Section 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), requires the Commission to ensure that both “interstate and intrastate” TRS are available “to the extent possible and in the most efficient manner.” 47 U.S.C. 225(b)(1). The Act directs the Commission to adopt, administer, and enforce regulations governing the provision of interstate and intrastate TRS, including rules on cost separation, which “shall generally provide” that interstate TRS costs are recovered from all subscribers for every interstate service and intrastate TRS costs are recovered from the intrastate jurisdiction. The Act also authorizes, but does not require, the establishment of state-administered TRS programs, subject to approval by the Commission. Currently, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and several United States territories have TRS programs approved by the Commission. For ease of reference, The Commission refers to all state and territory TRS programs as state TRS programs. The Commission requires that state TRS programs include text-based TRS and speech-to-speech relay (STS).

2. To provide for the recovery of interstate TRS costs, the Commission established the interstate TRS Fund in 1993. Telecommunications carriers, as well as providers of interconnected and non-interconnected voice-over-internet-Protocol (VoIP) service, are required to contribute to the TRS Fund, on a quarterly basis, a specified percentage of their end-user revenues for the prior year. Providers of international as well as interstate services are currently required to contribute to the TRS Fund. For ease of reference, the Commission uses the term “interstate” to mean “interstate and international.”

3. Although initially limited to supporting interstate TRS, the scope of the TRS Fund changed beginning in 2000, as the Commission authorized internet-based forms of TRS—VRS, IP Relay, and internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS). VRS is a form of TRS that enables people with hearing or speech disabilities who use sign language to make telephone calls over broadband with a videophone. IP Relay is a form of TRS that permits an individual with a hearing or a speech disability to communicate in text using an internet Protocol-enabled device via the internet. IP CTS is a form of TRS that permits an individual who can speak but who has difficulty hearing over the telephone to use a telephone and an internet Protocol-enabled device via the internet to simultaneously listen to the other party and read captions of what the other party is saying.

4. When the Commission first authorized use of internet-based forms of TRS, it decided, as an interim measure to speed the development of these services, that all of the costs of providing internet-based TRS should be paid by contributors to the TRS Fund, based only on their interstate end-user revenues. This approach was deemed preferable to burdening state relay programs with the responsibility to fund and supervise, on a state-by-state basis, the provision of intrastate relay services via these nascent technologies. In those proceedings, the Commission did not consider the alternative, adopted here, of expanding the TRS Fund contribution base to include intrastate end-user revenues. However, the Commission stated an intention to revisit these interim funding arrangements in the future.

5. In 2019, the Commission revisited the funding arrangement for one form of internet-based TRS, IP CTS. Recognizing that the “interim” funding mechanism for IP CTS disproportionately burdens providers and users of interstate services, the Commission concluded it was no longer justifiable. Therefore, the Commission amended its rules to expand the TRS Fund contribution base for that service to include intrastate as well as interstate end-user revenues. TRS Fund Contributions, Document FCC 19-118, published at 85 FR 462, January 6, 2020 ( IP CTS Contributions Order ).

6. Discussion. The Commission amends its rules to provide that TRS Fund contributions for the support of VRS and IP Relay shall be calculated based on the total interstate and intrastate end-user revenues of each telecommunications carrier and VoIP service provider. The Commission thereby replaces “interim” funding measures adopted nearly two decades ago. The record supports the Commission's conclusion that the rules it adopts will provide a fair allocation of TRS Fund contribution obligations among those entities subject to its TRS funding authority. The total contributions needed to support the TRS Fund will not be affected, but the Commission anticipates that (assuming there is no unrelated change in the TRS Fund budget for supporting these services) TRS Fund contributions paid as a percentage of interstate end-user revenues for the support of VRS and IP Relay will decline by approximately 55%.

7. The Commission adopts this rule change for the reasons set forth in the NPRM. First, the current funding arrangements for VRS and IP Relay were authorized some 20 years ago as interim measures to speed the development of these services, and that purpose has been achieved. VRS is the second largest TRS program, and IP Relay's annual minutes exceed the annual TRS Fund-supported minutes of all state TRS programs combined.

8. Second, the Commission's action corrects the inherent inequity of the current funding arrangements. VRS and IP Relay, which cumulatively require close to $540 million in TRS Fund backing, are supported entirely from interstate end-user telecommunications and VoIP revenues, with 0% contribution from intrastate revenues. By contrast, approximately 76% of the costs of relay services provided through state TRS programs are funded from intrastate sources, and, since the Commission's 2019 IP CTS funding reforms were implemented, approximately 55% of IP CTS costs are funded from intrastate end-user revenues. The Commission notes that contributions to support IP CTS are divided between interstate and intrastate sources in the same percentages as the reported end-user revenue. According to the 2021 USF Monitoring Report, approximately 55% of total end-user telecommunications and interconnected VoIP revenues are intrastate, and 45% are interstate. Although the contribution base for TRS includes non-interconnected VoIP end-user revenues, while the USF contribution base does not, the inclusion of this relatively small category is unlikely to have a major impact on the Commission's estimate of the relative percentages of intrastate and interstate end-user revenues in the TRS contribution base.

9. As a result, the burden of supporting VRS and IP Relay has widely disparate impacts on TRS Fund contributors, based solely on the extent of interstate usage of their services. For TRS Fund Year 2022-23, for example, the administrator has recommended a contribution factor of 0.01125, meaning that a provider of interstate-only services must contribute approximately 1.11% of its total annual end-user revenues to support VRS and IP Relay. By contrast, the average TRS Fund contributor pays only 0.50% of its total annual end-user revenues to support those services. And providers of intrastate-only services contribute nothing, despite the availability of VRS and IP Relay for intrastate as well as interstate calling.

10. Third, recovering VRS and IP Relay costs based on total end-user revenues reduces the likelihood of distortions in the pricing of interstate and intrastate voice services due to inaccurate market signals regarding their relative costs. As the Commission has recognized in various contexts, applying artificial regulatory distinctions or other disparate treatment to providers of similar services may create unintended market distortions, which can reduce the effectiveness of competition in ensuring efficient pricing of telecommunications services.

11. Fourth, the total amount of end-user revenues from which TRS Fund contributions can be drawn has been steadily decreasing over time, worsening the impact of the current funding arrangement on interstate service providers and users and increasing any resulting distortions in the pricing of intrastate and interstate service. Expanding contributions to support VRS and IP Relay to encompass intrastate as well as interstate revenues may strengthen the sustainability of these services.

12. Fifth, no state TRS program offers VRS or IP Relay, and there continue to be impediments to any state successfully administering and funding intrastate VRS and IP Relay. Accordingly, the Commission has no reason to believe that encouraging or mandating state program support of VRS and IP Relay would be a practical alternative. The Commission notes that its action today does not preclude any state from seeking certification to provide VRS or IP Relay, but given the lack of indication in the record that any state agency intends to do so, the Commission need not address at this time what changes in funding arrangements could be appropriate in the event of such a change in state policies.

13. Finally, no party has identified any differences between VRS and IP Relay, on the one hand, and IP CTS, on the other, that would support maintaining different funding arrangements for these services.

14. Legal Authority. The Commission finds that it has statutory authority to include the intrastate end-user revenues of telecommunications carriers and VoIP service providers in the calculation of TRS Fund contributions to support VRS and IP Relay. Section 225 of the Act expressly directs the Commission to ensure that both interstate and intrastate TRS are available and grants the Commission broad authority to establish regulations governing both interstate and intrastate TRS, including TRS cost recovery. Further, the Act affords the Commission, without limitation, “the same authority, power, and functions with respect to common carriers engaged in intrastate communication as the Commission has in administering and enforcing the provisions of this [Act] with respect to any common carrier engaged in interstate communication.” 47 U.S.C. 225(b)(2). In addition, section 715 of the Act requires that VoIP service providers “participate in and contribute to the Telecommunications Relay Services Fund . . . in a manner prescribed by the Commission . . . consistent with and comparable to the obligations of other contributors to such Fund.” 47 U.S.C. 616. The Commission also notes that Congress expressly carved out section 225 of the Act from the Act's general reservation of state authority over intrastate communications, and that responsibility for administering TRS is shared with the states only to the extent that a state applies for and receives Commission approval to exercise such authority. The Commission concludes that, where a form of TRS is not offered in state TRS programs, the Commission may adopt reasonable measures to ensure equitably distributed contributions from all interstate and intrastate service providers subject to the Commission's authority under sections 225 and 715 of the Act.

15. To collect TRS Fund contributions for VRS and IP Relay from intrastate and interstate end-user revenues, the administrator will follow the same procedure currently used for IP CTS, except that a single contribution factor will be used to determine the total level of support required for all three services. The interstate-only contribution factor will continue to be used, but only to support the interstate costs of services provided in state TRS programs (currently TTY-based TRS, STS, and non-internet-based CTS). The TRS Fund administrator will determine a revenue requirement for the three services, based on the applicable compensation formulas and projected demand for each service. Next, the TRS Fund administrator will compute a TRS Fund contribution factor for the three services, by dividing the revenue requirement by the total intrastate and interstate end-user revenues reported by TRS Fund contributors on Forms 499-A.

16. This approach is simple and feasible to administer, requires only minor modification of our rules, and distributes the funding obligation among TRS Fund contributors in a reasonably equitable manner, with each contributor paying the same percentage of its total interstate and intrastate end-user revenues for support of internet-based TRS. Further, this approach does not require jurisdictional separation of TRS costs. As under the current funding mechanism for VRS and IP Relay, no cost separation is needed because all costs of the service will be supported by the TRS Fund, and the amounts paid by each Fund contributor are unaffected by the proportion of TRS costs that might be deemed interstate or intrastate. Accordingly, the Commission finds it unnecessary to refer this matter to a Federal-State Joint Board.

17. Economic Impact. The Commission adopts its tentative conclusion that the benefits of more efficient production and consumption exceed the costs of the proposed rule change. Broadening the TRS funding base will tend to reduce any current distortions in the relative prices of intrastate and interstate telecommunications and VoIP services, increasing economic efficiency by more accurately signaling relative costs to purchasers, which in turn will generate more efficient provider investment signals.

18. Further, this transfer results in no net increase in contributions for TRS Fund contributors as a whole. Expanding the TRS Fund contribution base for VRS and IP Relay to include intrastate revenues will reduce the TRS funding contributions paid by providers of interstate telecommunications and VoIP services and concomitantly increase the contributions paid by providers of intrastate services. To the extent this would occur, it is not a cost of the Commission's rule change, but a transfer of the contribution burden from some providers and their customers to other providers and their customers. As an example, based on the administrator's recommended budget for TRS Fund Year 2022-23, approximately 55% of TRS Fund expenditures on VRS and IP Relay in 2022-23, or $297 million—which under the existing rules would be collected from contributors' interstate end-user revenues—will be collected from intrastate end-user revenues instead. This represents a $297 million transfer in the incidence of TRS Fund contributions from the interstate to the intrastate jurisdiction, but the total funding requirement is unaffected. In addition, the record does not indicate that any transitional costs of this transfer, which the Commission mitigates by extending the implementation timeline, as discussed further below, could be so substantial as to outweigh the long-lasting efficiency benefits described above.

19. The Commission is cognizant that this change will have disparate impacts on carriers and service providers, as each provider's contribution may be adjusted up or down depending on the percentage of their end-user revenues that is classified as intrastate. NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association suggests that such changes may have “inequitable” effects on some rural service providers and customers, pointing out that the analogous change in IP CTS funding adopted in 2019 led to significant increases in contribution obligations for rural providers. However, NTCA does not dispute that such changes are necessary to correct more pervasive, longstanding inequities in TRS funding, or that those service providers who now face increased costs—as a result of our action to equalize each contributor's percentage contribution from total end-user revenues—have derived offsetting benefits over the preceding two decades, by paying a much lower than average share of their total end-user revenues to support TRS. While the Commission is mindful of the increased contribution cost that some entities must bear, it does not consider such increases inequitable. Therefore, the Commission denies NTCA's request to adjust the contribution formula for rural service providers to limit their required contributions from intrastate end-user revenues. The Commission also notes that NTCA has not provided specific evidence that any provider would be unable to recover such increased costs. Further, given that the cost of TRS Fund support for VRS and IP Relay is approximately 25% lower than for IP CTS, the Commission expects the net effect on any provider's total TRS Fund contribution to be less burdensome than the impact of the analogous rule change adopted in 2019 with regard to IP CTS funding.

20. The Commission does not address NTCA's request for unspecified changes in access charge cost recovery rules, which is outside the scope of this proceeding and, in any event, does not provide a specific description of either the perceived problem or a proposed solution. After the Commission adopted a cap on all switched access rate elements in 2011, the Wireline Competition Bureau clarified, pursuant to its delegated authority, how incumbent local exchange carriers may recover increases in TRS Fund contribution costs and waived applicable rules to facilitate such cost recovery. To the extent that any service provider believes the access charge rules unreasonably hinder its recovery of TRS Fund contribution costs, the Commission notes that specific concerns may be brought to the Commission's or Wireline Competition Bureau's attention for further clarification, waiver, or other action consistent with the 2011 order (76 FR 65965, October 25, 2011) and the Commission's rules.

21. Compliance Deadline. Telecommunications carriers and VoIP service providers shall be required to contribute a percentage of intrastate as well as interstate end-user revenues to fund VRS and IP Relay beginning July 1, 2023. Based on the record, the Commission finds good cause to establish a more extended compliance timeline than the seven months allowed in the IP CTS Contribution Order. The Commission is persuaded by commenters that a transition period of substantially less than one year could subject some TRS Fund contributors to undue economic stress. A longer period will allow additional time for carriers and providers facing changes in required contributions to adjust budgets, proposals, billing and compliance systems, and other planning processes. Setting a compliance date of July 1, 2023, will afford contributors close to one year from the effective date of this final rule to prepare for compliance. In addition, it is administratively efficient to tie the compliance date to the start of a new TRS Fund year. As an additional administrative benefit, a July 1 compliance date aligns with the filing date for incumbent local exchange carriers' annual tariffs. Although IDT Corporation (IDT) argues that administrative efficiency should not be the Commission's primary concern, the Commission's decision takes account of other factors in addition to administrative efficiency. To avoid unnecessarily complicating the TRS Fund contribution process and the cost recovery adjustments that must be made by affected contributors, the Commission finds it appropriate to align the implementation of this change with the beginning of TRS Fund Year 2023-24 on July 1, 2023.

22. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) into the NPRM and sought written public comment on the proposals in that document, including comment on the IRFA.

23. Need For, and Objectives of, the Rules. The Commission modifies the cost recovery rules for VRS and IP Relay to provide a fair and reasonable allocation of the funding burden for TRS. Specifically, providers of intrastate as well as interstate telecommunications and VoIP services must contribute to the TRS Fund for the support of VRS and IP Relay, based on a percentage of their total annual end-user revenues from intrastate, interstate, and international services. Requiring that contributions to support VRS and IP Relay include contributions from intrastate end-user revenues removes contribution asymmetry and ensures intrastate revenue is available to support intrastate VRS and IP Relay. This action addresses the interim cost recovery rules for VRS and IP Relay and better aligns the cost recovery rules with the terms of section 225 of the Act. See 47 U.S.C. 225. It also both reduces the inequitable burden on providers of interstate telecommunications and VoIP services and strengthens the funding base for these critical services.

24. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA. No comments were filed in response to the IRFA.

25. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. The Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.

26. Small Entities to which the Rules will Apply. The rules adopted in the Report and Order will affect the following types of small entities: wired telecommunications carriers; interexchange carriers; local resellers; toll resellers; other toll carriers; wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite); satellite telecommunications service providers; and providers of all other telecommunications.

27. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements. The rules adopted in the Report and Order do not impose new or additional reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on small entities.

28. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered. Expanding the TRS Fund contribution base for VRS and IP Relay to include intrastate end-user revenues will cause a corresponding reduction in the contributions required from interstate and international end-user revenues. As a result, while small entities with mostly intrastate revenue will be required to make increased payments to the TRS Fund, other small entities with mostly interstate revenue will experience a reduction in TRS Fund contributions. This change will not increase the total contributions required. The additional costs incurred by some small entities are justified by the benefits of appropriately allocating the funding of the provision of VRS and IP Relay among all telecommunications carriers and VoIP providers.

29. The Commission considered whether to revise the contribution formula or the cost recovery mechanisms available to small rural carriers and providers as suggested by NTCA. The Commission determined that the record did not contain sufficient evidence to justify such changes. The Commission left open the ability for an adversely affected carrier or provider to petition the Commission for waiver with specific evidence showing that current rules inhibited said carrier or provider from fully recovering contribution costs. The Commission also modified the proposed compliance deadline in response to comments filed in the proceeding to provide affected entities close to one year to comply with the modified contribution obligations. This should allow small entities sufficient time to adjust budgets, proposals, billing and compliance systems, and other planning processes for meeting their funding obligations.

30. Federal Rules Which Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With, the Commission's Proposals. None.

31. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, 225, and 715 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 225, 616, the Report and Order is adopted, and part 64 of title 47 is amended.

32. The Commission sent a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

33. The Report and Order does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows: