The Inflation Adjustment Act, 1 as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996  2 and further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, 3 directs Federal agencies to adjust the civil penalty amounts within their jurisdictions for inflation not later than July 1, 2016, and then not later than January 15 every year thereafter. 4 Each agency was required to make the 2016 one-time catch-up adjustments through an interim final rule published in the Federal Register . On June 14, 2016, the CFPB published its interim final rule (IFR) to make the initial catch-up adjustments to civil penalties within the CFPB's jurisdiction. 5 The June 2016 IFR created a new part 1083 and in part 1083.1 established the inflation-adjusted maximum amounts for each civil penalty within the CFPB's jurisdiction. 6 The CFPB finalized the IFR on January 31, 2019. 7

The Inflation Adjustment Act also requires subsequent adjustments to be made annually, not later than January 15, and notwithstanding section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). 8 The CFPB annually adjusted its civil penalty amounts, as required by the Act. 9

Specifically, the Inflation Adjustment Act directs Federal agencies to adjust annually each civil penalty provided by law within the jurisdiction of each agency by the “cost-of-living adjustment.”  10 The “cost-of-living adjustment” is defined as the percentage (if any) by which the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October preceding the date of the adjustment, exceeds the CPI-U for October of the prior year. 11 The Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to issue guidance (OMB Guidance) every year by December 15 to agencies on implementing the annual civil penalty inflation adjustments. Pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act and OMB Guidance, agencies must apply the multiplier reflecting the “cost-of-living adjustment” to the current penalty amount and then round that amount to the nearest dollar to determine the annual adjustments. 12 The adjustments are designed to keep pace with inflation so that civil penalties retain their deterrent effect and promote compliance with the law. 13

For the 2025 annual adjustment, the multiplier reflecting the “cost-of-living adjustment” is 1.02598.

Pursuant to the Inflation Adjustment Act and OMB Guidance, the CFPB multiplied each of its civil penalty amounts by the “cost-of-living adjustment” multiplier and rounded to the nearest dollar. 14 The new penalty amounts that apply to civil penalties assessed after January 15, 2025, are 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 Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation Model GVII-G500 and GVII-G600 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 22, 2024 (89 FR 67913). The NPRM was prompted by a report of cracking in the electrical grounding receptacles located on the left and right wings. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting the electrical grounding receptacles for cracks and corrosion, performing applicable on-condition actions, and sealing over the grounding receptacles on the top of the wings to permanently disable the receptacle. The FAA is issuing this AD to address cracks and corrosion of the electrical grounding receptacles. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in fuel leaking from the electrical grounding receptacles.

The FAA received comments from an individual and three anonymous commenters who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any 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 these products. 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 Gulfstream GVII-G500 Customer Bulletin No. 089, dated November 28, 2023; and Gulfstream GVII-G600 Customer Bulletin No. 058, dated November 28, 2023. This material specifies procedures for the following actions:

• Borescope inspections for cracking and corrosion of the interior walls of the grounding receptacle casing.

• Measurement of the inner diameter of the grounding receptacle if any Level 1 corrosion is found.

• Repair including cleaning and application of chemical conversion coating if any Level 1 corrosion within the specified tolerance (inner diameter) is found.

• Replacement of the grounding receptacle assembly if any crack, any Level 2 or Level 3 corrosion, or any Level 1 corrosion outside of the specified tolerance is found.

• Removal of the “GROUND HERE” decal/stencil from the grounding receptacles, and application of epoxy over the ground receptacle area to permanently disable the receptacles.

These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane models.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary corrective actions that would be required based on the results of the inspections. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need these actions:

The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all 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:

The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Airbus Defense and Space S.A. (formerly known as Construcciones Aeronauticas, S.A.) Model CN-235, CN-235-200, and CN-235-300 airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on August 20, 2024 (89 FR 67332). The NPRM was prompted by AD 2024-0054, dated February 26, 2024 (EASA AD 2024-0054) (also referred to as the MCAI) issued by the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union. The MCAI states a torn bulkhead seal was found jamming the NLG emergency cable pulley. Due to the similarity of design, the MLG emergency cable pulley could be exposed to the same failure mode.

In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require repetitive inspections and corrective actions for damage of affected bulkhead seals and retainer rings, and repetitive replacement of affected parts, as specified in EASA AD 2024-0054. The FAA is issuing this AD to address a jammed emergency cable pulley, which could prevent the emergency extension of the landing gears when required, causing damage to the airplane and possible injury to occupants.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at regulations.gov under Docket No. FAA-2024-2024.

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.

EASA AD 2024-0054 specifies procedures for repetitive general visual inspections for any type of damage of the bulkhead seals and the retainer rings, and, depending on findings, replacement. EASA AD 2024-0054 also requires repetitive replacement of affected parts. 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 10 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary on-condition action that would be required based on the results of any required actions. The FAA has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this on-condition action:

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 GE Model GEnx-1B64/P1, GEnx-1B64/P2, GEnx-1B67, GEnx-1B67/P1, GEnx-1B67/P2, GEnx-1B70, GEnx-1B70/75/P1, GEnx-1B70/75/P2, GEnx-1B70/P1, GEnx-1B70/P2, GEnx-1B70C/P1, GEnx-1B70C/P2, GEnx-1B74/75/P1, GEnx-1B74/75/P2, GEnx-1B76/P2, GEnx-1B76A/P2, GEnx-2B67, GEnx-2B67B, and GEnx-2B67/P engines with certain stages 6-10 spool installed. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on March 25, 2024 (89 FR 20553). The NPRM was prompted by a manufacturer evaluation which determined that a lower life limit may be necessary for certain stages 6-10 spools than that allowed in the engine shop manual. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require accomplishing a one-time inspection of the stages 6-10 spools for previously accomplished blend repairs, a one-time inspection of the blend repairs on the stages 6-10 spools for compliance with the updated allowable limits, and replacement, if necessary, within compliance times specified in GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin 72-0525, R00, dated October 4, 2023 (GEnx-1B SB 72-0525, R00), or GEnx-2B Service Bulletin 72-0460, R00, dated October 4, 2023 (GEnx-2B SB 72-0460, R00). Depending on the part numbers and serial numbers of the affected stages 6-10 spools, the NPRM proposed to require these actions to be accomplished at the next piece-part exposure after the effective date of the proposed AD, or before the affected stages 6-10 spool reaches the cyclic removal threshold of up to 11,894 cycles since new. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from eight commenters. The commenters were American Airlines, Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), Boeing Commercial Airplanes (Boeing), GE, Japan Airlines, Qatar Airways, United Airlines, and United Parcel Service (UPS). ALPA and Boeing supported the NPRM without change. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

Qatar Airways requested clarification of the compliance threshold specified in the NPRM. The commenter pointed out that the compliance thresholds in the service information specify that “at the next piece-part exposure of the affected 6-10 spools, but before the affected 6-10 spools reach the cycle since new threshold for inspection listed in paragraph 4., Appendix—A, Table 1,” whereas the NPRM expressed the compliance time as “At the next piece-part exposure after the effective date of this AD or before the affected stages 6-10 spool reaches the cyclic removal threshold specified in paragraph 4., Appendix-A, Table 1 of GEnx-1B 72-0525, R00 or GEnx-2B SB 72-0460, R00, as applicable.” The commentor stated that the compliance time as written, is unclear about when to take action and which takes priority (next piece part or cycle thresholds).

The FAA agrees that the compliance time is unclear. Paragraph (g) of this AD has been updated to state that the required action is to be performed at next piece part exposure or before the spool reaches the cycle removal thresholds, whichever occurs first.

American Airlines and UPS requested that the FAA reword paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD to allow installation of an affected part, provided that the part passes the required inspections. UPS pointed out that in both paragraph (g) of the proposed AD and the service information, replacement of an affected part is only required if a previously accomplished blend repair is found and is also not within the allowable limits. However, the proposed definition would prohibit installation of any affected part, regardless of the inspection results. In addition, UPS requested that paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD be reworded to redefine a “part eligible for installation” as a stages 6-10 spool that does not have a P/N and S/N defined in paragraph 4, Appendix A, Table 1 of GEnx-1B 72-0525, R00 or GEnx-2B 72-0460, R00, or a stages 6-10 spool with a P/N and S/N that is listed in paragraph 4, Appendix A, Table 1 of GEnx-1B 72-0525, R00 or GEnx-2B 72-0460 that has been inspected and found to be within the allowable limits.

The FAA agrees that a stages 6-10 spool that passes inspection does not need to be removed from service. Therefore, paragraph (h)(2) of this AD has been updated to reflect this change.

GE requested that the FAA revise the SUMMARY of the NPRM to clarify that for certain stages 6-10 compressor rotor spools there is a potential life shortfall to that specified in the ESM, instead of an absolute or definite life shortfall. GE stated that the evaluation of the repair limits demonstrated that at the worst size and location a stages 6-10 spool would have an ultimate life lower than that published in the ESM. However, there is no evidence to show that any of the affected stages 6-10 spools have a repair at the worst size and location. GE pointed out that for this reason, an inspection is required to determine if there is a possibility of the ultimate life lower than that published in the ESM. GE recommended adding the terms “may be” to the SUMMARY to clarify that not all stages 6-10 spools will have a lower life limit.

The FAA agrees that clarification is necessary and has updated the SUMMARY of this AD accordingly.

GE requested that the FAA update the NPRM to specify the latest revision of the service information. GE specified the intention to revise GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0525, R00 and GEnx-2B SB 72-0460, R00, and added that the updated revisions will not change actions or accomplishment instructions but will add wording indicating hardware that meets current ESM limits will not have a lower limit than published in CH05.

The FAA agrees and has revised this AD to refer to GE GEnx-1B Service Bulletin 72-0525, R01, dated June 10, 2024 (GEnx-1B SB 72-0525, R01), and GEnx-2B Service Bulletin 72-0460, R01, dated June 10, 2024 (GEnx-2B SB 72-0460, R01), as the appropriate source of service information. Additionally, the FAA has updated this AD to include credit for the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were done prior to the effective date of this AD using GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0525, R00 and GEnx-2B SB 72-0460, R00.

United Airlines requested that the FAA include additional verbiage in the service information and the proposed AD that, in the case of an affected part passing the inspection, that part retains the ultimate life limit specified in the ESM. United Airlines stated that paragraph (g) of the proposed AD was not specific about what actions to take if the affected part passed the inspection. However, the service information specifies that no further action is necessary. Also, paragraph 1.E.(3) of GEnx-1B SB 72-0525, R00 and GEnx-2B SB 72-0460, R00 states that “affected 6-10 spools were found to have life limit lower than ultimate life limit.”

The FAA disagrees with the request. The life limits listed in the ESM are mandatory and applicable regardless of the actions required by this AD. Should any affected part be found to have a blend repair that is not in compliance with the allowable limits specified in the applicable service information, then this AD requires removal from service and replacement of that specific part. However, this AD does not change the life limits of parts that pass the inspection. Therefore, the FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

Japan Airlines requested that the FAA revise paragraph (g) of the proposed AD to specify the affected engine models at the beginning of each of the sentences, to provide better clarity. Japan Airlines referred to paragraph (g) of AD 2023-17-08 as an example.

The FAA disagrees with the request. AD 2023-17-08 specifies multiple affected parts on both the GEnx-1B and GEnx-2B Model engines, and therefore the FAA used multiple paragraphs for each affected part and each engine model. In this AD, the only affected parts are stages 6-10 spools, making it unnecessary to specify engine models in paragraph (g) of this AD.

After the NPRM was published, the FAA determined that Model GEnx-1B64 engines were inadvertently left out of the applicability. None of these engines with the affected stages 6-10 spools are installed on airplanes on the U.S. registry. This model has been added to the applicability of the final rule in case one of these engines with affected 6-10 spools are installed on an airplane registered for operation in United States. Adding this model to the applicability does not increase the burden to U.S. operators over the already proposed requirements, so issuing a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking is unnecessary.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any 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 these products. 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.

The FAA reviewed GE GEnx-1B SB 72-0525, R01, and GEnx-2B SB 72-0460, R01. This service information identifies the part numbers and serial numbers of affected stages 6-10 spools; and specifies instructions for a one-time inspection of the stages 6-10 spools for previously accomplished blend repairs, a one-time inspection of the blend repairs on the stages 6-10 spools for compliance with the updated allowable limits, and replacement if necessary. These documents are distinct since they apply to different engine models.

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 ADDRESSES section.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 6 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspections. The agency has no way of determining the number of engines that might need this replacement:

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 CFM Model LEAP-1B engines. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on July 29, 2024 (89 FR 60838). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a quality escape involving certain HPC stage 2 seals manufactured without detailed finish machining, which could result in deeper rubs and mechanical damage to the seal teeth of the stage 3-4 blisk of the mating compressor rotor during initial operation. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require a visual inspection of the HPC stage 2 seal, a visual inspection of the forward arm seal teeth of the stage 3-4 blisk, an ECI of the forward arm seal teeth of the stage 3-4 blisk, and replacement of the HPC stage 2 seal and the stage 3-4 blisk, if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

The FAA received comments from six commenters. The commenters were The Boeing Company (Boeing), CFM, Ryanair, StandardAero, Southwest Airlines (SWA), and United Airlines (UAL). Boeing concurred with the contents of the NPRM and StandardAero expressed support for the NPRM. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.

CFM and Ryanair requested that the FAA remove certain ESNs from the applicability of the proposed AD or include replacement of the HPC stage 2 seal and the stage 3-4 blisk with new parts as an option for complying with the proposed AD. Both commenters stated that certain ESNs had already replaced the HPC stage 2 seal and the stage 3-4 blisk with new parts. Both commenters also pointed out that by replacing the HPC stage 2 seal and the stage 3-4 blisk with new parts, the unsafe condition is mitigated for those engines, but not as specified in the required actions of the proposed AD.

Since this is a quality escape issue and limited to the parts originally installed on the engine, the FAA agrees for the reasons provided and has removed ESNs 60A676 and 60A669 from the applicability of this AD.

StandardAero and UAL requested that the FAA provide clarification regarding why the borescope inspection (BSI) specified in the required service information is not required by the NPRM. StandardAero pointed out that the NPRM does not address why the BSI is not required. StandardAero also mentioned that the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) has a corresponding proposed AD (EASA PAD 24-108), which discussed and inferred that the BSIs have already been completed on all affected engines. StandardAero specifically requested that the FAA confirm that the BSIs have been completed on all the ESNs that are specified in the service information, and that the ESNs specified in the NPRM are those that require additional action due to the BSI results. UAL pointed out that the service information contains Required for Compliance (RC) steps for a BSI. UAL requested clarification of whether those steps are required by the NPRM and whether the BSI is acceptable for verifying the condition of the HPC stage 2 seal and the stage 3-4 blisk.

The FAA acknowledges the difference between the actions required by this AD and those specified in the service information. The engine manufacturer has provided the FAA with evidence that all affected engines have completed the on-wing BSI, as well as the results of the on-wing BSI. Therefore, the FAA has determined that there is no need for the BSI to be completed as part of the actions required by this AD and that only the follow-on in-shop actions are necessary. The FAA has not changed this AD in this regard.

StandardAero requested that the FAA provide clarification regarding the RC steps specified in the required service information but are not required by the NPRM. StandardAero pointed out that the service information states that certain paragraphs are labeled as “RC,” and that if the service information is mandated by an AD, then those steps must be done to comply with the AD. StandardAero requested that the FAA coordinate with the engine manufacturer to prevent differences between and confusion regarding the service information and the requirements of the AD. StandardAero also stated its preference that OEMs and type certificate holders do not attempt to highlight required actions in their service information for an AD, especially those that do not yet exist, and allow the FAA to specify the required actions in the AD.

To clarify, the FAA does not make changes to the service information; such changes are implemented by the engine manufacturer. The FAA agrees with the concept of minimizing AD requirements when appropriate. The FAA worked in conjunction with industry, under the Airworthiness Directive Implementation Aviation Rulemaking Committee (AD ARC), to enhance the AD system. One enhancement is a process for annotating which steps in the service information are “required for compliance” (RC) with an AD. Differentiating these steps from other tasks in the service information improves an owner's/operator's understanding of AD requirements and helps provide consistent judgment in AD compliance. However, even though the on-wing BSI is labeled RC in the service information, the FAA has been given evidence that all affected engines have completed this inspection. The FAA has chosen to limit the applicability of this AD based on the results of those inspections. Therefore, since the on-wing BSI would not be mandated by this AD and the applicability adjusted accordingly, the FAA has determined that it would be less confusing to call out the specific steps from the service bulletin to complete this action rather than utilize the RC concept. The FAA has determined to include a “Differences Between this Final Rule and the Related Material” section in the preamble of this final rule to discuss the difference; however, no changes were made to the regulatory text of the AD.

SWA and UAL requested that the FAA include credit for previous actions accomplished using Issue 001-00 of the service information. SWA stated that the primary differences between Issue 001-00 and Issue 002-00 are reidentifying steps as RC steps. SWA also pointed out that Issue 001-00 was accomplished on SWA affected engines prior to publication of the NPRM.

The FAA disagrees with the request. Issue 001-00 of the service information was revised to include a new ECI tool part number for the module level inspection required for the stage 3-4 blisk. Any ECI completed in accordance with Issue 001-00 of the service information, was done without this tool, rendering the results of the ECI unacceptable. Therefore, the FAA is unable to include credit for previous actions. However, if the affected parts were removed from service and replaced before the effective date of this AD without performing the inspections required by this AD, and substantiating information can be provided, the operator may request an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) under the provisions of paragraph (h) of this AD. Additionally, regarding the RC label, this AD does not require the on-wing BSI since the manufacturer has already provided the FAA with evidence that all the affected engines have complied with the on-wing BSI, and the FAA has chosen to limit the applicability of this AD based on the results of those inspections. Therefore, since the on-wing BSI would not be mandated by this AD and the applicability adjusted accordingly, the FAA has determined that it would be less confusing to call out the specific steps from the service bulletin to complete this action rather than utilize the RC concept. Therefore, this AD only requires the subsequent in-shop inspections for those engines that failed the on-wing BSI, all of which are included in the applicability of this AD. The FAA has determined to include a “Differences Between this Final Rule and the Referenced Material” section in the preamble of this final rule to discuss this; however, no changes were made to the regulatory text.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any 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 these products. 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.

The FAA reviewed CFM Service Bulletin LEAP-1B-72-00-0394-01A-930A-D, Issue 002-00, dated January 23, 2024, which specifies procedures for an on-wing BSI of the honeycomb structure of the affected stage 2 seals and rotating seal teeth coating condition and provides instructions for determining the serviceability of affected components that fail the BSI. This material also specifies procedures for an in-shop visual inspection of the HPC stage 2 seal and the forward arm seal teeth of the stage 3-4 blisk, an ECI of the forward arm seal teeth of the stage 3-4 blisk, and replacement of the HPC stage 2 seal and the stage 3-4 blisk. 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.

Where CFM Service Bulletin LEAP-1B-72-00-0394-01A-930A-D, Issue 002-00, dated January 23, 2024, includes RC steps that require a 360-degree BSI of the trail edge area of the stage 2 seals, this AD does not require those steps. Additionally, this AD does not require any RC steps. Instead, the FAA has chosen to limit the applicability of this AD based on the results of those inspections. Therefore, since the on-wing BSI would not be mandated by this AD and the applicability adjusted accordingly, the FAA has determined that it would be less confusing to call out the specific steps from the service bulletin to complete this action rather than utilize the RC concept.

The FAA estimates that this AD affects 31 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.

The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of engines that might need these replacements:

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 all The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes. The NPRM published in the Federal Register on June 20, 2024 (89 FR 51856), corrected July 15, 2024 (89 FR 57377). The NPRM was prompted by a report of a MLG collapse event following maintenance where a grinder was operating outside of its input parameters, resulting in possible heat damage to the outer cylinder of the MLG. In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require replacing any affected outer cylinders. The FAA is issuing this AD to address any heat damage to the outer cylinder of the landing gear, which could result in the inability of a principal structural element to sustain limit load, gear collapse resulting in loss of control of the airplane, and potential for off-runway excursion.

The FAA received comments from Air Line Pilots Association, International, Aviation Partners Boeing, and an individual commenter, who supported the NPRM without change.

The FAA received an additional comment from The Boeing Company. The following presents the comment received on the NPRM and the FAA's response.

Aviation Partners Boeing stated that accomplishing Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) ST01920SE does not affect the actions specified in the proposed AD.

The FAA concurs with the commenter. The FAA has redesignated paragraph (c) of the proposed AD as paragraph (c)(1) of this AD and added paragraph (c)(2) to this AD to state that installation of STC ST01920SE does not affect the ability to accomplish the actions required by this AD. Therefore, for airplanes on which STC ST01920SE is installed, a “change in product” alternative method of compliance (AMOC) approval request is not necessary to comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 39.17.

Boeing requested the addition of a parts installation prohibition paragraph as of the effective date of this AD. Boeing stated that the parts prohibition paragraph should prohibit installation of any affected outer cylinders with part numbers and serial numbers listed in Appendix A, B, or C of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-32A0253 RB, dated February 6, 2024, unless the parts have been inspected, applicable on-condition corrective actions have been done, and the parts have been part marked, in accordance with Appendix D of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-32A0253 RB. The MLG outer cylinders are rotable structural components (RSC) that may be moved from one airplane to another. Additionally, the commenter asserted that since the applicability of the proposed AD covers all Model 767-200, -300, and -300F series airplanes in service, the parts installation prohibition is needed to prevent the affected outer cylinders from being moved onto airplanes that have already complied with the required actions of the AD.

The FAA agrees to clarify. This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 767-200, -300, and -300F airplanes. 14 CFR 39.7 specifies that once an AD is issued, no person may operate a product to which the AD applies except in accordance with the requirements of that AD. Further, 14 CFR 39.9 imposes a continuing obligation to maintain compliance with an AD by establishing a separate violation for each time an aircraft is operated that fails to meet AD requirements. Since this AD captures all possibly affected operators and requires replacement of the affected parts, and since those operators have an ongoing obligation to ensure that the AD-mandated configuration is maintained, a parts installation prohibition is unnecessary. The FAA has not changed this AD as a result of the request.

The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any 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 these products. 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 Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 767-32A0253 RB, dated February 6, 2024. This material specifies procedures for performing a check of maintenance records or performing an inspection of the left and right MLG outer cylinders for any affected part numbers and serial numbers and replacing affected cylinders.

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

The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacements that would be required based on the results of the inspection or maintenance records check. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:

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 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 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms are 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, pilots 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 of 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 types 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 Air Missions (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, 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:

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 Air Missions (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, pilots 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 is needed to carry out the requirements of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and Office of Management and Budget guidance M-25-02. The rule adjusts, as required for 2025, the maximum civil penalties under 29 CFR 4071 and 29 CFR 4302 that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) may assess for failure to provide certain notices or other material information and certain multiemployer plan notices. PBGC's legal authority for this action comes from the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and from sections 4002(b)(3), 4071, and 4302 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

This rule adjusts as required by law the maximum civil penalties that PBGC may assess under sections 4071 and 4302 of ERISA. The new maximum amounts are $2,739 for section 4071 penalties and $365 for section 4302 penalties.

PBGC administers title IV of ERISA. Title IV has two provisions that authorize PBGC to assess civil monetary penalties. 1 Section 4302, added to ERISA by the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980, authorizes PBGC to assess a civil penalty of up to $100 a day for failure to provide a notice under subtitle E of title IV of ERISA (dealing with multiemployer plans). Section 4071, added to ERISA by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, authorizes PBGC to assess a civil penalty of up to $1,000 a day for failure to provide a notice or other material information under subtitles A, B, and C of title IV and sections 303(k)(4) and 306(g)(4) of title I of ERISA.

The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015, 2 requires agencies to adjust civil monetary penalties for inflation and to publish the adjustments in the Federal Register . An initial adjustment was required to be made by interim final rule published by July 1, 2016, and effective by August 1, 2016. Subsequent adjustments must be published by January 15 each year after 2016.

On December 17, 2024, the Office of Management and Budget issued memorandum M-25-02 on implementation of the 2025 annual inflation adjustment. 3 The memorandum provides agencies with the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2025, which is based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for the month of October 2024, not seasonally adjusted. The multiplier for 2025 is 1.02598. The adjusted maximum amounts are $2,739 for section 4071 penalties and $365 for section 4302 penalties.

The Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and therefore not subject to its review.

The Office of Management and Budget also has determined that notice and public comment on this final rule are unnecessary because the adjustment of civil penalties implemented in the rule is required by law. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this rule, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).

In consideration of the foregoing, PBGC amends 29 CFR parts 4071 and 4302 as follows:

The 2015 Act  1 requires each Federal agency to adjust the statutory civil monetary penalties under the laws implemented by that agency annually, to account for inflation. Section 4 of the 2015 Act requires each Federal agency to publish these adjustments by January 15 of each year. The purpose of the 2015 Act is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil monetary penalties by translating originally enacted statutory civil penalty amounts to today's dollars and rounding statutory civil penalties to the nearest dollar.

Since January 15, 2017, the EPA has made eight annual adjustments: (1) on January 12, 2017, effective on January 15, 2017 (82 FR 3633); (2) on January 10, 2018, effective on January 15, 2018 (83 FR 1190); (3) on February 6, 2019, effective the same day (84 FR 2056), with a subsequent correction on February 25, 2019 (84 FR 5955); (4) on January 13, 2020, effective the same day (85 FR 1751); (5) on December 23, 2020, effective the same day (85 FR 83818); (6) on January 12, 2022, effective the same day (87 FR 1676); (7) on January 6, 2023, effective the same day (88 FR 986); and (8) on December 27, 2023, effective the same day (88 FR 89309). This rule implements the ninth annual adjustment mandated by the 2015 Act.

The 2015 Act provides a formula for calculating the adjustments. Each statutory maximum and minimum  2 civil monetary penalty, as currently adjusted, is multiplied by the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier, which is the percentage by which the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October 2024 exceeds the CPI-U for the month of October 2023. 3

With this rule, the new statutory maximum and minimum penalty levels listed in the third column of Table 1 of 40 CFR 19.4 will apply to all civil monetary penalties assessed on or after January 8, 2025, for violations that occurred after November 2, 2015, the date the 2015 Act was enacted. The former maximum and minimum statutory civil monetary penalty levels, which are in the fourth column of Table 1 to 40 CFR 19.4, will now apply only to violations that occurred after November 2, 2015, where the penalties were assessed on or after December 27, 2023, but before January 8, 2025. The statutory civil monetary penalty levels that apply to violations that occurred on or before November 2, 2015, are codified at Table 2 to 40 CFR 19.4. The fifth column of Table 1 and the seventh column of Table 2 display the statutory civil monetary penalty levels as originally enacted.

The formula for determining the cost-of-living or inflation adjustment to statutory civil monetary penalties consists of the following steps:

Step 1: The cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2025 is the percentage by which the CPI-U of October 2024 (315.664) exceeds the CPI-U for the month of October 2023 (307.671), which is 1.02598. 4 Multiply 1.02598 by the current penalty amount. This is the raw adjusted penalty value.

Step 2: Round the raw adjusted penalty value. Section 5 of the 2015 Act states that any adjustment shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $1. The result is the final penalty value for the year.

Pursuant to section 4 of the 2015 Act, each Federal agency is required to publish adjustments no later than January 15 each year. In accordance with section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, most rules are subject to notice and comment and are effective no earlier than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register . However, section 4(b)(2) of the 2015 Act provides that each agency shall make the annual inflation adjustments “notwithstanding section 553” of the APA. Consistent with the language of the 2015 Act, this rule is not subject to notice and an opportunity for public comment and will be effective on January 8, 2025.

Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is not a significant regulatory action as defined in Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and was therefore not subject to a requirement for Executive Order 12866 review.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This rule merely increases the level of statutory civil monetary penalties that can be imposed in the context of a Federal civil administrative enforcement action or civil judicial case for violations of EPA-administered statutes and their implementing regulations.

This action is not subject to the RFA. The RFA applies only to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, or any other statute. Because the 2015 Act directs Federal agencies to publish this rule notwithstanding section 553 of the APA, this rule is not subject to notice and comment requirements or the RFA.

This action does not contain an unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action implements mandates specifically and explicitly set forth in the 2015 Act without the exercise of any policy discretion by the EPA. This action also imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Because the calculation of any increase is formula-driven pursuant to the 2015 Act, the EPA has no policy discretion to vary the amount of the adjustment.

This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.

This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This rule merely reconciles the real value of current statutory civil monetary penalty levels to keep pace with the levels originally set by Congress when the statutes were enacted or amended. The calculation of the increases is formula-driven and prescribed by statute, and the EPA has no discretion to vary the amount of the adjustment to reflect any views or suggestions provided by commenters. Accordingly, this rule will not have a substantial direct effect on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Therefore, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk. Since this action does not concern human health, the EPA's Policy on Children's Health also does not apply.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

The EPA believes that this type of action does not concern human health or environmental conditions and therefore cannot be evaluated with respect to potentially disproportionate and adverse effects on communities with environmental justice concerns. As mandated by the 2015 Act, this rule adjusts for inflation the statutory civil monetary penalty amounts of the statutes administered by the EPA.

The EPA acknowledges that the annual mandatory increase in civil penalty amounts to account for inflation may result in further deterrents of environmental violations that may trigger civil penalties. Deterring violations has the benefit of promoting the overarching purpose of environmental enforcement and may have a positive impact on the human health or environment of all populations including communities with environmental justice concerns.

This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and comment rulemaking procedures are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA finds that the APA's notice and comment rulemaking procedures are unnecessary because the 2015 Act directs Federal agencies to publish their annual penalty inflation adjustments “notwithstanding section 553 [of the APA].”

For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA amends title 40, chapter I, part 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

In 2009, the EPA designated a portion of the Fairbanks North Star Borough as “nonattainment” for the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS, which is set at the level of 35 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m 3 ) (Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area) (74 FR 58688, November 13, 2009). Effective July 2, 2014, the EPA classified the area as “Moderate” (79 FR 31566, June 2, 2014). Subsequently, Alaska submitted, and the EPA approved, a plan to meet the Moderate nonattainment area requirements (82 FR 42457, September 8, 2017) (Fairbanks Moderate Plan).

On May 10, 2017, the EPA determined that the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area failed to attain the 2006 24-hour PM 2.5 NAAQS in the area by the outermost statutory Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015 (82 FR 21711). As a result, the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area was reclassified as a “Serious” nonattainment area by operation of law. On September 2, 2020, the EPA determined that the area failed to attain by the Serious area attainment date and denied the State's Serious area attainment date extension request (85 FR 54509). As a result, Alaska was required to submit a revised SIP submission to meet both the Serious area attainment plan requirements and the additional requirements set forth in Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section 189(d) by December 31, 2020. 1

On December 13, 2019, and December 15, 2020, Alaska submitted two state implementation plan (SIP) revisions to meet the CAA planning requirements for the Serious Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area. On December 5, 2023, the EPA issued a final rule approving in part and disapproving in part these SIP submissions. 2 Pursuant to section 179 of the CAA and the EPA's regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 52.31, our partial disapproval action started an 18-month clock for the application of the offset sanction and a 24-month clock for the application of the highway sanction, beginning on the effective date of our December 5, 2023, action ( i.e., January 4, 2024), unless the State submits, and the EPA approves, a SIP revision or revisions that address the deficiencies that formed the basis for the disapproval prior to the expiration of the sanctions clocks.

On December 4, 2024, Alaska submitted SIP revisions to rectify the previously disapproved portions of its SIP submissions for the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area (Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan). In the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register , we are proposing to approve the Fairbanks Revised 189(d) Plan as meeting the CAA Serious area and CAA section 189(d) requirements for the Fairbanks PM 2.5 Nonattainment Area. Pursuant to 40 CFR 52.31(d)(2)(i), based on the proposed approval of previously deficient planning requirements, we are taking this interim final action to defer the imposition of the offset sanctions and the highway sanctions triggered by our December 5, 2023, disapproval.

The EPA is providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this deferral of sanctions. If our assessment described in this interim final determination and the proposed approval of previously deficient planning requirements change on the basis of comments submitted, we will take subsequent final action to impose sanctions pursuant to 40 CFR 52.31(d). All sanctions and sanction clocks related to the December 5, 2023, disapproval will be permanently terminated on the effective date of a full final approval action.

We are making an interim final determination to defer the imposition of CAA section 179 sanctions associated with our December 5, 2023, final rule approving in part and disapproving in part the Fairbanks Serious Plan and Fairbanks 189(d) Plan. 3 This action is based on our concurrent proposed approval, in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register , of the SIP revisions submitted by Alaska on December 4, 2024. 4

Because the EPA has preliminarily determined that Alaska has addressed the SIP deficiencies, relief from sanctions designed to compel submission of revised SIP elements, should be provided as quickly as possible. Therefore, the EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for comment before this action takes effect (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)). However, by this action the EPA is providing the public with a chance to comment on the EPA's determination after the effective date, and the EPA will consider any comments received in determining whether to reverse such action.

The EPA believes that notice and comment rulemaking before the effective date of this action is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. As discussed in detail in the proposed approval of Alaska's SIP revisions published in the “Proposed Rules” section of this Federal Register , the EPA has reviewed the State's revisions and, through its proposed action, have proposed to find that the State has corrected the deficiencies that started the sanctions clocks. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to apply sanctions. The EPA believes that it is necessary to use the interim final process to defer sanctions while the EPA completes its rulemaking process on the approvability of the SIP revisions. Moreover, with respect to the effective date of this action, the EPA is invoking the good cause exception to the 30-day notice requirement of the APA because the purpose of this notice is to relieve a restriction (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)).

Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the PRA. This action defers application of sanctions and imposes no new requirements.

I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action defers application of sanctions and imposes no new requirements.

This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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.

This action does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This action defers application of sanctions and imposes no new requirements. In addition, this action does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety.

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. This action does not involve technical standards.

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on communities with environmental justice (EJ) concerns to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. Executive Order 14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation's Commitment to Environmental Justice for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) builds on and supplements Executive Order 12898 and defines EJ as, among other things, the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race, color, national origin, or Tribal affiliation, or disability in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that affect human health and the environment.”

The air agency did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP submission; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of Executive Order 12898/14096 of achieving EJ for communities with EJ concerns.

This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), and the EPA will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The CRA allows the issuing agency to make a rule effective sooner than otherwise provided by the CRA if the agency makes a good cause finding that notice and comment rulemaking procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest (5 U.S.C. 808(2)). The EPA has made a good cause finding for this action as discussed in section II of this preamble, including the basis for that finding.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by March 10, 2025. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the EPA Administrator of this action does not affect the finality of this action for the purpose of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see CAA section 307(b)(2)).

This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order in WT Docket No. 22-323; FCC 24-91, adopted on August 21, 2024, and released on August 29, 2024. The full text of this document is available for public inspection online at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-24-91A1.pdf. 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 & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).

Achieving the extraordinary potential of UAS technology will require integrating UAS operations into the National Airspace System (NAS), including in the controlled airspace in which commercial passenger flights operate and in circumstances with heightened risk, such as flights involving large aircraft or carrying passengers or flights beyond line of sight of the remote pilot. To ensure that these flights are sufficiently safe for routine operation, highly reliable wireless two-way communications for flight control and telemetry are required. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 22-323, FCC 22-101, 88 FR 7910 (February 7, 2023) ( UAS NPRM ), the Commission proposed rules for the 5030-5091 MHz band to help address these spectrum needs.

In the Report and Order, the Commission now takes an initial step to enable UAS operators to access dedicated spectrum in the 5030-5091 MHz band for control-related communications with the required reliability. Specifically, the Commission adopts new UAS service rules under new rule part 88 that provide operators the ability to obtain direct frequency assignments in a portion of the 5030-5091 MHz band for non-networked operation. The Commission finds wide support for enabling early, direct access to a portion of the band for protected assignments under DFMS coordination, and anticipates that such access will facilitate the safe integration of UAS operations into the NAS so that the United States can realize the enormous potential benefits that UAS operations can provide.

In the UAS NPRM, the Commission proposed to adopt certain band and service rule definitions, including definitions for unmanned aircraft systems and unmanned aircraft, as well as other terms, including non-networked access operations, and control and non-payload communications. Noting consistency with FAA definitions, the Commission proposed to define an unmanned aircraft system as “an unmanned aircraft (UA) and its associated elements (including communication links and the components that control the UA) that are required for the safe and efficient operation of the UA in the airspace of the United States,” and an unmanned aircraft as “an aircraft operated without the possibility of direct human intervention from within or on the aircraft.” The Commission adopts these definitions as proposed, but finds it in the public interest to revise the terminology. It finds that the term “uncrewed” is more inclusive and could better reflect future use cases for the spectrum, such as uncrewed passenger flights, and thus find that it is appropriate to substitute “uncrewed” in place of “unmanned.” Specifically, it adopts the use of “uncrewed aircraft system” and “uncrewed aircraft” in place of “unmanned aircraft system” and “unmanned aircraft,” respectively.

In the UAS NPRM, the Commission also identified two broad use cases for determining the appropriate band plan and service rules: non-networked operations, or those communications occurring within radio line of sight, and network-supported services, which rely on network infrastructure to go beyond radio line of sight of the operator. The Commission proposed establishing the term Non-Networked Access (NNA) to “indicate spectrum or licenses ( e.g., NNA blocks) that would be governed by service rules appropriate to support non-networked communications.” The UAS NPRM further proposed the use of “Network-Supported Services” (NSS) to indicate that the relevant spectrum or licenses would be governed by service rules appropriate to support the provision of networked-based services. The Commission also proposed to use NNA and NSS in the rules to designate the spectrum allocated for non-networked and network-supported use cases, respectively. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopts the NNA and NSS terms as discussed above.

NNA Block Configuration. Although the Commission finds that it is premature to establish a permanent band plan in light of continuing developments and evolution of the industry, there is sufficient record support and basis to establish rules to allow early access for non-networked, direct link operations without compromising any future action the Commission may take with respect to UAS operations in the 5030-5091 MHz band. The Commission thus establishes a temporary placement for NNA operation—with a permanent band plan, including final locations for NNA and NSS as well as potential provisions for opportunistic use by NNA users or NSS licensees, to be resolved in the future.

Specifically, the Commission allots 10 megahertz for near-term NNA access. The Commission finds that, until it makes a determination regarding a permanent band plan, it is appropriate to locate the 10 megahertz NNA block at 5040-5050 MHz. As discussed below, the Commission is adopting an interim access mechanism (IAM) to enable NNA entities to begin operations in the band during the interim period before a DFMS is operational. Because it will be challenging to effectively manage and coordinate operator use of the NNA spectrum during this period, the Commission will allow access to additional spectrum beyond the 10 megahertz to facilitate the management and deconfliction of NNA operations during this period. Accordingly, during the IAM period, NNA entities may access to 20 megahertz of the band, at 5040-5060 MHz. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) will announce the dates operators may begin to access the NNA block using the IAM process, as well as the date on which a DFMS becomes operational and the IAM period ends. Once a DFMS becomes operational, the NNA operations will be limited to the 10 megahertz at 5040-5050 MHz.

The Commission limits the scope of NNA communications in the 5030-5091 MHz band to Control and Non-payload Communications (CNPC), defined as any transmission that is sent between the UA component and the UAS ground station of the UAS and that supports the safety or regularity of the UA's flight. This approach is in the public interest and is well-supported by the record.

Mobile and fixed NNA operations. The Commission provides that the use of both fixed and mobile ground stations for NNA operations is permissible so long as they are not in motion during operation and operations are limited to the location associated with the specific frequency assignment. The adopted NNA rules do not set specific limits as to the use of multiple fixed stations to achieve a single NNA operation, and multi-station operations, whether involving multiple connected or non-connected stations, are permitted by the NNA rules. Thus, UAS operators might choose to access NNA spectrum using limited infrastructure deployment, such as a string of ground stations deployed over a particular and frequently used flight path.

The Commission adopts licensing-by-rule for both NNA ground and aircraft stations, pursuant to section 307(e) of the Act, as amended. See 47 U.S.C. 307(e). Section 307(e)(1) limits the Commission's authority to adopt a license-by-rule approach to certain specific categories of service, including the “citizens band radio service.” Section 307(e)(3) in turn provides that “citizens band radio service” shall have the meaning given to it by the Commission by rule. As defined in the Commission's rules, the “citizens band radio service” encompasses “any radio service or other specific classification of radio stations used primarily for wireless telecommunications for which the FCC has determined that it serves the public interest, convenience, and necessity to authorize by rule the operation of radio stations in that service or class, without individual licenses, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 307(e)(1).” The Commission finds that licensing NNA stations by rule will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.

Under the license-by-rule framework, to obtain Commission authorization to use the NNA spectrum, NNA users must use certified, Commission-approved NNA stations, and comply with the applicable NNA rules, but need not obtain individual spectrum licenses from the Commission. Because a license-by-rule approach will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity, NNA stations are appropriately classified as part of the citizens band radio services. This classification reflects only the Commission's determination that the NNA service should be licensed by rule as the Commission has used that construct pursuant to its section 307(e)(1) authority, and not a determination that it should be more generally be regulated in similar fashion to other services that are classified under the citizens band radio services category, such as those in part 95 or part 96 of the Commission's rules.

Given the limited discussion of the issues raised by foreign ownership of stations in a license-by-rule service, the Commission is guided by the approach that it took in the 3.5 GHz Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) rules to eligibility for users of CBRS General Authorized Access (GAA) stations, which, like NNA stations, are licensed by rule. In relevant part, section 96.5 of the Commission's rules establishes that any entity, other than those precluded by section 310, that otherwise meets the technical, financial, character, and citizenship qualifications that the Commission may require in accordance with such Act, is eligible to be a General Authorized Access (GAA) user. The Commission finds that it will serve the public interest to adopt a similar eligibility rule for NNA users.

The Commission will include UAS-related rules for the 5030-5091 MHz band in a single rule part and place such rules in a new part 88, rather than placing the new rules in part 87. Establishing a new part 88 will promote “clarity and ease of reference” regarding the rules applicable to UAS operations in the 5030-5091 MHz band. The Commission also makes the new part 88 subject to rules under part 1, subpart F of the Commission's rules governing “Wireless Radio Service” applications and proceedings.

The RTCA DO-362A Standard. The Commission finds it in the public interest to incorporate by reference the standard RTCA, Command and Control (C2) Data Link Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) (Terrestrial), RTCA-DO-362A (2020) (RTCA DO-362A) and to adopt certain technical requirements in our new UAS rules based on this standard. Taking this approach is appropriate at this time, particularly given today's incremental steps toward facilitating UAS operations, which provides a path in the 5030-5091 MHz band for authorization of NNA equipment and operations through shared use, while deferring for further consideration and study potential approaches to exclusive licensing for NSS operations.

The Commission will incorporate by reference into its technical rules the specific sections of the RTCA DO-362A standard applicable to transmitter output power, emissions bandwidth, out-of-band emission limits, emission mask and time division duplexing. To provide stakeholders increased flexibility, and in lieu of mandating use of specific emission designators, an applicant seeking equipment certification may specify the emission designator appropriate to its equipment design and proposed operation, provided it meets the technical requirements governing NNA equipment and operations.

To facilitate expedited updates to its technical rules based on evolving technical standards, the Commission delegates joint rulemaking authority to WTB and OET to incorporate into the Commission's rules, after notice and an opportunity for public comment if necessary or appropriate, any updated version of a previously incorporated technical standard applicable to UAS operations in the 5030-5091 MHz band. This delegation will help ensure that key technical updates relevant to requirements for authorization of UAS equipment and operations can be incorporated without unnecessary administrative delay.

To promote reliability and safety, the Commission will require transmitters to be certified for use in this new part 88 service through compliance with Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) procedures for equipment authorization under part 2, subpart J of the Commission's rules. The Commission will also require that the applicant, when filing the requisite application for equipment certification, notify the FAA of the identity of the equipment manufacturer. This approach will ensure that necessary coordination occurs with the FAA, given its responsibility for ensuring aviation safety in the NAS, and will prevent harmful interference through NNA equipment compliance with the relevant technical requirements.

The Commission will require parties seeking to use or using the NNA spectrum to be registered with a DFMS and to transmit in the 5030-5091 MHz band only pursuant to and consistent with the terms of a frequency assignment from a Commission-approved DFMS. The Commission defines a DFMS as “a frequency coordination system operating in the 5030-5091 MHz band that (1) is highly automated and capable of providing rapid responses to frequency assignment requests from registered NNA operators, and (2) in response to such requests, is capable of assigning to the requesting operator temporary protected use of certain frequencies for a particular geographic area and time period tailored to the operator's submitted operation, to the extent such frequencies are available.”

The Commission will approve any DFMS that can meet its requirements, including approving multiple DFMSs if each of them meets the requirements. Each approved DFMS will be required to provide access to frequencies nationwide, and to communicate and coordinate with the other approved DFMSs as necessary to ensure that their assignments are consistent. Below, the Commission establishes requirements to govern the DFMS and DFMS administrator and the process by which DFMSs and DFMS administrators will be approved, as well as certain rules governing the request and assignment process.

In the UAS NPRM, the Commission proposed certain high level requirements to be codified in proposed section 88.135 of the Commission's rules. Among these requirements, the Commission proposed that:

• A DFMS must provide a process for NNA users to register with the system for the purpose of submitting frequency assignment requests and obtaining frequency assignments.

• A DFMS must be capable of responding to frequency assignment requests nationwide and across the entire 5030-5091 MHz band. However, a DFMS may only make assignments for spectrum within those frequencies in which NNA operations are permitted.

• In response to frequency assignment requests from a registered NNA user, a DFMS shall determine and provide, through an automated (non-manual) process, a frequency assignment for a particular geographic area and time period tailored to the NNA user's submitted flight plan, to the extent that frequencies are available to meet the request and the assignment is otherwise consistent with this part. Assignments must provide protected access to frequencies over a duration and geographic area sufficient to cover the entire submitted flight plan.

• Assignments must account for the need to protect other authorized operations.

The Commission adopts these requirements largely as proposed, but modifies the proposed requirements to clarify that it will not mandate that NNA users submit a “flight plan” in connection with their requests. It will still require, however, that requests be for spectrum to support a single UAS flight, which should help to ensure that parties reserve spectrum only for those times that they actually need the assignment, and to maximize the usage of the NNA spectrum and the resulting benefits. To reflect these determinations, the Commission modifies the proposed requirements to use the term “UAS flight” instead of “flight plan” ( e.g., requiring that a DFMS provide a frequency assignment for a particular geographic area and time period tailored to the NNA user's submitted UAS flight).

Interference modeling. While the Commission does not adopt any detailed requirements regarding the methodology or modeling for interference calculations, it agree with commenters that models and methodologies for interference determinations should be both effective in avoiding harmful interference and consistent between different DFMSs. Accordingly, it adopts these high level requirements.

FAA authorizations. The Commission will require a DFMS to confirm through certifications in the frequency assignment request process that the requesting party has flight authorization from the FAA to cover the flight associated with the assignment request, and that the flight will only be piloted by parties that have the necessary FAA remote pilot authorization. While the Commission will have primary responsibility for the enforcement of this Commission requirement, the Commission will coordinate with the FAA as necessary to ensure that oversight and enforcement is effective. In particular, compliance questions regarding the underlying FAA requirements should generally be determined with FAA input. Therefore, the Commission will require anyone challenging a DFMS action with regard to this requirement or otherwise seeking a Commission determination regarding a party's FAA authorization in this context to submit, with its filing to the Commission, a determination from the FAA regarding whether the party in question has the relevant authorization under FAA rules and requirements.

In-flight revisions. The Commission further adds a requirement that a DFMS be capable of responding to in-flight revision requests. The capacity to revise an assignment during a flight will help to address circumstances in which the planned area or duration of operations must be altered during the flight, including NPSTC's concern that, responding to an emergency, public safety operators will have difficulty predicting up front the duration of their need for the assignment.

Communications between DFMS and NNA stations. The Commission also adds certain requirements for communications between a DFMS and NNA stations to better ensure compliance with DFMS assignments. The Commission is concerned that an approach in which a DFMS merely reviews requests and transmits approved assignments to operators, without any further mechanism or requirement to promote user compliance, will lead to a higher probability of communications occurring outside of authorized parameters, either by intention or accident, and will not achieve the high level of safety and reliability intended for this band. Accordingly, a DFMS is required to be able to communicate directly with a ground station operating in the NNA spectrum, or proxy software acting on its behalf, to achieve the following: (1) ensure that all NNA stations used in the operation, including any ground or airborne stations, are programmed to limit communications in the 5030-5091 MHz band, during the period of the frequency assignment, to the specific frequencies assigned by the DFMS and in accordance with the other terms of the assignment; and (2) receive updates on flight status when a UA has launched and when it has landed. NNA ground stations are similarly required to be capable of communicating with a DFMS as necessary to achieve these functions.

Limits on requests. The Commission generally provides flexibility to DFMSs to determine the parameters of the frequency assignment necessary to support the UAS flight, including specific frequencies, bandwidth, maximum transmit power, amount of time, and coverage area. As discussed above, DFMS assignments must provide protected access over a duration and geographic area sufficient to cover the entire submitted UAS flight, but the Commission does not mandate that a DFMS frequency assignment have the specific terms requested.

Two specific restrictions on permissible requests are warranted to prevent monopolization and facilitate broader access to NNA spectrum. First, requests may only be approved for an operation lasting no more than 24 hours. This restriction is consistent with the intention that assignments provide support for only a single flight. Second, requests may not be approved for periods commencing more than seven calendar days after the submission of the request, except to the extent that lack of frequency availability in that time frame justifies a later assignment. Seven calendar days strikes an appropriate balance between preventing parties from engaging in long term reservation of the spectrum and permitting reservations in advance to provide greater certainty to parties planning their operations. These two limitations are based on predictive judgments regarding the extent and nature of uses of the spectrum and the Commission may modify the specific values as it develops more experience. A DFMS should be capable of implementing such changes to the rules.

Coordination requirements. It will be critical, in the event there are multiple DFMSs, that they actively coordinate their assignments to avoid conflicts. Accordingly, the Commission adopts a requirement that a DFMS communicate and coordinate with other DFMSs as necessary to ensure consistent data and assignments, the safe and robust operation of authorized services, and compliance with the rules.

Information submitted with registration and requests. Beyond requiring that registration information include the registrant's legal name and contact information, and that requests must address and be limited to the frequencies, duration, and geographic coverage necessary to support a single submitted UAS flight, the Commission does not define the specific information that a party must submit with a frequency assignment request or with registration. It delegates authority to WTB, however, to impose additional specific requirements, after notice and an opportunity for public comment if it deems necessary or appropriate, regarding information that a DFMS must collect regarding registrants or frequency requests, such as the manufacturer, producer, make, or model of the equipment used, that WTB determines will promote the robust and safe use of the band or otherwise address security concerns regarding the use of the band, and the DFMS must have the capability to collect such additional information if required by WTB or the Commission. Further, to facilitate inter-DFMS coordination, the Commission will mandate that each of the DFMSs require the same registration and request information, and will require that information submitted to the DFMS be accurate, complete, and made in good faith. In addition, consistent with determinations above, the Commission modifies the language in proposed section 88.31(a) to clarify that it does not mandate that assignment requests necessarily must include specific flight plans. It will further require operators to keep any registration information up to date and keep any request information up to date through the scheduled end of the assignment. It will also require that a DFMS maintain all records for at least 60 months.

Security. Given the limited record on specific security requirements, however, the Commission adopts a minimum set of high level requirements to address security concerns: (1) a DFMS must employ protocols and procedures to ensure that all communications between the DFMS and users or NNA stations in connection with a DFMS's NNA functions are secure and that unauthorized parties cannot access, shut down, or alter the DFMS or its stored information; (2) communications between users and a DFMS, and between different DFMSs, must be secure to prevent corruption or unauthorized interception of data, and a DFMS must be protected from unauthorized data input or alteration of stored data; and (3) a DFMS must verify that the NNA stations to be used in operations are part 88 FCC-certified devices and must not provide assignments to any other device. In addition, similar to a measure adopted in connection with an internet-of-Things cybersecurity labeling program, the Commission delegates authority to WTB in coordination with, at a minimum, the Office of the Managing Director (OMD) (specifically the Office of the Chief Information Officer) and, to the extent necessary, the Office of General Counsel (OGC) (specifically the Senior Agency Official for Privacy) to identify and impose on the DFMS any applicable security or privacy requirements arising from Federal law or Federal guidance.

Protection of other services. The Commission includes certain requirements regarding the protection of certain non-UAS services, discussed further below. In addition to these, it adopts a general requirement that a DFMS be capable of receiving reports of interference and requests for additional protection from Microwave Landing System (MLS) users in the 5030-5091 MHz band or authorized users in adjacent bands and promptly address interference issues.

Non-discrimination. The Commission adopts a requirement that frequency assignment functions be performed in a non-discriminatory manner, and specifically requires that assignment requests generally be granted in a first-come-first-served manner subject only to the priorities specified in the rules.

Prioritization. The Commission adopts two high-level requirements regarding the prioritization of requests. First, in the event of emergencies, a DFMS should, to the extent feasible and consistent with the interests of aviation safety, prioritize requests from public safety entities. The Commission does not permit prioritization in a way that would terminate or modify an NNA user's assignment while the assignments are in use during a UAS flight. As between the many other important private sector uses and critical infrastructure, the non-discrimination principle should apply. Second, the Commission adopts a requirement that, in extended periods of congestion, the DFMS prioritize requests involving flights relying on a single ground station over requests that rely on multiple stations, to the extent feasible and consistent with the interests of aviation safety. This prioritization will still permit operations involving multiple ground stations, while ensuring that the NNA spectrum serves its intended purpose. To the extent that both of the adopted priorities come into play, the public safety priority should take precedence.

In the UAS NPRM, the Commission also proposed requirements for DFMS administrators. Specifically, it proposed to require that administrators:

• Operate a DFMS consistent with the rules.

• Establish and follow protocols and procedures to ensure compliance with the rules.

• Provide service for a ten-year term. This term may be renewed at the Commission's discretion.

• Securely transfer all the information in the DFMS to another approved entity in the event it does not continue as the DFMS Administrator at the end of its term. It may charge a reasonable price for such conveyance.

• Develop a standardized process with other DFMS Administrators for coordinating operations with other approved DFMSs, avoiding any conflicting assignments, and maximizing shared use of available frequencies.

• Coordinate with other DFMS Administrators including, to the extent possible, sharing assignment and other information, facilitating non-interference to and from operations relying on assignments from other DFMSs, and other functions necessary to ensure that use of available spectrum is safe and efficient and consistent with this part.

• Ensure that the DFMS shall be available at all times to immediately respond to requests from authorized Commission personnel for any and all information stored or retained by the DFMS.

• Establish and follow protocols to comply with enforcement instructions from the Commission.

The Commission largely adopts these as proposed. Given the critical importance of inter-DFMS coordination to the safety and reliability of the system, it modifies the coordination requirement to reflect that the specified coordination is mandatory rather than a “best efforts” requirement. Further, in addition to the limits it adopts above on requests to prevent monopolization of the NNA spectrum, the Commission also expressly authorizes DFMS administrators to adopt additional reasonable limits as necessary to address similar concerns. Specifically, it provides that the DFMS administrator may implement such reasonable limits on requests as are necessary to prevent the hoarding, warehousing, monopolization, or otherwise excessive reservation of NNA spectrum by a particular party.

As an additional mechanism to assist the Commission in its enforcement responsibilities, DFMS administrators are required to establish and follow protocols to comply with enforcement instructions from the Commission. The Commission expects detailed enforcement mechanisms and procedures employed by DFMSs to be developed during the approval process described below, including mechanisms and procedures to address unauthorized use of the spectrum, and that most issues will be addressed through these mechanisms and procedures. However, the Commission retains the ultimate responsibility for and authority over NNA operations in the band. In the event that the DFMS is unable to resolve disputes or identify and address the sources of harmful interference or unauthorized or otherwise unlawful operations in the band, these issues may be addressed by the Commission.

The Commission requires a DFMS to immediately respond to requests from authorized Commission personnel for any and all information stored or retained by the DFMS. It also anticipates that other Federal agencies may have important interests in obtaining DFMS information, particularly related to the coordination and protection of Federal UAS operations in the band. Accordingly, it delegates authority to WTB, in consultation with NTIA, to establish a process, as needed, for direct access by Federal agencies to information stored or retained by the DFMS, including the scope and terms of such access, through regulation, guidance, or agreement, as appropriate.

Fees. The Commission authorizes administrators to charge reasonable fees for registration, assignments, and other services, including reasonable usage-based fees. DFMS fees will not only be necessary to fund the development and operation of a DFMS, but can provide UAS operators with important incentives to use the limited NNA spectrum efficiently and discourage monopolization, warehousing, or hoarding.

The Commission adopts an approach for review and approval of DFMS and DFMS administrators similar to the Commission's process for selection of Spectrum Access Systems (SASs) and SAS administrators, and delegates authority jointly to WTB and OET to administer this process in close consultation at all stages of the process with the FAA and NTIA, as well as other administrative authority over the DFMS comparable to the delegation granted to WTB and OET to administer the SASs. It further delegates authority jointly to WTB and the Office of the Managing Director (OMD) to determine fees, if any, in connection with the filing of a petition to be a DFMS administrator. It also direct WTB to obtain Office of Management and Budget review of all information collections associated with this process as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act.

In the UAS NPRM, the Commission proposed rules governing the process by which parties would obtain an NNA frequency assignment from a DFMS. Among these, it proposed that NNA users registered with a DFMS may submit a request for temporary frequency assignment for CNPC limited to the duration and geographic coverage necessary to support a single submitted UAS flight plan. It further proposed that requests may be made either prior to an operation or submitted during the relevant operation to modify the assignment, and that modification requests must be made to the same DFMS responsible for the original assignment. In addition, it proposed that, if frequencies meeting the request are available, the DFMS would assign them on an exclusive but temporary basis, with the scope of the assignment tailored in both duration and geographic coverage to ensure interference-free communications for the entire submitted UAS flight plan. It also proposed that, when using the services of a DFMS, an NNA user shall comply with all instructions of the DFMS Administrator, including those regarding registration, requests and other submissions to the DFMS, and operational use of NNA assignments.

Consistent with actions discussed above, instead of requiring submission of a “flight plan,” the Commission establishes a more flexible requirement to submit a “UAS flight.” Otherwise, it adopt these provisions substantially as proposed.

The Commission establishes an interim access mechanism (IAM) to provide access to the 5030-5091 MHz band during the provisional period before a DFMS is operational. Specifically, the IAM will be available to all eligible NNA operators licensed by rule, and will allow limited, short-term access to 20 megahertz of spectrum in the 5040-5060 MHz band of frequencies. The initial access will only be suitable for NNA operations, which are typically single flights or events. In order for NNA operators to gain access and begin transmission in the 5040-5060 MHz block, they must complete a two-step process, including FAA coordination and FCC registration.

Transition to DFMS Management of NNA Spectrum. When a DFMS is first granted final approval, as discussed above, WTB will issue a public notice establishing the date on which the DFMS may begin operations, after which parties seeking access to NNA spectrum must request a frequency assignment from the DFMS. For the DFMS assignment process to reliably determine interference impacts, it is critical that all UAS operations have gone through a DFMS. Accordingly, after the date on which a DFMS first begins operation, parties may not seek or use assignments from the IAM. After such date, the spectrum available for NNA operations will be restricted to 10 megahertz, as discussed above. If WTB finds it appropriate to help ensure a smooth transition, it may establish and announce by public notice a date prior to final approval of a DFMS after which requests will no longer be processed through IAM, but no earlier than the date of the first DFMS conditional approval. Further, WTB is authorized to take any other necessary steps to ensure a smooth transition to the DFMS management of the NNA spectrum, including setting the date for a DFMS to begin operations a sufficient period after the date of final approval to permit all or most of the outstanding IAM approvals to expire.

Given that there are no non-Federal Microwave Landing System (MLS) stations in the band, and that the Commission does not anticipate licensing any future MLS systems, it adopts no measures to protect such operations. Because it anticipates continued use of Federal MLS by the Air Force, the Commission will establish exclusion zones to protect such systems. Further, it will require the DFMS to retain information on, and enforce, the zones sufficient to protect any Federal MLS stations in the 5030-5091 MHz band. The Commission will coordinate with NTIA to identify both the current locations of Federal MLS and the appropriate exclusion zones, after which the exclusion zones will be identified by Public Notice. To the extent that these locations change, such changes can be addressed through a similar process. The Commission delegates authority to WTB to issue the public notice identifying any initial MLS exclusion zones as well and any subsequent public notices necessary to identify changes.

The Commission concludes that the technical requirements applicable to NNA combined with the frequency separation between the NNA spectrum and the 5010-5030 MHz band will be sufficient to provide compatibility between NNA operations and Radionavigation-satellite Service (RNSS) in the 5010-5030 MHz band. The Commission similarly concludes that the adopted technical requirements, combined with the frequency separation, will be adequate regulatory measures to provide compatibility between NNA operations and AeroMACS in the upper and lower bands adjacent to the 5030-5091 MHz band.

The Commission finds that the limits adopted through incorporation by reference to provisions of RTCA DO-362A are also sufficient to protect Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry (AMT) in the 5091-5150 MHz band. Accordingly, it declines to require NNA operations to also comply with the criteria of ITU-R M.1459.

The Commission does not anticipate that rule-compliant fixed earth stations in the 5091-5250 MHz band will cause harmful interference to NNA operations in the 5030-5091 MHz band. Nevertheless, to address the unlikely possibility of interference to UAS operations, the Commission clarifies that a Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) feeder link licensee in the 5091-5250 MHz band will only be responsible for curing harmful interference from its earth station to NNA operations in the neighboring 5030-5091 MHz band to the extent such interference is the result of the licensee's non-compliance with applicable license or regulatory requirements.

National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ). The Commission requires coordination within the NRQZ. As described in detail below, the coordination requirements are modeled after the NRQZ coordination procedures applicable to other services under section 1.924(a) of the Commission's rules. Because these procedures assume that a station license application is being submitted to the Commission, however, the Commission modifies them to work with the instant context in which a frequency assignment request will be submitted instead to a DFMS. Specifically, it provide that parties planning to operate an NNA station at locations within the NRQZ must notify the National Radio Quiet Zone Administrator (NRQZ Administrator) in writing in advance or simultaneously with the filing of the request. Although section 1.924(a) procedures are limited to fixed permanent stations, the Commission finds that procedures for NNA operations in the 5030-5091 MHz band should apply more broadly. Given the inherently short-term nature of NNA operations, such operations are likely to often rely on temporary stations. Limiting coordination to permanent stations, particularly with the aeronautical focus of the service, might therefore not provide adequate coordination. The Commission also adopts, however, two measures to reduce the burden of coordinating short term operations. First, it provides that the NRQZ Administrator may provide safe harbors for NNA operations in the NRQZ that do not require notification, but a party submitting a frequency assignment request under this exception must certify that their request meets the criteria for a safe harbor and provide any additional supporting documentation required by the DFMS. Further, if a party's operation or revision of an operation is within the scope of an approval previously granted to the party by the NRQZ Administrator, including any time limits on the approval, altitude limits, or other applicable conditions, the party need not provide notification of the operation or revision to the NRQZ Administrator, but must submit the approval with its assignment request.

CORF recommends that the coordination notice should be sent to nrqz@nrao.edu. The Commission adopts the same mailing address specified in section 1.924(a) and applicable to every other service as the initial point of contact, but also permits notification to be sent by electronic mail to nrqz@nrao.edu, which should facilitate a more rapid coordination. The coordination process based on this notification will largely follow the procedures under section 1.924(a), with appropriate changes made to reflect the role of the DFMS. Thus, when a request for frequency assignment is filed with the DFMS, the notification may be submitted prior to or simultaneously with the request. After receipt, the DFMS will allow a period of 20 days for objections. If a DFMS determines that a request is subject to one of the two exceptions to notification discussed above, it shall process the request without waiting the 20-day period.

If a DFMS receives an NRQZ Administrator approval of operations that includes the operation associated with the request, if the request is within the scope of a safe harbor established by the NRQZ Administrator, or if the 20-day period passes without objection, the DFMS shall process the request under normal procedures, except with regard to the restriction established above that requests may not be granted more than seven calendar days in advance. To accommodate the 20-day period for objections, the Commission provides that, when this period is applicable, requests may be approved for periods commencing more than seven calendar days after the submission of the request, but no more than seven calendar days after the date of DFMS decision. If objections are received in the 20-day period, the DFMS administrator will forward the record, including the frequency request, to the Commission. After consideration of the record, the Commission will take whatever action is deemed appropriate, including, potentially, providing direction to the relevant DFMS administrator regarding resolution of the request.

RAS Outside the NRQZ. With regard to radio astronomy observations in the adjacent 4990-5000 MHz band, the Commission confirms, as recommended by NTIA and other commenters, that NNA operations remain subject to footnote US211 of the Table of Allocations. The Commission declines to adopt CORF's proposal for exclusion zones to protect observations at sites in both the 4990-5000 MHz band and inside the 5030-5091 MHz band. To facilitate operation of both UAS systems and radio astronomy systems, however, it will require a DFMS to immediately notify the National Science Foundation, Division of Astronomical Sciences, Electromagnetic Spectrum Management Unit, by email of any assignments that it approves for UAS operations in the vicinity of the radio astronomy facilities identified in footnote US385 of the Table of Allocations, which identifies the sites at which radio astronomy observations are performed in 4990-5000 MHz. Further, for clarity, the Commission will list these facilities in the relevant part 88 rule.

The Commission does not adopt any measure at this time to address operations near the border. Instead, DFMS administrators will be required to demonstrate that their systems can and will enforce agreements between the U.S., Canadian, and Mexican governments regarding commercial operations in the 5030-5091 MHz Band. The specific methods of enforcement will be determined and implemented by DFMS administrators, with appropriate Commission oversight, after such agreements are in place.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.” Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), below, concerning rule and policy changes in the Report and Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act. The Report and Order contains new information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. All such new requirements 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 any new or modified information collection requirements contained in this proceeding. The Commission will publish a separate document in the Federal Register at a later date seeking these comments.

Congressional Review Act. The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is non-major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

Accessing Materials. The Office of Federal Register (OFR) regulations require that agencies must discuss in the preamble to the Federal Register summary of a final rule the ways that the materials incorporated by reference are reasonably available to interested parties and that interested parties can obtain the materials. In addition, OFR regulations require that the preamble to the Federal Register summary of a final rule summarize the material incorporated by reference.

Sections 88.101, 88.103, 88.105, 88.107, and 88.109 of the rules adopted herein incorporate by reference certain requirements in standards established by the RTCA Special Committee-228, referred to as RTCA, Inc. Command and Control (C2) Data Link Minimum Operational Performance Standards (MOPS) (Terrestrial), RTCA-DO-362A (December 17, 2020). These standards provide the technical requirements for equipment manufacturers and operators of equipment used for UAS NNA operations in the 5030-5091 MHz band. In particular, the standards provide information regarding the following technical parameters: transmitter output power, emissions bandwidth, out-of-band emissions, emission mask, and the applicable time division duplexing frame rate. The text of RTCA DO-362A is available online for a fee at https://my.rtca.org/productdetails?id=a1B1R00000LoYFZUA3.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Spectrum Rules and Policies for the Operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems; Petition of AIA for Rulemaking to Adopt Service Rules for Unmanned Aircraft Systems Command and Control in the 5030-5091 MHz Band, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ) released in January 2023. The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) sought written public comment on the proposals in the NPRM, including comments on the IRFA. No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. This Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.

In the Report and Order, the Commission takes significant action to adopt initial service rules for uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) in the 5030-5091 MHz band and enable UAS operators to access dedicated spectrum with the required reliability to support safety-of-flight, control-related communications while also allowing flexibility for the industry to further develop. Specifically, the Commission adopts service rules that provide operators the ability to obtain direct frequency assignments in a portion of the 5030-5091 MHz band. These service rules are necessary to provide a critical first step to promote access by UAS operators to dedicated spectrum while also allowing a consensus to emerge on key issues for this industry. Achieving the extraordinary potential of UAS technology will require integrating UAS operations into the National Airspace System (NAS), including in the controlled airspace in which commercial passenger flights operate and in circumstances with heightened risk, such as flights involving large aircraft or carrying passengers or flights beyond line of sight of the remote pilot. To ensure that these flights are sufficiently safe for routine operation, highly reliable wireless two-way communications for flight control and telemetry are required. Therefore, the Commission adopts initial service rules for the 5030-5091 MHz band.

In furtherance of these objectives, the Commission adopts service rules where one or more dynamic frequency management systems (DFMSs) will manage and coordinate access to the spectrum and enable its safe and efficient use, by providing requesting operators with temporary frequency assignments to support UAS control link communications with a level of reliability suitable for operations in controlled airspace and other safety-critical circumstances. To provide this level of reliability, the Commission adopts technical requirements drawn from minimum operational performance standards that were developed by an aviation industry standards body specifically to support UAS control links in the 5030-5091 MHz band and were approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for this purpose. To address concerns regarding the impact of these aeronautical operations on adjacent services, the Commission locates these operations, for now, in the central part of the band, with substantial separation from the bands adjacent to the 5030-5091 MHz band. The Commission finds wide support in the record for enabling early, direct access to a portion of the band for protected assignments under DFMS coordination and expects that such access will help to facilitate the safe integration of UAS operations into the NAS so that the United States can realize the enormous potential benefits that UAS operations can provide.

The Commission is addressing service rules for UAS operations in the 5030-5091 MHz band in phases. In this initial step, the Commission opens a portion of the band for NNA operations to enable early, low-cost access to the benefits of dedicated spectrum for UAS control communications. The Commission anticipates that subsequent phases will address broader use of the band, potentially with the assistance of a Federal Advisory Committee or other efforts to further assess and engage stakeholders on the potential uses of the band and the appropriate regulatory measures to enable such uses, including but not limited to studies pursuant to the implementation of the National Spectrum Strategy. In subsequent phases, the Commission intends to resolve issues including (1) the final band plan for the 5030-5091 MHz band, which may include moving NNA operations to another location in the band; (2) measures to ensure compatibility between UAS stations operating at and near the edges of the 5030-5091 MHz band and services in adjacent spectrum; and (3) service rules for exclusive-use licenses enabling network-supported services in the band, including the scope of such services. The Commission further intends to continue close coordination with our Federal partners, including the FAA and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), to ensure that UAS operations supported by this band remain compatible with aviation safety and concerns, and to develop an appropriate long-term framework for the accommodation of Federal agencies seeking access to the Federal allocation in the band for their own UAS operations.

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. 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. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one that: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

Small Businesses, Small Organizations, Small Governmental Jurisdictions. Our actions, over time, may affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore describes, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the Small Business Administration's (SBA) Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small businesses represent 99.9% of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 33.2 million businesses.

Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2022, there were approximately 530,109 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.

Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2022 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,837 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,845 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 11,879 special purpose governments (independent school districts) with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2022 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at least 48,724 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”

Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The SBA size standard for this industry classifies a business as small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 2,893 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of that number, 2,837 firms employed fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 594 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of wireless services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 511 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.

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.” Satellite telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies a business with $38.5 million or less in annual receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242 firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2022 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2021, there were 65 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of satellite telecommunications services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that approximately 42 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. 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. This industry is comprised of establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation. 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. Providers of internet services ( e.g., dial-up ISPs) or Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $35 million or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this data, the Commission estimates that the majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms can be considered small.

Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing. This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having 1,250 employees or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 employees. Thus, under the SBA size standard, the majority of firms in this industry can be considered small.

Uncrewed Aircraft Radio Equipment Manufacturers. Neither the SBA nor the Commission have developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to uncrewed aircraft radio equipment manufacturers. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing is the closest industry with an SBA small business size standard. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having 1,250 employees or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 656 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 624 firms had fewer than 250 employees. In addition, the SBA provides a size standard for the Aircraft Manufacturing industry, which includes the manufacture of uncrewed and robotic aircraft. The SBA small business size standard for this industry classifies businesses having 1,500 employees or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 254 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of this number, 227 firms had fewer than 250 employees. Based on this data, the Commission concludes that a majority of manufacturers in this industry are small.

Uncrewed Aircraft System Operators. Neither the Commission nor the SBA have developed a small business size standard specifically applicable to UAS operators. The Commission lacks data on the number of operators in the United States that could be subject to the rules, therefore it is not possible to determine the number of affected small entity operators at this time. The Commission finds, however, that the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the FAA Remote ID rule is helpful. In this analysis, the FAA assessed the impact of the rule on small entity non-recreational UAS operators based on an analysis that the Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI) performed relating to part 107 waivers. In the analysis, the AUVSI determined that 92 percent of the waivers were issued to entities with fewer than 100 employees. Based on this data, the FAA determined that a majority of entities currently operating uncrewed aircraft for other than recreational purposes are small. Accordingly, based on the FAA's determination, the Commission concludes that a majority of uncrewed UAS operators are small entities.

The rules adopted in the Report and Order will implement new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements on certain small entities. These requirements, which are summarized below, were thoughtfully considered to minimize burdens to small businesses while also ensuring the level of reliability necessary to support safety-critical UAS communications. The Commission does not expect compliance with the rules adopted in the Report and Order to cause small entities to incur significant compliance costs. The Commission further notes that while it sought comment from concerned parties regarding costs related to compliance requirements, the record did not include concerns raised by small entities about compliance costs.

Dynamic Frequency Management System. The Report and Order permits more than one DFMS administrator to operate a DFMS in the band, and each approved DFMS will be required to communicate and coordinate with other approved DFMSs as necessary to ensure that their assignments are consistent. It will be critical for DFMS administrators to agree on and implement appropriate DFMS-to-DFMS lines of communication, as well as protocols for coordination and common interference models, that ensure any inconsistencies in assignments are avoided or are otherwise very quickly identified and resolved. Furthermore, the Commission establishes requirements that are high-level guidelines that describe minimum requirements for DFMSs and DFMS administrators. A DFMS will require sufficient information regarding the time, relevant geographic area, and, potentially, altitude of a UAS operation to model potential interference impacts; however, the Commission does not intend to specify the particular content or format of that information, but to give stakeholders flexibility to develop standards to implement this requirement. The requests must be for spectrum to support a single UAS flight, which should help to ensure that parties reserve spectrum only for those times and frequencies that they actually need, and to maximize the usage of the NNA spectrum.

The Report and Order adopts the proposed section 88.135 requirements from the NPRM, which include that (1) a DFMS must provide a process for NNA users to register with the system for the purpose of submitting frequency assignment requests and obtaining frequency assignments; (2) a DFMS must be capable of processing frequency assignment requests nationwide and across the entire 5030-5091 MHz band; however, a DFMS may only make assignments for spectrum within those frequencies in which NNA operations are permitted; (3) a DFMS shall determine and provide, through an automated (non-manual) process, an assignment of frequencies for a particular geographic area and time period; and (4) assignments must account for the need to protect other authorized operations.

The Commission also incorporates a high-level requirement regarding the process of interference calculations. While the Commission does not adopt any detailed requirements regarding the methodology or modeling for interference calculations, the Commission agrees that the models and methodologies for interference determinations should be both accurate and consistent between different DFMSs. The Commission envisions that stakeholders will establish detailed standards for specific models and methods that meet the Commission's requirements, but emphasizes that any standards established must be in compliance with the rules. Furthermore, the Commission includes a requirement to help ensure that parties requesting frequency assignments have the necessary FAA pilot and flight authorizations, obligating a DFMS to confirm through certifications that the party requesting a frequency assignment has flight authorization from the FAA to cover the flight associated with the assignment request, and that the flight will only be piloted by parties that have the necessary FAA remote pilot authorization. The Commission does not expect this requirement to be time-consuming because, while a DFMS may implement additional measures to obtain confirmation, the Commission only requires it to implement certifications. Further, the Commission finds that it will provide further assurance that the NNA spectrum is used for authorized purposes. Finally, the Commission adopts a requirement that a DFMS be capable of responding to in-flight revision requests.

Additionally, the Commission authorizes certain requirements for communications between DFMS and NNA stations to better ensure compliance with DFMS assignments, specifically that a DFMS be able to communicate directly with a ground station operating in the NNA spectrum, or proxy software acting on its behalf, to achieve the following: (1) ensure that all NNA stations used in the operation, including any ground or airborne stations, are programmed to limit communications in the 5030-5091 MHz band, during the period of the frequency assignment, to the specific frequencies assigned by the DFMS and in accordance with the other terms of the assignment; and (2) receive updates on flight status when an uncrewed aircraft has launched and when it has landed. The Commission will similarly require NNA ground stations to be capable of communicating with a DFMS as necessary to achieve these functions. These obligations will better ensure compliance with DFMS assignments.

In seeking to address concerns that a party may hoard or monopolize the limited spectrum available for NNA operations, the Commission adopts requirements that a DFMS grant assignments sufficient to provide protected access over a duration and geographic area sufficient to cover the entire submitted UAS flight but does not mandate that a DFMS frequency assignment have the specific terms requested. These are solely high-level obligations, and the Commission does not wish to preclude administrators from developing common policies, standards, or approaches regarding the assessment and granting of requests to better meet the industry's collective need for this limited spectrum resource. To further ensure prevention of monopolization and facilitate broader access to NNA spectrum, the Commission provides that requests may only be approved for an operation lasting no more than 24 hours and provides that requests may not be approved for periods commencing eight or more calendar days after the submission of the request, except to the extent that lack of frequency availability in that time frame justifies a later assignment. The Commission also adopts a requirement that a DFMS communicate and coordinate with other DFMSs as necessary to ensure consistent data and assignments, the safe and robust operation of authorized services, and compliance with the rules to ensure the proper functioning of the DFMSs.

The Commission does not define the specific information that a party must submit with a frequency assignment request or with registration. To facilitate inter-DFMS coordination, the Commission will mandate that each DFMS require the same registration and request information, and that information submitted to a DFMS be true, complete, correct, and made in good faith. The Commission will further require operators to keep any registration information up to date and keep any request information up to date through the scheduled end of the assignment. Further, the Commission will require a DFMS to maintain all records for at least 60 months.

Regarding security, the Commission adopts high-level requirements that (1) a DFMS must employ protocols and procedures to ensure that all communications between the DFMS and users or NNA stations in connection with a DFMS's NNA functions are secure and that unauthorized parties cannot access, shut down, or alter the DFMS or its stored information; and (2) communications between users and a DFMS, and between different DFMSs, must be secure to prevent corruption or unauthorized interception of data, and a DFMS must be protected from unauthorized data input or alteration of stored data; and (3) a DFMS must verify that the NNA stations to be used in operations are FCC-certified devices and must not provide assignments to an uncertified device.

Furthermore, the Commission adopts two high-level requirements regarding the prioritization of requests. While the Commission will generally require the DFMS to process requests in a non-discriminatory, first-come-first-served manner, the Commission finds that two priorities in the event of congestion are in the public interest. First, the Commission provides that, in the event of emergencies, a DFMS should, to the extent feasible and consistent with the interests of aviation safety, prioritize requests from public safety entities. The Commission expects that, as with other high-level requirements, stakeholders will develop common standards regarding who qualifies as public safety entities and other such questions. Second, the Commission adopts a requirement that, in extended periods of congestion, the DFMS prioritize requests involving flights relying on a single ground station over requests that rely on multiple stations, to the extent feasible and consistent with the interests of aviation safety. For both of these requirements, the Commission anticipates that stakeholders will work collaboratively to develop appropriate standards and practices to implement them.

The Commission also adopts several requirements for DFMS administrators. These obligations include: (1) operate a DFMS consistent with the rules; (2) establish and follow protocols and procedures to ensure compliance with the rules; (3) provide service for a ten-year term, which may be renewed at the Commission's discretion; (4) securely transfer all the information in the DFMS to another approved entity in the event it does not continue as the DFMS administrator at the end of its term; (5) develop a standardized process with other DFMS administrators for coordinating operations with other approved DFMSs, avoiding any conflicting assignments, and maximizing shared use of available frequencies; (6) coordinate with other DFMS administrators including sharing assignment and other information, facilitating non-interference to and from operations relying on assignments from other DFMSs, and other functions necessary to ensure that use of available spectrum is safe and efficient and consistent with the rules; (7) ensure that the DFMS shall be available at all times to immediately respond to requests from authorized Commission personnel for any and all information stored or retained by the DFMS; (8) establish and follow protocols to comply with enforcement instructions from the Commission; and (9) implement such reasonable limits on requests as are necessary to prevent the hoarding, warehousing, monopolization, or otherwise excessive reservation of NNA spectrum by a particular party.

To assist in its enforcement responsibilities, the Commission adopts a requirement that DFMS administrators establish and follow protocols to comply with enforcement instructions from the Commission. The Commission expects detailed enforcement mechanisms and procedures employed by DFMSs to be developed during the approval process, including mechanisms and procedures to address unauthorized use of the spectrum, and the Commission anticipates that most issues will be addressed through these mechanisms.

Radionavigation-Satellite Service. The 5010-5030 MHz band includes an allocation for the radionavigation-satellite service (RNSS) (space-to-Earth) for potential future use. Footnote 5.443C of the Table of Frequency Allocations addresses requirements in the 5030-5091 MHz band for the protection of RNSS downlinks. Specifically, it provides that “[u]nwanted emissions from the aeronautical mobile (R) service in the frequency band 5030-5091 MHz shall be limited to protect RNSS system downlinks in the adjacent 5010-5030 MHz band” and that “[u]ntil such time that an appropriate value is established in a relevant International Telecommunication Union Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R) Recommendation, the equivalent isotropic radiated power density limit of −75 dBW/MHz in the frequency band 5010-5030 MHz for any AM(R)S station unwanted emission should be used.” Footnote 5.443C further limits aeronautical mobile (route) service (AM(R)S) use of the 5030-5091 MHz band to “internationally standardized aeronautical systems.” As NNA operations services would be part of the AM(R)S allocation, the requirements of footnote 5.443C would apply to such operations in the 5030-5091 MHz band.

AeroMACS. AeroMACS is a wireless broadband aeronautical mobile (route) service system that will enable communications for surface operations at airports between aircraft and other vehicles and between other critical fixed assets. The Commission allocated both the 5000-5030 MHz and 5091-5150 MHz bands for such use but has not yet established service rules in either band. The AeroMACS allocation for 5010-5030 MHz further provides that in making assignments for this band, attempts shall first be made to satisfy requirements in the bands 5000-5010 MHz and 5091-5150 MHz. The Commission concludes that the adopted technical requirements, combined with the frequency separation, will be adequate regulatory measures to provide compatibility between NNA operations and AeroMACS in the upper and lower band. These limits are drawn from the technical requirements of RTCA DO-362A, which are detailed below.

Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry. The 5091-5150 MHz band is also allocated for Federal and non-Federal aeronautical mobile telemetry (AMT) communications from aircraft stations, subject to the technical parameters in ITU Resolution 418 (WRC-12) intended to ensure compatibility with other services. According to the NTIA, Federal agencies currently use this allocation in the 5091-5150 MHz band to support flight testing. The band is similarly used for non-Federal flight-testing operations. As specified in footnote US111 of the Table of Allocations, flight testing in the 5091-5150 MHz band is conducted at seventeen locations, and additional locations may be authorized on a case-by-case basis. The Commission finds that the limits adopted today, drawn from RTCA DO-362A, are sufficient to protect AMT.

Mobile Satellite Service Earth Stations. As specified in the footnote US444A of the Table of Allocations, the 5091-5250 MHz band is also allocated to the fixed-satellite service (Earth-to-space) on a primary basis for non-Federal use, limited to feeder links of non-geostationary satellite systems in the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS). After January 1, 2016, the 5091-5150 MHz portion of this allocation permitted no new assignments. Globalstar operates gateway earth stations in the 5096-5250 MHz band under this allocation as part of its global mobile satellite service. To address the unlikely possibility of interference with UAS operations, the Commission clarifies that the responsibility to resolve interference between rule-compliant MSS earth stations and UAS is on the new UAS services. MSS earth station licensees in the 5091-5250 MHz band will only be responsible for curing harmful interference from its earth station to NNA operations in the neighboring 5030-5091 MHz band to the extent such interference is the result of the licensee's non-compliance with applicable license or regulatory requirements.

Radio Astronomy. In the Report and Order, the Commission requires coordination within the National Radio Quiet Zone (NRQZ). The coordination requirements are modeled after the NRQZ coordination procedures applicable to other services under section 1.924(a) of the Commission's rules but modified to work with the instant context in which a frequency assignment request will be submitted instead to a DFMS. Specifically, the Commission provides that parties planning to operate an NNA station at locations within the NRQZ must notify the NRQZ Administrator in writing in advance or simultaneously with the filing of the request. To reduce the burden of coordinating short term operations, the Commission adopts two measures: a provision that the NRQZ Administrator may establish a safe harbor for NNA operations in the NRQZ that do not require notification and a measure that a party need not notify the NRQZ Administrator if the party's operation or revision of an operation is within the scope of an approval previously granted to the party by the NRQZ Administrator. Furthermore, the coordination process will largely follow the procedures under section 1.924(a), with appropriate changes made to reflect the role of the DFMS. Thus, when a request for frequency assignment is filed with the DFMS, the notification may be submitted prior to or simultaneously with the request. After receipt, the DFMS will allow a period of 20 days for objections. If a DFMS determines that a request is subject to one of the two exceptions to notification, it shall process the request without waiting the 20-day period. If the DFMS receives a NRQZ Administrator approval of operations that includes the operation associated with the request, if the request is within the scope of a safe harbor established by the NRQZ Administrator, or if the 20-day period passes without objection, the DFMS will process the request under normal procedures, except that requests may be approved for periods commencing more than seven calendar days after the submission of the request, but no more than seven calendar days after the date of decision. If objections are received in the 20-day period, the DFMS will forward the record, including the frequency request, to the Commission. After consideration of the record, the Commission will take whatever action is deemed appropriate, including, potentially, directions to the DFMS administrator regarding resolution of the request. Finally, to facilitate operation of both UAS systems and radio astronomy systems, the Commission requires a DFMS to immediately notify the National Science Foundation, Division of Astronomical Sciences, Electromagnetic Spectrum Management Unit, by email of any assignments that it approves for UAS operations in the vicinity of the radio astronomy facilities identified in footnote US385 of the Table of Allocations, which identifies the sites at which radio astronomy observations are performed in 4990-5000 MHz.

Canadian and Mexican Coordination. International agreements with Mexico and Canada do not currently address the use of the 5030-5091 MHz band for UAS communications near the borders with those countries. DFMS administrators will be required to demonstrate that their systems can and will enforce agreements between the United States, Canadian, and Mexican governments regarding commercial operations in the 5030-5091 MHz Band. The specific methods of enforcement will be determined and implemented by DFMS administrators, with appropriate Commission oversight, after the agreements are in place.

Interim Access Mechanism Registration. The Commission adopts an interim access mechanism (IAM) to enable NNA entities to begin operations in the band during the interim period before the DFMS is operational. For IAM access, NNA operators holding an FAA authorization must subsequently complete an on-line NNA registration form with the Commission providing various basic information and certifications, including a company or individual name, email address, and the following certification statements: (1) they have complied with the FAA authorization process; (2) they have/will comply with the Commission's NNA rules and technical requirements; (3) all equipment utilized in NNA operations meets the equipment certification requirements; and (4) their authorization to use the IAM assignment terminates immediately in the event a DFMS becomes operational prior to the end of the IAM assignment. This registration process will not require a fee, or any subsequent review process. Once the registration form is completed and submitted, a confirmation number of their registration will be provided and NNA operations can commence immediately. During the IAM, the Commission will work with the FAA to resolve disputes or identify and address the sources of harmful interference or unauthorized operations in the 5030-5091 MHz band.

Compliance with RTCA DO-362A. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopts rules based on RTCA DO-362A, which contains Minimum Operational Performance Standards for terrestrial-based control-and-non-payload communications (CNPC) point-to-point or point-to-multipoint links in the 5030-5091 MHz band, including power limits, emission limits, and frequency accuracy requirements. UAS entities are likely familiar with RTCA DO-362A as the FAA recently issued a Technical Standard Order (TSO) establishing minimum standards in the 5030-5091 MHz band based on the requirements in the RTCA DO-362A. It is appropriate to adopt technical requirements based on the RTCA DO-362A for governing the types of safety-of-flight UAS operations in the 5030-5091 MHz band as these requirements are consistent with the AM(R)S allocation for the band, the limitations associated with CNPC-only operations, and because they are consistent with FAA standards.

First, as recommended by RTCA, the Commission adopts the requirement of RTCA DO-362A standard related to Time Division Duplexing (TDD) for NNA equipment and operations in the band. To minimize the risk of interference and to achieve consistency with the FAA TSO based on the RTCA DO-362A standard, the Commission finds it appropriate at this time to incorporate into its rules the 50 ms TDD frame structure requirement for NAA equipment and operations for CNPC purposes in the 5030-5091 MHz band. Second, the Commission declines to follow the requirements of rule section 87.139(c) to avoid imposing potentially inconsistent out-of-band emissions requirements with the FAA, which mandates compliance with applicable emissions requirements in section 2 of the RTCA DO-362A standard. To provide stakeholders increased flexibility, and in lieu of mandating the use of specific emission designators, the Commission will permit an applicant seeking equipment certification to specify the emission designator appropriate to its equipment design and proposed operation, provided it meets the technical requirements adopted today governing NNA equipment and operations. Finally, the Commission delegates joint rulemaking authority to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) and the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) to incorporate into the Commission's rules, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, any updated version of a previously incorporated technical standard applicable to UAS operations in the 5030-5091 MHz band. This delegation will facilitate expedited updates to the Commission's technical rules based on evolving technical standards. The Commission seeks to expedite necessary future changes to accommodate updates in standards relevant to previously adopted technical requirements.

Equipment Authorization. The Commission adopts the NPRM' s proposal to mandate equipment authorization requirements similar to those under sections 87.145 and 87.147 of the Commission's rules to all equipment intended for use in the 5030-5091 MHz band. Section 87.145 requires that each transmitter must be certified for use in the relevant service, and section 87.147 establishes a specific equipment authorization for part 87 equipment, which for the frequencies in the 5030-5091 MHz band, among others, requires coordination with the FAA. The NPRM' s stated goal was to ensure that such equipment meets the level of reliability and safety necessary of aviation equipment. The Commission noted that 5030-5091 MHz UAS radio equipment must independently satisfy any applicable FAA requirements and anticipated that this coordination process would ensure that the 5030-5091 MHz equipment authorizations by the Commission and the FAA are consistent and that all equipment approved for use in the band will meet both agencies' requirements. The Commission adopts these requirements as well as requirements that transmitters be certified for use in the relevant service through compliance with OET procedures for equipment authorization under part 2, subpart J of the Commission's rules and provide notification to the FAA when filing the requisite application. This approach will ensure that necessary coordination occurs with the FAA, given its responsibility for ensuring aviation safety in the National Airspace System, and prevent harmful interference through NNA equipment compliance with the relevant technical requirements. The entities required to comply with equipment authorization will primarily be equipment manufacturers, some of which include small entities. Likewise, all entities—including small entities—will use this authorized equipment.

In the discussion of the issues the NPRM sought comment on, the Commission raised alternatives and sought input such as technical studies and cost-benefit analyses from small and other entities. By requesting such information, the Commission gave small entities the opportunity to broaden the scope of the Commission's understanding of impacts, which may be readily apparent, and offer alternatives not already considered that could minimize the economic impact on small entities. The Commission has adopted alternatives that will minimize compliance burdens on small entities, as described below.

Industry-focused, Multi-phase Rulemaking. In adopting these service rules, the Commission intends for rules and policies to be adopted in phases to ensure flexibility and innovation for this industry. This initial phase adopts high-level rules that describe minimum requirements for operation of the DFMS and encourages a multi-stakeholder group addressing issues in the band to work collaboratively to develop technical specifications and standards for DFMS operation, and to explore other issues related to the evolving demands in the band. This approach will allow small entities, to collaborate and reach a consensus on key issues and present innovative solutions satisfactory to the involved parties.

Although it imposes new requirements that could impact small entities, in establishing these rules, the Commission balances the administrative burden to entities with ensuring flight safety and protecting against interference in a manner that minimizes the impact to all UAS operators, including small entities. In this initial step, the Commission opens a portion of the band for NNA operations to enable early, low-cost access to dedicated spectrum for UAS control communications. By providing low-cost access, small entities will be able to utilize this spectrum without a significant financial cost.

Licensing Stations by Rule. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopts a licensing approach that would not require individual licensing, which will reduce the administrative burdens on small entities who are UAS operators and the Commission. The Commission implements a license-by-rule authorization for NNA operations, pursuant to section 307(e) of the Communications Act, as amended. Under this license-by-rule framework, parties using rule-compliant stations and operating in compliance with the rules would only need to obtain the requisite temporary frequency assignment from the DFMS in order to have Commission authorization to transmit in the band in the assigned location, frequency, and timeframe. To obtain Commission authorization to use the NNA spectrum, NNA users must use certified, Commission-approved NNA stations, and comply with the applicable NNA rules, but need not obtain individual spectrum licenses from the Commission. A license-by-rule approach will minimize the administrative burdens on users and the Commission and facilitate use of NNA for exclusive, short-term assignments focused on specific needs and operations.

The Commission has found that a license-by-rule approach will also minimize the burden on small businesses and expedite the process for UAS operators. More specifically, the Commission finds that licensing by rule of NNA stations will serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity and promote the efficient and robust use of the NNA spectrum. A license-by-rule approach to use the NNA band will avoid the administrative burdens on users and the Commission that would be involved if NNA operations were licensed individually, facilitating the use of NNA for short-term (but exclusive) assignments focused on specific needs and operations rather than longer term authorizations used only intermittently. In addition, the uniform support in the record for this approach bolsters the Commission's confidence that this approach is in the public interest. Because of this licensing approach, the burden for small entities is minimized and provides them with more accessibility to participate in this industry.

Interim Access Mechanism Registration. The Commission adopts an IAM to enable NNA entities to begin operations in the band during the interim period before the DFMS is operational. IAM registration is accomplished by completing an on-line NNA registration form with the Commission, which requires basic information and certifications. The information required for registration is straightforward, which lessens the administrative burden on small entities. To further minimize the burden on registering entities, there will be no financial cost for this registration process. Once the registration form is completed and submitted, a confirmation number of their registration will be provided and NNA operations can commence immediately. Therefore, there is not a significant impact on small entities that seek to register. While there is an added administrative burden to register with the Commission during the IAM period, the cost of this added burden is balanced by the ability of UAS operators, including small entities, to gain immediate access to the 5030-5091 MHz band.

Equipment Authorization. The Commission adopts equipment authorization requirements similar to those under §§ 87.145 and 87.147 of the Commission's rules to all equipment intended for use in the 5030-5091 MHz band. Section 87.145 requires that each transmitter must be certified for use in the relevant service, and section 87.147 establishes a specific equipment authorization for part 87 equipment, which for the frequencies in the 5030-5091 MHz band among others, requires coordination with the FAA. The Commission adopts these requirements that transmitters be certified for use in the relevant service through compliance with OET procedures for equipment authorization under part 2, subpart J of the Commission's rules and that the FAA is notified when filing the requisite application. Applying this approach to UAS equipment will ensure that necessary coordination occurs with the FAA, and that equipment authorizations by the Commission and the FAA are consistent and that all equipment approved for use in the band meet both agencies' requirements. The entities required to comply with equipment authorization will primarily be equipment manufacturers, some of which include small entities. However, the Commission balances the regulatory burden imposed by these equipment authorization requirements with the importance of a process that will aid the FAA's aviation safety responsibilities and help protect against harmful interference and believes that these requirements do not impose a significant burden on small entities. Furthermore, all entities—including small entities—will use and, thus, need to certify that they are using authorized equipment, but most small UAS entities will not be directly affected by these requirements beyond using the equipment.

Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4, 301, 303, 307, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 301, 303, 307, and 310, that the Report and Order is hereby adopted.

It is further ordered that the Report and Order, including the rules as set forth in Appendix A, shall be effective thirty (30) days after publication in the Federal Register , with the exception of §§ 88.27, 88.31, 88.33, 88.35, 88.111, 88.113, 88.115, 88.135, 88.137, and 88.141 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 88.27, 88.31, 88.33, 88.35, 88.111, 88.113, 88.115, 88.135, 88.137, 88.141, which may contain new or modified information collection requirements that require review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act and will take effect after the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing the completion of such review and the relevant effective date(s).

It is further ordered that the Office of the Secretary, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of the Report and Order in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0, 1, 2, 87, 95, and adds part 88, as follows: